Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs C.C.E on 28 September, 1994
As such it is inconceivable that the party did not have the knowledge of the dutiability of the compound they were manufacturing. With this knowledge of dutiability of the product the party did not disclose to the department the premises where the activity of manufacture of the product was being carried. By bringing this material on record the department has discharged its initial burden to prove that the situations visualised by the proviso existed. The law in this regard has been laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE wherein it was held "the proviso is in the nature of exception to the principal clause. Therefore, its exercise is hedged on one hand with existence of such situations as have been visualised by the proviso by using such strong expression as fraud, collusion etc. and on the other hand it should have been with the intention to evade payment of duty. Both must concur to enable the Excise officer to proceed under this proviso and invoke the exceptional power. Since the proviso extends the period of limitation from six months to five years it has to be construed strictly. The initial burden is on the department to prove that the situations visualised by the proviso existed. But once the department is able to bring on record material to show that the appellant was guilty of any of those situations which are visualised by the section, the burden shifts and then the applicability of the proviso has to be construed liberally". As regards the availability of Modvat credit and exemption notification, the availability of legal alternatives cannot be used to justify an illegal act. Moreover, an attempt on the part of the party to tamper with the original records and prepare doctored documents to escape from the duty liability is also indicative of its wrongful intentions.
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 February, 1998
13. The appellants had pleaded that under Notification No. 121/94-CE dated 11.8.1994, unbranded chewing tobacco manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of corresponding branded chewing tobacco enjoyed exemption from the payment of central excise duty. It was provided in that Notification dated 11.8.1994 that where such use of the un-branded chewing tobacco was in a factory of manufacturer different from his factory where the said unbranded chewing tobacco had been produced, then the exemption was allowable subject to the observance of procedure set out in Chapter X of the rules. The appellants had not followed the Chapter X procedure. The appellants had pleaded that the benefit was available to them even when they had not followed the Chapter X procedure. Reliance has been placed on the Tribunal's decisions in the case of (1) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad 1999 (31) RLT 257 (Calcutta) and (2) Hiranya Keshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum 1989 (21) ECR 280 (Tribunal).
The Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd., Mihir ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 29 April, 1997
On the other hand, the SDR had referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of (1) Lal Woollen and Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1999 (32) RLT 227 (SC) : 1999 (82) ECR 213 (SC) and (2) Mihir Textile Ltd. v. Collector of Customs .
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bolpur on 20 February, 1997
3. The submissions made have been carefully considered. As the learned Counsel has submitted there are precedent decisions of the Tribunal to say that in the case of such exemption notification prescribing the following of Chapter X procedure, the exemption may be extended if substantial compliance is shown regarding the receipt and utilisation of the exempted material by the user manufacturer. See in this context the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore wherein the Tribunal had referred to and followed another decision in the case to say that unless it is deliberate and mala fide, failure on the part of the assessee to follow certain procedures cannot come in the way of his availing the substantive benefit under statutory provisions as long as he can satisfy the Department even at a later date, that he fulfilled the essential requirements to establish his entitlement to such benefit.
Indian Oil Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise on 6 December, 1989
In the same Steel Authority of India Limited decision, the Tribunal also observed that AR6 3A Form not being statutorily prescribed removal on Gate Passes instead of AR 3A is not an irregularity of a serious nature for which another precedent decision in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras was relied upon. In the present case no mala fides are attributed to the appellants by the Department. Secondly, in the earlier order in appeal dated 28.8.1980 by the Collector (Appeals) while holding that Zinc Oxide was covered by Notification 21/55, the Collector (Appeals) had also observed. "It was wrong on the part of the Assistant Collector to have questioned the correctness of the issue of CT 2 certificate issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin. In case he had any doubts about the correctness and genuineness of the certificate, he could have taken up the matter separately with the concerned authorities in the Cochin Collectorate". Thirdly, it would also appear that when for certain consignments AR 3A Forms were received from Cochin Collectorate on rewarehousing of Zinc Oxide, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Valsad by his letter No. GL 2/Misc./79/1395 dated 28.6.1979, had informed the appellants that since the appellants were exempted from Central Excise licensing requirement, they need not observe Central Excise formalities. Fourthly, the appellants have produced in their present appeal confirmation No. PTF : 3809 dated 4/1984 from Premier Tyres giving particulars of receipt and utilisation of Zinc Oxide from the appellants which the lower authorities had no occasion to go into. In the result, following the ratio of the precedent decisions cited supra, it is held that the exemption under Notification No. 21/55 cannot be denied to the appellants merely for not following the details of Chapter X procedure so long as they are able to establish by evidence substantial compliance therewith and in this light the jurisdictional Assistant Collector may consider the refund claim subject to being satisfied regarding the evidence produced of the receipt and utilisation of the exempted material by the user manufacturer M/s. Premier Tyres in the Cochin Central Excise Collectorate. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Thermax Private Limited vs Collector Of Customs (Bombay) New ... on 19 August, 1992
In the case of Thermax Private Ltd. v. Collector of Customs , the Supreme Court had agreed that the benefit of Chapter X procedure is available to the manufacturers once the stipulated nature and use of goods was satisfied. The Apex Court had added that the entitlement will depend on whether the purchaser was the holder of L-6 licence (or CT 2 Certificate) or not. Paras-12 and 13 from that Judgment are extracted below:
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Lal Woolen & Silk Mills (P) Ltd vs The Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 13 April, 1999
On the other hand, the SDR had referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of (1) Lal Woollen and Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1999 (32) RLT 227 (SC) : 1999 (82) ECR 213 (SC) and (2) Mihir Textile Ltd. v. Collector of Customs .