|
-
Excisability
Facts and issue
Applicant questioning very excisability of
product obtained by them by slitting wrappers received from AVT with the
resultant product returned to customer being slit wrappers which can be removed
from gummed papers and used as wrappers for cartons.
Held
Question of dutiability, per se, is what is at
issue, which can be raised at any stage irrespective of their earlier mistake
and thus would not tantamount to disputing classification of product in question
under Central Excise Tariff. Application admissible, Section 32E(1) of CEA, 1944
Authority
Re: Pavitraa Graphics Ltd 2007 (210) ELT 631 (Settl.
Comm.)
-
Valuation – (Central Excise)
Facts and issue
Interest on receivables being inbuilt in price
which had not been charged separately, deductible from assessable value.
Department having accepted the principles laid down in earlier case cannot be
permitted to take a contra stand in subsequent cases.
Authority
CCE vs. Novapan Industries Ltd 2007(209) ELT 161
SC
-
Manufacture
Facts and issue
Twisting and doubling of cellulosic filament yarn
with a blended yarn comprising polyester and viscose, not amounts to manufacture
under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and yarn continues to be yarn –
Tariff Item 18 of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
Authority
CCE vs. Swastik Rayon Processors 2007 (209) ELT
163 SC.
-
Modvat credit
Facts and issue
Rules 57A and 57E of Central Excise Rules 1944,
differential duty paid during the period 21-4-1986 in respect of input received
during the year 1986-87 which were utilized between the period 16-8-1987 to
30-12-1987.
Rule 57E underwent a change on 11-5-1987. Rule 57E was only procedural,
clarificatory and cannot affect substantive right of manufacturer under rule 57A
to claim credit of duty paid on inputs subsequent to date of their receipt .
Held
Credit admissible even prior to amendment of Rule
57E on 11-5-1987.
Authority
CCE vs. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd 2007 (79) RLT 442
(SC)
-
Penalty
Facts and issue
The issue in the present appeal is regarding levy
of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The charge
against the assessee, who is a registered trader, is that he had wrongly passed
on Modvat credit by issuing modvatable invoices in the year 1997 and 1998.
Modvat credit claimed by subsequent buyers with regard to additional customs
duty leviable under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. When transactions
took place, availing of Modvat credit on additional customs duty was not treated
as an offence chargeable to penalty. Penalty not imposable, placing reliance on
amendment which is effected later on. No substantial question of law arises.
Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Board Circular No.
472/38/99-CX., dated 21-7-1999.
Held
When transactions in question were not liable to
penal action during the relevant period then there is no reason for levying
penalty thereon by placing reliance on the amendment which is effected later on.
Authority
CCE, Jalandhar vs. Satish Metal Co. 2007(210) ELT
341 (PH)
|