|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 301 to 317 of 317 Records
-
2016 (8) TMI 39
Classification of pictures, graphics and images printed on selected material like vinyl coated fabric and films which are non-adhesive and which are used on bill boards and hoardings in outdoor advertisements - classifiable under Chapter 4901.90 or 9405 of CETA - Held that:- In the case of Tanzi Screen Arts Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in [2001 (3) TMI 149 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] , it was observed that, texts, graphics, etc printed on the translucent plastic sheets by means of screen printing to advertise goods and services are classifiable under 49.01 as product of printing industry and not under heading 94.05 as part of illuminated signs not elsewhere specified. - The product in question are to be classified under 49.01 - Decided against the revenue.
-
2016 (8) TMI 38
Interest on delayed payment of differential duty - period of limitation - demand of interest issued after 3 years - At the time of clearance, the Appellants adopted the CAS-4 data of previous year to arrive at the cost of production, and on receipt of the actual data, they re-determined the assessable value and paid the differential duty. - Held that:- It is the contention of the Appellant now before this forum is that the demand for interest since issued in 2012, hence barred by limitation. - following the decision in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd (2013 (8) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT), demand of interest set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 37
Reversal of credit taken on capital goods - removal of capital goods after use of 10 years - period from 1.9.2004 to 13.11.2007 - Held that:- the appellants are only required to reverse the credit calculated in terms of CBE&C Circular cited above. If that is a case then the liability of the appellants is limited to around ₹ 10,000/- whereas they have already reversed over ₹ 97,000/-. In these circumstances, no demand can be sustained against the appellants. The appeal is accordingly allowed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 36
Recovery proceedings against the person who is not alive to defend himself - Evasion of duty - by resorting to under-invoicing and clandestine removal of excisable goods - Held that:- the appellant was sole proprietorship concern and Shri Harilal M. Patel was the sole proprietor of the appellant-firm and he died on 27.12.2011 when the appeal was still pending. Further we find in view of the law cited supra no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the dead person. Therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions cited supra, we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant.
-
2016 (8) TMI 35
Cenvat Credit - input service - out-door catering services - Held that:- In the instant case, as per Factories Act, 1948, the appellants are compelled to provide food facilities inside the factory. It is more importantly used by the appellant to comply with the mandatory requirement under Factories Act. If they do not comply with such provision of the Factories Act, the appellants will definitely not be able to engage in the production / manufacture of final products. Therefore outdoor catering services are used by appellant in relation to the business of manufacture and not for any personal use or consumption of employee. - Credit allowed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 34
Refund - unjust enrichment - valuation dispute was decided in favor of assessee - Pan Masala not containing tobacco and beetle nut not more than 10% - Held that:- In as much as various invoices clearly indicate the quantum of duty charged and passed on to the customers, it is to be inferred that the excess amount of duty now arrived at as refundable has been passed on to the ultimate customers. The various case laws relied upon by the appellant deal with various cases in which the MRPs have remained constant even though there have been variation in the duty rates. In the cited decisions, under different circumstances it has been held that the duty element has not been passed on. But on careful consideration of these case laws we find that the facts of the present case are totally on a different footing from those. Therefore, these case laws are of no help to the appellant.
Appellant failed to passed the test of unjust enrichment - Decided against the assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 33
SSI exemption - use of brand name - Held that:- though the trade mark BONNE was registered in favour of the appellant-assessee with effect from 27.4.2004, they were clearly entitled to use the brand name in their territories assigned to them from 1990 onwards as has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of judgment dated 18.12.91. As such, there is no valid reason to deny the benefit of SSI notification benefit during the period of dispute on account of use of the brand name belonging to some other person.
Our conclusion is further firmed up in the light of the fact that the other branch of the family has already been allowed the benefit of SSI exemption notification while using the same brand in the respective territories assigned to them.
SSI exemption allowed - Decided against the revenue.
-
2016 (8) TMI 32
Classification - Effect of conversion from 6 digit classification to 8 digit classification w.e.f. 1.3.2015 - continuity of exemption for fruit preparations put up in unit containers and bearing a brand name - Held that:- the appellant claimed that the notification of 2005 was not a substitute for earlier notification but was necessitated to give effect to nil rate of duty in the erstwhile tariff as notification No. 6/2002-CE was related to goods packed and presented in the manner described in the tariff; hence the contention of the appellant that the 2005 notification supplemented the earlier notification. It was also brought to our notice that the 2002 notification was rescinded by notification no.2/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 to convince us that the interpretation placed by Revenue was not tenable.
From a reading of the circular dated 25th February 2005, supra, it appears that the exercise of transiting to eight digit code in the tariff was not intended to alter the effective duty structure in any manner. Implementation of this intent was possible only by harmonious reading of the two notifications.
From the factual matrix, it would therefore, appear that notification 3/2005-CE excludes goods of upto 20 put up in a unit container and bearing a brand name because that being already covered by the existing notification 6/2002-CE did not require reiteration.
That the two were intended to operate as mutually exclusive exemptions is also amply clear from the rescinding of the 2002 notification by notification no. 21/2006-CE dated 21st March 2006. The said notification goes on to grant immunity to all acts prior to the rescinding by incorporation of except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such reasons.
Benefit of exemption allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 12
Claim of rebate on export of cigarettes - Held that:- the rebate in case of export of goods secured under area based exemption notification was denied by amending Notification No. 19/2004- CE, for the first time, vide Notification No. 37/2007-CE (NT) dated 17th September 2007. This amendment was prospective. However there was no corresponding amendment in Notification No. 41/1994-CE (NT) dated 12th September 1994 in terms of which the rebate was being claimed by the Petitioner. The Gujarat High Court has in the above decision held that the above amendment to Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) to be only prospective. As a result the exports already made prior to 17th September 2007 could not be denied rebate. Even on this basis the rejection of the Petitioner's refund application does not appear to be justified.
Rebate allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 11
Offences punishable under Sections 9 and 9AA of Central Excise Act - an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner seeking recalling of the witnesses. The same was dismissed - Though the complainant/petitioner pressed an application for withdrawal of show cause notice to Joint Commissioner, Excise but did not bother to examine the witnesses. The petitioner was more concerned about the waiver of the cost imposed and exemption of the Joint Commissioner from personal appearance. - Held that:- no time frame for conclusion of the trial can be fixed however the same does not take away the power of the Trial Court to close the evidence if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant. The decision in P. Ramachandra Rao (supra) and Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak AIR 1992 SC 1701 preserve the right of an accused for a speedy trial. Thus if despite repeated opportunities witnesses are not brought by the prosecution or defense and the Trial Court closes its evidence, it commits no illegality.
During the course of arguments this Court raised a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he was in a position to produce all its witnesses expeditiously on one or two dates, when the learned counsel for petitioner was clueless as it was not even known as to how many witnesses are now available for examination. Considering the conduct of the complainant during trial, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Petition dismissed - Decided against the petitioner.
-
2016 (8) TMI 10
Valuation - appellants carrying out job work on the goods received from the principal manufacturer and after carrying out the carban lining the same were returned to the principal manufacturer. - tribunal has granted stay - demand for the subsequent period raised on the similar issue - Held that:- The show cause notices, dated 05.06.2015 and 26.10.2015, issued by the first respondent shall be kept in abeyance, till the disposal of the Appeals filed by the petitioner as against order in original, dated 28.05.2014. For the subsequent periods, it is open to the first respondent to raise demand, however, the first respondent is precluded from enforcing the same against the petitioner. - Interim relief granted to the petitioner.
-
2016 (8) TMI 9
Classification of flavored milk packed in small pouches instead of bottles called as MILMA SIP - classifiable under Chapter 04.04.90 CET carrying Nil rate of duty or heading 21.05 CET (i.e. Ice Cream and other edible ice whether or not containing cocoa) - Held that:- the product is removed in solid form, in container called insulated boxes . On completion of manufacture, the product is in liquid form, but to preserve without decaying, the same is frozen by keeping it in freezers for about 2 days. The item is kept in shops also, in freezers. The product is actually a solidified liquid and while using it has to be in a liquid form to sip. - There is no nfirmity in the Order-in-Appeal classifying the product MILMA SIP as classifiable under heading 2105 as the said product contains about 75% water, cane sugar, sweetening agents, colours etc. - Decided against the assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 8
CENVAT credit - eligible input services - services received at the division / other office - input service distributor (ISD) - Held that:- there is no scope to have two views regarding the status of ILTD, Guntur, which is factually an integral part of ITC Ltd. In other words, ILTD, Guntur which is an input service distributor registered as such with the service tax wing of the Revenue in Guntur is nothing but ITC Ltd, who is the appellant only, for the purpose of enforcing laws of Central Excise and Service Tax. There have all the proofs been available on record giving clear conclusion that ILTD, Guntur is a part of ITC Ltd., who is the appellant claiming CENVAT Credit for the input services utilised directly or indirectly for the manufacture of the final product of the appellant, when the final product is an excisable commodity and on which the appellant is paying Central Excise duty.
In the certificate of registration dated 8.2.2006 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Guntur, it is clearly mentioned that credit of input services is distributed or intended to be distributed to their manufacturing factories of ITC Ltd. at Bangalore (Karnataka), Saharanpur (Uttaranchal), Munger (Bihar). Consequently, Revenue s argument that input service distributor s operations are within the mischief of Rule 7(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules is without any foundation and is hereby rejected.
Credit allowed - Decided in favor of assesseee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 7
Cenvat credit - various input services - Held that:- all the services for which credit have been claimed under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 already stand allowed in various decisions. Hence, these issues are no longer res-integra. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 6
Claim of interest on reversal of Canvet Credit - credit availed on the Volvo Tippers procured from Volvo - Held that:- he mere taking of non-entitled credit by way of a book entry will in no way cause financial adversity to the exchequer, unless such ineligible credit comes to be utilized. We therefore find that by stretch of imagination can the act of taking ineligible credit, however reversing the entire wrongly taken credit without utilization, be considered as creating a right for the government for forbearance or detention of money, or for that matter, loss suffered because the government had not that use. When credit has been solely taken but not utilized, the effect thereof is as if credit was never taken, since book entry availment of CENVAT account cannot be ever treated as a debit entry. We therefore conclude that only when a debit occurs to such CENVAT account by way of utilization, would the exchequer be adversely affected, since otherwise the assessee would have to pay from account current or cash instead of adjusting from CENVAT account. By implication, in such a scenario, when there is no adverse deprivation to the exchequer, there cannot be a claim of interest that can be latched on to the assessee.
Levy of penalty - Held that:- The proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of penalty should have been accepted and confirmed in toto or not at all. The adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the SCN. This being the case, and especially taking note of the adjudicating authority's own findings that there is no suppression, fraud etc., the said proposal in the notice for imposition of penalty under Rule 15 read with S 11 AC ibid will necessarily have to be dropped. In consequence the penalty of ₹ 60 lakhs imposed by adjudicating authority as aforesaid under Rule 15 of the Rules will require to be set aside, which we hereby do.
Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 5
Maintainability of revenue appeal - Held that:- it is clear that the direction to any Central Excise Officer Authorized by the Committee of Commissioners will, as per Section 35B(2), be necessarily have to be issued by way of an authorization by both the Commissioners constituting the said Committee. This has certainly has not been done. We find that the impugned Authorization dated 25.10.2007 has been signed by only one Commissioner of the Committee. We are afraid that the submission by the AR that the note sheet from the file from which the said authorization was issued was signed by both Commissioners, will not help his case since a note sheet is only an internal file document and certainly not the legally prescribed document envisaged under Section 35B (2) of the Act. - Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (8) TMI 4
Duty liability - job worker is liable to discharge the liability or the principal - related parties - dummy job workers - Held that:- the respondents cannot escape from their liability of payment of Central Excise duty in this case, especially when for the purpose of Central Excise, there is a clear-cut finding that respondents and their job worker viz., M/s. Ashok Bagi and Associates are one and the same having common interest. When the respondents have structure and stratagem in order to evade payment of duty of Central Excise it becomes necessary to go beyond such a structure and stratagem and lift the veil of structure in order to see what are the clear-cut facts; consequently the respondents cannot be allowed to escape, when they have not paid the dues of Central Excise.
However, teir plea of giving benefit of Notification No.8/2003 C.E. dated 1.3.2003 deserves acceptance and the liability of payment of duty for the subject goods has to be computed after granting the benefit of Notification No.8/2003-C.E. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
....
|
