2000 (3) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUPER CHEMICALS Versus UNION OF INIDA
Notification - Estoppel - Promissory estoppel ......
........... ions, there is absolutely no infirmity or inconsistency or patent error of law or perversity in approach so far as the introduction of the Notification No. 142/89, dated 16-5-1989 by the first respondent and the withdrawal of exemption under this Notification that had already been granted under Notification No. 175/86 by the first respondent so far as the item of Potassium Chlorate is concerned and it is perfectly within the competence of the first respondent Government and on valid, tangible and convincing reasons offered on the part of the respondents, the amended Notification had been issued. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no need to issue any such Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to apply Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 without reference to the amending Notification No. 142/89, dated 16-5-1989 issued by the first respondent as prayed for by the petitioners herein. In result, all the above writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.
2000 (3) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VISHAL INDUSTRIES Versus CEGAT
Stay/Dispensation of Pre-deposit ......
........... t case the tribunal was not right in directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the appeal is still pending and has to be decided on merits. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. There should be some sort of uniformity in the order passed by the Tribunal. When earlier in the similar circumstances relying upon various decisions the Tribunal has granted unconditional stay on the recovery of duties, such a relief could not be denied to the petitioner specially when admittedly the petitioner had purchased old and unserviceable rails from the Railway Department. 6. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 12-1-2000 is quashed. Application for waiver-cum-stay moved by the petitioner before the Tribunal is allowed and the petitioner is granted unconditional stay on the recovery of duty demanded. The appeal shall be heard expeditiously.
2000 (3) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. Versus CCE. (A), CAL.
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Prima facie case ......
........... f the Supreme Court. 22. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the authority to reconsider imposition of pre-deposit in the light of the judgment within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of communication of the order upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing reasoned order thereon subject to making an application in this respect upon deposit of admitted sum of Rs. 4,20,291.09 Paisa. For the purpose of effective adjudication a copy of the writ petition will also be enclosed with such application. 23. In view of the order passed above imposition of pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs will not be sustained but subject to the result of the consideration as above. 24. No order is passed as to costs, since no affidavit has been filed by the respondent, no allegation is admitted by them. 25. The parties will be entitled to have the Xeroxed certified copy within a period of 7 days from the date of putting requisition.
2000 (2) TMI 674 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM Versus HPCL
Demand - Approved classification list ......
........... the goods were held to be correctly classifiable under 2901.90 of the schedule and that goods are not entitled for the benefit of notification No. 30/89. 2. emsp The respondents, a public sector undertaking, is not aggrieved with the reclassification adopted by the department and also rejection of the benefit of the notification. They are contesting the Revenue appeal seeking demands for six months prior to issue of show cause notice. 3. emsp Heard ld. DR Shri Sudarsan and Shri G. Sriram, Dy. Manager (Finance) for respondent. 4. emsp On careful consideration of grounds of Revenue appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the view expressed by Commissioner (Appeals) that demands cannot be confirmed retrospectively for six months in case of approved classification list has since been upheld by the Apex Court judgment rendered in CCE v. Cotspun Ltd as in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the said ratio, the Revenue appeal is rejected.
2000 (2) TMI 666 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MARKFED VANASPATI & ALLIED INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH
Spent earth is not liable to duty - Judicial discipline ......
........... y. Further it was observed that appeals involving question of excisability of spent earth shall now be posted by the Registry before the concerned Bench for final disposal. 4. emsp Shri K. Srivastava appearing for the Revenue submitted that he has raised some basic points during the course of hearing the matter before the Larger Bench but the same has not been considered as can be seen from the order passed by the Larger Bench and requires to be reconsidered. The plea taken by the D.R. cannot be looked into by the Bench at this stage since Division Bench is not empowered to review the order of the Larger Bench and on the other hand, we are bound by the decision of the Larger Bench, as per judicial discipline. 5. emsp Since the issue involved herein has already been considered and concluded by the Larger Bench, following the same, we hold that lsquo spent earth rsquo is not excisable being not manufactured product. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
2000 (2) TMI 657 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
DURATEX LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., VADODARA
Textile finishing agent - Penalty - Demand - Limitation - Show cause notice ......
........... partment about the correct classification of the products, I am of the view that benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee and not to the department. In the facts and circumstances, particularly, in view of the clarification issued by the department on 14-6-1990, I am of the view that demand should be restricted to 6 months and demand if any beyond the 6 months from the date of show cause notice was barred by time. Accordingly, the view expressed by the Member (Judicial) is concurred with. Case file is returned to the original bench to pass an appropriate order. Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (J) Dated 28-1-2000 MAJORITY OPINION In the light of the majority opinion, demand for the period from 11th January 1990 to 31st October 1990 is confirmed, demand for the priod from 1-3-1986 to 10-1-1990 is set aside as barred by limitation and the penalty is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (V.K. Agarwal) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated 3-2-2000
2000 (2) TMI 648 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
AKAY COSMETICS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM
........... to some of the deductions claimed, therefore the ratio of the same would clearly apply to this appeal also. Accordingly, we set aside the order-in-original impugned and remand the matter to Commissioner of Central Excise for de novo consideration in terms of the directions given already in our Final Order No. 60-71/2000, dated 6-1-2000 2000 (126) E.L.T. 763 (T) , a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-I to this order for consideration by the ld. Commissioner in these de novo proceedings. The learned Commissioner shall, no doubt, hear the appellants during these proceedings and then proceed to pass a speaking order taking into consideration the directions contained in the said final order dated 6-1-2000. 7. emsp Since the matter lay on a short compass, we have considered the appeal itself as per above orders after granting waiver and stay in the matter. 8. emsp The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in the above terms and stay application is also disposed of accordingly.
2000 (2) TMI 646 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
KEVIN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-IV
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ......
........... ties under which the returns are to be filed, we could not go into this aspect. We however observe that the delayed issue of the show cause notice which is for imposition of penalty alone would not support the ground of limitation. The last point of Shri Patil was that for the invoices which are incomplete where the duty involved is about Rs. 16 lakhs the quantum of penalty is excessive. We find this point to have merit. We find that in spite of the prima facie merits in this application, the issue of the responsibility cast on the registered dealers has to be brought out and discussed, since any lacuna at this place would give rise to litigation down the line resulting in loss of due benefit to the end users. With this point in mind, we direct the applicants to deposit a token sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. The deposit is to be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and compliance to be reported on 15th March, 2000.
2000 (2) TMI 621 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR Versus HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.
Modvat - Departmental clarification ......
........... y so paid. It is reasonable to hold that the circular dated 4-1-1991 reversing this position could not have come to the note of the assessee prior to February, 1991. The Nagpur trade notice communicating this view is dated 11-2-1991. Apart from this the Board in its circular in December, 1991 has said that past cases should not be reopened signifying that the contents of the circular of January, 1991 will only apply prospectively. The attempt in the appeal to dismiss the contents of that circular by saying that it is an altogether different matter is obviously unsuccessful. The respondent to this appeal has only taken credit on the duty paid by the manufacturer on the goods in pursuance of the Board rsquo s circular. If, on a later examination the Board says that the earlier instructions were wrong that should not operate so as to frustrate the action of the assessee taken in pursuance of the earlier circular. 5. emsp Therefore, I see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
2000 (2) TMI 620 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADURAI Versus MADURA COATS LTD.
Remand - De novo consideration when to be ordered - Natural justice ......
........... d and fresh test reports, which are annexed in the appeal memo. It is contended by the respondents that the same are fresh material which has been placed and the same had not been furnished to them. In view of this submission, we are of the opinion that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the matter is required to be remanded back to the original authority for de novo consideration. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo consideration with a direction that all the materials relied upon by the Revenue should be furnished to the respondents and the aspect has to be viewed afresh in the light of the contentions raised by the respondents and the materials placed now in their support by the Revenue with regard to Chemical Engineer Report, Literature and Explanatory Notes to HSN should also be considered by the Assistant Commissioner in de novo consideration. 5. emsp Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
2000 (2) TMI 619 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
HEMSON TEXTILE PROCESSORS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-IV
Production capacity based duty - Annual capacity of production - Natural justice ......
........... Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 1999 (34) RLT 323 (CEGAT) where in identical circumstances on the ground of denial of natural justice, the Tribunal had remanded the proceedings back to the adjudicating Commissioner. We decide this batch of appeals on the same lines but in addition would direct the respective Commissioners to firstly consult technical experts on the issue whether galleries are parts of stenters and also whether rollers/cylindrical dryers which are machines based on principles other than on which stenters are established could be taken to be lsquo any other equipment rsquo referred to in the Explanation. They shall also associate the assessees and permit them to place on record technical opinion and extracts from texts in support of their claim. After giving such opportunities the respective Commissioners shall proceed to determine the annual capacity, very clearly giving their reasons. 13. emsp These appeals are allowed by way of remand.
2000 (2) TMI 617 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CCE., CHANDIGARH Versus GROZ BACKERT ASIA LTD., CHANDIGARH
........... e has also submitted that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal has just rendered a decision having strong bearing on the present case in favour of the Revenue and has therefore prayed for an adjournment of the hearing to enable him to produce a copy of the order of the Larger Bench. I am not impressed with this prayer for adjournment inasmuch as the question before me is simply as to whether the Indian Oil Corporation rsquo s invoices, which were yellow instead of pink in colour and were without the preprinted words ldquo Duplicate for Modvat rdquo , could have been accepted as valid documents for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit. The above question stands squarely covered in favour of the respondents by a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 1999 (106) E.L.T. 145 (T) . 5. emsp In view of the above said findings and observations, I do not see any merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and accordingly reject the same.
2000 (2) TMI 616 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CP. SHUKLA PUMPS INDUSTRIES P. LTD. Versus COLLR. OF C. EX., SURAT
Brand Name - Demand - Limitation ......
........... tation are invokable. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned D.R. It is not disputed by the Revenue that it was informed by the Appellants that ldquo wasp rdquo brand name belonging to a trader was used in respect of ejecto pump. The Appellants have clearly mentioned in the classification list. The use of ldquo wasp rdquo brand name in respect of other pumps. The Department cannot allege suppression of facts only on the ground that use of brand name in respect of sewage effluent pump was not intimated to them. The Department has been informed of the ownership of the brand name lsquo wasp rsquo and the same was clearly mentioned in classification lists as well as gate passes and sale invoices filed with the Department along with RT 12 Returns. In view of these facts, there was no suppression warranting the invocation of extended period of limitation for demanding duty. Accordingly we allow both the appeals holding demand of excise duty being time-barred.
2000 (2) TMI 592 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TRICHY
Reference to High Court - Refund - Bar of unjust enrichment - Rectification of Mistake - Appellate order - Direction for compliance ......
........... t of Paras 87, 99 and 146 thereof, that administrative delay in carrying out the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order will not convert such administrative delay into a pending proceeding. As had been clearly mentioned in Para 146, pending proceeding will relate only to proceedings before a competent judicial or quasi-judicial authority and not before an administrative authority. 21. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we dismiss the Reference Application as well as the Stay Petition filed by the Revenue. 22. emsp As regards the assessee rsquo s application under Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT Procedural Rules, we allow the same and direct the Jurisdictional Commissioner to implement forthwith the directions contained in this Tribunal rsquo s Final Order dt. 27-1-98 read with earlier order dt. 6-6-89. 23. emsp The ROM, the Reference Application and Stay Petition filed by the Revenue as well as the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee are disposed of in the above terms.
2000 (2) TMI 591 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Versus METRO TYRES
Reference to High Court ......
........... l Shri Harbans Singh to contend that there is no one to one co-relation between the inputs and final products in the entire Modvat scheme and having regard to the language of Rule 57F (4), credit on inputs used in the manufacture of one final product can be utilised towards payment of duty while clearing waste arising in the course of manufacture of another final product. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the Reference application. I have considered the rival submissions. There is no doubt that the question as framed by the Revenue is a question of law and it has not been the subject matter of any authoritative pronouncement by a High Court. It is a question which requires a decision by a jurisdictional High Court and I, therefore, allow the application for reference and forward the question as framed by the Revenue for reference to the Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The application is hereby allowed. The statement of case is drawn up herewith.