|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 80407 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 857 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Non/short payment of central excise duty - clearance of resin - exemption under N/N. 03/2005 dated 24.02.2005 or not - HELD THAT:- The product of the appellant was exempted from the payment of central excise duty vide Notification No. 03/2005 dated 24.02.2005 up to 28.02.2006 where after the subsequent Notification No. 07/2006 dated 01.03.2006 had withdrawn the said notification. The later notification was challenged by others involved in manufacture of the impugned resins before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand.
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in Commissioner Central Excise & Customs Versus M/s Dujodwala Resins & Terpenes Ltd. & another, Anil Kumar Sud, Pooran Chandra Dalakoti, M/s Sud Pines Pvt. Ltd., Rakhsh Pal Shastri [2019 (7) TMI 1692 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] allowed the special appeals filed by the department holding that central excise duty is payable on extraction of raw pine resin. These particular facts makes it abundantly clear that initially in the Year 2006 as per appellant’s own notification, the payment of excise duty on clearance of resins was exempted. It remained exempted till 28.02.2006.
No doubt subsequent to 10.07.2019, appellant is liable to pay the excise duty on clearance of resins but for the period prior the said date (the date of order of judgment by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court). It is very much apparent on record that except for the period from 18.09.2006 to 09.11.2006, the order confirming demand was in existence, however, the order got sub juticed w.e.f. November 2006 itself and got finally decided only on 10.07.2019 - The amount of duty as was collected by the appellants during the impugned period, apparently and admittedly stand released to its buyers. Thus, present becomes a case where no excise duty was collected from the buyers, question of discharging any liability towards excise becomes redundant.
It is observed that even department could not proceed upon the show cause notices due to the ongoing litigation with respect to the impugned issue resulting into a late decision with respect to these show cause notices. The show cause notices as old as of the Year 2007, 2008, 2013 and 2014 got decided by the impugned order dated 21.09.2020. As per the statutory mandate, the central excise officer has to determine the amount of duty within 6 months of issuing a show cause notice in terms of Section 11A(11) of Central Excise Act. The adjudication in the present case, apparently is beyond several years. The show cause notices are not sustainable on this ground itself.
The order under challenge is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 849 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Reversal of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 11 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - lapse of accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit balance by availing N/N. 30/2004-CE in terms of Rule 11 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - manufacture of excisable goods texturized polyester yarn falling under 5402 of the first schedule of tariff act, 1985 and is availing Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- From the Rule 11 (3) (ii) it can be seen that the provision of lapsing of credit is applicable only in the case where the assessee avails the absolute exemption notification. In the present case, the respondent has admittedly availed the exemption Notification No. 30/2004- CE - the Notification No. 30/2004-CE is not absolute notification but is it is a conditional one. Therefore, the provision of lapsing of the accumulated unutilized credit as provided under Rule 11 (3) (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
This issue has been considered time and again in various judgments. This Tribunal in the case of Welspun India Ltd [2023 (8) TMI 177 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that 'the appellant is neither liable to reverse the accumulated Cenvat credit of ADE (T&TA) nor the demand of the same is sustainable.'
Thus, it was held that the assessee is not required to reverse the accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 11 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the conditional notification is availed.
The order passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and correct and does not require any interference there in - the impugned order is upheld - Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 830 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay of 445 days in filing this civil appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The reasons assigned are not satisfactory so as to make out a case for sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2024 (5) TMI 819 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Recovery of central excise duty - proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The date 10.05.2022 has been wrongly mentioned instead of 25.07.2022. The rest of the averments in the said paragraph are the averments that are contained in the order dated 25.07.2022 - It is, therefore, more than apparent that the matter was heard by the Additional Commissioner on 25.07.2022 and not by Principal Commissioner, but the order has been passed by the Principal Commissioner. This clearly defies all principles of natural justice. The officer who was required to adjudicate the show cause notice should have heard the matter, but it clearly transpires from the records provided to the appellant by the department itself under the Right to Information Act that the matter was actually heard by the Additional Commissioner.
This statement made by the Deputy Commissioner is clearly contradictory to the information supplied by the department itself to the appellant under the Right to Information Act. The Deputy Commissioner should have at least looked at the Ordersheet to find out who had actually heard the matter instead of just stating that the appellant has made an incorrect and baseless statement.
The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 810 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - Inclusion of equalized handling charges from their customers on excisable goods in the assessable value - HELD THAT:- This very issue in the appellant’s sister concern i.e. MESSRS MIRA INDUSTRIES VERSUS C.C.E. -AHMEDABAD-II [2023 (4) TMI 655 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] this Tribunal has taken a view that the handling charges recovered from the customers is not includible in the assessable value.
The facts of the above case and the case in hand are absolutely identical. Therefore, following the judgment of Mira Industries, in the present cases the handling charges is not includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods. Accordingly, the demand in this respect is not sustainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 805 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Abatement of appeal - Resolution Plan approved by NCLT - recovery of CENVAT Credit with interest and penalties - HELD THAT:- The identical matter has been considered by two coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Jet Airways (India) Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV [2023 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and Hyderabad Bench in the case of Icomm Tele Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Puducherry [2023 (10) TMI 1344 - CESTAT HYDERABAD]. It is pertinent to refer the findings of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Jet Airways (India) Limited [2023 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT MUMBAI] which was disposed of and it was ordered that the appeals stand abated once the Resolution Plan has been approved by NCLT and the CESTAT has become functus officio in the matters relating to this appeal.
Once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, thereafter, the present appeal stands abated as the CESTAT has become functus officio in the matter relating to the present appeal - the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of as abated.
-
2024 (5) TMI 804 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Abatement claim - entire manufacturing process in the factory has remained closed for the period from 17.10.2014 to 31.10.2014 - Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules - HELD THAT:- Firstly there is no denying of the fact that the manufactured goods which were in the stock were duty paid goods and the Rule 10 only provides a facility that if the assessee has any order pending for dispatch of the goods in that case they are free to clear the goods within the first two days, it has not been stipulated that all the goods which are manufactured and pending in the stock are to be cleared within a period of two days. It is important to take note that Rule 10 only mentions the word “May” that itself signifies that the manufacture is free to avail facility of clearing the goods for two days at the commencing of the closer period. This provision basically meet the requirement of dispatches of the goods or sale of the goods to match the requirement of pending dispatch orders.
It is settled Principal of the law that the word as provided in the statute or notification has to be read as it is rather than basically interpreting them in different way Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS STATE OF UP. [2011 (4) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT] has held that 'It is a settled principle of law that the words used in the section, rule or notification should not be rendered redundant and should be given effect to. It is also one of the cardinal principles of interpretation of any statue that some meaning must be given to the words used in the section. Expression "Wire rods and wires" which is mentioned in item no. (xv) would not and cannot cover the expression "tools, alloy and special steels of entry no. (ix) nor it would refer to the expression "Iron and Steel" as each item used in entry nos. (ix) and (xv) are independent items not depending on each other at all.'
Rule 10 provides that assessee “May” clear the goods for first two days of the commencement of the closer period, it does not mean that all the manufactured/ stocked goods need to be cleared within two days. The appellant have fulfilled all the conditions of Rule 10 of the Tobacco Manufactured Rules, 2010 - Therefore, they are entitled for the abetment of the duty for the closer period of the manufacturing machines.
The impugned order in appeal is without any merit and the same is set aside - Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 800 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Area based exemption - subsequent demand of duty after disallowing the benefit of area based exemption under Notification No. 49-50/2003-CE - demand alongwith interst and penalty - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case M/S AGV FENESTRATION PVT LTD VERSUS CCE-CHANDIGARH-I [2023 (12) TMI 563 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] and this Tribunal after considering all the submissions of both the parties has held that the appellant are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 for the period 20.06.2009 to 21.03.2010 - It was held in the case that the denial of benefit of notification 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 for the period from 20.06.2009 to 21.03.2010 is not sustainable in law.
As the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case has held that the appellant was entitled to benefit of area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, therefore subsequent demand for the period from 18.06.2009 to 21.03.2010 does not survive. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 799 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of Central Excise Duty - product of the appellant namely Sulphur – 90% WG with the brand name of “CosavetFertis” is a manufactured goods or not - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of C.C. E-BHARUCH VERSUS SULPHUR MILLS LTD [2022 (10) TMI 732 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that The nature and composition of the materials (including Sulphur 99%) procured and used by the Respondent are the same, the process undertaken and the chemicals added to Sulphur 99% are the same; the nature as well as composition and use of the products obtained by the Respondent i.e Casvet Fertis- WG are the same, the structures of Chapter 25,38 and 31 of tariff are also the same, and most importantly there is no change in definition of ‘manufacture’ and ‘excisable goods’ under the Central Excise Act, nor it is there any new pronouncement of a Judicial or quasi-judicial forum affecting the concepts of manufacture or that of excisable goods or classification.
The impugned order is upheld - Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 785 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Exemption of sugar cess under Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 for export of sugar - Department has raised the demand of sugar cess on the ground that the appellant cannot be escaped from the payment of sugar cess on export of sugar as the same is not covered under the Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT) on the ground that the sugar cess is not an excise duty.
HELD THAT:- As per the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 the sugar cess is payable as per the provisions of sugar cess act which mandates that cess will be levied and collected as duty of excise on all sugar produced by any sugar factory in India. Sub- section 4 of the act also provides that provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and rules made thereunder including relating to refund and exemption shall apply in relation to levy and collection of the duty of excise under that - In view of the said provision it is clear that even though the sugar cess is levy under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 by virtue of the provisions under sugar cess act, the sugar cess is considered as excise duty for all the purposes, therefore, even the exemption granted to excise duty under Central Excise notification shall apply mutandis- mutandis in respect of sugar cess also.
The identical issue has been considered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in TTK. -LIG LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI/NEW DELHI [2005 (12) TMI 300 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI-LB] wherein the identical levy of rubber cess in terms of Rubber Act, 1947, the larger bench has held that the mode adopted for collection of excise either from owner or state or from the manufacturer by whom the rubber is used will not change nature of excise duty which is levied as a cess. The sugar cess remains as excise duty notwithstanding the fact that it is levied as cess for purpose of Section 12 of Rubber Act, 1947.
Applying the ratio of these judgments in the present case also, the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 is nothing but the duty of excise. Accordingly, the same treatment to the sugar cess as to the excise duty should be given. Hence, under the facts of the present case in view of the judgment in the case of export of goods by virtue of Notification No. 42/2001- CE (NT) the appellant is not liable to pay sugar cess. Moreover, as per Notification issued vide Circular No. 10/93 CX.08 dated 01.09.1993 in case of export of sugar, the sugar cess is exempted.
The demands raised in the impugned order are not sustainable - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Appeals are allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 776 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Method of Valuation - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at 110% of the cost of production or under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at the value at which same goods are cleared to independent buyers? - goods cleared to sister unit for captive consumption - period prior to December 2013 - revenue neutrality - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- This appeal can be disposed of on limitation itself without going into the merits of the case. It is found that as per the department the issue on merit is that the appellant was supposed to pay the excise duty on the goods cleared from their clinker unit to the grinding unit not on the cost construction method i.e. 110% of cost of manufacturing but on the transaction value of the same goods sold to the independent buyers - since there is no gain or loss to the appellant, the situation is revenue neutral, hence, malafide intention cannot be attributed to the appellant.
Moreover, though during the relevant period i.e. March, 2011 to November,2013 both the units i.e. clinker and grinding unit were separately registered but from May, 2016 both the clinker unit and grinding unit have been granted common Central Excise registration and separate registration of clinker unit was surrendered. This shows that practically both units are one of the same. This fact reinforces the claim of the appellant that the situation is revenue neutral.
On the identical issue this CESTAT in the case of MAX SPECIALITY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUDHIANA [2019 (9) TMI 1542 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] has set aside the demand on the grounds of Revenue neutrality.
This is a clear case of revenue neutrality, therefore, suppression of facts or any malafide intention with intent to evade the payment of duty cannot be attributed to the appellant, consequently the demand is not sustainable on limitation. Moreover, the period involved is March, 2011 to November,2013 for which the show cause notice was issued on 18.03.2016, thus, the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation.
On the identical issue on merit the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. MONSANTO MANUFACTURER PVT. LTD. [2014 (4) TMI 505 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that once the court has come to the conclusion that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked there would be no occasion to enquire merit of the issue. Therefore, as per the discussion made herein above, the entire demand is clearly time bar, therefore, we need not to address the issue on merit i.e. manner of valuation of goods in question. Therefore, the entire demand is hit by limitation, hence, not sustainable.
The impugned order is set aside on the ground of limitation - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 775 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Refund of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest from the date the amount was debited/pre-deposited till the date it was refunded - suo moto re-credit of amount in question in the CENVAT account - HELD THAT:- Although the Appellant re-credited the amount of Rs. 41,28,106 debited on 12.11.2014, in their credit account on 31.05.2016, yet they again debited this amount in two installments i.e. Rs. 10,50,000 was debited vide RG-23A Pt-Il entry No. 61 dt.31.12.2016 and the remaining amount of Rs. 30,78,105 was debited vide Entry No. 78 dated 31.01.2017 of RG-23A Pt-II, at the insistence of the department. The department collected interest of Rs.1,20,508 paid by the Appellant through challan/GAR No. 50189 dated 10.03.2017. This fact is also recorded in Order-In-Original dated 28.09.2020. Thus the department collected/charged interest from the Appellant for the period during which the Appellant retained the amount.
The department compensated it by charging interest, as if the amount remained with the department for entire period of 12.11.214 to 17.06.2021. In such a situation, the Appellant are entitled to get interest on the amount of Rs. 41,28,106 for the whole period of 12.11.2014 to 17.06.2021.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 771 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Method of valuation - Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act - shampoos in packing of more than 10ml as well as less than 10ml - requirement of affixing the MRP on the sachets as per Rule 26 (a) of LMPCR, 2011 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has considered the issue in the case of SARVOTHAM CARE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD [2013 (4) TMI 505 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and held that the valuation adopted under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is correct.
Further, in the appellant’s own case M/S. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE [2020 (2) TMI 182 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the Tribunal followed the above decision to set aside the demand raised under Section 4A and held that the determination of assessable value is to be done under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The demand under Section 4A cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of CVD and SAD in respect of payment of custom duty for regularizing excess import under advance authorization prior to introduction of GST regime - duty liability was finalized and paid after the introduction of GST - CVD and SAD was paid by the appellant on their own suo moto in order to regularize excess import qua export obligation fulfillment - HELD THAT:- From the reading of the Section 142 (3) of CGST, 2017, it is clear that an assessee who is eligible for cenvat credit and unable to take the credit due to CGST regime after 01.07.2017 shall be eligible for the cash refund. In the present case the CVD and SAD was paid which is admissible as cenvat credit to the appellants under the existing law i.e. Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Secondly the said amount is refundable to the appellants.
As regard the issue that whether the appellant’s claim of CVD and SAD is hit by Rule 9 (1) (b) or(bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is found that firstly there is no demand notice in respect of CVD and SAD which was paid by the appellants on their own and also no adjudication as regard the suppression fact, therefore, in absence of any charge by way of show cause notice or adjudication thereof, the allegation of suppression of fact only to invoke Rule 9 (1) (b) or(bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is on assumption and presumption which cannot be accepted.
In the present case the advance license is on record and since there was excess import as compared to the eligible under advance license the appellant have discharged the duty of CVD and SAD Suo moto for which no offence was made out by the department. Therefore, in this fact, no suppression of fact is involved. Consequently, penal provision under Rule 9 (1) (b) or (bb) shall also not apply.
It is found that except the legal issue there is no discussion about the fact, documents and verification thereof, hence the matter needs to be remanded for this limited purpose for processing the fund claim of the appellant - the impugned order is set aside - appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
-
2024 (5) TMI 759 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charge of Interest under Rule 57AH of Central Excise Rules 1944 (now Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002) on the credit wrongly taken - HELD THAT:- This Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Gupta Steel [2006 (4) TMI 158 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] while dealing with a similar question has held that 'charging of interest on the amount of credit lying unutilized is not correct in law. We, therefore hold that the applicants are not liable to pay interest on the Amount of credit, which was lying unutilized and which has been ordered to be reversed'.
Thus, no question of law much-less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the issue is squarely covered in favour of respondent assessee in case of Gupta Steel.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 666 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Liability to pay fine and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Clandestine removal - Mens rea - existence of evidences or not - applicability of presumption of Section 11AC of CEA - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Pepsi Foods Limited [2010 (12) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT], held 'It is well settled that when the statutes create an offence and an ingredient of the offence is a deliberate attempt to evade duty either by fraud or misrepresentation, the statute requires "mens rea" as a necessary constituent of such an offence. But when factually no fraud or suppression or misstatement is alleged by the Revenue against the respondent in the show-cause notice the imposition of penalty under Section 11-AC is wholly impermissible.'
In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court ‘mens rea’ will play important role while invoking the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
In the present case, the record shows that all the goods were accounted for, since the invoices with regard to the raw material and finished goods were there on record - Tribunal has totally ignored the documents produced before the Commissioner Appeals.
As per Section 11AC of the Act, 1944, there should be an intention to evade the payment of duty and in the present case intention to evade the payment of duty is not proved by the authorities while passing the order of penalty - A perusal of the record shows that there was no intention to evade duty, which is requisite of Section 11AC of the Act. And Rule 25 of the Rules 2002 is not an independent rule and cannot be invoked unless it covers the ingredients to impose penalty as imposed in Section 11AC of the Act.
So far as Rule 25 is concerned, it starts as “subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act” which shows that Rule 25 would be applicable only in cases where Section 11AC is invoked.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 665 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
CENVAT Credit - inputs used in the manufacture of both e-bikes (exempt) and e-bikes parts (taxable) are common - applicability of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer res integra being decided in favour of the appellant by this Bench of the Tribunal in M/S AVON CYCLES LIMITED AND M/S HERO CYCLES LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E, LUDHIANA [2016 (9) TMI 628 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where the appellant was manufacturing both exempted goods i.e. the e-bikes and dutiable goods i.e. the parts of e-bikes; it is not the case of the Department that the appellant is only manufacturing exempted goods and therefore, the contention of the appellant that they are following the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is acceptable.
There are no applicability of Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the instant case. This bench of the Tribunal in M/S AVON CYCLES LIMITED AND M/S HERO CYCLES LIMITED held that 'As we hold that the provisions of Rule 6(3) are applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we hold that provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable to the facts of the present case.'
The impugned order is not sustainable and requires to be set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 618 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT Credit of service tax paid - services used for repairs and renovation of the factory - period from December, 2015 to June, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Appellant had taken Cenvat credit on Civil Construction Work on account of maintenance & repairs work of the factory which was done for smooth running of the plant.
In view of the Board’s Circular No.943/4/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011, it is found that the Cenvat credit involved in the dispute is related to the service tax paid on services used for repairs and renovation of the factory and as such is eligible as Cenvat credit. It is also found that the definition of input services as contained in Rule 2(l) specifically includes services used in relation to modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory. The said definition was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2011 wherein construction of the factory was excluded. As there is no exclusion in respect of the services relatable to renovation or repair, there are no reasons to hold that such services were not cenvatable.
The impugned orders cannot be sustained are therefore set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 617 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Corroborative evidences or not - entire proceedings have been initiated against the appellant solely on the basis of the allegations against M/s. V.K. Metal Works that they did not manufacture the goods and hence they could not have supplied the goods - interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The Department has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant has received only invoices without actual receipt of the goods. The denial of credit only on the basis of the proceedings initiated against M/s. V.K. Metal Works, the supplier, is not sustainable without any corroborative evidence.
Further it is found that the proceedings initiated against the supplier M/s. V. K. Metal Works has already concluded in VINOD KUMAR JAIN VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS [2018 (5) TMI 1512 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] issued by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, New Delhi, wherein proceedings initiated against the supplier has been dropped, holding that they had manufactured the goods and supplied to other manufacturers against proper invoices.
Accordingly, the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit properly and the denial of CENVAT Credit availed by them in the impugned order is not sustainable.
Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Since, credit has been availed properly, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty also not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 616 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Demand of differential Central Excise Duty with interest and penalty - inflating freight charges through their dummy transport unit - reduction in the assessable value within the average composite price paid by oil companies - contravention of proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, Rules 4, 6, 8 and 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In view of the settled decision of law and the judgment of this Tribunal in MM Cylinders [2011 (9) TMI 779 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] being confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in MM Cylinders Vs C [2012 (1) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that 'The mere fact that the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise might be aware that the SMT has been used for transport of goods and freight was claimed as abatement may not lead to any conclusion to say that the department was aware of intricate manipulation by the appellant-company'.
The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
