|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 317 Records
-
2016 (8) TMI 1019
Cenvat Credit - Job Work - whether Kraft paper is to be considered as final product or as an input / intermediate product to be sent on job work under Cenvat Rule 4(5) for further manufacture of finished products - Held that:- it is not in dispute that kraft paper manufactured by the respondent in his factory is proposed to be sent to job worker for conversion to carton boxes etc. Hence the final product of this scheme would be the cartons etc. and obviously the kraft paper is the input. Under the circumstances, we approve the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the permission granted under Cenvat Rules 4(5) and 4(6) subject to the usual procedure to be followed. - Decided against the Revenue
-
2016 (8) TMI 1018
Imposition of penalty - trading of goods on commission basis - goods cleared without payment of duty - Held that:- it is found that the role of the appellant against the total quantity of 567.600 MT goods cleared clandestinely, is limited to 316.85 MT and the commission received by them as trader is around ₹ 3.16 lacs @ ₹ 1/- per kg. as claimed. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the penalty on the Appellant from 25 lacs to ₹ 10.00 lacs. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
-
2016 (8) TMI 1017
SSI exemption - Brand name - Whether the goods on which the full rate of duty was paid on sale to particular manufacturers and not treaded in the open market, to be traded as branded goods with in the meaning of brand name defined in the SSI exemption under notification 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.03 - Held that:- in the stay Order No. 162/07/-EX dated 09.02.2007 passed in this appeal reported in [2007 (2) TMI 674 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], a prima-facie view was taken that the assessments of goods during the year 2003-04 has become final and it is not open to revenue to contend that goods assessed to full rate of duty as branded goods in 2003-04 have changed their Character and they became un-branded. The revenue has not advanced any arguments against the said prima-facie view of this Tribunal. Therefore, the said prima-facie view has attained finality as a result the impugned Order–in Appeal is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (8) TMI 1016
Recovery of interest and imposition of penalty - Rule 15 (2) of CCR 204 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - period from the date of availing of credit upto the date of filing of the revised return - simultaneous availment of depreciation under the Income Tax Act and credit under cenvat scheme during the Assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09 - filed revised return for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 on 23.3.2011 on the ground of irregularity found - Held that:- as the appellant duly filed the revised IT return foregoing the benefit of depreciation already availed, and the allowance of credit not being denied by the lower authorities, this, is a sufficient ground for setting aside the penalty. With regard to the aspect of interest, the same is payable as payment of interest is automatic and there is no reason not to levy interest as the Revenue would suffer a loss when interest is not paid. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
-
2016 (8) TMI 1015
Maintainability - lack of jurisdiction of Central Excise officers in Sikar, Rajasthan for initiating action regarding the duty liability of the appellant unit which is located in Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand - Held that:- in terms of jurisdiction of various officers as notified by Ministry of Finance in terms of power conferred by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 the appellant fall under the jurisdiction of Meerut-I Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner Sikar who is falling under the jurisdiction of Commissioner at Jaipur in Rajasthan has no jurisdiction or power to initiate action against the appellant unit. It is seen that the appellant did not take this objection before the lower Authorities. However, since this is a basic legal issue affecting the very legality of the proceedings the same has to be examined by the Tribunal for a decision. Revenue is not able to place on record any legal authority empowering the officers working in Rajasthan to initiate proceedings against the appellant unit in Uttrakhand to determine the eligibility or otherwise of the appellant for a duty benefit.
Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine - seizure of goods and truck - denial of exemption under Notification 50/2003-CE - appellants were not manufacturing the aerial bunched cables in their unit at Uttrakhand whereas procuring these items from elsewhere and carrying out some process of painting, numbering and putting inspection seal and clearing them without payment of duty from their Salodipura Godown in Rajasthan - Held that:- it is noted that if the seized goods were not manufactured by the appellant in their Pant Nagar unit, the question of claiming or denying area based exemption on such goods does not arise. The duty demand, if any, should be against actual manufacturers of the said goods. The actual manufacturer has not been identified. Accordingly, the show cause notice and the proceedings consequent upon the said notice are without jurisdiction and, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (8) TMI 1014
Cenvat credit - service tax paid by the service provider on the services rendered i.e., garden maintenance, gutter cleaning services - Held that:- when an identical issue in respect of the very same assessee is decided by this Tribunal in respect of the eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on garden maintenance and gutter cleaning services, and on a specific question from the Bench as to whether the Revenue has contested the final order, their reply given was that they were not aware of the same; I find that the issue is no more res integra and is covered in favour of the appellant in respect of the Cenvat Credit availed on these two services.
Cenvat credit - carpet cleaning services - Held that:- these service tax credit availed by the appellant may not be eligible as Cenvat credit for the reason that it is not eligible for the appellant. In view of this, the Cenvat Credit availed of ₹ 1,985/- is liable to be demanded from the appellant along with interest. Since the issue involved is of interpretation, no penalty is required to be imposed on the appellant. - Appeals disposed of
-
2016 (8) TMI 1013
Payment of 5% or 10% of the value of exempted goods, i.e., bagasse and pressmud - cleared without payment of duty - Held that:- the issue is covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that bagasse is not excisable, there being no manufacturing process. Bagasse and pressmud is arising during the course of manufacturing of sugar is undisputed. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (8) TMI 1012
Cenvat credit - welding electrodes and gases used in maintenance of plant and machineries used in the factory for producing goods - Held that:- by considering the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010 (4) TMI 429 - CHHAITISGARH HIGH COURT], where it was held that welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for Cenvat Credit and also the Tribunal's decision in appellant's own case reported in [2014 (4) TMI 1144 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], held that they are eligible for Cenvat Credit of duty paid period on the welding electrodes and gases used for repair and maintenance of the capital goods, the appeal is allowed. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (8) TMI 986
Recovery of central excise duty – clearance of sabudana – Exemption Notification No.12/2013-CE dated 01.03.2013 - section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that: - the Government of India by an order dated 15.03.2016, has rejected the petitioner's request for grant of exemption - prayer sought for in the Writ Petitions become infructuous.
Issues raised on grounds of merits – issues raised on grounds of limitation – Held that: - these issues may be left open to be adjudicated upon by the petitioner before the appropriate Forum, on merits as well as on law – petition disposed off – decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (8) TMI 985
Cenvat credit - testing, Handling & Commission, Telephone, Machine maintenance, Insurance relating to depot, Courier, Mobile van, Tax, Hotel rent, Air Travel, Catering, Banking (distributed by ISD) Services used at the depot/C&F agent premises and in relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellant - Held that:- credit has been taken as distributed by the ISD and pertains to various activities intimately connected with the manufacture and sale of cement through depots, C&F agents etc. Such services have been allowed as input services and are squarely covered by several decisions. Credit on insurance services has been sought to be disallowed on service tax paid for insuring the plant and machinery, mining equipments, store material and company vehicles. The credit cannot be denied on the ground that these services are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of cement since insuring the plant and machinery, building etc. would form part of the normal business activity to make sure that they get compensation in the unfortunate event of fire, theft etc. These services have also been held to be permissible as input services in the various cases.
Cenvat credit - R&D Services - incurred towards development of re-active belaite cement which is not the product of the appellant - Held that:- this has been shown to be an R&D activity undertaken by the respondent in pursuance of introduction of new varieties of their final product and hence cannot be denied. Similar issue has been examined by the Tribunal in the case of Cadile Healthcare vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2009 (8) TMI 172 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] where technical testing and analyses services were sought to be denied in respect of medicine which never reached the market. However, it was held that the service will be allowable on the ground that all products taken up by the company for R&D may not reach the customer as a commercial product. We see no reason to take a different view in respect of R&D services of the respondent. - Decided against the Revenue
-
2016 (8) TMI 984
SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - eligibility for benefit - appellant failed to reverse the amount as required under Rule 11(2) - Held that:- the condition precedent of the Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 read with transitional provision under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for opting for the notification at the beginning of the financial year, is that the cenvat credit attributable to the inputs, WIP as well as finished products as on 31st March of the previous year will have to be expunged and the balance cenvat credit available should be allowed to lapse. The duty demands have arisen since the appellant have not done so. Having paid the appropriate amounts on this scores subsequently, we have no hesitation to conclude that the appellant will be eligible for the benefit of notification during the disputed period. Consequently, the proposal for denying the benefit of notification and consequent demands will need to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (8) TMI 983
Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand - Job-work - goods were manufactured out of raw materials supplied by M/s S.B.C.H. and have only received job work charges and on manufacture, corrugated boxes were sent to M/s S.B.C.H. without payment of duty - non-fulfillment of conditions laid down in the Notification No. 214/86 dated 25.03.1986 - Held that:- if the provision for invocation of extended period is to be applied in a particular case separately one of the five ingredients such as fraud, collusion, any willful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of Act or Rules made thereunder needs to be established and also intention to evade is also to be established. It is found that in the present show cause notice revenue could not establish any of the above said 5 ingredients. Therefore, on limitation the show cause notice is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (8) TMI 982
Cenvat credit - Cargo Service and Courier service for despatch of finished goods - Held that:- during the hearing, the appellant placed reliance on the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Lucas TVS and others reported in [2016 (4) TMI 189 - CESTAT CHENNAI], in which many matters have been remanded to the original authority. This judgment being no different from the issue decided by this Tribunal, this matter is also remanded to the original authority to re-examine the issue in the light of the direction given in the aid judgement. Accordingly, the appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matters after taking into account the legal aspects and after affording an opportunity of hearing to prove the appellant’s eligibility of credit. Since these issues are purely interpretative in nature and in the final order referred to by the learned counsel penalty has been set aside, penalty in the instant case is also set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to decide the case afresh on the eligibility of cenvat credit. - Appeal allowed by way of remand
-
2016 (8) TMI 981
Recovery of interest - non payment/delayed payment of duty - Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - reversed cenvat credit voluntarily on POY lying which were received with out reversal of credit - irregular availment of CENVAT credit and non payment of duty - Held that:- the ld. Commissioner has categorically recorded that all these payments/ reversal of credit by unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 3 of the Appellant were made after admitting to the contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as the POY cleared by them, was not covered under the purview of job work Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. Hence, as the appellant has paid the duty/credit amount voluntarily and the same was appropriated in the impugned order then why interest on the same would not be chargeable. In the result, we agree with the Revenue that direction for recovery of interest in the said Para 8(viii) of the impugned order is valid and correct in law. - Appeal disposed of by way of remand
-
2016 (8) TMI 980
Recovery of duty short paid - Job-work - expenditure incurred on behalf of loan licensor towards inspection fees, approval of additional products at FDA etc. - debit notes raised on loan licensor against these expenditures - being loan licensee, discharged excise duty on selling price declared by their loan licensor - Held that:- even though the appellant had argued that once duty is discharged on the basis of selling price declared by the principal manufacturer, that is the Loan Licensors, raising debit notes for expenditures incurred on behalf of their Loan Licensors becomes irrelevant, however, the Appellant could not place sufficient evidences to substantiate the said claim. We also find that this issue has not been properly raised by the appellant before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly not examined by him. In our view, the appellant be allowed a fair chance to raise the issue before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) by adducing sufficient evidences. - Appeal allowed by way of remand
-
2016 (8) TMI 979
Exemption Notification 8/97 dated 1.3.1997 - eligibility for benefit - imported paper cones used for winding of yarn - Held that:- it is found that the Revenue has no case for more than one reason. Firstly, it is evidenced by the respondent that imported paper cones are packing materials by producing letter No. SEEPZ/Gov/187/96/02-03/305 dated 13.5.2003 that the paper cones are packing materials. When the Ministry of Commerce, another Ministry of Government of India, treats the paper cones as packing material explicitly, it cannot be said that they are raw materials as envisaged in Notification No.8/97. Secondly, as correctly held by the first appellate authority, expression raw materials is a material used in manufacture of goods; in the case in hand wherein cotton yarn is manufactured paper cone cannot be held as raw material as it is undisputed that cotton yarn on completion of manufacture is wound on the paper cones. Thirdly, the respondent as well as a Ministry of the Government of India has understood that paper cones are packing materials, and were permitted to import the same as such without payment of duty. - Decided against Revenue
-
2016 (8) TMI 978
Period of limitation - Demand - Woven Fabrics HDPE/PP strips captively consumed - final product was exempted - availed small scale exemption Notification No. 8/98 - Held that:- the appellants availed the benefit of small scale exemption notification with the due knowledge and permission of their Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, who are expected to know about the fact that the emergence of HDPE/PP strips is an inevitable fact for the manufacture of HDPE/PP Woven Fabrics from HDPE/PP granules. In spite of that, no objection was ever raised by the appellants Range Authorities. Apart from that it is also noted that in case duty was required to be paid on the strips, the appellant was entitled to avail credit of duty paid on the granules, which would have neutralized the entire demand on the strips. As such inasmuch as in this Revenue neutrally background, we are of the view that there could be no malafide on the part of the appellant to evade duty, if any.Therefore, the demand is hit by bar of limitation and set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (8) TMI 977
Cenvat credit - CVD on strength of CVD foregone by debit in DEPB scrips - allowed only with issue of Notification No. 96/2004-CUS dated 17/09/2004 - Held that:- the issue is no more res-integra and has been decided by Tribunal that the Appellant has not been to show any notification by which the benefit of CENVAT credit has been expressly denied where the payment of customs duty or additional customs duty is made using DEPB scrips issued in terms of the FTP 2002-07. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (8) TMI 976
Cenvat credit - Member subscription Service - paid subscription to Automotive Components Manufacturers Association (ACMA) for getting business support in respect of participation in exhibitions, technology development and automobile market status etc. - Held that:- the case law relied upon by the appellant in the case of BAL Pharma Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore-I [2014 (10) TMI 564 - CESTAT BANGALORE] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Having regard to the nature of service received, amount involved and the definition of input services, the appellant is eligible for the credit of duty paid by them on “Member subscription Service”. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (8) TMI 975
Correct cost of engines - manufacture of automotive IC engine - cost audit report submitted by the appellant was on the basis of CAS-4 and certified by their Cost Accountant - Held that:- no details for arriving at a different cost than the one submitted by the assessee stand given by the authorities below apart from making wide and blanket observations. We have also gone through the illustrations of CAS-2 for taking up the normal production which allows the average of 3 greater production during the last 5 years. However, the appellate authority has observed that this cannot be adopted inasmuch as the CAS-2 does not talk about duty. We are of the view that the cost of engine has to be arrived at afresh in terms of principles of CAS-4 for which purpose, the assessee as also the Revenue would sit together and would give details by arriving at a particular cost to each other. We are also told that there is a system of appointing the Revenue's own Cost Accountant who possibly can also be engaged by adjudicating authority so as to arrive at the correct cost of the engines. - Appeal allowed by way of remand
........
|
