|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 984 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 979
Issues: Denial of Modvat credit for capital goods due to initial availing of depreciation under the Income Tax Act; Interpretation of "claimed" depreciation for Modvat credit eligibility; Applicability of recent decisions on revising Income Tax Returns without depreciation claim.
In the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad addressed the issue of denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 5,74,059/- to the appellant concerning capital goods because they had initially availed depreciation under the Income Tax Act. Despite the appellant filing revised Income Tax Returns without the depreciation claim, the authorities rejected the claim citing that the revised return was submitted after objections raised by the audit, thus disallowing the benefit. Consequently, the demand was confirmed, and a penalty of the same amount was imposed.
The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by various decisions, stating that when revised Returns are filed without the claim of depreciation, it should be considered as if no depreciation was claimed. The interpretation of the term "claimed" was elucidated by the Bombay High Court, emphasizing that it should be understood as "availed." The Tribunal cited decisions such as Sri Vishnu Shankar Mill Ltd. and Abhishek Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. to support the principle that only when depreciation on capital goods is actually availed, Modvat credit is not permissible.
The Tribunal referred to a recent decision of the Delhi Bench in ACC Ltd. v. Commissioner of CE., Bhopal, which directed the deposit of a partial amount due to revising Income Tax Returns without the depreciation claim not being sufficient grounds for allowing Modvat credit on capital goods. However, the Tribunal found that this decision was interim and did not consider earlier decisions favoring the assessee. Given the Bombay High Court's supportive decision, the Tribunal unconditionally allowed the stay petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision based on the judgments cited, emphasizing the verification of non-claim of depreciation in the Income Tax Returns. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 978
Issues involved: Duty on shortages of final products, duty on shortages of raw materials, duty on Fork Lift, imposition of penalties.
Shortages of final products: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing P.P. Moulding Powders and Master Batches, were found with a quantity shortage of finished goods involving duty of Rs. 1,29,773. The General Manager and Managing Director admitted to the shortages, attributing them to practical reasons like tearing of bags, spillage, clerical errors, and weighing scale variances. The Tribunal found no evidence of clandestine clearance and noted that the shortages were minimal at 0.3% of total production, likely due to normal production hazards. The confirmation of demand was set aside due to lack of tangible evidence supporting clandestine removal.
Shortages of raw materials: Additionally, there were shortages of raw materials valued at Rs. 2,66,345, involving duty of Rs. 40,297. The appellants explained that these shortages were accumulated over time due to practical reasons in day-to-day operations, including material received for job work. The Tribunal observed that there was no substantial evidence to attribute the shortages to clandestine activities. As such, the confirmation of duty and penalties imposed on the appellants for raw material shortages were set aside.
Duty on Fork Lift: The appellants had availed modvat credit on a Fork Lift, which was later transferred to another unit without reversing the credit of Rs. 77,345.49. The appellants admitted the duty liability on the Fork Lift but argued that it was a bona fide mistake and a revenue-neutral exercise as the credit could have been availed by the sister unit. The Tribunal confirmed the duty on the Fork Lift but did not impose any additional penalties, considering the circumstances of the transfer as explained by the appellants.
Imposition of penalties: The lower authorities had imposed penalties on the appellants and the General Manager for the alleged duty violations. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed, except for the duty confirmed on the Fork Lift. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal, highlighting the importance of positive, tangible, and affirmative evidence in such cases.
Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by setting aside the confirmation of demands of duties and interest related to the shortages of final products and raw materials, as well as the penalties imposed on the appellants, except for the duty on the Fork Lift. The judgment emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence to prove clandestine activities and upheld the principle that charges of clandestine removal cannot be based solely on detected shortages without additional tangible proof.
-
2009 (7) TMI 977
Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay
Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant challenged the impugned order dismissing their appeal due to a delay of 21 days in filing it. The lower appellate authority rejected condonation of delay, citing failure on the part of the appellant to present their defense before the original authority. The matter involved a demand of duty exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs from the appellant, a cooperative society. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay as the appellant demonstrated the absence of an appropriate person to handle the matter at the relevant time. The Tribunal concluded that the lower appellate authority did not judiciously exercise discretion in refusing to condone the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), and directed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal considered the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding condonation of delay and found that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. The absence of the appropriate person on behalf of the appellant to deal with the matter was evident from the records, justifying the delay. The Tribunal held that the impugned order could not be sustained, and it was a fit case for allowing the appeal and condoning the delay. The Tribunal clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case while setting aside the impugned order and directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with the appeal in accordance with the law.
-
2009 (7) TMI 976
Issues involved:
The issue involves availing Cenvat credit on capital goods at a higher rate, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Summary:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing HDPE/PP Bags and fabrics, mistakenly availed 100% credit on capital goods instead of 50% from April 2000 to July 2001. They reversed the credit with interest upon detection on 22-1-2002. A show cause notice in 2006 proposed penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 27 of the Rules. The original authority imposed penalties, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The learned Advocate argued that the mistake was rectified promptly upon detection, with no intention to evade duty, thus Section 11AC penalty is unwarranted. He also contended that producing records to auditors was done, challenging the justification for Rule 27 penalty. Legal precedents were cited to support the arguments.
The learned D.R. contended that the appellants knowingly availed excess credit, alleging suppression of facts to evade duty, citing legal precedents to support this position.
Upon review, it was found that the appellants did avail excess credit but promptly reversed it upon detection. The delay in issuing the show cause notice was noted. While contravention of Cenvat Credit Scheme was acknowledged, the absence of mens rea for evasion of duty led to the setting aside of the Section 11AC penalty. However, a penalty under Rule 27 was upheld for the contravention of law.
In conclusion, the penalty under Section 11AC was set aside, while the penalty under Rule 27 was upheld, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 975
Issues:
1. Stay application for order dated 30-6-07 passed by the Additional Commissioner and order dated 31-3-09 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for stay of orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on the appellant's failure to deposit the duty demanded under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the original authority had overlooked an essential aspect concerning alleged discriminatory treatment towards the appellant compared to a similar case involving M/s. Beston Power Source Industries. In the Beston case, a penalty of Rs. 2,500 was imposed for non-compliance, whereas the appellant faced a duty imposition of Rs. 21,95,349 along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have addressed the contentions raised by the appellant instead of dismissing the appeal solely for non-compliance with Section 35F. The Tribunal found grounds for a total waiver of duty during the appeal period.
Continuing the analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and needed to be set aside. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of along with the stay application. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on its merits without mandating the deposit of the demanded amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to address all points raised by the appellant and make an independent decision based on the records regarding the alleged discrimination issue. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were not a final decision on the discrimination matter, emphasizing the need for an independent determination by the Commissioner (Appeals).
In the final part of the judgment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed review. The appeal and stay application were ultimately disposed of, bringing the case to a conclusion.
-
2009 (7) TMI 974
Issues:
The issue involved in this case is whether the importer is eligible for customs duty benefit u/s Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. based on being specified as a sub-contractor in a concession agreement.
Judgment Details:
1. Issue of Customs Duty Benefit Eligibility:
The appellant imported a unit 'Parker asphalt batching type plant' and claimed customs duty benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The assessing officer rejected the claim as the importer was not considered a contractor awarded by NHAI. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the importer was specified as a sub-contractor of NKEL in the concession agreement. The Revenue appealed this decision.
2. Interpretation of Agreement Terms:
The Tribunal examined whether the goods were imported by NHAI or a person named as a sub-contractor in the contract. The agreement between NHAI and NKEL defined 'EPC contract' as the sub-contract for project implementation. The amendment to the agreement signed by both parties confirmed M/s. PLL as the sub-contractor. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that the amended agreement was valid, and M/s. PLL was specified as the sub-contractor. Therefore, the Tribunal found no legal flaw in the Commissioner's decision.
3. Dismissal of Appeal:
Based on the interpretation of the concession agreement and the roles of the parties involved, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
4. Cross Objection Dismissal:
The cross objection, serving as a response to the Revenue's appeal, was also dismissed by the Tribunal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the eligibility of the importer for customs duty benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., based on the specific terms of the concession agreement and the role of the sub-contractor in the project implementation.
-
2009 (7) TMI 973
Issues involved: Import of second hand photo copier without license, valuation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
Import of second hand photo copier without license: The Appellant admitted the requirement of a license for importing second hand photo copiers but contested the imposition of a disproportionate redemption fine and penalty despite no significant discrepancy in the value of the imported goods. The Appellant's counsel argued that the valuation made by the Authorities was exorbitant and lacked basis, requesting the benefit of doubt due to confusion over the appropriate value.
Valuation of imported goods: Both sides acknowledged the necessity of an import license for second hand photo copier machines. The Appellant contended that the enhanced value of the import was unjustified. The Appellant's counsel challenged the valuation process, citing a lack of material for the enhancement and questioning the basis of the valuation, which was reportedly done using Chartered Engineer's certificate and NIDB data without providing specific details. Due to insufficient evidence and lack of confrontation with the Appellant for rebuttal, the Appellant was deemed entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the valuation, leading to no disturbance in the declared valuation for duty liability.
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty: The record indicated a minor gap between the declared and assessed values of the imported goods. The Appellant was granted consideration regarding the redemption fine and penalty, as there was no substantial evidence to support an increase. The penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs was deemed disproportionate and reduced to Rs. 1.00 lakhs. Similarly, the redemption fine was decreased from Rs. 5.00 lakhs to Rs. 2.00 lakhs to align with the infringement of law by the Appellant.
Conclusion: The appeal of the Appellant was partially allowed based on the observations and findings related to the valuation, redemption fine, and penalty, emphasizing the need for proportionality and proper consideration in the enforcement of penalties for infringement of import regulations.
-
2009 (7) TMI 972
Issues: Denial of capital goods credit for transformers and cast iron surface plate.
Denial of credit for cast iron surface plate:
The appellant appealed before the Tribunal regarding denial of capital goods credit for transformers and cast iron surface plate. The consultant representing the appellant mentioned that the credit amount for transformers was Rs. 65,550 and for the cast iron surface plate was Rs. 4,500. The consultant decided not to pursue the appeal for the small amount related to the cast iron surface plate, leading to the rejection of the appeal without delving into the merits.
Denial of credit for transformers:
The consultant argued that during the period from July '94 to November '94, transformers were not included in the definition of capital goods. However, citing a precedent where the Tribunal allowed capital goods credit for transformers in a similar case, the consultant contended for the credit. The consultant referred to the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd., upheld by the Supreme Court in CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. The department supported the impugned order, but the Tribunal, relying on a Larger Bench decision and subsequent Supreme Court validation, overturned the denial of credit for transformers. The Tribunal found no reason to deny the benefit of capital goods credit for transformers, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits for the appellants.
This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the application of established principles in tax matters. The decision underscores the significance of consistency in judicial interpretation and adherence to higher court rulings.
-
2009 (7) TMI 971
Cenvat/Modvat credit - Rejected returned goods - Held that: - Rule 16 allows a manufacturer to receive back the rejected goods and to avail the credit of duty originally paid by them under the cover of the invoice issued at the time of clearance of the goods - appeal allowed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 970
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, in the 2009 (7) TMI 970 - CESTAT, KOLKATA judgment, heard an appeal represented by Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant, and Shri A.K. Sharma, JDR, for the Respondent. The appeals were filed against a common impugned order concerning the confiscation of 792 Kgs. of metal scraps on the grounds of smuggling into India, along with the confiscation of the vehicle from which the goods were seized. The Appellants contended that the metal scrap was lawfully purchased and not smuggled, as it consisted of broken utensils and was not classified as notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to demonstrate smuggling, which they failed to do with any evidence. The Appellants presented a Trade Certificate as evidence of their legitimate trade in metal scrap. The Respondent argued that the Appellants failed to provide evidence of lawful procurement of the goods, as they only claimed ownership 15 days after the seizure, and thus the confiscation was justified.
The key issue at hand was whether the metal scrap was subject to confiscation due to alleged smuggling into India. Since the scrap was not classified as notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden of proof rested with the Revenue to establish smuggling. In this case, there was a lack of both documentary and oral evidence indicating that the scrap was smuggled. The Trade Certificate presented by the Appellants, which was not disputed by the Revenue, supported their claim of legitimate trade in scrap. Consequently, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeals were allowed, with the Appellants entitled to any consequential reliefs as per the law. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by Shri S.S. Kang, J. and both appeals were taken up together due to the common impugned order.
-
2009 (7) TMI 969
Issues involved: Interpretation of Modvat credit u/s CESTAT, AHMEDABAD.
Summary:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing polyester filament yarn/polyester texturised yarn, received duty paid POY from suppliers for their units in Silvassa. During a specific period, duty paying invoices were issued to Unit 3 but the raw material was intended for use in Unit 2, with Unit 3 redirecting the goods to Unit 2 without physically receiving them. The appellant claimed credit based on these invoices, leading to a dispute with the Revenue regarding endorsement requirements. The appellant argued that all units belonged to the same entity, citing relevant tribunal decisions to support their position.
Upon review, it was established that the inputs were indeed received and utilized by the appellant for manufacturing final products. Although the invoices were in the name of a different unit, the entire consignment was redirected to the appellant's unit where it was received and used. This situation did not constitute a case requiring endorsement of invoices, as clarified by previous tribunal decisions. Given the duty paid nature of the inputs and their proper utilization in manufacturing final products, the Modvat credit denial was deemed unjustified.
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.
-
2009 (7) TMI 968
Issues:
1. Availing Cenvat credit on transformer oil used in manufacturing and repairing activities.
2. Demand of duty based on transaction value of transformer oil.
3. Applicability of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.
4. Reversal of credit under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.
5. Removal of goods from the factory.
Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing electrical transformers and parts while also repairing old and damaged transformers. They availed Cenvat credit on transformer oil used in both manufacturing and repairing activities. A show cause notice was issued proposing a duty demand for a specific period.
2. The issue arose regarding the demand of duty based on the transaction value of transformer oil. The authorities alleged that the appellants needed to reverse the Cenvat credit on transformer oil as per the transaction value paid by UPSEB, invoking Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that they reversed the credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. He contended that Rule 3(4) would not apply as there was no removal of goods from the factory. He also claimed that there was no suppression of facts and the extended period of limitation should not apply.
4. The learned D.R. supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the duty paid inputs were removed for repairing transformers, thus Rule 3(4) applied. It was argued that the appellants should reverse the credit based on the transaction value of UPSEB. The contention was made that the reversal of credit at different rates was unacceptable.
5. Upon perusal of the records, it was found that the appellants had reversed the credit on the quantity of transformer oil used in repairing old transformers without removing the oil from the factory. As per Rule 3(4), when inputs are removed from the factory, duty is leviable, but since the oil was used within the factory for repairs, Rule 3(4) could not be invoked. Consequently, the demand of duty based on the transaction value of UPSEB was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2009 (7) TMI 967
Issues:
Inclusion of technical licence fee and royalty in the value of imported machinery and raw materials.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of technical licence fee and royalty in the value of imported goods. The appellant argued that these amounts were not related to the imported goods and were not a condition of sale. The respondent conceded that the entire amounts of technical know-how and royalty should not be included but stated that part of the technical licence fee should be added to the assessable value as it related to the imported goods. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision which clarified that such payments should only be included if they were a condition pre-requisite for the supply of the imported goods. The Tribunal noted that there was no finding in the impugned order regarding these payments being a condition of sale. Therefore, based on the Supreme Court decision and the lack of evidence supporting the inclusion of these payments as a condition of sale, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing a direct nexus between the technical licence fee and royalty payments and the imported goods to justify their inclusion in the value of the imported goods. The decision highlighted the need for clear evidence demonstrating that such payments were a condition pre-requisite for the supply of the imported goods. The judgment underscored the significance of examining the pricing arrangement between the buyer and the foreign collaborator to determine the appropriateness of including technical know-how costs in the price of imported goods.
-
2009 (7) TMI 966
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 8/99-C.E. and Notification No. 10/99-C.E. for availing duty exemption on Hi-Fi Music Systems and Air Conditioners separately.
Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Colour TV, Hi-Fi Music Systems, and Air Conditioners, faced a duty demand of Rs. 5,59,550 due to clubbing the clearance values of Hi-Fi Music Systems and Air Conditioners together for exemption calculation under Notification No. 8/99-C.E. and Notification No. 10/99-C.E. The dispute centered on whether the appellant could claim separate exemptions under both notifications in a financial year. The advocate argued that Para 3(a) of the notifications required considering clearances made under exempted goods for determining the aggregate value, not restricting separate exemptions. The Tribunal analyzed past decisions like CCE v. K.F. Beltings and Fintex Industries v. Collr. of C.Ex., emphasizing the distinction between aggregate clearances and individual product exemptions.
The Tribunal clarified that Para 3(a) of the notification aimed at determining the aggregate value of clearances for allowing exemptions in the current year, not restricting individual product exemptions. It highlighted the importance of differentiating between clearances of specified goods and aggregate clearances for administering the exemption effectively. The Tribunal referenced the observations in the K.F. Beltings case, emphasizing that the exemption under Notification No. 8/99 was for early clearances of specified goods within a financial year, not based on the total value of all excisable goods cleared.
Based on the analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The decision underscored the critical distinction between aggregate clearances and specific product exemptions under the notifications, ensuring that manufacturers could avail separate exemptions for different products without aggregating their values. The judgment reaffirmed the correct interpretation of the notifications, safeguarding the appellant's right to claim individual exemptions for Hi-Fi Music Systems and Air Conditioners without combining their clearance values.
-
2009 (7) TMI 965
Issues involved: Admissibility of Cenvat credit, demand for Central Excise duty on goods cleared between units, imposition of penalty.
Admissibility of Cenvat credit:
The case involved M/s. Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs and P&P Medicaments with two Units. Unit-2 had transferred Tooth Pastes and Cosmetics to Unit-1, and Unit-1 availed Cenvat credit. The dispute arose regarding the admissibility of this credit amounting to Rs. 2,79,364/-. The impugned order confirmed the demand for Cenvat credit on the grounds of inadmissibility.
Demand for Central Excise duty on goods cleared between units:
Unit-1 had cleared excisable goods under delivery challans without preparing invoices or paying excise duty, amounting to Rs. 3,21,731/-. The issue was whether the duty was payable on these goods cleared by Unit-1 to Unit-2. The appellant argued that the goods were semi-finished and used in Unit-2 for manufacturing finished goods, which were ultimately cleared with duty payment. The contention was that the situation was revenue-neutral, and thus, duty demand and penalty should be set aside.
Imposition of penalty:
The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides. It was noted that there were no clear findings by the lower authorities regarding the appellant's claims. The Tribunal accepted the argument of revenue neutrality due to the absence of evidence showing intention to evade duty payment. The extended period was deemed not applicable, leading to the setting aside of duty demands. However, penalties were imposed under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, for contravention of provisions. The penalties on M/s. Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd. were reduced to Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- under the respective rules. Additionally, penalties on individuals were also reduced. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 964
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 148/94 regarding exemption from customs duty for articles of food and edible material.
2. Whether the import of De-gummed Rapeseed Oil by State Corporation of India Ltd. (STC) qualifies as a free gift to the Government of India.
3. Allegation of mis-declaration by STC and invocation of extended period for demand of customs duty.
4. Validity of the show cause notice issued by Customs proposing denial of duty exemption and imposition of penalty.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 148/94
The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 148/94, which exempts articles of food supplied as free gifts to the Government of India from customs duty. The Tribunal analyzed the details of the notification and the circumstances under which the goods were imported to determine if the exemption applied.
Issue 2: Import as Free Gift
The Tribunal considered whether the import of De-gummed Rapeseed Oil by STC qualified as a free gift to the Government of India. STC argued that the oil was intended for sale in the Indian market to fund World Food Programme (WFP) projects, and various correspondences supported the claim that it was indeed a free gift. The Tribunal examined the agreements and letters to establish the nature of the import.
Issue 3: Mis-declaration and Extended Period
The Customs alleged mis-declaration by STC and sought to invoke the extended period for demanding customs duty. However, the Tribunal found that STC had appropriately indicated the nature of the goods as "GOVT. GOODS" in the Bill of Entry and had followed the agreed-upon process of monetizing the free gift. The Tribunal held that there was no mis-declaration and that the extended period could not be invoked.
Issue 4: Validity of Show Cause Notice
The Tribunal assessed the validity of the show cause notice issued by Customs proposing to deny the duty exemption and impose a penalty on STC. Considering the evidence presented, including letters from government officials clarifying the nature of the import, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was time-barred and that the Revenue had no case on merit. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed STC's appeal.
This detailed analysis of the issues involved in the judgment showcases the Tribunal's thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions to arrive at a decision favorable to the appellant, State Corporation of India Ltd.
-
2009 (7) TMI 963
In the appellate tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad case with citation 2009 (7) TMI 963, the appellant, the Revenue, filed an appeal against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent, engaged in the manufacture of reactive dyes, availed Cenvat Credit on inputs used in manufacturing final products during 2005-2006, and opted for an exemption with a balance of Cenvat Credit on inputs and finished goods as of 1-4-06. The appellants transferred this credit to a separate account for exports and utilized it for duty on exported goods. A show cause notice was issued on 5-10-07 proposing recovery of the credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) held against the respondent on merit but extended the benefit of limitation, considering 18-9-06 as the relevant date for limitation purposes. The Revenue appealed the decision, arguing that the relevant date should be the date the ER-1 was filed, which was 9-10-06. The tribunal agreed with the Revenue, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the Revenue's appeal. The decision was pronounced on 3-7-2009.
-
2009 (7) TMI 962
In the case of Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the judgement was made by Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy. The appellant, represented by Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, argued that they procured cotton yarn under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and manufactured fabrics for export. The fabrics were procured from M/s. Cotton Crafts Exports without payment of duty and were ultimately exported. The impugned demand against the appellants was based on the fact that the export of cotton fabrics was not done by themselves. Shri R.P. Meena, JDR, represented the respondent and supported the impugned order.
After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the Tribunal observed that Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, does not stipulate that the person who obtained the raw material should directly export the finished goods. There is also no requirement that the export cannot be done through a merchant exporter. The merchant exporters in this case obtained duty-free goods under CT-1 Certificates from the excise authorities for export. The authorities did not correlate the duty-free yarn obtained by the appellants with the fabrics exported by M/s. Cotton Crafts Exports, despite a request from the appellants.
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority with directions to consider the documents produced by the appellants. The authority was instructed to examine whether the fabrics exported by M/s. Cotton Crafts Exports could be correlated with the duty-free cotton yarn obtained by the appellants and the fabrics supplied by them. If such correlation was possible, there would be no basis for raising a demand against the appellants for violating Rule 19(2) of the said Rules. The appellants were to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before a fresh order was passed.
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the judgement was dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2009 (7) TMI 961
Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. regarding exemption for imported furnace oil used in fertilizer manufacturing.
Summary:
1. The appellants availed exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for imported furnace oil used in fertilizer production. Four appeals related to discrepancies in quantity imported and received for different periods were consolidated for hearing.
2. The appellant's counsel explained the discrepancies were due to loss during pumping, transit, and weighment differences. The percentage differences were minimal, not indicating diversion of goods. Cited the BPL Display Devices Ltd. case to support no duty demand.
3. The Respondent supported duty demands, arguing that since the full imported quantity wasn't received in the factory, the exemption criteria weren't met.
4. After reviewing the case records and legal precedent, the Judge found minor quantity differences due to unloading and transportation losses. Citing the BPL Display Devices Ltd. case, the Judge interpreted "for use" as "intended for use." As there was no diversion and the entire imported quantity was sent to the factory, duty exemption applied. Orders were set aside, and all four appeals were allowed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 960
Refund - Cenvat/Modvat - Held that: - the appellants have adequately explained that on account of export under bond they were not able to utilize the credit and hence they have claimed refund of the accumulated credit amount periodically - It is also the policy of the Government to encourage exporters and to ensure that the domestic taxes are not exported along with goods. Hence, I am of the view that the appellants are eligible to get refund of the accumulated credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
............
|
9911796707
