|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 546 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 2108 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - input services - Outdoor Catering services - period from April 2011 to February 2012 - HELD THAT:- It is found that though the Larger Bench vide in M/S. WIPRO LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-III. [2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE - LB] has held that Outdoor Catering after 01.04.2011 is not an ‘input service’ and therefore, cenvat credit is not available, but in the present case one of the invoices is prior to 01.04.2011 and service tax of Rs. 34,315.91 was paid on Catering Services prior to 01.04.2011 and therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T., MEERUT-II [2015 (11) TMI 717 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it is opined that the appellant is entitled to the cenvat credit of Rs. 34,315.91 as the same relates to the period prior to 01.04.2011.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 2095 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Levy of Excise Duty - body cover of the diesel generating sets - demand is confirmed against the appellant who is the principal manufacturer - evasion of duty - HELD THAT:- The appellant is receiving the acoustic enclosures (cover) which is manufactured by M/s. SBN Engineering Works as job worker on the request of the appellant who is the principal in the instant case. Regular payment is being made by the appellant to the job worker. Principal manufacturer i.e. the appellant has not given any undertaking to take the responsibility for payment of the duty. At the same time, the job worker has also not paid the duty.
To protect the interest of the Revenue, the duty will have to be paid by someone. In the instant case, the appellant is the principal and by not giving the undertaking, the appellant has developed a system to evade payment of Central Excise duty. By connivance of two parties, sovereign function of payment of duty cannot be avoided - In the instant case, the principal and the job worker with a conspiracy as stated above have made an attempt to evade the payment of duty. They tried to take advantage of the technicality of the law.
There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is hereby sustained - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 2067 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Scope of Jurisdiction - Whether the pendency of appeals before CESTAT debars the respondent from prosecuting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if so, whether the proceedings on the file of Special Judge for Economic offences, Hyderabad are liable to be quashed? - Section 9 of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- The scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is limited and this Court at this stage cannot appreciate the facts on record, but verify and conclude that if the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitutes any cognizable offence, the Court shall not quash the proceedings since the powers of this Court are limited to give effect to the orders passed under the Code, to prevent abuse of process of Court or to meet the ends of justice.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 - If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious.
The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when appeals are pending against the orders passed by the Commissioner, the Criminal Proceedings cannot be continued and liable to be quashed since the finding of the CESTAT will have its own bearing on the criminal prosecution, if for any reason CESTAT concluded that these petitioners did not avail “Cenvat Credit” on the alleged fake bills, then the prosecution is liable to be ended in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the criminal prosecution during pendency of appeals, against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court as an arm twisting method to collect penalty and duty levied as per the order passed by the Commissioner - When a criminal prosecution is launched during pendency of appeals, in the criminal case all the ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in order to secure the conviction of the accused. The criminal court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Act having a bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed under the Act. It does not, however, mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal court. The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it.
It is a fit case to stay pronouncement of judgment in C.C.No.132 of 2017 while permitting the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad to try the accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act - there are no ground to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.132 of 2017 on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad, since I find prima facie material against these petitioners to constitute offence punishable under Section 9 of Central Excise Act and that initiating criminal prosecution against these petitioners during pendency of appeals before CESTAT does not amount to abuse of process of Court - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 2007 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Railway Track Materials - Lighting Equipments - Fittings and Fixtures - Refractory Cement Blocks - Plates - Welding Electrodes under Chapter 8311 - Steel Items-Beams falling under Chapter 72 - HELD THAT:- We are not able to persuade ourselves to take any different view of the matter than the one which has been taken by this Court in the matter of AMBUJA CEMENTS EASTERN LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR [2010 (4) TMI 429 - CHHAITISGARH HIGH COURT] where Welding Electrode has already been considered to be input for allowing CENVAT Credit.
This appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1969 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Valuation - sealing of machinery and closure of operation - case of Revenue is that once a machine is installed, it shall be determined to be an operating packing machine - HELD THAT:- We are not in position to appreciate the argument of Revenue that once a machine is installed, it shall be treated as operational machine even if the machine was sealed in such a manner that it became unoperative. We do not find any merit in the grounds raised by Revenue.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1947 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Setting up a TASMAC shop - HELD THAT:- The writ petitions are disposed of recording the undertaking of the learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the official respondents that the objection raised by the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1933 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - input services - service tax paid on sales commission - scope of sales promotion mentioned under the inclusive part of the definition of input service prescribed under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - matter pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of this Tribunal in M/S ESSAR STEEL INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, SURAT-I [2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - HELD THAT:- 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 filed by the Revenue - Appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1898 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - Prohibition on assessee from utilising cenvat credit for payment of excise duty for default in payment of duty - Power of Authority to frame Rules - HELD THAT:- Today a notice is issued on this matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter the case status reveals that it is pending.
We grant liberty to both sides to mention them after the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivers its verdict in the pending proceedings.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1895 - SC ORDER
CENVAT credit - validity of proviso to Rule 3(4) - vires of Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order is allowed.
Leave granted.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1894 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Restoration of appeal - case of Revenue is that the applicant has voluntarily withdrawn the appeal and once he has withdrawn the appeal, the said appeal cannot be restored - HELD THAT:- The applicant has voluntarily withdrawn the appeal filed by him before this Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 20.12.2016, the appeal cannot be restored on the ground that the Revenue’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) has been allowed subsequently. Moreover, the Commissioner has only remanded the matter to the original authority and the applicant is at liberty to defend the case before the adjudicating authority.
There is no reason to restore the appeal - application dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1892 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law - Whether the ld. CESTAT was right in law in holding that the Cenvat Credit of Goods Transport Agency services for outward transportation of goods beyond the place of removal is eligible within the meaning of ‘input service’ as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
Issue notice to the respondent - The matter is fixed for final hearing on 14th March, 2018.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1883 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Benefit of N/N. 33/99-CE dated 8.07.1999 - Refund of excise duty - time limitation - Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The appellant having been once found to be eligible for exemptions and refund of duty paid, denial of benefit of exemptions and refund on the ground of delay, in our considered opinion, will cause grave injustice which cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that non-following of procedural requirement cannot deny the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the assessee. Also exemptions made with a beneficient object like growth of Industry in a Region have to be liberally construed and a narrow construction of the Notification which defeats the object cannot be accepted.
The impugned order of the Tribunal is not based on correct appreciation of the provisions of Notification and denial of refund (of duty paid) to the appellant on the ground of delay is wholly unjustified. We also hold that statements of duty paid submitted in RT-12 returns by the appellant was substantial compliance of Clause 2(a) of the Notification and there was no need for it to submit a separate statement of the duty paid and claim refund.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1869 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Valuation - product Special Denatured Spirit - product transferred to other units for manufacture of further products which have also been cleared on payment of duty - Held that:- There is no allegation in the SCN that the appellant have valued their goods, transferred to other units, at a value lesser than the value as per CAS-4 standards - the SCN is vague - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1854 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT Credit - input services - CHA services - Port Services - lab analyses charges - Held that:- Te Lower Authorities were in error in denying the Cenvat Credit to the appellant in respect of the Service Tax paid on C&F charges, CHA services which were undoubtedly in respect of goods cleared for export. It is the settled law, the goods which were cleared for export on, and the place of removal is considered on the port for export. It is the view of the C.B.E. & C. in Circular No. 267/13/2015-CX8, dated 28-2-2015.
Service Tax paid on the lab analyses charges - Held that:- The appellant has been claiming from the adjudication level that the said lab analysis on in respect of water charges which were used for manufacture i.e. fungisides cleared for export - these services are rendered in relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellant.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1826 - CESTAT BANGALORE
SSI Exemption - threshold limit for exemption - supply made to the job worker exceeding ₹ 25 lakhs limit - Held that:- The N/N. 35/2003 grants exemption up to ₹ 25 lakhs. In the instant case, appellant’s job worker M/s. Dinesh Weaving Mills has crossed the limit of ₹ 25 lakhs. When it is so, then the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 35/2003, dated 30-4-2003 - In the instant case, the aggregate value is more than ₹ 57 lakhs in the case of job worker M/s. Dinesh Weaving Mills. Thus, the statutory limit of ₹ 25 lakhs has been crossed. When it is so, then the appellant is not entitled for the exemption.
Impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1797 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Maintainability of appeal - non-Compliance with pre-deposit on the part of Director - case of Revenue is that Director being a separate legal entity against whom penalty has been imposed, is required to make separate pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F - Held that:- Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, payment of deposit at the rate of 7.5% of the demand is mandatory before the appeal can be entertained - the Private Limited Company as well as its Directors are to be considered as separate entities and since separate penalties have been imposed, the Director is required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty imposed on him before the appeal filed by him can be entertained - application dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1796 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Benefit of N/N. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 - Process of manufacture of decorative plywood/fibre board, flush doors, panel doors etc. - Held that:- The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Simba FRP (P) Ltd. [1999 (12) TMI 452 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] held that the process of manufacture of doors are different. Both are classified under separate heading not only in the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) but also by the Customs Tariff Act. The flush doors and panel doors are technically and commercially different processed. In the market among dealers, builders, construction engineers, architects, etc., both items are identified separately and used differently.
Both doors are different - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1794 - CESTAT BANGALORE
SSI exemption - after crushing chillies, the chilly powder is being sold - claim of appellant is that the process do not amount to manufacture and not included the above in calculation of SSI turnover - Held tat:- The crushing of the chilly is not amount to manufacture. When it is not amount to manufacture, then it is not subject to excisability and the value of the same cannot be included for the purpose of the SSI limit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1793 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT Credit - appellant engaged in manufacturing and trading activity - Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR 2004 - Held that:- The appellant have prevented from leading evidence in support of their contention that they have taken only proportionate Cenvat credit as permissible under Rule 6(1), and as such the provision of Rule 6(3) were not attracted.
Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of MIRC Electronics Ltd. vs. CCE, [2013 (11) TMI 1422 - CESTAT MUMBAI].
Appeal allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority, who shall after hearing the appellant pass a reasoned order.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1776 - SC ORDER
Appellant prays for and is permitted to move the learned Tribunal for reconsideration of the impugned order insofar as the issue with regard to invocation of the extended period of limitation is concerned - appeal disposed off.
........
|
