Appellant not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules as he has not done nor has been concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, etc., of excisable goods.
Held that penalty u/s 112(a) imposed on customs broker is justified as importer of undeclared goods and undervalued goods is not traceable and the address as well as GST registration reflected in the documents are found to be fake.
1981 Circular of the Board clarifies that losses of up to 1% can be allowed without detailed scrutiny and loss above 1% can be condoned after scrutiny, we find no reason to not condone losses in these cases as claimed.
There is no dispute that the MS items were used for fabricating and installing paint plant within the premises of the appellant. The said paint plant is also integral to the manufacturing activity. After appreciating the facts and applying the decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. (supra), CESTAT hold that the credit availed on MS items has to be allowed to the appellant.
Held that benefit of exemption under notification dated 20.07.2010 is available if the taxable services are rendered for transmission/ distribution of electricity.
Held that penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act cannot be imposed if the assessee has not dealt with or transported goods physically in any manner.
Held that refund u/s 27 against duty paid on self-assessment basis not admissible unless the self-assessment is modified through an appeal.
Once duty is paid by assessee treating activity as manufacturing activity by the Department, Cenvat credit is available and there is no question of denial of Cenvat credit.
Held that the goods have been confiscated and no redemption was allowed, the duty liability cannot pass on to anyone but to the Government of India in whom the property vests.
Held that since Cess on Paper is not a duty of excise the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply
