|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 82119 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 330
Area based exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE. - Determination of the eligibility of the appellant for exemption - applicability of the doctrine of res judicata - HELD THAT:- The scope of the remand is not limited as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants. However, Hon’ble supreme Court has directed this bench to reconsider the point raised in the civil appeal by Revenue.
It is the contention of the appellants that the department after due verification has given permission to M/s Stanley controls to avail exemption: District industries Centre DIC has permitted; Chartered Engineer certified the shifting and installation/commencement of production; it is incorrect to state that the unit was not functioning; even if it is assumed that the unit is not functioning, there is no condition that the said unit must be functioning on the day of transfer - M/s Stanley Controls has filed returns for all the quarters, for the period 30.09.2009 to 31.12.2012, on one single date i.e on 14.01.2013 together just before the takeover; they have shown production/clearance of 80 Nos of Solenoid Valves valued at Rs 73,301, during the quarter ending September 2009, whereas they have shown clearance of 1050 Nos of said valves valued at Rs. 36, 750 without showing any production of these valves in the register for the quarter ending 31.12.2012; even after filing declaration dated 25.03.2013 by the applicant with the department to continue to avail the area-based exemption, their Quarterly Returns for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013 shows NIL production/clearance.
The appellants have not given any documentary evidences to controvert the findings of the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority to the effect that M/s Stanley Controls was a working unit prior to its takeover by the appellants. Therefore, M/s Stanley Controls was a non-working and a defunct unit at the time of its sale and therefore not eligible for area -based exemption as envisaged under notification no. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 as amended. Consequentially, the appellants having purchased an ineligible unit, are also not eligible for area-based exemption.
M/s Stanley Controls was not working as on the date of transfer. A façade of taking over a working unit was made to avail exemption contained under Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. However, various documents and records and the inferences drawn by them have exposed the attempt. We are of the considered opinion that the CBEC Circular permits only transfer of a unit availing exemption but not the exemption alone.
Conclusion - i) M/s Stanley Controls was not operational at the time of transfer, rendering the appellant ineligible for the exemption. ii) The demand for duty, interest, and penalties upheld.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 329
CENVAT Credit - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Revenue had initiated an investigation and on investigation, it was revealed that M/s. Ganpati had no electricity connection and therefore the Revenue took the view that they would not be able to manufacture the goods. Thus, it has been alleged that they are not entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on the invoices issued to M/s. Ronix. However, it is a fact on record that M/s. Ganpati has manufactured the goods and the same have been cleared on payment of duty, which has been accepted by the Revenue. If the duty has been accepted by the Revenue, in these circumstances, CENVAT Credit availed cannot be denied, as has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-III v. M/s. Ajinkya Enterprises [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. wherein it has been held that payment of duty shall amount to reversal of credit even if there is no manufacturing activity. Admittedly, in this case, M/s. Ganpati has paid the duty and therefore, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
The same is with the case of M/s. Ronix, which has taken CENVAT Credit on the duty paid by M/s. Ganpati and the same has been used in the manufacture of their final product, which were cleared on payment of duty. In these circumstances, when the Revenue has accepted the duty payment from the appellants, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
Conclusion - Since the duty payment was accepted, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 328
Determination of value in terms of Rule 10A read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or under Rule 8 of the Rules - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The value adopted by them is cost of raw material supplied by their customers plus cost of raw material procured by them plus conversion charges which includes profit. Rule 10A(iii) is applicable in case the goods are captively consumed, or the goods are used by other companies on their behalf. In this case the goods are manufactured on job work basis and supplied to the principal manufacturer, who manufacturers finished goods using the material/goods supplied by the appellant, therefore in the facts of the case, it is found that Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable and the method of valuation adopted by the appellant is proper and therefore the demand of duty along with the interest and imposition of penalty are not tenable.
Conclusion - The method of valuation adopted by the appellant, based on the cost of raw materials supplied by customers, materials procured by them, conversion charges, and profit, was deemed appropriate.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 327
Cash refund of cenvat credit lying in balance under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 consequent to closure of their factory - HELD THAT:- he issue is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay High Court initially taking note of the conflicting views on the subject, referred the matter for resolution by Full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (7) TMI 1204 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where Larger Bench of this Court disposed of all the three questions referred to it by Division Bench of this Court by answering the same in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.
Conclusion - The cash refund of accumulated cenvat credit lying in account on the date of closure of factory in the appellant’s case cannot be admissible.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 326
Refund of duty paid on inputs used for export goods when foreign exchange proceeds have not been realized - amount was paid under protest or not - rejection on the ground of failure to fulfill condition of Exim policy with regard to net foreign exchange earnings - HELD THAT:- It is found that in the impugned order the appellate authority has found that the case laws cited by the appellant pertain to demand of duties on the issues like removal/diversion of goods/waste into DTA, improper removal from bonded warehouse, entitlement to deemed export and remission of duty and that the case of the appellant is with regard to consumption of inputs, where export proceeds have not being realized and therefore the decisions cited by the appellant were not found relevant to the issue and therefore were not considered. The appellant in the appeal and during the hearing also has relied on the same case laws. We find that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not realized foreign exchange for the exports made during the year 2006-07 to the extent of Rs. Rs. 47,68,477/-and they have also written off of Rs. 6,08,729/-as bad debts.
The conditions prescribed in the Notification Nos. 23/2003-CE and 52/2003-Cus and B-17 bond executed by the appellant read with the Exim policy allows the Customs/Excise department to demand duty foregone on the inputs used in the export of goods, where the foreign exchange is not realized.
Conclusion - The appellant's failure to realize foreign exchange for certain exports led to the duty foregone on inputs being recoverable under the relevant notifications and policy framework.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 264
Valuation of Central Excise duty - inclusion of components like “Royalty”, “Stowing Excise Duty” (SED), and “Assam Land Tax” in the assessable value - invocation of extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- As on date, the issue as to whether “Royalty” is tax of not, stands clearly held against the appellant in view of the 9 Member Supreme Court decision in the case of MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. VERSUS M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR ETC. [2024 (7) TMI 1390 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. Therefore, on merits the appellants do not have any case. Accordingly, we hold that the Royalty component is required to be added to arrive at the Assessable Value. We dismiss the appeal on merits to this extent in respect of Royalty component.
he levy is being termed as “Duty of Excise” and also being treated as such. It is also not disputed that in the case of the goods in question, the Stowing Excise Duty is being paid by the appellant. The Revenue cannot take a contorted and narrow view that only when the Duty of Excise is paid as Central Excise Duty, such exclusion is available. It is to be noted that the word used is “duty of excise” along with “sales tax” and “other taxes”, which would clarify that if these are paid to State Govt or to any other agency also, the transaction value should exclude the same.
Assam Land Tax - HELD THAT:- The very word used therein is Tax. As we have observed above, the Section 4 (3) (d), when speaking of Tax, speaks of Central Govt and State Govt Taxes. Hence, we hold that the Assam Land Tax is not required to be included while arriving at the Assessable Value. Accordingly, we set side the confirmed demand on account of the Assam Land Tax component.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the appellant is a reputed Public Sector Undertaking, having no necessity to indulge in any suppression with an intent to evade Excise Duty payment. They have been paying the Excise Duty on the AV arrived at by them as per their interpretation and filing their Returns. Hence, no case of suppression has been made out by the Revenue, so as to invoke the extended period provisions.
Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- When the penalty under Section 11AC is waived on the ground that no case of suppression has been made out, even the duty demand would not legally sustain. There cannot be a case where it is held that there is no suppression, but only the penalty is dropped, but the Duty is confirmed. Both the Duty as well as penalty are required to be dropped if the case of suppression is not made out.
Conclusion - i) The demand on account of Royalty component sustains. ii) The demand on account of Stowing Excise Duty and Assam Land Tax components gets set aside. iii) The confirmed demand towards the extended period stands set aside and the demand stands allowed on account of time- bar to this extent.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (3) TMI 263
Levy of Centrat Excise Duty - amount of performance incentive received from the buyers for the Financial Year 2010-11 - suppression of facts or not - invocation of extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is found that the observation of the adjudicating authority while dropping the penalty against the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, has attained finality - the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The extended period of limitation is not invokable. Consequently, whole of the demand is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 262
Process amounting to manufacture - whether the excise duty paid by appellant by utilizing the CENVAT credit is recoverable? - HELD THAT:- While disposing the Revenue appeal regarding manufacture, it is beyond the scope of show cause notice since there is no such allegation as to the activity of the appellant not falling under manufacture in the Show cause notice.
Moreover, the issue is well settled by the decision of this Tribunal in M/S. MINERAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX [2017 (5) TMI 99 - CESTAT BANGALORE], M/S. MINERALS ENTERPRISES LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [2017 (10) TMI 500 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and M/S. MINERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [2024 (8) TMI 848 - CESTAT BANGALORE] holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is manufacture. As regards allegation of considering the excise duty paid by the appellant has deposit, there are strong force in the contention of the appellant that once the duty is not exempted absolutely, as per the provision of Section 5(1) of the Central Excise Act, it is an option available to the appellant to either opt for the benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-CE or not and it is for the assessee to decide the best method of making payment and merely if the assessee fails to avail the benefit of said notification, no allegation can be made that they have made an attempt to evade duty and to confirm demand of duty and impose penalty alleging violation of provision of law.
Conclusion - The findings on manufacture by the Appellate Authority are beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and were settled by previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the appellant.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 261
Method of Valuation - clinkers transferred by the appellant to their sister concern - to be valued under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 or under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000? - Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in appellant’s own case for their own unit for the period from March 2011 to November 2013 held that Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 be adopted following the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries case [2006 (9) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT].
This Tribunal in M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., (UNIT: RAJASHREE CEMENT WORKS) , VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, [2024 (1) TMI 663 - CESTAT BANGALORE] observed as 'we have no hesitation to hold that the appropriate rules for determination of the assessable value of the goods for the transferred clinkers to sister units will be Rule 4 read with 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2004 rather than Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for the period in question.'
Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- The revenue neutrality is not a statutory concept but a principle of equity developed by courts as a mitigating factor in appreciating the intention of the persons while applying the principle of law to a particular situation to determine the reason for non-payment of duty. Revenue neutrality cannot be considered as an incentive not to follow the statutory provision governing principle of valuation solely on the ground that the other unit could avail the benefit of credit of the differential duty payable.
Conclusion - i) The goods transferred should be valued under Rule 4 read with Rule 11. ii) Revenue neutrality cannot be a reason to deviate from statutory provisions and that the correct method of valuation should be applied.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 260
Reversal of CENVAT Credit under Rule 3(5B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, due to provisions made in the books for slow-moving inventory - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not written off the obsolete items. They only reduced the value of the slow-moving items, at the end of each financial year, if such inputs were lying in stock for a specified period. It is intended to determine the profit & loss at the end of the year. It is based on the principle of conservatism and to comply with the Accounting Standards, which was never with an intention to write off any portion of inventory in the Books of Accounts. Since it is not concerned with obsolete items, which are unusable, we hold that the provision of Rule 3(5B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules was not applicable.
The issue is no more res integra as the issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DURGAPUR NOW COMMISSIONER, CGST & CX, BOLPUR COMMISSIONERATE [2024 (12) TMI 1538 - CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein it has been held that the provisions of Rule 3(5B) of the CENVAT Rules are not applicable in such cases.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant is a wholly owned Govt. of India undertaking whose complete set of records were maintained and whose accounts were audited by statutory auditors appointed by CAG as well as supplementary audit by representatives of CAG-New Delhi. The appellant did not suppress any information from the Department and in fact maintained all the statutory documents, records/registers and accounts and filed the statutory returns. Thus, it is observed that the conditions precedent for invoking longer period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act are not satisfied in the present case and hence the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable.
Conclusion - i) Rule 3(5B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, does not apply to provisions for slow-moving inventory that are not written off. ii) The demand, interest, and penalty set aside as unsustainable. iii) The extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) was not applicable due to the appellant's transparent and audited practices.
The demands confirmed in the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 259
CENVAT credit - input services - GTA services used for transportation of goods on FOR basis - initiation of proceedings against the Input Service Distributor (ISD) instead of the appellant for the alleged incorrect availment of CENVAT Credit.
Whether the appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit in respect of GTA services and clearing and forwarding agency services in case of FOR destination contracts or not? - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 - CESTAT CHENNAI-LB] wherein it has been observed that 'the eligibility of CENVAT credit on GTA services for outward transportation should be determined by ascertaining the place of removal based on the facts of each case, considering the Supreme Court's judgments and the Board's Circular.' - Thus, the appellant is entitled for availment of CENVAT Credit on GTA services and clearing and forwarding agency service in case the good are sold on FOR basis. Accordingly, the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
Whether proceedings should have been initiated against the Input Service Distributor (ISD) instead of the appellant for the alleged incorrect availment of CENVAT Credit? - HELD THAT:- The appellant has availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by their ISD and admittedly, no proceedings had been initiated against the ISD. In these circumstances, the CENVAT Credit availed at the end of the appellant cannot be denied, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Indsil Energy Electrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. and S.Tax, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 944 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - the CENVAT Credit in respect of the said input services cannot be denied to the appellant.
Conclusion - The appellant had correctly taken CENVAT Credit and the denial of CENVAT Credit is therefore not sustainable. Accordingly, no penalty is imposable on the appellant.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 258
Extended period of limitation - undervaluation of goods - stock transfer to related units - contravention of provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules - Revenue Neutrality - HELD THAT:- In this case, the appellant has cleared the goods to their sister unit on payment of duty under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, by adopting 110% of the cost of the product determined as per CAS-4. If any excess duty is to be paid by the appellant, the same is entitled to take the cenvat credit by the appellant’s unit only.
In that circumstances, it is the case of revenue neutrality as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Hindalco Industries Limited [2023 (5) TMI 720 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein this Tribunal has held 'When excess paid duty is adjusted against the short payment that net result is that there is no short payment by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority failed to do this adjustment. Demanding duty onlu on the short payment, ignoring the excess payment is bad in law. Accordingly we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable.'
Accordingly, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries, it is held that it is a revenue neutral situation. No demand is sustainable against the appellant.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 257
Challenge to order of adjustment of demand made by the department against the rebate claim which was sanctioned - suo moto adjustment of rebate amount is done - HELD THAT:- The rival submissions have been considered by this court. It finds weight in whatever learned advocate has stated that as on date with the setting aside of the order by the Revisionary Authority, there is no demand which is existing.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 195
Lapse of cenvat credit under Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - rebate claim of duty paid on exported goods - HELD THAT:- Sub-clause (i) of sub-rule 3 of Rule 11 will have to be treated as distinct and separate from sub-clause (ii). Sub-clause (ii) alone provides for lapse of cenvat credit. Sub-clause (i) does not provide for lapse. The appellants have conceded that the case on hand falls only sub-clause (i) of sub-rule 3 of Rule 11 of CCR, 2004. The logical consequence is that the subject cenvat credit cannot be treated as having lapsed. The argument of the learned standing counsel that sub-clause (ii) should be read integrally with sub-clause (i) stands rejected. The provision for lapse set out in sub-clause (ii) cannot be applied in respect of the situation covered by sub-clause(i).
Whether these writ appeals are competent? - HELD THAT:- The latest Instruction dated 06.08.2024 reads that appeal shall not be filed in the CESTAT, High Court and Supreme Court if the case fell within the prescribed monetary limits. Exceptions have also been carved out. It is noticed that the direction is “appeal shall not be filed”. If in contravention of the instruction, an appeal is filed, the assessee can bring it to the notice of the concerned authority and seek withdrawal of the appeal. It may not be open to the tribunal or the High Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue by citing the said Instruction. Once the appeal has been filed, it is required to necessarily deal with the issue on merits.
Conclusion - i) The cenvat credit of the company did not lapse under Rule 11(3)(i). ii) Once an appeal is filed, it must be heard on its merits, even if it falls within the prescribed monetary limits set by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 194
Rrefund of the duty paid in cash - appellants have procured capital goods under EPCG Scheme and have not availed CENVAT credit of the same - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the procurement of capital goods being from a domestic manufacturer, wherein policy provides that such domestic manufacturer can avail the refund of excise duty paid by them under the condition that the recipient, the appellant in this case, does not avail CENVAT credit.
In the instant case, the appellants are in a better position inasmuch as CENVAT credit was not available to them in case the supplier availed the refund. In fact, the condition in Para 8.5 of the Exim Policy needs to be looked at from the supplier’s angle and not from the recipient’s angle, in this case, the appellant’s angle. As long as the appellant has not availed the credit, the appellant has not violated any condition of the Notification regarding the exhaustion of the available credit. As submitted by the appellants, exhausting the credit necessarily means the credit they have taken and not certainly the credit which they have not taken. If the appellant had more credit, they would have paid less in cash and if the credit was on the lower side, they would have paid more in cash. The appellants contend that either way, the situation is revenue neutral or the credit available at the hands of the buyers will not be altered by the manner in which the appellants pay duty on the products they cleared.
Conclusion - The condition in the Exim Policy regarding the exhaustion of available credit should be viewed from the supplier's perspective, not the recipient's. The appellants had not violated any conditions by not availing CENVAT credit.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 193
CENVAT Credit - input service of transportation of goods upto the place of removal - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue to determine is the admissibility of Cenvat credit in respect of outward transportation whether the supply of goods on FOR basis or at the factory gate. If Board has clarified through the circular on FOR basis the credit should have been admissible in the present case, it is found from the purchase order reproduced bellow that the supply of total cost basis at the premises of the appellant and in case of any defect entire sale was to be rejected.
From the perusal of the above purchase order the condition, it is found that the entire supply is made on total cost basis, and could have been rejected by the buyer for any defects noticed subsequent to delivery. The above condition of purchase order is enough to hold that transit risk was with the appellant and supply was made on FOR basis. That being so, on the basis of Board Circular the credit could not have been denied.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Board has specifically directed against invocation of extended period of limitation, as the issue involved is interpretational in nature. The demand made by invoking extended period of limitation goes contrary to the spirit of the circular. Thus there are no merits in the same and also the penalties imposed under Rule 15 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
There are no merits in the impugned order and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 192
Valuation of goods manufactured by the appellant during the period from 28.08.1986 to 31.03.1989 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the dispute pertains to the period from 28.08.1986 to 31.03.1989 and the issue is coming up for hearing for the third time. The appellant was following the procedure laid down in Rule 173C (11) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and duty payment was based on value shown in the SDAs. It was further sold by the sister concern of the appellant at higher rate by adding additional items as optional items, including battery etc., which are manufactured by other manufactures. Even as per the statement of the Senior Manager dated 30.10.1990, the purchase order was received from sister concern M/s. Keltron controls and transactions were regulated through Sectional Debit Advices (SDAs). He also stated that the appellant was not aware of the original orders of M/s. Keltron controls and has also not verified the invoices of M/s. Keltron controls regarding sale of UPS system including optional items and the excise duty remittance was not based on the realization of the amount by their sister concern M/s. Keltron controls.
The original Adjudicating Authority, only after considering the above facts, held that since the appellant had filed SDAs along with RT-12 Returns and when it is made available to the concerned officer, there is a failure on the part of department to probe the matter further and due to that reason, the demand invoking the extended period of limitation and penalty proposed in the show cause notice were dropped.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, invoking extended period of limitation is unsustainable. Considering the above, demand, if any for the normal period is confirmed in accordance with law. The demand by invoking the extended period of limitation and penalty imposed as per the impugned order on the appellant are set aside.
Conclusion - The penalty imposed were not justified due to the lack of evidence of undervaluation or suppression of facts by the appellant.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (3) TMI 191
Classification of goods manufactured by the appellant - classifiable under Tariff Item 84369100 of CETA, 1985 or under 73.14 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant’s own case [2016 (9) TMI 572 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where the identical issue was in dispute, has held that Welded Wire Mesh is classifiable under Tariff Item 84369100 of CETA, 1985. The said decision of the Tribunal was appealed against by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Apex Court but the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 20.09.2024 has dismissed the same on monetary ground.
Conclusion - The goods are classified under Tariff Item 84369100.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 190
CENVAT Credit - input services - outdoor catering services - period post amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue of availment of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on 'outdoor catering services', it is no more res integra and it is decided by the Larger Bench in Wipro Limited, [2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE - LB] that cenvat Credit of service tax paid on 'outdoor catering services' cannot be availed, post 01.04.2011 in view of the exclusion clause C(ii) to the definition of input service 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, service tax paid on 'outdoor catering services' is not eligible for availment of Cenvat credit.
Demand of interest - HELD THAT:- The confirmation of demand of interest on the cenvat credit demand is not sustainable following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of M/s. Bill Forge.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is found for the earlier period this Tribunal has set aside the penalty proceedings under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also in the adjudications for the subsequent periods the penalty has been dropped by the adjudicating authority, hence, it is found that penalty imposed in this appeal is unsustainable. Consequently, the confirmation of demand of interest and the imposition of penalty in the impugned order is unsustainable and needs to be set aside.
Conclusion - The appellant was not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on 'outdoor catering services' post the amendment. However, the demand of interest and penalty imposed on the appellant set aside, deeming them unsustainable based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (3) TMI 189
Benefit of N/N. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 to the vendors, who supply goods to the enlisted companies/organisations in the Notification - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of Vulcan Gears Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. [2010 (5) TMI 781 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that 'the Tribunal while deciding in favour of the appellant, took note of the Circular issued by the Board in respect of Notification No. 184/86, which is the precedent Notification to Notification No. 63/95-CE. In Circular vide F. No. 213/18/91-C.Ex.6, Circular No. 5/92, dated 19-5-1992 and another letter from Ministry of Finance F. No. IV/16/4/2003, dated 7-11-2003, it has been clarified that the exemption will be extended to all job workers and vendors supplying inputs required by BEML for manufacture of finished goods supplied to Ministry of Defence.'
The appellant has relied on the case laws mentioned, wherein it is held that the beneficial Notification should be given effect retrospectively and oppressing Notification should be given effect, prospectively. The appellant has paid duty on the goods supplied to BEML from November 2009, after the issue of clarification by the Board Vide Circular F. No. 110/32/2009-CX-32 dated 27.10.2009. The appellant contended that the period involved in this case is from June 2009 to October, 2009 i.e., before the issue of the clarification by the Board, hence they have contended that they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 63/1995-CE, in view of their above submissions and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Tribunals.
Appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
