|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 338 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 1458 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Refund claim and CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the services used in unregistered premises - HELD THAT:- This Court held that the aforesaid question has come up for consideration in Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate Vs. M/s Atrenta India Private, [2017 (4) TMI 563 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein this Court was of the view that the refund could not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises - It was held that even otherwise, Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not contain a condition precedent that input services have to be received at a registered premises of the output service provider only.
The aforesaid question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1437 - SC ORDER
Demand of service tax - Security Agency and Manpower Recruitment Agency Services - demand raised on the ground that the appellant provided the said services to their clients - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1370 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of action of the Appellants in not releasing the Low Tension (domestic) Power Supply - HELD THAT:- The facts of this case are similar to that of NESCO v. Raghunath Paper Mills (P) Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT]. The tender/sale notice mentioned that the property was being auctioned on "as is where is" basis. The First Respondent applied for a fresh connection and he is in no way connected to the past owner. He has also not undertaken to pay the past arrears of the previous owner.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1369 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - M.S. Ingots - demand based on presumption and surmises - unrealistic electricity consumption, high cost of production vis-à-vis income from sale, unrealistically low amount of expenditure towards salary of employees and though manufacturing activity incurs losses - HELD THAT:- This Court is remanding the matter to the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi. This Court is not much going into detail of further arbitrariness in the Order-in-Original about the lower remuneration to the employees of the petitioner-unit as well as the manufacturing unit is running in loss and the profit is made from non-core activities etc. There appears to be very high sounding reasons, but, if they are viewed with zoom lens camera, it appears that nothing is proved by the respondents. “Low remuneration” is a relative word and therefore, statement of the employees of the noticee, ought to have been reduced to writing by the respondents-department. If the employees are stating that they are getting more remuneration than what is shown in the books of account by the noticee, then these statements ought to have been reduced in writing and they must be referred in the show cause notice. Copies of the gist of the statements should be given to the noticee and those employees must be kept to have been followed by the respondents department. Instead of doing this exercise, allegation has been levelled that there is low remuneration paid by the noticee, is not sufficient at all.
The Order-in-Original is based upon mere presumptions and possibilities, and, nothing has been proved at all by the respondents, especially unaccounted manufacturing of M.S. Ingots and the clandestine removal thereof.
The documents which are referred to in the show cause notice and relied upon, should have been supplied to the petitioners. These documents are :- Nucleus Group report. The document has been referred in the show cause notice dated 7-2-2014 (Annexure-1). Imaginary is the basis of the show cause notice and without proof, the Order-in-Original has been passed in the same breath.
The matter is remanded for adjudication of the show cause notice dated 7-2-2014 and the matter will be decided afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1350 - SC ORDER
Refund claim - Section 11(BB) of the Central Excise Act - it was noted by High Court that the departmental authorizes has now discharged the responsibility under Section 11(BB) of the Central Excise Act.
HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1336 - SC ORDER
Duty liability - job worker is liable to discharge the liability or the principal - related parties - dummy job workers - HELD THAT:- There is no merit in the present appeals - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1326 - SC ORDER
Checks on delays - Maintenance of 'Call Book' - Whether Circular No.162/73/95-CX dated 14th December, 1995 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is in conformity/authorized by the provisions of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules?
HELD THAT:- Issue Notice.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - lack of jurisdiction - case of the petitioner is that he appeared before the authority in August 2003 and submitted written submissions and the personal hearing was adjourned to September 2003 and even assuming that the personal hearing was held on 18.09.2003, the impugned order could not have been passed on 31.08.2003 - HELD THAT:- There is no explanation for this gross error committed by the authority, as no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Since this Court is convinced that the impugned order is to be set aside on the above ground, the other issue regarding jurisdiction is left out.
The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to take a fresh decision in the matter, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1282 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of a statutory alternative remedy - breach of the principles of natural justice - Held that:- Non-consideration of a relevant judgment by the adjudicating authority can be said to be an act in breach of principles of natural justice. Esser Steel [2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] is relevant to the facts of the present case on the issue up for consideration before the adjudicating authority. In fact, in another proceedings as appearing from the supplementary affidavit, the adjudicating authority had taken into consideration the ratio of Esser Steel (Supra) and had held in favour of the assessee. Claim against the petitioner in the show-cause notice is similar to the one decided by the adjudicating authority as appearing in the supplementary affidavit.
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on merits - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1267 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - input service - service received from M/s. Ambit Corporate Finance Ltd., Mumbai, for assisting sale of 5 units of M/s. Bright Brothers Ltd., at various places - case of Revenue is that the above service received by the head office of the 2nd respondent herein, had no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the 2nd respondent.
Whether the CESTAT is correct in allowing the said credit without giving any finding as to how the said service qualifies as an input service, but on only the ground that the Commissioner (A) has not ruled out the relevancy of the service? - Held that:- The order of the Tribunal is a non-speaking order, with reference to what is claimed by the 2nd respondent and denied by the Department - Needless to state that CESTAT is the final fact finding authority, and obligated to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and arrive at a conclusion, instead of applying general principles. Going through the material on record, we are of the view that general principles in transfer of Units, have been applied by the Tribunal.
The matter is remitted to CESTAT, Chennai, for consideration, on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1264 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Substantial question of law - sale of cement - includibility of freight charges in assessable value - place of removal of goods - Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- The Tribunal categorically found that the purchase orders showed that the supply of cement is at the premises of the customers. This means that the supply has to be effected by making delivery of the goods in the premises of the customer to conclude the sale of goods. That position notwithstanding, the Tribunal further noted that the freight is arranged and paid by the Assessee. The Tribunal also noticed that the freight charges are treated as integral part of the price of the goods. With these materials the Tribunal held, on facts, that the place of removal of goods cannot be treated as the factory gate of the Assessee but the delivery point, which is the door or premises of the customer.
Even if no reference was made by the Tribunal to the precedents referred to in para 3 of the impugned order, the conclusion could not have been otherwise - there is no question of fact or of law, much less a substantial question of law for the purpose of Section 35G of the Act - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1259 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - input services - miscellaneous service - employee retention service - personnel profile service - period prior to 27th February 2010 - period thereafter till 30th March 2012 - Held that:- The payment of tax while discharging the consideration made over to the service provider is not in dispute.
Appellant is a manufacturer of packaging machines and it is claimed that the services pertain to certain aspects of human resource management. On a perusal of the invoices which had been submitted along with appeal, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that these services were not connected with the manufacturing process nor has any explanation backed by acceptable evidence been adduced by the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1256 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Quantum of penalty - Section 11AC(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Explanation 1(ii) thereof - Held that:- Explanation 1(ii) to Section 11AC(1)(d) of the CE Act makes it clear that the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the maximum penalty of 15% of the duty demanded.
In other words the penalties awarded to the petitioners by the Commission required to be re-worked in terms of the above provision by ensuring that it does not cross 15% in the aggregate of the total duty demanded - While setting aside the penalties awarded by the Commission by the impugned order, the Court directs that application of the petitioners will once again be listed before the Commission on 10th August, 2017 for the above purpose - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1243 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Sale of cement in 50 kg. bags - Concessional rate of duty - N/N. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - institutional sales - Held that:- An identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case DALMIA CEMENTS (BHARAT) LTD. VERSUS CCE [2008 (12) TMI 683 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that no RSP requires to be printed on the goods sold to ‘industrial/institutional consumers’ as defined under the rules framed under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and that such goods would be covered under Sl. Nos. IB and IC of N/N. 4/2006-C.E. by virtue of the second proviso to the Explanation to Sl. No. 1C of the Notification as amended - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1225 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Condonation of delay - Prayer for adjournment - adjournment sought on the ground that their advocate is out of station - Held that:- Since there is a delay of 16 years in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, who has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, after the statutory period of 60 days in filing the appeal, I find anything wrong in the orders passed by the first appellate authority - The impugned orders are correct and legal and do not suffer from any infirmity - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1224 - SC ORDER
Appeal u/s 35-B – authorisation by the Committee of Commissioners - Held that:- There are no reason to entertain these Special Leave Petitions, which are, accordingly, dismissed
-
2017 (7) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER
Whether Circular No.162/73/95-CX dated 14th December, 1995 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is in conformity/authorized by the provisions of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules?
Held that:- Issue Notice.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1214 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Remission of Duty - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that:- The appeal was preferred against the case of RALTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA [2008 (3) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Hon’ble High Court have set aside the aforementioned final order of this Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to both sides in accordance with law.
Accordingly, registry directed restore the Appeal in the case of RALTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA [2008 (3) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] in the records and tag the same with the present appeal and put up both appeal together on 1st September 2017 for final hearing.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1212 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of goods - ‘Nivaran 90’ - Held that:- The appeal is of the year 2001 and it has been pending before the Tribunal for more than a decade. Ahead of the transition of Indirect Tax to GST, this Tribunal has been given a mandate to dispose of all old cases at least prior to 2007.
It would be appropriate and prudent to close the file for the purpose of statistics - the appeal is disposed as file closed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1211 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - service tax paid on sales commission - Held that:- In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ashapura Volclay Ltd and others vs. C.C., Jamnagar [2017 (6) TMI 659 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] following the principle laid down by the Larger Bench, disposed of the matters, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal after disposal of the cases pending before the higher forum.
Following the said judgment, the present appeals are also disposed of with the liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal soon after the verdict of the Hon’ble High Court in the pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of this Tribunal in Essar Steel India Ltd. s case [2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] filed by the Revenue.
Appeal disposed off.
........
|
