|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 925 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 753
Availment of CENVAT Credit - Revenue denied credit on the ground that the exported material is otherwise duty-free - Held that:- It is the undisputed policy of the Government not to burden the export goods with domestic taxes as has been noted in various decisions of the Tribunal. The reasons are obvious. We do not want to make domestically produced goods, when exported to foreign market, to become uncompetitive. Secondly, no country wants to export the domestic taxes meant to be levied on domestic consumption of goods and services. Each country either exempts such taxes in respect of export goods, including taxes relating to inputs used in the export goods, or there are alternative schemes for providing rebate, drawback of duties suffered by export goods. India is no exception as we also have similar schemes. There are also schemes making available duty-free goods and services for export production - allowing of input duty credit would free the export goods from domestic taxes. Hence, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 752
Cenvat Credit- whether Cenvat Credit could be denied to the assessee on the ground that the weight of the input recorded on receipt in the premises of the manufacturer of the final products showed a shortage compared to the weight recorded in the relevant invoice? Held that- tolerance in respect of hygroscopic, volatile and such other cargo have also to be allowed as per industry norms excluding, however, unreasonable and exorbitant claims. Similarly, minor variations arising due to weighment by different machine will also have to be ignored if such variations are within tolerance limit - Finding no mala fide reason attributable to the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 751
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Excess demand of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- demand of CENVAT credit is highly disproportionate to value of raw materials mentioned in the annexure to the show-cause notice. The demand has been made nearly after four years after the flood has been happened in October 2005. A claim settled by the Insurance Company confirms the occurrence of flood. Therefore, we do not prima facie find valid reason to uphold the demand as per the impugned order. In view of the above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stay of recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2012 (6) TMI 750
Waiver of the pre-deposit - Availment of ineligible cenvat credit - Assessee drawing wires from wire rods - Held that:- Board’s circular dated 16.02.01 during the material period was holding that the activity of drawing wire would amount to manufacture cannot be disregarded by the lower authorities and can be said that during the material period appellant was manufacturing the final products. It is a settled law that Board’s circular is binding on the lower authorities and adjudicating authority, in our considered view, has erred in coming to a conclusion that the appellant is not eligible for the cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs. We also note that the CBEC vide circular dated 29.05.03 has withdrawn the said circular which would leave the period after 29.05.03 in the category of the drawing of wire would not amount to manufacture. We find that by retrospective amendment this was rectified holding that wire drawing units during the period 29.5.03 to 08.7.04 (both days inclusive) it has cleared the final products i.e. drawn wire on payment of duty, at appropriate rate, then the amount paid on such goods shall be allowed as cenvat credit to the recipient of the said drawn wire. The corollary of this retrospective amendment would be that the appellant herein if has discharged the duty liability, then he is eligible to avail the cenvat credit during the material period - Following decision of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus TECHNOWELD INDUSTRIES [2003 (3) TMI 123 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 749
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Loss of documents - Equivalent penalty - Held that:- original documents were lost in transit by the truck driver who was transporting the goods and the truck driver, on noticing the loss, filed a FIR with the Police Station and documentary evidence are available to this effect. When the original documents are lost, the only recourse that was available to the appellant was to get a copy of the same from the supplier and take credit on the basis thereon. The appellant requested the Assistant Commissioner to grant permission for taking credit. However, the jurisdictional authorities rejected the request of the appellant. This is a case of pure and simple harassment to the assessee. If the Assistant Commissioner wanted verification of the duty payment, he could have taken up the matter with the jurisdictional authorities at the supplier's end inasmuch as the details of the invoices are available. Instead of doing that, the appellant was served with a show cause notice leading to avoidable adjudication.
Powers of adjudication are given to quasi judicial authorities to sub-serve justice and not to deny them. In the instant case justice has been completely denied to the appellant. Further, the demand was also barred by time inasmuch as the notice has been issued beyond the normal period. The lower appellate authority, without even understanding the basic facts of the case directed the appellant to pre-deposit the entire amount which was not deposited and which resulted in dismissal of the appeal - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 748
CENVAT Credit - Held that:- landscaping of factory garden will fall within the concept of modernisation, renovation, repair etc. of office premises. Further, the credit rating of industry is dependent on how the factory is maintained inside and outside the premises and environmental law expects employer to keep factory without contravention thereof and the concept of social responsibility and statutory obligation of employer to maintain their factory in eco-friendly manner is also relevant. Therefore, these services are activities relating to business of manufacturer of excisable goods and held that the assessee is entitled to take credit of service tax paid on such services - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Millipore India Pvt. Limited [2011 (4) TMI 1122 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 747
Duty demand - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- in the case of Bajaj Tempo Limited [2014 (3) TMI 132 - CESTAT MUMBAI] whereby the Tribunal followed the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. reported in [2000 (7) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. American Auto Service reported in [1995 (6) TMI 33 - CEGAT, MADRAS] and held that in case of inputs were cleared as such the credit availed is to be reversed - in case the inputs were cleared as such the manufacturer is to reverse the credit availed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 746
Duty demand - Whether the respondent should be asked to pay duty of excise on carton waste, crown waste, glass scrap, crate scrap, pet-bottle scrap, PVC cans and plastic crowns which were cleared by them under commercial invoices without payment of duty during the period from April, 1997 to November, 2001 - Held that:- Adjudicating authority examined the very excisability of the above materials and held in favour of the assessee by relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CCE vs. West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. [2003 (4) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it was held that no duty was payable on used/waste containers cleared from factory by a manufacturer after availing MODVAT/CENVAT credit. In the present appeal, the appellant has not stated any reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal’s decision in the case of Nestle (I) Ltd. (2002 (11) TMI 424 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) cited by the Superintendent(AR) is of no support to the appellant inasmuch as, in that case, it was not in dispute that Rule 57F(18)(a) was applicable. In the instant case, this Rule was not invoked in the show-cause notices and hence the assessee did not have any occasion to consider the applicability of the rule - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 745
Duty demand - Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Fuel supplied by the Applicant was furnace oil and was used in the MSQ Plant and later capitalized - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on its merits. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the case on its merits without insisting for any pre-deposit. All issues are kept open. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of hearing may be granted to the Appellant. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 744
Condonation of delay - Held that:- First appellate authority should have condoned the delay in filing appeal and dispose of the stay petition and appeal on merits as it is settled law that if there is condonation prescribed in the rules, it should be viewed in a broader perspective. In our considered view the reasoning given by the appellant before the first appellate authority in not filing the appeal in time, seems to be justifiable reasons and all the more so, when the appellant has already preferred appeals in an identical issue and stay has been granted by this Tribunal - Delay condoned.
-
2012 (6) TMI 743
Issues:
Whether the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on GTA service for outward transportation of final products from January to May 2005.
Analysis:
The appeal filed by the department questioned the entitlement of the respondent to claim CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on GTA service used for transporting final products. Despite no representation from the respondent, the Tribunal considered the matter. The original authority disallowed the CENVAT credit and demanded repayment along with interest. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, recognizing GTA service as an input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The department's appeal challenged this decision.
The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a similar case, where it was held that manufacturers could claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid for GTA service used in transporting goods to customers' premises. This precedent favored the respondent's position, leading to the rejection of the department's appeal seeking to deny CENVAT credit for the period in question (January to May 2005). The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was indeed entitled to take CENVAT credit on the service tax paid for the GTA service during the specified period. The decision was pronounced and dictated in the open court, upholding the entitlement of the respondent to the CENVAT credit.
-
2012 (6) TMI 742
Entitlement to registration certificate as per Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Revenue contends that respondent is not entitled for more than one registration in the same campus - Held that:- According to Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, different activities carried out by an assessee which are recognised under the law can be registered separately. There is nothing on record to show any mala fide in the approach of the respondent to disagree to the conclusion of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 741
Clearance of excisable goods to the DTA on payment of duty - Non maintenance of seperate accounts - Held that:- very basis of the impugned demand is unfounded inasmuch as, in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], this Tribunal rejected a similar plea of the Department and held that all supplies of excisable goods by a DTA unit to SEZ developer should be considered as exports and were not to be treated as exempted goods and consequently the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were not applicable to such goods - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 740
CENVAT Credit - Credit in respect of structural items used for fabrication of supporting structures - Held that:- duty credit in respect of structural supports cannot be allowed - Following decision of Vandana Global ltd. Vs CCE Raipur - [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs CCE Delhi - [2011 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 739
Valuation of goods - Whether the transportation charges recovered separately under debit notes and not reflected in the invoices are required to be added in the assessable value - Held that:- appellants were clearing the goods at factory gate. However, in some cases where the customers are at Mumbai, Hyderabad, Nagpur etc., the goods were transported at the request of the buyer at the railway station at Kolhapur for further transportation and such charges are separately recovered from the customers - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 738
Rectification of mistake - Held that:- The assessee’s appeal and the Department’s appeal were both directed against the same order of the Commissioner and both should have been listed for joint hearing and disposal. The assessee’s appeal, though filed later, was listed before the Bench for final hearing while the Department’s appeal, filed earlier, was still pending. Neither side mentioned anything about the pending appeal of the Department when the Bench passed Final Order dated 3-12-2009 in the assessee’s appeal. We are constrained to believe that both sides were aware of the factum of pendency of the Department’s appeal when the Final order was passed by this Bench on 3-12-2009. Be that as it may, the crucial finding recorded by the Bench in Final Order dated 3-12-2009, on the basis of which the assessee got relief, is erroneous and the injustice arising out of such finding has got to be remedied. There is a more or less similar situation in relation to Miscellaneous Order dated 19-7-2010 also - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 737
waiver of pre-deposit - assessee has not returned the goods which were received from 100% EOU, without following the proper procedure of consuming them and returned the same after a period of three years - Held that:- Appellant is 100% EOU has procured the raw materials for consumption in manufacturing of goods in his factory premises. It is also undisputed that the same goods have been returned back to the original manufacturer being of sub-standard quality and such returns have taken place under proper invoices and AR 3A, which have been acknowledged by the recipient and original manufacturer of the said goods. If that be so, we find that the goods which were received by the appellant without payment of duty from the manufacturer under CT-3, having accounted for and when there is no diversion of the said goods in order to demand the duty, prima facie, we find that the appellant’s case is covered by various provisions of the Central Excise Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 - Stay granted.
-
2012 (6) TMI 736
Confiscation of goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules - Interception of trucks - Non production of proper documents - Held that:- investigating officers have not been able to identify the factory from which the goods were cleared without payment of duty. The appellants before me are neither a transporter, registered dealer or owner of a warehouse. Therefore, the goods cannot be confiscated in the hands of the appellants as per the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. If the goods cannot be confiscated under Rule 25, penalties imposed under Rule 26 are also not sustainable. So is the confiscation of the vehicles which were seized for the reason that they were carrying non-duty paid goods is also not maintainable. So the question of redemption fine for the goods or the vehicle does not arise - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 735
MRP Based valuation - Method of calculation - Packs containing about 100 "Eclairs" brand chocolates each weighing 5.5 gms cleared adopting cost construction method - Whether the goods cleared by the appellant during the period of dispute should be assessed to duty under Section 4 or under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act - Held that:- Following decision of assessee's own previous case [2008 (2) TMI 103 - CSTAT CHENNAI], CCE, Rajkot vs. Makson Confectionery Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] and Swan Sweets Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2006 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 734
Excise duty evasion - Whether penalty should be imposed on the Director of the company under provisions of Section 11AC and Rule 25 or 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Revenue is of the view that since the appellant who was the Director of the assessee-company was involved in the clandestine activities of the said assessee - Held that:- as per the provisions of the first proviso to Section 11A(2) when a case is against an assessee is settled under Section 11A(1A), no further proceedings is maintainable against any other person to whom notice is issued under Section 11A(1). I find that the provisions in the said proviso is very clear and decisions relied upon by Revenue are not with reference to a situation where payments as envisaged under the provisions of Section 11A(1A) was made - Decided against Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
