New User / Register | Bookmarks | Annual Subscription | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
           
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Export to SEZ under claim of rebate Collection of Interest on delay payment from customer Taken Cenvat 50% Rg 23 d register required to be maintained Reversal of Cenvat credit CENVAT CREDIT TO DEVELOPERS Procedure to sent back the rejected imported material Applicability of State VAT or CST valuation job work BUDGET CHANGES REGARDING DTA CLEARANCES

Central Excise Case Laws

 

Advanced Search options


Filter -


 
Showing 33561 to 33575 of 51498 Records

    2000 (9) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    R. VIJAYAKUMAR Versus UNION OF INDIA

    Tea - Policy to grant exemption ......

    ........... s that merely because a factory was running for six months during 1998-99, it cannot be said that they need not continue any such manufacturing thereafter but they are entitled for exemption, cannot be accepted. As the above said condition is only to claim exemption of duty exemption for the year 1999-2000, if a factory is not running during 1999-2000, there is no necessity to claim any exemption, since as they may not have any production. 19.As held by the Apex Court, it is for the Government to classify the category for the purpose of granting duty exemption, but it should be on acceptable principles. In these writ petitions, such classification has been made on valid reasons, and those reasons and classification cannot be held as arbitrary and so the petitioners can not sustain their grievance. 20.For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merits in these writ petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.

    2000 (9) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    FERMENTAPHARMA BIOTECH Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS

    Appeal to Supreme Court ......

    ........... was such as could not possibly have been arrived at by persons duly instructed upon the material before them in other words, that the conclusion is perverse. Althogh it was shown that there was no such ground, we have heard learned Counsel to the extent we considered necessary. 3. The civil appeal is dismissed.

    2000 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

    Writ jurisdiction ......

    ........... es seem a little harsh to relegate the appellant after seven years to the alternate remedy. The learned Additional Solicitor General fairly states, in the circumstances, that the order under challenge may be set aside and the writ petition (Civil Misc.) Writ Petition No. 747 of 1962) may be restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. This is appropriate and it should be done expeditiously. 4. Order on the appeal accordingly. 5. No order as to costs.

    2000 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT Versus SURYA ROSHNI LTD.

    Valuation (Central Excise) ......

    ........... harging two per cent from them. In the alternative, he submitted that if this submission was not accepted and the court was of the view that it was compensation that was being paid to the customers, it was part of the cost of the transportation of the goods. 5.We are unable to accept either submission. In the case of transportation what is includible is the cost of taking out insurance to cover the goods transported in other words, to cover oneself against a possible loss by paying a premium to an insurance company. The payment made by the respondent to its customers for breakages and losses cannot tantamount to insurance. Nor can, by any means, such compensation be treated as a part of the cost of transportation it is a clear case of making up to the customer by means of a credit note the monies that it has lost on account of breakages or losses in transit. 6.In the result, the civil appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. 7.No order as to costs.

    2000 (8) TMI 1056 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    S. LATHA (BRINDA ENTERPRISES) Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE

    SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Clubbing of ......

    ........... ave not been gone into, therefore, the impugned order is not a speaking order. In view of this, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration, who shall grant a full opportunity to the appellants to demonstrate that all these three units are independent units and that the appellant Sounderarajan was carrying out manufacturing activity and the resultant goods manufactured by him were within the exemption limit and that there was only clearance of raw material to the job workers and what was received back from the job workers was fully finished goods and were handed over to the customers. Further plea that they have received old item for repair is also required to be considered and all the aspects raised in defence have to be independently examined and detailed findings arrived at. The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration in the light of the above observation.

    2000 (8) TMI 1043 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR Versus TISCO

    Valuation ......

    ........... 119) E.L.T. 249 (Tribunal-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 2 (CEGAT-LB) has held that such levies collected by the manufacturer from the buyers in addition to sale price of the product and passed on to JPC are not to form part of sale price. As such the same are not includible in the assessable value of the product. 3. emsp Respectfully following the ratio of the Larger Bench Tribunal rsquo s decision referred supra we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue and allow the appeals filed by the appellants. All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.

    2000 (8) TMI 950 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

    Valuation ......

    ........... s of the earlier order passed by the Commissioner, the order impugned in this appeal has also been passed. 2. emsp Value of the tool kit supplied by the appellant along with the motor cycles manufactured by them was added to the value of the motor cycles and duty levied. For the earlier period, when such a course of action was resorted to by the department evidenced by Order-in-Original No. 6/2000, dated 13-3-2000, they came before this Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1483/2000-A. By Final Order No. 600/2000-A, dated 20-7-2000, this Tribunal set aside that order holding that value of the tool kit cannot form part of the assessable value of motor cycles. That decision tendered by the inter-parties binds the Revenue. So, for the subsequent period also value of the toot kits cannot be taken as part of the assessable value of the motor cycle. It, therefore, follows that the order impugned is unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside with consequential relief, if any. Appeal is allowed.

    2000 (8) TMI 935 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    UNION OF INDIA Versus SOUTH INDIA HOSIERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

    EXIM Policy - Quota Transfer System - High Court - Order, interlocutory order - Stay ......

    ........... ity, modernization and in the interest of nation as a whole. On consideration, this Court will go into this since the matter involved is a question of fact and it needs investigation. Nor the Court can put its own reasons or conclusion in a matter like this. Under the circumstances, on this count, this Court cannot stay the scheme. As stated, the scheme is going to end in September, 2000 and it will be appropriate for the Government to consider all the relevant materials while making a scheme for future, in the interest of all concerned, in accordance with law. Since the period is going to end in September, 2000, they are free for mutual transfer till the scheme is over without making a precedent. But this concession will not give any right for schemes to be made in future for which the Government is competent, as discussed above. 9. emsp With the above observation, all the writ appeals are disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 4407, 4749, 10984 and 10985 of 2000 are closed.

    2000 (8) TMI 925 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA

    Manufacture ......

    ........... ncluded that though new tariff contains the detailed classification of pipes and tubes, it contains no new definition relating to manufacture. As such the findings of the Apex Court would remain equally valid under the new tariff also. The change in the physical shape and size of the pipes, adopted and modified for the purpose of specific use will not make the same as a product different than the parent product. 4. emsp We do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal in the case of True Forge (P) Ltd. Accordingly, respectfully following the same, we hold that elbows, tees and reducers cannot be levied to duty again as manufactured items. 5. emsp As the first issue has been answered in favour of the appellants, the other two issues framed above do not survive for decision. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, in accordance with law.

    2000 (8) TMI 917 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (APPEAL

    IN RE: CASTROL INDIA LTD.

    Provisional assessment ......

    ........... t Commissioner but also allowed item i.e. Rebates. Further it covers additional period from September, 98 to March, 98 and thereby keeping all issues open for fresh adjudication. In the aforesaid view of the factual background of the case, the aforesaid Show Cause Notice issued under Section 11A, I find that demand and recovery by way of the impugned notice is not only premature but null and void. 13. emsp In the light of aforementioned discussion, I remand the matter to the adjudicating authority with the direction to finalise the issues which are still provisional and to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order in terms of Section 11A after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and on following principles of natural justice and also to determine the quantum of consolidated duty liability, if any, arising out of finalisation of all the provisional issues. 14. emsp Appeal is allowed by way of remand and the impugned order dated 13-3-2000 is set aside.

    2000 (8) TMI 914 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BHUBANESWAR-II

    Demand - Shortages in modvatable inputs ......

    ........... ed in the present appeals are from 1991-92 to 1995-96. Accordingly, we find that by comparing the entries in the RG-23A Part-I with the quantum of inputs actually received in the RG-23A Part-I instead of the quantum of inputs initially entered by the appellants in the RG-23A Part-I, there would not be any shortage. Accordingly, we do not find any justification in confirmation of the demand of duties in respect of shortages of the inputs i.e. ldquo Alumina rdquo . At this stage, learned Advocate submits that a small amount of duty of Rs. 21,289.00 has been confirmed in respect of Petroleum Coke found short in the stock-taking for disallowing the Modvat Credit. As the amount is too small, the appeal against the same is not being pressed. Accordingly, we confirm the said amount. 7. emsp As regards the personal penalty, we find that as the appeals have been allowed, we set aside the quantum of penalty imposed on the appellants. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

    2000 (8) TMI 912 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    VIJAYANAND FABRICS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-III

    Production capacity based duty - Compounded levy ......

    ........... 474 has laid down as to how the word ldquo day rdquo has to be understood for the purposes of these rules. We find that this decision has been arrived at after looking into a Trade Notice issued by the concerned Collector. In the present case before us there is a Trade Notice issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III which specifies in Para 11 as follows - ldquo The trade is informed that they should plan the time of closure during the normal office hours. rdquo Therefore, the interpretation of the word ldquo day rdquo will have to be given the meaning as determined in this Bench decision mentioned supra and the Trade Notice No. 88/99, dated 6-12-1999 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III, the matters are therefore required to be remanded back to the lower authorities for de novo adjudication in view of our findings herein above. 3. emsp The appeal and stay application are disposed of accordingly in the above terms by remand for de novo adjudication.

    2000 (8) TMI 911 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    GD. PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-I

    Petroleum jelly - Marketability ......

    ........... well appropriate. As there is no evidence of the product being capable of being marketed, we do not find any merits in the Reveue rsquo s stand. 8. emsp We also note that the Tribunal in the case of Mehtachem Industries v. C.C.Ex., Rajkot reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 690 (T) 1999 (32) RLT-48 (CEGAT) has held that the intermediate product consisting of petroleum jelly, lanolin and paraffin coming into existence during the process of manufacture of Boroquien Antiseptic Cream is not excisable inasmuch as the Revenue has failed to adduce evidence as regards the marketability of the said product. The facts and the legal point involved in the present appeal are duly covered by the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mehtachem Industries. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a different view, in view of our foregoing discussions. As a result, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal on merits without going into the aspect of limitation.

    2000 (8) TMI 910 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    RM MITAL STEEL (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

    Production capacity based duty - Compounded levy - Words and phrases ......

    ........... e factory manufactures both notified and non-notified goods. The Tribunal rsquo s decision in CCE v. Prem Cables case (supra) relied on by the ld. Counsel for the appellant which is said to have been confirmed by the Apex Court, in our view, supports the appellants rsquo contention that a distinction is required to be made between the part of the factory which manufactures the notified goods and the part which manufactures non-notified goods. In reply to a specific query from the Bench, ld. Counsel had shown records showing that while the stock position of the notified goods had not changed during the period for which abatement had been claimed, there was difference in the electric meter reading between the days of non-production of notified goods and resumption of production of notified goods. 9. emsp In the facts as emerging from the above discussion the appeal has merit and is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants. Impugned order is, as a result, set aside.

    2000 (8) TMI 908 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    IPP LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-I

    Demand - Sale of factory - Duty liability ......

    ........... missioner (Appeals) order therefore is required to be set aside and matter remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner to readjudicate the case as per the provisions of Section 3, 11A(1) 11A(2) read with Rules 7, 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules and redetermine the liability on the person chargeable to duty as per law. (iv) emsp The trade practice of the thirteen pieces to be constituting a ldquo Bakers Dozen rdquo is well known and accepted. Therefore, the trade practice of what is the weight of the consignment under clause as per accepted Trade Norms, Government fixed tolerance limits will have to be considered and applied. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to ascertain the same and apply the trade and Government fixed norms and redetermine the less charge if any as the Commissioner (Appeals) findings are being set aside for de novo determination. 5. emsp In view of our findings the appeal is allowed on remand for de novo adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner.

   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Quick Links: | Acts and Rules | Notifications | Circulars | Schedules | Tariff | Forms | Case Laws | Manuals |
| Home | About us | Contact us | Feed Back | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Members | |
Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.