|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 253 Records
-
2016 (7) TMI 1171
Input service credit on the activity of unloading and shifting the goods in the premises of the buyer denied - Held that:- As per purchase order, the appellant was required to supply the goods at the premises of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. These facts are not in dispute therefore, any expense incurred by the appellant till the goods are delivered in the godown of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit thereon. In these circumstances, the service of contractor availed by the appellant for unloading and shifting the goods in the godown of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. are entitled to input service credit. Therefore appellant has correctly availed cenvat credit on the activity of unloading and shifting of the godown of the goods - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1170
Benefit of cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA services on outward transportation of the finished goods denied - Held that:- Outward transportation of the finished goods is an activity relatable to the assessees business and as such, service tax paid on the same would be admissible as cenvat credit. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (7) TMI 1169
Assessable value of the sleepers - inclusion of inspection charges collected from the Railways and paid to RITES -Held that:- We find that the issue is no more res integra and settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhaskar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2004 (3) TMI 102 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ). It stands concluded in the said decision that the inspection charges paid to Rites on behalf of the Railways are not includible in the assessable value.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1168
Refund claim - Appellant has discharged duty on the molasses used in manufacture of ethyl alcohol while being processed for ethyl alcohol, the industrial alcohol that came out has suffered duty - prayer of the appellant is that the output (industrial alcohol) which has suffered duty should be set off against the input duty paid on molasses -
Held that:- Commissioner confused without going into detail as to whether the molasses suffering duty has given rise to the dutiable product called industrial alcohol and non-dutiable product called portable alcohol and whether the industrial alcohol has suffered duty. For the misconception of the fact by the appellate authority, justice is to be advanced to the appellant since the facts are as narrated above remained disputed by Revenue.
In view of the established fact as argued by appellant and also appreciating the jurisprudence of cascading effect appellant is entitled to refund to the extent the refund flows upon adjustment of duty paid on molasses used for manufacture of dutiable output and duty therein paid. In the result, all the five appeals are allowed and refund is to be allowed by Adjudicating authority in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1167
CENVAT credit claimed on the transport service availed to bring the workers to their factory site - Held that:- When the nexus and integral connection of input with the manufacture comes out, it would not be proper to entertain Revenue appeal since no evidence has come from Revenue to impeach the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Such decision can be taken following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut (2010 (11) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ).
There is no finding by the authority as to the absence of the nexus between the manufacture and the input service.Revenue has no material to contradict above proposition of the respondent. Accordingly, respondent is also entitled to CENVAT credit of the air travel agency service availed by it. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1166
Excisablity - rectified spirit which is manufactured from molasses - entitlement to exemption notification 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 - waiver of predeposit - Held that:- Considering that the matter is of legal interest and interpretation of the statute and also keeping in view the order of the Tribunal and also the Apex Court’s decision in of Commissioner Vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (2016 (1) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) as well as the deposit stated above to have been made, subject to verification by Revenue, there shall be waiver of predeposit of balance amount during the pendency of the appeal.
So far as early hearing application is concerned, since stay application has been disposed today that has become infructuous and disposed accordingly.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1165
CENVAT credit on outward transportation charges - denial of claim on the premise that the appellant has not complied with the condition of CBEC circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007 - Held that:- It is a fact on record that the appellant has submitted all the documents i.e. purchase order and invoices before the adjudicating authority in reply to the show cause notice. However, the finding of the Commissioner (appeals) that the appellant has not produced evidence to support their claim, is not tenable. As the appellant produced all the documents to comply with the condition of CBEC circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007. The adjudicating authority was duty bound to consider the same and was required to pass appropriate order
As examined the reply to the show cause notice and the documents produced by the appellant in support their claim. The said documents qualify the condition of CBEC circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007. As such the appellant was duty bound to supply the goods at the buyer’s end and on transportation charges the appellant has paid duty. In the circumstance, thus hold that the appellant has correctly availed the credit on outward transportation charges. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1146
Cenvat Credit - common input services - failure to maintain separate accounts for the use of inputs for dutiable as well as exempted products as required under Rule 6 (3) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- on reversal of the Modvat credit, the Assessee cannot be said to have taken credit of duty on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of final products. When this Apex court judgment is applied to the present case, the Cenvat credit on common services stand reversed with interest, and hence, it is to be presumed as not having been taken up initio. In such a case there will be no justification for any demand under Rule 6 (3) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1145
Assessable value - sales made to related and unrelated persons - Held that:- As going through the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the said order, on the face of it, travels beyond the jurisdiction, inasmuch as it stands challenged before the Appellate Authority by the appellant only in respect of the confirmation of demand of ₹ 96,000 approximately. It is an admitted fact that the part of the impugned order of the Original Adjudicating Authority dropping the demand was not challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), in which case there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to deal with or adjudge the correctness of that part of the order dropping the demand. It also stands admitted before us by the Revenue that there was no cross appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). In such a scenario, we agree with the ld. Advocate that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal before him and is required to be set aside on the said ground itself.
Thus we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration only in respect of the demand involved in the appeal filed by the appellant
-
2016 (7) TMI 1144
Duty liability - whether the respondent is liable to pay duty under section 11 D being a dealer and not being a manufacturer of the goods? - Held that:- The said issue came up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in their own case reported (2011 (9) TMI 434 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) wherein held that the respondent is a dealer and duty is payable by the manufacturer of the goods. In that circumstance, the duty is not payable by the respondents. In that circumstance, no demand is sustainable against the respondent under section 11 D of Central Excise Rules, 1944. We also find from the records, no excess duty has been recovered by the respondents. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1143
CENVAT credit on construction activities denied - denial is only for the road which extends beyond the plant area and upto the main public road - Extended period invoked - Held that:- As find that these are inter-connected roads on which the appellants spent money for construction and accordingly, had bonafide belief of eligibility of credit on such activity without the distinction for inside the plant and or outside the factory gate. In such circumstances, the allegation of suppression or willful misstatement etc. cannot survive. Further, it is an admitted fact the credits availed were all entered in their records and were figuring in the statutory returns also. The lower authorities have also allowed substantial portion of credit on the same activity insofar as it relates to the road inside the factory gate. Considering the above factual position and legal interpretation involved in this case, find that the demand for extended period cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside on this ground. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1142
Cenvat Credit - Input services - whether rent-a-cab services for taking the employees from their residence to the factory and back and also for carrying food for the staff of the company as well as expenses incurred by the company for imparting training to its employees fall in the definition of input services or not? - Held that:- As far as rent-a -cab service is concerned, it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore Vs Stanzen Toyotetzu (P) Ltd [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] above that rent-a-cab service is an input service and therefore credit is admissible. As far as training to the employees of the company are concerned this is specifically included in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Therefore in view of the law the impugned order denying benefit of credit on these two services is not sustainable in law and therefore set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1141
Manufacturing - denial of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs as the processes undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture - Held that:- The Tribunal in the case of Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE New Delhi (2003 (2) TMI 512 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) has held that even if the processes undertaken by the assessee do not amount to manufacture, credit of duty paid on the inputs would still be admissible on export of the said processed input in terms of provisions of Rule 57F(2) and Board’s circular 283/117/96-CE. - Decided in favour of aseessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1140
Determination of roper documents for the purpose of Cenvat credit - duty demand - Held that:- There is no dispute about the duty paid character of the inputs, their receipt by the present respondent and utilization of the inputs. The technical objection raised by the Revenue seems to be only one that Bill of entry was endorsed by the importer in favour of the assessee by the principal manufacturer and such endorsement cannot be accepted. No reference stand made to any of the provisions of law to bar availment of cenvat credit on the basis of endorsed Bill of Entry. It was not the case of the Revenue that part of the goods said deviated to present respondent. The admitted fact is that goods on record are entire imported goods and were in original packing which stand diverted to the respondent along with the signature of Customs officer. It is also seen that the demand was raised against the respondent based upon the objection by the Audit, which objection was very strongly opposed by the Revenue itself. If that be so, we really fail to understand as to how the Revenue would be aggrieved with the present order of the Commissioner dropping the demand.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1139
Levy of penalty - CENVAT Credit - allegation that input was not at all received in the factory of the appellant - Held that:- The appellant had issued Central Excise invoices to the customer and had also reversed the credit. This reveal that they had no intention to evade payment of duty, but the same was due to non - adherance of proper procedures. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that no case has been made out to prove complicity of Vice President in the offence with 'intent'. That appellants discharged the duty liability on the entire imported goods. - As there is no evidence to establish suppression of facts or willful misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty, I am of the opinion that the penalty under section 11 AC cannot be imposed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1138
Cenvat credit eligibility - whether credit is eligible on inputs, when the process does not amount to manufacture? - manufacturing of High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) - Held that:- Once assessee considered the activity as amounting to manufacture and discharged duty liability CENVAT Credit cannot be denied holding that there is no manufacture. See AJINKYA ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III [2013 (6) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI ].
Thus in the present case we have no hesitation to hold that the credit is admissible
-
2016 (7) TMI 1137
Eligibility for Modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods under the then Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that:- An identical matter came up for decision by the Tribunal in respect of the same appellant. The Tribunal in the decision (1998 (3) TMI 311 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA) held that the concept of mobile factory is alien to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no Modvat credit will be available to these items. Following the same ratio, find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1136
Recovery of duty on Printed PVC Films - period of limitation - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent only on the ground of limitation, without recording any findings on the merit of the case. The reasoning recorded by the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order while holding the demand notice barred by limitation, is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Neminath Fabrics Pvt Ltd s case (2010 (4) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ). Therefore, the said finding of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh on merit. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Respondent. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1117
Demand of duty - extended period of limitation - clearances made to Indian Army by the appellant and the hub extension - Held that:- we find on fact that ER-I return for May, 2013 has been submitted on 07-06-2013 and acknowledgement receipt thereof obtained on 10-06-2013. This being so, any notice for alleged infraction of law with respect to the aforesaid invoice should have been issued, and served on the respondent within a period of one year from the date of filing of the said return ie. on or before 06-06-2014. The respondent has produced acknowledgement issue dot them having received the impugned show cause notice dated on 13-06-2014. - Demand is hit by limitation.
Valuation - receipt of additional consideration - Held that:- In any case, to qualify as additional amount, over and above the agreed prices should have passed from the buyer to the manufacturer/respondent of which there has been no proof adduced by the department. Further, even in the Tribunal Final Order dated 30-06-2014 relied upon by the appellant/Revenue treated only project management, documentation, and non-recurring expenditure as includible in the assessable value of missiles etc.
Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1116
SSI Exemption - Dummy units - Clubbing of clearance - it has been alleged that both units were managed and controlled by the Proprietor of the appellant - determination of turnover - SSI exemption notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. - Held that:- Analysing the uncontradicted evidences, we do not harbour any doubt that even though M/s Accurate Engineers, on record, a separate unit, but, its day to day function and management was handled by Shri Asgarali A. Siddiqui, proprietor of M/s Libra Engineering Works and his wife Smt. Halimakatun A. Siddiqui has lent her name as proprietress of the firm. In other words, for all practical purposes, the management/control of the business of manufacture and sale has been handled by Mr. Asgarali A. Siddiqui, proprietor of the Appellant.
In these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the authorities below in clubbing the clearance value of both the units for the financial year 2005-06 in computing the eligible limit of 100 Lacs for the Appellant Unit prescribed under notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and confirmed the duty short paid and penalty imposed. - Demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee.
........
|
