|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 81793 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 422
Method of valuation of job-worked goods - it appeared that the value adopted by the Appellants by considering the cost of materials plus conversion cost, was not in accordance with Rule 10A (iii) read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 (CEVR) resulting in short payment of duty - HELD THAT:- The Appellants have manufactured HDPE Plastic Caps on job work basis and have paid duty on the assessable value worked out by taking into account the cost of materials plus conversion cost. The principal manufacturer (M/s. Marico) used the caps for fitment onto bottles, in its factory, for filling coconut oil. The department therefore contends that after 01.04.2007 the valuation should be done applying Rule 10A(iii) r/w Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules which applies when goods are not sold. The appellant does not captively consume the goods nor does M/s. Marico consume it on behalf of appellant.
The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the Appellants case [2018 (2) TMI 139 - CESTAT CHENNAI] following the judgement in the case of M/s. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs CCE, Mangalore [2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that 'it is undisputed that LABSA is manufactured by job worker and cleared to HUL for further consumption and the said LABSA is the intermediate product required by HUL which is manufactured or produced by the appellant as a job worker. The key words in Rule 8 that needs to be interpreted are ‘consumption by an assessee or on his behalf’ for applying the said Rule for arriving at valuation or determination of goods. In the case in hand, it is very clear and not disputed that the appellant is not consuming the said LABSA nor is it consumed on his behalf by HUL. In our considered view, the provisions of Rule 8 will not get attracted in this case.'
Conclusion - Rule 8 of the CEVR applies only when goods are consumed by the assessee or on their behalf, and that valuation should be based on the cost of materials plus job work charges when these conditions are not met.
The demand confirmed is not legally sustainable and requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 421
CENVAT credit can be availed by the Gurgaon unit of the appellant when the invoices had been inadvertently addressed to the Bangalore office - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant is presently the only unit engaged in the manufacture of the said goods and it’s another unit at Bangalore which was operative has closed down from April 2007. It is also found that it is not in dispute that the service tax under reverse charge has been paid by the Gurgaon unit and GAR-7 challan also mention the address of the Gurgaon unit and payment has also been made by the appellant and therefore, the Gurgaon unit is eligible to avail CENVAT credit in respect of these invoices. Further, the appellant has produced on record the service tax payment challan which is a valid document for availment of CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules. It is found that in the present case, the input services could not have been used by any other unit other than the Gurgaon unit being the only manufacturing unit and moreso, when they have discharged the service tax liability under reverse charge, it has been consistently held in the decisions relied upon by the appellant that CENVAT credit can be availed on the basis of challan evidencing payment of duty.
The Department has not been able to establish suppression on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of service tax and therefore, the invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified in the present case.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 420
Valuation for stock transfers to sister units - Short payment of duty due to under valuation - Excess payment of duty due to over valuation of finished goods - Excess duty payment resulted in 'excess' refund not falling under impugned notification - reversal of refund being excess - area- based exemption under N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 availed - Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- During the period of dispute from 27.08.2004 to 07.06.2005, the appellant had cleared goods on stock transfer to their sister units at Dadra and Silvasaa but while clearing the goods, it was not possible to determine the cost of production for each removal and therefore, the appellant transfer the stock at pre-determined value based on previous year CAS-4 data and after the cost audit which resulted in over or under valuation when each invoice was taken separately and the same resulted in excess payment or short-payment.
It is noted that wherever there was a short payment of duty, the appellant paid it immediately along with interest and in the case of excess payment of duty, the Department has demanded the same as to the extent of excess duty paid where the appellant has availed the excess refund - sub-section (2B) of Section 11A specifically provides that the assessee in default may, before the notice issued under sub-section (1) is served on him, make payment of the unpaid duty on the basis of his own ascertainment or as ascertained by a Central Excise Officer and inform the Central Excise Officer in writing about the payment made by him and in that event he would not be given the demand notice under sub-section (1).
Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The short/ excess payment of duty was being made due to provision of Valuation Rules in case of supply to the related party, hence, there is no intention to evade payment of duty because whatever duty paid was available as refund to the appellant and hence there is no intention to evade payment of duty and therefore, no penalty is liable to be imposed.
Conclusion - The short/ excess payment of duty was being made due to provision of Valuation Rules in case of supply to the related party, hence, there is no intention to evade payment of duty.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law and is therefore set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 419
Benefit of N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - non-fulfilment of criteria required for availing of the said exemption in as much as they have not commenced commercial production on or before the appointed date i.e. 1.03.2010 - HELD THAT:- The department has tried to establish the case on the basis of the visit of the central excise offices on 06.04.2010 and certain conclusions drawn on the basis of circumstances and thus comes to a conclusion that commercial production would not have been commenced from 31.03.2010. It is also mentioned that raw material/parts of galvanization pipes were purchased vide invoices dated 09.04.2010, 19.04.2010 and 04.09.2010, and, therefore, no production could be started on 31.03.2010.
It is found that Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Bilaspur, issued certificate dated 29.07.2010 certifying that the unit of the appellant was working and availing exemption under Notification No. 50/2003- CE. It is pertinent to note that the said certificate was later than the date of visit of the officers. It is failed to understand as to why the Commissioner relied on one set of evidence while ignoring the report of the superintendent, when both evidences are by the department itself.
The appellant’s submits on the basis of available CENVAT credit is also not considered by the learned adjudicating authority. In view of the categorical certification by the Range Superintendent that the unit has been operational as on 31.03.2010, availing exemption and due to the fact that the allegation of clandestine production and sale has not been evidenced and even a minimum level of investigation into the transportation and financial transactions of excisable goods, was conducted, it is opined that the issue needs to travel back to the original authority for a fresh consideration of all the issues relevant to the case after taking into account the submissions of the appellants and on verifying the available evidence in the form of documents and after giving due opportunity to the appellants in the interest of natural justice.
Conclusion - It is failed to understand as to why the Commissioner relied on one set of evidence while ignoring the report of the superintendent, when both evidences are by the department itself.
The appeal is allowed by way of remand and it is directed that the order in remand to be passed within 16 weeks of the receipt of this order, as far as possible.
-
2025 (1) TMI 418
Classification of Dumpers/Trippers - to be classified under tariff sub heading 87051090 as special type vehicles or as Dumpers/Trippers under sub-heading 87041010 and 87041090? - whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of notification no. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 and notification no. 6/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 or not?
HELD THAT:- The claim of the appellant is that during the course of investigation, they have already paid an amount equal to 29 lakhs whereas the Cenvat Credit involved is Rs. 13,78,470/- - as the appellant has already reversed the Cenvat Credit attributable to the goods cleared without payment of duty taking the benefit of notifications, the condition of notification has been fulfilled by the appellant.
The contention of the Revenue in this case is that if it is not detected, the appellant would not have reversed the Cenvat Credit, therefore, they are not entitled for benefit of notifications. The said contention is not sustainable, as appellant has reverse the Cenvat Credit during investigation itself before issuance of the Show Cause Notice.
Conclusion - The Cenvat Credit is attributable to the goods cleared by the appellant without payment of duty claiming the benefit of notification no. 6/2002 CE dated 01.03.2002 and notification no. 6/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 reversed Cenvat Credit attributable to the other goods used in manufacture of those goods along with interest. The appellant is entitled for the benefit of notification no. 6/2002 CE dated 01.03.2002 and notification no. 6/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006. No penalty is imposable on the appellants.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 417
Refund claim - CENVAT Credit for goods cleared under exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE for export - Applicability of rule 6(6)(v) of CCR - HELD THAT:- In the present case the appellant have reversed the amount in terms of Rule 6(3) in respect of the exempted goods under Notification No. 4/2006-CE and cleared for export and for the said reversal the appellant filed the refund claim. On the identical issue in the appellant’s own case where the revenue had demanded the amount under rule 6(3) in respect of the similar nature of export this tribunal vide order no. 11450-11451/2023 dated 07.07.2023 [2023 (7) TMI 360 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that the appellant was not required to pay an amount under rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules even though the goods are exempted under Notification No. 4/2006-CE for the reason that the said notification is conditional one.
The appellant have reversed the Cenvat Credit amount in terms of rules 6(3) therefore claiming refund of the same amount is nothing but seeking a credited of the Cenvat amount. It is a settled law that if any amount of Cenvat is reversed for any reason which is not liable to be reversed the same can be recredited in the Cenvat account if the amount is reversed from Cenvat account. If the said amount was reversed from the cash the appellant is entitled for the cash account. Therefore, the contention of the revenue that the present refund is not governed by Section 11B is not relevant in the facts in the present case.
Conclusion - The exempted goods cleared for export under bond are eligible for Cenvat Credit, and reversal under Rule 6(3) is not justified. The Appellant is not required to pay an amount under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of the goods exported under Notification No. 4/2006-CE in terms of Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 416
Eligibility (of co-noticee) for waiver of penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - main case of M/s Suryansh Trading Company has been settled under SVLDRS- 2019 - HELD THAT:- As per the judgments of not only Single Member Bench but also of the division bench cited by the learned Counsel, it has been held that in case of settlement of case under SVLDRS-2019 against the main party on whom there is duty demand, the co-noticee/co-appellant shall not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The one division bench judgment, in the case of Prakash Steeladge Ltd [2024 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that 'the penalties imposed on the co-noticees in a case where the main noticee against whom the demand is confirmed, the case is settled under SVLDRS then in respect of other co-noticees penalty will not sustain even if they have not filed a declaration under SVLDRS-2019 and decision on the issue of SVLDRS-2019 in the case of Four R Associates and others reported as [2023 (11) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHENNAI] given by Single Member Bench whereas the aforesaid cited decisions are given by Division Bench. Therefore, Division Bench judgment will prevail over Single Member Bench.'
Conclusion - When a main case is settled under SVLDRS 2019, penalties on co-noticees involved in the same case are not sustainable.
The penalty on the appellant is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 341
Condonation of gross delay of 3213 days in filing the appeals - no satisfactory explanation provided - HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 15-10-2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos. E/640/2009-DB, E/1284-1285/2009-DB and E/557/2012-DB respectively.
The appeals are, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2025 (1) TMI 340
Exemption from Duty - Wrongful availment of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - food preparation supplied to Women Industrial Co-Operative Societies intended for free distribution to the economically weaker sections of the society - it was held by CESTAT that 'The demand of Central Excise duty along with interest and penalty confirmed in the impugned order is set aside.'
HELD THAT:- There is no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 339
Interest on delayed refund - scope and ambit of Section 11 B and 11 BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 35 F and 35 FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Violation of principles of natural justice - failure to consider relevant facts - It is submitted that the impugned judgment does not take notice of the relevant facts, including the 6 years’ delay on the part of the respondent which has been condoned, as well as the statutory provisions, in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944
HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable in the week commencing 24.03.2025.
Stay of the operation of the impugned judgment till the next date of hearing granted in favor revenue
-
2025 (1) TMI 338
Cenvat Credit in respect of the rejected finished goods received back from the buyer - invocation of extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- Though the appellant has recorded the factum of return of the defective goods in their RG 23A Part-I alongwith the relevant invoices and subsequent issuance of the production area for manufacture of finished products but has not been able to establish that the same were cleared on payment of duty. Further, the appellant has also not strictly followed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the absence of clear proof of payment of duty after re-processing of defective goods, it will be difficult for me to give a concrete finding on the said issue; but as far as extended period of limitation is concerned, the appellant has shown the defective goods returned in RG 23A Part-I and has been regularly filing monthly returns before the department and the department has not raised any objection and only during the course of audit conducted by AG Audit (H.P.) during 06.09.2003 to 29.10.2003 it has been pointed out that the appellant has wrongly taken the Cenvat Credit; and thereafter the show cause notice was issued purely on the basis of audit objection which is unsustainable.
The appellant has been regularly filing monthly ER-1 returns for the period in dispute declaring the Cenvat Credit admissible to them and therefore, the appellant cannot be accused of suppression of relevant facts when there are series of instructions issued by the CBIC board directing the field officers to scrutinize the ER-1 returns carefully.
When the audit was conducted in year 2003, the entire information was within the knowledge of the department from the date of conclusion of the audit, but in spite of that, the show cause notice was issued after a gap of three years without any further investigation conducted by the department from the date of conclusion of audit. It has been consistently held by various Courts that when the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the department, the extended period for raising the demand cannot be applied.
Conclusion - The show-cause notice was issued purely on the basis of audit objections without the necessary investigation which must precede action under Section 11A of the Act. The demands based solely on audit objections without further investigation are unsustainable and that extended periods cannot be applied when facts are known to the department.
The appeal of the appellant allowed on limitation alone by setting aside the impugned order.
-
2025 (1) TMI 337
Refund of central excise duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Self Assessment - Claim on the ground that excess payment of such duty made due to wrong valuation of goods - rejection on the ground that appellant have failed to justify that the burden of central excise duty paid by them and have not been passed on to the customers - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- In the present case appellant have paid the duty of self assessment basis. Whether the issue with regards to applicability of Section 4A or Section 4 for making assessment of duty could not have been raised by the appellant in these proceedings of refund in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 needs to be considered in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that 'The provisions under Section 27 cannot be invoked in the absence of amendment or modification having been made in the bill of entry on the basis of which self- assessment has been made. In other words, the order of self-assessment is required to be followed unless modified before the claim for refund is entertained under Section 27. The refund proceedings are in the nature of execution for refunding amount. It is not assessment or re- assessment proceedings at all. Apart from that, there are other conditions which are to be satisfied for claiming exemption, as provided in the exemption notification. Existence of those exigencies is also to be proved which cannot be adjudicated within the scope of provisions as to refund. While processing a refund application, re- assessment is not permitted nor conditions of exemption can be adjudicated.'
Nothing has been brought on record to show that the self assessment made by the appellant at the time of clearance of these goods was ever appealed against by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 or the order of self assessment has been modified. In absence of such modification the submissions made by the appellant in these proceedings under Section 11B challenging the self assessment made for claiming this refund cannot be said to be proper. In view of the above referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court were in it has been specifically held that refund proceedings under Section 11B are executionary in nature.
Conclusion - The refund proceedings are in the nature of execution for refunding amount. It is not assessment or re-assessment proceedings at all. The appellant failed to prove entitlement to a refund under Section 11B.
There are no merits in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 336
Central Excise Duty for the period prior to registration - inclusion of clearances made to industrial customers in the assessable value - HELD THAT:- The claim made by the appellant is substantiated with documentary evidence. The clearances made to industrial customers is also included while computing the duty demanded in the impugned order. Since MRP based assessment is not applicable to clearances made to industrial customers, the submission made by the Appellantagreed upon, that the value of clearances amounting to Rs.3,62,038/- needs to be reduced from the value of Rs.1,53,53,283/- worked out by the Department for demanding duty. If this amount is reduced, then the value of clearances made during the Financial Year 2014-15 prior to 31.01.2015 i.e., the date of taking registration, works out to Rs.1,49,91,245/- - There is no demand liability to be paid by the Appellant for the period prior to 31.01.2015. There is no dispute that the Appellant has adopted the MRP based assessment after taking registration with effect from 31.01.2015.
Since the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise.
Conclusion - MRP-based assessments are not applicable to industrial customer clearances, and demands based on incorrect assessments are unsustainable. No demand liability to be paid by the Appellant for the period prior to registration.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 306
Error in allowing the appeal of the respondent when the respondent has liable to pay the duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but paid in terms of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act or not - permission granted by the erstwhile Commissioner to pay duty under Section 3 have any statutory value when admittedly the respondent is liable to pay duty under Section 3 of the said Act - issuance of Show Cause Notice is time barred when the respondent has not disclosed their liability to pay duty under section 3A - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this appeal is covered by order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2023 (4) TMI 708 - CESTAT KOLKATA]. Apart from the Learned Tribunal had rightly noted that the Commissioner had granted permission vide letters dated 29-3-1997 and 20-4-1998. This aspect of the matter is not in dispute as it has been admitted in the order passed by the Commissioner dated 29-12-2017, wherein the Commissioner would observe that permission was granted by the Commissioner in response to the request made by the assessee and in the interest of revenue to eliminate the inconvenience in practical operation with the condition that concession would be reviewed at the end of the final order on the basis of the revenue performance of the assessee. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was a review of the matter and the permissions granted by the department vide letters dated 23-9-1997 and 20-4-1998 remained intact.
The Learned Tribunal granted relief to the assessee taking note of the undisputed facts. With regard to notification of the extended period of limitation, the facts clearly show that the issue with regard to payment of duty under Section 3 of the Act had attained finality after the order of the Learned Tribunal dated 27-2-2023 and in such circumstances, the question of applying the extended period of limitation under the Rules would not arise. Consequently, the penalty is also not imposable.
Conclusion - There is nothing on record to indicate that there was a review of the matter and the permissions granted by the department vide letters dated 23-9-1997 and 20-4-1998 remained intact.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 305
Method of valuation - clearance of excisable goods made to related parties - to be governed under Rule 8 of Central Excuse Valuation Rules, 2000 or not - personal penalties imposed under Rule 26 on certain individuals.
Demand of differential duty on the issue of valuation - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute on the fact that the goods are sold to the related as well as un related buyers and the appellant have applied the transaction value which is charged to the un related buyers also in respect of clearances made to the related parties. In this case , the valuation of the goods cleared to the related buyers was correctly made by applying the transaction value at which the goods are sold to unrelated buyers. This issue has been considered by the larger bench of the CESTAT in the case of ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI-LB] where it was held that 'the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.'
Thus, valuation of goods cleared to related parties which is based on the transaction value at which the goods are sold applied to unrelated buyers is absolutely correct. Therefore, in this regard demand is not sustainable. Hence, duty demand of Rs. 5,36,540/- is set aside.
Personal penalties imposed on various persons - HELD THAT:- Since the major demand which is on the issue of valuation has been set aside, the personal penalty under Rule 26 is not sustainable considering the over all facts of the case. Therefore, the penalties imposed under Rule 26 are set aside.
Conclusion - Rule 8 applies only when the entire production is captively consumed and not sold. Rule 4 is preferred for valuation when goods are sold to both related and unrelated parties. Penalties imposed under Rule 26 are set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (1) TMI 304
CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - whether the availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant on the supplementary invoice in respect of the duty paid on the stock transfer can be denied invoking Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- From the plain reading of the above Rule 9(1)(b) it is clear that the restriction for Cenvat Credit provided in the Rule 9(1)(b) is applicable only in such cases where the transaction of input is of sale. In the present case admittedly the good were received by the appellant from their own unit therefore the transaction is not for sale but only stock transfer. It is also observed from the invoice copy that invoices for stock transfer and no VAT tax has been paid therefore in the present case transaction being of stock transfer and not of sale, Rule 9(1)(b) is not applicable and on that basis denial of Cenvat Credit is without authority of law.
Similar issue has considered by this tribunal in the case of M/S ESSAR OIL LTD. VERSUS CCE RAJKOT [2014 (2) TMI 766 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein it was held that 'The word ‘Challan’ and ‘any other similar document’ evidencing payment of additional CVD, mentioned in Explanation to Rule 9 (1)(B), will thus mean those situations where duty is paid under a ‘challan’ by an importer/dealer of imported goods who has sold the cenvatable goods.'
Conclusion - In the present case transaction being of stock transfer and not of sale, Rule 9(1)(b) is not applicable and on that basis denial of Cenvat Credit is without authority of law.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 220
CENVAT credit on capital goods initially brought into Plant No.1 and subsequently moved to Plant No.2 and Plant No.3 - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the contention of Revenue is that capital goods were brought into Plant No.1 which is also referred to as Unit No.1 and after availing cenvat credit, they were utilized into Plant No.2 and 3 which were also referred to as Unit No.2 and 3 and during the relevant time those units were not part of the Central Excise registered premises and, therefore, there was proposal for denying cenvat credit which was confirmed by the original authority.
It is noted that through the communication dated 24.06.2016, Principal Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over all the three plants has allowed them to be treated as part of the existing Central Excise registration No. AABCM9380KXM001. Thus, different units stated in the present proceedings are part of the same manufacturing unit and, therefore, there is no case of capital goods being removed out of the manufacturing unit after availing cenvat credit.
Conclusion - Different units stated in the present proceedings are part of the same manufacturing unit and, therefore, there is no case of capital goods being removed out of the manufacturing unit after availing CENVAT credit.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 219
Classification of electrical machinery parts and accessories - to be classified under Chapter 86 or under Chapter 84? - extended period of limitation - penalty.
Classification of electrical machinery parts and accessories - HELD THAT:- As these goods were manufactured as per the designs submitted by the Indian Railway, they have to be specifically treated as part of Diesel Locomotive and so more appropriately classifiable under Chapter 86 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Further, the Tribunal in the case of M/S. FAIVELEY TRANSPORT RAIL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM [2024 (8) TMI 1143 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has held on the classification of goods supplied to Indian Railways that the pantographs and its parts are exclusively used in railway or tramway locomotives.
Further, in the case of PREMIER POLYFILM LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, GHAZIABAD [2024 (7) TMI 6 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] the Tribunal Allahabad has decided the issue in favour of the Assessee that the goods will be classified under the specific tariff entry of the goods cleared or under Chapter 86 in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA [2021 (3) TMI 291 - SUPREME COURT].
Thus, parts of railway diesel locomotive are more appropriately classifiable under CETH 86079100.Hence the issue regarding classification is decided in favour of the Appellant.
Extended period of limitation - Penalties - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any finding as to intent of suppression by the Appellant in the impugned order, the allegation of wilful misclassification and intention to evade duty by the appellant is not at all tenable as misclassification could not be equated with misdeclaration and it is a settled law that once the goods are correctly described, the bona fide adoption of classification by the importer cannot be equated with misdeclaration as the manufacturers are not expected to be fully conversant with the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. So, the issue of limitation is also decided in favour of the appellant and consequently, penalties imposed are set aside.
Conclusion - Parts of railway diesel locomotive are more appropriately classifiable under CETH 86079100. In the absence of any finding as to intent of suppression by the Appellant in the impugned order, the allegation of wilful misclassification and intention to evade duty by the appellant is not at all tenable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 140
Clandestine removal - classification of same type of goods under headings 3197 when cleared/removed officially and under 8424 when cleared allegedly unofficially or clandestinely - impact of such classification under different headings - CESTAT did not address the clandestine removal of goods issue, but proceeded on the premise that such clandestine removal was irrelevant - HELD THAT:- The CESTAT’s order warrants interference because the CESTAT has not discharged the duties and obligations expected of a first appellate Court in this case. The central and crucial issues were not considered. The findings of fact were not addressed. The CESTAT failed to address, much less come into close quarters with the reasoning of the Commissioner. The impugned order, with respect, is a cryptic single-paragraphed order. None of the principles in Santosh Hazare [2001 (2) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT] are followed, and the CESTAT’s approach is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The CESTAT should have considered the rectification application in the facts of this case. The ROM application tried to bring to the notice of the CESTAT that factual issues were raised, and they were not decided. The CESTAT’s attention was drawn to the material on record, which was not even referred to in the “single paragraph” order and was much less considered. Failing to address vital issues or even look into crucial material is grounds for judicial review. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22 February 2008 warrants interference.
Conclusion - The appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind, and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for the decision of the appellate Court.
The three substantial questions of law answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 139
Tribunal can ignore inquiry/investigations conducted and statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code or not - supplier of crude Menthol oil were found non-existence/fake during investigation - demand on account of assumption and presumption - fraud, wilful suppression/mis-declaration of the material facts - Benefit of N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.
HELD THAT:- The appellant was required to demonstrate and prove that during the relevant period, when the refund was claimed by the respondent, it had not procured any raw material, nor had it undertaken any manufacturing process. This could have been determined by the appellant by conducting an inquiry/investigation specifically focused on these aspects of the matter.
Indisputably, in the inquiry conducted by the Commissionerate, the respondent was not associated. The clear case of the respondent is that it procured raw material for its unit i.e, crude menthe oil, from various suppliers in Lukcnow and, therefore, it was not for the respondent to further find out and inquire as to how and from whom the suppliers had procured the raw material. The Commissionerate has undoubtedly conducted an elaborate inquiry, but could only conclude that the farmers, whose names were appearing on the vouchers seized from the possession of M/s Sachin and Nitin Enterprises were non-existent. The Commissionerate has, thus, seriously doubted the procurement of raw material by the suppliers of the respondent - The Adjudicating Authority has also ignored the fact that the respondent had installed two DG sets of 125 KVA to supplement the power. The case was clearly set up by the respondent before the Adjudicating Authority, but the same was not enquired into or investigated and the Adjudicating Authority rather placed sole reliance upon the investigation conducted by the Commissionerate. The CESTAT has rightly not approved the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Adjudicating Authority.
In reply to the show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Authority, the respondent had brought on record some evidences clearly demonstrating that not only the raw material stood procured, but the goods were also manufactured in the unit of the respondent from the procured raw material. The raw material was transported in trucks from outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir into the State. The jurisdictional officers of the Central Excise, the State Industries Department, and other statutory authorities had inspected the premises of the respondent from time to time and had never reported that the respondent’s unit was defunct and was not engaged in the permitted manufacturing activity - All these evidences could not have been ignored by the jurisdictional Authority only on the ground that there was investigation report from the Commissionerate belying the claim of suppliers of the respondent that they had procured the crude mentha oil from different farmers in Barabanki District of U.P.
Conclusion - The Tribunal has rightly not approved the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Adjudicating Authority.
Appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
