|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 411 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 1666
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed - denial of benefit on the ground that the benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed and exemption granted, appellant having availed CENVAT credit on common input services is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods - Held that:- Identical issue decided in appellant own case INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST VISAKHAPATNAM [2017 (9) TMI 500 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where reliance was placed in the case of DHARAMSI MORARJI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIGAD [2010 (3) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where the very same rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was invoked, where the Bench has held that the provisions of Rules are not attracted in case in hand where CT-3 certificate has been issued - reversal of CENVAT Credit not required - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1659
CENVAT credit - Input services - services provided to job workers while doing their job worker - Rule 4(5) of CCR - Held that: - none of the rules prescribes that the input services on which credit is to be availed have to be used within the premises of the person manufacturing the goods - It is not in doubt that the said services are used in the premises of the job worker who is doing job work on the goods being manufactured by the appellant. Thus it is apparent that the said services have been used for the manufacture of the final product cleared by the appellant though indirectly - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1657
Charges recovered from the customers non added to assessable value - Valuation - Penalty imposed - Held that:- he issue no more res integra and stands settled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai (2000 (3) TMI 74 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI).
Inasmuch as in the present case, the appellant has not been able to show us any evidence to reflect upon the fact that any additional amount was recovered from the customer brought to the notice of the Revenue, the imposition of penalty is justifiable - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1654
Interpretation of statute - scope of the expression 'twelve calendar months’ in N/N. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26th June 2001 - justification foe levy of duty - restriction on validity of 'undertaking' against which exports are effected to the period upto 31st December of the year of issue - levy of Excise duty - Held that:- The expression used in the prescribed procedure is 'twelve calendar months'; a 'calendar year' which, by definition, would be coterminous with the twelve months ending in December. Such a description would restrict the validity to part of such year if issued after the first day of January. Similarly, the expression 'twelve calendar months' would encompass exactly twelve months with any part of month computed as a month. Such expression cannot extend to 365 days which is used for reckoning term of one year.
The possession of a valid undertaking would permit business activity without permanent oversight or scrutiny - In the present dispute, the exports have been subjected to scrutiny arising from suspicion and, except for a technical irregularity, there is no justification for levy of duty.
Duty demand not tenable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1646
Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - time limitation - relevant date - Held that: - As an exporter of goods, the appellant is entitled to claim refund only once every quarter - Law is now well-settled that the relevant date cannot be prior to the last possible date of exports pertaining to the quarter for which refund is claimed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1645
CENVAT credit - subscription to various magazines of different associations - hotel accommodation used for the business of appellant - Held that: - Subscription to journals of different associations being a relevant input for the purpose of promotion and carrying on business that is essentially an input, credit cannot be denied.
Hotel accommodation - Held that: - Revenue has not brought out whether it would fall under the exception category of inadmissibility - in absence of any evidence to show that the expenses are of personal nature and not related to any output or output service, the credit of service tax paid on such service availed is undeniable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1639
CENVAT credit - a part of the amount showing in the invoice has been retained by the appellant in terms of contract towards performance guarantee - Rule 4 (7) of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-II [2017 (1) TMI 373 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that in case of any amount retained or discounted after the invoices were issued, the credit need not be changed and full credit of service tax paid to the service provider will be eligible for credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1629
CENVAT credit - input services - Convention Service - Membership of Club or Association Service - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Rent-a-cab Service - Repair of Motor Vehicle Service - Held that: - in various judgements, the respective services have been held to be ‘Input service’ as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, accordingly, the service tax paid on these services is admissible to credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1628
CENVAT credit - the machine installed in the premises of dealer, undergoing repairs - Held that: - There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was not service provider to dealers. The service brings the appellant as a service provider to the fold of law and the dealer as a recipient of service of the appellant is recognized by the Authority below - the service tax payable for the repair of the machine wherever that is installed makes no difference to law - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1625
Remission of duty - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002 - goods lost in fire accident - rejection of claim on the ground that the appellant did not take reasonable steps to avoid the accident of fire in their factory - Held that: - fire took place in their factory premises due to short circuit as is the reason given by the Chief Fire Officer in his report who himself has stated that the fire took place due to electricity and reason of the fire is due to ignorance of the appellant. Fire due to short circuit is unavoidable due to improper voltage supplied by the Electricity Department or due to electricity failure - The same is unavoidable by taking all reasonable measures to avoid fire.
The fire took place in the factory premises of the appellant was beyond their control - claim of remission of duty cannot be rejected - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1623
CENVAT credit - inputs - Welding Electrodes - Packing and joining - Held that: - the issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of M/s Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 429 - CHHAITISGARH HIGH COURT] wherein it have been held that various items used in repair and maintenance of plant are entitled for Cenvat credit - packing and joining and welding electrodes used by the appellant for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery.
These are inputs to the capital goods - credit allowed - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1554
Pre-deposit - amount paid from un-utilized CENVAT credit account maintained by the appellant - whether the mandatory deposit of 7.5% as per Section 35F (i) of the Central Excise Act is required to be made in cash or the same can be paid by utilizing CENVAT credit account maintained by the appellant? - Held that: - in section 35 it is not specifically mentioned that amount has to be deposited only by way of cash payment - the view taken by the lower appellate authority that the deposit u/s 35F (i) cannot be made from CENVAT credit account, is not correct interpretation of law as long as the CENVAT credit is permitted for utilization under Rule 3 (4) of the CCR, 2004 - matter remitted to the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) for re-considering the case on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1553
Penalty u/s 11AC - undervalued the goods sold from their depots - the respondent had deposited the entire amount of differential duty together with interest - Held that: - The lower authority had not examined the facts of the case in the light of the ingredients under Section 11AC of the Act - the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh with respect to imposition of penalty u/s 11AC of the Act - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1552
CENVAT credit - transmission tower materials - structural parts of the boiler - Held that: - Revenue strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise & Customs, BBSR Vs. Shyam DRI Power [2007 (10) TMI 120 - CESTAT, KOLKATA], wherein it has been held that tower materials are not eligible for Cenvat Credit as they are used for transmission of electricity and not for manufacturing parts and components - on eligibility of the Cenvat Credit on transmission tower materials is required to be examined in the light of the said decision.
Cenvat Credit on structural support - Held that: - the present matter should be looked into after considering the applicability of the larger Bench decision and other decisions as referred by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and use of the items in the manufacture of the final products.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1551
100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground of Time Limitation - section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - though their Lordships in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd., [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], has held that export of software for the relevant period of time was not a taxable service nevertheless it was considered as a product developed and exported by the appellant. It would mean their Lordships had considered the specific product which were exported by a 100% EOU, similar facts arise in these appeals wherein it is undisputed that the respondents are manufacturers and exporters of goods - it is a settled law that the judgment of jurisdictional High Court needs to be followed when there are conflicting views expressed by various High Courts - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1550
Clandestine removal - Penalty u/s 11AC - shortage of stock detected during stock verification - Held that: - Shri Gajanand Sharma, Supervisor and authorized signatory of the appellant, in his statement, admitted the clearance of goods of shortage quantity were not recorded in the statutory records & Registers - it is clearly evident that the goods in question were cleared clandestinely - demand of duty with interest justified.
The impugned order is upheld subject to the appellant being entitled to the option to pay penalty of 25% of duty as determined, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1549
Valuation - advance intermediary licence - includibility of additional consideration - interest - penalty u/s 11AC - Held that: - the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision in the case of RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., RAJKOT [2008 (4) TMI 443 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that the claim that the appellant was having a bona fide belief that the additional discounts are permissible has to be accepted and demand of duty has to be confined to duty within the normal period of limitation. No penalty will be justified - penalty set aside.
Demand of interest prior to 11.05.2001 - Held that: - the Tribunal has set aside the demand of interest for the period prior to 11.05.2001 in the case of AIA Engineering Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II [2014 (9) TMI 1033 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - interest set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1548
Clandestine removal - principles of Natural Justice - appellant submitted that they had supplied the details of Job-workers and payment particulars. But no investigation was conducted - Held that: - the Adjudicating Authority is bound to follow the observation of the Tribunal for the purpose of passing the denovo adjudication - In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority passed the order in total disregard of the remand order of the Tribunal which is a gross violation of principles of judicial discipline. Therefore, the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained - matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority afresh as per the directions of the earlier remand order of the Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1547
Classification of by-product - char-dolachar - whether that impugned by-product char-dolachar, emerging during manufacture of sponge iron will merit classification under CETH 26190090 as maintained by the department or under CETH 27012090 as held by the lower appellate authority? - Rule 3(a) of the General Rues of Interpretation to the First Schedule of the CETA, 1985 - Held that: - There is no dispute that the impugned by-product is emerging during the manufacture of sponge iron. Hence, applying Rule 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation CETH 26190090 is the sub-heading which provides the most specific description for the impugned goods and hence that will have to be adopted. This being so, the application of Rule 3(b) of the rules and the reasoning of essential character of coal fines by the lower appellate authority is misconceived and cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1546
Contempt of Court by the officer - Refund of the amount deposited during investigation - disobedience of order of tribunal - Held that: - this Tribunal finds that Mr. R. A. Singh, the Assistant Commissioner has consciously circumvented and/or disobeyed the order of this Tribunal, which amounts to interference in administration of justice by this Tribunal. Accordingly, this Tribunal is referring a statement of case to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for initiating appropriate proceedings of contempt against the contemor Mr. R. A. Singh.
........
|
