|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 768 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Job-worker - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... in their premises. We find that the facts of the present case are similar to those of the above case. It has not been established by the Department that D.L.F. Industries were only hired labourers of the present appellants, in the manufacturing activity. Moreover, it was clearly found by the Commissioner that the manufacturing activity was performed by M/s. D.L.F. Industries as job workers. Therefore, by following the decision of the Tribunal in Best Cotton Mills (supra), we hold that the TG Sets in question were manufactured by M/s D.L.F. Industries (as job workers) and not by the appellants. The appellants, therefore, did not have any liability to pay Central Excise duty on the goods. The demand of duty as raised by the Department and confirmed by the Commissioner is illegal. Consequently, the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty is also unsustainable. We need not go into other issues. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed, with consequential benefits of the appellants.
-
2000 (10) TMI 767 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Natural justice - Show cause notice, grounds of ... ... ... ... ..... authorised them to do so. The Revenue has now come up with a stand that the credit has been taken after a period of 2 frac12 years. The Revenue cannot be allowed to take the benefit of its own lapses and cannot allege that the appellants were inactive in not pursuing their stand before the Asstt. Commr. In any case, I find that the impugned orders have travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice inasmuch as the allegation in the show cause notice is only to the effect that credit has been taken without seeking permission from the Asstt. Commr. There was no allegation of late availing of credit and on the basis of ineligible documents. The Asstt. Commr. does not adjudicate upon the basic allegation raised in the show cause notice and goes into altogether a new ground for rejecting the Modvat credit. This is not permissible. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 763 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn - Notification No. 53/91-C.E. [ ... ... ... ... ..... r Chapter Heading 52.03 (the goods in dispute have been accepted to be classifiable under this Chapter Heading) was nil, and further noting that the issue has been settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. M/s. Pratap Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in 2000 (91) ECR 856 wherein the Tribunal has held that there is no duty liability on cotton yarn plain (straight) reel hanks as it was exempt under Notification 53/91-C.E., we hold that the appellants are not liable to pay duty upon multifold cotton yarn cleared by them during the period in dispute, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 761 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Natural justice - Classification of goods - Remand - Stay Application ... ... ... ... ..... pretation, thereafter he has to take into consideration the Explanatory Notes of HSN. The effect of market enquiry is required to be put up to the appellants before the commencement of personal hearing and as the same has not been done, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo proceedings, with a direction that he shall grant the details of market enquiries to the appellants and call upon them to file a reply thereto and also call upon them to produce technical evidence or such other evidence in rebuttal to the said enquiries and thereafter the Commissioner shall decide the matter expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of receipt of reply from the appellants. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed by way of remand and as there is no question of granting waiver of pre-deposit, the stay application is rejected as infructuous.
-
2000 (10) TMI 760 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Waste and scrap - Removal of - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tand that the duty has been paid by their job workers, has also contended that in any case, the duty was not payable on waste and scrap of PVC wires and cables, in view of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Finolex Cables Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Pune reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 418 (T) 1995 (60) ECR 295 (T). The said decision has since been confirmed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court also. Inasmuch as the PVC waste and scrap was not excisable and hence not liable to duty, the question whether the job worker has paid the duty on the same or whether the same has been received back by the appellants, loses its importance. 8. emsp We also agree with the learned Consultant that the demand of duty having been raised beyond the normal period of six months without making any allegation of Suppression or mis-statement in the show cause notice and without invoking the proviso to Section 11A, is barred by limitation. As a result, we allow the appeal on merits as also on limitation.
-
2000 (10) TMI 757 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty - Smuggling - Knowledge - Confiscation of conveyance - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... we extend the benefit of doubt to all the appellants and set aside the penalties imposed upon them. 13. emsp Similarly we find that jute caddies recovered from both the trucks are not liable to confiscation inasmuch as in the first case, they cannot be said to have been used for concealing the ball bearings and in the second case admittedly no ball bearings were recovered from the truck. For the same reasons truck No. WB-03-4387 cannot be held liable to confiscation. As regards the confiscation of truck No. AMU-6371, as we have already held that there is no strong evidence of ball barings in question being of tainted character, we order release of the said truck by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 14. emsp However, we make it clear that no orders are being passed as regards the ball bearings inasmuch as nobody has claimed the ownership of the same and as admitted by Dr. Samir Chakraborty, the prayer for release of the same is being withdrawn by the appellants.
-
2000 (10) TMI 755 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... from being in violation of the rules prescribing the method of filing of appeals, such behaviour is indicative of the low esteem in which the Commissioner holds the Tribunal. 2. emsp It is true that the Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules gives the power to the Tribunal to accept or to allow an appellant to amend the defective memorandum. In a number of appeals filed by this very Commissionerate we have given such a liberty and shown leniency in permitting the amendment but we have not come across an appeal earlier in which the appellant Commissioner did not even bother to issue a signed authorisation. In our view it amounts to committing contempt of the Tribunal. We therefore as an extreme case, hold that the appeals are not filed in the manner prescribed and dismiss this bunch of appeal at this stage itself. 3. emsp We direct that copies of this finding be furnished to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. 4. emsp The stay applications also stand dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 754 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Misdeclaration of value ... ... ... ... ..... e price of ingots. There is nothing on record to show that conclusion reached by the adjudicating authority is not correct. The material made available by the assessee also will go to show that plates are valued higher. 6. emsp Out of 20.047 MTs, 10.03 MTs were plates and its value was enhanced by 20 . We do not find any illegality or error in the said action of the authorities in enhancing the value of cadmium plates. On account of the enhancement in value, duty liability increased. Since there was mis-declaration of the goods, authorities were justified in concluding that the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The goods so mis-declared were confiscated with an option to redeem it on payment of Rs. 25,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- alone has been imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act. We do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. Consequently, the appeal fails. 7. emsp Appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 715 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he impugned goods were squarely covered by the earlier circular of the Board. Without such an enquiry followed by definite finding on the question, it could not have been reasonably found that the goods were appropriately classifiable under TH 84.37 in terms of the said circular. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order is not a speaking order on the issue of classification and the matter should be sent back to the lower appellate authority for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. 8. emsp Therefore, without going into other issues, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider, and decide on, the classification issue in accordance with law and pass a speaking order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the assessees. The Revenue rsquo s appeal is allowed by way of remand. 9. emsp The cross objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 713 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Ahsockan and the department to be the gold that Shri Ahsockan brought and since no evidence is available that Shri Ahsockan had brought more than 42 bars of gold. In this view of the matter, we do not find that there is any liablility for confiscation of the said gold under Section 111(d), (l), (m) of the Customs Act as arrived at by the Commissioner in the order impugned. 6. emsp When we find that there is no material to come to a conclusion that gold under seizure is liable for confiscation or that it is not duty paid, we cannot find any reasons to uphold the penalty under Section 112(a) on the present appellant Smt. Saroja Shanmugam is not in appeal before us, therefore, we are not passing any orders regarding penalty imposed on her. 7. emsp In view of our findings, we set aside the order of confiscation of the gold and the penalty imposed on the present appellant Shri Samraj Ahsockan and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 712 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Ethopabate utilised in manufacture of ‘Amprol plus’ formulation ... ... ... ... ..... pharmacopoeia standard. As long as the therapeutic ingredient is a bulk drug within the meaning of the notification, therefore it cannot be said that it ceased to merit treatment as bulk drug for the purpose of notification solely because it is used an ingredient in a product that is not itself a medicament. Apart from this it has been held by the Supreme Court in Balakrishna Pillai, Chief Inspector of Drugs Intelligence Squad and Another v. Matha Medicals and Others - (1991) 2 SCC 203 that a bulk drug is one which may be capable as use by itself for as an ingredient in any formulation. On this view the Tribunal in Calibre Chemicals v. CCE - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 755 held that potassium iodate which is used in the manufacture of salt would have to be considered as a bulk drug entitle to benefit of notification and that the end use certificate was not necessary for the benefit of notification to be extended. 3. emsp Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (10) TMI 711 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sample - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... re 1999 (114) E.L.T. 947 (T) 1999 (35) RLT 809 , took the view that samples drawn for quality control testing within the factory are not assessable goods because only after such testing the final product becomes marketable. Commissioner rightly followed that decision while passing the orders impugned in these appeals. We are not persuaded to doubt the correctness of the decision rendered by a coordinate bench in 1999 (35) RLT 809. We are bound by that decision. Consequently the appeals fail. They are dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 709 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Tyres and Tubes - Exemption - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... procedure. The demand in such cases, when the clearances have been made by the tyre manufacturers in the absence of any exemption notification, are required to be raised against the tyre manufacturers. In fact, we find from the letter dated 7-2-1992 written by M/s. Tyre Corpn. (I) Ltd. that a show cause notice was issued to them on 12-4-1986 clearing tyres, tubes to the appellants without payment of duty during the period from 7-2-1986 to 5-3-1986. The demand of duty of Rs. 3,44,950.00 was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner having jurisdiction over their factory and the said letter shows that M/s. Tyre Corpn. have decided to deposit the demanded money and their jurisdictional range office will issue a certificate on the basis of which the appellant can get Modvat credit under Rule 57E. As such we hold that the demand of duly in respect of 5 consignments against the appellants is neither justified nor warranted. As a result appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 707 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Steel seats - Exemption - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... that steel seats were exempted and as such no excise formalities are required to be observed by them. Reference to the various Supreme Court s decisions by the ld. Advocate are to the effect that for invoking the longer period of limitation, some positive action on the part of the assessee with intent to evade duty is required and the mere non-action on his part arising out of the bona fide impressions will not be sufficient to invoke proviso to Section 11A. This was the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products -1989 (43) E.L.T. 195. The factum of grant of exemption to other manufacturers similarly situate is sufficient enough for the appellants to entertain a view that the product manufactured by them were not excisable. Accordingly, we hold that longer period of limitation was not available to the appellants. 12. emsp In view of the foregoing, we allow the appeal on merits as also on limitation and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original.
-
2000 (10) TMI 703 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... he normal period of six months would be barred by limitation as there was no suppression of facts in such a case. The said decision of the Tribunal has been approved by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court vide 1996 (83) E.L.T. A102. 8. emsp We have further noted that ld. Collector has not recorded any categorical finding that the assessee had suppressed facts deliberately. The Collector rsquo s decision rejecting the assessee rsquo s plea of limitation appears to be based on a finding that the assessee had deliberate intention to evade payment of central excise duty. We have found no evidence on record to show any such deliberate intention to evade payment of duty, in this case. 9. emsp In view of our findings already recorded, we hold that the larger period of limitation under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act was not invokable against the assessee and, therefore, the entire demand of duty is barred by limitation. The appeal is allowed on this ground only.
-
2000 (10) TMI 702 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 where the factory gate price is available, it is this price that is to be applied to clearances from the depots. 3. emsp The Departmental Representative is not in a position to say that the ratio of this judgment will not be applicable to the case before us. His emphasis is on the fact that the Appellant has recovered duty payable on the other elements of the prices attributed by the handling charges and is therefore required to pay to the Department. This is not a point that the notice to show cause proposed. The Department is at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 11D of the Act, if it is of the view that provisions of this section are attracted. We are concerned in these proceedings with the determination of correct assessable value and that would be the price at which the goods were cleared at the factory gate. The handling charges therefore would not be includible in the assessable value. 4. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 700 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... and there is no question of the inputs lying in stock as on 28-2-1994 without availing the credit. Shri Guha, learned Consultant, has also not been able to explain and rebut the observations and findings of the authorities below that the records maintained by the applicants, could not prove that the inputs were lying in stock as on the said date and no credit was taken by them in respect of the same in the normal course. Accordingly, I do not find that the applicants have a good prima facie case in their favour. Keeping in view the above position, I direct the applicants to reverse the credit of Rs. 2.89 lakh (Rupees two lakh eighty-nine thousand) only from their RG-23A Part-II Account within a period of one month from today. Subject to reversal of the above credit, the quantum of penalty is dispensed with. The matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 13-11-2000. Subject to ascertaining compliance with the above order, the appeal itself would be taken up for disposal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 699 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Maximum retail price - Discount ... ... ... ... ..... ble value, he is not able to say why this should be so. There is nothing in the Tribunal rsquo s order that says or suggests this. It is the wholesale price that generally should form part of the assessable value and not the retail price. Therefore, unless there is a valid reason for not accepting this, the Commissioner should accept this. 5. emsp With these observations, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The advocate for the appellant undertakes to produce before the Commissioner, evidence in support of the claim that ldquo free goods discount rdquo specific condition relating to general practice in industries, grant of discount, calculation sheets etc. within a month from the receipt of this order. The Commissioner shall, after considering the evidence and also the evidence that may be produced by the department, provided an opportunity is given to the appellant to rebut that evidence, pass orders according to law, keeping in mind our observations above.
-
2000 (10) TMI 697 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... he invoices issued earlier. It is the common case that the party availed the correct amount of duty as Modvat credit pertaining to the goods received by them. The duty paid on the goods is duly certified by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Jamshedpur ndash the Officer controlling the factory of manufacturer of the iron and steel products. Therefore, it is felt that the facts in the present case have emerged under extraordinary circumstances as narrated above which have to be evaluated in their proper perspective. These facts do not warrant taking of hyper-technical view of the relevant rules as has been done by the lower authorities. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the Department that the appellants have availed more Modvat credit than what is admissible under the rules in respect of the impugned invoices. Therefore, there does not seem to be any ground to impose a penalty on the appellants. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 694 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit on inputs - Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... e delay in taking the Modvat credit. However, it is observed that though in the show cause notice dated 26-9-1996 it is mentioned, ldquo Even if assessee rsquo s letter dated 18-10-1995, submitted as an intimation under Rule 57H, is considered the credit claimed is beyond six months. rdquo It is observed that there are no findings recorded in the Order-in-Original on the claim of the party for their eligibility to Modvat credit under Rule 57H. In view of this, therefore, it is only fair that their claim under this rule should be examined and the findings given. 5. emsp In view of the above, the claim for Modvat credit under Rule 57G(2) is not tenable and the same is rejected. The matter as remanded to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to examine the admissibility of the credit under Rule 57H and record his clear findings. The appellants shall be provided reasonable opportunity to state their case before him by the original authority. The appeal is disposed off in above terms.
............
|
