|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 378 Records
-
2017 (10) TMI 1412 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Process amounting to manufacture or not - conversion of iron ore into concentrate - liability of central excise duty - Held that:- The process undertaken by the appellant are not in dispute. There is no special process facility with the appellant. Improvement in the content of “Fe” due to the processes undertaken by the appellant by itself will not make the resultant product as iron ore concentrate - It is clear that process undertaken by the appellant do not amount to manufacture of new product as understood in the industry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1393 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Area based exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - commencement of commercial production - production was started prior to 31.03.2010 and goods were sold to the buyers - Held that:- Undoubtedly, the production was started on 23.03.2010 for manufacture of the polymer based soil stabilizer, ‘Soiltech’. Initially, the assessee-Respondents have used the small tank, as the production was less. Later, as soon as the demand increased, other bigger tanks were used for production.
When it is so, the assessee-Respondents are entitled for the area based exemption as per N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1387 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Rebate claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- The rebate claim could be submitted by the applicant only after export of the goods supported by all relevant documents to establish export of the goods and as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it should have been lodged with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within one year of the relevant date which is 7-1-2010 in this case - Thus the rebate claim should have been filed by the applicant by 6-1-2011. But the applicant has filed the rebate claim on 5-9-2011 which is undisputedly beyond the prescribed period of one year.
The contention that the time limitation is merely a procedural issue and not a substantive law is also not having any force as under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the time-limit of one year is a crucial condition and is not just a procedural requirement.
Decided against appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1381 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - input service - Courier Service which are used for sending documents, samples, finished goods etc. - Held that:- Courier service used for sending documents, samples, finished goods, etc. is held to be an input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR,2004 by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Hylden Glass Ltd. vs CCE & S.T. Vadodara I, [2017 (8) TMI 1217 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and the service tax paid on such service is eligible to CENVAT Credit - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1375 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Condonation of delay of 1233 days in filing Appeal before this forum - Appellant has submitted that the Commercial Manager looking after the Excise and Customs work who had been with the Company since 2010, did not inform the Management about the receipt of the said order - Held that:- Undisputedly, the order has been delivered to the Appellant on 27.7.2013 but the plea of the Appellant is that the Management has not been communicated by the Commercial Manager of the Company who dealt with the Central Excise and Service Tax matters and continued to be in employment thereafter for three years. It is unacceptable logic and cannot appeal to the sense of a man ordinary prudence that the Commercial manager has not communicated the order for more than three years till he left the job on 14.3.2016 and the company did not take action against him for his negligence thereafter.
Delay can be condoned if sufficient cause explaining the delay is demonstrated.
The application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1368 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT credit - Input service - housekeeping service - denial on account of nexus - Held that:- Services in question are vital for keeping the factory, including the shop-floor, machines etc. clean and provides the requisite environment for carrying out the manufacturing process of paper and that the services in question are thus related to the manufacturing activity - Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1366 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in Settlement case - manufacturing and packing of Om Brand unmanufactured tobacco - The levy of Central Excise duty is not on the basis of its clearance but is on the basis of compounded levy scheme for chewing tobacco and unmanufactured tobacco - The Settlement Commission, allowed the settlement on petitioners paying full duty of ₹ 3 crores and only reduction was granted in penalty and protection was granted qua prosecution.
Held that:- The power of the Settlement Commission is essentially probing into the extinguishing circumstances that has been pleaded and examined the material placed before it by the assessee and came to its own conclusion, which is not an adjudicatory powers to access the less power to examine and give its findings qua the fact of the assessee which would indicate that Settlement Commissioner has applied its mind to the aspect pleaded and circumstances placed along with the documents in support thereof.
The Settlement Commission coming to the conclusion on a premise that as per Tobacco machine, Commission is not examining the aspect of consumption of electricity, raw material etc., would paid into insignificance is not borne out by close perusal of the Rules, more specifically Rule 6(iii), who has by way of employment of language i.e. ‘operating machine’, the said would presupposes that there is merely an existence of machine in the factory would in own strength is not making authority entitled to count the machine capacity for slapping the duty and word ‘operating machine’ would receive to take into consideration only the operating machine and even there is a specific plea that machine was not operating, it was bounden duty casted upon to clarify and examine the material placed on record and said material are available or not in that regard, the commission has to give its findings.
The matter is required to be remanded back to the Settlement Commission for its reconsideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1365 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - it was alleged that 504 personal computers were cleared without payment of duty - Held that:- It is seen from the original order as well as the order passed in appeal on the finding that there was clearance without payment of duty, was not based upon concrete material. Invoices are now produced. If these records had been produced before the Adjudicating Officer, probably the Adjudicating Officer could not have come to the conclusion that he did.
The impugned order is set aside insofar as the same relates to the rejection of the claim of the appellant and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer for a fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1360 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Manufacture - galvanizing of the steel products - Job-work - Revenue-neutral situation - Held that:- From the various jurisdictional pronouncements, it has been held that the activity of galvanizing of the steel items amount to manufacture and the same has been stated in the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - Admittedly, the appellant is engaged in the activity of galvanizing which amounts to manufacture.
The appellant is liable to pay duty, therefore, demand of duty alongwith interest is confirmed and as the appellant did not pay the duty in time - the penalty on the appellant is also confirmed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1356 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - closure of factory - Whether the lower authorities have correctly considered the law, for rejection of the refund claim filed by the appellant in respect of accumulated credits which could not be utilized due to closure of the appellant s unit?
Held that:- The judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Slovak India Trading Co. [2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], on the issue, will support the case of appellant being an identical issue, where it was held that Refund of credit is admissible, when there was no manufacture in the light of closure of factory and he has come out of Modvat scheme - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1347 - SC ORDER
100% EOU - benefit of N/N. 23/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 - benefit of drawback on the duty paid on the indigenously procured inputs - Held that: - There is no merit in the present appeal - Admission is refused and the civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1335 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Held that:- Applications for exemption from filing official translation and from filing certified copy of the judgment are allowed - there is no merit in the present appeal and is thus dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1333 - SC ORDER
Classification of goods - Chewing Tobacco - Held that:- There are no merits in these appeals - Admission is refused and the civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1329 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Penalty u/r 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Undervaluation of inputs - irregular availment of CENVAT/MODVAT credit - case of appellant is that neither the Show Cause Notice nor the Adjudication Order has anyway established that the present appellants were responsible for any activity which lead to the allegations in the said Show Cause Notice against M/s Rathi Ispat Ltd. - Held that:- There is no issue framed by the Original Authority in respect of admissibility of the present appellants for imposition of personal penalty under said Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - there are also no finding given on the facts of omission or commission by the present appellants in the present Adjudication Order which made them liable for imposition of penalty - Without any findings, the Original Authority has jumped to the conclusion in Para 10 of the said impugned Order-in-Original 31/03/2007 that the present appellants have willingly schemed and indulged in the fraudulent act of under valuation of the S.S. Billets mis-declaration of S.S. Billets as Other Alloy Steel Billets and misrepresentation of the facts about receipt of Modvat inputs.
There is absence of any finding by the Original Authority about the role played by the present appellants in respect of the allegations made against M/s Rathi Ispat Ltd. - In absence of any finding imposition of personal penalty on the present appellants is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1322 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT Credit - Bagasse emerging as a waste - Revenue is of the view that as respondent is manufacturing bagasse which is an exempted goods and the respondent has not reversed cenvat credit attributable to input service used in bagasse in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004, the respondent is required to pay 5%/10% of the value of bagasse - Held that:- The issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that as a bagasse is emerging during the course of manufacturing of sugar and molasses, is not a manufactured goods. Therefore, provisions of Rule 6 of CCR 2004 are not applicable.
The respondents are not required to reverse cenvat credit on inputs/input service attributable to bagasse. Consequently, is not required to pay 5%/10% of the value of bagasse.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1320 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Interest on Differential Duty demanded - whether Interest is payable when differential duty is paid before passing final assessment? - Held that:- The issue is no more res integra inasmuch as this Tribunal in the appellant's own case CCE (ST) LTU, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. TUBE PRODUCTS OF INDIA [2016 (3) TMI 133 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has held that From the reading of the Rule 7 (4) of CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 2002 it is seen that interest is payable only when any amount is payable consequent to the order for final assessment. When no amount is to be paid consequent to the order of final assessment, sub-rule 4 is not attracted at all - the appellants are not liable to pay interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1311 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - Air Travel Agent’s service relating to Foreign Travel - Held that: - the eligibility of credit of service tax paid on ‘Air Travel Agent service’ is covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Essar Oil Ltd’s case [2015 (12) TMI 1062 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that service in question was 'input service' and the service tax paid thereon would be available to the assessee by way of Cenvat Credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1308 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD``
Penalty u/s 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Rules made thereunder - Held that: - the appellant needs to be visited with penalty in this case under the provisions of Section 11 AC of the said Act as there is no appeal against the finding on merits in the first round of litigation - Appeal to the extent of the excess penalty imposed, more than the duty confirmed, is set-aside - appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1305 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - whether the appellant's Bhachau Steel Unit is entitled to Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA service by their Khambhalia Coke Unit, not registered as an Input Service Distributor(ISD)? - Held that: - the issue is covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Dashion Ltd's case [2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons dis-entitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted.
Also in the Chartered Accountant's Certificate it is categorically stated that the service tax was paid on GTA Service by the Khambhalia coke Unit which had been received and used in their Bhachau Steel Unit, consequently the credit was availed at the Bhachau Steel Unit.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1303 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - GTA service availed for transport of export goods from factory to port - N/N. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007 - Held that: - CBEC has clarified in respect of export the port of export would be the place of removal - neither credit of the said service can be denied nor it can be said that the said services were not availed by the respondent but by the merchant exporter - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
........
|
