|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 670 Records
-
2008 (11) TMI 593
Issues:
1. Entitlement to input service credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services.
Analysis:
In this case, the appellant, Cummins Generator Technologies India Limited, filed a stay petition against the Order-in-Appeal dated 4-4-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original dated 15-11-2007 disallowing the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,25,877/- with interest, but reduced the penalty to Rs. 15,000. The main issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to the input service credit of the service tax paid on outdoor catering services provided in their factory canteen, which they claim is a statutory requirement under Section 46 of the Factory Act.
Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the issue at hand is similar to a previous decision by the Tribunal in the case of Victor Gaskets India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, which was upheld by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. In these cases, it was established that outdoor catering services can be considered as an input service, making the service tax credit admissible. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant has a strong case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the service tax demanded and the penalty imposed.
As a result, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of the service tax amount and penalty, staying the recovery pending the appeal's disposal. This judgment provides clarity on the admissibility of Cenvat credit for outdoor catering services, aligning with previous decisions by the Tribunal and the Larger Bench, ultimately benefiting the appellant in this case.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, relevant decisions, and the final outcome in favor of the appellant regarding the entitlement to input service credit for service tax paid on outdoor catering services.
-
2008 (11) TMI 592
Issues involved: Determination of whether the construction of a reservoir qualifies as 'commercial or industrial construction services' for the purpose of Service Tax liability and the applicability of 'works contract' under the Service Tax net.
Issue 1: Construction of reservoir as 'commercial or industrial construction services'
The appellant, awarded a work contract by NTPC for reservoir construction, argued that the activity does not amount to 'commercial or industrial construction services' as claimed by the revenue. The appellant contended that the reservoir, similar to a dam, is exempt from the said service. The appellant highlighted that the contract is a 'works contract' and should be liable for Service Tax only from 1-6-2007. Citing the decision of the Chennai Bench in Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. v. CST, Chennai, the appellant emphasized that new services cannot be retroactively charged under a different service category for an earlier period.
Issue 2: Classification of the contract as a 'works contract'
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the contract between the appellant and the service receiver is indeed a 'works contract' based on the terms outlined in Para 5.1 of the contract. The Tribunal noted that the contract falls under the Service Tax net from 1-6-2007. Considering the Chennai Bench decision in Diebold Systems case, the Tribunal leaned towards waiving the pre-deposit of the entire amount of Service Tax/interest/penalties until the appeal's disposal. Acknowledging the substantial amount involved, an early hearing was granted with a scheduled final hearing on 4th February 2009.
-
2008 (11) TMI 591
Issues involved: Admissibility of Cenvat credit for service tax paid on maintenance of Windmill located away from the factory.
Summary:
The case involved M/s. Rangammal Steels & Malleables seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of inadmissible Cenvat credit demanded from them for service tax paid on a Windmill generating electricity away from the factory. The lower authorities contended that credit for maintaining a Windmill generating non-excisable electricity is not admissible to the assessee engaged in manufacturing Brake drums. The appellants argued that the electricity generated by the Windmill is used in the manufacture of excisable goods, akin to capital goods credit for using a generating set within the factory.
In the stay application, the counsel for the appellants cited a judgment where credit for duty paid on explosives used in a captive mine was allowed as Cenvat credit, supporting the legitimacy of the impugned credit. On the other hand, the JDR referred to a Tribunal decision where similar credit for a Windmill located away from the factory was denied as Cenvat credit.
Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the power generated by the Windmill and used in the factory of the assessee made the impugned credit prima facie admissible. The maintenance of the Windmill indirectly supported the manufacturing operations of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the demand and penalty until the final disposal of the appeal.
-
2008 (11) TMI 590
Issues:
- Restoration of appeal for a specific location
- Rejection of application for restoration
Restoration of appeal for a specific location:
In the case, two appeals related to the same appellant were decided through rejection. The appellants filed an application in September 2008 seeking restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003, which pertained to Godhra, as they were only heard in appeal No. 15 of 2003 concerning their Bharuch operations. The advocate argued that the issue in both appeals was identical except for the amount of duty confirmed against them. However, the tribunal found no reason to re-call the previous order. It was acknowledged that both appeals concerned the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different locations. The tribunal confirmed that the appellant was represented during the hearing and stated that interest is liable to be confirmed in cases of delayed demand of service tax. An error was noted in the previous order where the amount of duty involved was not specified. This mistake was rectified by specifying the duty amount of Rs. 7,53,858, which was initially missing after the mention of Rs. 65 thousand. Despite this correction, the tribunal rejected the application for restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003.
Rejection of application for restoration:
The tribunal, after hearing the learned Deputy Registrar, made the decision not to re-call the previous order. The tribunal clarified that both appeals were related to the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different places. It was emphasized that the appellant was present during the hearing, and the tribunal had already concluded that interest is to be confirmed in cases of delayed service tax demands. The tribunal corrected an error in the previous order by specifying the duty amount that was initially missing. Despite rectifying this mistake, the tribunal proceeded to reject the application for restoration filed by the applicant.
-
2008 (11) TMI 589
Issues Involved:
- Appellants required to pre-deposit penalties under Sections 78 and 76 of the Finance Act.
- Bona fide doubt regarding Service Tax liability on processing of MICR Cheques.
- Show Cause Notice issued after Service Tax liability discharged by appellants.
- Request to put appellants to terms by the Respondent.
- Appeal for full waiver of penalties imposed.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Appellants required to pre-deposit penalties under Sections 78 and 76 of the Finance Act.
The appellants were directed to pre-deposit penalties amounting to Rs. 2,73,51,424.45 under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 of the Act. This order was challenged by the appellants, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
Issue 2: Bona fide doubt regarding Service Tax liability on processing of MICR Cheques.
The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants argued that there was a genuine doubt regarding the Service Tax liability on the processing of MICR Cheques. The clarification from the CBEC on this matter was received only on 25-2-2005, after which the Service Tax liability was discharged by the appellants. It was emphasized that there was no suppression of facts and no grounds for invoking the longer period.
Issue 3: Show Cause Notice issued after Service Tax liability discharged by appellants.
The appellants had already paid the Service Tax for the entire period in question along with interest well before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice on 29-8-2006. The Tribunal noted that the Service Tax was settled on 31-3-2005, indicating the appellants' proactive approach in meeting their tax obligations.
Issue 4: Request to put appellants to terms by the Respondent.
The Respondent, represented by the SDR, urged the Tribunal to uphold the impugned order and enforce the penalties against the appellants. However, after careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' genuine doubt and their prompt action in discharging the Service Tax liability once it was clarified by the authorities.
Issue 5: Appeal for full waiver of penalties imposed.
After evaluating the circumstances and the actions taken by the appellants, the Tribunal decided to grant a full waiver of the penalties imposed until the appeal's final disposal. The stay application was allowed, and the appeal was scheduled for a final hearing on 9th February, 2009. This decision reflected the Tribunal's recognition of the appellants' compliance and the absence of any deliberate evasion or suppression of facts in the case.
-
2008 (11) TMI 588
Pre-deposit - stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Held that: - Even the information on the break-up of the value relating to commercial complexes and residential complexes are not available. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant should be put to terms.
-
2008 (11) TMI 587
Issues:
- Pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalty under Section 76
- Whether the value of materials used during the service should be deducted from gross receipts for Service Tax calculation
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dealt with the issue of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalty under Section 76. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a specific amount as per the impugned order. The appellant's counsel highlighted similar cases where stays were granted by other benches, referencing specific cases to support their argument. The core issue revolved around whether the value of materials used during the service should be deducted from the gross receipts for Service Tax calculation. The appellant argued that as per explanation (vi) to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the value of materials sold during the service should be excluded from gross receipts. Additionally, Notification No. 12/2003 was cited to support this argument, along with numerous Tribunal decisions covering the same issue.
The Departmental Representative contested the issue, but considering the precedent set by previous case laws, the Tribunal found that the appellants had a strong case on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a full waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty until the appeal's final disposal. The matter was scheduled to come up for final hearing on a specified date in 2009. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering established case laws and interpretations of relevant legal provisions in determining the outcome of the appeal.
-
2008 (11) TMI 586
Issues Involved:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on inclusion of design and drawing charges in Assessable Value of goods manufactured.
Analysis:
The Applicants filed an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The demand was confirmed by adding the value of drawings and designs to the Assessable Value of the goods manufactured. The Applicants argued that they had already paid Rs. 7,00,000 at the time of the Appeal hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals). They further contended that during the disputed period, they were paying Service Tax for design and engineering charges, totaling about Rs. 25,00,000. On the merit, the Applicants claimed that charges for design and engineering should be included in the Assessable Value of the goods. They emphasized that being registered with the Service Tax Authorities and regularly paying Service Tax indicated no intention to evade duty.
The Tribunal found that design and drawing charges related to the manufactured goods should indeed be included in the Assessable Value. Considering the Service Tax payments made by the Applicants, the Tribunal directed them to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 17,00,000 within four weeks, in addition to the amount already deposited. Upon compliance with this direction, the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining duty, penalty, and interest would be waived. The Applicants were instructed to report compliance by a specified date.
This judgment highlights the importance of including design and drawing charges in the Assessable Value of goods manufactured. It also underscores the significance of complying with Service Tax obligations to demonstrate good faith and lack of intention to evade duty. The decision to waive pre-deposit for the remaining amount upon the specified additional deposit showcases a balanced approach by the Tribunal in addressing the issues raised by the Applicants.
-
2008 (11) TMI 585
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore allowed the condonation application for a delay of two months in filing an appeal due to shifting premises causing late receipt of the revision order. The delay was considered marginal, and the condonation was allowed.
-
2008 (11) TMI 584
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for personal vehicle maintenance, insurance, and repairs.
2. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on outward freight charges of finished goods transportation.
3. Interpretation of the definition of input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Applicability of the word "such as" in the definition of input service.
5. Levy of interest and imposition of penalty.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat credit on personal vehicle maintenance, insurance, and repairs:
The appellants contended that the services of personal vehicle maintenance, insurance, and repairs qualify as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority rejected this claim, stating that these services do not fall within the definition of input services. However, the Commissioner held that services such as vehicle maintenance, insurance, repair, and personal accident policy/insurance are indeed input services. The premium paid by the company for these services, which are used in relation to the manufacture of final products, qualifies for Cenvat credit.
Issue 2: Eligibility of Cenvat credit on outward freight charges of finished goods transportation:
The Commissioner ruled that the service tax paid on outward transportation charges from the factory to the customers' premises does not qualify for Cenvat credit. Citing precedents and circulars, it was established that once the final products are cleared from the place of removal, subsequent transportation services cannot be considered as input services. Therefore, the appellants were deemed ineligible to avail Cenvat credit on service tax paid for outward transport beyond the factory gate.
Issue 3: Interpretation of the definition of input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Commissioner analyzed the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which includes services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. By considering various precedents, it was established that certain services, like vehicle maintenance and insurance, fall within the ambit of input services if they are used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in the production process.
Issue 4: Applicability of the word "such as" in the definition of input service:
The Commissioner emphasized that the term "such as" in the definition of input service is illustrative and not restrictive. This interpretation allowed for a broader scope of services to be considered as input services, as long as they are utilized in or in relation to the manufacturing process.
Issue 5: Levy of interest and imposition of penalty:
Although the judgment did not delve deeply into this issue, it was noted that the appellants argued against the levy of interest and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner's decision did not explicitly mention any ruling on this matter, focusing primarily on the eligibility of Cenvat credit for specific services.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility criteria for Cenvat credit on certain services while providing a detailed analysis of the interpretation of the relevant rules and definitions. It highlighted the importance of considering the specific usage and context of services to determine their qualification for Cenvat credit under the applicable legal framework.
-
2008 (11) TMI 583
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Service Tax on Port Services.
2. Refund of Service Tax on Transport Services.
3. Compliance with Notification No. 40/2007-ST and 41/2007-ST.
4. Claim of drawback on goods exported.
5. Documentary proof of Service Tax payment.
6. Authorization of service providers.
Detailed Analysis:
Refund of Service Tax on Port Services:
The appellant's refund claims for Service Tax paid on port services were denied on the grounds that the services provided by forwarding agencies, such as THC, DOC, and B/L charges, do not qualify as "Port Services" under the relevant notifications. The adjudicating authority argued that these services were not specified under Notification No. 41/2007-ST or 40/2007-ST and were not provided by registered port service providers. However, the appellant contended that the service providers were registered with the department, and their services fell under the broader definition of "Port Services" as per Section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority's reliance on Circular No. B-11/1/2001-TRU was deemed restrictive as it did not consider the broader implications of the definition provided in the Act. The appellate authority found the appellant's arguments valid and concluded that the services in question, including THC, DOC charges, and B/L charges, indeed fell under the category of "Port Services" and were eligible for refund.
Refund of Service Tax on Transport Services:
The refund claims for Service Tax paid on transport services were denied on the grounds that only the freight portion was admissible for refund, while charges like MTTSC, Wharfrage, Grip, and LDD TSC charges were not specified services under the notifications. The adjudicating authority argued that the appellant failed to prove that these charges were related to the transportation of goods from ICD to the port. However, the appellate authority found that the services provided by CONCOR, including the disputed charges, were indeed related to the transport of goods in containers by rail, falling under Section 65(105)(zzzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant provided sufficient documentary evidence, including receipts and shipping bills, to prove that the Service Tax was paid on these charges. The appellate authority concluded that the appellant was eligible for a refund of the entire Service Tax paid on these transport services.
Compliance with Notification No. 40/2007-ST and 41/2007-ST:
The adjudicating authority denied the refund claims based on the appellant's alleged non-compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 40/2007-ST and 41/2007-ST, specifically the requirement that goods should be exported without availing drawback of Service Tax paid. The appellant argued that they claimed drawback only on Central Excise Duty and not on Service Tax. The appellate authority found that the appellant's claim was valid and that the drawback claimed did not include Service Tax, thus complying with the notifications' conditions.
Claim of Drawback on Goods Exported:
The adjudicating authority argued that the appellant claimed a drawback on the FOB value, which included expenses incurred on export, thereby including Service Tax. The appellant contended that the drawback was claimed only on Central Excise Duty, and the sale price did not include Service Tax expenses. The appellate authority agreed with the appellant, stating that the drawback claimed did not pertain to Service Tax, and therefore, the refund claim was valid.
Documentary Proof of Service Tax Payment:
The adjudicating authority denied the refund claims due to the appellant's alleged failure to provide documentary proof of Service Tax payment. The appellant provided details of cheques issued to service providers and argued that the required documents were submitted with the refund claim. The appellate authority found the appellant's documentation sufficient to prove Service Tax payment and concluded that the refund could not be denied on this ground.
Authorization of Service Providers:
The adjudicating authority argued that the appellant failed to prove that the service providers were authorized port service providers. The appellant provided Service Tax registration numbers of the service providers, indicating their registration with the department. The appellate authority found this evidence sufficient and concluded that the service providers were authorized to provide port services.
Conclusion:
The appellate authority set aside the Order-in-Original Nos. R-24/AC/K-II/R/08 and R-26/AC/K-II/R/08, concluding that the appellant was eligible for a refund of Service Tax paid on both port and transport services utilized in relation to exported goods. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
-
2008 (11) TMI 582
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad upheld the interpretation of ruling 3(2)(y) of Textile Service Rules by the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that complete services performed outside India should not be taxed. The Revenue's stay petition was rejected.
-
2008 (11) TMI 581
Issues:
- Exemption of National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) on tobacco essence used for captive consumption.
- Contestation of demand of duty before the Commissioner (Appeals) on excisability of goods and revenue neutrality.
- Application of Tribunal decisions in similar cases regarding revenue neutrality.
Analysis:
The judgment involves appeals related to the manufacture of chewing tobacco and the exemption of National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) on tobacco essence used for captive consumption. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing chewing tobacco, also produced tobacco essence captively consumed in the manufacturing process. The issue revolved around the demand of NCCD on tobacco essence used for captive consumption, as there was no exemption available for NCCD during the relevant period. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of NCCD along with a penalty, which was challenged by the respondents.
During the proceedings, it was argued before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand of duty should be contested based on the excisability of the goods and the concept of revenue neutrality. The respondents cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case where the demand of duty was set aside on the grounds of revenue neutrality. The Tribunal's decision highlighted that the exercise of paying duty on the intermediate product was revenue neutral as the duty paid on the final product exceeded the duty payable on the intermediate product. This established the principle of revenue neutrality in such cases.
Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision in another case reinforced the concept of revenue neutrality regarding the demand of NCCD on intermediate products. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the payment of NCCD on the intermediate product and its utilization by the assessee constituted a revenue-neutral exercise. Considering these precedents and the arguments presented, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected all the appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgment underscored the importance of revenue neutrality in excise duty matters and upheld the decisions based on this principle.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of NCCD exemption, excisability of goods, and revenue neutrality, providing a detailed understanding of the legal reasoning and precedents considered in reaching the decision.
-
2008 (11) TMI 580
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 127C(7) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding Settlement Commission's jurisdiction.
2. Liability of the petitioner to pay interest on unpaid duty amount.
3. Scope of interference with Settlement Commission's order in writ jurisdiction.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The Writ Petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission under Section 127C(7) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Settlement Commission settled the duty liability of the petitioner in one case where imported patchouli oil was misdeclared, leading to evasion of customs duty. The Commission granted immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution, while directing the petitioner to pay simple interest at 10% per annum on the unpaid duty amount. The Settlement Commission's decision was challenged through writ petitions before the single Judge.
2. The main contention in the writ petitions was the Settlement Commission's decision to levy interest on the unpaid duty amount at 10% per annum. The petitioners argued that since the Commission had waived other penalties, interest should also be exempted. The single Judge upheld the Settlement Commission's decision, noting that the Commission had consciously considered the settlement terms and interest payment. The Commission had reduced the interest liability from the potential 18% per annum to 10% per annum, granting immunity from other penalties.
3. The High Court, in its analysis, emphasized the limited scope of interference with the Settlement Commission's order in writ jurisdiction. It observed that the Commission had duly considered the proposal, applied its mind, and granted immunity from penalties. The Court agreed with the single Judge's finding that there was a conscious application of mind by the Commission. Therefore, the Court held that there was no merit in the appeals and dismissed the Writ Appeals, upholding the Settlement Commission's decision on interest payment and immunity from other penalties.
-
2008 (11) TMI 579
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs, utilization of inputs for export goods - Credit taken inputs received by appellant, however, due to business exigencies removed to 100% EOU/Manufacturer-exporter under CT-3 certificate and ultimately used by recipient for goods exported
-
2008 (11) TMI 578
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Penalties imposed on appellants in Appeals No. C/581 & 582/08 under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning a penalty of Rs. 45 lakhs imposed on the appellants by the Commissioner under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was in connection with the confiscation of 183.310 MTs of vegetable oil seized on a specific date. The Tribunal observed that the sale proceeds of the confiscated goods, amounting to Rs. 59.75 lakhs, were already with the Government, which was deemed sufficient to secure the recovery of the penalty if found sustainable. Consequently, the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was allowed by the Tribunal.
2. In Appeals No. C/581 & 582/08, penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 45 lakhs, respectively, were imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The significant penalty was on the company, with a lesser one on its Director. The penalties were associated with the confiscation of goods consigned to the appellants in Appeal No. C/582/08. It was noted that the supplier of the goods intended to take them back when the consignee disowned the goods, and the consignee failed to file a bill of entry for clearing the goods. These undisputed facts led the Tribunal to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the penalties imposed on the appellants in Appeals No. C/581 & 582/08. The Tribunal's decision was based on the circumstances surrounding the confiscation of goods and the actions of the parties involved, ultimately leading to the grant of relief to the appellants.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Tribunal's considerations and decisions regarding the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in connection with the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the specific circumstances and facts of the cases presented before the Tribunal.
-
2008 (11) TMI 577
Issues:
1. Requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 78,86,289
2. Applicability of Cenvat credit on duty debited under various schemes
3. Interpretation of relevant Notifications and Circulars
Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of the appellant being required to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 78,86,289 in accordance with the impugned order. The Customs Department initiated proceedings against the appellant after an audit revealed discrepancies in taking Cenvat credit of duty debited under different schemes. However, after considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong case in their favor on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a complete waiver of the pre-deposit amount and stayed its recovery until the appeal's disposal.
2. The Tribunal delved into the issue of whether the appellant could legitimately take Cenvat credit of the amount debited under schemes like Duty Free Entitlement Credit (DFEC), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB), and Target Plus Scheme. The appellant's advocate highlighted relevant Notifications and Circulars, including the Board's Circular No. 27/2006-Cus. and Para 3.7.7 of the EXIM Policy, which supported the appellant's position. On the other hand, the departmental representative referred to an earlier circular with a contradictory stance. Upon careful examination of the documents, the Tribunal was convinced that the appellant had a prima facie strong case in their favor regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit on the duty debited under the schemes.
3. The judgment also involved an analysis of the interpretation of relevant Notifications and Circulars governing the admissibility of Cenvat credit on duty debited under specific schemes. The Tribunal considered Circulars issued by the Board and the EXIM Policy to determine the legality of the appellant's actions in taking Cenvat credit. By comparing different circulars and policies, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's position was supported by the provisions outlined in the Circular No. 27/2006-Cus. and Para 3.7.7 of the EXIM Policy, leading to the decision to waive the pre-deposit amount and stay its recovery pending the appeal's resolution.
-
2008 (11) TMI 576
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled that Cenvat credit is admissible on "cold insulation" used as an accessory of Vapour Absorption Machine (VAM). The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that since VAM is excisable, credit is allowed even though the centralized air-conditioning system is not excisable. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected.
-
2008 (11) TMI 575
Winding up - Powers of liquidator - Held that:- Soon after the conclusion of the inspection, M/s. Cosmos would be entitled to deal with all the properties found on the factory premises of the company in liquidation, irrespective of the fact that there may be some items at the factory premises of the company in liquidation over which M/s. Gupta Refractories may lay their claim. The claim of M/s. Gupta Refractories for such items, if found admissible, would be met from out of the sale proceeds deposited by M/s. Cosmos, or adjusted from the value of any immovable property, i.e., machinery/parts of machinery (which is classified as immovable property), and which may have been already removed by it. This arrangement would enable M/s. Cosmos to deal with the asset for which it has paid a substantial amount of ₹ 6.15 crores some time after April, 2007 and they would not have to further await the adjudication of the claims/liabilities, if any, of M/s. Gupta Refractories.
Further direct the official liquidator to execute the conveyance deed in favour of M/s. Cosmos or its nominee in respect of the immovable property of the company purchased by M/s. Cosmos. However, no compensation can be claimed by M/s. Cosmos on account of delay in the completion of process of execution of the conveyance deed, since it cannot be said that the official liquidator has acted negligently in the matter. M/s. Cosmos participated in the court auction with open eyes, knowing fully well about the pendency of the claim of M/s. Gupta Refractories, as contained in C. A. No. 385 of 2007, as also the claim of M/s. MPFC in C. A. No. 165 of 2007.
I am not inclined to allow M/s. Cosmos to withdraw any part of the sale consideration deposited by them. Instead they are permitted to exercise their rights unhindered, in any manner, in respect of the assets purchased by it in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, C. A. Nos. 706 of 2007, 922 of 2007 and 1031 of 2008 filed by M/s. Cosmos are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C. A. No. 165 of 2007 of MPFC is partially rejected in so far as it challenges the auction sale in favour of M/s. Gupta Refractories on the ground of it being hit by the provisions of the Companies Act. Other reliefs prayed for by MPFC would be considered by the court after the receipt of the report of the local commissioner and technical expert and after hearing the parties with regard to the claim of MPFC that it has the first charge over the fixed assets of the company in liquidation. C. A. No. 385 of 2007 filed by M/s. Gupta Refractories is dismissed, subject to the right of M/s. Gupta Refractories to stake their claim, if any, for the value of any movable asset, after the receipt of the report of the local commissioner and technical expert.
-
2008 (11) TMI 574
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the case are the sustainment of demand for irregularly availed Cenvat credit and penalty on two plants of a company u/s Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Demand of Cenvat credit and penalty imposition
The original authority ordered recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit along with interest u/s Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 and imposed penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that facility charges did not constitute an input as per CCR, 2004. The appellants argued that the facility charges were part of the assessable value of the consignments of liquid nitrogen received by them, citing a Tribunal decision. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, relying on a different Tribunal decision. The appellants were found to have suppressed the fact of availing Cenvat credit against invoices for facility charges.
Issue 2: Applicability of Cenvat credit rules
The Tribunal held that the manufacturer was entitled to avail credit of the entire duty paid on inputs received, including duty on facility charges, as the supplier had discharged duty on those charges. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where facility charges were considered additional consideration collected by the supplier to offset cost escalation. The Tribunal found that the appellants had correctly taken credit on supplementary invoices, leading to the conclusion that the demand for Cenvat credit recovery and penalties was not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeals and setting aside the order for recovery of Cenvat credit and penalties.
............
|
9911796707
