|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 277 Records
-
2016 (1) TMI 1010
Denial of CENVAT credit - appellant submits that there is no dispute that the appellant received the inputs and recorded in RG23A Pt. I register within 6 months as provided under Rule 57 G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore, there is no reason to deny the CENVAT credit - Held that:- There is no dispute that the appellant received the inputs in their factory in the month of May 1999 and recorded in RG23A Pt.-I register. Rule 57G of erstwhile Rules, 1944 provides credit cannot be taken by the manufacture after 6 months of the date of issue of any documents supplied in Sub Rule 3 of the said Rules. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (2000 (10) TMI 93 - CEGAT, CHENNAI) held that time limit of 6 months from the date of issue of duty paying document applied to receipt of goods in the factory and not to the process of taking the credit. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (1) TMI 1009
Shortage of raw tobacco and coloured tobacco - clandestine removal - demand under proviso to Section 11A(2) and also imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC along with interest - Held that:- Revenue has tried to prove the charge of clandestine removal merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions and when the shortage has been explained with verifiable facts with regard to raw tobacco and coloured tobacco, but the Revenue did not verify the facts and in the absence of proper verification of factual aspects, we are of the considered view that the Revenue has failed to prove the clandestine removal and also the demand is time barred. Consequently, we allow the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (1) TMI 1008
Central excise registration cancelled - Purchaser of land - Held that:- Merely because the defaulter unit, though it had ceased to carry on business on the premises in question, had failed to apply for de-registration, the same should not, in any manner, come in the way of the petitioners in obtaining central excise registration in respect of the premises in question. The stand adopted by the respondent authority that in respect of the same premises, two persons cannot be registered being contrary to the provisions of law, cannot be accepted. See Jagdish Enterprise P. Ltd. and others V/s. Union of India and others [2014 (11) TMI 700 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 26.11.2015 is quashed. Resultantly, the Central Excise Registration of the petitioner would be revived and restored. It is clarified that if the Department has any doubt about the actual manufacturing activity at the site, it is always open for the Department to examine the issue from the angle of any other provisions of the Central Excise law. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly
-
2016 (1) TMI 1007
Application for waiver of the predeposit under Section 35F dismissed - Held that:- In the absence of any counter affidavit by the Respondent, the Court considers it appropriate to make absolute the order passed by this Court [2015 (10) TMI 788 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The impugned order passed by the CESTAT is, accordingly, modified by directing that the appeal of the Petitioner would be heard without requiring pre-deposit of 7.5% in the category of “Supply of Tangible Goods for use”. The Petitioner’s appeal now be heard on merits in accordance with law.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1006
Reversal of cenvat credit after finished goods become exempted goods - Demand of CENVAT Credit on inputs lying in stock and inputs contained in finished goods lying in stock - Revenue appeal against the decision of HC in [2014 (12) TMI 905 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Apex court dismissed the appeal
-
2016 (1) TMI 1005
Valuation (Central Excise) - Additional consideration - Related person - Revenue appeal against the decision of tribunal in [2005 (6) TMI 149 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Held that:- the issue is squarely covered by the two judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Detergents India Limited and Another [2015 (4) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT] as well as Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. M/s. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. [2015 (8) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT]. - Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1004
100% EOU - Interpretation of the expression "allowed to he sold in India" - Revenue appeal against the decision of tribunal in [2005 (5) TMI 153 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Tribunal is right in holding that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in ‘SIV Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs [2000 (3) TMI 162 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. - Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 970
Valuation - captive consumption - stock transfer - Determination of applicability of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination on Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 in respect of internally transferred goods for consumption in assessee's various project work - Held that:- Reasoning given by the original authority in his order dated 30/1/2006 regarding the applicability of Rule 8 in the present case of captive consumption is misconceived. Since the transaction value of the excisable goods is available and not all the excisable goods are captively consumed, the provisions of Rule 8 as prevailing during the relevant time will not apply to the assesses.
On the second issue regarding valuation of steel items cleared on stock transfer to other plants of the assessee, we find that the concept of related person has no relevance.All the units are part of one company. There is no sale of goods in this stock transfer. The assesses have paid duty based on cost of production which is higher than the cost of production adopted uniformly by the department.
We find that assessee paid duty on cost plus 15 per cent on the entire quantity of stock transferred to their other unit in Selam. The said amount was availed as credit by the Selam Steel Plant. The value adopted by them (Rs. 10,457/- per MT) is much more than value on which duty is being demanded (Rs. 9,489/-).Considering the above factual position, we find the impugned order dated 31/1/2006 is not sustainable on this ground.
Regarding the two department's appeals against the impugned orders we find that the only ground taken is that the costing of goods as per CAS-4 standards will be effective only from the date of issue of circular dated 13/2/2003 by the Board. We find the applicability of CAS-4 standards for all the cases even pending at the time of issue of circular has been upheld by Tribunal in the case of National Aluminum Company Limited ( 2005 (3) TMI 186 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ). On the SLP filed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused the grant of the stay order. No further developments have been informed. - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (1) TMI 969
Valuation of Ceramic/ Glazed Tiles - Transaction value u/s 4 or MRP based value u/s 4A - The Department is of the view that the clearances made by the appellant to customers like contractors schools, colleges, hospitals, hotels, builders, etc. are sales to the institutional buyers. Hence, these goods are assessable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Held that:- As the issue is no more res integra in the light of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of H & R Johnson (India ) Ltd. (2014 (6) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI) and NITCO Tiles Vs. CCE, Raigad (2014 (11) TMI 117 - CESTAT MUMBAI), therefore, we hold that the appellant has correctly discharged their duty liability under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, they are not liable to pay duty as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 968
Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on the amount of Central Excise Duty paid on moulds and dies - Moulds sent to job worker - period involved in this appeal is pre 21/07/1995 and post 21/07/1995 - Held that:- As regards the case prior to 21/07/1995, we find that the show cause notice, and the adjudication order indicated how many moulds were sent to job worker prior to 21/07/1995, provisions of rules definitely indicate that the said moulds and dies, needs to be used in the factory of the manufacturer; on the specific query from the bench, Learned departmental representative was not able show from the records, how many moulds were received and sent out. On the specific query from the bench, learned counsel from the respondent submits that the moulds which were received prior to 21.07.1995 were sent out after 21.07.1995, but unable to produce any evidence; submits that out of 52 molds, 10 molds were received prior to 21.07.1995. In our considered view, the claim of the appellant that these 10 molds were received prior to 21.07.1995, was sent to job worker after being installed in factory premises and used, for the processing of plastic items is not evidenced. It is the submission that the respondent may be given an opportunity to do so. If respondent is able to justify their claim that these 10 moulds were installed in their factory and put to use and subsequently sent to job worker, they may have a case.
For this limited purpose, we hold that the matter needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly as has been directed by us, in respect of duty liability of 10 molds which were received prior to 21.07.1995, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, to consider the issue afresh and arrive at a conclusion, after following the principles of natural justice and respondent may produce evidence if any, in support of their claim.
-
2016 (1) TMI 967
Clandestine manufacture and removal of Aluminum Alloy ingots and Zinc Alloy ingots - validity and genuineness of information, records and documents - onus to prove - The raw material used were aluminum scrap and aluminum ingots and they availed CENVAT Credit on these raw materials being inputs. - Availing Cenvat Credit without receipt of inputs - sale of abnormal quantity of Ash and Residue and burning loss amounting to more than 15% of the total consumption of raw material.
Held that:- the whole case is built up on data contained in the pen drive and certain statements of persons. Admittedly, the data contained in pen drive is not disputed by the appellant. The whole dispute evolve on the interpretation of the data contained therein. In such a situation, it is necessary for the Revenue to support their interpretation by clear corroborative evidences and not by inferences and assumptions.
Even in interpreting the data in the pen drive and taking some support from the select statements of persons, we find that the data applicable to a particular period was extrapolated for the whole period of demand by presuming a standard projection. This apparently is not legally sustainable.
When the allegation of unaccounted clearances and substitutions of inputs of huge quantities were made, the minimum requirement is to have independent support of such allegation by way of evidence of transport, cash transaction, third party documents or affirmations etc. Here in this case, corroborations are lacking. We are aware that in the case of clandestine removal it is not required for the Revenue to prove precise and comprehensive details of each such clearances with 100 per cent accuracy. However, this does not mean that even in the total absence of corroborative evidence without at least establishing a preponderance of probability the case for confirmation of demands can be made.
Large number of statements were recorded and also relied upon; but these statements were not put to test by way of cross-examination and analysis or supported by documentary evidence. The statements could be of help if they support evidences which exist and which requires re-affirmation. In the present case, the statements which deal with interpretation of data in pen drive have not thrown any substantial ground to the case built up by the Revenue.
Revenue failed to prove its case - demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 966
Cenvat / Modvat Credit of duty paid by the 100% EOU - tribunal in [2007 (8) TMI 524 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] allowed the credit following its decision in the case of VIKRAM ISPAT [2000 (8) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] - Held that:- it has been stated that the main issue relating to the interpretation of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, had not been gone into by the Tribunal, while passing its impugned order - matter remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the issue relating to the applicability of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by taking into consideration the notification No.27/2000-CE (NT), dated 31.3.2000.
-
2016 (1) TMI 965
Whether penalty is sustainable upon a dealer when demand of duty stands dropped? - Whether penalty can be imposed for abetment when main party is held not guilty? - Held that:- In view of the fact that the order demanding duty and penalty in the case of the main assessee has been set aside and this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and the same has not been dealt with, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal.
-
2016 (1) TMI 964
Duty demand - Manufacture - repacking of lubricating oil into smaller pack - Revenue appeal against the decision of tribunal in [2006 (9) TMI 541 - CESTAT KOLKATA] - The instant appeal is covered by our decision [2015 (10) TMI 2280 - SUPREME COURT] between the same parties. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 963
DTA clearance by 100% EOU - Interpretation of statutes - EXIM Policy - Revenue appeal against the decision of tribunal in [2006 (7) TMI 365 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Since the tax effect involved in the present appeal is negligible, leaving the question of law open, the appeal is dismissed on this ground alone.
-
2016 (1) TMI 962
CENVAT Credit - Credit in respect of generation of electricity - Revenue appeal against the decision of tribunal in [2014 (7) TMI 531 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 961
Levy of duty - Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Whether the Revenue was justified in determining the duty on the ground of clandestine removal of goods - Revenue appeal against the decision of HC in [2014 (9) TMI 982 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Appeal dismissed - However, revenue permitted to approach this Court by way of filing appropriate appeal.
-
2016 (1) TMI 922
Admissibility of capital goods credit - parts used by the appellant in the capital goods of plant and machinery which in turn are used in the manufacture of excisable goods, cement and clinker and inputs used in manufacture of final product - Held that:- We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Coimbatore Vs Jawahar Mills Ltd. (2001 (7) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has settled the issue of credit availed on various parts used in the plant and machinery as capital goods and under erstwhile rule 57Q.
In respect of input 'Aquachem', this Tribunal in the case of India Cements Vs CCE Trichy [2010 (1) TMI 394 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] has already allowed input credit. By respectfully following the apex court's decision (supra) and the Tribunal's decision (supra), we hold that appellants are eligible for credit on items used in the plant and machinery for manufacture of cement and clinkers under rule 57Q (1) of the CER 1994. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of denial of credit and the consequential demand of recovery. Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 921
Exemption under notification NO.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 as amended vide Notification No.29/2003-CE dated 10.4.2003 denied - failure to produce the certificate before clearances and therefore are not eligible for the exemption - falire v/s late production of certificates - Held that:- From the copy of certificate produced before adjudicating authority, it is clear that the goods were cleared to DMRC Ltd. for use in DMRC project and therefore the goods satisfied the condition for being exempted. The only dispute is on pressing into application the benefit of exemption the condition to produce the certificate before clearance was not complied with. In our view, when the goods have otherwise satisfied the conditions for granting the benefit, then a liberal interpretation is called for at the stage of applicability. After taking into consideration the facts, evidence and arguments placed before us, we hold that the certificate having been produced, the delay, if any, to produce the certificate is only a procedural lapse for which the benefit of exemption cannot be denied. In the appellants' own case KEI Indus Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-2008 (2007 (10) TMI 497 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) in a similar issue, this Tribunal has held that mere late production of essentiality certificate is not a ground for denying the benefit of exemption. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 920
Eligibility to take cenvat credit on “8 cavity mould for flip to cap” sent to job worker without bringing the same into their factory - Held that:- As under Rule-4(5)(b) moulds etc can be sent to the job worker but no condition, like its receipt back within 180 days etc as prescribed in Rule-4(5) (a) of the cenvat crdtit Rules -2004 is specified. The argument of the appellant , that such moulds may not be brought back by the appellant if it has exhausted its production capability, has got some force.
The purpose of bringing the moulds first to the factory premises and then clearing the same to a job worker may not serve any purpose except for incurring some additional transportation cost to the appellant. It is an accepted norm that raw materials can also be directly sent to the job worker without being actually brought into the factory of an assessee.
In view of the above observations & settled proposition of law appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
........
|
