New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Excise Duty Applicable reconcile er1 returns with trial balance/balancesheet CENVAT FOR SEIZED PLANT Canteen Service Provider Payment of Foreign consultancy Service s whether cst to be charged on purchase returns Applicability of Notificaton 218/86 S TAX DEDUCTION Second hand equipment with EPCG Licence IS SALES TAX / VAT APPLICABLE FOR TRANSPORTERS.

Central Excise Case Laws

 

Advanced Search options


Filter -


 
Showing 33561 to 33575 of 50898 Records

    2000 (6) TMI 471 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    BETTONVILLE DIAMOND EQUIPMENT (I) PVT. LTD. Versus CCE., VISAKHAPATNAM

    Stay order - Interim order - Natural justice ......

    ........... eposit of Rs. 2 lakhs without giving personal hearing in the matter. Granting of personal hearing when requested before considering the stay applications by appellate authorities has been considered by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s ITC Limited and Others v. CCE (A) and Others as in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 338 (Mad.) 2000 (1) E.C.L. 97 (Mad.) . Therein the Hon rsquo ble High Court has laid that it is mandatory to give opportunity for personal hearing before passing such interim orders on stay applications. Respectfully applying the ratio thereof, we set aside the order impugned and remand the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo reconsideration of the entire issue including petition of appellants regarding waiver and stay of pre-deposit etc. after following the principles of natural justice and giving them an effective opportunity for personal hearing. Ordered accordingly. The stay application and appeal are disposed of in the above terms.

    2000 (6) TMI 470 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    MICRO STRETCH ELASTOMERS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TRICHY

    Natural Justice, Non-speaking order - Demand - Limitation ......

    ........... this conclusion because it is common knowledge that heavy machinery like spinning frames can never be hand-operated. This heavy machineries have been declared under Rule 174 by the appellants. Therefore, this matter also needs to be reconsidered on the basis of facts on record. 7. emsp In view of the aforesaid findings, the Order-in-Original impugned is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration by the Hon rsquo ble Commissioner. 8. emsp At this stage, ld. DR submits that the Revenue involvement being heavy, some time-limit should be prescribed for this de novo consideration. In view of the heavy revenue involvement, it is expected that the ld. Commissioner shall expedite the de novo consideration after following the principles of natural justice and proceed to pass a speaking order as expeditiously as possible. Ld. Commissioner shall take into consideration all representations made before him by both sides. The appeal is allowed by way of remand accordingly.

    2000 (6) TMI 448 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V Versus SONA SYNTHETICS

    Reference to High Court - Jurisdiction ......

    ........... ce having been made to the Gujarat High Court will not by itself dictate reference to be made in these matters. Nevertheless, since the Gujarat High Court had come to an opinion that there was a question of law which was required to be referred to, and that question being identical with that arise in these proceedings we are of the view that it should be appropriate to refer the question. Accordingly the following question may be referred to the Bombay High Court. ldquo Whether in absence of any specific penal provisions in Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the provisions relating to confiscation and imposition of penalty are applicable to man-made fabrics which are lsquo excisable goods rsquo finding mention in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would apply even when they are not liable to duty under that Act? rdquo 4. emsp The registry may draw up statement of the case and send the papers to the High Court.

    2000 (6) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT Versus WPIL.

    Appeal - New plea - Marketability ......

    ........... rts rsquo falling under chapter 84,85 and 87. Therefore, lsquo castings of parts rsquo by themselves cannot be treated having the essential character of lsquo parts rsquo so as to classify the former with the letter. The Tribunal further held that ldquo Rule 2(a) does not permit us to conclude that when an article squarely falls under a particular tariff heading, it can be made to fall under another heading by invoking the concept of essential character. This is against the plain reading of Rule 2(a). rdquo In view of these facts, the Board rsquo s Circular is also not applicable as no evidence has been brought on record to show that their castings were precision castings or were ready to use as such. The learned Advocate has also conceded that the demand of excise duty is only in respect of unmachined castings and as such it cannot be said that appeals filed by Revenue are outside the scope of the show-cause-notice. We, therefore, allow both the appeals filed by the Revenue.

    2000 (6) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMR. OF C. EX., MEERUT Versus GANGA ELECTRONICS

    SSI Exemption ......

    ........... r, he will not be eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86. Further, Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 provides that any notice made on any person under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act demanding duty shall be deemed to be for all purposes validly and effectively issued notwithstanding any approval, acceptance or assessment by any Central Excise Officer, during the period from 17-11-80 to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 received assent of the President. In view of these provisions the demand for Central Excise duty can be validly made even after approval of the classification list and assessment of RT-12 Returns. Accordingly, the Respondents are not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as they were affixing their excisable goods with brand name of an ineligible person and the differential duty as confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner is payable by them. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.

    2000 (6) TMI 430 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    ESCORTS LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

    Modvat - Terracote used in the manufacture of pistons ......

    ........... lso referred to the High Court on reference and the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka upheld the grant of Modvat credit in the judgment noted above. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we grant the benefit of Modvat credit with regard to Fibre Glass Filter Mesh by modifying the impugned order. In so far as the Terracot is concerned, the matter in respect of appellants rsquo own case has been remanded for de novo consideration as noted above and the authorities have not taken a decision as yet. Therefore, we set aside the order in respect of Terracot and remand the matter for de novo consideration with a direction that the earlier remanded case as mentioned above and this matter may be taken up together for adjudication and a clear decision be given after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and examining all the evidences and case laws that would be relied upon by the appellants in the course of hearing. Thus the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

    2000 (6) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    SYNPRO INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

    Valuation - Contract price ......

    ........... ppeals were called today, none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, we are deciding the case after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and after perusing the records. 3. emsp It is clear from the records that Part II proforma sales were contract sales. It is settled law that such prices would rightly constitute the assessable value in respect of those goods and that the part I price, covering the normal price at which goods are sold to dealers, would have no application for the assessment of goods sold on contract basis. It is also settled law that freight, whether collected on average/equalized basis or on actual basis, is eligible for deduction while fixing the assessable value. The appellants rsquo claim with regard to assessable value was, therefore, according to law. The orders of the lower authorities, negativing the claims have, therefore, no legal basis. They are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

    2000 (6) TMI 428 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COLLECTOR OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus HINDUSTAN WOOD WORKS

    Refrigerator top and table top ......

    ........... he said case that table top ldquo is used on the top of the refrigerator and it does not itself make it an item which can be treated as part of the refrigerator. The table top has no role to play in the refrigerator. As per HSN Note only such of those items like cabinets which has refrigerating unit or a evaporator in it or are designed to make this equipment are excluded from the category of furniture under Heading 94.03 hellip hellip hellip . The key for excluding item from purview of the furniture and treating as part of the equipment of refrigeration is that the same should be designed to receive the refrigeration or evaporation unit. rdquo The Tribunal, therefore, held that the table top is not classifiable under heading 84.18. The similar views were held in the case of Novaluxe International (P) Ltd. (supra). Following the ratio of these two decisions we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

    2000 (6) TMI 427 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    CH. HERBS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL

    Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ......

    ........... se that the appellant was running at a loss. Financial constraint ought to have been taken into consideration by the lower appellate authority in directing them to deposit the amount as provided by Section 35F of the Act. Commissioner has failed to apply his mind to this aspect of the matter. Non-application of his mind to the circumstances is sufficient to set aside his order. Since the impugned order was passed without reference to the relevant circumstances in the case, we set aside the order and direct the Commissioner to take back the appeal to his file in its original number. He should dispose of the same on merits without insisting on pre-deposit as contemplated by Section 35F, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Since this is an old matter, he should pass final order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording personal hearing to the appellant. 4. emsp Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

    2000 (6) TMI 426 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    COMMR. OF C. EX., GUNTUR Versus CHUKAPALLI AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (P) LTD.

    Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of - Modvat - Capital goods ......

    ........... 8. emsp Respondents have requested the case to be decided on merits in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order Nos. 2849-2880/99, dt. 15-11-1999. 9. emsp The Tribunal while passing the final order noted that the authorities had rightly followed the Tribunal judgments in granting benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods noted which were used in machines prior to 1-3-1994. The Tribunal also noted that reference applications filed by the Revenue were also rejected. The Tribunal had extracted the findings given in Commissioner (Appeals) order extensively. In view of said order, the Commissioner has noted large number of Tribunal decisions in respect of points which were against the Revenue. The Tribunal has noted that there is no cause made for interfering with the Commissioner (Appeals) order as department has not made out a case to take a different view. I notice that the issue is fully covered and there is no merit in the appeals and hence same are rejected.

    2000 (6) TMI 425 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    NANDI METAL ROLLING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHUBANESWAR

    Scrap - Bazar scrap used for manufacture of brass sheets and circles ......

    ........... hat the non-duty paid character of the inputs cannot be arrived at on the basis of assumption and presumption and it is for the Revenue to prove it beyond doubt that the scrap in question was cleared without payment of duty. Even if the scraps are articles of metals which have become scrap on account of prolonged use and wear and tear, become unfit for being used as articles any longer, they cannot be held to be non-duty paid scrap because the duty might not have been paid on the said goods as scrap but as articles of a particular metal. 3. emsp We also find that in the case of Ajit Metal Industries - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 81 (copper, brass, sheet and circles) manufactured from waste and scrap purchased from market were held to be eligible to benefit of Notification by observing that such waste and scrap is not to be treated as non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty. Accordingly, following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

    2000 (6) TMI 423 - ZCEGAT, NEW DELHI

    MULTITECH AUTO LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW

    Modvat on capital goods ......

    ........... ,163.08 to M/s. TELCO 5 of the total duty amounting to Rs. 19,958.15 instead of duty of Rs. 38,861.54, resulting in short levy of Rs. 19,430.77. The appellants rsquo contention that they did not remove the motor vehicle parts as such, but removed finished products after carrying out the process of manufacture of chamferring, punching, levelling, etc. on semi-finished goods received by them is not tenable, since the very description of the goods received by the appellants is nuts, bolts and screws which shows that they are complete finished goods in themselves. We, therefore, agree with the Revenue that the appellants cleared inputs as such as on payment of duty of an amount less than the amount credited, resulting in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii). We, therefore, confirm the differential duty demand of Rs. 19,430.77. Penalty of Rs. 3,000/- is also justifiable in view of the above-mentioned contravention. 5. emsp In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

    2000 (6) TMI 422 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    SATELLITE ENGINEERING LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BANGALORE

    Refund ......

    ........... d has passed a reasoned order after going through the relevant Central Excise tariff, trade practice etc. with which I respectfully agree. No new evidence has been put forth before me to take a different view. In case the appellant is aggrieved on the classification of the subject goods, it was open for him to take up the matter with the assessee M/s. Metal Lamp Caps against whom the order-in-appeal referred to above was passed, to enable them to file an appeal against the impugned order. In the circumstances, I find no justification to deviate from the classification already decided and the related matters on the subject products. rdquo 4. emsp We agree with the finding that it is not open to the purchaser of the goods to reopen the classification approved by the Proper Officer having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer viz. M/s. Metal Lamp Caps. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeals.

    2000 (6) TMI 421 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    WESTERN INDIA STATIONERY MFG. COMPANY Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI

    Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Jurisdiction ......

    ........... ppeal. 2. emsp We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel and Dr. Ravinder Babu, learned DR. 3. emsp We agree with the learned DR that the Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 13-2-1990 has given a clear and categoric finding that the appellants had been granted an exemption which was not available to them in terms of Notification 43/86. He has held that the appellants are not entitled to exemption on envelopes under Notification 43/86, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his order. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) in the present impugned order is correct in holding that he has no jurisdiction once again to go into the question of availability of benefit under the above mentioned notification. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is correct in law and accordingly we uphold the same and reject the appeal. 4. emsp No arguments were advanced on the miscellaneous application for raising additional grounds and hence it is dismissed as not pressed.

    2000 (6) TMI 420 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW

    Modvat ......

    ........... efore the Superintendent of Central Excise. In other words, the requisite declaration was filed with the Department. I agree with the learned Counsel that non-filing of the declaration before the authority prescribed under the Rule is only a procedural lapse and that credit cannot be denied for this reason particularly when the Superintendent was in a position to forward the declaration to the Assistant Commissioner and also in view of the fact that the objective of filing of the declaration namely enabling the Department to verify the raw material stock position could also be achieved. I also find that in the case of Sai Electricals, the Tribunal has held that filing of 57-H declaration before a Central Excise officer other than the Assistant Commissioner was not a ground to deny credit and the Revenue rsquo s application for reference against the said order, was rejected as seen from 2000 (115) E.L.T. 627 . In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.