|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 470 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 1047 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Employee of 100% EOU - signing the documents of 100% EOU which indulged in mis-using the EOU scheme and diversion of the goods in domestic market - Held that: - the appellant is merely an employee and the issue on merits in respect of the company involved is of various provisions of 100% EOU and interpretation of overall EOU. It cannot be expected from an employee of the company to understand the entire provisions of EOU - penalty of 1 lakhs imposed on the appellant is harsh. Therefore, the same deserve reduction - penalty reduced to ₹ 10000/- - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1046 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Interest on delayed payment of duty - penalty u/r 25 of CER - clearance of goods to Depot - Held that: - this is not the case of demand of duty evaded by the appellant. As per the fact, due to sale through depot/consignment agency there arising differential duty which the appellant suo motu paid - This is a case of at the most of delay of payment of duty, accordingly only interest is chargeable therefore the demand of interest is upheld - penalty not warranted - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1045 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Time limitation - CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - credit availed on the basis of dealer's invoices issued by one M/s Alakh Poly films - Held that: - It is on records that main appellant had during relevant period had filed monthly returns to the jurisdictional authorities also no query were raised - This filing of returns being undisputed, the decision in the case of Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd [2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] would apply, where it was held that Cenvat Credit availed and if returns are filed demand cannot be issued by invoking extended period - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT
CENVAT credit - Input service - GTA - goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to depots or the buyers premises - interpretation of statute - input service which is defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - the expression used in the aforesaid Rule is “from the place of removal”. It has to be from the place of removal upto a certain point. Therefore, tax paid on the transportation of the final product from the place of removal upto the first point, whether it is depot or the customer, has to be allowed.
Our view gets support from the amendment which has been carried out by the rule making authority w.e.f. 01.04.2008 vide N/N. 10/2008CE(NT) dated 01.03.2008 whereby the aforesaid expression “from the place of removal” is substituted by “upto the place of removal”. Thus from 01.04.2008, with the aforesaid amendment, the CENVAT credit is available only upto the place of removal whereas as per the amended Rule from the place of removal which has to be upto either the place of depot or the place of customer, as the case may be.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 992 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Extended period of limitation - the appellant mainly contended that in absence of suppression, misstatement, fraud etc, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, for confirmation of the duty demand - Held that: - the process of debonding initiated by the appellant was known to the Department on 26/12/2007 and upon satisfaction that the appellant deserved for debonding of its unit, the Authorities have recommended positively for issuance of the NOC - it cannot be said that the appellant had indulged into the activities of suppression, fraud etc., with the intent to defraud the Government revenue.
It is manifestly clear that the appellant had no fraudulent intention in depriving the Government revenue - in this case the SCN should have been issued within the normal period of the date of knowledge regarding debonding of the unit by the appellant. Since, SCN was issued beyond the period of one year, the same is barred by limitation of time.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 991 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Irregular availment of CENVAT credit - Business Auxiliary Service - the credit was denied only on the basis that the input services were for post-removal and post export activities of the appellant - Held that: - The fact that the appellant claimed M/s.Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. India having registered office in India provided various services have not been dealt with - the denial of credit was based on the certain assertions and presumptions and not based on any categorization of input services and examination of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant did provide details of the services availed by them, which they claimed included the services provided M/s.Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. India.
The lower authorities did not examine the issue in factual context and proceeded to deny only on the basis of the certain presumptions - appellant shall be provided an adequate opportunity to present their side of the case along with supporting evidences - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 990 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - construction service - denial on the ground that construction service was specifically excluded from the eligible input service w.e.f. 1.42011 by an amendment - Held that: - Admittedly, the construction services commenced and were provided much before even the amendment was introduced on 1.4.2011 if at all, a small portion of service could have been rendered after 1.4.2011 - the amendment carried out w.e.f. 1.4.2011, has no implication in the present case, as the services have been availed and paid for prior to the said date. The credit was availed on 30.04.2011 by itself cannot be the reason for denial. This much has been clarified by the Board also vide their circular dated 29.04.2011.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 989 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Cenvat credit - input services - Event Management Services - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - the family day function, which is generally celebrated once in a year for families of the workers employed in the factory, certainly motivates the workers to enhance their productivity for the company. In that circumstance, the activity of family day function is related to business activity of the respondent - the respondent is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit of Event Management Services for family day function - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 988 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - physician samples which are distributed free as part of marketing strategy, or as a gift or donation to doctors - The appellants are seeking to apply Rule 11 read with Rule 8 whereas Revenue is seeking to apply Rule 11 read with Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules.
Held that: - the physician samples are not sold by the appellants but are cleared free cost. It is not the appellant's case that any of the Rule 4 to 10 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules 2000 are directly applicable. Since no transaction value available, the assessment cannot be done under Section 4 (1) (a) and the assessment has to be done under Section 4 (1) (b). The assessment cannot be done under Section 4A as the said goods are not marked with MRP.
It is apparent that neither Rule 4 nor Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 are directly applicable to the situation and both the rules have to be applied as reasonable alternatives with suitable adjustments in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - In the instant case, it is seen that identical goods different only in respect of size of packing and marking of MRP, are being assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act and such comparable value after suitable adjustments can be adopted for the purpose of assessment of physician samples in terms of Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000. This does not amount to application of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act to physician samples.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 987 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Exemption/refund of education cess and higher education cess paid on final products cleared by them - Held that: - procedure for return of goods and re-clearance was clearly cover by the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the appellants followed the same. There is no allegation of violation of any provision of said Rule or above mentioned notification. In the absence of any contrary legal provision, the concession available under N/N. 56/2002 on payment of duty on the goods cleared by the appellants, cannot be denied - the appellant/assessee shall be eligible for refund/re-credit of education/higher education cess.
Valuation - inclusion of outward freight element - Held that: - The refund/re-credit with reference to the value attributable to outward freight is not available to the appellant assessee.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 986 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT credit - whether credit is admissible on the MS items etc. used for fabrication and erection of structural support of capital goods? - Held that: - the jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Cements [2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as well as in the case of thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. [2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that credit is admissible on MS items, HR sheets etc. used for fabrication of capital goods / structural supports of capital goods - credit allowed.
Whether the credit is admissible on welding electrodes and tubes and pipes? - Held that: - The very same issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut [2010 (11) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], wherein the meaning of the word 'includes' was analysed by the Hon’ble Larger Bench of the Supreme Court and held that the said words used in the definition of inputs does not have restricted meaning.
The amendment in the definition of inputs restricting the use of MS items for structural support of capital goods was inserted only on 7.7.2009 - the goods on which credit is availed was received in the factory prior to 7.7.2009. On the date of receipt of goods the restriction brought forth by the amendment dated 7.7.2009 was not in existence - credit allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appelalnt.
-
2018 (3) TMI 985 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Reversal of Cenvat Credit - Non-payment of amount on monthly basis as per the provisions of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules - demand of an amount equal to the 10% of the value of the exempted goods under sub-rule (3)(i) of Rule 6 of the CCR - Held that: - considering that the intimation regarding closing balances was submitted within three days of filing their option, it appears that the same has been done within the reasonable period and the Revenue s contention in this regard is not tenable - the Board s Circular dt. 09.05.2008 laid down that the calculation of Cenvat credit attributed to inputs is to be done on the basis of actual consumption of inputs used and the quantification may be made based on the stores/production records maintained by the manufacturer. Since, the appellants have done the same on actual monthly basis and a certificate from the Chartered Accountant was submitted at the end of the year, the Revenue is not prejudiced by the approach based on actual consumption in accordance with Board s Circular dt. 09.05.2008.
Tribunal in the case of M/s Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd vs CCE, Pune-I [2015 (8) TMI 24 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that we do not understand that when the appellant have categorically by way of their intimation opted for option provided under sub-rule (3)(ii), how Revenue can insist that option (3)(i) under Rule 6 should be followed by the assessee.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 984 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Manufacture - whether blending of duty paid branded motor spirit with multifunction additives would amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that: - the issue already stands decided in favour of the assessee’s in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE [2009 (2) TMI 170 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], wherein it was held that the activity will not amount to manufacture - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 983 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Liability of duty - extended period of limitation - construction of supporting structures such as gantry girders, rails, columns, civil foundation footings, etc. - Whether such structures are excisable goods and whether excise duty is liable to be paid on such goods under CET 7308 90 10?
Held that: - The issue came to be decided against the appellant only with the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra [2005 (11) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. The merit having been settled against the appellant, the excise duty is liable to be paid on the goods fabricated by the appellant. However, we note that there were conflicting views of different Benches of the Tribunal which came to be decided only with the issue of decision of the Larger Bench. Hence, it will not be fair on the part of the Revenue to take the view that appellant has suppressed the facts in the present case.
The Revenue was not justified in invoking the suppression clause for making the demand for extended period - once the issue is settled on merits, the appellant will be liable to pay duty only for the period falling under the normal time limit from the date of issue of show-cause notice.
Demand is upheld for the period falling with the normal time limit - adjudicating authority is directed to re-quantify the demand - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 982 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - manufacture of herbal extracts, spices extracts, capsules and tablets which are known as food supplements - The department was of the view that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of N/N. 115/75-CE dated 30.4.1975 - Held that: - it will not be correct to take the view that the appellant’s industry falls within the categories of industries listed out in the Schedule to the Notification. The fact that solvent extraction is a process which is utilized within the factory cannot bring the factory within the purview of an industry such as oil mill and solvent extraction industry. So, prima facie, it appears to us that appellant may not be eligible for the N/N. 115/75 ibid during the disputed period.
The CENVAT credit availed by the appellant already stands reversed at the time of making payment of duty on clearance of final products.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 981 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Valuation - toilet soaps exclusively to the CSD Canteens, under the Ministry of Defence - requirement to affix MRP - Section 4A of the CEA - Held that: - the Tribunal in the case of Charms Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1129 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that A ‘maximum retail price’ is affixed on the impugned package does not, of itself, render the goods liable to comply with the provisions of the law relating to ‘maximum retail price’ - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 980 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Reduction of penalty u/r 25 of CER, 2002 - intent to evade duty not present - Held that: - the duty has been paid by the respondent along with interest and there was no intention to evade duty and therefore, the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 is not warranted.
Penalty u/r 27 - Held that: - there is no infirmity in imposing the penalty under Rule 27 which is a general penalty for committing violation of a Rule - penalty upheld.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 925 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - Valuation - pattern/dies used captively - N/N. 67/1995 - Held that: - in the case of M/s DCM Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (11) TMI 1165 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], this Tribunal held that in this case on the co-noticee/buyers, penalty u/r 26 of the CER 2002 is not imposable - the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 924 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
CENVAT credit - input services - Pandal Shamiana - denial on the premise that Pandal Shamiana used for Vishwkarma Pooja for organizing Olympiad competition and Deepotsav is not related to their manufacturing activity in terms of Rule 2 (l) of the CCR 2004 - Held that: - the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the services of Pandal Shaminana used for Vishwkarma Pooja - the said activity is directly related to the manufacturing activity of the appellant and on the said activity, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit.
For Deepotsava, the said Deepotsav have no nexus with the activity of manufacturing. In fact, without Deepotsav also manufacturing can take place, therefore, on the said activity, the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit as the same has no nexus directly or indirectly with the manufacturing activity.
For Olympiad organised by the appellant, the said Olympiad function organised by outside agency and no participations of the appellant shows that there is no nexus with manufacturing activity of the appellant - the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit on the said service.
No penalty is imposable on the appellant - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 923 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Valuation - proceedings were initiated against the appellant u/r 10A of the Central Excise valuation Rules, whereas, the appellant has required to pay duty of whole of the body built and inclusive of the valuation of chassis in the goods cleared by SML - Held that: - in the appellant own case M/s. Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Limited (Unit-I) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi IV [2017 (10) TMI 1298 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], this Tribunal has held that the assessee is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules i.e. on the value at which the principal manufacturer cleared the goods on payment of duty, therefore, the differential duty is confirmed along with interest - appeal disposed off.
............
|
