|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 650 Records
-
1991 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... can be taken to form a credit pool from which the appellants can go on drawing for the purpose of paying duty on the declared specified finished product. The authorities have allowed the clearance of spent acid free of duty without applying their mind as to whether under the Scheme of MODVAT under the Rules this could be allowed. The issue posed before us is not in the context of the free clearance of the spent acid but in the context of only that portion of the input not consumed in the manufacturing process. As mentioned earlier, in case the portion of the input which came out unutilised in the same form, the Rules clearly provide for payment of duty on the same under Rule 57F in case the same was being cleared from the factory or for being treated as waste under Rule 57F(4). For the purpose of the appeal before us we hold that the order demanding the amount from the appellants is not maintainable in law. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 155 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... l of two decisions relating to Associated Cement Companies Ltd. which have been reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 295 and 1991 (55) E.L.T. 415 do not point to a decision regarding the grinding medium (steel balls). Further the arguments advanced in the Straw Products case and in the present case were not so advanced in the said cases. Hence the argument advanced by Shri Biswas, based on the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. case is not of relevance. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the coated abrasive paper used for polishing plywood is not an excluded type of inputs and as such eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit. Accordingly, I dismiss the department rsquo s appeal and uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 10. The Cross-Objection filed by the respondents is not really in the nature of a regular Cross-Objection. It only contains arguments as to why the appeal should be dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed, as stated above, the Cros-Objection is disposed of.
-
1991 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... price and the price at depot and the differential duty payable. It does not indicate the difference between the ex-factory price approved and ex-factory price at which the goods are actually sold. Therefore, the finding of the Collector is not based on evidence. Secondly, the Collector has not referred to any evidence in his order, he does not give any particulars as to how the approved ex-factory price is lower than the factory gate price at which the goods are sold in the absence of which the finding of the Collector that the factory gate price is not genuine, is not acceptable. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessable value in respect of depot sales should be on the basis of the approved price lists under Part I. As regards the limitation, when once the assessable value is the factory gate price then the question of suppression of fact and invoking larger period of limitation does not arise. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector and allow the appeal.
-
1991 (12) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... by the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal had held in para 8 of its order that lsquo Active 25 rsquo which was a food preparation of milk and cream was not classifiable as lsquo milk rsquo under Heading 0401 because of various additions. There is nothing in this decision to suggest that the presence of malt alone had led to this decision. In fact, cocoa, malt, vitamins and minerals were the other additions besides permissible addition of sugar. A similar view is therefore, possible in respect of lsquo Surje rsquo which has vitamins as an additive which is not permitted by Note (4) besides other constitutes which are not natural milk constituents. Thus, having considered all the arguments placed before us, we come to the conclusion that the product manufactured by the respondents viz., lsquo Surje rsquo is not classifiable under sub-heading 0404.10, as an edible product of animal origin. It appropriately falls under Chapter Heading 2107.91. The appeal is therefore, allowed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s India Ltd. is the degree of secondary packing which is necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition in which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory gate is the degree of packing whose cost can be included. We, therefore, direct the Asstt. Collector to make an inquiry to find out whether the secondary packing is necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition in which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory gate and if so, include the same. 6. It is an admitted fact that the appellants rsquo products were available at the factory gate to all wholesale dealers without any special packing in the form of wooden crates. Hence, on the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision quoted above we hold that the cost of extra packing in the form of wooden crates provided by the respondents on the request of outstation dealers did not form a part of the assessable value of the goods. 7. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1991 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication - Order final if not appealed against ... ... ... ... ..... the shortage is to be condoned, he cannot have, on his own, disregarded that order. In view of this, the demand either on the exporter or on the manufacturer cannot be sustained. Moreover, in this case, it is not correct to hold that the manufacturer is liable to pay duty. As per the scheme laid down in Rule 13 and Rule 14A, if the manufacturer has removed the goods for export and he has furnished the bond, he would be liable to pay duty in case the goods are not exported. In this case, goods have been removed by M/s. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. and bond for export has also been executed by them. Hence any demand with regard to any quantity not exported can be raised only against M/s. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. as per Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, the appellants, who are manufacturers and who have not removed the goods for export under bond cannot be fastened with duty liability. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities below.
-
1991 (12) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Use of pin or screw during manufacture not to take the product out of the scope of notification
-
1991 (12) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Advocate, Shri Asthana. In fact, the case of the appellant is on a stronger footing in respect of testing/inspection charges carried out subsequent to what is necessary for putting the goods in wholesale market that what it is in the case of special secondary packing. In the case of packing there is a legal provision for including the cost thereof and yet the Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. has held that value of special secondary packing which is not a part of the normal feature of wholesale trade should not be included in the value of the excisable goods. Following the same analogy, we are of the view, in the face of the admitted facts that the goods already stood fully manufactured, ready for delivery in wholesale market and were actually sold to other wholesale customers, that cost of testing/inspection carried out by the DOS and D at the instance of specific customers, namely, PHED, Rajas-than should not be included in the value of the goods.
-
1991 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... eld that the appellants were guilty of suppression of facts and admittedly did not maintain any accounts in respect of Filter Bags, so manufactured by them nor has issued any proper gate pass thereby violating the provisions of Rule 226 and 52A respectively, consequently liable for penalty under Rule 173Q. We have considered the submissions. It is on record that the appellants never disclosed to the Department that they were manufacturing the Filter Bags. It is an admitted fact that they did not maintain any accounts in respect of these goods nor issued any proper gate passes. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Counsel that the Additional Collector was not right in imposing the penalty. Looking to the amount of excise duty involved and the act and omission of the appellants, we do not think that the penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed upon them is on higher side. 12. In the result, the appeal is rejected being devoid of any merit.
-
1991 (12) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional ground ... ... ... ... ..... application for stay is decided by the Appellate authority, the impugned order will not be enforced. The appellate authority will also consider, at the time of deciding the stay application, whether the amount demanded is correctly calculated. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. rdquo The effect of this order is that the quantification of demand merges with the classification issue. In addition the Tribunal while passing stay order No. 141/89-B1 dated 18-7-1989 in the classification appeal took into account the quantification and then dispensed with the predeposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1.64 crores on the condition of the appellants depositing Rs. 25 lakhs within 12 weeks from the date of the stay order. 9. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that a separate appeal against the quantification is required in the eye of law. The preliminary objection in this regard is overruled. 10. The preliminary objections are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (12) TMI 142 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Rule 3 of the Jute Cess Rules is a case of legislation by reference and that in such a case the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder as they were obtaining on the date of making of Rule 3 continue in the same form, unaffected by subsequent amendments or changes in the Central Excise Act and Rules
Held that:- the language of Rule 3 of Jute Cess Rules is altogether different. It indicates a continuing applicability of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules. What was levied was a ‘duty of excise’ and it was to be levied and collected in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules. The effect is as if the words “for the time being in force” were there after the words “the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the Rules made thereunder” in Rule 3. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the amendment of Rules 9 and 49 made in 1982 (with retrospective effect from 1944) is equally applicable in the matter of levy and collection of cess under the Act. The contentions urged by Shri Ganesan are accordingly rejected.
Under the Schedule to the Central Excise Act, jute was taxed with reference to weight. So also was jute yarn; vide Entry 22A and 18D of the Schedule. Even the 1985 Act taxes jute and jute yarn by weight alone. The nature of the cess imposable under Section 9 is really that of duty of Central Excise, as emphasised hereinbefore. Evidently, for that reason the principle obtaining under the Central Excise Act has been adopted by this Act in the matter of levy of cess. We cannot agree with Shri Salve that according to Section 9, the cess can be levied on the basis of value alone and on no other basis. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 141 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ding the demand of duty was not maintainable as no show cause notice had been issued under Section 11A and the consequent demand raised by the Superintendent also for that reason not maintainable. We hold that the appellants had been put on notice regarding the classification of the goods and they participated in the proceedings before the original authority who classified the goods under the heading under which the demand of duty has been raised and the appellants have not challenged the classification in the appellate proceedings. The consequent action of quantification of demand after that could not be considered bad in law. The plea raised before us is that the demand was out of time on grounds of limitation as the assessments could not be taken to be on provisional basis. This plea, as we have held above, is not maintainable. In view of the above, we hold the orders of the learned lower appellate authority are not maintainable in law and allow the appeals of the Revenue.
-
1991 (12) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sidering the question whether Royalty paid under the license agreements should form part of the assessable value of the components imported observed that ldquo these payments were relatable directly to manufacture of goods in India and they had no nexus with import of goods from Japan. It is, therefore, not correct to load the import price on account of payment of Royalties for local manufacture. rdquo 13A. The above preposition is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the payment of Royalty is relatable directly to the manufacture of soft drinks by the buyers of the lsquo concentrate rsquo from the appellants but not to the manufacture of lsquo concentrate rsquo by the appellants on the other hand receipt of Royalty is income for the appellants. Therefore, we are of the view that the lsquo Franchise fees rsquo is not includable in the assessable value of the lsquo Concentrate rsquo . We accordingly allow the appeal, and set aside the order of the Collector.
-
1991 (12) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Export under bond - T.V. sets ... ... ... ... ..... ny Rule or notification exempting payment of excise duty itself, I fail to see how an additional duty of excise can be levied and collected on the products unless clear contrary intention appears in the Notification or the Rule itself. 12. Section 49(3) of the Act itself makes it clear that the provisions of the Act and Rules relating, inter alia, to exemption of Central Excise will apply to additional duty of excise which was being levied. Therefore, if there is any Rule exempting imposition of Central Excise, then such rule should also apply to levy of additional excise. The exemption should also be granted to manufacturer from payment of additional duty of excise. 13. In that view of the matter, the writ petition must succeed. 14. There will be orders in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c). 15. The writ petition is finally disposed of as above. 16. The Respondents have not used any affidavit-in-opposition. The allegations in the petition are not admitted by the respondents.
-
1991 (12) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Refund - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... al exaction in a writ petition filed under Article 226. In this situation, the question has often arisen whether a petitioner s prayer for refund of taxes collected over an indefinite period of years should be granted once the levy is found to be illegal. To answer the question in the affirmative would result in discrimination between persons based on their choice of the forum for relief, a classification which, prima facie, is too fragile to be considered a relevant criterion for the resulting discrimination. This is one of the reasons why there has been an understandable hesitation on the part of Courts in answering the above question in the affirmative. 7. In above view of the matter, on each of the grounds stated above it would not be proper to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the department to refund the amount of tax collected. No other contention be raised. 8. There is no substance in the petition. Hence rejected. Rule discharged.
-
1991 (12) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... of filing an appeal by incurring large expenses. Secondly, the decision of the Collector is entirely unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no dispute whatsoever about the facts on which the decision is to be resisted. In these circumstances, we decline to accede to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Desai. 8. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the impugned order dated July 7,1983 passed by Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, and a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A to the petition, is set aside. We wish to make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion about the claim rejected by the Assistant Collector by order dated October 3l, 1981 as appeal filed by the petitioners against the refusal of part of the claim of refund .is still pending. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The bond executed by the petitioners in accordance with the interim orders passed by this Court stands discharged.
-
1991 (12) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Refund - 'Unjust enrichment' - Meaning of - Indirect taxes collected without authority of law - Interpretation of statute - Discrimination
-
1991 (12) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ Petition - Show Cause Notice stage - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... 52 Tax Cases 160, it was observed by Lord Salmon that However much the courts may deprecate an Act they must apply it. It is not possible by torturing its language or by any other means to construe it so to give a meaning which Parliament clearly did not intend it to bear . 24. This principle should also apply to the notifications issued by the Government. There is no need or justification for torturing the language of notifications and extract a meaning which it does not naturally bear on the basis of assumed intention of the Government. 25. In view of the aforesaid it is not necessary to go into the question whether the stabled wagons manufactured by the petitioner can be considered to be independent goods with a market of its own. There are also certain disputed questions of facts on which no opinion need be expressed. 26. This writ petition must succeed. There will be an order in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (12) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Writ jurisdiction - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... lack of jurisdiction, total lack of competence of the statutory authority to grant relief, fundamental rights having been infringed which are all lacking in this case, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy merely because the statutory remedy is onerous. Collector of Customs v. Bava (AIR 1968 SC 13) relied on. The decision cited by Shri Neema set out above would support the view taken by us. 7. As a result admission of petition is declined. It is, however, ordered that if the petitioner presents an appeal before CEGAT, New Delhi by 15-1-1992 the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Further the stay order dated 13-7-1991 granted by this court will remain in force till 15-1-1992 by which date the petitioner may also present a stay application to the CEGAT, New Delhi and get further orders from the same. 8. Subject as aforesaid, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (12) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Refund - Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... e again and it has been decided to reiterate instructions dated 10-8-81. A telex in this connection was already sent on 21-3-90 (F. No. 390/30/88-AU) to all concerned. ....... All pending refund cases may be decided in the light of the above instructions F. No. 210/30/81-CX.6 dated 10-8-81. 22. These instructions are binding on all Central Excise Officers under Section 37B of the Act. 23. Accordingly this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 6th March 1991 is set aside insofar as it denies the refund of Rs. 10,70,973.04 to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to forthwith grant the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,70,973.04 to the petitioner by 15th January, 1992. Having regard to the facts of this case the petitioner will be entitled to the costs of this application which are assessed at 25 GMs. 24. Let xerox copy of this judgment be given to the parties upon the undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the judgment and payment of usual charges.
........
|
