|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 470 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 1329 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund claim - finalization of provisional assessment - relevant date - doctrine of unjust enrichment - Whether the 2nd respondent was right in holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to any claim for refund of duty consequential to finalization of provisional assessment for any period prior to 25.06.99, as the refund claim in the subject case was consequent to finalization of Provisional Assessment on 30.10.2000 for the period 1998-99 especially considering that the amendment to Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 was brought with effect from 01.08.98 whereby refund consequent to finalization after 01.08.98 would be covered by the provisions of Section 11B ibid?
Held that: - a similar issue came up for consideration, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I, Vs. Dollar Company Private Limited, [2015 (2) TMI 346 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], after analysing Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, which relates to claim for refund of duty, other provisions and following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. TVS Suzuki Limited, [2003 (8) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that the relevant date will be the date of adjustment of the duty after final assessment made thereof. In this case, consequent to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the refund claim was made. Therefore, it is clear that the date is well within the time stipulated under Section 11B and there can be no dispute raised by the Department on this aspect.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1328 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - principles of natural justice - copies of the “un-relied upon documents” were not given - Held that: - It appears that the Kacchi Parchies show the purchase of raw material both by the assessee-Appellants as well as by some other unit. The details of purchase of the raw material were available on Kacchi Parchies. Further mention of the word „SCRAP‟ on the Kacchi Parchies shows that it was for the manufacture of the aluminium wire as well.
The allegation of the assessee-Appellants that non-relied upon documents were not supplied, it appears that initially they have requested for the same, but, later, during the course of personal hearing dated 18.07.2014, they have not pressed for the same - there was no justification for grant of the cross-examination, as rightly observed by the lower authorities. Further, no request for cross-examination of any person was made during the personal hearing held a number of times. Even on the concluding date i.e 18.07.2014, the assessee-Appellants did not press for cross-examination of any person. This is merely an afterthought to buy time for delaying the proceedings.
The assessee-Appellants have used the Kacchi Parchies for purchase of the unaccounted raw material and sale of the finished goods. When it is so, then there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is hereby upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee-appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1280 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - non-compliance of the requirement of sub-rule (7) of Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - non-payment of entire invoice value claimed by the service provider - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 1187 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that no reversal of credit under Rule 14 can be ordered in such situation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1279 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Method of valuation - captive consumption - when the manufactured goods are captively consumed whether Revenue can resort to Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 for determination of value of captively consumed goods?
Held that: - it is seen that wording of said Rule 11 of Valuation Rules, 2000 indicates that if the value of any excisable goods cannot be determined under Rules up to Rule 10A then the value is to be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of Section 4 - for the circumstances covered in the present case there is provision under Rule 8 of said Valuation Rules, 2000, which reads “Rule 8, where the whole part of the goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value of said goods i.e. consumed shall be 110% of the cost of production or manufacture of said goods”.
Since express provision covering the circumstances being available under said Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000, there was no case to resort the provisions of said Rule 11 of Valuation Rules, 2000 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1278 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
SSI exemption - use of Brand Name - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - It appeared to revenue that “OMFA PREMIUM” and “ENDURA HITECH” brands were not belonging to respondent - Held that: - the respondents were rightly holding the ownership of both the brands - it is also established that the said SCN was without any basis - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1277 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Whether untrimmed sheets/circles of Brass manufactured by the respondent were leviable to Central Excise Duty as an intermediate product arising in the course of manufacture of trimmed product and waste and scrap attracting Nil rate of duty being captively consumed or whether the said untrimmed sheets of brass were leviable to Central Excise duty?
Held that: - It is very clear from the ruling by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above said case of CCE, Jaipur vs. M/s Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog [2008 (9) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] that all gods falling under Heading No. 7409 made of Brass and intended for use in the manufacture of utensils and handicrafts shall attract Nil rate of duty. Undisputedly untrimmed sheets of brass were being used in the manufacture of utensils and handicrafts and, therefore, they were attracting Nil rate of duty and, therefore, the question of applicability of said N/N. 67/95 did not arise.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1276 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - Rent-a-Cab Operator Service - Outdoor Catering Service - whether the appellants are entitled to Cenvat Credit of ₹ 11,90,543/- of Service Tax paid on Rent-a-Cab Operator Service and Outdoor Catering Service of ₹ 5,24,328/- during the period July 2015 to Sept. 2015?
Held that: - As far as the credit of service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab Service used by the appellant in bringing the employees to the factory of the appellant for the period after 01.04.2011 the same cannot be held as an input service and allowed to credit in view of the specific exclusion containing the definition of amended input service - credit availed on Rent-a-Cab Service is not admissible.
Outdoor Catering Service - Held that: - the issue is covered by the judgement of this Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd case [2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that In the absence of any such dispelling, it is to be held that these services on which CENVAT Credit have been availed are not for personal consumption of the employee but it was billed for service provided for business meetings, and credit is allowed - credit is admissible on the service tax paid on Outdoor Catering Service (Canteen Service) for providing it to the employees in their factory premises.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1275 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of goods - Terminal and Computer upgrades/up-gradation - whether classified under CSH 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act as parts and accessories of computer or otherwise? - Held that: - even after change of computer upgrades the other parts such as computer system, monitor, key board, mouse etc. are unchanged. In this fact, it is clear that upgrade units though helps in enhancing the capacity of the computer but unit itself is not complete machine therefore it cannot fall under Chapter 8471.00 since upgrades units being sub assembly - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1274 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Demand of duty with interest - demand on the ground that the applicant is not contesting the payment of duty and interest - Held that: - The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] held that by application of Sections 22 & 32 of Act, 1985, recovery proceedings against the assessee were not maintainable - it is required to examine the BIFR Order. The appellant should be given an opportunity to place the records in respect of BIFR order for claiming exemption from payment of interest - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1239 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records comprising communication dated 26.02.2018 - case of petitioner is that since the petitioner was not provided with the Order in Original dated 23.03.2016 so far, the petitioner is not in a position to file an Appeal as against the said order - Held that: - the petitioner shall give a representation to the 1st respondent seeking for a copy of the Order in Original dated 23.03.2016 today itself and on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent shall furnish the copy of the Order in Original on or before 20.03.2018 - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1238 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Compounded levy scheme - filter khaini of various brands - Department is of the view that the appellants should pay the duty on compounded levy scheme but the Commissioner has accepted the duty as per the ER-1 under section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - In the instant case, the respondent has paid the duty as per section 4A and that was accepted by the Commissioner without any objection - Identical issue which has came up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Tej Ram Dharam Paul [2013 (8) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where the Tribunal observed that when duty is paid, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1237 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - SSI exemption - crossing of threshold exemption limit - Held that: - when department has established that appellant is engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of goods, the burdencast on the appellant to prove that they were not engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of goods and they have to brought on record supportive evidence like certificate from the principal manufacturer or certificate from the buyer who has returned the goods. The appellant has failed to prove with documentary evidence that the demand is not sustainable on account of clandestine removal of goods - demand upheld.
Considering the fact that the main appellant has paid duty along with interest and 25% penalty, therefore, penalty on the main appellant is restricted to 25% of the duty demand - Further, penalty on the Director is on higher side, therefore, penalty on the Director, namely Shri Pawan Goyal reduced to ₹ 40,000/-.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1236 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of interest - interest paid for the intervening period - Compounded Levy Scheme - Held that: - As the appellant was not required to pay duty, therefore, demand of interest for the intervening period does not arise - whatever interest paid by the appellant during the intervening period is to be refunded to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1235 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - invoices issued by the supplier viz. M/s Dewas Conductors, a non-existent firm - Held that: - during the period when the goods were received by the appellant, the supplier was registered dealer of the Central Excise department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the supplier was non-existent during the relevant time - Moreover, the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the goods in question has taken all precautions like invoices having full details, made payment through account payee cheque and entered the same in their statutory records - credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1234 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine removal - whether all the invoices issued showing the clearance of parts are for the removal of finished goods or some part of finished goods and the remaining parts as such? - Held that: - there is no dispute that the respondent was indulging in clandestine removal of finished goods under the guise of parts as such - since the department had no evidence except the 10 invoices and the partner of the respondent firm has given the statement, there is no reason to demand the duty on the entire clearances of the parts treating the same as clearances of finished goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1233 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Liability of duty - Henna Powder - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. Baboolal Brijbhushan vs. CCE, Jodhpur [2018 (3) TMI 1186 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that the Ministry of Finance issue N/N. 11/2017-CE(NT) dated 24.04.2017 under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 exempting Henna Powder and Paste falling under Chapter 33 for the period 01.01.2007 to 01.03.2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1232 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of duty - duty was not required to have been paid as the clearance of excisable goods was covered for full exemption under N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 - Held that: - the appellant did produce certificate from the Competent Authority through the buyer of the goods, which will make them eligible for exemption under N/N. 108/1995-CE. However, the said certificate was not submitted before clearance of the goods - on this ground alone, the exemption otherwise available, cannot be denied to the appellant.
The appellant is eligible for refund subject to verification of the payment made, by the Original Authority - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1231 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Area Based Exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - whether or not the Appellants did give the required intimation as stipulated under Proviso (i) of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003? - denial also on the ground that the Appellants had failed to commence commercial production on or before 31.03.2010 - Held that: - the intimation dated 25.03.2010 was acknowledged by the jurisdictional Officer on 29.03.2010. The said intimation clearly mentions the intention of the Appellants to start commercial production in the last week of March, 2010 along with full details of address, products to be manufactured, raw-material to be used, and possible date of commercial production - the said intimation has clearly satisfied the conditions mentioned in Proviso (i) of the said Notification.
Commencement of production on or before 31.03.2010 - Held that: - the findings are based on presumption and inference, and not rebutting the evidences listed above categorically either for their accuracy or by way of counter evidence - Revenue did not at all conduct any further verification with the buyers of the goods and also regarding the capacity of the Appellants to manufacture such goods - the Officer did visit the premises on 10.04.2010, but no contradictory evidence was brought on record.
The impugned order is neither factually nor legally sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1230 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - commission agent for promotion of business in export and domestic sale of goods - Held that: - identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd. & others vs. CCE & ST, Udaipur [2017 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the CBEC vide Circular No.943/4/2011-CX. Dated 29/04/2011 has clarified that Cenvat credit is admissible on the services of the sale of the dutiable goods on commission basis - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1229 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - subsidy - includibility - Department is of the view that the amount of the subsidy received from the M.P. Government is includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared during the period of dispute - Held that: - the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pioneer Engineer Industries vs. CCE, Indore [2018 (2) TMI 9 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that there is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
............
|
