|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 62 Records
-
1991 (9) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... available could be transferred. We observe that the facts of the case following the interpretation of statute as pleaded by the ld. advocate for the appellants, the appellants cannot be placed at a disadvantage for the reason of the action of the authorities in classifying the goods as they did. As it is the rules are silent about the transfer of the proforma credit where a person becomes eligible for Modvat Scheme after 1-3-1986. The intention of the Rule 57H(3) at the relevant time was to allow the transfer of the proforma credit when the assessees became eligible for Modvat Scheme. In the present case since the appellants became eligible to the Modvat Scheme benefit later in the year the benefit of transfer of proforma credit should be made available to them as was in case of assessees who became eligible to the said benefit with effect from 1-3-1986. We, therefore, applying the ratio of the rulings cited supra in regard to the interpretation of statute, allow the appeal.
-
1991 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... . In fact, we notice that Note (a) in the Explanatory Note which is the same as Note 5(b) of the Central Excise Tariff covers a product like lsquo milk masala rsquo specifically. 17. Shri Jain had also submitted that Pan Masala falls under Chapter 21 only because of a specific inclusion in that Chapter and milk masala being a similar preparation, it would not fall in that Chapter without specific inclusion. That this argument is devoid of any merit is evident from the fact that Chapter 21 deals with lsquo Miscellaneous Edible Preparations rsquo , and sub-heading 21.07 with the residuary entry - not elsewhere specified or included. 18. Thus, having considered all the grounds in the appeal and arguments of the learned counsel Shri R.K. Jain, we come to the conclusion that sub-heading 2107.91 is the most appropriate classification for Everest Milk Masala. There is no need, therefore, to remand the matter as requested by Shri Jain at the hearing. The appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1991 (9) TMI 164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this was the raw stock which would, ordinarily, be carried by all manufacturers of aluminium products. In any event, there can be no finding of discrimination on the basis that one manufacturer chooses to hold larger raw stocks than others. 9. Since we are quite unsatisfied that there has been any classification or discrimination, and that is the foundation of the petition, we do not find it necessary to go into authorities. 10. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The respondents shall pay to the appellants the costs of the petition and of the appeal. 11. On Mr. Diwan rsquo s application, we direct that the appellants shall not take any steps to recover from the respondents the amount of the alleged excess excise duty, which has already been refunded to the respondents pursuant to the order under appeal, for a period of eight weeks from today. 12. Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both parties expeditiously.
-
1991 (9) TMI 163 - CEGAT, MADRAS
S.S.I. Exemption -Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... aham, learned consultant for the respondent. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. This issue has been covered and settled by a number of decisions of this Bench and the Bench has taken the view that the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs in terms of the said notification would be applicable in respect of each specified goods. The Bench has taken this view in the case of ldquo Purushotham Goculdass Plywood Co. v. Collector of Central Excise rdquo , reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 440 and has also taken similar view in the case of. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s. Electrical and General Wood Industries (in E/A. No. 170/90) and the judgment rendered on 17-9-1990. It is not disputed that the facts in the present case and the facts in the cases cited supra are all on fours. Therefore, following the ratio of the said rulings, we hold that the finding in the impugned order is sustainable in law and in this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1991 (9) TMI 162 - SUPREME COURT
Whether concessional rate of octroi duty was available only if the declaration in Form 14 was filed with the octroi authorities?
Held that:- In the instant case the octroi duty paid by the petitioner Company would naturally have been passed on to the consumers. Therefore there is no justification to claim the same at this distance of time and the Court in its discretion can reject the same. For the above reasons, this Special Leave Petition is dismissed with costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 96 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Rebate of duty - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... f Indian Oil Corporation v. C.C.E. 1985 (21) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.) contingencies which may set in motion the process of provisional assessment only the following four - (i) The importer is unable to produce any document. (ii) The importer is unable to furnish any relevant information. (iii) The officer thinks it is necessary to subject the goods to chemical or other test. (iv) The officer needs to make further enquiry for assessing the duty. In this case none of the above contingencies is available. In view of the above it is difficult to uphold party s plea and grant of permission under Rule 173-11(C) will automatically give rise to the contingencies from where a provisional assessment maybe inferred. In the result, the applicant s contention that their claim of rebate is covered by Section 11B explanation B(e) is not acceptable. The Government therefore holds the impugned order-in-appeal as correct and well justified. The same is upheld and the Revision Application is rejected.
-
1991 (9) TMI 94 - SC ORDER
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... them in the appeal under the statutory provisions. There is force in this contention. We, therefore, allow the appeal and restore the writ petition to be disposed of by the High Court in regard to the point of validity in the notification. The other points concerning details of the assessment, if any, should, however, be agitated by the appellants in the regular appeals under the Act, if any. 3. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Penalty and confiscation - Interpretation of statute - Headings - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... in Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties Act has been used in various Acts and other enactments, but then Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that no tax shall be levied and collected except by authority of law. There being no such authority of law to levy penalty, we have to hold so. 40.Accordingly, these petitions are allowed to the extent that show cause notices calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why (a) the plant, machinery, land and building utilised in the manufacture, etc. of the fabrics as aforesaid should not be confiscated to Government under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and (b) penalties should not be imposed on them under Rules 9(2) and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, are set aside. A writ of prohibition issued to the respondents restraining them from proceeding under the show cause notices for the purpose of confiscation and penalties as aforesaid. To this extent rule is made absolute. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Writ Petition No. 8246 of 1983 is for issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider his application dated 5-3-1982. Consequently Writ Petition No. 8246 of 1983 is allowed and there will be a direction as prayed for to consider the refund application at least in respect of the duty paid from 2-5-1981 to 17-2-1982. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the refund application dated 5-3-1982 within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There will however, be no order as to costs. 5. So far as Writ Petition No. 8245 of 1983 is concerned, that relates to the refund application dated 26-5-1981 relating to the period from 10-4-1974 to 30-4-1981. it is not disputed that the payments were made voluntarily without any protest. Therefore Section 11B(1) bars any refund application preferred beyond six months from the relevant date. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 8245 of 1983 will stand dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Adjudication - Demand - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... e are unable to come to the conclusion that the notice prima facie does not contain materials for invoking jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act. In that view of the matter, at this stage it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the notice issued by the Assistant Collector. We would accordingly reject the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8.All the contentions raised having failed, the writ application fails and is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, we would, however, observe that since the petitioner has not filed any show cause on account of the interim orders passed by this Court, we permit the petitioner to file show-cause within four weeks from today whereafter the adjudicating authority may dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With these observations, the writ application is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. 9. A.K. Padhi, J. . - I agree.
-
1991 (9) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Valuation - Packing charges - Durable and returnable packing ... ... ... ... ..... be refunded. Although the assessee has stated that they have paid Rs. 11,16,270.31 for the period 1-11-1975 to 8-1-1976 but there is no material to support his contention. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to refund of this amount subject to verification to be made by the department, of the excessive amount of excise duty paid by the assessee under protest. 16.In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and we quash the demand notice of Rs. 5,23,204.25 and orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector dated 14th August, 1976 and 4th July, 1977 (Annexures H and J) respectively. We further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund to the assessee the excise duty of Rs. 11,16,270.31 for the period 1-11-1975 to 8-1-1976 stated to have been paid by the assessee. The refund of this amount, however, shall be subject to verification by the department. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 17.Petition allowed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Tea - Levy - Validity ... ... ... ... ..... licy of the Government; it is also an accepted position that no taxation measure can be devised which would be free from discriminatory impact; the mere fact that tax falls more heavily on some category, say of package tea which is packed in a container containing less than 27 kgs. by itself would not be a ground to render it invalid; further, the classification between package tea and loose tea seems to be based on difference in value and its notional superiority to the persons who consume it. Therefore, it cannot be said that Tariff Item 3(2) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As stated above, classification between loose tea and package tea is reasonable and with the specific object of affording relief to the tea growers and to the consumers of loose tea. Package tea has its own market and is considered by all concerned to be of different variety. 15. In the result, there is no substance in the petition and it is rejected. Rule discharged with costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Battery caps ... ... ... ... ..... rawn. Notice discharged. In spite of the aforesaid order no show cause notice was issued by the respondents upto December 1990. Therefore, it will be difficult to say that the petitioner company by recourse to suppression of facts and mis-statements, misdeclared plastic battery tops as industrial components under Tariff Item 68 and wrongly claimed the benefit of the exemption notification and after 1st March 1986 by describing the said product as industrial component i.e. articles of plastics covered under sub-heading 3926.90/3923.90 instead of paying excise duties under sub-heading 85.06. Apart from the fact that there is no justification for issuing a show cause notice for the period more than six months by resorting to Section 11A of the Act, as we have arrived at the conclusion that the plastic tops cannot be classified under sub-heading 85.06, the aforesaid show cause notice would not survive. Hence this petition is allowed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Demand and adjudication proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... n, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that because the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the trial Court and even the appellate Court had not found the petitioner guilty of the violation of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the rules, the petitioner was lulled into the belief that the order of assessment made on 12-9-1979 would not be enforced against him and hence he did not file the appeal. Taking a sympathetic view and in order to give the petitioner opportunity of an appeal, there will be an order in this writ petition while dismissing the same, giving time to the petitioner till 31-10-1991 to file an appeal against the order of assessment dated 12-9-1979. The appeal shall be taken on file and disposed of on merits on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) as a condition precedent. The writ petition is dismissed with this liberty given to the petitioner. No costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund - interest payable thereon ... ... ... ... ..... th the sides on the above question. With regard to award of interest by the learned Single Judge, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot take any exception to that. The rate is also a reasonable one and the learned Single Judge in this behalf has taken note of the provision for interest found in other revenue statutes. However, with regard to the date from which interest should be paid, the decision of the Tribunal was rendered only on 20-9-1990. But for the order of the Tribunal, the respondent would not get the lever, right and basis to insist for refund. In our view, it will be reasonable to take only that date, namely, 20-9-1990 as the date from which interest could be paid. Accordingly, we direct that interest at 18 per annum on the principal amount to be refunded, now refunded on 27-8-1991, should be paid from 20-9-1990 until 27-8-1991. The writ appeal is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Time for payment of the interest amount four weeks from today.
-
1991 (9) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Estoppel - Legislation ... ... ... ... ..... rine is likely to create a public interest. The notifications which have been issued by the Central Government about the rebate of payment of excise duty to the extent indicated therein have acquired their statutory force on their publication in the official gazette. They are therefore, manifestations of the exercise of the delegated legislative powers vested in the authorities and have statutory force which cannotbe challenged by the application of doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Central Government. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, ihere will be no order as to costs. 9.An oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Since the matter does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, leave is refused.
-
1991 (9) TMI 76 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Evidence - Charge of conspiracy for evasion of excise duty - Prosecution - Offence ... ... ... ... ..... h the object of commiting evasion of excise duty. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that apart from the statements recorded by the Central Excise officers under Section 14 of the Act, there is no other substantial evidence for the prosecution to prove this charge. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the trial court that the prosecution failed to prove this charge also. 17. This is an appeal against the acquittal. The trial Judge had considered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the charges and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I have also agreed with the findings of the learned Special Judge that the charges are not proved. As the prosecution has failed to make out a case to grant leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, the petition for leave to file the appeal is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Notification withdrawing exemption effective ... ... ... ... ..... ned Single Judge until payment. Mr. Chagla has submitted that the Appellants be ordered to pay the said amount to the 1st Respondents with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per annum. In our view, though the Learned Judge has allowed refund of the amount along with interest, at the rate of 6 per annum to be calculated from 4th November, 1987, the Appellants shall pay the said amount to the 1st Respondents with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per annum from 4th November, 1987, until payment. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Cross-Objections of the 1st Respondents are allowed to the extent that the Appellants shall refund the said sum of Rs. 35,57,094.74 to the 1st Respondents together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per annum to be calculated from 4th November, 1987 until payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs. 18. Certified copies of this Order to be furnished to all parties expeditiously.
-
1991 (9) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Furniture, meaning of - Steel furniture ... ... ... ... ..... cision arrived at in departmental proceedings. It is well-settled that in such cases the question of unjust enrichment does not arise while granting refund to the party who has paid under protest. The question of unjust enrichment arises only when a matter regarding classification comes directly under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. For these reasons, the stand taken by the Department cannot be acceded to. 14. In the result, the Petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20th June, 1981, Exhibit Y to the Petition, is quashed and set aside. The appellate order dated 7th November, 1979, Exhibit N to the Petition, is confirmed. The petitioners are also entitled to the refund of the amount paid under protest under Item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff as mentioned in prayer clause (b) (iii). Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy to be issued on priority basis.
-
1991 (9) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the operation constitutes "processing"?
Held that:- If any operation in the course of manufacture is so integrally connected with the further operations which result in the emergence of manufactured goods and such operation is carried on with the aid of power, the process in or in relation to the manufacture must be deemed to be one carried on with the aid of power. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention that since the pumping of the brine into the salt pans or the lifting of coke and lime stone with the aid of power does not bring about any change in the raw material, the case is not taken out of the notification. The exemption under the Notification is not available in these cases. Accordingly, we allow these appeals
|
