Amount Deposited As Service Tax If Refundable, Should Not Be Treated As Pre-Deposit U/S 35F Central Excise Act: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount deposited as service tax, if refundable, should not be treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. “Section 11B provides for refund of duty or service tax. If an amount is already paid as duty or service tax, it is reckoned while computing if any further amount needs to be paid to meet the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under section 35F. Merely...

CESTAT Can't Reject Appeal Merely Because Pre-Deposit Was Made In Wrong Account, Especially When Rules Were Unclear: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with a petitioner preferred by M/s DD Interiors, challenging the return of its appeal by CESTAT,...

Mere Wrong Availment Of Exemption Notification Does Not Mean That Availment Was Done To Evade Payment Of Central Excise Duty: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere wrong availment of exemption notification does not mean that availment was done to evade payment of central excise duty. The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “Mere wrong availment of an Exemption Notification would not lead to a conclusion that it was with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty unless the department is...

'Activity Did Not Involve Any Manufacturing, Central Excise Duty Was Collected Illegally': CESTAT Orders Refund

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted a refund along with interest, despite the absence of a statutory provision for interest under central excise laws at the relevant time. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the amount collected by way of Central excise duty was illegal as the activity itself did not involve any manufacture and the same cannot be allowed to be...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Oil Marketing Companies For Inter-Supply Of Petroleum Products

In a significant relief for Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), the Supreme Court ruled (Jan. 20) that prices under the MoU for inter-supply of petroleum products, designed to ensure smooth nationwide distribution, do not constitute "transaction value" and are exempt from excise duty due to their non-commercial nature. The Court emphasised that the inter-supply arrangement was not solely price-driven but aimed at facilitating seamless distribution, rendering it ineligible for excise duty.Holding so,...

Excise Duty Not Payable On 'Bagasse' Which Emerges As A Waste Product During Sugar Crushing: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that excise duty is not payable on the Bagasse emerged as waste product during sugar crushing. The Bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that Bagasse emerged only as a waste product during crushing of sugarcane during the manufacturing process and though marketable, duty could not be imposed on it as there was no manufacturing activity...

Show Cause Notice U/s 37C Of Central Excise Act Issued At Wrong Address Cannot Be Proceeded: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently held that the recourse to Sub-Clauses (b) & (c) of Clause 37C (1) of the Central Excise Act, is not permitted if the show cause notice was not sent at the proper address of the registered taxpayer.The High Court also clarified that Sub-Clause (b) and Sub-Clause (c) of Section 37(C)(1) of the Act of 1944 can only be pressed into service, if the service of notice under Sub-Clause (a) cannot be affected.As per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, any...

Assessee Entitled To Cash Refund Of Accumulated CENVAT Credit Despite Abolition Of Education Cess: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that merely because levy of education cess was abolished does not disqualify an assessee from availing Cenvat Credit on Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess.The Bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and C L Mahar (Technical Member) has observed that “the abolition of Education Cess does not affect the accumulated Cenvat credit which was availed during the time when the Cenvat...

'Cheeselings' By Parle-G Classified As 'Namkeen', Exempt From Excise Duty: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'Cheeselings' by Parle-G is 'namkeen' which is exempted from the excise duty under S. No. 29 of the Notification No. 3/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March 2006. The Bench of C J Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that “'Namkeen' has not been defined either contextually in the notification or as a separate nomenclature in the tariff. Therefore, the...

Factory Closed Due To Unavoidable Circumstances Not Liable For Excise Duty: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that if a factory is closed due to unavoidable circumstances, it is not liable to pay excise duty. The Bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that “the closure of the factory was not on the choice of the assessee whereas, they were compelled to keep the factory closed as per the direction of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. Therefore, closing of the...

Panchnama Not To Be Treated As Certificate Required For Admitting Printouts From Personal Computer As Evidence: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that a panchnama cannot be treated as a certificate required under Section 36B(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for admitting printouts from a personal computer as evidence. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “the CPU did not contain the hard disk. The hard disk was in fact picked up from the corner of the room. No ...

Assessee Failed To Explain Huge Variation In Stock And Admitted To Shortage: CESTAT Upholds Penalty Under Section 11 AC(1)(A) Of The Central Excise Act, 1944

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee has failed to explain the huge variation in stock and has admitted to the shortage, making them liable under Section 11AC(1)(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11 AC(1)(A) Of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that if any excise duty has not been levied, paid, short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded due to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement,...