Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 401 Records
-
1996 (10) TMI 311 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Deemed credit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ust have done, does not render it suppression. Applying this ratio in this case, the fact that the inputs eminated from manufacturers and not from the dealers in market is known to both the parties, firstly to the appellants who chose to take deemed Modvat credit and secondly to the department. But the appellants had to make enquiries, it was something which they must have done viz. to ascertain that the inputs covered by those invoices had suffered duty. The appellants had not done so but had taken deemed Modvat credit on these inputs all the same. In such a context, it was not something the appellants might have done, but something the appellants must have done, before taking the deemed Modvat credit. Since they have failed to do so, it can reasonably be held that the department was justified in alleging suppression of facts by the appellants. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner reversing the Modvat credit taken on the inputs, is correct in law. The appeal is rejected.
-
1996 (10) TMI 310 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... elves independent items of apparatus or appliances but can be used only in the type of metallising equipment used by appellants. The materials in question come into play under what has been described as consumable item in the evaporation zone of the metallising plant. The fact that none of them get incorporated in the final product will not be material for denying them, the status of input going by the ratio of the Larger Bench decision. The function of the materials in question as already described above, and from these function and in the light of the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, it is reasonable to conclude that the graphite boats, graphite powder and solvent, on the facts of this case, will be eligible for Modvat credit as input used in relation to the manufacture of the final product giving the widest meaning to the expression used in the rule as laid down by the Larger Bench. In this view of the matter the impugned orders are set aside in the appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 309 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Removal of goods without payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ready for marketing, is excessive and has not been substantiated by the appellants. 4. emsp It is a settled law that before duty can be demanded on the goods stated to have been removed without payment of duty and entry in the record, such removal has to be established. In disallowing 7 loss, the Commissioner, in fact, says that this quantity has been used in the manufacture of forging and duty as such is payable. While lack of maintenance of proper records by the assessee may be separate point for proceeding investigation, that itself cannot be agitated removal without payment of duty. We noted that the Commissioner rsquo s order is not a speaking order. This issue is covered by the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Multiwyn Industrial Corp. - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 708 (Tribunal). We, therefore, remand the case back to the Commissioner for determining afresh to the extent of loss, if any, to be disallowed, and pass a speaking order according to law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 308 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n the entire value under T.I. 34(III) of the Tariff. 7. emsp As the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the goods removed from the premises of the respondents were not Trailors as known commercially, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. 8. emsp Trailor is a wheeled vehicle designed to be hauled by motor vehicle. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it had been defined as ldquo any vehicle other than a side car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle rdquo . The trailor had to be called by another vehicle (refer Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Karnataka Implements and Machineries Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 572 (Tribunal). 9. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 307 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... r the benefit under Notification No. 253/82 as clarified by Notification No. 213/88, they may not be able to claim the refund of any amount paid, which is not proved to have been paid under protest. 6. emsp The question that remains is whether the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty ought to be sustained. The basic allegation against them was of removal of goods without payment of duty, though they were not eligible to get the exemption under Notification 253/82. With the clarificatory notification as interpreted by the Tribunal in the decision referred to above, it is indicated that what they had initially done could be considered to be the one, which was within their right to do. With the clarification given therefore there is some scope of giving benefit thereof in relation to confiscation and imposition of penalty. Giving the same benefit, therefore, the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty are set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1996 (10) TMI 306 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... or of Central Excise, 1992 (62) E.L.T. 66 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had observed that it was the choice of the assessee either to follow the procedure under Rule 173H or the procedure under Rule 173L of the Rules. 9. emsp As there is no dispute that when the goods were brought back they were duty paid and they were covered by the provisions of Rule 173H, we consider that when they were removed after processing no differential Central Excise Duty was chargeable in the absence of any specific violation of the condition as specified by the Collector of Central Excise (now the Commissioner of Central Excise). There is no allegation to the effect that any condition specified by the Collector in this regard had been violated. In the facts and circumstances of this case we consider that the view taken by the adjudicating Collector of Central Excise was not correct. As a result the appeal filed by M/s. Antifriction Bearings Corporation Limited is allowed. 10. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 305 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake apparent from the record ... ... ... ... ..... not been declared. Thus, while such final products were bare copper wires, they had only declared enamelled copper wire as their final product. The declared inputs were common for both these final products. Though, on a strict interpretation of Rules 57G and 57F the view had been taken that such utilisation of credit was erroneous, the nature of irregularity is not serious. The applicants did not derive any advantage, otherwise not due to them, as the subject credit if not utilised by them for payment of duty on the final products in question would have been available to them for being utilised for payment of duty on their other final product which had been declared. The two final products are also akin to each other in some respects and not too different. The wrong utilisation of credit had also been rectified by fresh payment of duty from their PLA. In the circumstances, the imposition of penalty deserves to be set aside. We order accordingly. The rectification is allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 304 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Natural Justice - Paper ... ... ... ... ..... llers and payment particulars etc. That not having been done and the plea of the appellant not having been considered, we are of the view that the impugned order is again illegal, as the principles of natural justice are violated in this regard. This aspect also should be taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, the use of the material in the making of the paper with reference to the records should also be taken into consideration, for arriving at a conclusion and the appellant should be given an opportunity to agitate his case for looking into the records which are now in the possession of the deptt. In the result, we allow the appeals by way of remand for de novo adjudication by the adjudicating authority in the light of the observations made above. The appellants have already pre-deposited certain amounts on the stay order and these amounts so deposited by the appellants shall abide by the final result in the adjudication proceedings.
-
1996 (10) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - By-product - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, unsustainable. 4. emsp However, the fact remains that the three inputs in question and glycerine as final product are covered under Modvat Scheme. Admittedly the inputs have been used in the manufacture of glycerine which is cleared on payment of duty. The inputs had been included in the declaration, though mistakenly, against a different final product. In the context of these facts and circumstances of this case, it will be appropriate and reasonable to extend the Modvat credit facility to the respondents in respect of the inputs hydrochloric acid, ferric alum, and activated carbon used in the manufacture of glycerine. In this view of the matter we do not feel called upon to modify the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents are also directed to file a revised declaration before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner which, if otherwise in order, may be accepted to regularise the availment of credit. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (10) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Non-accountal of Excisable goods - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... also excisable goods found unaccounted in the factory of production in fully manufactured and packed condition had been seized and confiscated but Tribunal set aside the confiscation holding that the power of confiscation under Rule 173Q is not attracted to goods which were still in the factory and which had not reached the stage of removal. The ratio of this decision is fully applicable to the present case and following it the order of confiscation and fine on the goods is set aside. However, offence of non-accountal of the excisable goods is fully established by the evidence on record and the levy of the penalty on the appellants as maintained by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reasonable and needs no modification. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of holding that the order of confiscation is set aside .The other aspect of the order of the lower authority is upheld .The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellants will be eligible to consequential relief as per the law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ed by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 9-2-1987. The ld. Collector (Appeals) should have gone into the plea of the appellants that no copy of the order was served on them prior to 9-2-1987. They had filed an appeal on 4-5-1987. In view of the above, I consider it to be a fit case for remanding back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who should afford the opportunity to the appellants to explain the delay and then the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) should go into the grounds if he is satisfied then should go into the merits of the case. In case he is not satisfied then proper reasons should be recorded after investigating the pleas taken by the appellants. 6. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, I set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remand the matter back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for disposal after observing the principles of natural justice. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 300 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Deemed credit - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... edit of duty which he knows or has reason to believe is not permissible under the rules are among other circumstances warranting imposition of penalty but the taking of credit of duty in respect of inputs, wrongly simpliciter also attracts penalty. The appellants had taken inadmissible Modvat credit in violation of the condition in the relevant order of the Ministry which clearly laid down that no credit shall be allowed if in respect of the inputs, credit of specified duty paid thereon had already been availed under any rule or notification, trotting out contrived distinction between credit of specified duty and deemed credit . They had also not maintained the RG 23A Part II account as required and took the disputed differential credit amount after a time lag of nearly four months in November 1990 for inputs claimed to be in stock after 16th July, 1990. The imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority is justified. We see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (10) TMI 299 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... pt the plea of the appellants that cost of gunny bags should not be included in the assessable value of the cement manufactured and cleared by the party. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and in the result, the Appeal is allowed. It is thus seen that ldquo returnable rdquo means one need not actually return but what is required is an arrangement between the buyers and the suppliers to return the goods. In the facts and circumstances of the case the above activity of the appellant and the buyers as well as the so called agents would amount to such an arrangement. Subject to satisfcation of authorities that the same bags are return. In that view of the matter the appellants are entitled for the deduction of this amount from the assessable value. Subject to the above satisfaction. Accordingly they are entitled for the refund in this behalf which was paid by them under protest. Subject to the above. In this view of the matter the appeals are allowed in the above terms.
-
1996 (10) TMI 298 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation
... ... ... ... ..... l Box India Ltd. case. The decisions of the Tribunal, which are contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Metal Box India Ltd. case cannot be regarded as laying down good law. 8. emsp It is contended for appellant that Collector (Appeals) was in error in setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector. We do not agree. In the light of the two defects in the order of the Assistant Collector noticed by Collector (Appeals), the former rsquo s order required to be set aside. In effect, he ordered remand of the case to verify the aspect already indicated and work out the correct amount to be refunded. This was also justified. 9. emsp In the result, we modify the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) by directing that the duty element on the deductible freight charges should be added not to the assessable value but to the wholesale price and thereafter the assessable value and the actual amount to be refunded should be arrived at. The appeals are allowed to this extent.
-
1996 (10) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Simultaneous availment of Modvat credit and duty exemption not permissible ... ... ... ... ..... eir production and did not avail of any exemption. Thus, we find that the situation in the case before us was different from the situation before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court had held that on reversal of the Modvat credit, the assessee could not be said to have taken credit of duty on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of exempted final products. As the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had only held that the assessee could either avail of the Modvat credit or avail of the exemption, we find no infirmity in his view. If the appellants want exemption in respect of whole of their production, then, as held by the Supreme Court, the exemption could not be denied to the final products, but only after the reversal of the Modvat credit already taken. Thus, we find that the facts in the present case are distinguishable. 14. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any merit in both the appeals and the same are rejected.
-
1996 (10) TMI 296 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Set-off duty and Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ise reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 546. In that case the issue before the Tribunal was in the context of Notification No. 95/71 subject to the following of 56A procedure. However this notification is not before us today nor any pleas have been urged in this regard nor this plea was made before the learned lower authority. The position appears to be similar in the present case the only difference being that the Notification No. 201/79 had the procedure which is stated to be 56A procedure incorporated therein therefore the position will have to be examined with reference to the terms of this notification and a fresh examination in this regard is called for. We therefore while allowing the appeal of the Department that the concession of Rule 57H(3)(b) was not available, direct the learned original authority to examine the issue for consideration of grant of refund in cash in the light of the decision of the Tribunal cited before. The appeal is therefore decided in the above terms.
-
1996 (10) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... connected with the process of manufacture of marbles. Following the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court I hold that gantry crane and trolly shall be eligible for the benefit of Rule 57Q. 6. emsp In so far as transformers are concerned I find that transformers have been introduced as capital goods item under Rule 57Q with effect from 16-3-1995 if transformers are capital goods with effect from 16-3-1995 it cannot be said that they were not capital goods before that date. Transformers are capital goods was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Nav Bharat Paper Mills cited above it was held that transformers were capital goods and were entitled to the benefit of Rule 57Q. I do not see any reason to hold contrary view in the matter. 7. emsp Having regard to the above discussions I hold that gantry crane and trolly and transformers are eligible for the benefit of Rule 57Q. In the result the two appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected and the impugned orders are upheld.
-
1996 (10) TMI 294 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ril, 1988 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in the first petition (refer to the Tribunal rsquo s order No. M.159/88, dated 5-4-1988 in appeal No.E/1520/84 B1). 9. emsp Reference may also be made to the case of Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (SC). 10. emsp The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken a view that the prime mover portion of the monoblock pump, which are not cleared incomplete or unfinished could not be classified under sub-heading No. 8501.00. While coming to this decision in addition to the factual aspects, he had relied upon the Board rsquo s instructions extracted above. We consider that the factual aspect of the matter had not undergone any change with the introduction of the new tariff. We do not find any infirmity in the views taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and accordingly, we do not find any merit in all these six appeals filed by the Revenue and all the six appeals are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 293 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import of car by Indian repatriates of Gulf war ... ... ... ... ..... that the only difference is that the respondent herein had not directly came from Kuwait to India in one spell but had deposited the car in Amman and then had travelled in the car from Amman to Attari Land Customs Station, India. We find that the car was left in Amman and was later on collected from Amman. This fact has been supported by the letter of the Indian Embassy, Jordan. We also observe that there is no condition in the Notification that journey in the car between Kuwait and India could not be broken. The car no doubt had travelled from Kuwait to the Land Customs Station at Attari and therefore, we hold that condition No. (i)(b) is fully fulfilled and thus the respondent herein is entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-1990. 7. emsp In view of the above findings, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 8. emsp In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1996 (10) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Dealy in taking credit ... ... ... ... ..... itted that it has been seen from the records that the inputs were being recorded in form IV register immediately on their receipt and were being shown as and when they were issued for manufacture of final product. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it necessary to specify any time-limit within which the inputs should be recorded in RG 23A Part I or RG-23A Part II as each case is to be examined on the basis of facts of each case and also whether adequate records were available regarding the receipt of the goods and payment of duty. In view of the facts of the case and the records maintained by the appellants we hold that the goods were received in the factory and utilised for the purpose of manufacture of finished products. Having regard to all the case law and the submissions made we hold that modvat credit shall be admissible to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
............
|