|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 470 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 1423
Interest - relevant date for calculation of interest - contention of the appellant is that appellant would be liable to pay interest after the order is passed in Original by the authority pursuant to the order of remand and not from the date the order in Original passed before remand - Held that: - Only because in the order of remand, the Tribunal did not record the words “set aside the order of adjudicating authority”, that would not mean that while remitting the matter, the Original order was intact - the decision in the case of BLUE STAR LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA [2009 (10) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that Setting aside an order means there is no order and party relegated for fresh adjudication. Stage of adjudication cannot be said to be determination. An adjudication will culminate in an order and such order would be determination and/or ascertainment of duty, and no interest is payable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1422
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - approach to wrong forum - Held that: - the Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 have role to play as the applicants have approached to the wrong forum for taking the remedy against impugned orders - relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pasupati Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [1996 (3) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we condone he delay in filing the appeals by allowing applications for condonation of delay - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1420
VCES Scheme - time limitation - CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that such discharge certificate is not one of the specified documents for the purpose of availment of credit under rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and as such credit cannot be allowed to them - Held that: - Having held that the said certificate was a proper document, the appellate authority should have allowed the credit instead of rejecting the part on the ground of time bar.
If the assessee’s tax credit is on the basis of challan itself, the concurrence of the Revenue is not involved and it can be alleged that he deposited the tax and took the credit on his own without waiting for the final order of the acceptance by the proper authority. As such, it was necessary, under the scheme, to receive the discharge certificate before availing the credit, in which case, even limitation would not get involved.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1419
CENVAT credit - delay of one day in filing the statement - the sole ground to deny self credit to the appellants by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that condition of para 2C(d) of the N/N. 56/2002-CE is required to be complied strictly - Held that: - a similar issue came up before this Tribunal recently in the case of Saraswati Agro Chemicals India Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 263 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], wherein this Tribunal examined the Notification No.01/2010-CE dt. 06.02.2010 and related conditions in para 5(d), 5(e) and 5(f) and held that condition 5(d) of the Notification No.01/2010-CE dt. 06.02.2010 is procedural in nature and for complying with the said condition with a delay cannot be fatal to the appellants.
Condition 2C(d) is procedural in nature and for compliance with the said notification, delay of one day cannot be fatal to the appellant and the self credit taken by the appellants cannot be denied.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1418
Dutiability - scrap generated during the course of fabrication of capital goods - Revenue is of the view that waste and scrap is an excisable item in terms of Note 8A of Section 15 of Central Excise Tariff Act, therefore, they are required to pay duty on the waste and scrap - Held that: - The waste has been generated on these items due to said activity - As the Hon'ble Apex Court held in the case of Grassim Industries ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN] that the said activity does not amount to manufacture. In that circumstances, in terms of Note 8A of Section 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, the appellant are not liable to pay duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1417
Scope of SCN - Refund claim - rejection on the ground of limitation u/s 11B of the CEA 1944, which was not a ground in the SCN - Held that: - time limitation was not a ground raised in the SCN - There is no discussion in the orders of both the lower authorities on the submission of the appellant on the issue of unjust enrichment and the documents submitted by the appellant to substantiate their claim.
The matter requires re-examination by the adjudicating authority in terms of SCN dt.25.6.2015 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1383
Whether Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in concluding that Rule 5 will not be applicable when there is change in the parameters resulting in less production when there is no specific condition in the said Rules ibid that Rule would be applicable only to enhanced or when there is no change in the parameters of the furnace?
Is not the formula following as per sub rule (3) of Rule 3 in respect of annual capacity determined basing on the production during the relevant period sustainable or not?
Held that: - the subject matter is pending on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, instant civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of, giving liberty to the appellant, to take appropriate decision, if so warrants, after the outcome of the decision, in the reference made.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1382
Monetary limit of appeal - Refund of ₹ 2,28,907/- - Held that: - as per Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC/Pt, Central Board of Excise & Customs fixes the monetary limit below which appeal shall not be filed in the High Court as ₹ 20,00,000/- - as the amount involved, is less that the aforesaid limit, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1381
Immunity from payment of penalty - Held that: - In the instant case, after being satisfied that the respondent-company had made a full and correct disclosure of the tax liability, the settlement commission decided to grant immunity from payment of penalty in excess of Rupees Ten Lakhs - Since we do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the settlement commission so as to interfere with the same, the petition is liable to be dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1380
Re-credit/refund of interest paid - whether the appellants are entitled to re-credit of duty of ₹ 3,67,713/- and refund of ₹ 80,904/- paid as interest on account of various issues/ objections raised by the audit? - Held that: - undisputedly the appellant had received input materials against Invalidation letter issued by DGFT as per N/N. 44/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001, however the condition laid down under clause-(ii) and (xii) of the said Notification had not been complied with - the appellant are not eligible to avail the benefit of said Notification and consequently the re-credit of ₹ 1,94,897/- is irregular and the interest paid on the said irregular credit is also recoverable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1379
Clandestine removal - interception of vehicle at midnight of 23.08.2003 regarding transportation of impugned goods without invoice/bill and without payment of duty - Held that: - The Department in this case, had not produced any cogent, tangible and convincing evidence in support of clandestine removal of goods and as such, the adjudged demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of mere assumptions and presumptions.
The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded detailed findings with regard to setting aside of the adjudication order, so far as it confirmed the duty liability and imposed penalty on the respondent. Since, the said order was passed based on the available records and evidences; I am of the view that the findings recorded therein cannot be disturbed at this juncture, in absence of any plausible evidence being produced by Revenue to sustain the charges of clandestine removal.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1378
Clandestine manufacture and removal - excess stock of 48.870 M.T. of raw-material i.e. bloom/billet and 28.578 M.T. of finished products namely, MS Tubes - Held that: - the Department has not specifically brought out any evidence of fact of clandestine removal of goods, with the help of any tangible evidence - the onus lies on the Department to prove clandestine removal of goods having not been satisfied/ fulfilled in this case, the charges levelled against the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1377
Clandestine removal - onus to prove - natural justice - Held that: - the appellant has stated that the raw material procured was substandard in quality and therefore, in comparison to the subsequent period of 2007-08, the generation of scrap during the year 2006-07 was more. However, the submissions made by the appellant in those statements were not considered by the authorities below - the Department has not produced any other tangible evidence to show that the higher percentage of scrap of 11.46% were removed by the appellant in clandestine manner. Since, the onus lies with the Department to prove clandestine activities of the appellant has not been satisfactorily discharged in this case - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1376
Principles of Natural Justice - Clandestine Removal - the adjudicating authority, in this case, has passed the ex-parte order in confirming the duty demand on the appellant - Held that: - Since the appellant at this juncture, submits that it has adequate documents/records to demonstrate that appropriate duty liability has been discharged and the goods were not clandestinely removed from the factory, then, as per the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the appellant to produce the documents before the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1375
CENVAT credit - input services - telephone services - insurance services - maintenance of vehicle - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - The services availed by the appellant from the service provider of mobile phone and for insurance and maintenance of vehicles are integral part of the manufacturing activity inasmuch as, without such service, the appellant cannot smoothly transact its business of manufacturing as well as selling of its goods. Since the said services have nexus with the purpose, for which the appellant has setup its manufacturing unit, the same should be considered as input service under the amended definition of input service effective from 01.04.2011 - credit allowed.
Utilization of services in the wind mill - Held that: - such wind mill is a captive mill dedicated entirely for supplying the electrical energy to the appellant for accomplishing its manufacturing activity. It is only for the technological requirement that the wind mill should be located at a place in the higher altitude; the appellant had installed such mill outside its factory premises and used generated electricity there from for its manufacturing activity - service tax paid on the taxable service used in the wind mill cannot be denied to the appellant.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1374
Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - time limitation - Section 11 B of the CEA 1944 - Held that: - the legislatures have not specifically prescribed the relevant date in context with filing of refund application of un-accumulated CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 5 of the CCR. Thus, the refund application filed by the applicant cannot be straight away rejected, by considering the date of export as the relevant date for consideration of such time limit.
The Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 583 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the refund application cannot be rejected in terms of Section 11B of the Act.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1373
Refund claim - benefit of N/N. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - Held that: - Admittedly, as per N/N. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, the duty is not wholly exempt, in that circumstances, the Revenue cannot force to the appellant to avail the benefit of N/N. 06/2006-CE, therefore, the ground of rejection of refund claim is not sustainable - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1372
Refund of the duty paid after issuance of SCN 4.2.2008 - the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the premise that a SCN to demand duty was already issued to the appellant - Held that: - Considering the fact that the demand of duty of ₹ 30,68,816/- has already set aside against the appellant vide order dated 29.10.2009 by the adjudicating authority and the appellant has paid duty after issuance of SCN dated 4.2.2008 - further, all the subsequent proceedings have been set aside by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 26.10.2010, therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim refund of the amount paid by them - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1371
CENVAT credit - input service - security services deploy at the residential colony situated outside/adjacent to the factory - Rule 2 (l) of the CCR 2004 - Held that: - the assessee/appellant require the residential colony and availability of the workers for manufacture of dutiable goods and, as such, security services is essential part in order to maintain the residential/industrial colony of the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1370
CENVAT credit - it was alleged that instead of opportunity provided by this Tribunal in remand, the appellant have failed to provide necessary verification, as such, appeals are dismissed - Held that: - the appellant have done their best whatever they could do under the scheme of Act under rule - the authorities below fail to exercise their duty to make adequate enquiries by referring or calling for cross-verification report of the concerned jurisdictional officers of the manufacturers - the appellant entitled to take CENVAT credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
