-
2016 (7) TMI 1339
Proceedings under Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that: - the show cause notice has been issued along with the report of testing and the report of testing was issued prior thereto as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 56 - as the statutory requirement of communication of test report has been violated the entire notice is liable to the quashed - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1338
CENVAT credit - Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - assessee has defaulted in payment of duty - Held that: - although there is a violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 but the duty along with interest has been paid by the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - demand of duty with interest not sustainable - there is procedural lapse on the part of the appellant, therefore, a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- is imposed on the appellant u/r 27 of the CER, 2002 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1337
Rectification of mistake - review of an order - Held that: - The so-called errors pleaded by the applicant are not “errors apparent on record” and what is sought is a review of the order which is not sanctioned by law. We also find no apparent errors in the findings of the Tribunal - the ROM application is liable to be rejected - decided against applicant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1324
Refund of duty paid on refined oil - refund denied on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Held that: - Sub-section (2) of Section 11B provides that on receipt of any application, the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, it is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise is refundable, then he has to make an order on such refund application. On perusal of the statutory provision, it reveals that nowhere there is no mention that the application has to be returned to the assessee. In this case, initia....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1320
Clandestine removal - whether excise duty can be demanded on the basis of income surrendered before the Income Tax Authorities without adducing any independent evidence with regard to purchase of raw material, manufacture of finished goods and sale thereof or not?? - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Arisudana Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Ludhiana [2016 (2) TMI 986 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where it was held that duty is payable on manufacture of goods and no evidence has been produced by the Revenue to that extent, the....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1319
Entitlement to interest - delayed sanction of the rebate claim - Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - Since the rebate application has not been considered for payment within 3 months from the date of its filing, interest liability is automatic in terms of Section 11BB of the Act and the applicant is entitled for the statutory interest for the period between expiry of 3 months of the date of filing of the rebate application till its sanction by the Department - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1299
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - Held that: - No compliance of order dated 02.12.2014, is reported till date, directing pre-deposit of part demand for ₹ 95 Lakhs - appeal dismissed for non-compliance.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1289
Penalty - case of appellant is that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles vs CCE Indore [2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein in the identical set of circumstances, the demand of duty and interest was upheld while penalty was set aside - Held that: - Respectfully following the said judgment of the Tribunal, we partly allow the appeal of M/s Audi Automobiles only to the extent that the penalty is set aside - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1221
Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - benefit of exemption - supply of instrumental cables to Mega Thermal Power plant being set up by M/s NTPC and M/s Jindal Power Ltd. - Demand - Held that:- an identical dispute was the subject matter of recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Paramount Communication Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur [2016 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it was held that appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006. Therefore, by following the same, we set-aside the impugned order. - Decide....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1206
Cenvat Credit - input services - GTA services - outward transportation beyond the place of removal appeared - Held that:- In fact the question, whether price of goods is on FOR basis or not is an important aspect necessary to decide the question whether it can be included within 'input service' or not and since for determination thereof, matter has been remanded, therefore, in our view, it would not be appropriate at this stage to answer the substantial question of law formulated above and instead let the matter be decided by competent authori....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1205
Cenvat Credit - rejection of CENVAT Credit based on non registration of input service distributor - receipt of input services at head office - Held that:- No findings are given by the adjudicating authority on merits regarding non-admissibility of CENVAT Credit to input services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Department has not filed any appeal against the said Order-in-Original dated 10/8/2010 passed by Adjudicating authority. Commissioner (Appeals) by bringing the admissibility of Cenvat credit on merits has gone beyond the scope of the ap....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1204
SSI exemption - extended period of limitation - eligibility to avail benefit of Notification No.9/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 - the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from its two units during 2003-04 had exceeded ₹ 300 Lakhs. - Held that:- if it is not open to the superior court to either add or substitute words in a statute, such right cannot be available to a statutory Tribunal - The reasoning that once knowledge has been acquired by the Department, there is no suppression, and as such, the ordinary s....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1203
Determination of price for the purpose of reversal of Cenvat Credit - whether price is inclusive of 10% amount or not - demand of 10% of the price of exempted final products - Difference of opinion - Held that:- Whether the amount of 10% required to be reversed in terms of provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) is to be considered as "other tax" so as to deduct the same from the assessable value and the appeal has to be allowed by following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the same assesse's case as held by Member (Technical) OR the said reversal of 1....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1202
Demand of differential duty - When the Commissioner in the impugned order has not given the appellants benefit of Cenvat credit on capital goods, the appellants plead that after allowing them benefit of admissible Cenvat credit, the actual duty liability is to be revised. - invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Both the appeals are remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-1 for re-computation of the liability of payment of Central Excise duty, interest and imposition of penalties, if any. - Matter remanded back with directions.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1201
Procurement of inputs without payment of duty - export of exempted goods - Department took the view that Notifications No.24/2010-CE(NT) dated 26.05.2010 has amended Notification 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 inserting a condition restricting the scope of earlier Notification and specifically excluding export of excisable goods which are chargeable to Nil rate of duty or wholly exempted from payment of duty under bond; that since frozen prawns/shrimps and other marine food are chargeable to Nil rate of duty, hence export of these goods are n....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1200
Excise duty on malt extract - whether the malt extract, which arises during the course of manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), is liable to pay the duty as it is an excisable commodity falling under Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - Held that:- Identical issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries Ltd. & SKOL Breweries Ltd.(2003 (9) TMI 485 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) WHREIN held that the malt extract are WORT, which is not an marketable commodity, hence no duty demand can be raised. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1199
Cenvat Credit - capital goods - after using them for about 3-6 years, cleared them to their sister unit in Bangalore reversing Cenvat credit as applicable on the depreciated value of the capital goods - The Commissioner (Primary Adjudicating Authority) held that the entire amount of Cenvat credit taken at the time of acquisition of these capital goods was required to be paid (reversed) at the time of clearance of these goods as capital goods were removed as such i.e. as capital goods and not as scrap. Held that:- matter remanded back to the or....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1198
Disallowance of credit on capital goods - Held that:- The appellant has explained that the hoses are used to connect / transport silicon carbide just like pipes. Air receivers serve the purpose of air compressors in the manufacture of final product. These goods are integral to the manufacturing process and would fall within the definition of capital goods/parts. In view thereof, hold that credit on Air receiver and corrugated hoses is admissible. Disallowance of credit on input services - The period involved is April 2006 to January 2011 - Hel....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1173
Demand of rebate erroneously sanctioned - Held that:- The rebate was duly sanctioned. However, the Department subsequently found out that the rebate claim was submitted on the basis of forged documents. Detailed investigation revealed that no export has taken place in respect of six of the shipping bills, and in other cases, exporters names were different. It is also observed that the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants in the Adjudication proceedings concluded that there was nothing to submit on merit of the case. He only argued the ....... + More
-
2016 (7) TMI 1172
Redemption fine and penalty imposed - clandestine removal of goods - non recording of shortage in their statures records - Held that:- In this case, upto 22.12.2010, the stock as per books was 366.184 MT but the goods found short of 124.302 MT having the value of ₹ 40,64,675/- which are to be included in the value of the clearance. If the same is done, the clearance of the appellant exceeded the threshold limit of ₹ 1.5 crore as per Notification No. 8/03-CE dated 1.3.2003. Therefore, the appellant was required to be registered on t....... + More
