|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 338 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 1207
Implementation of final order in the case of TYCON AUTOMATION PRIVATE LTD., SHRI DINESH KUMAR BHARDWAJ, TYCON AUTOMATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., NOIDA [2016 (12) TMI 1456 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] - Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that:- It is clear-cut case of disobey once and non-implementation of order of this Tribunal by the Assistant Commissioner.
The notice issued to the concerned Assistant Commissioner (Mr. R.A. Singh) to show cause- ‘why the proceedings for Contempt be not drawn against him and referred to the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The concerned Assistant Commissioner shall file written reply or compliance report on or before 5th September, 2017.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1203
Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant is a commercial concern as per section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1944 and is liable to pay service tax for the period from 1.7.2003 to 1.3.2005 of ₹ 36,935/- whereas the appellant was working as an individual, in getting investments in mutual funds on commission basis?
Appeal is admitted on this substantial question of law.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1201
Classification of goods - wash powder (Amla and Shikakai) - appellant claimed that this is a medical preparation but the Department considered it is a cosmetic.
Held that:- For the earlier period, in assessee’s case, the issue came up before the Tribunal HERBAL HOUSE VERSUS C.C.C. EX & S. TAX, BHOPAL [2016 (12) TMI 533 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Santhan vs. C.C.E.,Lucknow [2004 (10) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that A product may be medicinal without having been prescribed by a Medical Practitioner. It was also not necessary for a person manufacturing medical products to claim classification under Tariff Heading 3303.031 without establishing that the product had in fact been tested on patients in controlled situations or that the outcome had not been tested for effectiveness. This would be particularly true in the cases where the products are claimed to be based on traditional ayurvedic formulae.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1192
Whether the Customs, Excise Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the revenue was not entitled to extended period of limitation?
Held that:- The Tribunal has rendered the impugned decision by considering the relevant facts and materials. The decision so rendered is fundamentally in the realm of questions of facts and do not generate any substantial question of law to be answered in favour of the Revenue in this appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1186
Cargo Handling Service - Held that:- Despite the fact that there is a delay of 2237 days in filing the present appeal for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, we have gone through the matter on merits - There is no merit in this appeal - appeal dismissed on ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1184
CENVAT Credit - Waste - coke fines - whether coke fines, which is admittedly a waste product which is generated as a result of manufacturing process carried by the respondent through its establishment is exigible to tax? - Held that:- Adverting to the provisions contained in Rule 6 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and the concept of input and output as emerging out of the definition clause of those Rules, it is evident that the Tribunal had not misdirected itself in arriving at conclusion that coke fines are part of waste resulting out of the manufacturing process in the establishment of the respondent and cannot be subjected to levy or be required to be accounted in term of [Rule] 6(2) or 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Ru1es - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1178
Classification of manufactured goods - Dhatri Brand Hair Care Herbal Oil - Dhatri Brand Massage Oil - Department sought to classify the Hair Oil and the Massage Oil under Central Excise Tariff Heading 3305 and 3304 respectively as cosmetics - whether the products would be classified as cosmetics or as ayurvedic products? - Held that:- There are judgements available on both sides.
In the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur [2005 (4) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the matter in favour of the appellant and considered the Hair Oil as Ayurvedic product - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1162
CENVAT Credit - input services - Rent a Cab service - Aviation Service - denial on the ground that after the amendment to the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, under exclusion clause such services cannot be held to be cenvatable input services - Held that:- The issue of availability of credit in respect of rent a cab service was subject matter of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Marvel Vinyls Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore [2016 (11) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and it was held that the same would be available to the assessee using such services in the course of their business - credit allowed.
Aviation Service - The payments of the said services have been made by the Company and these facts leads to inevitable conclusion that the chartered flights were hired for the movement of the employees etc., and not for individual persons - credit allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1157
Interest on delayed Refund of duty - abatement of duty due to non production of notified goods from 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011 under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty Rules) 2010 - rejection on the ground that there is no provision for grant of interest under Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules - Appellant also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Prem Products vs. CCE, Agra [2017 (9) TMI 1541 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] in which Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity determination and collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 were in issue and there also the appellant therein claimed interest for delayed refund.
Held that:- There is no change in the 2008 Rules and 2010 Rules so far as the issue in the present matter is concerned - In this matter, there is delay in refund of duty from 21.3.2012 to 19.10.2016 and there is no dispute that the appellant had claimed interest on delay refunds after three months from 21.12.2011 i.e. from 21.3.2012 under Section 11 BB of the Act and the same has been recorded in the adjudicating order also and the same has only been denied on the ground that this Tribunal has not directed for payment of interest on delay refund and also that there is no provision for grant of interest under Rule 10 of 2010 Rules.
Merely because the interest on refund is not directed doesn’t mean that it has been refused or rejected.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1143
CENVAT credit - certain steel products as capital goods - welding electrodes - principles of natural justice denied - Held that:- The lower authority have not given consideration to the alteration in the eligibility for entitlement for CENVAT credit of capital goods with effect from July 2009 in relation to the particular claim to the appellant. This requires a re-examination to facilitate which, the impugned order is set aside and the matter referred back to the original authority for a re-determination - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1141
Clandestine removal - the appellant had not participated either by submission of reply or by personal appearance in the second round of proceedings - Held that:- The very same grounds that the appellant had preferred before the first appellate authority are the ones preferred in this appeal. All these have been adequately and sufficiently addressed by the first appellate authority and, in the absence of any further submissions made in relation to or in the grounds of appeal, the appeal itself is without merit - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1136
Goods re-exported under bond - failure to produce proof of export - N/N. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26th June 2001 - Held that:- The procedure prescribes that the merchant-exporter is required to obtain CT-I certificate from the Central Excise officers concerned against which goods are supplied without payment of duty and for which bond is required to be furnished. It is the merchant-exporters who are required to pay the duty on such goods, along with interest, if the same are not exported - the contentions of the appellant that they are not responsible for failure to comply with procedure on the part of the merchant-exporter is tenable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1135
CENVAT credit erroneously taken - Recovery u/s 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - amount under rule 6 (3) (i) of CCR 2004 not paid - demand of Interest and penalty - restriction of recovery on the ground that the SCN pertaining to incorrect availment of credit of tax paid on procurement of several services during certain months between April 2011 and February 2012 was not founded on facts - Held that:- It is observed that the disputed amount pertain to the one service which the appellant had, upon notice, reversed the ineligible amount. Furthermore, it has also been established by them that the amounts of credit which had been taken is far less than the amount which was reversed - demand of interest set aside.
Penalty u/s 11AC of CEA, 1944 - penalty imposed on the ground that the change in practice had not been intimated to the jurisdictional authorities - intention to Evade - Held that:- It is an admitted fact, and accepted by the adjudicating authority, that the excess CENVAT credit of ₹ 3,76,071/- had been taken inadvertently. The show cause notice contains no evidence to support the allegation of intent to evade duty nor is there any finding to that effect in the adjudicating order - penalty do not sustain.
Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1134
Recovery of duty on goods lost in Floods - appellant had sought remission of duty on finished goods but pending - Held that:- It would appear that the remission of duty on goods lost in the flood is as yet pending before the competent authority. In these circumstances, the demand for recovery of duty on finished goods was premature and such payment would become obligatory only on disposal of application for remission - The matter is, therefore, remanded to the original authority for re-computation of the duty liability on finished goods to the extent that it is not covered by remission of duty accorded by the competent authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1133
Invocation of section 11AC without demand of duty - failure to pay duty of Excise - availment of privilege of monthly payment of duties despite the legal restrictions - Penalty u/r 25 of CER read with section 11AC of CEA - Confiscation, whether pre-requisite for invoking section 11AC or rule 25 or not? - Held that:- The appellant, having cleared the goods without payment of duty in the manner specified and by concealing the facts from Central Excise authorities, had rendered the goods liable to confiscation and themselves liable to be penalised under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that ingredients of section 11AC, having thus been reasonably invoked, cannot be faulted.
The plea that confiscation is a necessary pre-requisite is not backed by the provisions of either section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 or rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002. - Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1132
Ex-parte order - Clandestine removal - art silk fabric - failure of appellant to participate in the proceedings - active partner during the relevant time expired in 1978, that the business had since been closed with licence surrendered - Held that:- The impugned order has merely affirmed the order of the lower authority on the ground of failure of appellant to participate in the proceedings. Consequently, the order merely reiterates that was set aside by the erstwhile appellate authority without reconsidering the aspects directed by that authority. Moreover, the remand direction of the Tribunal has also been ignored - the impugned order is not consistent with the directions issued at the time of remand - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1131
Return of Notice - assessee-appellant has never bothered to inform his latest address - Held that:- The appellant-assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal - It may be mentioned that as per the maxim VIAILATIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT, law helps those who are vigilant and not those who go to sleep - appeal dismissed for default.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1124
Clandestine removal - shortage of stock - goods were found lying in another plot of job-worker - Revenue entertained a view that the goods kept at the said Plot when actually removed in a clandestine manner from the factory premises of M/s TSL, and were stocked at the said plot for its subsequent sale without any payment of duty.
Held that: - the goods as sent out on job work, were found lying in another plot of the job worker, namely M/s Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. It is also admitted fact that the goods sent on job work are properly accounted for, in the records of the respondent-assessee. The goods were lying in another plot of the same job worker only for the sake of convenience - the allegation of clandestine removal does not stand and must fail.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1122
CENVAT credit - Rule 16 of CER - the goods were received after rejection from the customers and returned to the factory at Sahibabad - Held that: - there is no basis for the allegations of the revenue that the goods or finished goods cleared by the appellant have not been received back, even except assumption and/or presumptions - appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1121
CENVAT credit - capital goods received prior to the date of registration - Held that: - it is evident from a plain reading of Rule 6(4) that it carves out an exception with respect to the factories or the assessees whose product is otherwise dutiable but are enjoying exemption based upon value or quantity of clearance in a Financial Year - Learned Commissioner have erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the Cenvat credit as they were not manufacturing any excisable goods, prior to the date of registration - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
