|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 168 Records
-
2016 (5) TMI 1468
Levy of Central Excise Duty on coal - Validity of Notification dated 21-10-2015 - Held that:- The impugned notification dated 21-10-2015 issued by the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited under Annexure-1 appears to be in violation of the same - application allowed.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1444
CENVAT Credit - Rule 6(3) of the CCR - whether Respondent is required to discharge an amount equivalent to 5% / 8% of the value of Bagasee, Press mud & Bio-compost sold by the Respondent? - Held that:- Provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CCR are applicable only to a situation where exempted as well as dutiable products are manufactured by an assessee out of common inputs and no separate records are maintained.
Apex Court’s decision in the case of Union of India vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] held that provisions of Rule 6 of CCR shall have no application as Bagasee is not a product of manufacture - The same is true to the products Press mud and Bio-compost.
Respondent is not liable to pay 5% / 8% of the sale proceeds of these products - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1431
Monetary amount involved in the appeal - circular dt.17/12/2015 bearing No. F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC - Held that: - Taking note of the CBEC Circular dt.17/12/2015 & 01/01/2016, the monetary limits which indisputably in these appeals/reference is less than ₹ 15 lacs, much less than what has been prescribed for filing appeal before the High Courts, deserve to be dismissed as not pressed - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1429
Liability of interest - Held that: - in Trimurti Fragrance Private Limited vs. CCE, Delhi -II [2016 (2) TMI 718 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was held that no duty demand or interest could be made on the appellant in similar situations. The Tribunal applied the provisions of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 and reading it together with the other applicable provisions of the said Rules, came to conclusion that there is no delayed payment warranting levy of interest in such situation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1393
CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - M.S. Angles, H.R. Coils, Sections, Joints, Channels, Cements etc. - penalty - Held that: - the issue regarding entitlement of cenvat credit on disputed goods were highly debatable and the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] has held that Central Excise duty paid on such goods are not available for cenvat credit.
Penalty - Held that: - the period involved in this case is from 15.04.2008 to 19.01.2009, which is prior to the date of amendment of Rule 2(k) ibid and also pronouncement of the decision by this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global - malafides cannot be attributed for imposition of penalty on the appellant.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1384
Doctrine of promissory estoppels - Exemption to units set up in North-Eastern Region - Pan masala with and without Tobacco - negative list was provided in the policy of 2007, inter alia, covering all goods falling under Chapter 24 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 so as to include all tobacco products and manufactured tobacco subsidies as well as pan masala - N/N. 21/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 - notification dated 1-3-2007 bearing No. 11/2007-C.E - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Limited Versus Union of India and Others [2016 (5) TMI 1074 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], where the Division Bench has held that the notification impugned therein i.e. No. 11/2007-C.E. was hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppels and was not sustainable in law.
Since the notifications dated 1-3-2007 as well as 25-4-2007 arise out of the similar transactions and under similar circumstances, the only difference being that the former notification applies to the pan masala containing tobacco whereas the notification dated 25-4-2007 relates to pan masala without tobacco, we are of the opinion that the ratio of the decision rendered by the Division Bench would be squarely applicable even in the facts of this appeal and will be binding upon this Court.
The respondents are directed to refund the Excise duty component to the appellant as per its entitlement under the law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1355
Refund claim - clearances made to 100% EOU - deemed exports - Held that: - The issue is covered by the judgements laid in E.I. Duport India (P) Ltd., Vs UOI [2014 (5) TMI 128 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that it would not be denied on the ground that it was the case of deemed export and refund could be granted only in case of physical export - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1342
Condonation of delay - maintainability of appeal - due to negligence on the part of the clerk concerned and also to the fact that the said clerk is attending their work on part time basis, the appeal could not be filed within the statutory time limit - Held that: - The cause for such delay is attributed to the negligence of the clerk of the applicant. It is settled law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the delay due to negligence cannot be condoned, especially when the statute has prescribed the time-limit for filing the appeals - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1331
Penalty u/r 25 of the CER, 2002 - benefit of N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - the refund claims were pending for adjudication. Therefore the appellant could not pay duty through PLA during the period July 2010 to December 2010 - Held that: - penalty u/r 25 of the CER, 2002 can be imposed only when it qualifies provision of Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. Section 11AC of the Act states that penalty can only be imposed, if duty has not been levied, not paid, or short levied, or short paid or erroneously refunded, by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Rule/Act to evade the payment of duty. Therefore, the mensreea for imposing penalty is required - There is no such allegation against the appellant that they have not paid duty in time by way of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Rule/Act with intend to evade payment of duty - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1324
CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - the invoices were not in the name of the appellants nor were they endorsed in their favor - Rule 7(1)(e)(b) of the CCR, 2002 - Held that: - The original documents cannot be endorsed to more than one person, however, endorsement by a separate letter can be done to any number of people. It is not understood as to why the appellant had not got the said documents endorsed by the supplier on the body of the documents. The same cannot be considered as a mere procedural formality. Since there is an easy and specific provision in the rule, not following the same, leads to suspicion of evasion.
I find no logical reason for appellants to not have followed such an easy procedure prescribed in Rule 7 and getting endorsement on the body of the invoice - benefit not to be extended to appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1318
CENVAT credit - credit taken on certain inputs denied on the ground that these were not actually received by the appellant’s manufacturing unit - Held that: - Appreciating the certificate of Chartered Engineer and also the records maintained by the appellant regarding receipt of material, I find that denial of credit to the appellant is not sustainable. Considering the nature of goods apparently no separate transport documents or lorry/freight payment, etc., is involved in these types of items - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1316
Valuation - Differential duty - Penalty - Related Parties - Held that: - both the appellants and M/s. Taj Services Ltd., are Companies incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, in terms of ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. [1998 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we hold that M/s. Residency Foods & Beverages Ltd. and M/s. Taj Services Ltd., during the period covered by the appeal, were not related persons.
We find that as per the provisions of law as existed during the material period, the said deductions were allowable for arriving at the assessable value. After allowing the said deductions, there is no differential duty demandable from the appellants - The finalization of the assessment was not challenged by the Revenue before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned show cause notice is hit by limitation - Appeal allowed.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1314
100% EOU - Refund claim - the appellants have filed a B-17 bond and not B-1 bond/letter of undertaking - rejection on the ground that the appellants have not followed the following conditions prescribed in the N/N. 05/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 - Held that: - B-17 bond is a multi purpose bond which covered not only the Customs requirements but also Central Excise requirements. Circular No. 76/99, dated 17-11-1999 has been issued to extend a facility to 100% EOU. The body of the B-17 bond includes the conditions required to safe guard the Central Excise duty.
Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh only with respect to the allegations regarding non-submissions of documents and unjust enrichment - appeal pertly allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1294
CENVAT Credit - capital goods such as Jumbo Electric Truck, Jumbo Electric Platform, MBC Slippers and GLV Structure - Held that: - Both the sides agree that the issue of availability of CENVT Credit in respect of the railway track material stand decided by the Tribunal in the same appellant's case M/s Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (CG) [2015 (11) TMI 453 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], and the issue of availability of CENVAT Credit in respect of Jumbo Electric Truck and Jumbo Electric Platform stand decided in the same appellants case M/s Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2015 (11) TMI 453 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. By following the said decision which cover both the sides fully and finally we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1283
Cenvat credit - service tax suffered for transporting the goods cleared by the appellant to its sister unit - credit ought to have been taken by the sister unit instead of the appellant unit - Held that:- When liability is incurred by the appellant then there is no law to deny the genuine liability incurred to be allowed as CENVAT credit under reverse charge mechanism, there is no question of depriving the appellant from the CENVAT Credit of the service tax paid on the outward transportation. Revenue has misconceived the scheme of taxation. Reverse charge mechanism is quite different from the normal taxation under this scheme, the service suffering tax entitles the recipient thereof to take credit of tax so suffered. Therefore, there cannot be denial of the benefit to the appellant according to such scheme of taxation. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1281
Cenvat credit - service tax paid by the service providers in respect of rent-a-cab services, mobile phone services, telephone services used in residence and guest house, pest control of factory and office and group insurance of workmen compensation - Held that:- the issue is now seems to be settled in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal decision in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT Bangalore], which has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. In the said judgement, the Tribunal has held that service tax paid on the canteen services, transportation of employees, group insurance/health policy are eligible for availing Cenvat credit. As regards the Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on mobile phone and the residential telephones, the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2010 (9) TMI 19 - High Court of Bombay] and CCE Vs. Excel Crop Care Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT] are directly on the point and holds Cenvat Credit is allowed on the service tax paid. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1280
Cenvat credit - entitlement - service tax paid on GTA services on outward transport - sale was on ex-factory basis - Held that:- considering the large number of decisions holding in favour of the assessee regarding entitlement of cenvat credit on outward transportation and also considering that in appellant’s own case, the matter was decided in their favour based on examination on factual evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1279
SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - entitlement - use of brand name 'SAGAR' of another person - Held that:- by relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Novel Tronic Corporation [2008 (8) TMI 710 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], the appellant is the owner of brand name 'SAGAR' as the appellant was using the said brand name prior to M/s Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd (another person). Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 as the appellant has using the brand name prior to the registered owner of the brand name and the brand name is a common brand. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 1277
Challenge to Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997. - Held that:- In view of the above, the writ petition is ordered to be governed by the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in the cases of Meenakshi Steel (2015 (9) TMI 151 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) and Bhuwalka Steel (2015 (9) TMI 202 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), however, this order is to be governed finally by the outcome of the pending appeal before the Apex Court in the case of Bhuwalka Steel or any other appeal on the same challenge. If finally the appeal is allowed by the Apex Court, the writ petition would also be treated as allowed. However, if the appeal is dismissed by the Apex Court, there would be no change in the judgment. In view of the above, the outcome of this petition would be governed finally by the outcome of the appeal pending before the Apex Court on the same challenge. The direction aforesaid is being given to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1243
Whether the eligibility for credit on input services is to be denied since the same was used outside the factory - Held that:- as per definition of input services there is no requirement in law that the credit can be taken only on the service tax paid on the services received in the factory premises supported by the Tribunal's decision in the case of L.G. BALAKRISHNAN & BROS. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2010 (6) TMI 211 - CESTAT, CHENNAI]. By following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Ramgarh Chini Mills Vs. CCE, Kanpur [1998 (2) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], the Cenvat credit will be admissible to them if the bills are in the name and address of their Corporate Office, LAB (R& D Unit) and the marketing Office and not in their factory. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the genuineness of the transaction and the duty paid documents are not doubted, therefore, credit cannot be denied. Cenvat being a beneficial piece of legislation, which was enacted for removing the cascading effect, the denial of credit sighting procedural irregularities is unsustainable. Hence the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
........
|
