1

2012 (2) ECS (36 ) (Tri-Ban)(159 KB)

M/s B.S. Textiles

It is the oft-repeated submission of the counsel that the COD applications are liable to be allowed on the sole ground of pendency of their writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. No judicial authority has been cited before us in support of the plea. We are of the view that the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants who were conscious of the statutory remedy cannot per se constitute a valid ground for condonation of the deliberate delay of over seven years

2

2012 (2) ECS (49) (Tri-Mum)(153 KB)

M/s Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Ltd.

Applicants cleared the goods at the higher value from the depot than the value at which duty has been paid at the factory gate. In applicants own case where the demand is confirmed on the same ground the Tribunal vide Stay Order dt. 15.5.2012 directed the applicant to deposit 50% for hearing of the appeal. In view of the earlier stay order, and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) with in six weeks from today in addition to the amount already deposit for hearing the appeal

3

2012 (2) ECS (39) (Tri-Ban)(172 KB)

M/s Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd

The levy is on the quantity received in refinery. This legal position was settled by this Tribunal long ago in ONGC's case (2001 (129) ELT 115 (Tri. Del.)) and reiterated in a line of cases viz. ONGC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Dibrugarh [2007 (214) ELT 123 (Tri. Kolkata)], CCE, Vadodara Vs ONGC Ltd. [2010 (259) ELT 123 (Tri. Ahmd.)].

4

2013 (2) ECS (1)(Kar-HC)(92 KB)

M/s Hindustan Granities

Writ Petition against order rejecting the claim for interest on pre-deposited amount refunded- statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner- Writ Petition not entertained

5

2012 (2) ECS (60 ) (Tri-Ban)(158 KB)

Shri. G. P. Josekuttan,

1. The plea of the learned consultant for transmitting the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or for issuing other directions to the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be accepted as we do not have equitable powers. Such a course of action can invite more appeals of this nature from ill-advised parties. In any case, such a course of action will not be in keeping with this Tribunal's tradition of deciding matters in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The statue is supreme and its provisions have to be given effect to in all circumstances.

6

2013 (3) ECS (119) (Tri-Del)(177 KB)

M/s VMI Industries

In view of the decision of Tribunal in Jindal Drugs Ltd., matter need not be referred to larger Bench

7

2013 (1) ECS (58) (Tri-Mum)(156 KB)

Ahan Apparels Pvt. Ltd

Power of adjudication prescribed by the Board vide a Circular dated 19.02.2008 is only an administrative order and it is meant for smooth and efficient running of the administration. Such circular cannot take away the power vested on a Central Excise officer under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. Apex Court in the case of Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi 2005 (181) ELT 339 (SC).held that the administrative directions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs allocating different works to various classes of officers cannot cut down jurisdiction vested in them by statute and may be followed by them at best as matter of propriety. Issuance of show cause notice or adjudication contrary to such directions could not be set aside for want jurisdiction especially as no prejudice is caused thereby to the assessee/notice.

8

2012 (2) ECS (92 ) (Tri-Mum)(151 KB)

M/s Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd.

The goods cleared by the applicants were further sold by M/s WTIPL at the higher price. In view of the shareholding, prima facie the dealing is not at arm's length

9

2013 (3) ECS (95 ) (Tri-Ahd)(95 KB)

M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

Second proviso to Section 11B(1) conveys that the limitation of one year shall not apply when any duty has been paid under protest - Deemed protest not acceptable.

10

2013 (1) ECS (26 ) (Guj-HC)(84 KB)

Inductotherm (I) Pvt. Ltd

Goods cleared as suchat a higher value and passing on unutilized Cenvat credit by raising the value of inputs and collection the same from the buyer. Since there was no manufacturing activity, no question of collection of excise duty would arise and therefore, the entire amount so collected had to be deposited in terms of section 11 D of the Act. Held: After 1.3.2003, the respondent had to follow the procedure laid down in the amended Rule 3 (4) of Rules 2002 and thereafter Rule 3 (5) of the Rules of 2004. Such Rules required that on clearance of goods on as such basis, the assessee should have paid an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs and that such removal should have been made under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 9.

11

2013 (3) ECS (45 ) (P&H-HC)(335 KB)

PML Industries Ltd

View of the Tribunal that respondent could have encashed the utilized credit in the Cenvat account suffers from fallacy. Rule 5 of the Rules 2004 permitted refund of Cenvat credit under certain circumstances subject to such safeguards. Secondly, utilization of the Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of unauthorizedly collected so called excise duty was not permissible under the Rules. The Contention of the Department that by doing so, the respondent passed on Cenvat credit to the purchaser to be availed by them ultimately which credit such purchasers were not entitled to can't be brushed aside

12

2013 (2) ECS (3 ) (Kar-HC)(104 KB)

M/s Karnataka Agro Chemcials

Granting stay should be an exception and not a rule. Pre-deposit is a rule and dispensation is an exception in terms of Section 35G of the Act

13

2013 (2) ECS ( 7) (Jammu-HC)(184 KB)

M/s Met Trade India Ltd

Party mis-representing facts before Court with object of securing interim relief would be disentitled to opportunity of hearing the matter on merit.

14

2013 (2) ECS (114) (Tri-Del)(109 KB)

M/s Zeto Engineering Pvt. & Others Ltd

No provision to enable the Commissioner to review an order passed, exercising discretion under Section 35 F. In the circumstances no application for review of the said order, even if filed as an "application for modification", could have been entertained as the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks jurisdiction to review his order

15

2013(2) ECS (181) (Tri-Mum)(122 KB)

M/s Kotak Securities Ltd

Date of knowledge that is relevant for computing the time limit - As held by Tribunal and affirmed by the hon'ble apex court in the Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. Case. In this case, within one year from the date of knowledge, the department has issued the demand notice and therefore, prima facie, the question of time bar does not apply in the facts of the present case

16

2013(2) ECS (186) (Tri-Mum)(243 KB)

M/s Standard Chartered Bank

When CBEC exercises power under Rule 3 of the STR, it is implicit that the officer appointed is a Central Excise Officer and the power invested on him is the powers under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 within the jurisdiction specified. Therefore, the expression, " Commissioner and other officers sub-ordinate to him" mentioned in the said order refers to a Commissioner of Central Excise and other central officers subordinate to him. Any officer which has been vested with the powers for the levy and collection of Service Tax under Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, can issue the notice within his jurisdiction.

Appointment of officer is only a machinery provision for achieving the object of the Act and in respect of such provisions, the executive has a wide attitude and flexibility.
Section 73 does not use the term 'proper officer' at all. It merely says that Central Excise Officer may issue a notice.

17

2013 (1) ECS (133) (Tri-Mum)(171 KB)

Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd

Principles to be kept in mind while considering the application for stay or for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit laid& elaborated

18

2013 (1) ECS ( 192) (Tri-Ban)(248 KB)

M/s Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd.

Determination of annual production capacity of induction furnaces in the assesse factory by including power factor permissible. in the case of APS Associates (P) Ltd. v/s Commissioner [reported vide 2008 (231) ELT 420 (P & H)] held that for determining the annual production capacity of furnace of an assessee on the basis of any other material i.e. certificate of a Chartered Engineer or on the basis of sanctioned load of electricity is not sustainable when annual production capacity is determined on basis of capacity of induction furnace recorded in invoice of supplier of furnace

19

2013 (4) ECS ( 98) (Tri-Ahd)(184 KB)

M/s. Santowin Polyster Ltd.

Any delay would be considered with pragmatism in a justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause.

20

2012 (2) ECS (86) (Tri-Mum)(148 KB)

Mohit Satbir Saralia Pramod Singh

Stay Application dismissed for non-prosecution

21

2013 (2) ECS (26) (Del-HC)(84 KB)

K.K.Sales

−

22

2013 (2) ECS (111) (Tri-Kol)(108 KB)

Tata Steel

−

23

2013 (1) ECS ( 45) (Tri-Del)(160 KB)

M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

−

24

2014 (1) ECS (33 ) (HC-CHS) (192 KB)

M/s Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd

The appeal of the Department could not be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that both the Commissioners have not signed at one time.

25

2014 (2) ECS (36) (HC-Mum)(404 KB)

M/s India Steel Works

Scope of Stay under Section 35F- Section 35F only dispenses with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for entertaining the appeal on merits; it can at the most restrain the revenue from taking any coercive action for recovery, but would not estop the revenue from adjusting amounts which subsequently become due

26

2014 (2) ECS (22) (HC-Bang.)(1.1 MB)

M/s Meenakshi Steel Re-rolling Mills

(Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997): Rule 5, which provides that if actual production is higher than the annual capacity determined, then actual production will be the annual capacity, is neither violative of Article 14 of Constitution, nor ultra vires to provisions contained in Section 3A of Act.

27

2014 (3) ECS (1) (SC)(882 KB)

Anvar P.V.

Authentication of electronic record:

Electronic evidence to be authenticated by the certificate in terms of Section 65 B, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.

28

2014 (3) ECS (20) (SC)(2.45 MB)

Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors

Power to recall or review the order before it is signed Criminal offence under Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - committed under the commission of appellant's duty- recall/review of the Judgment in Criminal Cases- A Judge's responsibility is very heavy, particularly, in a case where a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision. Nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture. One cannot assume that the Judge would not have changed his mind before the judgement become final.