cestat rulingsupplying the goods and, at the same time, issuing of cenvatable invoices is a fraud...

CESTAT RULING

2009-TIOL-1569-CESTAT-MUM

M/s ICCONOL Petroleums Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated: August 11, 2009)

Clandestine removal – pre-deposit ordered by Commissioner(A) not paid, hence appeal rejected - CESTAT asks appellant to make deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- and furnish bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- and orders that upon compliance matter would be re -adjudicated by the original authority.

Also see analysis of the Order


M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated: August 10, 2009)

Letter by Superintendent conveying the order passed by the Commissioner – Appeal lies before the Tribunal and not Commissioner(Appeals) – CESTAT.


2009-TIOL-1567-CESTAT-DEL

M/s Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi-IV (Dated: May 14, 2009)

Central Excise - Exemption Notification - Stay /dispensation of pre-deposit - The certificate produced on record apparently indicates that the purchaser of the goods to be contractor, it prima facie discloses that supply was to the contractor and not to the project. In order to avail the exemption under Notification 108/95-CE, the supply of goods has necessarily to be to the project specified in the said notification. Apparently, the exemption is available to the goods which are meant exclusively for the project. The goods which are obtained by the contractor in his own name cannot be construed to be the goods exclusively for the project because such goods have ownership of the contractor and can be used for any other work and at any other site at sweet will of the contractor. There cannot be any exclusive control over the goods by the agency having controlling authority over such project. Prima facie, therefore, no case has been made for grant of stay of the impugned order or to exercise discretion for waiver of the duty demanded under the impugned order. (Para 6 & 8)

Principles for grant of stay - Stay application or relief of waiver of pre -deposit can not be granted as a matter of course or in a routine manner. Merely because, in another matter involving similar issue the stay was granted or the waiver of pre -deposit was granted, that by itself cannot be a ground for grant of stay in another case involving similar issue, particularly when either the facts of the latter case differ or the distinguishing factors of the latter case are brought to the notice of the Tribunal. A

stay order in one matter, neither lays down the binding ratio, nor the principle of res judicata is attracted. No stay order can be passed which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. If on a cursory glance it is apparent that the demand raised has no leg to stand, certainly, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to deposit full or even substantial part of the demand. However, a waiver of pre -deposit, which admittedly rela tes to the payment of excise duty is sought on the basis of exemption notification, then the assessee has to make out a prima facie case regarding the same, besides establishing financial hardship. (Para 10, 11 & 12)

2009-TIOL-1562-CESTAT-BANG

Analogics Tech India Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Hyderabad-II (Dated: March 4, 2009)

Central Excise - P ayment of 8% or 10% not required when credit on inputs used in exempted goods is paid or reversed – LB decision in Nicholas Piramal 2008-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-MUM-LB and Gujarat High Court decision in Maize Products 2008-TIOL-596-HC-AHM-CX followed – No merit in impugned order, liable to be set aside


CCE, Mumbai Vs Anand Arc Electrodes Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 17, 2009)

Buyer has no responsibility in regard to ensuring that duty has been correctly paid by consignor – Once original assessment has not been varied, credit taken cannot be denied – CESTAT


2009-TIOL-1558-CESTAT-MAD

Curekraft Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Central Excise – Denial of exemption under notification No.9/2000 CF dt. 1.3.2000 – the grounds on which the exemption was denied by the Commissioner (A) is not a ground in SCN – He traversed beyond SCN which is not permissible in law.


M/s V K Enterprises Vs CCE, Panchkula (Dated: September 4, 2009)

Central Excise – Registered Dealers - The dealers were not registered with excise authorities to deal in cenvatable invoices but to deal in duty paid excisable goods and,

in the process, to issue cenvatable invoices The dealers are required to buy duty paid goods from the manufacturer along with duty paying documents and take credit. When the registered dealer issues invoices enabling the buyer to take credit, it goes without saying that the goods have to be supplied. The role of the dealers in not supplying the goods and, at the same time, issuing of cenvatable invoices is a fraud committed on the Revenue. There is also a clear obligation on the part of any registered dealers who have purchased the excisable goods and taken credit and passed on the credit to the manufacturer of final products not to act in any way which is prejudicial to utilisation of the input for the intended purpose. There is also a continuing obligation to account for the goods on which the credit was taken and passed on.



M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: August 6, 2009)

Central Ex cise – CENVAT Credit - CENVAT credit distribution from the corporate office to different factories – the Commissioner of the unit should have got the matter examined with his counterpart having jurisdiction over the corporate office before re -distributing the credit allocated – matter remanded.



Morarjee Textiles Ltd Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated: August 6, 2009)

Appeal filed against rejection of refund claims – Provisions of section 35B(6) of the CEA, 1944 not applicable – Minimum fees of Rs.1000/- acceptable



B G Shirke Construction Technology Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai (Dated: August 7, 2009)

Condonation of delay: Applicant coming to know of passing of impugned order of remand dt.16.5.2005 on 17.11.2007 whereas applied for the copy of the same on 16.09.08, got it on 25.9.08 and filed appeal on 03.12.08 - There is inordinate delay in obtaining copy of impugned order and no satisfactory explanation is provided by the applicant for the delay inferring negligence on their part – Applicant should have been more vigilant - Application dismissed.


M/s Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: July 10, 2009)

Central Excise – exemption – denial of exemption under Notification 67/95 on the ground that clinker, used in the manufacture of Cement is cleared to SEZ – prima facie case for waiver of pre deposit.


CCE, Nagpur Vs M/s KEC International Ltd (Dated: July 22, 2009)

Prototype towers accounted in RG1 register and cleared without payment of duty under job work challan was known to the department - bonafides of the assessee established – No mens rea involved hence section 11AC not applicable - Revenue appeal rejected.


CCE, Nagpur Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd (Dated: July 30, 2009)

Claim of refund due to lower sale value of goods at depots than the assessable value at factory – Originally claim rejected holding that the assessments were not provisional – CESTAT vide order dated 29.05.07 held assessments provisional – in later proceedings Commissioner(A) remanding matter without jurisdiction – Original authority to take fresh decision – Matter remanded.


D-Link (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Goa (Dated: August 11, 2009)

Undervaluation of dutiable IT peripherals by overvaluing the non duty paid driver software – 30% of the duty amount deposited before Commissioner(A) suffices the requirement of pre-deposit in terms of earlier order dated 10.04.2008 – CESTAT grants stay.



Indian Oil Corpn Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-II (Dated: August 13, 2009)

Settlement of case before the Settlement Commission and being granted immunity from penalty and prosecution – whether supplementary invoices issued are centavable – CESTAT grants Stay by waiving pre -deposit of Rs.14.7 Crores.

Tribunal's observations –

“5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, prima facie , the appellant has made out a good case on the strength of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Chennai in favour of the same company and on the same issue in the light of the same order of Settlement Commission. It appears, the Commissioner's order was not appealed against. The Commissioner categorically held that, where immunity was granted by the Settlement Commission to the input-supplier against penal liability under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, it was not correct to deny the Cenvat credit in respect of such goods to the manufacturer of final products where the latter claimed the benefits on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the input supplier. This decision of the Commissioner at Chennai squarely covers the issue involved in the present case, in favour of the appellant. Inasmuch as there is no appeal of the department against the said order of the Commissioner, we have no option but to grant waive r of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the dues adjudged against the appellant. It is ordered accordingly.”


2009-TIOL-1540-CESTAT-AHM

M/s Mahendra Fabrics Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: June 4, 2009)

Central Excise – Procurement of neck cut & embroidered cloth for kurta, cut piece for pyjama and dupatta in packed condition from job workers for sale not liable to duty – In the absence of specific provisions in central excise law, burden of duty cannot be shifted on principal – Duty demand and penalties set aside


M/s Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE, Daman (Dated: August 4, 2009)

Central Excise - Test of marketability - Physician Samples - The sale of Physician Samples being banned under Drugs Act, carries no weight inasmuch as the prohibition of sale of goods in terms of particular Act would not mean that said product is not capable of being sold. (Para 3)

Rectification of Mistake - Review of order - Review of an order which is palpably erroneous, passed under mis -apprehension is allowed. However, a conscious decision passed by Tribunal after appreciating the submissions made by both sides cannot be subjected to review. Rectification of mistake application is relatable only to those mistakes which are apparent from the facts of the record. Conclusions arrived at after a long drawn process of arguments by both sides, cannot be held to be falling within arena of mistake so as to rectify the same. (Para 4)


CCE & CC, Nashik Vs Capital Foods Ltd (Dated: August 25, 2009)

'Chilli Vinegar' is correctly classifiable under heading 2203.00 of CETA, 1985 – ROM application filed by Revenue succeeds in CESTAT

Also see analysis of the order


M/s Kerala Footwear Products Vs CCE, Calicut (Dated: April 21, 2009)

Central Excise – Synthetic Rubber Master Batch used within factory of production classifiable under 4005.20, to be considered for re -computing duty demand – Duty demand based on incomplete report of chemical examiner for Colour Master Batch not justiciable, liable to be set aside – When issues involved are based on interpretation of excise law/classification under tariff longer period not invocable – When facts are in the knowledge of department, second SCN invoking extended period not sustainable – All penalties set aside

Appeal allowed by way of remand

Central Excise – Whether strap-plaps which are loosely joined bunch of 16 individual straps formed as such in the mould classifiable under heading 4008.29 in terms of M/s Premier Footwear Products (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2006-TIOL-1736-CESTAT-MAD ; or under heading 6401.92 as parts of Hawai chappal in terms of Rule 2(a) of Rules for interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff and ratio of Apex Court's decision in Phoenix international Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Raigad 2002-TIOL-746-SC-CUS

Matter referred to Larger Bench



Jain Vanguard Polybutylene Ltd Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated: June 19, 2009)

Issue - Refund of unutilized cenvat credit on the ground of closure of factory - Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 cannot be employed for rejection – Following Karnataka HC decision in Union of India Vs. Slovac India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (SLP against which was dismissed by SC) refund to be allowed.


M/s Ugraa Precision Engineers Vs CC & CCE, Bangalore (Dated: January 21, 2009)

Central Excise – Computer used for designing components/drawing program for processing of components are capital goods – Credit not deniable under erstwhile Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944


M/s Wintech Taparia Ltd Vs CCE, Indore(Dated: April 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Installation and erection of food processing line at customers site whether amounts to manufacture – Matter remanded to Commissioner to arrive at a decision after following Board's Circular No. 58/1/2002-CX – Commissioner to consider all issues raised by assessees afresh – Impugned order set aside


M/s Todi Rubber Ltd Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated: August 11, 2009)

Duty collected by assessee from their customers and not paid to Revenue worked out in Show Cause notice – section 11D enforceable as recovery provisions made with retrospective effect by Finance Act, 2000 – CESTAT orders pre -deposit.

Tribunal decision in Katralla Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore – ( 2008-TIOl-1321-CESTAT -MAD ) referred .



M/s Goran Pharma Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bhavnagar (Dated: August 4, 2009)

Central Excise - SSI Exemption - Suppression of facts - Extended period - The appellant having intimated the manufacture of the goods under a contract and having disclosed the brand name 'Fresh Moments', cannot be held to have suppressed any fact with malafide intention. The disclosure in the said letter may not be loud and clear enough but nevertheless, the said disclosure takes away the charge of suppression or misstatement with an intent to evade payment of duty from the appellants. No malafide can be attributed to the appellants so as to justify invoking the longer period of limitation. (Para 7)


M/s Divya Pharma Vs CCE, Daman (Dated: July 8, 2009)

Central Excise - CENVAT - Rejected goods returned - Availment of SED - The duty paid at the time of clearance is available as credit at the time of return of the goods to the factory in terms of Rule 16 (1) and not the duty payable at the time of receipt of the goods. SED was paid when the goods were originally cleared. Hence, the contention of the Revenue that credit of SED was not available as the duty payable on the disputed goods at the time when they were received back by the appellant was only BED and not SED is not tenable . (Para 5)

Limitation - Extended period - The appellant has intimated the Revenue about receipt of the goods and the fact of availing credit of entire duty, and filed invoices indicating credit of two types of duties. Further, there is only one column for duty in Form required to be filed and there being no separate column of BED and SED, they have shown the total cumulative duty availed as credit. In the circumstances, the appellant cannot be foisted with any malafide intent to avail wrong credit. Hence, the demand having been raised beyond the normal period of limitation, is time barred. (Para 6)


CCE Vs Prakash Industrial Corpn (Dated: August 24, 2009)

Bogus invoices allegedly issued by non existing manufacturing units – first stage dealer issuing invoices based on these invoices and second stage dealer following suit – Revenue failing to conduct investigations and gather evidence in respect of invoices issued by first stage dealer – CESTAT upholds Commissioner(A)'s order setting aside penalty.

Supreme Court decision in Amrit Foods vs. CCE, UP 2005-TIOL-164-SC-CX . Relied upon. Tribunal's observations –

“11. …, the department did not bother to investigate the matter relating to the other seven invoices. Moreover, the department did not bother to investigate the actual vehicle numbers used in transportation of goods to the place of the respondent. The decision arrived at by the original adjudicating authority arrived at although the goods under the cover of eight invoices is on the strength of the bogus invoices. No evidence was brought on record by the revenue in this regard. On the other hand, the respondent has taken out care to find out the identity and reliability of the supplier of the goods after examining the proper documents under duty paid invoice and the payment was also made by cheque also.

12. The Revenue has failed to bring the evidence on record that “the respondent has contravened the provisions of law”. The revenue arrived on the conclusion without investigation and evidence.”

Also see analysis of the order


Dharmapuri Dist Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: April 29, 2009)

Central Excise – remission of duty on molasses stored in open masonry tanks and lost during the rains – the place of storage was not approved by the Commissioner under rule 47 – the loss occurred due to negligence and willful act of the assessee, but not due to natural causes – remission rightly rejected by the lower authorities.


CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Star Drive Bus Duct (P) Ltd (Dated: June 15, 2009)

Central Excise – SSI Exemption – Brand Name - There is no dispute that the brand name ‘STARDRIVE' was registered by another person for use on various products manufactured by it and one of the products manufactured by it is bus ducts. In the circumstances the bus ducts manufactured and cleared by the appellants using the brand name ‘STARDRIVE' during the material period were not eligible for SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-CE. ( Para 4)


M/s Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: June 9, 2009)

Central Excise – Clandestine clearance – Evidence – Finding of clandestine production and clearance is made solely on the basis of a formula applied to the operation of the appellant's production and feeding of raw material in a couple of days. No statement of any worker or any buyer had been obtained to support the charges. There is no evidence of sale to any buyer of the quantity found to have been clandestinely cleared. There is no evidence of receipt of any sale proceeds. In the circumstances, the impugned demand towards clandestine clearance is held to be not sustainable. (Para 6)

Raw material – Confiscation - Provisions of Rule 25 of the CER are applicable to the final products and can not be extended to the ra w material. The confiscation of raw material from the appellants is held to be not sustainable in law. (Para 6)


Dhandayuthapani Workshop Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: June 23, 2009)

Central Excise – Exemption Notification – Stay / Dispensation of pre -deposit - Where there are two exemption notifications covering the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification which gives greater relief, regardless of the fact that the notification is general in its terms and the other notification is more specific to the goods. Prima facie, there is no dispute that the

condition applicable to Sl.No.217 of the Table to Notification No.6/02-CE dt. 1.3.02 has been satisfied by the assessee. Stay granted. ( Para 2)


M/s Shree Rubber Works Vs CCE, Surat (Dated: August 4, 2009)

Central Excise - SSI - Dummy Unit - Place of manufacture - Evidence - The core issue is not clubbing of clearances of the two units, but relates to the clearances of finished product actually manufactured in the factory of one unit in the name of another unit. The evidences on record leads to only one inevitable conclusion that the goods were being manufactu red in the factory of only one unit. Admittedly, at the other unit no manufacturing activity is there as no machinery is installed and electricity connection is disconnected and electric consumption is Nil. As such, all the goods cleared under the name of the other unit are actually manufactured in the factory of first unit. SSI benefit not available to both the units. All clearances to be treated as made from one unit.


M/s Transpek Industry Ltd Vs CCE, Vadodara (Dated: July 31, 2009)

Central Excise - CENVAT - Capital goods - Dealer Invoice - Reasonable steps - Capital goods procured from registered dealer under invoice and credit availed. Investigation revealed that the original manufacturer of the capital goods has not paid duty. Revenue denies credit to the appellant and also imposes penalty for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the proper Central Excise Duty has been paid on the capital goods. HELD - As per Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, when the goods are supplied by a person other than manufacturer, it is sufficient if the assessee satisfies himself about the identity of such supplier, which the appellant has done. An assessee buying goods from registered dealer cannot be expected to go beyond that and examine as to whether the credit availed by such dealer is in accordance with law or not. As original manufacturer has subsequently discharged duty, credit cannot be denied and penalty imposed. (Para 6 & 7)


M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated: May 19, 2009)

Central Excise – No specific form or manner prescribed for maintenance of records for inputs/input services in terms of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Accounts should disclose receipt, consumption and inventory of the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable products and exempted products separately – Inputs which are utilized in the manufacture of exempted goods should be identifiable or its quantity should also be ascertained at the first stage itself i.e. at the time of receipt of inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods – Adjudicating authority was not justified in concluding that the only option open left is to avail exemption in terms of Rule 6 (3)(b) – Matter remanded to Commissioner to decide the case afresh


M/s Unitech Containers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi-II (Dated: July 14, 2009)

Central Excise - SSI Exemption - Stay / dispensation of pre-deposit - The material on record indicate centralised controlled administration and prove that all the firms are using the same machinery belonging to the appellant company. Revenue is justified in denying the SSI exemption. Appella nts have prima facie not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit. In the circumstances, penalty waived. Appellants to deposit duty amount along with interest. (Para 10)


CCE, Pune-I Vs M/s Mahindra Engg & Chemical Products Ltd (Dated: August 7, 2009)

Revenue has no need to worry, says CESTAT while dismissing Stay application against Commissioner(Appeals)'s order setting off demand against refund.



M/s Kairali Steels & Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Calicut (Dated: March 6, 2009)

Central Excise – SCN issued beyond one year from the date of investigation – No prima facie case made out by appellants though the issue is referred to LB in Union Quality Plastic 2009-TIOL-326-CESTAT-AHM – Pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs ordered and balance waived till disposal of appeal subject to compliance


M/s Real Times Systems Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi-III (Dated: May 15, 2009)

Central Excise – Evidence of proof of export submitted to department to be examined by original authority – Impugned order set aside and original authority directed to examine evidence and pass orders in accordance with law


M/s Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Inds Ltd Vs CCE, Meerut-I (Dated: May 13, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit on capital goods - Molasses mixture/Diluter Safety System (heading 73.26) and Aluminium Coils (Sub-heading 7606.20) are eligible for credit as parts and accessories of machines and machinery of Chapter 84.


M/s M M Cylinders (P) Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST, Tirupati (Dated: April 20, 2009)

Centra l Excise – Undervaluation of LPG cylinders due to inflated freight charges – Pre -deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs ordered and balance amounts waived till disposal of appeal


M/s Roots Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: June 19, 2009)

Central Excise – Stay / dispensation of pre-deposit - Inputs cleared as such for export under bond – Reversal of CENVAT credit - Inputs exported as such under bond without reversal of an amount equal to the credit availed. Confirmation of demand by the Revenue stayed as Board's letter and precedent decision in favour of appellants. (Para 2)


M/s Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: May 18, 2009)

Central Excise – Shortage of Final products – Clandestine clearance - Evidence – There is no reliable evidence that the figures recorded in the production summary sheets represented the final figures of the finished goods accounted in the RG-I register. The Revenue has not substantiated the allegation of clandestine clearance with material indicating consumption of raw material or evidence of receipt of proceeds relatable to the quantity found short, or statements recorded from buyers of such goods. It is settled law that charge of clandestine clearance cannot be found without reliable and concrete evidence. In the circumstances the demand of duty and penalty are unsustainable and the impugned order is vacated. ( Para 5)


M/s Paris Ispat Vs CCE & CC, Nasik (Dated: August 10, 2009)

Meaningful interpretation to be given to the provisos contained in section 11AC of the CEA, 1944 – since appellant has already reversed the CENVAT credit and paid

interest, penalty imposable u/s 11AC is 25% of duty – Reduced penalty of 25% to be paid within one month failing which full amount of penalty shall be payable – CESTAT – Appeal disposed of accordingly.



CCE, Coimbatore Vs M/s Rajaguru Spinning Mills (P) Ltd (Dated: May 25, 2009) Central Excise – Valuation – realisation of higher amounts and evasion of duty – third Party records are not reliable when no direct links could be established between the records and the offending transactions – no merit in revenue's appeal.


CCE, Trichy Vs M/s Sowbagyalakshmi Silicate (Dated: June 19, 2009)

Central Excise – Refund – Unutilized credit on closure of unit - Refund of unutilized balance of Cenvat Credit is admissible when an assessee surrendered licence. ( Para 3)


M/s India Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: June 16, 2009)

Central Excise – exemption under Notification 4/2006 CE to Cement cleared to industrial/institutional buyers – the appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification 4/2006 CE.


CCE, Chennai Vs Hema Engineering Industries Ltd (Dated: June 26, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT – Inputs – Plastic Crates – The plastic crates participated in the process of production by making processed material available at various points within the factory. Hence, credit of duty paid on plastic crates allowed. ( Para 6)


M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd Vs CCE, Tirunelveli (Dated: June 3, 2009)

Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – non payment of 10% amount on exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit rules 2004 – reversal of Credit on inputs used in exempted goods after their clearance is as good as not taking Credit – demand of 10% set aside.


M/s Neptune Spin Fab Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: April 8, 2009)

Central Excise - Prior to insertion of sub Rule 3(A) in Rule 8 w.e.f 31.3.2005, assessee entitled to discharge duty liability out of CENVAT Credit A/c during forfeiture of fortnightly payment – Issue no longer res integra in view of LB decision Noble Drugs Limited 2007-TIOL-1097-CESTAT-MUM-LB – Duty demand set aside but interest levy upheld – Reduction of penalty on assessee confirmed and penalties on individuals set aside


Narasus Exports Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: May 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Stay / Dispensation of pre -deposit - 100% EOU – goods cleared under notification 43/2001 CE(NT) for ultimate export – prima facie case for waiver of pre -deposit.


M/s DNH Spinners Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: April 24, 2009)

Central Excise – Concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 29/04-CE not eligible to manufacturer who has facility for manufacture of filaments of organic polymers – ‘Of' used in explanation to read as ‘made from' which is harmonious with principal clause of notification – No infirmity in impugned order denying concessional rate – When department has knowledge of availment of exemption benefit and there being no malafide intention, penalties set aside – Matter remanded to re-determine duty liability by treating sale value of textu rized yarn as cum duty price


M/s Lanco Industries Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST, Tirupathi (Dated: May 5, 2009)

Central Excise – Eligibility of benefit of Notification 6/02-CE, 3/04-CE & 6/06-CE for manufacture and clearance of ductile iron spun pipes for usage beyond first storage point and also as replacements – Prima facie strong case in favour of appellants – Pre -deposit of Rs. 84 crores waived and stay granted



M/s Sanchit Polymers Vs CCE & C, Daman (Dated: April 2, 2009)

Central Excise – Imported raw materials on which CENVAT credit was availed stored outside factory premises in neighbouring units due to space constraints – No malafide stand attributed to appellants – Goods not suitable for use as inputs in the other units – Confiscation of goods and penalty imposed on neighbouring units set aside – Technical breach of law for storage of raw materials outside factory without permission warrants nominal penalty – Penalty on individual set aside


M/s Metweld Industries Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: April 24, 2009)

Central Excise – Hot rolled stainless steel patta/patti 600 mm classifiable under Chapter 7219.30 - It is well settled law that the heading which specifically covers the product by name, is to be preferred over other general headings


M/s Padiyur Sarvodaya Sangh Vs CCE (Dated: April 2, 2009)

Central Excise – manufacture – the appellants, a certified unit of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission supplied Roving ends and Charkas to individual spinners for spinning Polyester Cotton Blended Yarn in hanks – the appellants are not the manufacturers of the goods in question as there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that they supervised the individual spinners.


M/s Tata Motors Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I (Dated: August 11, 2009)

Cenvat Credit cannot be allowed on the inputs used by the job worker for processing of goods received under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,

2004 – CESTAT orders pre-deposit of fully amount of duty demanded.

Tribunal's observations –

The principles laid down by Supreme Court in Escorts case [ 2004-TIOL-72-SC-CX ] have not been applied correctly in Sterlite case [ 2005-TIOL-305-CESTAT -Mum-LB ] . Rules cannot be given a go bye to avoid additional paper work.

The case of M/s Sterlite Industries (supra) has not taken into account the laws laid down in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UOI vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [ 2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB ] and the High Court in CCEx vs. Spectra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [ 2008-TIOL-697-HC-HP-CX ] . We do not intend to go beyond the plain reading of the Rules. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has nowhere provided under the Rules that a job worker is entitled to the Cenvat Credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods, which are cleared under job work challans used Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules without payment of duty to the principal manufacturer.

Compliance with the Rules is mandatory (even if it is mechanical and involves additional paper work) and non-compliance will result into denial of the Cenvat Credit.

Applicants have not made out an irresistible case for the waiver of the full amount of duties, interest and penalties – Pre -deposit ordered of entire amount of duties demanded


2009-TIOL-1426-CESTAT-KOL

CCE, Patna Vs M/s New Swadeshi Sugar Mills (Dated: April 2, 2009)

Central Excise – Claim of accumulated CENVAT credit lying in balance after merger of units – Credit on common inputs not deniable on ground of usage in both dutiable and exempted goods as there is no correlation between inputs and final products – No infirmity in impugned order


M/s Rane Trw Steering System Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: April 17, 2009)

Central Excise – differential duty paid on goods cleared to sister units on finalisation of the provisional price adopted – Interest is payable under Section 11 AB of Central Excise Act.


M/s Ambaji Metal Industries Vs CCE, Pune-II (Dated: July 2, 2009)

Rule making authority has acknowledged the non-applicability of Rule 25 of the CER, 2002 to registered dealers inasmuch as a special penal provision was incorporated against dealers under Rule 26 w.e.f 01.03.2007 – Since rule 26 not invoked, appellant has made out a prima facie case against penalty – Pre -deposit waived and Stay ordered.


M/s Piyush Engineering Works Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: April 4, 2009)

Central Excise – Irregular availment of CENVAT Credit on fictitious invoices without receipt of materials proved beyond doubt – Demand of duty and imposition of penalty upheld – Penalty imposed on partner of company supplying fictitious documents set aside in view of LB decision in Steel Tubes of India Ltd & Ors 2007-TIOL-1720-CESTAT-DEL-LB – Penalty imposed on exporter receiving finished goods from appellant set aside as the issue is not relevant to facts of the case – Penalty on employee of appellant set aside in view of LB decision in Steel Tubes


M/s Toshali Cements Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: May 1, 2009)

Central Excise – Credit on inputs not available when used in production of ‘Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag' – Eligibility of credit when GGBFS is exported to be examined when appeal is disposed of finally – Pre -deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs ordered


CCE, Pune III Vs Victor CNG Engg (Dated: July 22, 2009)

Interest has been waived by Commissioner(Appeals) regardless or by being oblivious to provisions of Explanation to sub-section (2B) of Section 11A – CESTAT terms it as illegal and sets aside order.



CCE & CC, Vapi Vs M/s Krat-Tech Products Inc (Dated: June 23, 2009)

Central Excise – Clearance of 20gm collapsible tube along with 70gm pack of shaving cream with printed MRP on package – Matter remanded to Appellate Commissioner for a fresh order due to lack of clarity in decision – Appellant at liberty to put forth Tribunal's decision supporting their view that combination packs to be assessed under Section 4A and not individually assessed to duty


M/s Gopal Iron & Steel Co (Gujarat) Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: May 20, 2009)

Central Excise - CENVAT Credit on furnace oil used by the job-worker operating under Notification 214/86 CE dated 25.3.86 - the appellants are eligible for credit - Commissioner (Appeals) order denying the credit is set aside.


M/s Axwel (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: January 5, 2009)

Central Excise – Job work charges not to be included for determining aggregate value of clearances for SSI unit – Not to be considered for the purpose of refund claim in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 – Impugned order set aside


M/s Mayil Mark Nilayam Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: March 5, 2009)

Central Excise – manufacture – shikakai powder - the activity of pulverisation of shikakai constituted manufacture and the issue stands settled for the period prior to January 1999 - demand of duty upheld for normal period with cum-duty and SSI benefits.

Arapputhool - grinding mohwacake into powder and packing it in unit packages does not amount to manufacture as the essential character of the product at the starting point of the process and the product at the terminal point remained the same – demand of duty set aside.


Shri Umesh Rai Vs CCE & CC, Vapi (Dated: June 4, 2009)

Central Excise – No infirmity in clearance of PTY on job work basis not excluded in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 though excluded under Notification 214/86-CE – Duty demand, confiscation and penalties set aside


Balmer Lawrie & Co Ltd Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated: June 30, 2009)

Cenvat Credit is required to be reversed on shortages of inputs shown during the course of statutory audit/annual stock taking, as reflected in Trial Balance – Burden to prove admissibility is on the assessee – Bombay High Court decision in CCE, Aurangabad vs. Greaves Cotton Limited ( 2007-TIOL-445-HC-MUM-CX ) denying such credit not stayed by Supreme Court – Appeal dismissed.


R R Oomerbhoy Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: July 28, 2009)

Payment of duty before issuance of show cause notice – Provisions of section 11A(2B) of the CEA, 1944 prohibit issuance of show cause notice for demanding duty under sub section (1) of section 11A and, therefore, there is no question of any determination of duty under sub-section (2) and consequently invoking section 11AC is erroneous – CESTAT.



M/s Sriba Agro Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Guntur (Dated: February 25, 2009)

Central Excise – Clearance of refined oil from bulk packs to retail packs - Notification No. 6/2002-CE gives option of either paying duty of Rs.1/- per kg or claiming exemption of nil duty on refined edible oils packed into unit containers – Entry No.244 (B) and (C) do not have any pre-conditions and are mutually exclusive – It is settled law that when there are two views possible on a notification, view which is more beneficial to the assessee has to be applied – Period involved is prior to enactment of Section 5A (1A) of CEA, 1944 and not applicable – Impugned orders not legal and proper, liable to be set aside


M/s Nagpur Transwell Power Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Nagpur (Dated: July 10, 2009)

Law does not provide for an appeal against self assessment – if this be so, refund claim sanctioned is proper – Stay of recovery ordered by CESTAT.



CCE, Vapi Vs M/s T & D Galiakot Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 3, 2009)

Central Excise – Refund of excess interest paid erroneously allowed as such amount not recovered from customers – Concept of unjust enrichment for interest introduced only by way of amendment to Section 11B through Finance Act, 2008 and effective prospectively – Impugned order upheld


CCE & CC, Guntur Vs M/s PMG Structurals Pvt Ltd (Dated: December 19, 2008)

Central Excise – Pre-engineered building structures cleared in unassembled condition from factory classifiable under Chapter 9406 – Impugned order of lower authorities upheld – No merit in Revenue appeals


M/s Jyoti Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-II (Dated: June 2, 2009)

Central Excise – Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rule 2004 – refund rejected on the ground that the goods exported were exempted – Refund is admissible even if the goods exported are exempted – Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Rules provides that proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 shall not apply in case of exported goods removed without payment of duty cleared for export under bond in terms of Central Excise Rules, 2002.



CCE, Nagpur Vs Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd (Dated: June 19, 2009)

Lower authority allowing cenvat credit in respect of professional services for preparation of pay rolls, rent-a-cab service, management consultancy, chartered accountant service, business auxiliary service used in share marketing, certification of

PAN cards of company's employee and banking and financial services - Prima facie , decision allowing the cenvat credit in respect of above services except service rendered for ‘certification of PAN' is correct but since the credit taken is a meagre amount of Rs.77/-, application of Revenue seeking stay dismissed.


M/s Taj Madras Flight Kitchen Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: April 16, 2009)

Central Excise – Stay / Dispensation of pre -deposit – packed food delivered in aircrafts – the product is marketable and also has shelf life and hence excisable – however, the said item is covered under Sl No 42 in exemption notification No 3/2006 CE from 04.05.2006 – pre -deposit order in respect of demand for the earlier period.


M/s Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Chennai (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Central Excise – refund – limitation - appeal against the confirmation of duty is to be treated as protest – refund not hit by limitation.


M/s Ring Plus Aqua Ltd (SGD) Vs CC & CCE, Nashik (Dated: July 7, 2009)

Goods cleared under claim of rebate – truck meets with an accident and goods brought back to factory – refund of duty paid allowed but Commissioner(A) sets aside order insisting that rule 16 procedure ought to be followed – there cannot be any recovery without a demand u/s 11A of the CEA, 1944 – CESTAT orders stay.



M/s HPCL Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: May 6, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation of petroleum products cleared to ocean going vessels made in terms of kilolitres instead of MT and inclusion of delivery charges, wharfage charges, berth charges – Appellant being a PSU and price fixed as per Ministry's Circular – Prima facie strong case in favour of appellants – Offer of pre -deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs accepted and balance amount waived


M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated: April 27, 2009)

Central Excise – Grinding media used in ball mill of a cement plant is input and not capital goods – LB decision in Durgapur Cement Works 2002-TIOL-293-CESTAT-DEL-LB followed


Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST, Mysore (Dated: May 7, 2009)

Central Excise – Supplies of aluminum extrusions to SEZ Developers without payment of duty and liability to pay 10% under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – SEZ supplies deemed as export under SEZ Act and not liable for payment of duty – Prima facie strong case in favour of appellants – Full waiver of pre-deposit ordered and stay granted.


Bajaj Electricals Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I (Dated: June 17, 2009)

Job worker used excess cenvatted materials and the applicant recovered the value of the same from the job worker by way of debit note – Revenue demanding Cenvat credit on inputs lost on account of excess consumption – Issue involved debatable - Prima facie, case made out for for grant of waiver of pre -deposit of duty, interest and penalty – Tribunal decision in Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. 2005-TIOL-1205-CESTAT -MUM referred.


M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated: March 24, 2009)

Central Excise – Rejection of refund claim for education cess upheld in view of indication of education cess in invoice and lack of evidence to rebut passing on incidence of duty


Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs CCE, CBD Belapur (Dated: June 18, 2009)

Finalization of provisional assessment – Interest on differential duty amount payable from the due date till date of payment of differential duty even if same paid suo motu before finalization – LB decisions in Cadbury India Limited ( 2008-TIOL-1986-CESTAT-Mum-LB ) and Bimetal Bearings ( 2008-TIOL-1821-CESTAT -Mad-LB ) followed – Appeal dismissed.


GEE Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-III (Dated: July 1, 2009)

C & F service used for clearing and forwarding of finished goods from the factory to the docks for exports – amount involved is only Rs.428/- which is too negligible to be considered for pre-deposit.

GTA Service – Prima facie case in view of Larger Bench decision in M/s. ABB Ltd. case reported at 2009-TIOL-830-CESTAT -BANG-LB allowing cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA service used for outward transportation of finished goods from a factory.


M/s Chamunda Pharma Machinery Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad-I (Dated: July 21, 2009)

Central Excise – export of goods to Nepal – denial of refund of duty paid on the ground that the goods were not exported within six months from the date of clearance – the delay in export was due to unrest in Nepal and denial of refund on the ground of delay in export is not in consonance with the export scheme and intention of the legislature to boost export – impugned order set aside.


CCE, Pune Vs Premier Ltd (Dated: June 12, 2009)

Cenvat Credit on Outdoor catering service - Larger Bench in GTC Industries Ltd. 2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-MUM-LB allows such credit – ground raised by CCE, Pune-I that full expenses of canteen services were not borne by the assessee hence the service cannot be held to be one relating to their business activity was also considered by LB yet benefit extended - Revenue's appeal bereft of merits, hence dismissed.


M/s Expo International Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated: April 24, 2009)

Central Excise – Not mentioning ‘duplicate for transporter’ and duty debit details in invoice not a ground for denial of input credit – Impugned order not sustainable


CCE, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Fine Care Biosystems (Dated: July 3, 2009)

Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - credit of service tax paid on outward transport - in respect of goods cleared for export, place of removal is the port from where the goods are loaded for export - credit admissible - credit is also admissible on service tax paid for air ticket service charges - revenue appeal has no merit.


Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd Vs CCE, Lucknow (Dated: February 24, 2009)

Blending of duty paid branded motor spirit and duty paid branded HSD with multifunctional additives - Process undertaken to enhance marketability of a product or to improve value addition does not amount to manufacture – Tribunal decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2008-TIOL-2630-CESTAT-DEL followed.


D K Mishra Vs CCE, Allahabad (Dated: May 26, 2009)

Central Excise – Restoration of appeals which were dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – The applicant has not disclosed sufficient cause for delay in compliance of the pre-deposit - Mere statement that due to financial crisis the applicant could not deposit the amount is not sufficient to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in the matter of deposit of amount - The submission is required to be substantiated /supported by the factual matrix in that regard - The appeals once dismissed for non-compliance of statutory obligation under the said Act, cannot be restored without a sufficient cause in that regard is made out.


Mettur Spinning Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: April 16, 2009)

Central Excise – clandestine clearances of cotton yarn – contention of the appellants that they are job-workers and the supplier of the raw material is liable to pay duty is

not acceptable – Notification 214/86 CE is applicable only in respect of the accounted clearances - No notification can shift the liability to pay duty even on goods manufactured and clandestinely removed, from the job worker/manufacturer to the raw material supplier – demand of duty upheld, penalties reduced.


M/s Reckit & Benekiser India Ltd Vs CCE, Bolpur (Dated: May 20, 2009)

Central Excise – No cogent reasons adduced for delay of 479 days in filing appeal before Tribunal – Claim of appellants of filing appeal before Tribunal within stipulated time not with enough proof


CCE, Vadodara II Vs M/s Danke Products (Dated: July 21, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – credit of service tax paid on repairs and maintenance service undertaken by third agency on behalf of the manufacturer of the Transformers during the warranty period – the respondents are eligible for credit as rightly held by the Commissio ner (Appeals) – revenue appeal has no merit.


M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated:July 14, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – input service – Management consultant service is covered under the definition of input service as “activity relating to business” – credit admissible.


CCE, Aurangabad Vs M/s Shayona Pulp Conversion Mills Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 7, 2009 )

Plastic bhusa used as fuel in Marine Boiler – whether permission from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board was taken or not is immaterial to the issue of availing Cenvat Credit under the CCR, 2004 – CESTAT dismisses Revenue appeal.



S D Enterprises Vs CCE, Thane - II (Dated: June 15, 2009 )

Assessee opting to the benefit of Notification 10/2003-CE on 01.03.2003 – Cenvat credit on inputs contained in the semi finished goods in stock on 01.03.2003 cannot be denied as finished goods and semi finished goods are on the same footing inasmuch as the finished goods were cleared without payment of duty and the semi finished goods after finishing processes were also cleared like wise – appellate authority allowing credit on inputs contained in finished stock – no reason for denying credit in respect of inputs contained in semi finished gods.


CCE, Chennai Vs M/s R V Steels Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 28, 2009 )

Central Excise – clandestine removal – demand of duty - The original authority had passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice - It was incumbent on him to have allowed the request for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements had been relied on in passing the order - all the statements relied on as evidence had been rendered by staff of third party and there is no material evidence corroborating the third party statements – revenue appeal has no merit.


Pam Pac Machines P Ltd Vs CCE, Pune I (Dated: July 7, 2009 )

Appellant to be given one more chance by the appellate authority to present sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeal – CESTAT



M/s Southern Plywoods Vs CCE, Cochin (Dated: February 19, 2009 )

Central Excise – Allegation of clandestine removal of goods through two other units – Existence of two other manufacturing entities independently with plant & machinery and manufacturing activity not in doubt based on evidences adduced – Not issuing SCNs to other units alleged to have complicity in clandestine removal is fatal – Submissions of appellants not being considered violates principles of natural justice – Appellants claim for exemption as job worker and records of raw material supplier for the purpose of job work also not considered at all – No merits in impugned order demanding duty and imposing penalty – Liable to be set aside


M/s Ultratech Cement Co Ltd Vs CCE, Surat-I (Dated: July 22, 2009)

Central Excise – When inputs written off in balance sheet are in stock duty itself is not recoverable – Duty paid thereon is not contested hence the same is confirmed as not contested – Demand of interest set aside


M/s Welspun India Ltd Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: August 4, 2009 )

CE – Refund of Unutilized amount in PLA - the money is that of the assessee and can be claimed by him without attracting the provisions of refund claim: the money lying in PLA is actually the money belonging to the assessee. The fact that the same was re-credited in PLA will not make a difference, inasmuch as the same was originally paid by the assessee and utilized at the time of first clearance of the goods. The same has been again credited in terms of the Notification. The fact that Notification allows re-credit of duty paid is not to be interpreted in a manner that the re -credit amount would not belong to the assessee. Undisputedly, the re-credited amount is owned by the assessee and the Provisions of Para 2A of Notification a re only to the effect that the said re-credited amount may be utilized for further payment of duty in the subsequent months. Where the appellant is not in a position to utilize the credit, the balance lying in PLA can be refunded to him in cash, inasmuch as the Notification does not bar such refund. As held in the above referred judgments, the money is that of the assessee and can be claimed by him without attracting the provisions of refund claim. It is like an account book maintained in the banks and indicative of the fact as to how much money stands deposited by the assessee for utilization towards payment of duty in future. If duty is not required to be paid and the assessee is not able to utilize at for payment of duty, the amount lying unutilized is available for withdrawal by the assessee.



M M Forgings Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: May 15, 2009 )

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – the appellants are eligible for credit on catering services – issue stands settled by the larger bench.


CCE, Ludhiana Vs M/s Prem Industries (Dated: May 13, 2009 )

Central Excise – Textile fibre, yarn and fabrics bought from market deemed to be duty paid – Processed knitted or crocheted fabrics manufactured out of unprocessed/grey fabrics purchased from market eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification 14/2002-CE – No infirmity in impugned order, upheld


CCE & CC, Aurangabad Vs Wockhardt Limited (Dated: July 3, 2009 )

Section 11AC is not applicable where there is no finding of mens rea against the assessee – CESTAT



M/s Kanaiya Textiles Vs CCE, Surat-I (Dated: June 10, 2009 )

Central Excise – 100% EOU – Allegation of clandestine removal of grey frabrics procured without payment of duty – Pre -deposit ordered


Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd, Rajahmundry Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam-II (Dated: February 18, 2009 )

Central Excise – Refund cannot be rejected merely because adjustments were made through Credit/Debit Notes – Once goods are supplied, the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, and seller becomes entitled to the price , and when debit note is issued by the purchaser and corresponding credit note is issued by seller, price of the goods stand reduced to the extent of debit note and credit note – When debit notes and credit notes are issued and effected, which are not disputed, it cannot be assumed, that incidence of burden of excise duty has been passed on to the purchaser


M/s Modern Engineering Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: May 18, 2009)

Central Excise – SSI exemption under Notification 1/93 CE dated 28.2.1993 - clubbing of clearances – raw materials stored in a single room without any identification – only one electricity connection – non availability of minimum machinery required – evidences establish that the units were only facades of appellants – impugned order clubbing the clearances upheld.


CCE, Kolkata-III Vs M/s Paul Aquomin & Food Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 3, 2009)

Central Ex cise – Manufacture and clearance of packaged drinking water affixing label indicating name of marketing company – Not to be regarded as branded goods as labels merely indicate goods are marketed by ‘Mother Diary' – No reason to interfere with orders of appellate authority


Audi Automobiles Vs CCE, Indore (Dated: May 21, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation of body fabricating and mounting on chassis supplied free of cost by chassis manufacturers using materials procured from vendors identified by chassis manufacturers to be under Rule 10A and not under Rule 6 of Valuation Rules – Rule 10A clearly states that a job worker means a person engaged in manufacture of goods, on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the principal manufacturer or by any other person authorized by him – Duty demand with inte rest confirmed – Penalty set aside as the issue involves interpretation of law

Also se analysis of the Order


Audi Automobiles Vs CCE, Indore (Dated: May 21, 2009)

Central Excise – Stay applications – It is not worth merely disposing of stay applications alone, it would be worthwhile to dispose of appeals itself based on arguments heard at length on points of merits – Stay applications allowed without insisting pre -deposit

Also se analysis of the Order


M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated: March 27, 2009 )

100% EOU – valuation of goods cleared to sister units – no prima facie case made out waive the demand confirmed by applying the FOB value of identical goods exported – pre -deposit ordered.


M/s Jhoola Refineries Ltd Vs CCE, Allahabad (Dated: April 30, 2009 )

Central Excise – High Court direction to Tribunal to consider and dispose stay order modification application independently without being prejudiced by Court's directive – Considering the gravity of the case and plea of financial difficulties, factory to pre -deposit of Rs. 28 lakhs – No modification in pre -deposit ordered for individual – Parties to report compliance within four weeks – Attachments to continue till Revenue gets a copy of challan evidencing pre -deposits


M/s Midco Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: July 2, 2009 )

Central Excise – Default in payment of duty by due date – Rule debars utilization of CENVAT A/c and payment of duty consignment wise by cash till outstanding amount is paid with interest – Prima facie case in favour of revenue – Pre -deposit of entire duty amount ordered


M/s M G Automotives (P) Ltd, Medak District (AP) Vs CC, & CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: March 31, 2009 )

Central Excise – Body building on duty paid chassis whether liable to duty under Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 – Pre-deposit of Rs. 32 lakhs ordered and stay granted


M/s Handum Industries Ltd Vs CC, & CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: March 26, 2009 )

Central Excise - Allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods corroborated by certain statements recorded by authorities - Prima facie assessee has not made out a strong case on merits - Owing to financial hardship pre-deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs ordered

cestat rulingsupplying the goods and, at the same time, issuing of cenvatable invoices is a fraud...

Documents