|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 81787 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 119
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - illicit removal of LLDPE and HDPE without payment of duty - appellant abetted M/s. Vraj Packaging, whose case has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 - HELD THAT:- When the demand in the case of main appellant M/s. Vraj packaging Pvt. Limited has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 vide order No. A/11013/2021 dated 10.03.2021, the case of co-noticee for penalty will not sustain.
The same view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Siemens Limited [2023 (5) TMI 377 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that penalty on the co-noticee will not sustain when the main party’s case of confirmed demand is settled under SVLDRS-2019. Therefore, following the above precedent, the penalty imposed upon the appellant in this case is not sustainable.
The impugned order-in-appeal set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 118
Time limitation for filing refund claim - whether the refund claim was filed within one year from the last date of the order, from which refund claim pertains? - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- As Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically acknowledged that in the entire case refund claim was being filed within one year from the last date of the order, from which refund claim pertains.
The issue is squarely covered by the various precedent decisions. In case of Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd [2020 (5) TMI 225 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has observed that 'time-limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11B or otherwise.'
In the case of M/s Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] Larger Bench of this Tribunal has observed that 'we conclude that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis.'
Conclusion - The refund claims were filed within the limitation period specified under Section 11B.
Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 117
Invocation of Extended period of limitation - suppression of fact of receipt of raw material free of cost from the supplier - fact of non-inclusion of the value of the said raw material in the value of final products manufactured by them suppressed from the knowledge of the department with intent to evade payment of central excise duty - HELD THAT:- The respondent were manufacturing ZDF for the specific needs of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad, a unit of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, who manufactures Zirconium Alloy Tubes which are further used for making Nuclear Fuel Bundles, containing Uranium Oxide pellets and are used in the Nuclear Reactors by the Nuclear Power Corporation managed by Government of India for generation of power. Further, it is found that as per the purchase order, the respondent were only paying the central excise duty on the job work charge and not including the free supply of sand made by Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad and as per the department, the said free supply should be included in the transaction value for the purpose of payment of duty.
The learned Commissioner, after analyzing all the submissions of the party, vide detailed impugned order, has confirmed the demand only for the normal period and has come to the conclusion that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as the respondent had a bona fide belief that the levy on free supply is not to be included in the transaction value. Further, it is also found that the invocation of extended period of limitation is totally unwarranted in the present case because the Revenue has not been able to establish any of the ingredients mentioned in Section 11A(1) of the Act for invoking the extended period of limitation. Further, the respondent had acted bona fidely as per the clauses of the purchase orders received by them from the Regional Director, HRPU, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad, a unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India and there was no wilful act or omission of any kind whatsoever on their part leading to mens rea for invoking the penal provisions.
Conclusion - The invocation of extended period of limitation is totally unwarranted in the present case because the Revenue has not been able to establish any of the ingredients mentioned in Section 11A(1) of the Act for invoking the extended period of limitation.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 7
Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance of the pre-deposit condition mandated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute about the fact that 7.5% was initially deposited before the Commissioner (Appeals) at that time when the integrated portal did not exist. Thereafter, while approaching the CESTAT, the remaining 2.5%has been deposited by the Petitioner. Thus, in effect the entire 10% which is the pre-deposit amount, stood deposited.
The appeal could not have been rejected merely on the ground that it was deposited on a wrong account especially when the said integrated portal was not even available for the Petitioner at the time of the initial deposit.
Following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2022 (10) TMI 264 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court is, therefore, inclined to direct that the appeal would now be heard by CESTAT on merits without any further deposit being insisted upon. The deposit already made shall be treated as satisfaction of the pre-deposit condition.
Conclusion - The appeal would be heard by CESTAT on merits without any further deposit being insisted upon. The deposit already made was deemed sufficient to satisfy the pre-deposit condition.
The order dated 08th November, 2024 passed by CESTAT is set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 6
Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the pre-deposit was made by the Appellant way back on 13th August, 2018 and 17th August, 2018 itself for a sum of Rs. 1,60,600/- and Rs. 4,750/- respectively. The Petitioner has also submitted the challans showing the deposit. The ground taken in the impugned order is that the same was deposited in a wrong account and therefore credit cannot be given of the pre-deposit and hence the appeal does not deserve consideration on merits.
A mere deposit in the wrong account, that too, when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional or the existence of the same was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner, cannot result in a rejection of the appeal on the ground of defects. The matter in the opinion of this Court deserves consideration on merits by the CESTAT.
Let a competent official from the Respondent-Department be present on the next date of hearing with the instructions - List on 21st February, 2025.
-
2025 (3) TMI 5
Method of valuation - whether the valuation of goods sold by the appellant from their depot during the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2012 is covered under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000? - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that 90% of the sales are carried at the factory gate to unrelated customers and as per the Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000, it is very clearly stated that, where excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal, Rule 7 can be invoked.
Considering the decisions relied by the learned Consultant for the appellant, the demand by invoking the Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000 is unsustainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 4
CENVAT Credit - fuel oil in engine parts of the vessel brought for breaking purposes - Whether the fuel oil in the engine parts of the vessel is considered part of the ship and thus not eligible for Cenvat Credit? - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of this Tribunal in the decision of Navyug Ship Breaking Company [2023 (3) TMI 636 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has held that 'It has been rightly held by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) that removal of fuel and oil is the initiation of ship breaking activity and cannot be said as separate activity.'
Conclusion - The Cenvat Credit on the oil brought in the ship engine when used for ship breaking purposes to the extent of 85%.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1107
Benefit of a specific notification regarding duty payment on goods transferred for job work - whether the concept of revenue neutrality based on CENVAT Credit could exempt the appellant from paying duty? - revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- All the three authorities, i.e., the adjudicating authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal have concurrently found that the appellant was not entitled to any relief based on the plea sought to be raised pertaining to the fact that as claimed the moulds, which were cleared without payment of duty for getting the job work done, were returned back and consumed in the appellant's factory and on account of the purported revenue neutrality. Exhaustive discussions and reasons have been indicated for negating the plea as raised by the appellant.
Once the goods leave the factory even for job work, the Notification had no applicability. The finding recorded in this regard cannot be faulted inasmuch merely because the goods in question, which were cleared without payment of duty, were again used by the appellant for production of finished goods, the fact that the same could be finished goods also cannot be ruled out and, therefore, the submissions made in this regard have rightly been negated.
Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- Plea of revenue neutrality, based on the fact that the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT Credit, has also rightly been denied by the Tribunal, as accepting the said proposition would negate the very scheme of CENVAT Credit as every assessee for non payment of duty would claim that on account of entitlement to claim CENVAT Credit, the duty was not paid. Once the plea raised pertains to revenue neutrality, the same plea is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty inasmuch there was no reason in the given case not to pay the duty at the time of clearance of the goods when they were being sent for job work, as required under the law.
Conclusion - i) Specific notifications and credit schemes should not be used to circumvent duty payment obligations. ii) Once the plea raised pertains to revenue neutrality, the same plea is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty inasmuch there was no reason in the given case not to pay the duty at the time of clearance of the goods when they were being sent for job work, as required under the law.
There are no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal upholding the concurrent findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and appellate authority - appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1106
Classification of the goods manufactured - Collar Band - Chest Band - Classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Sub-Heading (CETSH) 49090090 or under CETSH 4818 5000 of first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or not - Printed Fabric Folder and Swatch Cards - to be classified under CETSH 4901 1020 or under CETSH 4820 3000? - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation.
Classification of Collar Band and Chest Band - HELD THAT:- These are rightly classified by the respondent under CETSH 48185000, since the CETSH 48185000 specifically reads 'articles of apparel and clothing accessories' and are chargeable to duty at the rate 16% at the relevant time.
Classification of printed fabric folder and swatch cards - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Heading 4820 clearly indicates that the goods covered therein are all items of stationary and as known in the market. The product being manufactured by the appellant is totally different and not comparable to the goods 'folder' as contemplated in the CETSH 48203000. Accordingly classification of the same under CETSH 48203000 is unsustainable.
Time limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that, if there is no proper classification prescribed under the statues to classify the goods, adopting similar classification as adopted by the appellant cannot be considered as suppression of facts to allege illegality. The issue regarding invoking the extended period of limitation is well settled as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it is held that as far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word ‘wilful’, preceding the words “mis-statement or suppression of facts” which means with intent to evade duty. The next set of words ‘contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or Rules’ are again qualified by the immediately following words ‘with intent to evade payment of duty.’ Therefore, there cannot be suppression or mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of invoking penal provisions - the Appellants cannot be charged with willful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, for invoking extended period of limitation in this case.
Conclusion - i) Collar Band and Chest Band are rightly classified by the respondent under CETSH 48185000. ii) The printed fabric folder and swatch cards are righly classifiable under CETSH 4901 1020 iii) The Appellants cannot be charged with willful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, for invoking extended period of limitation in this case.
The confirmation of the demand by invoking extended period of limitation is unsustainable. Since entire demand is barred by limitation, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1053
Clandestine removal - Fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit - Area based exemption - it is alleged that the claim of procurement of mentha oil by the manufacturers situated in Jammu & Kashmir and North East were bogus - denial of cross-examination of witnesses - violation of princiles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is found that the evidence available in this regard has already been discussed by the Tribunal in the series of cases and it has been concluded that the evidences are not enough to sustain the demands. When the allegation of bogus procurement of raw material, manufacture and clearance by the Jammu based units cannot be established, allegation of bogus procurement from these units by Meerut based manufacturers cannot be sustained.
The allegation leveled against the appellants do not sustain. The averment by the learned Authorized Representative that some of the supplies made may be fake is of no help at this stage. It was open to the Department to collect all the evidences and make precise allegations while issuing the Show Cause Notice. The bus having been missed, Revenue cannot open a new front to continue the litigation on the facts and records which were not part of the impugned proceedings. The charge of clandestine removal is a grave one. It has to be leveled with accuracy though mathematical precision cannot be expected.
Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the matter of Nova Petrochemicals v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II, [2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held 'There should be tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance and not merely inferences or unwarranted assumptions.'
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1052
Classification of goods - Fuel Filter assembly, Water Pump Assembly, Cylinder Head Sub-Assembly and Cylinder liner stud Assembly which are sub-assemblies and components of High Horse Power locomotives for Railways - yo be classified under Chapter Heading 8607 as parts of railway locomotives or under other headings as suggested by the Department? - applicability of Exemption N/N. 12/2016-CE dated 01.03.2016 - time limitation.
Classification of goods - HELD THAT:- Section 37B Order issued earlier on 01.09.1993 instructing classification of Steel/Aluminium Water Tanks for supply to Railways either under Chapter 73 or Chapter 76 of the CETA, 1985 was withdrawn consequent to the Order of the Tribunal in M/s. Sri Ram Metal Works [1997 (11) TMI 265 - CEGAT, MADRAS] that the provision of water in a coach was a necessity and the water tank became part of the coach after fitment. The decision is in keeping with the relevant Section Notes and Rules for Interpretation of Tariff as well as judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decision of the Tribunal in identical cases. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Authority did not commit any error in falling back upon Board's Circular dated 20.10.2000.
In the case of M/s. G.S. Auto International Ltd. [2003 (1) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT], a question arose as to whether items such as Sprint Centre Bolts with Nuts, Spring U Bolt with Nuts, Spring U Clamps with nuts and plates, Spring Shackle Pin (Shackel Bolt) with Nuts and Spring Shackle Pin (Spring Pin) specifically designed for use in automobile vehicles merited classification as parts of general use under CH 73.08 or as parts and accessories of motor vehicles under CH 87.08.
CETA 1985 is enacted on the basis and pattern of the HSN. For resolving any dispute with reference to classification, reference to HSN is needed. However, when Section or Chapter Notes are clear and unambiguous, resorting to HSN Notes is not required. The principles governing classification are given in the General Rules of the Interpretation of Tariff. As per Rule 1 of the said General Rules, the classification is to be determined in terms of the headings and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes. If determination of classification is still elusive, recourse can be taken to Rules 2 to 6. If the dispute cannot be resolved in the manner said above, reference to HSN Notes is required. In this case, applying Note 3 of Section XVII coupled with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Westinghouse Saxby and Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Tariff Interpretation, the issue has been resolved by classifying the products under CH 8607. Therefore, any further reference to HSN Notes is not legally warranted.
The products manufactured and supplied by the respondent are rightly classifiable under CH 8607 of CETA and the ratio of the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s. Shakthi Tech Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. applies to this case entitling the respondent to avail concessional rate of duty under the amending Notification No. 12/2016-CE dated 01.03.2016.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- Even in the Customs advisory contained in Instruction No. 01/2022-Customs dated 05.01.2022 to which a reference is made in Para 26 of the appeal memo, in Para 3 the Board says that "In the context of the divergent practises arisen, it is noted that the classification of 'parts' of goods falling under Section XVII of the Customs or Central Excise Tariff is a complex issue." Thus, the factum of admission in Board's circular that the classification of parts is a complex issue confirms the view that the issue is not free from doubt. Therefore, there are no hesitation to hold that the demand raised invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11(4) CEA, 1944 is wholly without any basis.
Conclusion - i) The classification of the respondent's products under Chapter 8607 affirmed, based on the sole or principal use test as articulated in Note 3 to Section XVII and supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. ii) The demand raised invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11(4) CEA, 1944 is wholly without any basis.
Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1051
CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of non-submission of required documents i.e. STTG Certificates which according to the Department is a primary and essential documents to avail the Cenvat credit - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- This issue was considered by the Division Bench of Mumbai Bench, CESTAT in the case of JSW Steel Ltd. [2022 (3) TMI 913 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein after considering the Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules the Tribunal has held 'If the requirements of Rule 3 are satisfied, the credit could not have been denied. Further, Rule 9(2) read with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules provides that any document which contains the details as prescribed under Rule 4A shall be considered as a proper duty paying document for all the purposes including availment of cenvat credit.'
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana in the case of M/s Salasar Steel Structural Pvt. Ltd. on identical issue has allowed the Cenvat Credit and has held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely on account of non production of STTG Certificates.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Revenue has not been able to establish any of the ingredients mentioned in Section 11A(4) - extended period cannot be invoked.
Conclusion - i) The denial of Cenvat credit based on the absence of STTG Certificates was not valid. ii) Extended period cannot be invoked.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1015
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative statutory remedy - petitioners did not put in the pre-deposit as is required for maintaining such appeals - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioners had already applied before the statutory authority by filing appeals and at this stage since learned advocate representing the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to pursue the aforesaid appeal provided the communications dated 30th September, 2024 are permitted to be withdrawn, I am of the view that in the fitness of things and not to render the petitioners remediless, the petitioners should be permitted to pursue the appeal filed by them. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the letters dated 30th September, 2024.
The Commissioner of Appeals is directed to if necessary by passing appropriate orders to restore the appeal, hear out and dispose of the appeals in accordance with law, subject to compliance of statutory formalities.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 950
Maintainability of petition when efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available to the petitioner - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Apex court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, [2014 (9) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT] has held that when a statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties.
In the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim, [2017 (7) TMI 1414 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is statutory provision of appeal.
The Apex court in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2016 (3) TMI 1435 - SUPREME COURT], has held that when statutory appeal is provided then the said remedy has to be availed.
In the present case, it is evident that sufficient opportunity of hearing through virtual mode was provided to the petitioner on 4.7.2022, 15.7.2022 and 10.8.2022 but neither the petitioner nor his authorised representative attended the personal hearings on the above dates. Thus, the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-grant of opportunity of personal hearing is contrary to the record and is hereby rejected.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 949
Recovery of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - appellant is a recipient of distributed credit from an Input Service Distributor (ISD) - rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- By a special provision, viz., rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 distribution of credit of service tax paid on input services by ‘input service distributor’, neither a manufacturer of excisable goods nor a provider of output service, is permitted and, therefore, from not being in a position to utilize the credit so taken. From this, it is apparent that the mechanism provided in rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, governing the distribution of such credit, deems the credit so distributed to be eligible credit for the purpose of utilization. A harmonious reading of rule 3 and rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the conditions prescribed in rule 7 alone would determine the extent of validity of the credit so distributed within the scheme of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The whole of it operates on presumption that the objective of the scheme, viz., restricting the tax liability at each stage in the chain only to the taxable event as set out in section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 66/66B of Finance Act, 1994, will be adequately achieved by such distribution.
The decision of the Tribunal, in re Clariant Chemicals India Ltd [2015 (10) TMI 2754 - CESTAT MUMBAI], was rendered on the limited issue of applicability of rule 6 in relation to ‘exempted services’ and owing to which, the Tribunal, finding absence of mechanism for recovery, fell back upon a singularity of the undertakings operated by that particular legal entity. The issue therein was not about the eligibility to take the credit under rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but the propriety of retention of the credit in terms of rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The impugned order has confirmed the recovery of credit taken, and distributed under rule 7 of CNEVAT Credit Rules, 2004, by the ‘input service distributor (ISD)’ by subjecting it to scrutiny for eligibility thereof by reference to the activities undertaken by the appellant herein. The appellant herein has merely utilized the credit and, to the extent that rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has not been shown to have been breached, is not concerned with the source of the credit. The obligation under rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be transferred to the recipient of credit under rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Conclusion - i) The responsibility for verifying the eligibility of CENVAT credit lies with the ISD, not the recipient of the distributed credit. ii) The recovery proceedings against the appellant were without legal authority.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 948
Classification of Printed Thermal Paper ATM rolls - classifiable under CETH 49019900 or under CETH 48119099 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or not - HELD THAT:- The process of printing on the Thermal rolls brings into the existence of the product ATM Rolls. Where an article is printed with materials, the primary purpose of the printing is to convey the message contained in the article and so would be more appropriately classifiable under the heading 49.01.
The CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of Alpha Carbonless Paper Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [2014 (2) TMI 589 - CESTAT MUMBAI] had the occasion to examine a similar issue and classified ATM Rolls, Printed lottery ticket rolls and printed bus ticket rolls as products of the printing industry. The case also took into consideration the Amendment made to the Finance Act, 2012 by the insertion of note 14 under Chapter 48 and held that the same cannot have retrospective operation.
In Sai Security Printers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Faridabad [2006 (2) TMI 23 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] the Tribunal held that the Thermal papers that were imported printed, cut and slit to size were products of the printing industry. In Kayen Print Process (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore [2006 (7) TMI 87 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], the Tribunal held that printing on paper sheet and paper board would come within the category of the printing industry.
In the present case, in addition to the black bar code, details of transactions, the sheet also contains instructions on keeping the ATM premises clean, instructions on use of ATM cards safely etc. This further strengthens the point that the product is not merely of incidental use but it is of primary use. The thermal paper cut rolls, printing of paper with logos / marks of customers are not merely incidental but essential to primary use, i.e. providing information of bank statements and receipts. The pre-printed matter and the matter to be printed by ATM are inter connected and constituted a single matter. Further, the existence of blank portions in printed forms do not take them out of “other printed products and articles”.
Conclusion - The printed thermal paper rolls were correctly classifiable under Chapter 49.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 947
Interest on the refund deposited during investigation - rate of interest - relevant dates for calculation of interest - HELD THAT:- In view of the various decisions of the High Court and various Benches of the Tribunal, wherein, it has been consistently held that interest on refund of deposit made during investigation is required to be computed @ 12% per annum. It is found that the jurisdictional High Court of this Tribunal has already held that rate of interest applicable in such cases is 12% per annum as held in the cases of CCE, Panchkula Vs. Riba Textiles Limited [2022 (5) TMI 1531 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] Punjab and Haryana High Court and Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited Vs. Union of India [2023 (6) TMI 411 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT].
Reference also made to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indore Treasure Market City Pvt Ltd [2024 (5) TMI 367 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] wherein the Tribunal after considering the various decisions of the Courts, has held that the assessee is entitled for interest on the amount of refund sanctioned @12% to be calculated from the date of payment till the date of disbursement.
Also, in the case of Raghuveer Metal Industries Ltd [2023 (12) TMI 371 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Tribunal has held that the appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit of the amount till the date of refund thereof.
Conclusion - The appellant is entitled to the rate of interest @ 12 % per annum on the amount deposited during investigation.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 946
Process amounting to manufacture or not - alteration of MRP on the imported goods - entitlement to claim CENVAT Credit on the duty paid at the time of importation of goods - Seizure and Confiscation of the Goods - Extended Period of Limitation - interest - penalty.
‘Manufacture’ in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The process of affixing MRP by the appellant on the goods in question i.e. various electrical home appliances, which are covered under Third Schedule, there is no manner of doubt that the activity carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Apart from that, in the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act, Shri A.K Jindal, the General Manager of the company had categorically admitted that he understands that their products were covered under the Third Schedule of the Act and that the processes carried out by them in their company amounts to ‘manufacture’ in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) and they were liable to pay excise duty which they actually paid. In view of their own admission accepting that the activity amounts to manufacture and is leviable to excise duty, the issue stands concluded against them and in favour of the Revenue.
Eligibility to CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner Central Excise, Nagpur [2019 (5) TMI 1432 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it has been held that the amendment to Rule 4(1) of CCR prescribing a time limit for claiming CENVAT Credit will not apply to the consignments, where the import took place prior to the date of the amendment and the deemed manufacture took place when the MRP was altered, which also happened prior to the amendment. The facts of the present case are quite identical with the facts of the case before the Delhi High Court and, therefore, there are merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that the appellant having paid appropriate duty at the time of import has to be considered as an ‘input’ for the purpose of CENVAT Credit Rules. Here the Bill of Entries considered were for the period 2011–12 to 2015–16 and, therefore, on the analogy drawn by the Delhi High Court, the amendment w. e. f. 01.09.2014 prescribing the time limit for making the CENVAT Credit claim shall not apply to imports covered prior to the said date. Moreover, once the activity has been held to be manufacture, exigible to excise duty, the Credit on CVD paid by the appellant on the goods imported is available.
Seizure and Confiscation of the Goods - HELD THAT:- The action of seizure of the goods lying in the premises is unjustified, more so when the daily stock status as on 5.10.2016 was made available by the appellant to the Central Excise Officers and the goods were duly recorded - It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Mumbai Bench in Nakoda Enterprises versus Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai–V [2016 (12) TMI 1679 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where all the goods were covered under the SSI exemption, except few and therefore, they were under bonafide belief that since the unit is eligible for SSI exemption, they were not required to obtain any registration. It was held that just because the exemption notification is not applicable on one of the products, the goods lying within the factory should not be confiscated and it cannot be equated with the case of attempt to clear the goods clandestinely. Therefore, in the present case, the seizure and confiscation is unsustainable.
Extended Period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- From the statements recorded under Section 14 during the course of investigation, it is apparent that the appellant was unaware of the fact that the activity of affixing MRP on the imported goods amounts to manufacture and the consequent duty liability. The appellant bonafide believed that they were into the trading activity and were, therefore, registered with the VAT Department and were paying the VAT regularly. Had they known that the activity amounts to manufacture under the excise law, they would have registered themselves with the Excise Department and availed the benefit of CENVAT Credit - There is no reason to doubt the statement made by Shri A. K. Jindal or by Shri Rajesh Mohan and on the other hand, Revenue has not produced any further evidence to show that non-registration and non-payment of excise duty was deliberate and wilful to evade payment of duty. In view of the fact that all the records/books of accounts were properly maintained and duly reflected in the balance sheet, it cannot be said that there was any misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the demand of excise duty is justified only qua the normal period i.e., 01.03.2015 to 05.10.2016.
Interest and Penalty - HELD THAT:- As the activity has been held to ‘manufacture’ and, therefore, leviable to excise duty, the appellant is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of duty. The liability to interest is mandatory and automatic which the appellant cannot escape - The levy of penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC is not sustainable as we have already held that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the absence of any mis-statement or willful suppression of facts. The penalty under Section 11 AC is mandatory only when duty is confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Personal penalty imposed on Director of the appellant company under Rule 26 of the Rules - HELD THAT:- The personal penalty imposed on Shri Rajesh Mohan under Rule 26 of the Rules is also not sustainable as the penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed for actions related to goods which were rendered liable for confiscation. In this case, the confiscation of goods is set aside. Hence, there is no reason to impose penalty when the goods itself were not to be confiscated. The second situation in which penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed is where invoices are issued without supplying goods so as to enable the recipient to avail ineligible CENVAT Credit, which is also not the case here.
Conclusion - i) The activity of affixing MRP on the imported goods, which are covered under Third Schedule amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act and are exigible to excise duty along with interest. ii) Since the activity amounts to manufacture, the appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit. iii) Seizure and confiscation of the goods is unsustainable. iv) Extended period of limitation is not invocable in the facts of the present case. v) Penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed on the appellant. Penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on Director of the appellant company.
Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for limited purpose of computation of the duty liability along with interest and entitlement of CENVAT Credit - The appeals are, partly allowed in above terms, by way of remand.
-
2025 (2) TMI 945
Refund of utilization Cenvat Credit on account of clearance to 100% EOU without any payment of duty - rejection of refund on the ground that the same were filed after expiry of one year, i.e. time limit prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision of M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs CCE & ST – Belgaum [2019 (2) TMI 1378 - CESTAT BANGALORE] in which the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in GTN Engineering Industries [2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] was also considered and same was distinguished in view of specific relevant date having been given in the Notification itself which aspect, the Hon’ble Bench considered was not taken into consideration by Hon’ble Madras High Court.
In view of the stated position and the case of GTN Engineering, having been distinguished the party becomes entitled to the refund on the basis of cited decisions of Tribunal. Same is therefore, allowed, as per law.
Appeals are allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 944
Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - denial of refund on the ground that Rule 5 ibid deals with the situation of grant of refund in case of non-utilization of CENVAT Credit on the inputs, which were used for manufacture of the final products exported by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra, in view of the order of this Bench of the Tribunal passed in the case of M/S. ATV PROJECTS INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAIGAD [2023 (9) TMI 802 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that 'In the case in hand, though the factory of the appellant was nonoperational for quite a long time, but it had continued to file the statutory returns before the authorities and finally surrendered the registration certificate. Immediately thereafter, since the accumulated cenvat balance lying in the books was claimed as refund, in my considered view, it cannot be said that such claim is barred by limitation of time. In other words, availment of cenvat credit is an indefeasible right of an assessee and such right conferred under the statue cannot be taken away on the ground of limitation.'
By placing the reliance on the order passed in the case of M/s ATV Projects India Ltd., co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Kinol Lubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, West Delhi [2024 (10) TMI 1254 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], has allowed the refund benefit in respect of unutilized CENVAT Credit available in the books of account on closure of the manufacturing unit.
Conclusion - The denial of the refund application based on the understanding of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was not justified, and the appellants were entitled to the refund of the accumulated CENVAT Credit balance despite the suspension of production activities.
There are no merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellants.
............
|
9911796707
