Pradeep Jain - Chartered Accountant

PJ/Case Laws/08-09/06

Case: Apsara Art Materials Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex, Valsad

Citation: 2009 (233) E.L.T. 143 (Tri. – Ahmd)

Judgement:

The Appellant M/s Apsara Art Materials is manufacturing pencils and PVA Glue attracting Nil rate of duty. Later the Appellant also started mixing Colour in clear Nitro Cellulose Lacquer. The Department was of the view that the said process amounted to manufacture and the appellant is liable to pay duty on the same. The appellant contended that the activity involves only a process of converting and mixing and does not result in emergence of new product. The adjudicating authority seeking the ratio of various judgments allowed the appeal in favour of assessee on the ground that mixing of color paste in the clear Nitro Cellulose Lacquer to convert the same into colored Nitro Cellulose Lacquer does not amount to manufacture.

Case: Sarla Performance Fibers ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. and Customs

Citation: 2009 (233) E.L.T. 43 (Bom.)

Judgement:

The Petitioner M/s Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. are 100 % EOU unit. The question was aroused via. the petition that the goods manufactured by 100 % EOU unit when sold in India can be subjected to levy of Education Cess. The adjudicating authority disposed off the petition on the ground that goods, which are manufactured by a 100 % EOU, are brought to India domestic market are treated as imported goods for the purpose of levy of Excise duty and therefore education cess will be leviable as such.

Case: Asha Rubber (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad-II

Citation: 2009 (233) E.L.T. 120 (Tri. – Ahmd)

Judgement:

The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of inner tubes for tyres. They were manufacturing the goods under their own brand name as well as in the names of other persons. The goods bearing brand names of others were cleared on full payment of duty while the goods bearing own brand names were cleared by claiming SSI benefit. The appellant originally availed the CENVAT credit but used to debit 8 % value while clearance of goods under SSI exemption u/r 57CC. The department objected the procedure followed by the appellant and argued that SSI Exemption is available only when no credit on inputs is availed.

The adjudicating authority allowed the appeal in the favour of the assessee on the ground that subsequent payment of 8% of value of exempted goods has the effect as if no credit was availed.

Case: Mahavir Surfactants (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pondichery

Citation: 2009 (233) E.L.T. 109 (Tri. - Chennai)

Judgement:

In the given case the appellant availed CENVAT on inputs to the extent of duty paid thereon evidenced by relevant statutory invoices. Subsequently, the prices of the inputs reduced with consequential reduction of assessable value. The department issued a show cause notice to the appellants alleging that they were entitled to avail credit only to the extent of the duty “leviable” on the inputs. The Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee on the ground that CENVAT credit on inputs is available to a manufacturer of final product to the extent leviable and paid by the input-manufacturer.

Case: Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur Vs. Suncity Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2009 (13) S.T.R. 86 (Raj.)

Judgement:

The respondent M/s Suncity Alloys Pvt. Ltd. exported goods manufactured by them by paying duty thereon while removing goods from the factory. Later the respondent claimed rebate of the duty paid as the goods were exempted from duty. The Revenue contended that as the goods were exempted therefore the amount paid b the respondent is not entitled to rebate.

The Hon’ble High court dismissed the petition on the ground that if no duty was leviable and assessee was not required to pay the duty still if he has paid the duty then petitioner can not retain the same on any ground and is liable to refund the duty received.

Case: Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd. v/s Comm. Of C.Ex.,Chandigarh

Citation: 2009(233)E.L.T. 131(Tri.-Del)

Judgement:

In the said case Maodvat credit was denied to M/s Vimal Alloys and penalties were imposed on director of M/s Vimal Alloys and its consignment agent M/s Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd. The case of Revenue is that in the invoices under which M/s Vimal Alloys received the inputs is having a vehicle number which was found not of a goods transport vehicle. The contention is that the goods were received from the consignment agent were entered into statutory record and same were used in the manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty. Goods were manufactured by TISCO(Tata Iron and Steel Co.) and the same was supplied to consuignment agent M/s Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd. The appellant placed orders with advance payment to TISCO and thereafter TISCO issued release order to their consignment agent and the goods were released to the appellant. As there was no dispute about receipt of that payment, Department’s plea that vehicle no. in invoice issued by consignment agent was not of goods carrier rejected. Availment of credit was upheld according to Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004.

Case: Comm. Of C.Ex.,Rajkot v/s Ajanta Transistor Clock Mfg. Co.

Citation: 2009(233)E.L.T. 97(Tri.-Ahmd.)

Judgement:

The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are entitled for Modvat credit in respect of plastic crates which are used as in handling material in the factory of manufacture. The Commissioner Appeals has held that the respondents are entitled for the credit. The Revenue filed the appeal mainly on the following ground :-

“From the usage of goods, it is clear that such plastic crate do not participate directly or indirectly in the manufacture goods. These plastic crates are mainly used for in-house movement of goods during the course of production of watch and clocks. It is prime condition for availment of Modvat credit that goods should be used directly or indirectly for manufacture of final product. This condition is not satisfied in this case.”

It was held that the issue regarding the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Tat Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd. Held that bins, trolleys etc. are entitled for the benefit of notification which exempts goods used within the factory of product used in the manufacture of final products. It was held that Crates used in relation to manufacture of goods and assessee was entitled to credit of duty paid on them according to Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Case: Nirma Ltd. v/s Comm of C.Ex., Bhavnagar

Citation: 2009 (13)S.T.R. 64(Tri.-Ahmd)

Judgement:

The Appellant M/s Nirma Ltd. is exporting part of the goods manufactured by them and for the said purpose they are engaging services of CHA/Clearing and Forwarding Agent. The Original Authority held that the services cannot be considered as input services, as they have been rendered at the port in connection with the export, and decided that the credit of service tax is not available and accordingly denied the material credit. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).The appellant also submitted that in respect of exports the place of removal should be treated as port from which the goods are shipped and the factory gate. Thus the appeal was rejected.

Case: Jindal texofab Ltd. v/s Comm of C.Ex.,Ahmedabad

Citation: 2009(233)E.L.T. 241 (Tri.-Ahmd)

Judgement:

The Appellant M/s Jindal Texofab Ltd. is engaged in the processing of cotton and man-made fabric. Their factory was visited by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, quantity of 14,077 LMs. of processed cotton and man-made fabric totally valued at Rs. 3,33,732/- was found to be short than the recorded balance, the shortage was subsequently admitted by the appellants representative as also by their Director. Based on these facts proceedings were initiated on the allegations of clandestine removal and penalty was imposed. It was decided that the shortages by themselves, when the assessee had contended that verification was not done properly, cannot lead to conclusion of clandestine removal. Thus benefit of doubt was extended to appellant. The order was set aside in view Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and appellant was relieved.

Comments

S.L.Bansal on 13 March, 2009 wrote:

Excellent work. I am proud that Sh. Pradep Jain and his team is doing a extremely good work. If efforts are made this website should be made applicable to vide range of assesses/consultants/advocates so that they are benefited. I am sure that if efforts are continued , this website will be popular as Tax india online. I wish a great success to Pradeep jain and his team S.L.Bansal,(IRS ) Assistant commissioner of Customs and Central Excise(Retd) Jodhpur.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/08-09/06

Comments

Post a Comment

Query