|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 650 Records
-
1991 (11) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Assistant Collector is directed to allow cost of transportation and delivery charges, turnover tax and octroi-duty as deductions from assessable value. rdquo 4. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that turnover tax is allowable as a deduction from the assessable value. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction to readjudicate the same in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India and Others v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Associated Pigments Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 186 following the Supreme Court decision. We further order that while readjudicating the matter, the adjudicating authority shall observe principles of natural justice and shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1991 (11) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... on 21-9-1984. Though he has taken a lot of time to comply with the directions but in view of the explanation given by him that the file containing the papers was somehow detached from the case file and it remained untraced in spite of persistent efforts made by the Department is sufficient enough to restore the Appeal to its original number. 13. Under the circumstances, we hereby restore this appeal to its original number. The date of hearing be communicated to the parties as per the availability of the date in the working diary of the Bench keeping in view the fact that this appeal is of the year 1978. Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Mohd. Kunhi reported in 1969 SC 430 had held that the Tribunal has got inherent powers. We are of the view that it is a fit case where we should exercise our inherent powers. We recall the earlier order passed by the Tribunal and restore the appeal to its original number. The appeal to be heard on merits on 18th November, 1991.
-
1991 (11) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sugar - Incentive rebate for higher production ... ... ... ... ..... tion in this behalf has no merit. But the Government of India, has to take note of the fact that when an incentive is to be given to maximise the production during the lean period, the manufacturer should be informed in advance so that they could plan with reference to the extension of the area of sugarcane cultivation, to the extension of the increase of sugarcane plantations and consequential increase of sugarcane supply so that there can be increase in the sugar production. In the instant case, the Government of India had not taken note of all those relevant factors, which are absolutely necessary if the incentive is to increase production during the lean period. In future, the Government of India should take note of all the basic factors while granting exemptions. With this observation, and as a result of the aforesaid conclusion that are arrived at and as there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned notification, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... e stand taken by the respondents to deny the same, the impugned orders are hereby quashed to facilitate the concerned and competent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner on merits including any plea of limitation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Amendment Act, 40/1991. The petitioner, in addition to the representations and claims made already which culminated in the impugned proceedings shall be at liberty to make such further or other representations to the concerned and competent authorities in the light of the amended provisions within eight weeks from today and as and when such representations are made, the concerned and competent authorities shall also consider the same in accordance with law including the question of delay in making the claim and pass appropriate orders regarding the claim of the petitioner. The writ petitions are partly allowed to the extent indicated above, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... security for payment of the difference between the amounts of duty leviable under sub-head 2502.90 and 2502.20. 21. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to direct the respondents to provisionally assess the excise duty under sub-head 2502.20 till the dispute regarding the revision of the rate of excise duty leviable on the petitioner s white cement is finally decided if the petitioner executes bond in the proper form to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 1 and furnishes bank guarantee for the payment of the difference between the amounts of duty as provisionally assessed and as finally assessed with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and also to direct the Collector, Central Excise to pass necessary order under Rule 9B(3) of the Rules if the petitioner approaches him for an order thereunder. Directions are accordingly given. 22. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Demand - Show cause notice - Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... proper to ask the appellant to approach the appellate authority. In this connection, we adopt the reasoning of one of us (Kanakaraj, J) in Madura Coats Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise 1990 (48) E.L.T. 321 (Madras) . 7. The order, dated 6-6-1981 is set aside. The appellant will be given an opportunity to file a fresh explanation to the show cause notice, dated 26-11-1980. The 2nd respondent will consider the plea of limitation in the light of Sec. 11A(1) and the Proviso and decide whether the demand of excise duty for the period from 1-4-1979 to 26-6-1980 or for any portion of the period is within the prescribed time and pass a fresh order. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. Instead of the prayer in the Writ Petition, the impugned order dated 6-6-1981 is set aside and the matter remitted back to the 2nd respondent for passing a fresh order in the light of the directions given supra. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Normal production of tread rubber arrived at by taking into account only the amount of sulphur found short
-
1991 (11) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund of duty on returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... to the requirement of notification under Rule 12 of the Rules. (3) Anup Engineering Ltd. v. Collector 1987 (29) E.L.T. 215 . Except the observation in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1988 (36) E.LT. 435 noticed by me none of the authorities above cited come to the aid of the petitioner in the interpretation of Rule 173L or Rule 12 of the Rules. Mr. Jayachandran for the Revenue sought to contend that against the order of the Tribunal, the only remedy of the petitioner is to seek a reference under Section 130 of the Customs Act. I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy because the writ petition has been pending in this court from the year 1983. 9. For what I have stated above relating to the applicability of Rule 173L and Rule 12 of the Rules I hold that the petitioner cannot get any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ Jurisdiction - Exemption - Claim thereof - Existence of Alternate Remedy ... ... ... ... ..... petitioners, the concerned authority shall consider the same objectively and in the light of the judgments relied on by the petitioners, and thereafter adjudicate and decide the issue. If still the petitioners, after-such adjudication, are aggrieved, they shall be at liberty to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The writ petitioners during pendency of the writ petitions appear to have obtained an interim order and given bank guarantee subject to the result of the writ petitions. Further course of action in respect of such bank guarantees will abide by the result of the adjudication by the respondents, provided the petitioners move the authorities with appropriate applications within six weeks from this date. 7. With the above observation and liberty granted, in my view nothing survives for adjudication in these cases in the light of what has been held supra. The writ petitions, therefore, shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... ave noticed above, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and consequently the writ petition would stand dismissed. It would however, be open to the writ petitioner to raise objections to the show cause notice and lead such evidence as is necessary to arrive at a finding of fact and the authorities shall consider those objections and evidence, if any, and decide the matter in accordance with law. Since, the time during which objections had to be filed to the show cause notice expired during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, in the interests of justice, we grant six weeks time from to-day to the writ petitioner to submit objections to the show cause notice. The authorities shall, after objections are submitted, decide the matter in accordance with law after granting opportunity to the parties, if so requested, of personal hearing, expeditiously. The writ appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the issue in question has been decided in favour of the petitioner in many cases. The decision laid down in The State of Tamil Nadu v. East Coast Constructions and Industries (1986) 61 STC 337 is also in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no prima facie case at all in this case. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the prima facie question of the case and the financial position of the petitioners in a correct perspective, this writ petition is ordered on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs before the Tribunal to the credit of the appeal preferred by them within eight weeks from today. The Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners in accordance with law and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case. 7. This writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs
-
1991 (11) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRA
Order - Appealable order - Appeal - Limitation - Adjudication proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ground of alternative remedy it is not necessary to refer to the ratio of the said judgment. The decision in Toshiba Anand Lamis Ltd., Cochin v. The Superintendent of Central Excise and Others 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 602) does not in any way support the case of the petitioners but on the other hand it says that Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, does not confer any power on the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal. 6A. I have already pointed out that the counter-affidavit explains as to why the Superintendent of Central Excise restricted the claim to Rs. 4,31,618.75. Though the petitioner did not challenge the reasons given in the counter-affidavit, I am satisfied that the reasons given in the counter-affidavit in support of the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise are valid and correct. Consequently no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition and it is dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... Shri Shah submitted that the decision of CEGAT was challenged before the Supreme Court in an appeal preferred by the Excise authorities but the appeal was dismissed. Shri Shah very fairly pointed out that the order of the Supreme Court does not deal with the finding of the Tribunal that the value of the essential parts when not manufactured should not be included in the assessable value of the final article. The decision of the Supreme Court only refers to the inclusion of interest on delayed payments. In our judgment, the decision of the Tribunal that the value of the essential parts should not be included while determining the assessable value cannot be accepted as a correct proposition. The three authorities below have correctly held that the value of the timer and lens even though purchased from the market is required to be included in the assessable value and requires no interference in writ jurisdiction. 4. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged with costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Job Work - Meaning ... ... ... ... ..... he present case because what is supplied by the customers to the petitioners is not raw material and the raw material comes into existence only because of process undertaken by the petitioners. Once, it is found that what is received by the petitioners is not raw material, then it is futile to suggest that the value of the materials manufactured by the petitioners should be determined only with reference to the value of the work undertaken by the petitioners. The three authorities below were perfectly justified in determining the value of the wires by taking into consideration the value of the raw materials. It is also required to be stated that this contention was not raised before any of the three authorities below and is raised for the first time in the petition. In our judgment, the contention has no merit and is required to be repelled. 7. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged with costs. Shri Cama requests for continuation of interim order. Prayer refused.
-
1991 (10) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ey are clearly distinguishable. The ruling of this Bench in the case of CCE v. Natraj Paints (P) Ltd. in Order Nos. 60-61/90-C, dated 30-1-1990 are fully applicable to the facts of this case. Applying the ratio of this case, the Revenue appeals are dismissed. 10. emsp As regards the assessee rsquo s appeal regarding the dismissal of two refund claims of Rs. 24035.86 and 3003.07, they have asserted that the duty had been paid under protest and that the claim is not time barred. They have not placed any evidence on this nor argued on this issue except to say that they are supplemental claims. Therefore, this appeal of assessee is allowed by remand to original authorities for de novo consideration to consider their claim regarding this two refunds applications afresh by giving them an opportunity of being heard. 11. emsp In the result, the Revenue appeals were dismissed and the assessee appeal in E-4455/89-C is allowed by remand to original authorities for de novo consideration.
-
1991 (10) TMI 171 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit - Short credit taken by mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ional credit cannot be denied. The differential amount has been taken within four days in this case soon after they realised the mistake. After perusing Rule 57B of the Rules, I find that there is no specific bar in availing of higher notional credit entitled to them merely because the credit was taken at a subsequent date. In any case, in a case like this, where the initial credit was found to be taken wrongly and the mistake is sought to be rectified within a matter of four days, the higher notional credit cannot be denied to them. I also note the citation made by the Ld. Advocate in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mysore Lac and Paint Works Ltd. - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 590 (Tribunal), wherein the South Regional Bench of CEGAT has held that MODVAT Credit once taken does not disentitle the assessee to take additional credit, if it is found that credit taken was short at a later date. In view of this, I allow this appeal and set aside the order of the authorities below.
-
1991 (10) TMI 170 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Deficiency detected during stock verification ... ... ... ... ..... e major portion of the shortage in question. The de novo adjudication order is again non-speaking on the alleged shortage of about 2.825 M.T. The explanation tendered in this regard that about 1.6 tonnes represents the production of 9-1-1986 which was lying in the factory had not been taken into account and 1.221 tonnes shortage represented the loss between 20-5-1984 to 10-1-1986 due to evaporation, handling and rounding off of quantity has not been considered in the order and needs to be examined. Hence, I remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication of the matter on the limited question of alleged shortage of this 2.825 Metric Tonnes. As the appeal has been allowed in so far as the major portion of the shortage of 37.868 Metric Tonnes is concerned, the appellants would be entitled to the consequent reliefs as they had deposited the total duty and cess demanded before the hearing of their first appeal. 11. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
-
1991 (10) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... other hand, pleaded that the applicants could send the inputs directly to the job workers only after 20-6-1986. Even for that, the prescribed procedure is there. Even this procedure has not been followed. Credit cannot be taken merely on the basis of duty paying documents. Demand has been issued only under Rule 57-I and not under Section 11A. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find prima facie that the Department, having accepted the order of the Collector (Appeals) treating the notice as under Section 11A and holding such a notice as ab initio void and issued without jurisdiction, ought to have issued a fresh notice for adjudication. The applicant seems to be having an arguable case on merits. In the circumstances, we direct the applicants should be give an undertaking to keep balance in RG 23A an amount of Rs. 86.00 lacs, till the disposal of the appeal and on compliance with this requirement, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of both the duty and penalty amounts.
-
1991 (10) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI Units ... ... ... ... ..... ns who owned the brand name ldquo CINNI rdquo which was being used by the appellants on their products were not engaged in any manufacturing activity, on the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision quoted above we hold that they were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 and for this reason in terms of Para 7 of the Notification the exemption under the notification could also not be availed by the appellants. 10. On a plain reading of Notification No. 175/86 we find that eligibility of a manufacturer who affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name of another person, to the exemption under the notification has to be decided only in terms of Para 7 and Explanation VIII. In our view, for this purpose, the provisions of paras 3 and 4 and also Explanation IV of the notification to which the Ld. Counsel had referred in his submissions are not relevant. 10. In view of the above discussion, we confirm the order appealed against and reject the appeal.
-
1991 (10) TMI 166 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjudication - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... with intent to evade duty. But no such facts are established in this case as was discussed by us above. Learned Advocate, Shri Bagaria in this connection, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (SC) and in the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, reported, in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC). The contention of the learned SDK that there was wilful suppression of facts and wilful mis-statement of the facts on the ground that the appellants have removed Venus brand plywood by declaring them as superply III is not established on the circumstances which were relied on by the Department. That being so, the demand is also barred by limitation on this ground also - the demand is not sustainable. In view of the above discussions, this appeal is allowed and the impugned Order confirming the demand and imposing the penalty on the appellant is hereby set aside.
........
|
