Value of goods obtained on job-work basis cannot be included into turnover of appellants. By excluding this value items manufactured by appellants comes below limit prescribed for S.S.I. Exemption.
Mittal International Vs CCE (CESTAT Chandigarh) Refund claim was denied on the ground that the said goods have been exported and drawback is allowed on the export of goods. The case of the Revenue is that as the appellants have claimed drawback on export of the goods, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim […]
In view of the above observations, the view taken by the First Appellate Authority, that deposit under Section 35F (i) cannot be made from CENVAT Credit Account, is not the correct appreciation of law so long as the CENVAT Credit is permissible for utilisation as per Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. All issues are kept open. Appellant be granted adequate opportunity of hearing to present their case. Both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their favour.
From the evidences as recorded and analysed in the impugned order, the role of the Director has not been specifically discussed and brought out the fact that non-payment of duty was at his instance. In these circumstances, the personal penalty on the Director is unwarranted and accordingly set aside.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely paper and paperboard falling Chapter Heading 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have availed CENVAT credit of Rs.39,50,149/- on capital goods, procured on lease basis from one M/s B.G. India Energy Services Pvt. Ltd
In as much as the brand name owner M/s Hindustan Machines has been held to be entitled to the benefit of Notification, the other units using the said brand name would become entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification as they are not hit by para 7 of the Notification.
It was not even alleged that they collected a amount as ‘duty’ but not paid it to the exchequer. None of situation specified in section 11D is applicable in the present case. In fact, in such a situation, there should not have any grievance to the parties since the appellants had paid the amount whatever they collected and paid it completely.
This as a fit care where the Bench may recommend to Tamilnadu Bar Council to take appropriate action against him. But, by keeping a lenient view in mind, we adjourn the case at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees on thousand only) which will deposited by the counsel toward Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three days from today. On the next date of hearing, proof of deposit shall be submitted.
The fact of the case is that the respondent had cleared their finished goods to their customer by valuing the goods on the basis of purchase order placed by them by their customers. However, consequent upon price escalation, their customers amended the purchase order and revised the price of the goods on the higher side with retrospective effect.
Appellant is the centrally registered taxpayer and the error committed could not be detected immediately and it took almost a month to recognise the excess payment made in the month of May, 2011 and hence it was adjusted against the tax liabilities for the month of July, 2011
