Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2015 2015 2015 (3) Central Excise - 2015 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 225 Records

• 2015 (3) TMI 1391 - SC ORDER
  

  Liability on the part of the respondent/auction purchaser of the machinery to clear the customs duty payable to the appellant - HELD THAT:- The High Court has specifically observed that it would not go into the question as regards the liability of the loanee vis-à-vis the State Financial Corporation and have also noted the commitment of the State Financial Corporation in the Sale Confirmation Letter that from the proceeds of the machinery, the dues payable to the appellant shall be paid.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1389 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Area Based Exemption - Payment of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess - the cess can be paid through basic excise duty credit or not - N/N. 56/02-C.E. - HELD THAT:- On going through the registry’s records, it is seen that the regular matters listed on 24-6-2013 had been shifted to 25-6-2013 as a result of which it appears that the matter was listed on 25-6-2013 but the notice for the same was not issued - there was bona fide reason for non-appearance of the appellant on 25-6-2013.

  The appeal is recalled and these appeals are restored to their original number.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1388 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund of excess duty paid - duty paid under protest - no show cause notice has been issued to the appellant - demands stayed by the stay order - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, for the period in dispute for filing of refund claim where duty was paid under protest, no show cause notice has been issued to the appellant. Therefore, issue of valuation does not arise. Therefore, this Bench is having a jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant.

  Admittedly, for the subsequent period although demands have been confirmed by way of adjudication against the appellant and same has been stayed by the stay order mentioned. In these circumstances, when there is no amount pending against the appellant for recovery, appellant is entitled for the refund claim.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1374 - SC ORDER
  

  Power driven pump - Exemption under Rule 8(i) of the Central Excise Tariff Rules - contravention of the provisions of Rule 173-C and 173-F - it was held by High Court that the column and shaft assembly as well as the discharge head assembly only contribute to the effectiveness of the bowl assembly, which by itself is not sufficient to claim exemption as a machine under entry 84.13 - HELD THAT:- The judgement is upheld - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1332 - SC ORDER
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order - Leave granted.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1328 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of laws as raised in clauses (a) to (e) of paragraph 4 of the Appeal - appeal is admitted.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1326 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Reversal of cenvat credit - ‘furnace oil’ used to generate electricity - supply of electricity to another 100% EOU - Held that:- The appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1323 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Whether the appellant is required to reverse 10% of the value the exempted goods cleared to SEZ in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules?

  Held that:- The issue is covered by the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd Vs CCE Hyderabad [2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export.supplies made to SEZ are held to be “export” provisions of Rule 6 of CCR does not arise at all - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1287 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Principles of Natural Justice - appellant's case is that prior to hearing of the appeal, no notice came to be issued to the appellant - Held that: - it is a settled principle of law that every order which adversely affects the rights of a party has to be preceded by the principles of natural justice unless the provision expressly or by necessary implication provides for the exclusion of the same - every quasi-judicial authority is bound to follow the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed - matter is remitted back to the learned CESTAT for hearing it afresh.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1286 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Principles of Natural justice - Whether denial of cross-examination of witnesses caused any prejudice to the appellant? - Held that: - this was not a case which required cross-examination - there was no question of cross-examination, and therefore, denial of the same would not give rise to any substantial question of law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1269 - SC ORDER
  

  Condonation of delay - Whether the fuel and ash handling system manufactured by the appellant are eligible for exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002 - in the nature of non-conventional energy device/system as specified or not - there was delay in filing appeal against the case of M/s TEKNIK PLANT & MACHINERY MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [2015 (1) TMI 128 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - delay condoned.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1268 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  CENVAT credit - Courier Service - Housekeeping service - maintenance of garden - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error without any cogent reason stated justifying the reason how housekeeping and maintenance of garden has relevance to manufacturing - credit denied.

  Courier Service - Held that: - the Courier Services has a direct nexus to business since communications is indispensable necessity in business world - credit allowed.

  Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1258 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA
  

  Immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution - Benefit of reduced penalty of 25% - Scope of section 11AC before and after amendment w.e.f. 8.4.2011 - Clandestine removal - short payment of duty - Sponge Iron in lump and fine form - Held that: - out of the total duty amounting to ₹ 1,73,25,387/- accepted by the applicants, a sum of ₹ 1,07,19,305/- pertains to the period prior to 8-4-2011 and the balance amount relates to the period after 8-4-2011 when the option of paying 25% of the duty determined as penalty is no longer available. Some changes in the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act have been proposed in the Union Budget 2015, but the same are still to become law.

  As per sub section 8 of Section 32F of the Act, an order of settlement under Section 32F(5) has to provide for the terms of settlement including any demand by way of duty, penalty or interest and all other matters to make the settlement effective which includes consideration of grant of immunity from prosecution as provided in Section 32(K) of the Act. Immunity from prosecution without approaching the Settlement Commission is governed by the provisions of Central Excise (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005. As per these rules, a person is liable to pay upto 50% of the duty evaded as compounding fees to seek immunity from prosecution.

  The Central Excise Duty in this case is settled at ₹ 1,73,25,387/- - The applicant is liable to pay interest as per the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the Bench imposes penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) on the applicant M/s. Maithon Steel & Power Ltd. (Unit-I) and ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) each on the co-applicants, Shri Sitaram Bagaria and Shri Amit Agarwalla and grants immunity from penalty in excess of these amounts - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1256 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Molasses cleared to katcha pit at the time of entry in the DSR - demand of duty with interest and penalty - Held that: - the appellants in their DSR had shown removal of molasses to katcha pit. This means that the appellants themselves had treated removal of molasses to katcha pit as removal in accordance with the provisions of law. That being the position, it would not be appropriate to take a view in favor of the appellant that there was no removal. Having treated the storage in katcha pit and removal to the katcha pit as a removal, as per the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appellant should have discharged the duty liability without any further proceedings being initiated by the Revenue - demand for duty and interest is sustained.

  Penalty - Held that: - the appellant has lost the interest portion which they could have saved if they were to maintain the stock in the katcha pit in the DSR. For a mistake, penalty of ₹ 50,000/- is very high. Accordingly, some reduction in penalty is warranted - Penalty u/r 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on the appellant is reduced to ₹ 25,000/-.

  Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1254 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs - zinc - furnace oil - hydrochloric acid - denial on the ground that credit on the inputs, taken wrongly, which have never been used in their factory - Held that: - the machinery is available in the factory which is in working condition. Moreover, it is fact on record that the finished goods were galvanized. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has not facility for galvanization - the appellant has rightly availed credit on zinc, furnace oil and hydrochloric acid which were used for galvanization of final products - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1253 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  CENVAT credit - certain goods which were actually meant for M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd., sister concern of the respondent - Held that: - There is nothing on record to show that M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. availed of Cenvat credit. There has been no loss to the revenue. The arrangement was, therefore, genuine. Mere change in the name of the consignee in the invoices of M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. to the respondent makes no difference.

  The credit ought to be disallowed as the respondent had not produced the octroi receipts, transportation records or any positive evidence that the goods were not received in the respondent’s factory. This was a question of fact, the answer to which can neither be said to be absurd or perverse.

  Credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1238 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Extension of time for deposit of money - pre-deposit of ₹ 60 lakhs - Held that: - when initially, 12 weeks period has been granted and subsequently on the appellant’s request, the same was extended by another two weeks, there is no justification for granting any further time. In view of this, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1223 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Refund - Excess payment of duty due to discounts - Held that: - As regards the Revenue's contention that the discounts are always relatable to value and not to duty, we find no merits. Admittedly, the discounts would be relatable to value only but would be having effect on the quantum of duty. If the discounts are given, the value would be lowered resulting in assessees' liability to pay reduced duty in which case, if the assessee has paid back the excess duty to the customers, he would be entitled to the refund of the same.

  Unjust enrichment - Held that: - provisions of unjust enrichment are not applicable to the present case since the duty of excise claimed to be excess paid in the instant appeal has been credited back to the buyers account by the appellant by way of issuing the credit notes. However, the adjudicating authority shall allow the refund of duty, as admissible, after due verification of all the credit notes and relevant accounting ledgers to ascertain that burden of duty has not been passed on by the appellant to their customers.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1221 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Cross-examination of witnesses - restraining from proceeding any further with reference to the show cause notice - whether statement of an informant may be relied upon without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness? - Held that: - requirement is only of affording an opportunity and nothing beyond it. If the Department has recorded statement of fifteen informants before issuance of show cause notice, it is not necessary that the evidence of all the fifteen witnesses may be relied upon for the purposes of maintaining the demand. It is always open to the Department to rely upon the evidence of such number of informers, as may be necessary in the facts of the case. The assessee cannot insist upon cross-examination of all the informer, especially the statement of whom may not be relied upon by the Department for maintaining the demand - as and when final orders are passed and the assessee feels that there has been violation of principles of natural justice or settled principles of law, he can always question the order by filing the appeal before the appellate authority - petition disposed off - decided against petitioner.

  ---

• 2015 (3) TMI 1210 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Reversal of Cenvat credit - no disclosure made that M/s. BPCL the supplier of the inputs was visited with the penalty under Rule 173 Q - Held that:- both the show cause cum demand notice to M/s. BPCL, and the Order-in-original passed against it do not contain the allegations and finding that there was any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by M/s. BPCL or contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or the Rules framed thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that in the adjudication against the present assessee, the adjudicating authority could not have speculated about what the case against M/s. BPCL was, and what are the findings rendered against them. They ought to have been accepted and for what they are and once they do not contain any finding of the above nature, then, Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, was not attracted.

  The Tribunal rightly held that by mere imposition of penalty under Rule 173 Q, the inferences drawn by the adjudicating authority, cannot be sustained. Those were mere conjectures and surmises on the part of the adjudicating authority. Since the ingredients of Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules were not attracted, the Order-in-original was rightly set aside. We do not see how the substantial questions of law can be answered except by upholding the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against the Revenue

  ---

12345........ 12