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

Recent Discussionss:

vehicle finance is taxable ?? Service tax credit availment on cctv cameras service tax credit eligible on commission on sales transaction value for excisable goods cleared to depot. C-Form ( Central Sales Tax Forms) Sale from Jobworkers premises Empty Barrels Purchase Proof of Export Interest payment month wise Excise Registration Amendment

Central Excise Case Laws


Advanced Search options

Filter -

Showing 31606 to 31620 of 51915 Records

    2001 (6) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELH


    Valuation ......

    ........... es Bhopal was sale to an independent buyer. It is also not disputed that the price of the goods was the sole consideration. In these circumstances we fail to understand how Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules has been pressed into service by the Department. The question of application of the basis of the price of comparable goods would arise only if the sale was not to an independent buyer and price was not the only consideration for sale. Further, sale to SOM Distilleries, Bhopal was sale in open auction and when the actual price of the goods is available there is no question of resorting to the value of comparable goods particularly when transaction value has not been rejected. We, therefore, hold that the differential duty demand is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside the demand and the penalty. Since we are allowing the appeal on merits, we are not recording any separate finding on limitation. 3. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.

    2001 (6) TMI 246 - CEGAT, CHENNAI


    Manufacture - Appeal ......

    ........... s findings that the process of dilution did not result into manufacture of the new product for classification under Chapter 38. To this effect there was a Board Circular and the Tribunal had also upheld the assessee rsquo s contention in the said case, i.e. Markfed Agro Chemicals (supra). The fact that the Board Circular was set aside and subsequent changes brought in the Chapter Note will have only prospective effect as it is a legislative change. All legislative changes cannot be considered as clarificatory and is required to be held as a new piece of legislation and intended to be operative from the date of passing of the legislation. Therefore, the contention raised that changes brought in the Budget and the assessee rsquo s process of manufacture have retrospective effect is required to be rejected. In that view of the mater, respectfully following the citation already noted supra, we find there is no infirmity in the order and the Revenue appeal is, therefore, rejected.

    2001 (6) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI


    Rectification of mistake ......

    ........... of fact or law appears apparent on the face of the order for rectification. The fact that the findings recorded in the above referred paras are not to the satisfaction of the appellants, is no ground to recall the same. Through present applications, the appellants in fact want the recall of the final order itself, but the same is not permissible under the law. 10. emsp No clarification of the findings recorded in para 13 of the Final Order referred to above is also required for want of any ambiguity therein. The matter had been sent to the adjudicating authority for deciding the classification issue afresh in accordance with law. His power and discretion in deciding the matter has not been in any manner limited/controlled or circumvented through those findings in para 13 or in another para of the impugned order by the Tribunal. 11. emsp In view of the discussion made above there is no merit in these ROM applications of the appellants, and the same are ordered to be dismissed.

    2001 (6) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI


    Classification ......

    ........... held that the same was more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 91.06. The facts being identical, we agree with the findings of the Tribunal in the cited case that the impugned machines cannot be classified under sub-heading No. 8417.00. However, none of the contesting sides pleaded its classification under Heading 91.06. It is, therefore, not open to us to follow the above decision of the Tribunal and classify this item under sub-heading 91.06. It is well settled law that recovery of duty under Tariff heading different from that which was proposed in the show cause notice is not permissible by vide CEGAT decision in CCE v. Bright Brothers Ltd., 1991 (52) E.L.T. 385 (T). This order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court as seen from 2000 (116) E.L.T. A67. In this view of the matter, we rule out the classification of the machines under sub-heading 8471.00 and allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Collector with consequential relief, if any.

    2001 (6) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI


    Classification ......

    ........... Alternative plea of the Appellant that the product is tractor parts and accessories and, therefore should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 8708.00 is not tenable inasmuch as there is no specific mention of this particular item. We have examined the description of the goods falling under Chapter sub-heading 8483.00. We find that there is specific mention of pulley and pulley blocks. This is well settled principle of interpretation or classification of goods that a specific heading must be given precedence over the general heading. Going by this Rule of Interpretation, we find that there is specific mention of pulley and pulley blocks against Chapter sub-heading 8483.00, therefore we hold that P.T.O. pulley manufactured by the assessee is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8483.00. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the authorities below. In the circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.

    2001 (6) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI


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

    ........... their machines and not cutting the fabric into towels or giving any shape so as to brand them as lsquo made up articles rsquo . The narrow small strips was on the fabric even at the grey stage. The Department is classifying the grey fabric under Heading 60.01. In view of this we feel that the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of the entire amount of duty and penalty. Accordingly, we waive the requirements of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty and penalty and stay the recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal. At this stage the ld. Advocate submitted that on account of impugned order, treating their product as lsquo made up rsquo article, they have stopped to undertake the job work which is affecting their business and requested either to stay the operation of the impugned order or give earlier hearing in the matter. The ld. DR has no objection if earlier hearing is granted. We accordingly fix matter for regular hearing on 26-6-2001.

    2001 (6) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI


    Demand - Clandestine removal - Penalty ......

    ........... e record to justify the imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules, on appellant nos. 2 and 3. They were employees of the company appellant no. 1 at that time and there is evidence to attribute to them commission or omission of any act which resulted in evasion of duty by the company. Therefore, the same is set aside. 15.In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order against appellant nos. 2 and 3 is set aside and their appeals E/2702/2000-NB and E/2703/2000-NB stand accepted. However, impugned order against the company, appellant no. 1 is modified. The duty demand against the company is confirmed only for the period 4-12-95 to 7-12-95 while for the rest of the period is set aside. The penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act as well as under Rule 173Q of the Rules on the company is also set aside. The appeal No. E/2701/2000-NB of the company, appellant no. 1 stands accordingly partly allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.

    2001 (6) TMI 160 - CEGAT, CHENNAI


    Demand - Clandestine removal - Evidence - Valuation (Central Excise) ......

    ........... clearly demonstrates this point. The Commissioner has remained silent on this aspect and merely has upheld the charge. We are not impressed with his finding. In view of enormous evidence produced by appellants to show that Aksol Chemicals was an independent person and not related one, we accept the contention of appellants by holding that this charge has not been proved. 21.In the result, we are of the considered opinion that Revenue has failed to prove the charges in the show cause notice, as there is no substantial evidence produced to prove suppressed manufacture and clandestine removal of goods. Further, we notice that there is no evidence available to show that appellants had manipulated the bills to sell dutiable goods in the guise of exempted goods. We also find that there is no concrete evidence to show Aksol Chemicals was a related person. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

    2001 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MUMBAI


    Penalty - Redemption fine ......

    ........... t the particulars of the goods were not entered in the RG1 register but attributes it to the absence of the manager of the appellant on the two days preceding the visit of the officers. It therefore contended that there are no mala fides. 4. The explanation is not satisfactory. Presumably, if the manager left the factory for whatever purpose, he must have nominated someone to take charge of the affairs of the factory. Surely, its affairs did not remain unattended for three days. 5. I am unable to accept its plea that the offence is so technical that confiscation and penalty was not called for. Failure to enter any particulars of manufactured goods in the RG1 register is not a simple technical offence which can be ignored. Proper accounting is a fundamental requirement correct for payment of duty, and its absence can lead to evasion. Having regard to the value of the of Rs. 8 lakhs I do not find that the redemption fine and penalty call for any reduction. 6. Appeal dismissed.

    2001 (6) TMI 156 - CEGAT, KOLKATA


    Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ......

    ........... them by the dealer. However he submits that according to the appellant s knowledge no adjudication has taken place against the dealer denying the Modvat credit. As such the dealer s invoice, which is regular in all respects is proper modvatable documents so far they are concerned. For this purpose he has also made reference to the Tribunal s decisions in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. Ashok Leyland - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 804 (Tribunal) and in the case of Shrikrishna Rolling Mills Ltd. - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 722 (Tribunal) . In both the above cases it was held that credit taken on the strength of the invoice issued by the registered dealer is proper and the same cannot be denied on account of irregularity committed at the dealer s end, especially when no action has been taken at the dealer s end. Accordingly, following the ratio of the above decisions I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.

    2001 (6) TMI 155 - CEGAT, MUMBAI


    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ......

    ........... t credit on capital goods and Modvat credit on inputs. In the case of latter there are two conditions. Firstly, the inputs must be used in the manufacture of the final goods and secondly those final goods must be cleared on payment of duty. The situation is different in Rule 57Q. The definition does not only allow complete machinery but would also allow components, spares, accessories of machinery. It also covers pipes and tubes used to convey the input goods. If certain goods are used to support the furnace, then the supporting material would become component parts of the furnace. In making the interpretation of the Rule, the Commissioner committed an error. His orders as far as it relates to denial of credit amounting to Rs. 24,673.40 are set aside and in their respect the appeal is allowed. The denial of credit to the extent of Rs. 1,737 is upheld. Finding that there were no grounds for imposition of penalty, the penalty is remitted in full. Appropriate relief is ordered.

    2001 (6) TMI 152 - CEGAT, MUMBAI


    Confiscation and Penalty ......

    ........... 5. The decision with regard to CCE v. Danfoss (India) Ltd. appears to be wrongly cited since it is not found in the relevant publication. The other decision relied upon by the appellant proceeded on the footing that the Department itself found that there was no intention that the Garden Reach Ship Builders intent to evade payment of duty. That is not the case before me. The fact that the appellant had sufficient balance in its personal ledger account (assuming that to be) does not itself mean that wherever goods are cleared without payment of duty the intention to evade does not exist. The manufacture may well adopt such a method in order to evade duty. Apart from this it is not the claim in the appeal that 5 diesel engines were in fact entitled to notification. On the contrary the appellant does not question their duty liability. I see no reason to interfere with the Commissioner s order. The quantum of penalty is in commensurate with the duty involved. 6. Appeal dismissed.

    2001 (6) TMI 147 - CEGAT, BANGALORE


    Remission of duty - Packing loss ......

    ........... same was claimed by the party. 7. Further, he said that the very issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal as per Order No. 168/2000, dated 5-1-2000 holding that loss is permissible. He also cited the decisions in the case of U.P. State Cements Corporation Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 482 (All.) as well as Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 597 (T) in support of his contention. 8. Smt. Radha Arun appearing for the Revenue justified the findings of the authorities below in disallowing the loss. 9. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides we do not find any justification to disallow the loss. We also take note of the fact that very issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very appellants case referred to above. Following the ratio of the same. We accept the contention of the party and accordingly these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.

    2001 (6) TMI 143 - CEGAT, BANGALORE


    Confiscation of goods ......

    ........... s leaving the factory gate and any change of ownership, as buyer is not covered by Rule 173Q(1). Therefore, liability of confiscation under Rule 173Q(1)(a) on a manufacturer is a continuous liability, till, removes is completed and does not lie after completion i.e. after receipt and any change of ownership from the manufacturer to an independent buyer on payment of full consideration towards duty and or sale price of goods. If the goods are still handled, after such change of ownership or removal in any manner, then the liability of confiscation shall shift to under Rule 209 and not remain under 173Q(1)(a) along with penalty liability under Rule 209A on persons, other than those mentioned in Rule 173Q(1) e.g. a buyer. There is no confiscation liability arrived at under Rule 209, liability of penalty found on the buyer under Rule 209A. This order of confiscation therefore, can not be uphold. 5.In view of the findings, the order of confiscation is set aside and appeal allowed.

    2001 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, CHENNAI


    Lift ......

    ........... cause at that state the elevators and escalators become a part of the immovable property. The revision application is disposed of accordingly on this short point without going into the other contentions. 10. Therefore applying the ratio of all the judgments including the judgment of Government of India in Ref. Otis Elevator Co. (I) Ltd. (supra) as extracted above, the findings of the Commissioner on classification is upheld and Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 11. In so far as the appeal of the assessee is concerned, there is lot of merit in their submission that once the item has been held to be an immovable property then for the purpose of valuation the cost of construction and proportionate escalation charges cannot be added in the assessable value and the Commissioner s order to this extent is not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) to this extent is set aside. Thus, both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.



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
© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.