|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 80382 Records
-
2024 (4) TMI 671 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Recovery of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest and penalty - input - goods used in the fabrication of various machineries, support structures, platforms for machineries and equipments etc. used in the factory - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the appellants during the relevant period used the aforesaid inputs in their factory in the fabrication / manufacture of various equipments, machineries, plants etc. and support structures holding the capital goods. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order following the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS CCE [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] decided the issue against the appellants holding that credit is not admissible on the aforesaid inputs used in the fabrication of various capital items.
The impugned orders are devoid of merit and accordingly the same are set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 670 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT Credit - input service - hiring of aircraft - services were used for furtherance of cost of the business of manufacture of the goods or not - HELD THAT:- The definition of the input service is wide enough to cover all the services received by the appellant as input services without being directly used in the process of manufacture. If it is establish that the services were used by the manufacturer for the production of the finished goods which is one of the criteria to credit could not have been denied. In the present case, Commissioner (Appeals) have concluded that charter services were raised for transportation of the senior executive officials of the company for attending the business meeting in relation of the manufacture and sale of finished goods.
In case of MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CENTRAL TAX, MANGALORE COMMISSIONERATE [2021 (6) TMI 715 - CESTAT BANGALORE], the Bangalore bench has held as far as air travel charges are concerned, the same has been used for the purpose of business trips undertaken by the company officials/guests for business related purposes and the same has been held to be input service.
There are no reason to differ with the findings recorded in the impugned order by Appellate Authority and the same is upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 626 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Immovable Property or not - fabrication and setting up of entire paint shop - entire demand has been quantified on the basis of the figures taken from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant - suppression of facts or not - Extended period of Limitation- HELD THAT:- The department instead of analyzing whether these items fall under the category of capital goods and eligible for credit has analysed whether the paint shop as assembled at site is an excisable goods. The appellant has not availed credit on ‘paint shop’. They have availed credit on various machinery, parts, and components which have been used to set up paint shop. Some structural items falling under Chapter 73 have also been used for the fabrication and setting up of entire paint shop which is integral to carry out the activity of painting of cars. The department does not have a case that the items do not fall under 84, 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.
In the case of M/s. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST LTU CHENNAI AND VICA-VERSA [2015 (12) TMI 940 - CESTAT CHENNAI] the Tribunal considered the issue of availment of cenvat credit on items used for setting up paint shop and held that credit is eligible. In the case of M/S OMAX AUTO LIMITED VERSUS CCE, DELHI-III [2013 (8) TMI 301 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] it was held that structures used in paint complex which is an integral part of the manufacture of motor vehicles used in the fabrication of paint complex is eligible for credit.
The denial of credit is on the basis of erroneous appreciation of facts and law. The issue on merits is answered in favor of assessee.
Extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The demand has been raised on the basis of figures as reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant. There is no positive act of suppression established by the department against the appellant. In the case of PUSHPAM PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY [1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of invocation of extended period observed that when facts are known to both sides there is no ground to invoke the extended period - there is no ground to invoke the extended period. The SCN is time barred. The issue on limitation is answered in favour of the appellant.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 625 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Recovery of duty with interest and penalty - wrongfully claiming benefit of exemption under Sl.No.84 of N/N. 6/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 (for the period December 2009 to 15/03/2012) and under Sl.No.332 of N/N. 12/2012-CE dt. 17/03/2012 - case of Revenue is that since pole shoe is a part of rotor being not used inside the factory for manufacture of WOEG, benefit of notification is not admissible - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Analysing the relevant entries finally the learned Commissioner has observed that rotor and controller are items which are distinctly different from the generator being located outside the generator which are essential for generation of electricity; hence covered under Sl.No.13 of List 5/8 whereas ‘pole shoe’ on the other hand is a part of the generator rotor assembly which rotates inside the generator stator assembly and converts mechanical energy into electrical energy resulting into generation of electricity.
There are merit in the observation of the learned Commissioner which is based on technical opinion and also the detailed study of the manufacturing process of ‘pole shoe’ and its ultimate use in the generator which has not been contradicted in any manner by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. The Revenue in the grounds of appeal has simply stated the pole sole is part of rotor which in turn parts of the WOEG, implies that any part of the parts of the WOEG is covered under Sl.No.21 of the said list and not sr. no. 13 of the said List 5/8 of the Notification.
There is a fallacy in the approach of the Revenue in appreciating the facts, inasmuch as the ‘rotor assembly’ used inside the WOEG is different from the ‘rotors’ which is placed outside the generator, but an essential part of the wind mill and accordingly allowed exemption - ‘pole shoe’ being part of the rotor assembly which in turn used in the generator and a part of the WOEG, hence squarely covered by the N/N. 6/2006CE dated 01.3.2006 and No.12/2012CE dt 17.3.2012.
The Judgement cited by the learned AR for the Revenue viz. Raydean Industries case [2022 (4) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] is on different set of facts and hence not applicable to the present case. In the said case, the issue involved was whether module mounting structures be part of the Sl.No.10 i.e. “Solar power generating system” of List 8 of the said Notification 12/2012CE dt. 17.3.2012. After analysing the facts, the Tribunal concluded that there is a difference between device and system and upholding the finding of the Commissioner, held that module mounting structure is a part of solar power generating system, hence not covered under the said entry.
There are no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal being devoid of merit is liable for dismissal - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 624 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Requirement of reversal of CENVAT Credit - inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods exported - non-maintenance of separate records of receipt and consumption of inputs of dutiable and exempted goods - Rule (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- This issue has already been considered by the jurisdictional High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DRISH SHOES LTD. [2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] wherein also the Hon’ble High Court after relying upon the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of REPRO INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held an assessee, manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty, is eligible to avail CENVAT credit paid on the inputs under the exception clause to Rule 6(1), as contained in Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, used in the manufacture of such goods, if the goods are exported.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner which is upheld by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue - appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 623 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT Credit - capital goods or not - various items, used for fabrication / erection of various plants as a part of the Phase III expansion project on lumpsum key basis - invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue in question has been considered by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T, PANCHKULA [2020 (1) TMI 373 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. The facts are more or less similar to the present one inasmuch as the assesse therein are manufacturers of petroleum products falling under Chapter 27 of CETA, 1985. They have availed cenvat credit during July 2007 to March 2012 in respect of various items of capital goods received by them for erection, installation and commissioning of Nephtha Cracker Plant by entering into composite lumpsum turnkey contract with different contractors. Alleging that the assessee is not eligible to avail credit on capital goods in respect of various items of machinery and equipments, instruments falling under Chapter 84, 89 and 90 CETA, 1985 since after fixing of these capital items to the plants fixed become immovable and accordingly non-excisable. The Tribunal had observed that For capital goods Cenvat credit, the items must be among those mentioned in this Rule and should have been used in the factory of the manufacturer and how the items are not used relevant. The words used in Rule 2(a) are “used in the factory of manufacturer of the final product” not “used in the manufacture of final product”. Therefore, once any item received in the factory is “capital goods” in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and is used in the factory, the manufacturer would be entitled to Cenvat credit of excise duty paid in respect of the same.
In the appellant’s own case MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T., MANGALORE [2023 (8) TMI 696 - CESTAT BANGALORE], this Tribunal has already taken a view that merely because the items are used for fabrication in the erection of storage tank which affixed to earth and become immovable property, cenvat credit availed on individual items cannot be denied being capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a) of the CCR, 2004 following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MYSORE VERSUS ICL SUGARS LTD. [2011 (4) TMI 1065 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and other judgments on the subject including the judgment of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of M/S VANDANA GLOBAL LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE [2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT].
There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 531 - SC ORDER
Valuation - inclusion of incentive/industrial subsidy of 75% of Sales Tax/VAT/CST paid on the sale of goods, received from the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Industrial Promotion Policy, 2010 in the transaction value under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not - it was held by CESTAT that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that incentive/capital subsidy received from the State Government cannot be included in the transaction value has to be accepted - HELD THAT:- There are no merit in this appeal.
The civil appeal stands dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 470 - SC ORDER
Amendment in cause title - Valuation - whether or not the amounts collected by the appellants as Sales Tax from the customers but not paid to the State Sales Tax authorities should be included in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty - HELD THAT:- M/s.Tata Steel Limited does not have any objection in respect of the application moved for amendment of cause title registered as I.A. No. 39029/2024 and therefore, the said application is allowed.
Application allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 469 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Process amounting to manufacture or not - re-packing of various excisable goods (herbal and cosmetic products), affixing the brand names owned by them in their premises - Illegality of duty liability under Section 4 of the Excise Act - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in M/S WWS SKY SHOP (P) LTD. VERSUS CCE, INDORE [2018 (1) TMI 1734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], while relying upon Board’s Circular No. 354/285/2011-TRU dated 08.12.2011 has already held that since there is no value addition made by the appellant after receiving the goods from the respective manufacturers till the time these are sold to the consumers that the activity done by the appellant does no amount to manufacture.
The bare perusal makes it clear that as per Section 4, the duty of excise on excisable goods has to be assessed including the price actually paid to the manufacturer for the goods sold and the money value of additional consideration, if any, following directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods. Thus, this section is applicable only qua the person who is the manufacturer of the goods and charges something extra for some additional activity done prior the sale of the goods manufactured by him. It is already confirmed on record that the activity done by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. It has also been held and confirmed that appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods sold by him - irrespective the method of how those products are manufactured by the manufacturer, the activity done by the appellant before putting those products to the actual consumers are not held to be the activity of manufacture. The question of the activity of the appellant to be excisable does not at all arise. Nothing additional is brought on record to have the different opinion. Hence, these findings are affirmed. Hence, even for sake of Section 4, the value for the appellant’s activity cannot be included in the value of the excisable goods.
Otherwise also, the duty liability on excisable goods is that of the manufacturer. It is an admitted fact on record that the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Davo Laboratories nor M/s. Balchem Laboratories are authorized have discharged their respective eligible liability. No question for sustaining the demand even under Section 4 at all arises.
Though the department has relied upon the decision in M/s. Davo Laboratories own case in a departmental appeal titled as Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal Vs. Davo Laboratories [2016 (11) TMI 7 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein the Ayurvedic Preparations Roop amrit and Complete Solutions are denied to be considered as Ayurvedic medicines on the ground that both the products are most commonly used for enhancing personal appearance and beauty i.e. cosmetic. The said decision is not applicable as far as duty liability on these products qua the appellant under Section 4 of Central Excise Act is concerned.
The demand confirmed even under Section 4 of Central excise Act, 1944 set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 468 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT Credit - inputs or not - MS angles, shapes, sections and channels etc., used for erection of “Unipoles”/hoardings which are fixed to the earth and on which the appellant/assessee displays advertisement - HELD THAT:- The issue herein is squarely covered by the precedent order in appellant’s own case of this Tribunal in M/S UNI ADS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD – II (VICE-VERSA) [2019 (8) TMI 70 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], wherein similar dispute has been held in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. It is further found that the exclusion clause in Explanation (2) of Rule 2(k) of CCR was introduced w.e.f. 07.07.2009, vide Notification No. 16/2009- CE.
From plain reading of the exclusion clause, it is evident that exclusion is applicable in case of a manufacturer having a factory and such exclusion is not applicable in the case of the appellant who is a provider of output services.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 428 - SC ORDER
Quantum of computation/the cum-duty price - Interpretation of Notification No.02/2006 dated 01.03.2006, as amended by the Notification No.16/2006 dated 11.07.2006, thereby superseding notification no. 13/2002 dated 01.03.2002 - HELD THAT:- Parties are directed to appear before the CESTAT, Ahmedabad on 02.05.2024, when a date of hearing will be fixed.
The review petitions are allowed and disposed of.
-
2024 (4) TMI 427 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Clandestine Removal - requirement of cross-examination of witnesses - entire case was made out on the basis of the printout taken from the computer lying in the factory premises and the statements of the various persons - Section 36B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- From the plain reading of the Section 9D, it can be seen that it is not the whims of the Adjudicating authority to allow or reject the request of cross-examination.
As per the above statutory provision, if the appellant dispute the statements which are relied upon for adjudication it is incumbent on the adjudicating authority to allow the cross-examination of the witnesses and thereafter if the outcome of cross-examination is in consistence with the statement given by the witnesses, the same can be admitted as evidence. Therefore, the cross-examination is necessary for arriving at a fair trial of the case.
The impugned order set aside - appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority, for passing a fresh order, after allowing the cross-examination of the witnesses and considering the further submission to be made by the appellant.
-
2024 (4) TMI 372 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - inputs consumed/utilized for production, at the work-in-progress stage, were destroyed in fire in the factory - HELD THAT:- Under the Cenvat Credit Rules, Rule 3(5) provides – when inputs or capital goods on which credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory or premises of the provider of output service, the manufacturer of the final products or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs or capital goods and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice. Further rule 3(5C) of CCR provides – where any goods manufactured or produced by the assessee, the payment of duty is ordered to be remitted under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002, the Cenvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture or production of said goods and the Cenvat credit taken on input services used in or in relation to the manufacture or production of said goods, shall be reversed.
Under the facts and circumstances, it is an admitted fact that the work in progress or semi-finished goods are no longer inputs. Thus, no case is made out of inputs removed as such from the factory on the destruction of WIP or semi-finished goods. In case of destruction of goods/inputs, the liability is restricted to reversal of Cenvat credit on such inputs only. The appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat credit on the inputs already issued for production forming part of WIP or semi-finished goods.
The impugned order set aside - It is clarified that the appellant is not required to reverse the Cenvat credit of Rs.76,88,124/- with respect to inputs forming part of work in progress/semi-finished goods destroyed in fire - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 371 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Process amounting to manufacture - buying tubes (stainless steel pipes) and then undertaking certain processes thereon, such as, upsetting, heat treatment, inspection, testing, threading and external coating, so that the pipes can be used for the purposes of oil drilling - period April 2007 to March 2012 - Change of opinion - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The present SCN has been issued by the Revenue due to change of opinion and/or interpretation after introduction of the 8 digit tariff. The only case of Revenue is that under the 8 digit tariff, due to processes undertaken by the appellant, the green pipe also falls under Chapter 73 and the processed pipe also falls under Chapter 73, although under different sub-headings and thus, it amounts to manufacture, due to change of the sub-heading. This issue is no longer res integra.
Under similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI-I VERSUS S.R. TISSUES PVT. LTD. [2005 (8) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT], on the issue of whether the process of unwinding, cutting and slitting to sizes of jumbo rolls of tissue paper would amount to manufacture on the first principles or under Sec 2(f) of the Act, it was held that the activity of slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller size does not amount to manufacture as character and end-use did not undergo any change on account of winding, cutting/slitting and packing - The aforementioned ruling of the Apex Court covers the issue herein on all fours.
Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The SCN is bad as extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue under the admitted fact that all the facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue, as is evident from the earlier SCNs issued either for demand of Excise duty or for demand of service tax. Admittedly, appellant had maintained proper books of accounts and records and have been regularly filing their statutory returns. Even from the list of relied upon documents, these facts are evident as relied upon documents are nothing but the documents maintained by the appellant in the ordinary course of business.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 370 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
SSI Exemption - value of clearances - error in calculation in SCN - clubbing of clearances - submission of appellant is that after excluding the value of clearances for export and the value of traded goods the value of clearances will be only Rs 1.41 crores which is well within the exemption limit as provided by the N/N. 8/2003-CE.
HELD THAT:- The appellant-I is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of plastics caps & closures for bottles falling under Chapter No. 39235010 and trading of plastic bottles falling under Chapter sub-heading 39233090 of first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Undisputedly the issue involved in the matter is for the financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15 (upto November 2014). It is also not in dispute that the M/s L S Plastics started the production in the year 2014-15 only and hence the issue of the clubbing of clearances of the Appellant – I with the clearances of M/s L S Plastics is only relevant for that period.
Value of Clearances - HELD THAT:- Appellants have before Commissioner (Appeals), not challenged the basis of demand as per para 14.4 of the Show Cause Notice they have only stated that they have submitted the copy the ledgers duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. Appellant could have pointed out from sale invoice wise chart, made in Annexure A1, Annexure A2 & Annexure A3 as to which were the export sales included in the value of clearances for making this demand. Even, except for referring to the table in para 14.1, there is no other submission made by the appellant. As we find that the basis of demand is para 14.4 read with Annexure A1, Annexure A2 & Annexure A3, which has not been challenged there are no merits in the submissions made by the appellant in this regards.
Clubbing of Clearances - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the beneficiary of all the activities undertaken by Appellant-I and M/s L S plastic is same family. Appellant 3 who is proprietor of M/s L S plastics is drawing remuneration of Rs 2,00,000/- and partnership interest to the extent of 10% in the partnership firm. It is also well established and not disputed appellant-II who enjoys partnership interest of 70% in the partnership firm and remuneration of Rs 4,00,000/- actually controls all the operation of M/s L S Plastic.
In MCDOWELL AND CO. LIMITED VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [1985 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT], this Court examined the concept of tax avoidance or rather the legitimacy of the art of dodging tax without breaking the law. This Court stressed upon the need to make a departure from the Westminster principle based upon the observations of Lord Tomlin in the case of IRC v. Duke of Westminster that every assessee is entitled to arrange his affairs as to not attract taxes. The Court said that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices, however, cannot be part of tax planning. Dubious methods resorting to artifice or subterfuge to avoid payment of taxes on what really is income can today no longer be applauded and legitimised as a splendid work by a wise man but has to be condemned and punished with severest of penalties.
As appellant-II and appellant-III were the persons responsible for planning for evasion of duty, penalties imposable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The fact is noted that penalty equivalent to the duty evaded has been imposed on the partnership firm in which appellant-II and appellant-III are partners. Penalty on appellant-II may be reduced to Rs. 50,000/- only and on appellant-III it reduced to Rs. 75,000/-. With above modification impugned order is upheld.
Appeal of appellant-I is dismissed and the appeals by appellant-II and appellant-III are partly allowed to the extent of reducing penalties imposed on them - appeal allowed in part.
-
2024 (4) TMI 325 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - inclusion of freight/insurance charges for delivery at buyer's place in the transaction value - HELD THAT:- It is found that freight/insurance have been charged separately and received separately. It is also noticed that the buyers of the goods Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. have issued purchase order specifying the price for the goods separately and also specifying the transportation cost for the supply of goods. Accordingly, appellant have supplied the goods and raised invoices for the price of goods and the transportation. Thus, it amounts to showing the cost of transport separately in the invoices.
On perusal of copies of the purchase contract placed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and invoices issued by the Appellant. From the invoices, it is seen that the freight/insurance shown in the invoices is in addition to basic price of the goods. It is clear from the terms of the purchase contract that basic price and other components have to be indicated separately. Therefore, there is no dispute that basic price and the freight/insurance components are clearly indicated separately in the invoices and therefore criterion i.e. cost of transportation should be in addition to the basic price of the goods stand fulfilled.
There are no valid reason for disallowing the deduction for the freight/insurance paid inasmuch as the sales are FOR destination. It is also found that a coordinate Bench of CESTAT in the case of STERLITE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS AURANGABAD [2015 (9) TMI 1023 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has taken a view in identical facts that freight/insurance will be allowable as a deduction from the composite price. Thus, the contention of the Department to include the freight/insurance amount in the assessable value does not meet the test of law and hence not legally sustainable. Hence, there are no merit in order passed by the appellate authority.
Thus, freight/insurance amount is not includable in the assessable value of the goods for charging excise duty.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 324 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Denial of CENVAT Credit - recovery of the differential central excise duty - appellant has discharged appropriate duty on the body building activity on the duty paid chassis supplied free of cost by M/s ALL during the period 2006-07 & 2007-08 or not - entitlement to avail cenvat credit of the duty paid on the chassis supplied free by M/s ALL - Sl.No.41(1)(ii) of N/N. 6/2006-CE - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that from the very beginning of the proceeding, in their reply to the internal audit, the appellants have categorically submitted that they have not opted for the exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.3.2006, hence, not required to comply with the conditions prescribed under the said notification. They have informed that by availing cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis and after undertaking the activity of body building on the Chassis, which amounts to manufacture, they had cleared the Vehicle applying the normal tariff rate as applicable from time to time.
The approach of the Department is fallacious from the very beginning. Assuming that the conditions of the notification 06/2006-CE have not been complied with, by availing CENVAT credit on the duty paid chassis, the appellant would not have been eligible to the benefit of the notification and the manufactured goods would be assessed in accordance with the normal provisions. Secondly, Explanation appended Sl.No.41(1)(ii) provides that the value of the manufactured vehicle shall be the value of the vehicle excluding the value of the chassis used in such vehicle, whereas, in the present case, the appellant has added the body building charges and the value of the chassis supplied free of cost in computing the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08; hence it is incorrect to allege that the appellant had availed the benefit of the said Notification - the appellants are entitled to avail cenvat credit on the duty paid chassis supplied free of cost by M/s. ALL to the appellant.
Valuation and differential duty - HELD THAT:- The period involved in the present demand notice involves 2006-07 to 2007-08. Rule 10A has been inserted to the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 w.e.f. 01/04/2007. Consequently, the valuation of the body built vehicles has to be arrived at following Rule 10A from 01/04/2007 by adopting the price at which the body built vehicles are sold by the supplier M/s. ALL. For the period prior to that, the valuation has to be carried out by adopting the formula laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UJAGAR PRINTS, ETC. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT].
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The present demand is relating to differential duty on the recalculated assessable value as alleged by the Revenue. There are force in the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant as the appellant was following the method of computation of assessable value adopting the principle in Ujagar Print’s case and discharging duty by disclosing all the facts; hence invocation of extended period demanding differential duty on the redetermined value by the Revenue, in absence of suppression of facts or mis-declaration, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the differential duty of Rs.9,51,837/- demanded for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08 is barred by limitation.
The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 323 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Reversal of Cenvat Credit - Ammonium Sulphate - by-product or not - applicability of provisions of rule 6(3)(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not - HELD THAT:- The matter has been decided by this Tribunal in appellant’s own case M/S HINDUSTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. SURAT-II [2021 (12) TMI 1495 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that since the issue has been settled that Ammonium Sulphate being a by-product arising in the course of manufacture of final product, the demand under Rule 6(3) is not applicable. Accordingly, In the present case also being a similar issue, demand is not sustainable.
There are no merit in the impugned order and same is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine removal - admissibility of electronic evidence - burden/onus to prove - suppression of facts or not - Demand of duty and Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Levy of penalty on Director - HELD THAT:- When Appellant is charged with production of specific quantity and payment of royalty against the said quantity, the burden of proof shifts to it under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and in such circumstances of the case when Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment noted in Order-in-Original in the case of COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS AND OTHERS VERSUS D. BHOORMULL [1974 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly stated that law does not requires the prosecution to proof the impossible but it is required to establish such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue and had hinted at Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in an indirect way, as could be noticed from the submissions of Learned Authorised Representative, the Revenue has clearly established a case of clandestine removal against the Appellant and following decision of this Tribunal at Allahabad passed in the same M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. matter in respect of another Franchise named Advance Impex Pvt. Ltd., the liability in the nature of duty, interest and penalty on the Appellant Company, as being confirmed by the learned Commissioner, is confirmed.
Having regard to the fact that personal involvement of the present as well as previous Director is not made out from the materials available on the record and the present Director is In-charge of the company, which is having another Excise registration number, against whom no proceeding for the shortage of raw material discovered in 2011 has been initiated and there is specific observation by the Commissioner that the previous Director was responsible only for day to day activity of the Appellant Company, the findings in confirming penalty on both Samir Bhagat and Raman Gupta not confirmed.
The appeal of Appellant Company is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 224 - CESTAT MUMBAI
100% EOU - Valuation of goods - clearance under domestic tariff area, i.e. within the territory of India - manufacture of P & P medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - to be covered under notification issued under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 or not - HELD THAT:- For arriving at total central excise duty payable on the goods manufactured by 100% EOU and allowed to be cleared in domestic tariff area, the customs duty leviable under Customs Act, 1962 if the same is charged at ad valorem rate, then the value of the goods has necessarily to be arrived at in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. The said provision of the Act has been made very clear by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS MORARJEE BREMBANA LTD. [2015 (4) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that As is clear from the bare reading of the aforesaid proviso, in those cases where excisable goods are produced or manufactured by hundred per cent export oriented undertaking are allowed to be sold in India, the duty of excise has to be the amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India and where the said duties of custom are chargeable by reference to their value, the value of such excisable goods shall be determined, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
It is, therefore, very clear that basic customs duty is to be ascertained taking the value into consideration where the value is determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. On perusal of the show cause notice, it is noted that for the purpose of demanding differential duty, basic customs duty was calculated by Revenue on the basis of MRP value minus abatement - under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, there is no provision for arriving at value on the basis of the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 such as MRP minus abatement as adopted by Revenue.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
........
|
