|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 650 Records
-
1991 (12) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)
Demand not raisable - Classification list approved ... ... ... ... ..... the proviso appended to Section 11A is not attracted at all. 47. In view of my findings aforementioned, it is not necessary to consider the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that even on merits the classification of unmachined steel castings made by Respondent No. 2 is not in accordance with law, need not be considered as, in my opinion, this Court should not enter into the thicket of a disputed question. 48. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st of July, 1991 as contained in Annexare-18 is quashed. 49. By our order dated 7-10-1991, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said amount has been deposited. The aforementioned amount of Rs. 2 lakhs may be adjusted by the petitioner against its current and future dues. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall also bear their own costs. R.N. Sahay, J. -I agree.
-
1991 (12) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ent. The enforcement of the Bank guarantees shall abide by the decisions and it shall stand postponed until the decisions are communicated to the petitioners and for a period of four weeks thereafter. We have maintained the other direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to the further course of action in respect of Bank guarantees already furnished, and that direction shall continue to be operative until the appropriate applications of the petitioners, if preferred within the extended time are disposed of, and the decisions thereon are communicated to the petitioners and for a period of four weeks thereafter. The petitioners shall keep alive the Bank guarantees already furnished and to be furnished until the appropriate applications are disposed of, the decisions thereon communicated to the petitioners and for a period of four weeks thereafter as above. We dismiss these writ appeals and the dismissal of these writ appeal is subject to the above directions. No costs.
-
1991 (12) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Seized goods - Return of if not confiscated ... ... ... ... ..... titioners were compelled to reimburse their customers from whom the ornaments were received. In these circumstances, the respondents are bound to pay the market value of the gold ornaments as prevailing on February 22, 1983 along with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from February 22, 1983 till the date of actual payment. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to forthwith pay to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 the market value of the seized gold ornaments of 634.200 grams quantity as shown in the panchanama. The market value of the gold ornaments is to be determined as prevailing on February 22, 1983 when the Additional Collector passed the order. The respondents shall also pay interest on the said amount which will be ascertained with reference to the official market rate prevailing on February 22, 1983 along with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from February 22,1983 till the date of payment. The respondents shall pay costs of the petition.
-
1991 (12) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Refund - Strictures on Central Excise and Customs Department ... ... ... ... ..... that Act. This proviso can only apply to applications which have been made before the amendment came into force but was not dealt with and or disposed of in accordance with the law in force at the material time. On or from 20th September, 1991, the applications which were pending, will have to be dealt with in accordance with the amended provisions of law. In my judgment this provision cannot apply to a case where not only an application for refund was made but dealt with and disposed of by a final order. A specific order was passed by the court. The amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not have the effect of nullifying that order. 5. In that view of the matter, this application must fail and is dismissed. 6. There will be no order as to costs. 7. The department is directed to supply xerox copy of this order to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties on usual charges and on undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of this order.
-
1991 (12) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the duty referable to that portion which is lost also should get rebate while assessing for excise duty on the pipes and tubes of copper and copper alloys?
Held that:- No doubt that even the manufacturing loss will have to be taken into account in determining the relief to be provided under the said Notification. We are also unable to understand the argument of the Revenue based on the difficulty in arriving at the manufacturing loss. If there is any difficulty it is for the manufacturer who claims the relief to prove the loss. There are also scientific methods of arriving at the loss,
Allow the appeal set aside the order of the High Court and the Revenue Authorities and direct the respondents to give the benefit of exemption of duty in respect of loss in the process of manufacture.
-
1991 (11) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r in Sl. No. (vi) in Babubhai Nyal Chand Mehta rsquo s case and held it to be classifiable under TI 17(2). Therefore, the ruling of the Supreme Court being later in time of period overrules the ruling of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Warden and Co. Sh. Jagadeesan stated that the product is predominated by hessian and therefore, is classifiable under TI 22(A). There is no test report in this matter. The hessian content is not known. In the case of East India case the hessian content was 30 , bitumen 53 and kraft paper 17 and the Tribunal held it to be classifiable under TI 17(2). The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court having already considered the classification of jute lined bituminised water proof packing paper and hessian lined kraft paper to be classifiable under TI 17(2). We are bound by the ruling of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, applying to the said ruling, the impugned order is set aside and the order of the Asstt. Collector is upheld by allowing the appeal.
-
1991 (11) TMI 160 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund - Interest - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Parekh Prints and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1992 (62) E.L.T. 253 (Del.) 1991 (3) Delhi Lawyer 99. In this case the Bench held that the petitioners were not entitled to withhold the amount of additional excise duty after having collected the same from the consumers and since the petitioners had utilised the amount of said duty for their own business purposes, the Union of India was allowed to encash the bank guarantees pertaining to the said amount of excise duty and it was held that the Union of India was entitled to interest on this amount at the rate of 17.5 per annum from the date the duty became payable. 8. emsp In view of the above discussion the Writ petition is allowed. We, therefore, direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 17.5 per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,09,60,000/- from the date of deposit of the said amount till it was refunded within 4 weeks from today. Order accordingly.
-
1991 (11) TMI 158 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ffer from factory to factory and unless some test in this regard is conducted in the factory of the appellants, no such conclusion can be arrived at on presumptions and assumptions by relying on the production report of other concerns like M/s. PACOR and M/s. OMC Alloys. In such circumstances, as point No. (ii), we hold that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Collector that the appellants had clandestinely removed 313.823 M.Ts. of charge chrome is not based on any reliable evidence and consequently the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 47,57,761.78 is hereby set aside. Point No. (ii) is decided accordingly. 35. Point No. (iii) Since we have reached the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence to show that the appellants had removed 313.832 M.Ts of charge chrome clandestinely, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is also not legal and proper and accordingly we set aside the same. 36. In the result, the Appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (11) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... had been satisfied, there was no reason why the benefit extended by Collector (Appeals) in all these cases should be denied by the Tribunal. 9. We have carefully seen the papers and given thought to the matter. We observe that the respondents had furnished the requisite statement to the Superintendent of Central Excise. The input output ratio indicated in this statement was also explained to us at the hearing and the learned Sr. D.R. was also satisfied that the co-relation had been established correctly. We agree with Collector (Appeals) that it is not a requirement of the notification that the benefit therein must be claimed at the time of clearance of the goods alone and cannot be claimed by way of refund of duty subsequently. All that is necessary is that the condition stipulated in the notification should be fulfilled. Since the conditions have been fulfilled, we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) and reject all the five appeals.
-
1991 (11) TMI 156 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... quasi-judicial adjudications and appeals and there is also no warrant for grant of such relief in law or on facts either. It is also fairly well-settled that a Trade Notice issued by a Collectorate cannot be construed to be statutory in nature and even in the interests of justice if the Trade Notice of Hyderabad Collectorate No. 94/89 dated 18-5-1989 could be construed to be statutory in character and by a broad and liberal interpretation could be brought within the mischief of Rule 57F(4)(b) and treated as one issued by the Central Government, the respondent would not get any relief out of the same for the simple reason that me Trade Notice was issued on 18-5-1989 whereas the period involved is between 20th January, 1988 and 20th July, 1988. There is no warrant in law to construe it as operative retrospectively and, therefore, in any view of the matter the impugned order is not sustainable in law. In this view I hold that the appeal has to be allowed and I order accordingly.
-
1991 (11) TMI 151 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (
... ...
... ... ..... emand duty from the appellants in the Show Cause Notices, demanding the said duties vide the Orders-in-Original is not sustainable in law. On this short point alone, the original orders do not survive. As far as the imposition of penalty is concerned, when the Show Cause Notices issued alleged that the structurals were fabricated and erected by the job workers, there is no question of contravention of Rule 46,174 or 178 by the Appellants. According to the settled case law on the subject, supplier of raw materials is not a manufacturer unless the job workers are proved to be dummies or facades of the supplier. In the instant case, no such evidence is let in. Therefore, there is no justification of imposition of penalties on the appellants. Accordingly without going into the detailed merits of the case, the impugned orders are set aside allowing the appeals without prejudice to any further action that may be taken against the two job workers rsquo firms, if warranted otherwise.
-
1991 (11) TMI 148 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit - Ramming Mass used for coating the bricks used for lining the furnace ... ... ... ... ..... red to be applied in the present case as we have to first see whether the material in question is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. As has been explained in the appeal and as has been discussed in the orders of the lower authorities the Ramming Mass is used for coating the bricks which are used for lining the furnace. Thus, their use is in connection with or in relation to the furnace for its maintenance for lining its broken inner surface after each heat. Such use is not in the manufacturing process for the production of steel. Applying the test spelt out by the Supreme Court in the Ballarpur case, the utilisation of Ramming Mass is not in the manufacturing process but in relation to the apparatus, for its repair. Hence, as it is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of steel, it has been rightly held to be ineligible for the benefit under Rule 57A. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the appeal which we dismiss accordingly.
-
1991 (11) TMI 147 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... item. The other may be pre-treatment of the raw material which go into the manufacturing stream or the materials which may be used for making the end product ready for marketing. The use of the materials has to be such that they carry by their participation, in the manufacturing stream the process of manufacture a step further. 5. Therefore, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and of this Tribunal cited supra, we hold that both Hydrochloric and Sulphuric Acid would be eligible for the benefit of MODVAT Credit, as these are used for treatment of water as seen from the order of the lower appellate authority. So far as Hydrazene 100 is concerned, it is also used for treatment of water. Its use is for the generation of steam which is used in the manufacturing process and we hold that Hydrazene 100 is also eligible for the benefit of MODVAT Credit. In view of above, we find no merits in the appeal of the Revenue and therefore we reject the same.
-
1991 (11) TMI 145 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE
MODVAT Credit Reversal of
... ... ... ... ..... nputs which were in stock prior to issue for being manufactured as amounting to Rs. 90,496.50. They have also relied upon a few decisions to bring home the point that the Trade Notices cannot be ignored by the quasi-judicial authorities. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to utilise the modvat credit taken on the inputs which have actually been issued and were damaged in the fire accident while in the manufacturing process. However, they are not entitled for the credit of the amount on the inputs which have not even been issued for manufacture but which got damaged in the fire accident. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal with the above directions. The appellant is required to reverse the modvat credit only to the extent of inputs not even been issued for manufacture and not the entire amount as demanded. The Asstt. Collector will determine the quantum of credit to be reversed on the inputs which have not been issued for manufacture.
-
1991 (11) TMI 144 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ce is led, storage thereof in the BSR was a patent violation of the statutory provisions. The letter dated 9-4-1983 does not seek permissible to store the goods in BSR without entry in RG-1. It only seeks permission to defer making entry in RG-1, till testing was done. Such a permission even if presumed to have been granted, such items ought to have been stored at the place other than BSR. Entry in RG-1 register before storage in BSR being a must, non-compliance thereof renders the goods liable to confiscation, and the appellants are liable to imposition of penalty. 8. However, considering the circumstances prevailing, we deem it proper to show some leniency and while upholding the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty, reduce the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and personal penalty to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). 9. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms, with consequential relief, wherever called for,
-
1991 (11) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... mand under Rule 10A was not sustainable because Rule 10A was deleted on 6-8-1977 by Notification 267/77-C.E., we observe that when Rule 10A was deleted, its provisions were incorporated in a modified form in amended Rule 10 which simultaneously came into force. We also note that Collector (Appeals) has, by accepting this to be a demand under Rule 10, restricted it to a period of six months. The Tribunal, while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in. the case of M/s. J.K. Steel Ltd. held in the case of Verma Industrials Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore 1984 (18) E.L.T. 403 that, if a mistake is made in mentioning Rule 10A instead of Rule 10, the demand is not vitiated. Since Collector (Appeals) has already decided to limit the demand for a period of six months prior to the service of the show cause notice, there is no justification for interfering with the orders of the lower authorities which have been validly made. 11. The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1991 (11) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ould be held enforceable only with effect from the date of issue of show cause notice. The learned Senior Counsel however fairly stated that for the purpose of this case it would be sufficient if the demand covered by the show cause notice is held to be time barred. Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decisions supra, we hold that the demand for the period upto 1-3-1986 is barred by limitation. However, in view of the change in the Tariff from 1-3-1986 and in view of the fact that the assessees were put on notice regarding classification for the post March 86 period by provisional approval of the classification list for the period subsequent to 1-3-1986 and further, in view of the fact that the appellants have not challenged the impugned order on merits, we hold that duty is payable for the period from 1-3-1986 to 14-4-1986. 6. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the classification of the product. 7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (11) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Concession for new factories for 5 years ... ... ... ... ..... germane to the dispute and has no bearing thereon. 8. The judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Suksha International reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 does not advance the appellants rsquo case - the Court held therein that an interpretation that unduly restricts the scope of a beneficial construction is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the Import-Export Policy gives with the other. In the present appeal, however, such a situation does not exist. The appellants are not denied the benefit of concession and in fact they have been availing of it from 19-8-1979 i.e. from the date of first clearance of kraft paper till 23-4-1986 i.e. till the end of the period of 5 years from the date of issue of Notification 108/81 dated 24-4-1981. 9. In the light of the above discussions we hold that the respondents are eligible for concession only upto 23-4-1986. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1991 (11) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Predeposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... od of limitation. 6. The learned DR, however, would contend that suppression is established as the declarations do not indicate the Heading No. of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act under which the goods are classifiable. 7. We have perused the Collector rsquo s order dated 7-8-1986 holding identical goods manufactured by M/s. Crystal Plast to be non-excisable as they are not ldquo goods rdquo . We have also gone through the declarations filed by the applicants. Against Sl. No. 4 of the declaration the full description of the goods has been stated by the applicants PVC Portfolio, PVC Partition PVC Hinge Flaps PVC Pouch Elastic Belts etc. 8. In this background the applicants have made out a prima facie on the limitation aspect and therefore, we waive the predeposit of the duty and penalty and stay the recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal in E/Stay/2361/91-C in E/4033/91-C. 9. In the result all the 3 stay applications are allowed in the above terms.
-
1991 (11) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Interpretation of Statute ... ... ... ... ..... quo aforesaid period rdquo contained in Notification 124/87 should be read to mean only the commencement date i.e. 1st January, 1982, in a harmonious construction of Notification 124/87 and 36/87 wherein the same words ldquo aforesaid period rdquo figure in relation only to one date, namely 1st April, 1986. Such a construction is not permissible, as it would result in violence to the plain language of the Notification. The rule of harmonious construction is to be applied only in the event of ambiguity in a notification or if the ordinary interpretation of the notification results in an absurd construction. This is not the case, here. The language of the Notification 124/87 is clear, admits of no ambiguity and the ordinary interpretation of the words ldquo aforesaid period rdquo does not give room to absurdity. We, therefore, see no force in the appellants rsquo submissions. 7. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and confirm the same. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
