|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 277 Records
-
2016 (10) TMI 1300
Implementation of order under challenge before CESTAT - appeal directed against the order of refund is pending before a higher forum/CESTAT - HELD THAT:- Merely because an appeal directed against the order of refund is pending before a higher forum/CESTAT, does not mean that the order under challenge before CESTAT is incapable of implementation and enforcement. If that is not stayed then the enforcement is permissible. While enforcing that order and making any payment, all that can be clarified is that the said act would be subject to the outcome of the appeal which is raising a substantive challenge.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1288
CENVAT Credit - input services - house keeping services - HELD THAT:- The services availed comprised house-keeping activities like cleaning and washing the canteen, maintenance of drum plant, collecting papers and delivering to various sections, recording and sorting and conveyance hiring. None of the above activities are able to be demonstrated to be disintegrated to manufacturing activity carried out by the appellant. In absence of any cogent evidence to show that such services were not essential input.
Cleaning services for canteen - HELD THAT:- Cleaning Services availed for Canteen was to upkeep that under the Factories Act, 1948. Maintenance of drum plant was also an obligation to be discharged under Factories Act - appellant's claim of Cenvat credit does not appear to be unjustified.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1252
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - unutilized balance in the Cenvat credit - SSI exemption availed - applicability of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - Held that:- Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is applicable only in case an assessee has got unutilized Cenvat credit balance, on the record date, when he opts to avail exemption. Admittedly in the facts of the present case the Cenvat credit balance was nil as on 31-3-2003 - no amount was required to be reversed or paid under the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which is equivalent to the provisions under Rule 11(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1240
CENVAT Credit - denial of credit on the ground that the process not amounting to manufacture - activity of processing aluminium sheets in coils by reducing the thickness of the same - Held that:- Merely the fact that the raw material and the resultant product fall under the same sub heading of the Tariff cannot be a deciding test of manufacture, as a sub heading may cover many products - there is mo reason to hold that the activity of reducing the thickness of aluminium sheets by cold rolling which involves process of tempering and annealing does not amount to manufacture - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1235
CENVAT Credit - input services - rent-a-cab, which is used for bringing the employees from the residence to the factory - insurance paid on plant, machinery and equipments - insurance paid on the goods exported - Held that:- Tribunal vide its decision in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow [2012 (12) TMI 265 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held that insurance paid on plant, machinery and equipment has to be held as input service.
Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-III, COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P.) LTD. [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that service tax paid on all services utilised directly or indirectly in or in relation to final product is eligible for Cenvat credit.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1226
Pre-deposit - This deposit would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and the order impugned shall remain stayed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1223
Utilization of CENVAT Credit - Default in payment of monthly duty beyond 30 days from the due date - Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- Appellant relies upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. Vs Union of India [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that the relevant portion of Rule 8 (3A) relating to bar of utilization of cenvat credit by such defaulters to be ultra vires. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has also set aside the proceedings pending on this count - but Revenue points out that the above High Court judgement has been appealed against to the Supreme Court and the same has been ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be tagged along with SLP in the case of Commissioner Versus A.R. Metallurgicals P. Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 1380 - SUPREME COURT].
The appeal is remanded back to original adjudicating authority with the direction for denovo consideration, based on the parameters of the final ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1210
Waiver of pre-deposit - Appeal dismissed for non compliance - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1209
Benefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE - supply of plastic power cables and stainless steel wire to Thermal Power project - denial on the ground that the goods cleared by them do not fall under Customs Tariff Heading 9801 - Held that:- The Tribunal in Paramount Communication Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that exemption cannot be denied as the goods manufactured by the appellant cannot be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 9801. Apparently, the condition of Project Import required cannot be literally imposed on Indian manufacturer for exemption under N/N. 6/2002-CE.
Benefit of notification cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1205
CENVAT Credit - input service - Sales Commission - Held that:- Reliance placed in the case of M/S ESSAR STEEL INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, SURAT-I [2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that the definition of the 'input services' includes services used in relation to 'sales promotion' and these activities can rightly be described as sales promotion activities. Sales promotion activities undertaken at given point of time also aims at sales of goods which are to be manufactured and cleared on future. Any advertisement given as a long term impact cannot be treated as post-clearance activities and, therefore, sales promotion has been specifically included in the definition of input services - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1201
CENVAT Credit - service tax on remuneration paid to director - reverse charge mechanism - Held that:- Proposition of the counsel appears to be in accordance with law, in view of specific enactment for levy of service tax on reverse charge mechanism - such service tax is payable under reverse charge mechanism with effect from 1.7.2012. Therefore, CENVAT credit cannot be denied.
Once service tax is paid, in absence of any adverse finding as to no deposit thereof into the treasury, there cannot be denial of CENVAT credit.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1196
Clearance of exempted goods - Cefoperazone Sodium Sterile - Reversal of CENVAT credit - common inputs were used for dutiable and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the goods cleared under chapter X procedure without payment of duty would fall within the category of exempted goods?
Held that:- In Aureola Chemicals Ltd V/s. CCE, Indore [2004 (1) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] the Tribunal held that the spent Sulphuric Acid cleared by assessee under Chapter X procedure to various manufacturers of fertilizers against CT-2 certificate without payment of duty are not exempted goods - credit need not be reversed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1193
CENVAT credit - Removal of capital goods to other unit for use in manufacture - Held that: - Mandate of the statute is that capital goods should be installed in a factory or in the premises of the provider of output service for allowance of Cenvat credit on the capital goods. Such essential condition was satisfied - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1191
Valuation - related party transaction - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that: - the impugned order held that based on the factual position and applying the provisions of Valuation Rules the transaction value adopted by the respondent cannot be rejected. It was recorded that no extra commercial consideration has been demonstrated.
Reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Xerographic Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 308 - SUPREME COURT] cannot be faulted only on the ground the concept of related person discussed therein was with reference to earlier Valuation Rules. There is no material difference in the basic principle with reference to valuation of goods when the transaction is between related person. Mutuality of interest and lower price due to extra commercial consideration are relevant factor for consideration.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1183
CENVAT credit - whether the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit paid on various iron and steel items like MS Round, MS angles, Steel Strappings, etc., which stand used in the repair and maintenance of plant and machinery? - Held that: - the said issue stands settled in the appellant’s own case M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. - Jaipur-I [2015 (5) TMI 1149 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the items are cenvatable - appeal allowed.
CENVAT credit - steel scrapers, which is used for packing materials - Held that: - The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Nilkamal Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2016 (5) TMI 305 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has observed that the definition of the word ‘input’ is very wide and includes all the goods, which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The same includes the goods, which are used directly or indirectly irrespective of whether those goods are contained in the final product or not and it includes accessories of final products cleared along with the final product - There is no doubt in the present case that steel strappings are used for packing the final products of the appellants, in which case they would be cenvatable - credit allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1176
CENVAT credit - input services - various input services - Held that: - it appears that all such insurance services are integrally connected to the manufacturing activity carried out by the appellant. That cannot be ignored to be essential input services to ensure manufacture. Therefore, disallowance on these services is reversed - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1175
CENVAT credit - works contract - case of Revenue is that scope and activity carried out by the contractor was not works contract - Held that: - Law is well settled that when construction work is carried out that involves both goods and services and that cannot be ruled out to be no works contract. Therefore, denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant in respect of the service tax paid for the services availed from the works contractor is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1174
Valuation - includibility - cost of such packing material received free of cost - Revenue issued a show cause in terms of Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, alleging that the cost of such packing material supplied free of cost is to be treated as additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee in relation to sale of the goods - Held that: - The jars and containers are meant only for carrying the excisable goods manufactured by the respondents. Clearly, these cartons do not render the excisable goods to be marketable and are meant only for transportation.
The issue of inclusion of cost of packing material was examined by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Grasim Industries Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 650 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that if some goods are marketable without being put into the containers, the cost of containers including their testing charged would not be includible in the assessable value - In the present case, the PET containers are marketable without being put in the corrugated cartons and hence the ratio of above judgment is applicable in the present case.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1173
Education cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess - demand of inputs supplied by 100% EOU paying duty under N/N. 23/2003-CE dt. 31/03/2003 - Held that: - said issue is covered by the decisions laid in CCE&ST, Ludhiana Vs. Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 1380 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that there is no reason to disallow the Cenvat credit on the Education Cess and SHE Cess Component, forming Part of CVD - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1172
Clandestine removal - assessee contested the SCN mainly on the basis that the details mentioned in FORM A were not the actual figures of import and consumption, which were prepared for getting higher import quota - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the party has nothing in their defence and they are deliberately adopting delaying tactics by asking investigation report which has neither been relied upon by the department in fastening the duty liability nor it is available with the department.
As far as the principles of natural justice are concerned, it would be seen that ample opportunities had already been given to the party and that matter cannot be continuously adjourned to suit their convenience. Anyone taking the plea of natural justice should come with clean hands. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here.
The entire case of department is made out on the basis of information found available in Form A, whereas the DGFT and even the Income Tax Appellate Authority has already concluded that there was no such improper import by the appellant. Further, on four occasions this Tribunal gave opportunity to the department to substantiate its case by bringing on record the investigation carried out by DGFT. The lower authority in the impugned order has shown total disrespect to the remand directions. At the same time, when said information was brought on record by the appellant, the lower authority has refused to go by the same, whereas once the DGFT had given clean chit to appellant, the lower authority was bound to drop the demand.
Even otherwise the entire case of department is made out on mere surmises and presumptions - it is a settled legal position that the charge of clandestine removal cannot be made without there being corroborative evidences - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
