|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 650 Records
-
1991 (12) TMI 283 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... use period of limitation is not prescribed does not mean that a petition under Article 226 can be filed a number of years after the cause of action had arisen. It was sought to be contended by Mr. Mohan that it is only when a Notification of 9th April, 1977 was issued making Skimmed Milk Powder expressly taxable that the petitioner got the cause of action because the mistake was discovered by the petitioner. We are unable to agree with this. The cause of action arose when the petitioner made the payment of Excise Duty between March 1970 and 8th April, 1977. At best it arose when the assessments were made. If the petitioner had to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution it should have done so more expeditiously then wailing till 1980 before filing the present writ petition. 16. For the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o the manufacture of tyres and the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 was admissible. In view of this, Shri A.B. Verma, Manager. Administration, submitted that, he is not pressing the relief under Notification No. 50/67 as the respondents are getting the maximum benefit under the aforesaid Notification No. 217/86. After perusing the said order we find that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid Order No. 521/90-C, dated 24-5-1990. 4. emsp Needless to say that, the respondents have also filed the Cross-objections claiming the benefit of the said Notification. 5. emsp In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is held that the subject goods are classifiable under Heading 40.17 and the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986. The respondents be granted the consequential relief, if any. Cross-objections also stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (12) TMI 250 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... by way of statements by the workers or any evidence from which an inference could be drawn that in fact the manufacturing activity of the job required for the electric motors was not taking place in one of the two units as held by the learned lower authority, the charge cannot be held to have been brought home beyond reasonable doubt. There is no statement on record to show that no motors at all were manufactured at M/s. Lakme Engineers premises. The learned lower authority has taken note of the fact that there was no machinery for testing of the motors at M/s. Lakme Engineers but no fact has been elicited from anybody as to where the motors at Lakme Engineers were being tested. There is also no finding that as a part of the practice of the industry each unit must have its own motor testing facility. In view of the above, therefore, I hold that benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants and for that reason the learned lower authority rsquo s order has to be set aside.
-
1991 (12) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... respondents have paid duty in 1977, when they were called upon by the Deptt. to deposit the duty payable at the blended wool top stage, they are not entitled to the relief. It is true that the respondents paid the duty when called upon, however, imme shy diately within the period of limitation they have filed the claim for refund of duty. Therefore, they were, throughout, maintaining that the duty was not payable at the blended wool top stage, but only at the pure wool top stage. Therefore, the fact that they have paid duty in 1977 does not in any way affect their right to claim the benefit of the order of this Tribunal in British India Corporation. 13. emsp Shri Asthana contended that the show cause notice is barred by limitation. In the light of the views, which were taken, it is not necessary to consider this argument. Secondly, this argument was not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, we do not consider this arguments. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Mrs. Archana Wadhwa appeared before this Bench on 14-12-1994 and argued Stay Application No. E/513/94-B1 in Appeal No. E/876/94-B1 in the case of M/s. Aarti Steels Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. She also appeared in another matter M/s. Bhushan Metallic Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh in E/Stay /638/94-B in Appeal No. E/831/94-B. He requested for the dismissal of the stay application for want of default in appearance. 3. Considered. The Court Master confirmed the appearance of the said Advocate on 14-12-1994 as per Court Diary. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification for acceding to the request for adjournment. Consequently we reject the same. Accordingly the stay application is dismissed for default in appearance. 4. emsp In view of the above, the notice be issued to the appellants to show cause as to why the appeal be not dismissed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. To come up on 17-1-995.
-
1991 (12) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t-levy or non-levy the drift is quite clear. It is clearly not meant to pose and answer a question in the abstract were printed cartons manufactured by R.M.D.C. liable to pay duty under Item 68 CET or were they eligible for exemption in terms of Notification 55/75? The object of the issue of notice was, if ultimately the proceedings led to the conclusion that the goods were liable to pay duty, to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector extending the benefit of exemption lsquo with consequential relief, if any. This judgment of the Tribunal also noticed and discussed the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Triveni Sheet Glass Works in Para 19 of the said Report. Since the present impugned order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta also gives relief to the respondents lsquo with consequential relief rsquo , the judgment of the Tribunal in RMDC would apply with full force. Hence the appeal is dismissed with consequential relief to the respondents.
-
1991 (12) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... my has to borne in mind, i.e., (1) the inputs and (2) finished goods. Finished excisable goods contemplated in the proviso is the finished goods into which inputs have gone. It does not contemplate intermediary goods as finished goods. The credit of duty paid on the inputs is given for payment of duty on the finished excisable goods. Inputs have gone into the finished excisable goods and not only into the intermediary goods. Correlation is between the finished goods into which inputs have gone and the inputs. Co-relation is not between the intermediary goods and the duty paid inputs. 3. emsp This advice of the Attorney General of India has been accepted by the Ministry. This advice has also been furnished to the PAC and the C. and A.G.A. The cases, if any, ending in your Collectorate may be decided on the basis of this advice. 8. emsp In view of our foregoing conclusion, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, these two appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
1991 (12) TMI 181 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Remission of duty to goods required for industrial purposes ... ... ... ... ..... which permission is sought are all defective or damaged goods. Even the authorities below have not doubted that claim, and have merely rejected the permission, as they were not declared as such ldquo on receipt rdquo . As mentioned earlier, if they felt the goods to have been damaged during manufacturing process, permission ought to have been granted vide Rule 195. 7. The appellants have brought on record the evidence that in the earlier proceedings, the same issue was raised, and ultimately the department had, under the direction from Collector (Appeals), to refund the duty charged. There is no denial to this fact from the Department. 8. When the provisions of Rule 195 and Rule 196B are clear, denial of permission, and demand of duty do not appear justified and the direction to that effect cannot be sustained and are set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The appellants be permitted to destroy the goods without charging of the duty.
-
1991 (12) TMI 180 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference to High Court - Duty paid damaged cigarettes returned to factory from the dealers ... ... ... ... ..... reference because of the fact that we have not refused refund on the ground that damaged cigarettes have not been sold or offered for sale. On the contrary, we have observed that in all the cases of damaged goods, the goods may not be sold or offered for sale but there is an intrinsic value of the damaged goods and their intrinsic value or scrap value in the market should be more than the duty paid at the time of clearance, in the circumstances, reference on Question No. 4 is not called for. 14. In the result, we refer the following one question only to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay, in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - ldquo Whether the amount of reimbursement of the cost of cigarettes originally cleared but returned in a damaged condition by way of issue of credit notes to the dealers, could be taken to be market value of the damaged cigarettes returned, for purpose of Clause (vi) of Rule 97(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1947 rdquo
-
1991 (12) TMI 179 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ots received by the appellants and supplied to M/s. Bansal Steel Rolling Mills for the manufacture of flats (This factual position is subject to verification). It appears that this case would fall within the purview of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, inasmuch as there has been a variation in respect of the duty paid on flats consequent on the demand made by the Department on the supplier of inputs. This duty demand has been paid by them. Such a variation in duty consequent on a subsequent demand could be taken by way of credit under Rule 57E. Since the credit is reported to have been taken in July, 1988, much after the amendment of Rule 57E, the case merits to be examined under Rule 57E. Since the lower authorities have not examined the issue from this angle, I remand the case back to the Asstt. Collector for considering the eligibility for credit in terms of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules and pass orders in accordance with law. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1991 (12) TMI 177 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... lso an instrument for payment of dues to the Government and the same is prescribed under the Treasury Rules. The only difficulty could be that TR 6 Challans may not have the column for indicating the particulars of goods, in respect of which the sum has been collected as duty. Hence, the TR 6 Challans as such may not be correlatable to the goods cleared. Hence, I find that payment under TR 6 challan is duly correlated to the goods cleared under the invoices consigned to the appellants by the certificate issued by the Range Supdt. This certificate also specifically mentions the exigency under which duty collection was made under TR 6 challan. Hence, the certificate and TR 6 challan are as good as GP 1 and are to be accepted even under Rule 57G. I, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the Assistant Collector to extend the Modvat credit on production of original copy of certificate of duty payment on inputs issued by Range Supdt. and TR 6 challan as received by the appellants.
-
1991 (12) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... he President to make a reference where members of a Bench find themselves unable to decide a case according to what they perceive to be the correct law and fact because of an impediment arising from an earlier decision with which they cannot honestly agree. In such cases, it is necessary for the healthy functioning of the Tribunal that the President should have the requisite authority to refer the case to a large Bench. That is a power which is implied in the express grant authorising the President to constitute Benches of the Tribunal for effective and expeditious discharge of its functions. 11. However, in the case before us, the final order has already been passed. Therefore, the only course open to the appellants is to avail of the statutory remedy provided under Section 35L of the CESA and this has in fact been availed of by the applicants. The miscellaneous application is rejected for the above reasons. 12. Accordingly, both the miscellaneous applications are dismissed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... s appeared on behalf of the applicant for payment of interest at the rate of 12 in the event of their losing the appeal. While exercising our inherent powers in view of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi reported in AIR 1969 S.C. 430, we accept the offer of the learned Senior Advocate as to the payment of interest at the rate of 12 in the event of their losing the appeal. 6. In the result, the stay application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 7. Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court had expressed the view for the disposal of the appeal preferably within a period of four months from the date of the order i.e. 10th September, 1991. In the interest of justice, we order that the matter to be heard on merits on 6th February, 1992. It is further ordered that the matter be placed on the top of the list and no outstation matters should be listed. In any case, no adjournment will be granted to any side.
-
1991 (12) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... t pending revision petition and this is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Rule 233B. The rules are procedural and cannot be treated as mandatory rdquo Similar is the view expressed by this Tribunal in Andhra Cement v. C.C.E. (supra). Therefore, following the above, we hold that the failure to endorse ARs/ RT-12 returns and gate passes indicating that the duty is paid under protest does not effect the refund claim on the facts and circumstances of this case and the appellants are entitled to the refund of the amount claimed. We may also in this context refer to the order of this Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Prestige Engineering (supra) wherein it has been held that the Asstt. Collector is under duty to dispose of the letter by a speaking order. In this case, the Asstt. Collector disposed of the letter of protest by a speaking order only on 17-2-1989. Therefore, for the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and the Asstt. Collector is directed to refund the amount.
-
1991 (12) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... parties themselves, the Supreme Court had earlier held in two judgments 1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 - Cibatul Ltd. and 1985 (22) E.L.T. 324 -Food Specialities Lid. that just because the goods were manufactured under a brand name and sold entirely to the brand name owner, it could not be concluded that the transaction was not at arm rsquo s length. 3. The only point which the learned representative of the department made was that the sale prince of the brand name owners was almost double their purchase price and that this fact alone showed that the price charged by the appellants from the brand name owners was a favoured price. In reply, the appellants invited attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court (single judge) wherein this point had already been agitated by the department but overruled by the High Court . 3. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the appeals. The appeal is dismissed and the miscellaneous application is also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (12) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nction in the wordings between ldquo issue of notice rdquo and ldquo service of notice rdquo . Hence, were the wording of the statute specifies only issue of notice, the authorities are well within their powers to invoke the statute as prevalent at the time of issue of notice. However, I find that Rule 57-I contemplates service of notice within a period of six months. Hence, when such a notice has been served only on 6-10-1988, that notice ought to be in accordance with the provisions of the amended Rule 57-I. In this case, when show cause notice has been served on 6-10-1988, that notice could have been served only in the context of the amended Rule 57-I. In the absence of any allegation of suppression, fraud etc. made in the show cause notice, the normal time limit of six months is applicable. Since the credit has been taken during the period from 1-6-1987 to 30-6-1987 and the notice has been served on 6-10-1988, the demand is hit by time bar. I, therefore, allow the appeal.
-
1991 (12) TMI 168 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... like to record the plea of the Revenue that the letter was given by the appellant only for discharging the duty liability of the goods in question irrespective of the person who has to pay it. We leave that question open for the reasons seated above. 7. Before parting with this case, we should like to observe that when the High Court has already granted stay of the demand, the Departmental authorities have effected seizure of the vehicles during the continuance of the stay. The remarks of the adjudicating authority in para (iii) of the operative portion of the impugned order as extracted above, in our view, are not called for and lack restraint and sobriety and the Authority would apparently appear to find fault with the appellant for having moved the High Court, which is a remedy available to the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sine there is no duty liability or penalty imposed on the appellant under the impugned order, this appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 167 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ted by the respondents without the film coated on to the sheet. There is also no dispute that the sheets of the type manufactured require a coating of the film as affixed as pleaded by the respondents. The question, therefore, to be considered is whether the use in such circumstances could be considered to be in or in relation to the manufacture of the same. A film coated on to the sheets cannot be considered as a packing material as such. We have considered the scope of the term lsquo in or in relation rsquo to the manufacture rsquo in our judgment in the case of Addison Tools, reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 281 and relying on the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court we have held that anything which would be used to render the goods marketable would be considered to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished product. Following the ratio of our decision in the case of Addison Tools, we hold that the respondents are eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit.
-
1991 (12) TMI 165 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund for returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... e first consignment on 23-5-1984. For the reasons discussed by me earlier, this is the correct position. The Collector (Appeals) fell in error in treating the refund claim as pertaining to the subsequent payment of duty which, as discussed above, was not made either in their letter dated 8-4-1984 or the subsequent claim filed in Form Appendix I, but only in their letter dated 21-9-1987 in reply to the show-cause notice. The refund claim and the claim made in this latter letter relate to different payments of duty and this latter claim cannot be read into the earlier one. In that view of the matter the Assistant Collector rsquo s finding about the claim is correct in law and in the facts of the case and must be upheld by allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal. I order accordingly. 7. The cross-objection of the respondents, i.e. M/s. Indian Chain (P) Ltd. filed by their Counsel on 7-5-1990 in the open Court stands disposed of in terms of above order.
-
1991 (12) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... para 6 of the Tribunal rsquo s order, the Tribunal has taken up the question of limitation in the first place and after analysing the evidence on record, had found that the department cannot be said to be unaware of the activities of the appellants of manufacture of M.M. monomers as an intermediate product and on this ground, the demand was hit by limitation. In the face of such a finding, which goes to the very root of the sustainability of the demand, the rest of the issues now sought to be raised become largely academic and even on the question of dutiability of M.M. monomers emerging at the intermediate stage, the President rsquo s separate order has clearly observed that it may be safely presumed that M.M. monomers were marketable and, therefore, goods for the purpose of excise levy. In the result, therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to be rectified arising out of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the application is accordingly rejected.
........
|
