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 39281 to 39295 of 52204 Records

    1998 (6) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    WYETH LABORATORIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

    Demand - Limitation - Natural justice ......

    ........... termediate, CSIR page number and Merck Index page wherever applicable. 10. emsp Prima-facie this material appears to be relevant for decision of the case but the Collector has not taken cognizance thereof and not recorded any discussion or finding and he has not met squarely the points raised by the appellants. Therefore, it is evident that there was a violation of principles of natural justice. Further more we find that the appellant had duly declared the manufacturing process and the department was fully aware of it all through and in the show cause notice there is no allegation whatsoever of either suppression or mis-statement of facts with intention to evade Central Excise duty and the SCN has been issued on 30th October, 1985 in respect of the period August, 1981 to June, 1983. Therefore, it was time barred as the extended period of limitation was not available to the department in the above circumstances. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal.

    1998 (6) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    DAMODAR ROPEWAYS & CONSTRUCTION CO. Versus CCE., CHANDIGARH

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

    ........... g together parts and components at site is not to be regarded as manufacture. Lastly they submit that the demand is barred by limitation since the date of removal of parts to the erection site is not ascertainable. For these reasons they pray that requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 2. emsp Learned SDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 3. emsp On a consideration of the rival submissions and noting that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules is prima facie not attracted to hold that parts and fabricated materials constitute a complete ropeway system in an unassembled/knocked down condition so as to levy duty thereon, in view of the case law cited by the learned Counsel, we are of the view that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out and accordingly dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.

    1998 (6) TMI 215 - CEGAT, MADRAS

    PONDICHERRY WATER PROOFERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADRAS

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

    ........... a non-speaking order, the evidence is required to be discussed and thereafter it has to be compared with the Tribunal judgment as party have contended that Tribunal judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts and on evidence. Therefore, while remanding the matter, we have taken note of the learned SDR rsquo s submission pertaining to the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Maruthi Tarpaulin Industries in which his submissions have also been noted. Therefore, we have to emphasis at this stage that Tribunal is not differing with the earlier order of the Bench but only directing the Commissioner to re-examine the evidence and re-examine the facts of the Tribunal order and re- adjudicate the same. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand and the Commissi- oner is directed to follow the same procedure as in other cases and take-up this matter along with other matters and re-adjudicate the same as the evidence in all the cases is common. Thus, the appeal is allowed by remand.

    1998 (6) TMI 214 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA

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

    Adjournment - Natural justice - Violation of ......

    ........... as the prayer for adjournment was requested by the appellants, but that has not been considered by the Adjudicating authority even though the said request was communicated to the Commissioner rsquo s office by Speed Post and evidence thereof has been placed on record by the applicants herein. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned order is required to be set aside for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly we allow the appeal by remand. 5. emsp As regards the prayer by both the sides regarding drawing of second sample this is a matter for argument by the parties and it is for the Commissioner to take a decision on the same. In our view the directions of the Tribunal in its remand order dated 27-7-1995 are clear and we need not make any further comments on the same. 6. emsp Therefore while setting aside the Stay Petition unconditionally we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand.

    1998 (6) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    KAILASH PAINTS & CHEMICALS Versus CCE., CHANDIGARH

    Classification ......

    ........... der. 5. emsp Arising from the decision regarding the grant of the exemption to zinc ingots made from materials like zinc ash or dross during the period in question as above, the next question is of computing the value of clearances for deciding the eligibility for Notification No. 175/86. That notification contained a provision that goods exempted fully from duty under notifications other than those with reference to the total value or quantity of clearances will be excluded in calculating the value of clearances above the benefit of exemption inforce during the respective period will continue to be available to zinc ingots made from the appropriate specified materials notwithstanding the change in the tariff heading. The value of clearance of such zinc ingots cleared free of duty was to be excluded in arriving the total value of clearances for deciding at the appellant rsquo s eligibility for Notification No. 175/86. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

    1998 (6) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    KAILASH PAINTS & CHEMICALS Versus CCE., CHANDIGARH

    Classification ......

    ........... der. 5. emsp Arising from the decision regarding the grant of the exemption to zinc ingots made from materials like zinc ash or dross during the period in question as above, the next question is of computing the value of clearances for deciding the eligibility for Notification No. 175/86. That notification contained a provision that goods exempted fully from duty under notifications other than those with reference to the total value or quantity of clearances will be excluded in calculating the value of clearances above the benefit of exemption inforce during the respective period will continue to be available to zinc ingots made from the appropriate specified materials notwithstanding the change in the tariff heading. The value of clearance of such zinc ingots cleared free of duty was to be excluded in arriving the total value of clearances for deciding at the appellant rsquo s eligibility for Notification No. 175/86. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

    1998 (6) TMI 211 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus ITC. LTD.

    Refund - Unjust enrichment ......

    ........... Appeals) under Section 35A may file appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. When we look into the statute this is an available right given to the assessee as well as the department. The department in this case felt aggrieved against the impugned order, that is why they have filed the appeal. When we look into the statute we have to see the entire provisions of the statute so as to harmonize the same. If l have to accept the argument of Shri Rohan Shah, it will amount to negating the right of the department to file an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which cannot be contemplated under the circumstances. Hence I hold that the refund in this case which has been granted has to be dealt with in accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court in para 7 (a) of the judgment referred in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260. 6. emsp Appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

    1998 (6) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus ITC. LTD.

    Refund - Unjust enrichment ......

    ........... Appeals) under Section 35A may file appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. When we look into the statute this is an available right given to the assessee as well as the department. The department in this case felt aggrieved against the impugned order, that is why they have filed the appeal. When we look into the statute we have to see the entire provisions of the statute so as to harmonize the same. If l have to accept the argument of Shri Rohan Shah, it will amount to negating the right of the department to file an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which cannot be contemplated under the circumstances. Hence I hold that the refund in this case which has been granted has to be dealt with in accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court in para 7 (a) of the judgment referred in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260. 6. emsp Appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

    1998 (6) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    METAL MFG. CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

    Demand - Limitation - SSI Exemption ......

    ........... e notification. 3. emsp The learned DR on the other hand submitted that the appellants have not declared relevant facts and the department had no method to know the clearances during the previous financial year or current financial year and simultaneous clearances under other chapter headings and therefore the extended period has been rightly invoked in the present case. 4. emsp We have considered the rival submissions. We find that all the relevant information namely the value of clearance under separate chapter heading has been clearly shown by the appellants. The relevant RT 12 return shows the description of goods under different tariff headings and the value of clearances as against each chapter heading. Therefore, the charge of suppression cannot be sustained and the extended period of limitation is not attracted in such circumstances. Therefore, demand is held to be barred by limitation. For this reason, we set aside the demand of duty and penalty and allow the appeal.

    1998 (6) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus AMRIT PETRO CHEMICALS

    Classification ......

    ........... 998 1998 (103) E.L.T. 633 (Tribunal) in which the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondents that the product falls for classification under CET sub-heading 38.11 which is specific for anti-knock preparation and has not agreed with the contention of the Department that the product falls for classification under Chapter 27 (sub-heading 27.10). Since the respondents claim for classification has been upheld by the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order cited above, the demand for differential duty which was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) in today rsquo s appeal, also falls to the ground. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal of the Revenue.

    1998 (6) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    SHAH ENGINEERING Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

    Classification ......

    ........... f the lower appellate authority on the classification of the tape dispenser. However, since Sl. No. 39 of the Notification No. 53/88 covers goods falling either under CET sub-headings 39.23, 39.24 or 39.26, we hold that the benefit of this Notification will be available, provided the appellants are able to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner that the conditions set out against this Sl. No. of the table annexed to Notification No. 53/88 have been fulfilled by them. For this purpose, the matter of eligibility of the tape dispenser to the benefit of Notification No. 53/88 is remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner who shall pass fresh orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in person and adducing such evidence as they consider necessary for the purpose of satisfying the Assistant Commissioner that the conditions of the Notification have been fulfilled by them. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

    1998 (6) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA Versus GSFC.

    Reference to High Court ......

    ........... Vadodara dated 14-6-1996, holding that the item in dispute viz. kettle residue was used in the manufacture of ammonium sulphate and by such use it does not disentitle to be considered among the goods indicated in Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules. The manufacture of the final product in this case as well as the nature of the product ldquo kettle residue rdquo have been fully discussed at paragraphs 3 and 4 of our order. The application filed by the department in this case does not reveal any questions. It appears to us that the application as presented to us for consideration is too vague and the only thing we could discern is that the department is not satisfied with the impugned order of the Tribunal passed by us. Be that as at may, when an application is filed for praying the Tribunal to refer the question to the High Court for opinion no question has been framed in it. Therefore, we feel the instant application is devoid of any merits. Hence we dismiss the application.

    1998 (6) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR Versus SHREE CEMENT LTD.

    Reference to High Court - Modvat ......

    ........... n the same issue has referred the matter to the High Court for its opinion since the Supreme Court has directed to make a reference to the High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Industries. 3. emsp In view of the submissions made by both sides and as the Supreme Court has already directed the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court on an identical issue in the case of Indian Rayon Industries Ltd., we are of the view that this is a fit case for reference. Accordingly, the point of question is referred to the Hon rsquo ble Rajasthan High Court for its considered view. Registry is directed to draft a statement and send the same for reference.

    1998 (6) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    KOTHARI DETERGENTS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., KANPUR

    Valuation ......

    ........... that the price declared which is the price for 50 kgs. of detergent powder as well as 8 detergent cakes and since the goods declared are only detergent powder, the appellant chose to regard detergent cakes as gift articles. It is not possible to accept that the appellant intended to meet the price of gift articles from his own pocket. The cost of the articles must necessarily be in the price declared in the price list. The benefit of the gift articles and the value thereof would go to the wholesaler and the wholesaler is not required to pass on the benefit of the gift to the retailer or to the ultimate consumer and therefore, so far as the manufacturer is concerned, the value of the gift article would the margin or part of the margin of the wholesaler. This is precisely what is meant by trade discount. In our view, the same is admissible following the principle laid down in Bombay Latex and Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. 8. emsp The impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed.

    1998 (6) TMI 202 - CEGAT, MADRAS

    SREE RAYALASEEMA ALKALIES & ALLIED CHEM. LTD. Versus C. CE, HYDERABAD

    Valuation - Exemption ......

    ........... excise, on the said chassis, leviable thereon under the said Schedule or the additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as the case may be, has been paid . 19. emsp A plain reading shows that nowhere it is provided therein that the tanker should be used only captively. It covers only materials used in fabrication and mounting, etc. to be used captively. It is nobody rsquo s case that this was not done here. The law is clearly settled that there is no room for intendment to be read as a notification. Since the notification does not even remotely mention the issue of ownership, that argument of Revenue too fails. In view of the aforesaid discussions, and as it is nobody rsquo s case that these fabricated tanks were not mounted on MV chassis, therefore the demand for duty fails on this count. 20. emsp In view of the aforesaid discussions, we set aside the impugned two Order-in-Originals and allow the appeals with consequential relief.

   
 
 
 

 

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.