|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 81787 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 567
Process amounting to manufacture or not - applicability of Note 1(g) to Chapter 74 for classification of the product - HELD THAT:- For goods are to be classified taking into consideration the scope of headings / sub-headings, related Section Notes, Chapter Notes and the General Rules for the Interpretation (GIR) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Rule 1 of the GIR provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative Section notes or Chapter notes and thus gives precedence to this while classifying a product. Rules 2 to 6 provide general guidelines for classification of goods under the appropriate sub-heading. In the event of the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GIR 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining Rules 2 to 6 may then be applied in sequential order. Further, while classifying goods, the foremost consideration is the 'statutory definition', if any, provided in the Central Excise Tariff Act. In the absence of any statutory definition, or any guideline provided by the statute, the trade parlance theory is to be adopted for ascertaining as to how the goods are known in the common trade parlance for the purpose of dealing between the parties.
It is found that the weight of the product, or the reduction of dimensions from a particular size to another size, is not the pre-requisite for classification of the product under chapter heading 7409. Thickness of the product, being above 0.15mm is the key determinative factor for classification of the product under chapter heading 7409. It is also found process of ‘drawing or re-drawing’ is not mentioned as a process amounting to manufacture for the product of chapter heading 7409 and such process would amount to manufacture of products only in respect of chapter heading 7411. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner does not have any legal basis for classification of the disputed goods under chapter heading 7409.
Nothing specific has been mentioned about the machinery, processes undertaken to treat the activity of drawing to be treated as a process and to state that manufacturing has been undertaken by the appellants, to treat the same as independent evidence. Further, the adjudicating authority cannot depend on part of such panchanama which is convenient to the department and leave the other part where it is factually incorrect, to dismiss it as an inadvertent mistake. since it is not supporting their case. In other words, any evidence in order to rely upon the same for proving a case, has to be taken in its entirety. In view of the above, the impugned order did not examine the issues in proper perspective and failed to prove the allegation of clandestine removal for confirmation of demands raised in the SCNs.
In the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Technoweld Industries [2003 (3) TMI 123 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that there is no manufacture of a new product, It was also held that the process of drawing wire from wire rods did not amount to manufacture.
Conclusion - i) The process of drawing and re-drawing copper products did not constitute "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act, as it did not result in a new and distinct product. ii) The classification of the products under heading 7409 was incorrect, as the process did not amount to manufacture for that heading. iii) The denial of cross-examination of witnesses was unjustified, rendering the statements inadmissible as evidence.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 566
Process amounting to manufacture or not - packing, repacking, and labeling of spare parts of earthmoving equipment by the respondents-assessee - earthmoving equipment and their parts can be classified as "automobiles" under the Central Excise Tariff Act for the purpose of levying excise duty or not - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this appeal was decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/S. ACTION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD [2023 (6) TMI 1320 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] where it was held that 'As the word ‘automobile’ has not been defined in the Central Excise Act, the Central Excise Tariff Act or the Notifications issued by the Central Government, it would be permissible to refer to the dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance and it will not be appropriate to refer to the definition of the word ‘automobile’ occurring in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988'.
On careful reading of the decision given by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the disputed issues, it is found that the amendment carried out w.e.f. 29.04.2010 makes it abundantly clear that a legislature did not intend to tax the parts, components and assemblies of earthmoving equipment etc. under the Head “Automobiles”; therefore, to this extent, the adjudged demands for the period prior to 29.04.2010 cannot be sustained. It is further noted that the respondents-assessee have paid Central Excise duty for the period post 29.04.2010, and such duties paid have also been appropriated by the Department vide Order-in-Original dated 13.07.2012. Thus, there is no dispute in this regard for the period post 29.04.2010, which is required to be examined in this case.
The adjudged demands for the period prior to 29.04.2010 is not sustainable.
Conclusion - The respondents-assessee's activities did not constitute manufacture prior to 29.04.2010, and earthmoving equipment parts were not "automobiles" under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
The appeal filed by the appellants-department is dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 565
Invocation of extended period of limitation - undervaluation while stock transferring the goods to its related units - allegation in SCN is that the excise duty paid by the Appellant under Section 4(1) (a) of the Excise Act was lower than the amount payable under Rule 8/9 of the Valuation Rules - revenue neutrality - demand of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra, as this Tribunal has already decided this issue in the Appellant’s own case Steel Authority of India v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi I, [2025 (3) TMI 258 - CESTAT KOLKATA] pertaining to a different unit of the same assessee and concerning the same issue pertaining to valuation of inter-unit transfer of refractory material had held that no demand is sustainable since the issue is revenue neutral.
The same proposition has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II [2023 (5) TMI 720 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where it was held that 'The Appellant has argued that the entire exercise is revenue neutral as the duty paid by them will be available as credit for their sister unit. We agree with this view of the Appellant. The duty paid by the Appellant would be available as credit to their sister unit. This the entire exercise is revenue neutral.'
Demand of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the demand of duty is not sustained, the question of demanding interest and imposition of penalty does not arise.
Conclusion - The principle of revenue neutrality was reaffirmed, emphasizing that when duty paid on inter-unit transfers is available as credit, additional demands are unsustainable.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 564
Determination of assessable value - discounts which were known to the buyers at the time of clearnace of goods and passed on to the buyers - eligible as deduction for the purpose of determination of the assessable value or not - interest and penalties - HELD THAT:- The Appellant cleared the goods provisionally upon payment of excise duty during the relevant period and all the provisional assessments have been made final vide issuing of finalisation orders. The said final assessments have been accepted by the department. It is observed that the assessments finalized for the relevant period were not challenged by the department by way of filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) as provided under Section 35A of the Act. Therefore, the final assessment orders had attained finality. In such circumstances, it is not open to the revenue to issue SCN to the Appellant for the same period for which assessments have been finalized.
Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The demands confirmed in the impugned order without challenging the final assessment orders is not sustainable and are accordingly, set aside. Since the demand of Central excise duty is not sustained, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise.
Conclusion - i) The discounts known and passed on to buyers are deductible for excise duty assessment. ii) The final assessments, if not appealed, are conclusive and preclude further departmental action for the same period.
The impugned order are set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 563
Dismissal of appeal for want of pre-deposit - failure to consider the pre-deposit made through DRC-03 as proper pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- As Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed both the appeals for want of pre-deposit which is now been made by the Appellants before the Tribunal, the matters are fit to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.
In case of D D Interiors [2025 (3) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that '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.'
Matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without revisiting the issue of mandatory pre-deposit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 501
Withholding of refund alongwith interest despite the order of CESTAT - non-implementation of refund order - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The petitioner duly responded to the said show cause notice contending therein that the proposal for rejection of refund is highly arbitrary, inasmuch as, the credit was reversed with protest at the instance of the Department and consequent upon setting aside of the order of the Commissioner i.e., the Order-in-Original, by the learned tribunal; the petitioner-Company only wanted restoration of the said position. In response to the reply to the show cause notice, vide Annexure-6 i.e., letter dated 14/15.09.2022, the Assistant Commissioner, without adjudicating the issue, and without considering the reply to the show cause, only intimated the petitioner that the Department has filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the said Order-in-Appeal. To this letter, the petitioner also replied that in the absence of any stay order, implementation of the order of the learned Tribunal by way of giving refund cannot be delayed on any pretext. However, only on the aforesaid pretext, the refund has not been made.
Admittedly, the show cause notice dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure-5) was duly replied by the petitioner, however, without adjudicating the show cause notice, the respondent-Department just delayed the matter of refund and forced the petitioner-company to knock the door of this Court. Accordingly, non-refund of the amount which was reversed by the petitioner on protest is unjust enrichment and is wholly arbitrary and also without jurisdiction.
Conclusion - i) Compliance with a Tribunal's order is mandatory unless stayed by a higher authority. Procedural delays or pending appeals do not justify non-compliance. ii) The respondent-Department is directed to refund alongwith interest.
Application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 500
Prayer quashing and setting aside the order-in-original on the ground that the same was passed by the adjudicating authority contrary to the directions issued by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Central Excise duty on the value of free issue material supplied by the principal manufacturers for the manufacture of the intermediate goods on job work basis - HELD THAT:- The respondent is not able to justify the stand of the respondent in not following the directions of the CESTAT and deciding the matter on merits. It is true that the respondent has passed the impugned order without understanding the difference between the manufacture of the final product by the principal manufacturer using the free goods supplied by the end user which were the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ujagar Prints and others v. Union of India and others [1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] and the job work done on the intermediate products as in the facts of the present case done by the petitioners and final product manufactured by the principal manufactures using such intermediate product.
In such circumstances, the CESTAT has rightly applied the decision in case of M/s. International Auto Ltd.(supra) and the matter was only remanded for the purpose of verification of the duty paid by the principal manufacturer on the final product including the intermediate goods upon which the job work was done by the petitioners.
Conclusion - The adjudicating authority's order was invalid due to non-compliance with CESTAT's directions. The case was remanded for de novo adjudication by a different officer, with specific instructions to verify the duty payment by the principal manufacturer as per CESTAT's mandate.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 499
Levy of penalty u/r 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - clandestine removal - transporting excisable goods without proper invoices - case of appellant is that the Revenue failed to prove that appellant were aware that the goods in question, which were transported by them, were liable for confiscation and excise duty was not paid on those goods - HELD THAT:- Non-carrying of invoices does not lead to presumption that goods are liable for confiscation. According to him the transporters are not supposed to be experts or well conversant with the excise law. Therefore, the adjudicating authority and the learned Commissioner have wrongly presumed the collusion in this case between the manufacturer and the appellant which has no basis and the impugned order based on this reason is not sustainable.
It is pertinent to note that the transporter, who is engaged in transportation of excisable goods cannot escape from their responsibility to ask for invoices from their client for the goods which they used to transport.
In the case of Shri Ajay S. Singhal, Shri Sandesh T Bhingrade, Shri Amrit Kumar Chauhan vs. CCE, Vapi [2013 (9) TMI 654 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], the Tribunal held so far imposition of penalty upon Shri Amrit K. Chauhan (Transporter) is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that he was not knowing that the goods cleared clandestinely by the main party were liable to seizure and confiscation under the Central Excise law. However, it is evident from his statement recorded during the course of investigation that entries made in the note pad maintained for clandestine removals showed the transportation made by him in all such clearances. It is admitted by him that he did not know the exact address and name of concern where the ingots were delivered as he had not issued any lorry receipts. It is also accepted by him that freight charged by him from the main party was received in cash. Therefore, the conduct and act of the transporter is not free from doubt as he was not maintaining any written records like lorry receipt, register etc. so that clandestine activities done by the main party could not be detected by any agency.
Thus, no error has been committed by the adjudicating authority and the learned Commissioner in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant was very much aware of the clandestine removal being undertaken by M/s. Moonlight Tube Industries and the plea of the appellant cannot be accepted that he was not aware of clandestine removal by the main appellant.
Conclusion - The appellant was liable for the penalty under Rule 26(1) due to their knowledge of the clandestine nature of the goods.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 498
Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution - adjournment of matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided - Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod [2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT] condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal’s Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 'considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or granted still the petitioner – defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown. In fact it can be said that the petitioner – defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. In view of the circumstances, the present SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.'
Conclusion - There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided - the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 497
Remission of duty - Liability to pay excise duty for the goods not reached to the destination - transit loss upto 1% - entitlement to avail benefit of condonation of transit loss upto 1% in the light of Circular dated 30.10.1985 - HELD THAT:- The Ld. Commissioner after considering the various circulars and the Notifications has held that the said circular dated 30.10.1985 is still valid and the same has not been withdrawn till date and consequently has allowed the transit loss upto 1%. We also find that this issue has been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2024 (12) TMI 151 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dealt with the same issue in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, the Hon’ble Gujarat High after considering all the Circulars issued by the Department from time to time and the various Rules providing for warehousing provisions had held 'in view of the Notification No. 46/2001 not being disturbed by the CBEC read with Circular No. 261 dated 30.10.1985, the petitioner would be entitled to transit loss upto 1% for non payment of duty on the products transferred from the refinery/factory to the place of storage for the purpose of export only.'
Conclusion - The applicability of Circular dated 30.10.1985 to export warehousing affirmed, allowing for condonation of transit loss up to 1%.
There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 496
Invocation of extended period - Short payment of duty - whether the demand for excise duty, as raised by the show-cause notice dated 07.07.2015, is barred by the extended period of limitation? - HELD THAT:- The appellant is contesting that the demand is barred by limitation. The audit was conducted and a spot memo was issued on 25.07.2012, and which was replied by the appellants on 27.09.2012. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 07.07.2015 for the period June, 2010 to December, 2013, by invoking extended period of limitation. All the facts were in knowledge of the Department by way of audit conducted by them. In that circumstances, the extended period of limitation is not invokable.
The same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited i(Unit III) [2024 (5) TMI 1054 - CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein this Tribunal has observed 'Even under the self assessment regime, scrutiny of the ER-1 Returns are still to be taken up by the Range officials. There is nothing to indicate that the self-assessed ER-1 were taken up for scrutiny and any query was raised towards the assessable value adopted by the appellant for their clearances.'
Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The demand is barred by limitation, accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, no penalties are imposed on the appellants.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 495
Clandestine removal - manufacture and clearance of ready-made garments under the brand-name of foreign companies without payment of CE duty for export and such clearance were not made under cover of invoices under Rule 11 of the CE Rules, 2002 - ims-declaration of goods - entitlement to SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2003 CE dated 01.03.2003 - HELD THAT:- The allegations are not supported by any iota of evidence to show that the appellant has cleared goods manufactured in their factory in domestic market and procured goods for export from other sources. Neither any enquiry was made to that effect from the domestic market where the goods have been allegedly sold and from where the goods have been procured for export. 16. Moreover, if manufactured goods were sold by the appellant they are entitled for drawback claim at the rate of 7% to 8% and if goods are procured from outside market they are entitled for draw back claim of 3-4%. As appellant is a manufacturer of goods, there is no sense that the manufactured goods will be cleared in domestic market and from the domestic market appellant will procure goods for export. The allegation made against the appellant by the authorities is without any supportive evidence. In that circumstances, the allegation against the appellant is not sustainable.
Moreover, as appellant was not required to take CE Registration and the appellant was exempted for taking Registration vide letter dated 12th July, 2011 therefore, the appellant was not required to issue invoices under Rule 11 of the CE Rules, 2002. In that circumstances, the whole of the demand confirmed against the appellant are not sustainable. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellants.
Conclusion - i) The allegation made against the appellant by the authorities is without any supportive evidence. In that circumstances, the allegation against the appellant is not sustainable. ii) Moreover, as appellant was not required to take CE Registration and the appellant was exempted for taking Registration vide letter dated 12th July, 2011 therefore, the appellant was not required to issue invoices under Rule 11 of the CE Rules, 2002.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 494
Denial of utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of duty during the defaulted period in terms of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CX, HOWRAH COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS M/S. RUSTECH PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [2024 (7) TMI 814 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that matter should be kept pending and is to be taken only after the Special Leave to Appeal No. 16523/2015 is decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
It is found that the issue in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. [2024 (7) TMI 1559 - SC ORDER (LB)] has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the issue is presently not pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, in our view, there is no bar in taking up the issue for a decision based on the available documents.
The demand of duty along with interest confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, we set aside the same. As the demand for recovery of CENVAT Credit during the defaulted period is not sustainable, consequently, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant.
Conclusion - The ultra vires declaration of Rule 8(3A) by the High Courts prevents the denial of CENVAT Credit utilization during the defaulted period.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 430
Clandestine manufacture and removal - liquid medicaments - allegation on the basis of comparison of quantity clearance details as reflected in Tax Audit Report (Form 3CD) and ER-1 Returns for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 - principles of natural justice - Extended period of limitation.
Can on the basis of difference between figures of Form 3CD and ER-1 Returns, it be alleged that the appellants are engaged in the activity of clandestine clearance of the goods? - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Micky Metals Ltd. vs. CCE, Bolpur [2023 (7) TMI 357 - CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein this Tribunal has observed 'time and again it is held by the judicial pronouncements as discussed hereinabove that merely on the basis of difference in the figures of audit report and ER-1 return without establishing the parameters of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, the charge of clandestine removal is not sustainable.'
It is found that in this case the show cause notice has been issued on 29.04.2015 for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 on the basis of difference between Form 3CD and ER-1 Returns. As all these documents were in public domain during the impugned period, therefore, as the documents are available with the department and if there any allegations required to be made that to be made during the normal period of limitation, which the Revenue has failed to do so.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The demand pertaining to extended period of limitation is not sustainable and whole of the demand is beyond the normal period of limitation.
Conclusion - Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. The charge set aside concluding that the demand for excise duty, interest, and penalties was unsustainable due to lack of evidence, violation of natural justice, and inapplicability of the extended limitation period.
There are no merit in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 429
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Inclusion of CENVAT credit availed on the "Interface", while calculating the proportionate credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - applicability of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules or Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules? - Invocation of extended period of limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- If Rule 16 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 provides for availing credit on goods brought into the factory for whatever purpose, it should be interpreted in a constricting manner without expanding the purposes for which a deeming fiction has been brought in. It is found that wherever legislature intended to make the deeming fiction applicable to the entirety of Rules, the same is provided by the Rule itself. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants agreed upon that such an inclusive deeming fiction has been incorporated under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.
It is found that in the impugned case, Rule 16 does not provide such applicability to the other Rules of CENVAT Credit Rules. It can be seen that Rule 16 brings in one such deeming fiction to cater the exigencies of the manufacturers who are likely to receive back final products for repair, re-conditioning etc. As the duty on the same has been discharged, legislature in their wisdom has permitted availment of CENVAT credit on the same. For this reason, the goods cannot be equated to be inputs for the purpose of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules as they were never been inputs - the findings of the impugned order are not sustainable on this count. The appellant has correctly not included the amount of CENVAT credit in the value of inputs for the purpose of reversal of CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3A) in respect of exempted and dutiable goods manufactured by them.
Invocation of extended period of limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- Department has not made out any case for invocation of extended period. Moreover, it is seen that extended period have been invoked in the subsequent show cause notices also in contravention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT], it is found that extended period cannot be invoked in the subsequent show cause notices. Further, as the appellants being subjected to audits from time to time and keeping in view that the appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking, it is found that invocation of extended period is neither warranted not substantiated. In the result, the impugned orders cannot be sustained both on merits and limitation. Therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
Conclusion - The appellants correctly excluded the "Interface" from the reversal calculation under Rule 6(3A). ii) The extended period for show cause notices was unjustified.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 428
CENVAT Credit - cenvat credit availed by the respondent, has been distributed by the input service distributor as an ISD and the availment of cenvat credit by the respondent, which has been disputed at the end of ISD - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the case of Tata Steel Limited [2024 (10) TMI 50 - CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein this Tribunal has observed that 'As it is an admitted fact that the availment of CENVAT Credit on intellectual property service was not disputed at the end of the ISD/TSL, Kolkata, the CENVAT Credit cannot be declared as inadmissible CENVAT Credit to the appellant who has taken the CENVAT Credit on the strength of the invoices issued by the ISD. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit and accordingly, there is no requirement of reversal of CENVAT Credit by the appellant.'
Conclusion - A the distribution of cenvat credit to the respondent has not been disputed by the Revenue at the end of the Input Service Distributor, in that circumstances, it cannot be disputed at the end of the availment of cenvat credit by the respondent.
There are no infirmity with the impugned orders - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 377
Classification of the product manufactured and classified by the Assessee-Respondent - spices or Mixed Condiments and Mixed Seasoning - to be classified under Tariff Item No. 09109100 or under Tariff Item No. 21039040 - HELD THAT:- Only by establishing presence of more than certain quantity of substances in a particular product, the individuality of the product would not be necessarily lost and therefore, in such an event, the classification done by Appellant for its disputed products which had also undergone quasi-judicial scrutiny way back in 2009 and accepted by the Department not to be brought again to any further dispute. As it is noticed, the products described in this appeal are even of similar names (example – Pav Bhaji spice mix etc.) as found mentioned in the initial order.
The classification adopted by the Respondent-Assessee is confirmed and the proposed classification of the Appellant-Department is rejected, which also had remained unsustainable before the Adjudicating Authority namely the Principal Commissioner.
Conclusion - The classification of the product under Tariff Item No. 09109100 as a spice upheld.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 376
Contravention of provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-CE, as amended, read with Excise Rule 19 with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty - failure to submit the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 issued by HBL along with copies of Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant had obtained CT-1 Certificates from the Jurisdictional Authorities at Jaipur after executing a bond based on which excisable goods were removed without payment of duty under Excise Rule 19 under two ARE-1 forms. The conditions subject to which goods can be removed for export without payment of duty under this rule were prescribed by the Board. The basic requirement in this procedure is that there is evidence of the goods, which were removed from the factory must be exported. The ARE-1 issued by the Range Superintendent must be matched with the corresponding shipping bills under which they were exported. Excise Rule 19 does not provide that one could clear the goods and sell them to anybody in the domestic market who in turn may sell them to somebody else who may export goods or use them to manufacture some goods which may finally be exported.
Undisputedly in this case the appellant had not exported the goods removed under ARE-1 but sold them to M/s CEL. Therefore, there is no evidence from the documents submitted by the appellant that the goods were exported.
Conclusion - The appellant had not exported the goods, which were removed as per the procedure prescribed. Therefore, the demand of duty, interest and penalties imposed on the appellant need to be sustained.
Appeal dismissed.
-
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.
........
|
9911796707
