CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 [REPEALED]

Facts: The Assessee was engaged in the manufacture and processing and clearance of Ferro Manganese and Silicon Manganese falling and then The Central Intelligence Unit of the Central Excise Headquarters visited the unit on having doubt that the Central Excise Audit party is the Respondent being an EOU was indulging in the job-work activity of conversion of raw material supplied by one company and so in the view of the Revenue, the same was not allowed in terms of EXIM Policy. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the Respondent in respect of the Silicon Manganese. After that it was stated, that the sector in which Assessee had carried out the job-works was not covered by either of the Circulars and, as such, the said job-works were in violation of EXIM Policy.

Held: No permission is required to sell goods manufactured by 100% EOU lying with it, at the time approval is granted to debond and the expression “allowed to be sold in India” in the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act was applicable only to sales made upto 25% of production by 100% EOU in DTA and with the permission of the Development Commissioner. Thus in this case, the sales made by UFAC to TISCO are within the permissible limits and with the permission of the Development Commissioner.

Facts: The Assessee was engaged in the manufacture and processing and clearance of Ferro Manganese and Silicon Manganese falling and then The Central Intelligence Unit of the Central Excise Headquarters visited the unit on having doubt that the Central Excise Audit party is the Respondent being an EOU was indulging in the job-work activity of conversion of raw material supplied by one company and so in the view of the Revenue, the same was not allowed in terms of EXIM Policy. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the Respondent in respect of the Silicon Manganese. After that it was stated, that the sector in which Assessee had carried out the job-works was not covered by either of the Circulars and, as such, the said job-works were in violation of EXIM Policy.

Held: No permission is required to sell goods manufactured by 100% EOU lying with it, at the time approval is granted to debond and the expression "allowed to be sold in India" in the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act was applicable only to sales made upto 25% of production by 100% EOU in DTA and with the permission of the Development Commissioner. Thus in this case, the sales made by UFAC to TISCO are within the permissible limits and with the permission of the Development Commissioner.

Facts: The Appellant had thought that in the public interest, by Notification exempted the goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule issued by it were amended that the product pan masala, tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes and plastic carry bags were included in the negative list and as such were no longer entitled for exemption from the excise duty. Thus the Respondent being aggrieved by the order approached the High Court which held that the Petitioner was entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty on the manufacture of pan masala from its unit.

Held: The withdrawal of the exemption to the pan masala with tobacco and pan masala sans tobacco is in the larger public interest. As such, the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not have been invoked and the State could not be compelled to continue the exemption, though it was satisfied that it was not in the public interest to do so. The larger public interest would more significant than an individual loss.

Facts: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Order of the Tribunal and restored the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the generation of scrap amounts to manufacture as it is incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of spare or replaceable part. The spare or replaceable part comes into existence as distinct product during the repairing of the parts of the cement plant. Also, the generation of scrap need not be in the process of manufacture of the excisable end product such as cement. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has filed this appeal order of the High Court.

Held: The process of repair and maintenance of machinery of cement manufacturing plant, in which M.S. scrap and Iron scrap arose, had no contribution or effect on process of manufacturing of cement, which was excisable end product. However, welding electrodes, mild steel, cutting tools, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels, M.S. Beams, which were used in process of repair and maintenance were not raw material used in process of manufacturing of cement, which was end product. However, metal scrap and waste arose out of repair and maintenance work of machinery used in manufacturing of cement could be treated as subsidiary product to cement which was main product. So, metal scrap and waste arose only when Assessee undertook repairing and maintenance work of capital goods.

Facts: The assessee manufacture goods falling under Chapter 24 of the Schedule of The Central Excise Act, 1944. While selling goods, the assessee charged the customers invoices for the price of goods plus Dharmada, a charitable donation. According to the appellant, the Dharmada was paid voluntarily by customers and was meant for charity. It was accordingly credited to charity. However, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Nashik issued show cause notices and raised a demand of duty in respect of Dharmada, claiming it was part of the price for the sale of Signature Not Verified manufactured goods and included it for computing assessable Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR value.

Held: The CESTAT, in an appeal filed by the Respondent, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by Commissioner, whereby this Court held that Dharmada was not liable to be added in the assessable value. Thereafter, in Civil Appeal before the Court, it was contended that the Dharmada should be a part of the assessable value and thus it was held that the amount of Dharmada cannot be included in the transaction value for the purposes of assessments.

Facts: In this Appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the final order passed by the Tribunal on the rectification application. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's appeal and upheld the order that for the purpose of payment of Excise duty, Physician samples have to be valued for the period post 1st July, 2000 upto December, 2001 on pro-rata basis on the value of trade packs under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000. The Tribunal, while rejecting the application filed for rectification of the order dated 27th February, 2009, held that merely because a product is statutorily prohibited from being sold, would not mean that the product is not capable of being sold.

Held: a. This Court has consistently held that the medical supplies supplied to the Doctors are liable to excise duty. The Court inferred that merely because a product was statutorily prohibited from being sold, would not mean that the product was not capable of being sold. Since physician sample was capable of being sold in open market, the physician samples were excisable goods and were liable to excise duty.
b. This Court has upheld the conclusion of the Tribunal that the physician's samples have to be valued on pro-rata basis.

Facts: The Appellant had filed classified lists for its products which got approved and observed that he is directed to pay excise duty and then the Appellant's stand that the Show Cause Notice under Section 11A of the Act was essential. However the The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of excise duty that the duty liability itself was in dispute and the assessment could be made final only when the question of duty liability was decided by the High Court, and especially when the Appellant itself had voluntarily executed B-13 bonds and the assessments were treated as provisional, as evinced from the endorsements on monthly RT-12 returns. The question of issuing notice under Section 11A of the Act did not arise at all.

Held: The Appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate stipulating that they would execute bonds in Form B-13 referable to Rule 9B of the Rules and continue to file monthly RT-12 returns from time to time and the Appellant cannot be permitted to urge that it had not submitted to the process of provisional assessment and thereby deprive the legitimate State exchequer and appeal is dismissed.

Facts: The Appellant had filed classified lists for its products which got approved and observed that he is directed to pay excise duty and then the Appellant's stand that the Show Cause Notice under Section 11A of the Act was essential. However the The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of excise duty that the duty liability itself was in dispute and the assessment could be made final only when the question of duty liability was decided by the High Court, and especially when the Appellant itself had voluntarily executed B-13 bonds and the assessments were treated as provisional, as evinced from the endorsements on monthly RT-12 returns. The question of issuing notice under Section 11A of the Act did not arise at all.

Held: The Appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate stipulating that they would execute bonds in Form B-13 referable to Rule 9B of the Rules and continue to file monthly RT-12 returns from time to time and the Appellant cannot be permitted to urge that it had not submitted to the process of provisional assessment and thereby deprive the legitimate State exchequer and appeal is dismissed.

Facts: A petition was filed by the Respondents before the High Court, in which it was prayed that the Appellants should be commanded to make payment of service tax for the premises in issue. After that Judge held that the lessee should be made to pay service tax. They have liability to bear service tax being that of the recipient of the service.

Held: Appellant has expressly stated that it was liable to pay service charges. Having thus clarified the legal position, given the sanction letter in which it was made clear that the Union of India alone will bear the service charges, but the appeal fails on the facts of the present cases.