|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 253 Records
-
2016 (7) TMI 1613
Valuation of goods u/s 4 or 4A - Biscuits cleared to Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the National Programme of Nutritional Support of Primary Education - it was held by High Court that the biscuits supplied to MCD are not eligible for assessment in terms of Section 4A and consequently the demand of differential duty is clearly sustainable - HELD THAT:- The judgement of High Court upheld - SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1612
CENVAT Credit - additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act - N/N. 89/2005-Cus. dated 04.10.2005 - HELD THAT:- The fact is not under dispute that while assessing the Bills of Entry, the amount towards CVD and Cess have not been bifurcated by the Customs Authorities. Since, the entire disputed amount was reflected under the ‘CVD’ head in the Bills of Entry, taking of Cenvat Credit of such amount is in conformity with Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - the Notification No. 89/2005-Cus. dated 04.10.2005 has specifically permitted an importer to avail Cenvat Credit of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act against the amount debited in the Duty Entitlement Passbook Script.
Since, no provisions of the Cenvat Statute have been contravened in this case, taking of disputed Cenvat Credit by the appellant is proper and justified - appeal Allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1586
Classification of goods - Di-calcium Phosphate - allegation that the appellant is using Rock Phosphate, Hydrated lime and Lime Stone powder which would not fall under the category of “Animal Feed Grade” - N/N. 4/2016-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12-2-2016 - HELD THAT:- It has been correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel that the Govt. of India vide Notification No. 4/2016-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12-2-2006 has held that Central Excise duty is not payable on such goods.
The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1549
Captive consumption - Oxygen and Acetylene Gas - benefit of N/N. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995 - Benefit of notification denied on the ground that the finished goods namely, Oxygen & Acetylene were used within the factory for repair/maintenance purpose, and not intended for use in the manufacture of any further excisable goods - penalty imposed u/r 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, since the finished goods namely, Oxygen & Acetylene were used within the factory for repair/maintenance purpose, and not intended for use in the manufacture of any further excisable goods, the conditions of Notification dated 16-3-1995 has not been fulfilled by the appellant - Therefore, the confirmation of duty demand in the circumstances of the present case is justified.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the issue involved in the case in hand relates to interpretation of the notification and goods in question have not been removed from the factory clandestinely, we are of the view that penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not proper.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1523
Put up before some other Bench of which one of us (Rajesh Bindal, J.) is not a member, after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1503
CENVAT Credit - common input used in dutiable as well as exempt goods - iron ore fines - Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - iron ore fines, exempt gods or not? - Held that:- In the process of screening and handling of iron ore, some fines generated, which the appellant sold to its customers. Generation of iron ore fines cannot be considered as separate excisable commodity, since no manufacturing activity is involved for emergence of the same out of iron ore by the appellant - Further, iron ore fines is not exempted from payment of duty in terms of notification issued by the Central Govt.
Thus, iron ore fines will not be considered as “exempted goods” and the embargo created in Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will not apply for removal of iron ore in fines form from the factory - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1501
Grant of time - request for adjournment - respondents submits that some time be granted and petitioner may make request for adjournment, as it is observed in the order dated 7th July 2016 - Held that:- The matter is kept on 9th August 2016.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1478
Valuation - Job-work - fabricating and mounting the bodies of buses and trucks on the chassis - Held that:- On merits the issue of liability to duty stands settled against the appellant in the case of AUDI AUTOMOBILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Therefore, the duty and interest are recoverable. However, the Tribunal has clearly stated that in view of the facts and circumstances in those cases which are similar to the facts and circumstances in the present cases) no penalty was warranted.
Valuation - inclusion of entry tax and VAT in assessable value - Held that:- There are no force in the appellants submission that their contention regarding non-includability of taxes in the assessable value for determining the quantum of duty has not been adverted to by the primary adjudicating authority though the contention was raised before him.
Matter remanded with the direction that demand should be recomputed, if necessary, after considering the contention of the appellant regarding non-includability of taxes in the assessable value - No penalty is warranted in these cases - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1462
Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - Whether the CESTAT is right in law in allowing refund of unutilized CENVAT credit accumulated due to disproportionate rates of duty on inputs and final products available at the time of surrender of central excise registration? - Held that:- The Registry in the first instance must send intimation of admission of this appeal enclosing therewith a copy of this order so as to enable the Tribunal to act accordingly.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1420
Valuation - Cement - requirement of RSP - N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, as amended, and not Sl No. 1C thereof - Department took the view that affixing the RSP on the bags was not correct as the sale to APSHCL was not a retail sale as defined under rule 2(q) of the Standards of Weights and Measures [Packaged Commodities] Rules, 1977 - Held that: - Once the Legal Metrology authorities have clarified and informed the appellants that supplies made by them even to institutional buyers are not excluded from the declaration of MRP under the Packaged Commodities Rules, the appellant has to necessarily fall in line and declare MRP on the cement packages held by them and in consequence, the goods will necessarily attract the effective rate of duty envisaged in Sl No. 1A of the table in N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, as amended, and not Sl No. 1C thereof as held by department.
Identical issue decided in the case of H & R JOHNSON (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD [2014 (6) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that on the packages, the appellant has not made any declaration that "the packages are not meant for retail sale or the packages are meant for use by any specified industry". In the absence of such markings on the packages, it cannot be said that the goods supplied were not in retail packages.
The order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.02.2013 interalia that the duty liability shall be determined under Sl. No. 1A of the Notification No. 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006, does not require any interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1415
Rebate - The assessee took credit of duty paid on menthol and utilized the said credit in paying the duty on clearance of the final products namely, menthol crystals and peppermint oil - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of UNION OF INDIA Versus SHARP MENTHOL INDIA LTD. [2011 (4) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that since the peppermint oil has been exported on payment of duty, the assessee was entitled to claim rebate of the duty paid on peppermint oil - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1410
Benefit of N/N. 14/2002-C.E., dated 1st March, 2002 - The condition that ‘appropriate duties’ were to be discharged was interpreted to deny exemption to such final products in which the intermediate/inputs were not considered as having paid duty - interpretation of statute - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of M/s. SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2016 (8) TMI 128 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that Explanation II to the said exemption N/N. 14/2002 and 15/2002 create legal fiction and that was the precise purpose for which this explanation was added. It is trite law that a fiction created by a provision of law is to be given its due play and it must be taken to its logical conclusion.
The contention of Revenue that assessees are not entitled to the exemption in Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. does not find sustenance - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1403
Denial of Cenvat Credit - Duty paid through PLA - Rule 8(3A) - the decision in the case of M/s Space Telelink Ltd, Shri Ankit Goel, Managing Director Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I [2015 (10) TMI 2197 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested - Held that: - the questions framed for the issue of penalty and CENVAT credit - List in due course.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1399
Challenge to the order of Settlement Commission - decision in the case of M/s Chandra Kamal Corporation And Another Versus Union of India And Others [2015 (10) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - delay condoned - SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1390
CENVAT credit - input services - GTA service for transportation of finished goods from depot to the customer premises - freight charges on auction service - Held that: - With regard to availment of Cenvat credit on GTA service, the issue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. CCEST, Bangalore [2009 (5) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal be treated as an input service in terms of Rule 2(1)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and thereby enabling the manufacturer to take credit of the service tax paid on the value of such services - credit allowed.
Auction service - Held that: - auction service is entitled for availment of Cenvat credit - credit allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1382
Classification of export goods - residue left from the extraction of soyabean oil which is covered under Chapter Heading 2304 of CETA - Held that: - in the present case an intelligence was collected by the officers of headquarters preventive branch of their Commissionerate that the plant of the petitioner is based on solvent extraction technology and they are exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean, which is covered under Chapter Heading No. 2304 and not under Chapter Heading No. 1208 of CETA, 1985 and the petitioner has taken inadmissible incentive from the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade under VKGUY scheme of Chapter 3 - the matter is sub-judice before the respondent No. 1-Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Indore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1380
Penalty - - Held that: - the issue is covered by judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles v. CCE, Indore [2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where in the identical set of circumstances the demand of duty and interest was upheld and penalty was set aside - the appellant was contesting the earlier show cause notice and started following the decision once it was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. Thus, the contention of ld. DR is devoid of force - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1362
Whether market purchase goods can be treated as duty paid goods - The decision in the case of M/s. Arvind Products Limited, M/s. Vishal Fabrics Private Limited and M/s. Shanti Processors Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Ahmedabad [2014 (11) TMI 79 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] contested - Held that: - the instant appeal is covered by the judgment titled as ‘M/s. Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida’ [2016 (8) TMI 128 - SUPREME COURT]. - appeal dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1342
Valuation - includibility - Whether additional (differential) Central Excise duty paid by adding “Royalty” and “Stowing Excise Duty” as components for determining the transaction value defined in Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the WCL to the Excise Department of the Union of India can be recovered by it from the Petitioners?
Held that: - we, at this stage, do not find that any illegal recovery is being forced upon the petitioners before us as its legality or otherwise is contingent upon the nature of “royalty” - an issue still pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court itself. The amount of differential Excise duty is already paid on behalf of the petitioners by the respondent WCL and hence, it has to recover it from them. It does not need any authorization for said purpose from its Holding Company. Amount recovered by WCL is and will always be safe. If the Hon’ble Apex Court answers the controversy in favour of the petitioners, they can claim its refund as per law either from WCL or from the Union of India, with such interest from either of them as the law may permit. There is nothing before us to demonstrate that any highhanded action is being resorted to by the respondents for effecting said recovery.
Whether in these facts, WCL committed any wrong in paying the differential amount of Excise duty? Whether such payment binds these petitioners? If not, Whether petitioners independent of pending reference before the Nine Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court, can still oppose its recovery from them? - Held that: - The only effort of the petitioners has been to demonstrate that pendency of that reference has no bearing and till its adjudication, the law in force needs to be enforced. This effort is apparently misconceived and they cannot succeed with such an argument, in present facts. Moreover, this contention and the plea that they cannot now recover this differential Excise duty from their purchasers or consumers, at the most indicate breach of a contractual term which in present facts, is amenable to arbitration. The understanding of a legal provision and position by the WCL, its notice dated 22/25-3-2011 in this regard, its impact in law on civil rights of parties and claims (if any) arising therefrom, are all the disputes arising under the non-statutory contract and forum of arbitration is accepted therefor by the petitioners. It cannot be said that reliefs sought in these writ petitions do not emanate from the contract between the parties. For period beyond 1-3-2013, Excise duty is being paid by these petitioners accepting “Royalty” and “Stowing Excise Duty” as components of the transaction value.
We feel that the public money needs to be secured first. We also find that it will be more safe with the respondent WCL than any of the petitioners. If ultimately, this amount of differential Excise duty is held not due or recoverable from them, the petitioners can seek its refund as per law by filing such proceedings in appropriate forum against necessary parties, as they may be advised. They may also seek due interest or suitable damages from them, if claim for the either is sustainable in law. There is no irreparable loss to them & no question of any balance of convenience in their favour.
Petition dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1340
Condonation of delay - Reversal of cenvat credit after finished goods become exempted goods - the decision in the case of Commissioner Versus Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 1006 - SUPREME COURT] contested - Held that: - We find no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant recall of our order dated 7th September, 2015 - the review petition is, accordingly, dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
........
|
