|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 62 Records
-
1991 (9) TMI 203 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Payment of duty under protest ... ... ... ... ..... nta Kumar Agarwalla and Another, reported in I.T.R. 1983 Vol. 140 Page-418 relied on by the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Telco Ltd. -1991 (32) ECR 167 pp 170 para-10 , the Hon rsquo ble Gauhati High Court has held that the Tribunal has only to refer a question of law which calls for investigation, examination, debate or when it is a dubious problem. It was also held that if a point of law decided by the Tribunal is positive, definite and sure, there is no obligation to refer such a matter as it cannot be termed as a question of law. It is not that every point of law raised is required to be referred to the High Court. It was further held that when answer to the question is simple, obvious and self-evident, it cannot be termed as a question of law and the Tribunal is not bound to refer such a question. 9. Applying the same ratio, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case for reference to the High Court. In this circumstances, the application is dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... taken by the Tribunal in the case of Usha Marin Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 392 wherein it was held that in the absence of Dynodrive being specifically described in the declaration filed under Rule 57G MODVAT credit on Dynodrive used as input in the manufacture of final product would not be permissible even if Dynodrive falls in the category of Electric Motors which were included in the declaration filed by the manufacturer. 6. The appellants have relied on the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 57 (Tri.) 1986 (8) ECR 639 wherein it was held that the procedural aspect can be ignored once the authorities are satisfied about the receipt and the utilisation of duty paid raw material. The facts in this case before us being different, in view of the decisions quoted above the case law cited by the respondents do not help them. 7. For the reasons indicated above the appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Medicines - Patent or proprietary medicines ... ... ... ... ..... n as laid down in 3(a) of the said Act or as per the Ayurvedic Formulary of India then such certificates of trade usage and commercial parlance will have no evidentiary value to consider the products as exclusive ayurvedic. This is the proposition laid down in Amrutanjan case, which is not in any way different from the view expressed in earlier rulings. 32. Shri Gujral further contended that the certificates produced by the manufacturer would clearly indicate that the product in question is pure ayurvedic. Unfortunately none of the physician had examined the synthetic nature of the ingredients nor they had stated that ayurvedic science recognised its uses by usage and tradition. Nor it had stated that the preparation had been exclusively ayurvedic. Therefore, the certificates lost its evidentiary value and its rejection by the learned Additional Collector is totally justified. 33. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ed JDR reiterated the contents of the impugned Order, though he has no comments to offer in view of the said judgment of the Apex Court. 5. We have considered the submissions. From the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper Inds. Ltd., supra it is clear that anything that enters into and form part of manufacture process and is required to make the article marketable must be deemed raw material or component parts of the end-product. It is not in dispute that manufacture of P. and P. foods becomes complete only by packing them in unit containers and closing them. From this itself it follows that the 58 mm caps and Coproco adhesive used by the appellants in fixing the lables on the unit containers mean to contain P. and P. foods, are raw materials. Thus, following the ratio of the said decision of the Apex Court we set aside the impugned Order and allow these two appeals with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1991 (9) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural Justice - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... be lying in the godown hypothecated to NSIC is also required to be re-examined at length and a finding was required to be recorded, inter alia, on the point whether there were any tubes in NSIC godown and if so whether they were good or defective and the bearing of these aspects on the case. 11. Further in so far as the charge of undervaluation is concerned, the Collector has merely observed that ldquo I also find that the party was clearing colour TV sets to the value of Rs. 3000 but the Collector does not state that if the goods were undervalued, how they were reassessed and how the revised value was arrived at. 12. It was necessary that full details indicating, inter alia, the basis of assessment were indicated and a clear and specific order was passed in this respect as well. 13. The learned Collector may keep these observations in mind while read-judicating the case and may pass appropriate orders after allowing the appellants an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
-
1991 (9) TMI 194 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference to Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... the appeals covered by a common order based on the decisions on References made to two different High Courts. 13. Having regard to all these factors, we propose to the President in terms of Section 35H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the following question of law, for submission to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India for consideration - ldquo Whether Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood prior to amendment effected on 6-10-1988, is subject to the provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or Whether it is independent of Section 11A aforesaid and can be invoked for recovery of Modvat credits even covering the period beyond six months from the date of credit? rdquo 14. Files containing (i) the orders of the Bench - Order No. 2310 to 14/90-WRB, dated 24-10-1990 as also the earlier detailed order reported in 1990 (31) ECR 680, (ii) copy of the Reference Applications made are also submitted herewith.
-
1991 (9) TMI 191 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the respondent cannot be treated in any way different from the credit taken in respect of any other goods which have suffered duty and the provisions of refund etc. under the MODVAT Scheme will apply as would apply in any other case. Just because the goods were manufactured by an assessee working under DEEC Scheme it does not make any difference so far as the goods in the hands of the respondent are concerned. As mentioned earlier, if any objection has to be taken it has to be against the taking of the MODVAT credit and utilisation of the same for the manufacture of the Cans under the DEEC Scheme by the manufacturer of the Cans. The learned appellant-Collector has not set out in the grounds of appeal nor any plea has been made before us to how under Rule 57F(3) the respondent is disentitled to the benefit as allowed by the learned lower appellate authority. In view of the above, I hold that there is no merit in the plea of the Revenue and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... unal remanded the case to the Collector (A) because he had not given opportunity to the Deptt. before passing order in the appeal rdquo . We have also perused the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). Nowhere there is mention of the appellant rsquo s prayer for grant of personal hearing in the impugned order. We are of the view that when an appellant makes a prayer before an appellate forum for grant of personal hearing, principles of natural justice require that the personal hearing should be granted. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was a denial of principles of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) having jurisdiction. We further order that the Collector (Appeals) shall observe principles of natural justice and grant personal hearing to both the sides and dispose of the appeal within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 3. This also disposes of the Cross-objection filed by the respondents.
-
1991 (9) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Order denying exemption to unsegregated waste based on Revenue Audit objection set aside ... ... ... ... ..... on-cellulosic waste whereas the goods in question were waste yarn (hard waste). He also submitted that the authorities having alleged non-segregation of waste yarn in the show cause notice could not later contend that the goods were not waste yarn. We observe that Notification 272/83 could have been applied if there was any basis for the allegation in the show cause notice that the goods were non-cellulosic waste and, on the evidence indicated in the notice, a finding to that effect had been recorded. We do not find any such allegation in the show cause notice. In these circumstances too, the finding that the goods were non-cellulosic waste has been recorded without any basis and order is liable to be set aside. We, therefore, reach the same conclusion. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants. 15. The Miscellaneous Application is also disposed of in the light of the order allowing the appeal.
-
1991 (9) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... cessories of the motor vehicles and Headings also says that ldquo This heading covers parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of Headings 87.01 to 87.05, provided the parts and accessories fulfil both the following conditions (i) They must be identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally with the above-mentioned vehicles and (ii) They must not be excluded by the provisions of the Notes to Section XVII (see the corresponding General Explanatory Note). Since it is specifically excluded from corresponding General Explanatory Note, on this ground also it cannot be considered to be part of the vehicle for the purpose of classification. From all the points of view, we concur with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that Shut Off Cocks and Servo Brake Valve would be classifiable under the sub-heading 8481.80 and their parts under 8481.99. In the view we have taken, we uphold the impugned order and accordingly appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... nue rsquo s plea is that the caustic soda lye and flakes are in the nature of final products. We observe that as to what is intermediate or final product, the Scheme of MODVAT has to be read in the context of the manufacturing process of a particular assessee. So long as it can be shown that the inputs have been used for manufacture of any in process materials which are used in the manufacture of final product, the said material manufactured out of the inputs before it is finally used in the manufacture of the declared final product will have to be treated as intermediate product. There is nothing on record to show nor is there any plea that caustic soda lye and casutic soda flakes which emerged during the manufacturing process by use of the inputs were not used as in process material for the manufacture of declared final product. In view of above, we hold that the lower appellate authority rsquo s order is maintainable in law. We, therefore dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1991 (9) TMI 184 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... e dated acknowledgement of the declaration in March, 1987. The expression immediately before in certain provisions has been held to be synonymous with preceding the date. Even in the context of Rule 57H(1), the said expression was interpreted to cover inputs received before obtaining the dated acknowledgement but which were available for verification Soft Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 66 (CEGAT-SRB) Madras . Here the availing of the credit was, as stated above, not immediately before March, 1987 when declaration under Rule 57G was filed. Further, the inputs which had contributed to the credit could not be said to be available being unutilised till then. What stock of such inputs were available represented receipts which were exempt from duty and hence not covered under Modvat Scheme as had been held by the Assistant Collector. In the circumstances, we are convinced the appellants do not have a case. We, therefore, dismiss their appeal.
-
1991 (9) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... Excise Rules for unauthorised removal of excisable goods without payment of duty from the place of manufacture. It is not the say of the appellants that they had given any declaration to the Department. The narration of facts in show cause notice is clear in this respect. In fact Sh. Nilesh Kumar R. Patel has said in his statement that he did not know that use of power would attract Central Excise duty. Hence it is held that the appellants rsquo arguments on limitation are unacceptable. 9. In the result, therefore, the case is remanded to the Collector for the limited purpose of ascertaining - (1) whether there is any scope for redetermining the duty demanded based on the claim that use of compressor was confined to manufacture of non-agricultural hose pipes for the period April, 1983 and (2) whether the correct classification of the goods will be under Item 19-I(b) or 16A(3) CET with exemption under Notification 17/84. The appeal is disposed of by remand in the above terms.
-
1991 (9) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ave been also raised by the Department. It cannot be alleged that the Department was unaware of the clearances for this period, when parallel proceedings had been initiated by Superintendent of Central Excise for the subsequent period. Therefore, the demands raised in E/A. No. 3803/89-C are hit by limitation and are not enforceable. 23. The demands raised in the show cause notice dated 27-2-1987 for the period covering 1-9-1986 to 31-1-1987 which is subject matter in appeal No. 2900/88-C are not hit by limitation and there is no plea of time bar also and hence the duty demand for this period for a sum of Rs. 19,30,227.65 are hereby confirmed. 24. We, therefore, uphold the order of the lower authorities in not granting the benefit of Notification No. 179/85-C.E., dated 1-8-1985 as amended by Notification No. 78/86. The demands raised in E/A 2900/88-C are confirmed. The demands raised in E/A 3803/89-C are set aside as time barred. The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
-
1991 (9) TMI 177 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI
Exemption to SSI Units ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 175/86. It is also reported that the finances of the lady partners were independent of their husbands and they actively participate in the affairs of the partnership firm. As per the available records these two firms have separate L. 4 Licence, income-tax and sales-tax registrations etc. to indicate their separate legal entity. Moreover in view of the case law cited earlier a partnership itself is a separate entity. Since under Section 3(42) of General Clauses Act, 1897, a person shall include any company or any association or body of individuals whether incorporate or not. Thus both the partnership firms are different legal persons and hence there is no justification for clubbing their clearances unless it is established by evidence that one is a dummy created by the other. In view of the foregoing the denial of exemption Notification No. 175/86 to both the appellants does not appear to be correct in law. Accordingly the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
1991 (9) TMI 176 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Valuation - Installation and commissioning charges ... ... ... ... ..... e, said decision of M/s. Unicorn Industries case is not similar to the facts and circumstances of this case. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of I.A.E.C. Bakers (also relied upon by the Respondents) is more relevant for the reason that, the respondents are manufacturing complete boilers in their factory and thereafter clearing it in CKD condition for convenience of transport. Therefore, they are liable to duty on boilers only at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory, which has been discharged. Subsequent action for installation of boilers at the buyers site are post clearance expenses with reference to the same excisable goods which had already discharged the duty liability. The boilers are also fixed as permanent structures. Therefore, such erection and commissioning charges are not liable to be included for assessment to duty. 9. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Asstt. Collr. and reject the deptt. rsquo s appeal.
-
1991 (9) TMI 175 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
MODVAT Credit - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... y to avail Modvat credit under the said Rules. The Courts and Tribunal at various times held that minor discrepancies in the declarations cannot be sufficient ground for denial of Modvat credit. The Asstt. Collector after due verification of the case has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents have broadly described the inputs though they did not give specific Heading and Sub-heading and they have received the inputs under proper duty paid documents, and the inputs have been consumed by them in the manufacture of their final products. 5. I also noted that the respondents have declared the inputs (ur) Molecular Sieve and labels. They have also declared various inputs under ldquo DIAGNOSTIC REAGENT KITS rdquo and has shown inputs as Anti Body Reagent (organic chemical). 6. Thus they have substantially met the requirements of Modvat rules. 7. In view of above, I do not find merit to interfere in the order passed by the Asstt. Collector. The E.A. 2 application is rejected.
-
1991 (9) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Detention of goods, plants and machinery chargeable with, when duty not paid ... ... ... ... ..... 1944, cannot be made a subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. In other words, her submission was that the present appeal is not maintainable and it was rightly returned to the appellants by the Registry. 5. We have considered the submissions. In view of the admitted position that the impugned Order of Detention was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhilai, to realise the duty which remained unpaid in pursuance of the adjudicating Order-in-Original dated 31st March, 1981, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, we are of the opinion that the present appeal is not maintainable, more particularly, when it is not a case of the appellants that the said Adjudication Order-in-Original dated 31st March, 1981 has been set aside by any Appellate Authority. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable and the Misc. Application also stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in the Open Court.
-
1991 (9) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... o product and correspondingly reduced vis-a-vis the product of the other two companies and on this ground, he held that there was no reason to interfere with the Assistant Collector rsquo s order. This order of the Collector (Appeals) needs no modification and is, therefore, correct in law. In the result, it is held on valuation that there is no need to interfere with the three orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) with which we are now concerned, and in the case of the valuation aspect, arising out of the adjudication order of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, (E/Appeal No. 2354/85-C), it is directed that suitable reduction, arising out of difference in purity between the appellants rsquo product and the compared products, if not already given, in working out the assessable value, should now be granted and the assessable value re-determined, if need be, in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) which does provide for such adjustments. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (9) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Raw naphtha obtained under Chapter X procedure ... ... ... ... ..... yrolysis Gasolene diverted for extracting lsquo C8 C9 Cut rsquo . In this connection, he has filed a fresh duty calculation sheet, by which the duty chargeable would be approximately only Rs. 4.36 crores and not Rs. 24,41,99,988.77 as confirmed in the impugned order. This appears to be a correct contention. The learned Collector has not given a clear finding on this aspect of the matter and hence the question of duty confirmation requires to be reconsidered by the learned Collector, by hearing the appellants on this question only and by taking fresh particulars for verifying the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. 40. As regards the imposition of penalty, there are justifiable grounds for imposing the same. As the duty element is likely to get reduced considerably and taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 173Q(a) (b)(d) of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal is partly allowed. Annexures Not Printed
|
