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

Central Excise Case Laws

 

Filter -


 
Showing 31606 to 31620 of 52537 Records

    2001 (8) TMI 518 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    BPR. TEX PRINTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

    Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay - Precedent - Appeal - Limitation ......

    ........... ollector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and others - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 can be claimed of by the appellants in this case keeping in view the facts and circumstances referred to above. In that case the delay was condoned by the Apex Court as sufficient cause was made out and delay was only of four days. The Apex Court also observed that there is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the appellant praying for condonation of the delay. The doctrine of equality before law must be applied. All litigants including the State are to be accorded the same treatment and the law is to be administered in an even manner. 16. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, in our view, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the inordinate delay of ten months in filing the appeal. The application of the appellants is ordered to be dismissed. 17. emsp Consequently, the appeal of the appellants also stands dismissed as time-barred.

    2001 (8) TMI 490 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD

    Classification ......

    ........... entral Excise authorities can shirk their responsibility of putting to the test of Chapter Note (2), a product which is claimed to be an Ayurvedic medicament. 10.5 emsp Above all, as rightly submitted by ld. DR, the product being specifically covered by Heading 33.06 and excluded from Chapter 30 (vide Note 1(d) of this Chapter), there appears to be, in our view, hardly any scope of enquiry into the question as to whether the goods would merit classification elsewhere in the Tariff, in view of Interpretative Rule 1. This is particularly so as, apparently, it has not been disputed by the appellants that their product is suitable for use as tooth powder and put up in a form clearly specialised to such use vide Note (2) of Chapter 33. 11. emsp Having disagreed with our learned brothers of WRB on the classification of Dant Manjan Lal, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon rsquo ble President for the purpose of constituting a Larger Bench to sort out the issue.

    2001 (8) TMI 489 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    FERROUS FORGING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

    Modvat - Capital Goods ......

    ........... 421 (Tribunal). In this case the Tribunal held that machinery used in the manufacture of dies which are exempted from payment of duty when used captively under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. is not entitled for the Modvat credit on capital goods. Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 669 (Tribunal) 1999 (35) RLT 149 (CEGAT) . In this case the Tribunal held that the Capital goods used for the manufacture of tools which are exempted from payment of duty when captively used, the benefit cannot be denied on such capital goods which are used in the manufacture of such tools. Both the decisions are passed by Hon rsquo ble Single Members, therefore, it is appropriate the matter should be placed before the Divisional Bench to resolve the issue. Registry is directed to list the appeal before Divisional Bench after obtaining necessary permission from the Hon rsquo ble President

    2001 (8) TMI 488 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus ANTARTIC INDUSTRIES LTD.

    Modvat on capital goods - EOT crane ......

    ........... tal goods as per provisions of Rule 57Q of the Rules. Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 2001 (45) RLT 739 . The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that in view of the liberal language of the provisions, if any, of the items enumerated in Explanation 1(a) of Rule 57Q is used for the purpose enumerated therein for the manufacture of final product, it would satisfy the test of capital goods and the question whether the item falls within the definition of capital goods, was dependent upon the user, it is put to. 4. emsp In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals), gave a specific finding that the goods, in question, are very essential for the manufacture of final product and the revenue has controverted this finding of fact. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal, filed by the revenue, is rejected.

    2001 (8) TMI 486 - CEGAT, BANGALORE

    COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus VIJAYA SEAMLESS CONTAINERS PVT. LTD.

    Modvat - Packing ......

    ........... ng the decision of the High Court in the case of Ponds India Limited - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3. The respondent also submitted that even the reference application filed by the Department with reference to the said order has been dismissed as per Order No. 200/96, dated 16-10-1996. 3. emsp On the other hand, Shri Thomas George appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Department has not accepted the verdict of the Tribunal and filed a writ petition before the High Court against the said order referred to above. 4. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the very issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case referred to above following the ruling of the High Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd. Since the issue involved herein has also been considered and concluded by the Tribunal, I am not inclined to take different view in this matter. Accordingly following the earlier decisions the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.

    2001 (8) TMI 484 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    GOBINDA BUILDERS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

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

    ........... nd pocketed the money. The Government needs money for implementation of Schemes for development and welfare of poor people. The duty demand raised from the appellants, prima facie cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted by law. In our view, no prima facie case is made out for allowing the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount. The equity and balance of convenience also do not warrant that any waiver of pre-deposit of duty should be allowed to the appellants. 9. emsp In view of the discussions made above, we direct the appellants to make pre-deposit of the entire duty amount of Rs. 55,51,685/- within 3 weeks from today and on making this deposit, the requirement of pre-deposit of entire penalty amount shall stand waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. But in case, they failed to comply with the terms of this order, their appeal shall be liable to be dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. To come up for reporting compliance on 10-10-2001.

    2001 (8) TMI 450 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    AMBAJI SYNTEX PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT - I

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

    ........... Notes below Heading 54.02 in the Explanatory Notes suggest that the reference of the mono filament held together is with reference to the condition in which such filament emerges from spinnerets. That doubling would prima facie apply to yarn deliberately twisted together is clear from the Notes at page 780 where it explains that multiple yarn is yarn formed from two or more single yarns. There is no denial that the applicant has used two yarns. The Commissioner rsquo s reasoning, as we have noted, is not only not clear but lacks authority. On the other hand the Book Yarn Preparation and handbook by John A Iredale indicates that the machine that the applicant employed is a type of folding or doubling equipment. 8. emsp In these circumstances, we do not feel to call upon these two applicants to deposit the duty and penalty and stay their recovery. 9. emsp Having regard to the amount involved, we accept the prayer for early hearing. Appeals to be listed for hearing on 10-9-2001.

    2001 (8) TMI 449 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    AMBAJI SYNTEX PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT - I

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

    ........... Notes below Heading 54.02 in the Explanatory Notes suggest that the reference of the mono filament held together is with reference to the condition in which such filament emerges from spinnerets. That doubling would prima facie apply to yarn deliberately twisted together is clear from the Notes at page 780 where it explains that multiple yarn is yarn formed from two or more single yarns. There is no denial that the applicant has used two yarns. The Commissioner rsquo s reasoning, as we have noted, is not only not clear but lacks authority. On the other hand the Book Yarn Preparation and handbook by John A Iredale indicates that the machine that the applicant employed is a type of folding or doubling equipment. 8. emsp In these circumstances, we do not feel to call upon these two applicants to deposit the duty and penalty and stay their recovery. 9. emsp Having regard to the amount involved, we accept the prayer for early hearing. Appeals to be listed for hearing on 10-9-2001.

    2001 (8) TMI 447 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M

    IN RE: PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD.

    Settlement of amount of duty disclosed and accepted as payable - Disclosure of duty payable ......

    ........... iven for such rejection are reasons which are clearly relevant. The assessee rsquo s failure to make a full and true disclosure being patent, it was not necessary for the Commission to proceed with the further consideration of the application only to pass an order or rejection at the end of such further proceeding. rdquo 24. emsp The Commission, therefore, finds that the Applicant has not made full and true disclosure as could be seen from the circumstances of the case. The applications filed by M/s. Procter and Gamble India Ltd., Goa and the Co-noticees M/s. Modern Hygiene Products Ltd., Goa, S/Shri Sumeet Bhattacharya, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Procter and Gamble India Ltd., R.A. Shah, Director of M/s. Procter and Gamble India Ltd., P.J. Menezes, Director of M/s. Modern Hygiene Products Ltd. and Anuj Lall, Manager of M/s. Procter and Gamble India Ltd. are not allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (1) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

    2001 (8) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    SHALOO TEXTILES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

    Valuation - Job work ......

    ........... e paid by the processing unit. 4. emsp It may be true that initially the processing unit paid duty on the basis of approved price list but it is relevant to note that this happened before the law was clarified by the Apex Court in the year 1989. When the show cause notice was issued on 22-7-1991, the decision of the Supreme Court (supra) had already come. If that be so, there is no justification on the part of the authorities to demand duty on the basis of sale price of either Shaloo Textiles Ltd. or Banswara Syntex Ltd. Whether Shaloo Textiles is a dummy or whether the sale transactions between Shaloo Textiles and Banswara Syntex are bona fide or not are irrelevant for computing the assessable value of the processed fabric. We are therefore of the view that the show cause notice is totally misdirected. The entire proceedings which followed the show cause notice are, therefore, unsustainable in law. 5. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.

    2001 (8) TMI 445 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    SULZER FLOVEL HYDRO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-II

    Hydraulic turbines - Parts/components - Valuation ......

    ........... ule 2(a) or error-free application thereof, if we may say so with great respect, in the case of Space Age Engg. Products. 18. emsp However, in that case, the Bench clearly held that the form in which goods were cleared from the factory of production was the criterion for classification. A contrary view appears to have been taken by the co-ordinate Bench in Flat Products Equipments (supra) wherein it was held to the effect that, if the Revenue rsquo s plea that goods had to be classified depending upon the form in which they were cleared was accepted, it would be impracticable to apply Rule 2(a) to any case. 19. emsp In view of the above interpretative conflict on a statutory provision between co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we think, the matter requires to be examined by a Larger Bench. We, therefore, refer the matter without examining the subsidiary issues involved in these appeals. The Registry is, therefore, directed to place the papers before Hon rsquo ble President.

    2001 (8) TMI 443 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    SHREE LAMITEX PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA

    Classification ......

    ........... d also contained in Note 1(f) to Chapter 48. This is also the view that has been communicated by the Board in its Circular No. 6/89, dated 16-1-1989. Paragraph 3(d) of the Circular applies Note 1(f) of Chapter 40 to printed plastic laminated with paper. Obviously the same conclusion would apply whether the sheets are printed or not since printing has no bearing on the composition of the material. The Departmental Representative cannot argue against the circular. 4. emsp The Departmental Representative emphasizes the Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s finding that Note 1(f) to Chapter 48 refers to paper coated with layer of plastics. However this ignores the reference in the note to paper covered with the layer of plastics which, in our opinion, describes the product under consideration. In the light of this discussion, we are of the view that the goods are correctly classifiable under Chapter 48. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. Consequential relief

    2001 (8) TMI 440 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    UP. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD

    Appeals ......

    ........... e by the ld. Counsel, I find that the ld. Counsel was authorised to file the appeals on behalf of the appellants. I note that Rule 213 no doubt provides that the appeals should be signed by the appellants. Since the non-signing of the appeals was a curable defect at least a notice or deficiency memo should have been issued to the appellants asking them to submit signed appeals by the appellants. Since this has not been done and the appeals were straightaway rejected without providing the appellants an opportunity of rectifying the defect, I find that these are fit cases for remand. In the circumstances I dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and remand the cases for considering them after giving a notice to the appellants to rectify the defect. In case the appellants rectified the defects and requested for a personal hearing, the appeals should be considered on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Appeals are, therefore, allowed by way of remand.

    2001 (8) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    ELECON ENGINEERING CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD

    Rectification of mistake ......

    ........... e fact that Final Order No. 812/99-A dated 8-6-1999 passed by the Tribunal has gone in appeal by the department in Supreme Court and it is dismissed by order dated 19-4-2000, the ROM stands dismissed.

    2001 (8) TMI 437 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus ASHA JYOTI SPINNING MILLS

    Yarn - Synthetic polyester spun yarn ......

    ........... fibres were originally obtained. Such waste is just to be processed again to obtain fibres fit for spinning. It is thus seen that for the purposes of the Central Excise Tariff, yarn, as commercially understood and as popularly known, will be the yarn and that the length of the fibre in the yarn was not the determining factor for treating a product as yarn or otherwise. 10. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). We set aside the same and confirm the view of the adjudicating authority, the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 37,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and the amount of penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Except such reduction in the amount of redemption fine and penalty, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.

   
 
 
 

 

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.