S No
|
Citation
|
Name of the Party
|
Subject Heading
|
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.
|