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

Central Excise Case Laws

 

Advanced Search options


Filter -


 
Showing 33561 to 33575 of 52229 Records

    2000 (10) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    KUNDALIA INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

    Modvat ......

    ........... to any party of India under Notification 2/95 and then allow Modvat credit on the basis of the first proviso to Notification 5/94-C.E. As per first proviso, credit shall be restricted to the extent of duty which is equal to additional duty leviable on like goods. If the additional duty is less than the actual duty paid on goods cleared from 100 EOU, the manufacturer in India shall be eligible only for the credit equivalent to additional customs duty. On the other hand, if the duty actually paid by the 100 EOU on inputs cleared by them is less than the additional duty of customs payable on like goods, then the manufacturer shall be eligible only to the extent of actual duty paid by 100 EOU. Hence, the ratio of the Larger Bench decision is squarely applicable to the facts of these appeals. Following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision cited supra, we hold that the appellants are entitled to credit of the amounts involved, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.

    2000 (10) TMI 333 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    KORGAVKAR DIAMOND TOOLS CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II

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

    ........... India Ltd. v. Union of India 2000 (125) E.L.T. 469 (Guj.) 1999 (34) RLT 231 , after referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 has held that personal hearing can be given to the assessee in respect of application filed under Section 35F of the Act. The said Jesus Sales Corporation case was not a case in the disposal of the appeal in relation to a case similar to the case arising under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, but under orders passed under the then existing Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, which has been repealed in 1992. In the instant case impugned order passed by the appellate authority may be prejudicial to the assessee. Hence I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to appellate authority who shall hear the appellants application filed under Section 35F of the Act and deal the matter in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. The stay petition also stand disposed of.

    2000 (10) TMI 332 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    KORGAVKAR DIAMOND TOOLS CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II

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

    ........... India Ltd. v. Union of India 2000 (125) E.L.T. 469 (Guj.) 1999 (34) RLT 231 , after referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 has held that personal hearing can be given to the assessee in respect of application filed under Section 35F of the Act. The said Jesus Sales Corporation case was not a case in the disposal of the appeal in relation to a case similar to the case arising under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, but under orders passed under the then existing Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, which has been repealed in 1992. In the instant case impugned order passed by the appellate authority may be prejudicial to the assessee. Hence I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to appellate authority who shall hear the appellants application filed under Section 35F of the Act and deal the matter in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. The stay petition also stand disposed of.

    2000 (10) TMI 330 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA Versus IPCL.

    Valuation ......

    ........... ble by the respondent. The lower price charged to GSFC will obviously reflect this fact. This can hardly be termed as consideration which is not commercial. Whether if GACL had not made this facility available to the respondent it would have necessarily have led to incur expenditure on this extra facilities is a matter of speculation. It might have decided to dispose of the goods by some method. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Box India v. CCE - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449 referred by the department is not relevant. The Supreme Court in that judgment held that discount of 50 instead of normal price granted by Metal Box India Limited to M/s. Ponds India has necessarily taken into consideration the fact that huge amounts had been given to it by free of interest by Ponds India Limited and therefore it said that the notional value of the interest payable on this deposit could form part of the assessable value. We therefore see no reason to interfere. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.

    2000 (10) TMI 329 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    MS INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION Versus MCOMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM

    SSI Exemption ......

    ........... t the issue is totally covered in appellants rsquo favour in terms of the citations. Therefore, we grant stay and waiver of recovery and take up the appeal itself for consideration. From the noted judgments, it has been clearly held that the Board has clarified in the Circular No. 18/93-CX. 6 dated 24-12-1993 that Small Scale Industry need not get endorsement in their certificate for each and every item manufactured by them. The ratio of the judgments is that the certificate is for the industry and manufacturer and not for the individual goods manufactured by them. The appellants had a SSI Certificate of 30-11-1990 which is not in dispute and later they got an endorsement also on 15-1-1993 for manufacturing tractors and trailers also. Therefore, in terms of the Board rsquo s circular and above noted judgments, appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption in terms of the Notification. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

    2000 (10) TMI 328 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE

    Modvat - Synthetic filter cloth used in manufacture of calcined alumina ......

    ........... of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 531 (Tribunal) cited by appellants is distinguishable on the facts of this case. 6. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions, and on perusal of the technical note, it is seen that the item is an essential input for the manufacture of the final product in terms of the large number of judgments of the Tribunal. An item which goes into the manufacture of final product is to be considered as an input for grant of Modvat credit. The view expressed by the Tribunal in several judgments is also based on Apex Court s judgment rendered in CCE v. Rajasthan State Chemicals Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 wherein the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product were treated as essential for the process of manufacture. 7. emsp In view of cited Apex Court judgment, Modvat credit cannot be denied oil the input in question. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal accordingly.

    2000 (10) TMI 327 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    JAIRAJ ISPAT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

    Ingots covered under Notification No. 33/92-C.E. - Appeal ......

    ........... ot be considered as re-rollable material. The issue framed by the Commissioner does not clarify as to why ingots should not be treated as re-rollable material, therefore, the present appeal lacks substance and material to challenge the finding arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals). (b) emsp We find that appeal filed without any reason cannot be determined in favour of Revenue because of a view taken by the Commissioner. There have to be specific reasons and grounds as to why ingots should not be considered as re-rollable material. (c) emsp We find that Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has very lucidly and clearly determined as to how the benefit of the exemption notification was available to ingots prior to the amendment brought by Notification No. 53/92 on 10-3-1992 but we find no infirmity in his finding and would confirm the same and we find no ground in the appeal to upset the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp In view of our findings, we reject this appeal.

    2000 (10) TMI 326 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI Versus DCW LTD.

    Valuation - Captive consumption ......

    ........... et of the Company as a whole and the weighted average for the period of 13 years and 11 years for the Company and their Sahupuram Unit match and therefore, we have no hesitation in fixing the percentage 7.72 as the margin of profit in the facts of this case. In this appeal, we cannot find any reason for comparing the profit margin of an Electricity Distributing Company i.e. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board since tile Electricity Boards are notorious in making loss, the 2 profit as determined by the Tribunal in the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel would not be applicable to the manufacturers of metal containers who are engaged primarily in the business of manufacture and sale of caustic soda and other chemicals. Therefore, we find no reasons to apply the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the present case. 4. emsp In view of the above, we allow the Revenue appeal and fix the percentage of notional profit at 7.72 as claimed by the Revenue in the appeal memo.

    2000 (10) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., SURAT-II Versus TATA SSL LTD.

    Appeal by Department - Limitation - Delay in filing ......

    ........... ce would render the appeals liable to dismissal. 2. When the cases were called out today, there was no compliance. Even otherwise, we find that the reasons given by the Commissioner are not sufficient to seek condonation. The application itself states that the ratio of the impugned order was originally accepted but at a much later date on reconsideration, the decision was taken to file appeals. The change of mind of the Collector is not a ground for proving that the delay was caused by existence of sufficient grounds. 3. ensp These appeals are dismissed.

    2000 (10) TMI 324 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    MAFATLAL FINE SPG. & MFG. CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., SURAT

    Demand - Limitation ......

    ........... ld the demand for handloom cess as not sustainable in the face of the failure of the department to show that the Chindies were covered under the description ldquo Medium-A and Medium-B rdquo varieties etc. On the aspect of limitation Tribunal Judgment in the case Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1997 (93) E.L.T. 158 was cited as also the Judgment of Vallabh Cement v. Collector of Central Excise 1998 (98) E.L.T. 106 (Tribunal) . 4. emsp The classification lists filed for Chindies make the claim that no handloom cess was payable in terms of the concerned Notification. The same claim has been made for trade samples. These classification lists were duly approved without any contest. The specific claim of exemption made therein could have been denied by the appropriate authority at the time of approval of the classification list. This not having been done, at a later stage suppression could not be alleged. Accepting the plea of limitation, this appeal is allowed.

    2000 (10) TMI 323 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    METRIT INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-I

    Classification - Appeal ......

    ........... es mean that degreasing chemicals could be given the same stature as derusting chemicals. 5. emsp On the basis of the discussion made by the both lower authorities and after seeing the contention made by the assessees in their appeal memorandum, we find that the impugned order sustains. In the submissions dated 28-8-2000 the assessees have requested redetermination of differential duty on permitting the deduction of the duty amount from the sale price citing the Tribunal Judgment in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. and Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (Tribunal) 1999 (32) R.L.T. 1 . Smt Reena Arya states that this issue was not raised in the impugned proceedings. We find that being a question of law it could be raised at this stage also. Therefore upholding the impugned order, we remit the proceedings back to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner only for the limited purpose of recalculation of the differential duty in the light of this statement.

    2000 (10) TMI 321 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    RAYMOND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., BHOPAL

    Appeal - ......

    ........... ioner (Appeals) to hear and dispose of the appeal without insisting on any deposit. 5. emsp We would like to advice the Commissioner (Appeals) that while he may be within his right, as upheld by the Supreme Court in its order in UOI v. Jesus Sales Corporation - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 in deciding an application without hearing the applicant, it is incumbent upon him to deal with the issue raised in the stay application. It is by no means sufficient to pass a stereotyped order which is applicable to every assessee, only the name of the assessee and duty amount being filled in. In the event that such orders continue to be passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), this Tribunal will have no alternative but to set aside such orders straightaway and insist upon the party being heard. We trust that the Commissioner (Appeals) will take appropriate action. A copy of the order should be sent to the concerned Member of the Board to exercise his appropriate supervisory function in this regard.

    2000 (10) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus KIRPAL STEELS (P) LTD.

    Eligible to exemption under Notification No. 43/97-C.E. ......

    ........... case of CCE, Chandigarh v. K.C. Alloys and Steels and Others, final order No. E/1493-1506, 1515-1521, 1572, 1574-1594, 1694/2000-B, dated 27-9-2000, involving the same issue has held as under - ldquo Applying the ratio of all the decisions discussed earlier and the fact that the Notification exempts waste and scrap when such waste and scrap arises in the course of manufacture of ingots and billets of non-alloy in all induction furnace unit on which duty of excise is paid under Section 3A of the Act, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied to the runners and risers in question as they squarely fall within the ambit of notification No. 49/97-CE. 5. emsp Following this decision we hold that the exemption under Notification No. 43/97 is available to runners and risers which emerge during the process of manufacture of ingots in a unit where the duty liability is discharged under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly all the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.

    2000 (10) TMI 263 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    WALUJ BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD

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

    ........... March, 1990, the concerned jurisdictional officer was not only aware of the claim made by the assessee but had verified the claim and accepted the claim. In that situation, the allegation made in the show cause notice dated 31-12-1992 about the suppression of facts with intention to evade duty would attract the plea of limitation. We also find that the cited order of the Tribunal although in dealing with another assessee was concerned with the eligibility of the brand name holder and claiming benefit of this notification. There the claim made was that the product made by the brand name holder viz. bislery water was not excisable. The Tribunal in the order held that such water was excisable. Although the ld. Commissioner has observed that the facts were different, he has not elaborated upon the statement. 9. emsp Thus on limitation, finding strong prima facie case having been made by the assessee, we grant complete stay and waiver of the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed.

    2000 (10) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    TETRAPAK CONVERTING (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE

    Modvat ......

    ........... the basis of this that the Tribunal in Heal Well Pharmaceuticals v. CCE - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 446 has held that dropper supplied with pediatric drops by its manufacturer, would be an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the bottle containing medicine for the reason that the medicine required to be administered of measured dose which is not possible without the aid of the dropper. It is on this reasoning that the Tribunal held in CCE v. Swaraj Mazda - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 258 that mats for placing floor of motor vehicle were inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of such motor vehicles. The Commissioner s order does not appear to take note of these aspects. We are satisfied that the commodity is therefore an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product, and therefore do not consider it necessary to consider the other alternative argument, that the goods are accessories. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.

   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

Updates Knowledge Sharing Subscription Communication Newsletters More 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.