Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
M/S Panasonic Avc Networks India Co. Ltd vs Cce, Meerut on 23 September, 2013 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd on 4 April, 2008

4. Shri P.K. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 228 (Tribunal  LB), wherein with regard to the provisions of Rule 57F (1) (ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which are similar to the provisions of Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, during period prior to 1/3/03, the Tribunal held that in case of removal of inputs as such by an assessee, his liability is to restore the credit originally taken, that in this case the obsolete inputs in respect of which Cenvat credit had been availed were sold as waste without being used in the manufacture and, hence, at the time of removal of the inputs, the Cenvat credit originally taken should have been reversed, that in terms of the provisions of Rule 3 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, Cenvat credit in respect of any inputs is available only when the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, that when in this case the inputs cleared as obsolete/waste had not been used in or in relation to the production of final product, Cenvat credit would not be available and, hence, credit originally taken should have been reversed and, as such, the provisions of Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, would not be applicable, that as regards limitation, since the appellant did not intimate the department during August 2002 and September 2002 regarding the clearance of written off inputs as waste on payment of duty on transaction value, they have suppressed the relevant fact from the department and hence extended period for recovery of Cenvat credit has been correctly applied. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S. Eicher Tractors vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jaipur on 28 May, 2001

6.2 The correctness of this judgment of the Tribunal was doubted in the case of Eicher Tractors vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 67 (Tri.  Del.), as on this very issue other benches had taken a contrary decision on the ground that Rule 57F (1) (ii) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 as the same stood during period prior to 1/3/03 are not identically worded and are not similar. Accordingly, by judgment dated 10/11/04, the following question was referred for decision by Larger Bench  When inputs on which Cenvat credit has been taken are removed, as such, from the factory, whether the duty of excise is to be paid on the basis of assessable value as has been determined by original manufacturer at the time of removal of the goods or on the basis of value on which the inputs are sold by the appellant to their customers in terms of the provisions of Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs C.C.E on 28 September, 1994

Interpreting the provisions of Section 11A (1), the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. CCE, Madras (supra) has held that when the law requires an intention to evade the payment of duty, then this not mere failure to pay the duty but is something more that the assessee was aware that the duty was payable and he deliberately avoided paying it. On going through the order of the original Adjudicating Authority and of the 1st Appellate Authority, I find that there are no findings as to how the appellant had deliberately short paid the amount payable under Rule 3 (4). In fact the dispute here is related to interpretation of Rule 3 (4)  whether during the period prior to 1/3/03 when in terms of the wordings of this rule, on removal of cenvated inputs as such, an amount equal to the duty at the rate in force on the date of removal of inputs and on the value determined under Section 4, 4A or Section 3 (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the case may be, was payable or the assessees liability was only restoring the Cenvat credit originally taken. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the appellant have paid the amount strictly going by the wordings of Rule 3 (4) during the period of dispute, according to which on removal of cenvated inputs as such, an amount equal to duty on the transaction value was payable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 81 - R M Sahai - Full Document

National Engineering Industries ... vs Cce, Jaipur on 19 May, 2011

3. Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that during August and September 2002 certain components of television sets in respect of which the Cenvat credit had been taken and which had earlier been written off in the books of accounts were cleared as obsolete inputs/ waste, that in respect of these clearances of Cenvat credit availed components of television sets which had become obsolete, duty on the transaction value was paid as per the provisions of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, which were in force at that time, that during the period of dispute in terms of the provisions of Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, when the inputs and capital goods are removed, as such, an amount equal to the duty on the transaction value at the rate of duty in force on the date of clearance and on the value determined under Section 4 or Section 4A, as the case may be, is required to be paid, that at the time of removal of the Cenvat credit availed obsolete inputs as waste, the amount has been paid strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 (4), that in respect of these obsolete inputs, the appellant are not required to reverse the credit originally taken, that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of National Engg. India Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur  I reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. 97 (Tri.  Del.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007

Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh - I reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) has held that when there is scope for entertaining doubt on account of conflicting judgments of the Tribunal, extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) cannot be invoked. Therefore, from overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find anything from which it can be concluded that the short payment of the amount payable under Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. Therefore, I hold that the longer limitation period in this case is not invokable. More so, when during visit of the audit team, all the information had been made available by the assessee on the basis of which only the Department had detected this short payment and subsequently all the information for quantification of the duty has been furnished by the appellant under their letter dated 17/06/03. Therefore, I hold that the extended period is not invokable, and as such, the impugned order is not sustainable on limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 182 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1