|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 720 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Lacquers ... ... ... ... ..... f Gramophone Records. Hence, the Collector (Appeals) erred in holding that the lsquo LACQUERS rsquo are quantified as an input for the purpose of Modvat. rdquo 3. emsp I have heard the learned DR for the Revenue. None appeared for the appellant. I considered the material and find that the Collector (Appeals) has very clearly and candidly explained and established from the use of the entity under dispute to be different from that of what commonly understood as dies or tool or an appliance and has come to a logical inference as to why the goods should be considered as inputs relying on decisions. The Revenue in their appeal has not brought out any fresh material which was not considered by the lower authorities. In this view of the matter I find the Revenue rsquo s appeal to be bereft of any merits for consideration. I find no reason to disturb the order of the Collector (Appeals). 4. emsp In view of my finding I would dismiss the Revenue rsquo s appeal and ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 719 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Non-accountal of goods - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ecord to suggest that the goods were kept unaccounted by the appellants with the intention to remove the same in clandestine manner without payment of duty. Therefore, mere non-accountal of the goods in the R.G.I and other record could not attract the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Rules. The ratio of the law laid down in Bhillai Conductors case (supra) fully covers the case of the appellants and as such the confiscation of the goods could not be legally ordered. That being so, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-Original of the Dy. Commissioner, in that regard, legally cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 6. emsp For non-accountal of the goods, the appellants as submitted by both the sides, had already suffered and paid the penalty under KVS Scheme. Therefore, they could not be penalised again. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The appeal of the appellants accordingly stands allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 717 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Non-filing of RT 12 returns within time ... ... ... ... ..... or negligible. They had apparently contravened the provisions under Rule 173Q read with Rule 54 of the Rules under which they were duty bound to file the returns in time while clearing the goods. 7. emsp The Rule 210 of the Rules has got no application to the case of the appellants. This rule applies only where there is no specific provision in the Act or under the Rules. The case of the appellants is squarely covered under Rules 54 and 173Q of the Rules. They have contravened the provisions of these rules by no filing the R.T. 12 returns in time. The penalty under these rules had been rightly imposed on them. The amount of penalty in both the appeals confirmed on them, also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the contravention committed by them. In view of discussions made above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same are upheld. Both the appeals of the appellants are, therefore, dismissed being without merit.
-
2001 (12) TMI 716 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Medicines - Trade packs - Physician’s samples ... ... ... ... ..... cks were distinctively different from trade packs. 4. emsp In the appeal memorandum Revenue challenges the impugned order only on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 829, without challenging the finding that there are clear and marked differences in the present case between the trade packing and the Physician Samples. The Revenue has not brought out as to what should be the differences between the trade packs and sample packs so as to hold that the conditions of the notification relating to distinctive packing stands satisfied. 5. emsp Thus in the face of the clear finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that trade packing is distinctively different from the sample packs and in the face of lack of substantiation by the Revenue we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
2001 (12) TMI 715 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM Policy - Import - Adhesives based on rubber ... ... ... ... ..... uation does not arise as there is no direct use or application rdquo . and thereafter concluded that the goods cannot be treated as consumer items. In the appeals filed before me, no fresh or additional material has been placed, evidencing that the goods in dispute are consumer goods. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon an earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the same issue and came to the conclusion that they are not in the nature of consumer items. The present appeal therefore lacks material to upset the same. (c) On a question from the Bench both the sides agree that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon an earlier decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on similar product which has been upheld by Revenue. Why a selective approach has been taken in this connection in this present appeal is not forthcoming. I find that there are no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. 3. emsp I confirm the same and reject the appeals.
-
2001 (12) TMI 713 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Production capacity based duty - Iron and steel products ... ... ... ... ..... 4.00 Yes 11-10-1997 and 3333.000 3588.816 970.598 1911.070 E/796/2001-Mum. March, 1998 6. M/s. Vedant Re-rolling Mill E/Stay-933/2001-Mum. 7,35,792.00 4,67,392.00 Yes 5-4-1998 3140.217 3140.217 975.905 2452.612 E/913/2001-Mum. 7. M/s. Sains Steels Re-rolling Mill E/Stay-1061/2001-Mum. 5,99,450.00 2,59,006.00 Yes 23-6-1998 3564.757 3564.757 1141.076 2524.000 E/1956/2001-Mum. 8. M/s. Shivam Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. E/Stay-1084/2001-Mum. 12,20,454.00 11,18,324.00 Yes 7-11-1997 3841.784 3841.784 1182.087 4844.725 E/1077/2001-Mum. 9. M/s. Navyug Steel Industries E/COD-744/2001-Mum. E/Stay-1503/2001-Mum. 1,57,107.00 69,607.00 Yes 30-7-1999 3368.633 3368.633 1010.000 1795.500 E/1675/2001-Mum. 10. Ganesh Steel Rolling Mill E/Stay-831/2001-Mum. 10,73,168.00 10,73,168.00 Yes 23-10-1997 3254.125 2465.115 1072.788 2465.115 E/839/2001-Mum. 11. Bhupendra Iron and Steel Re-Rolling Mills E/Stay-766/2001-Mum. 4,14,952.00 4,14,952.00 Yes 27-2-1998 3101.786 2069.875 1040.236 2069.875 E/769/2001-Mum
-
2001 (12) TMI 712 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Deodorants ... ... ... ... ..... collected, by whom, when and for what variety of goods. It is only a table, mostly containing a projection of sale prices from the declared values and a column for market value. Such a survey report, which has no authenticity, cannot constitute the basis for valuation of imported goods. This is particularly so since the appellants have produced another Bill of Entry relating to contemporaneous import of similar goods and the value accepted by the Customs authorities in that case generally compared with the prices declared by the present importers. In these facts and circumstances, action taken in the proceedings under appeal have to be held as entirely unjustified. 7. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the appeals are allowed after setting aside the impugned orders. The customs authorities are directed to assess the goods at the declared values, collect duty thereon and release the imported goods forthwith, since the goods are pending clearance from September, 1999.
-
2001 (12) TMI 711 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Refund, consequent on reduction of prices of goods cleared - Contract ... ... ... ... ..... change with the rates to be decided in fresh tender No, Track 9 of 1994 under finalisation. rdquo Once the Contract contains such a clause, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that the prices at the time and place of removal of the goods were final prices. We also note that in Contract dated 6-3-95 it is clearly mentioned that quantity of CMS Crossing ordered in the said Contract was in addition to 500 numbers for which ad hoc order was placed under Contract dated 29-12-1994. The fact that the appellants did not restore to provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules will not make the prices final in view of the specific mention in the Schedule annexed to the Contract. As the refund claim has been preferred within the statutory limit of six months specified in Section 11B of the Act, the refund of duty paid in excess on account of reduction in prices on finalisation thereof, is admissible to them. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2001 (12) TMI 710 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Evidence - EXIM Policy - Export obligation ... ... ... ... ..... demand in certain circumstances. These circumstances are - 1. That the imported Capital Goods are not installed, used or re-exported within the stipulated period from the date of import 2. Not used in the manufacturing process for export. 3. That the resultant goods are not exported within the stipulated period. 31. emsp It is his claim that this notification cannot become the base of demanding the duly on any Capital Goods where the conditions in the notification were not alleged to have been contravened. He however made submissions on merits which we have discussed above. Since on merits we have found for the appellants, we need not go into the aspect or the interpretation of the notification. 32. emsp On the analysis above we hold that M/s. TIL have discharged the burden of showing performance in discharging the obligation cast upon them for availment of the duty free import of the Hardware and Software. The Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Order is set aside.
-
2001 (12) TMI 709 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court - Misdeclaration - Restriction ... ... ... ... ..... that the Reference application is required to be allowed and order accordingly. The following questions are referred to the Hon rsquo ble Mumbai High Court for its considered opinion - (1) Whether the term ldquo any prohibition rdquo in Sec. 113(d) of the Customs Act includes any restriction. (2) Whether the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act 1992, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 and Sec. 50 of the Customs Act are to be considered as restrictions imposed under any other law for the time being in force or under the Customs Act and (3) If so, whether any export contrary to these restrictions will be considered as an export contrary to prohibition imposed by or under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force, hence attracting liability to confiscation of the goods in terms of Sec. 113(d) of the Customs Act. 6. emsp The Registry is directed to draw statement of facts for forwarding it to the Hon rsquo ble Mumbai High Court.
-
2001 (12) TMI 707 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... w of the time that elapsed they were not able to furnish the proof. We observe that both sides lack the vital documents on which such large amount of duty is sought to be confirmed. At the stage of hearing of the stay application this benefits the applicants more. 4. emsp We also find that the opinion given by M/s. Shriram Institute is not properly appreciated by the learned Commissioner. We find that there is a specific opinion given that the sample was thermoplastic. The Commissioner brought in some extraneous material and has made some reference to the previous situation the assessees were, which were not explained nor are relevant to the present proceedings. Counsel had also placed on record certified final accounts showing considerable losses and pleads inability to deposit any amount. 5. emsp On these three aspects of the case we grant unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed and penalties imposed and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2001 (12) TMI 706 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... hi Bench of the Tribunal to the Jurisdictional High Court on the same question vide Order No. R/21/97-NB, dated 4-4-1997. In view of the precedence, the questions are required to be referred to the Jurisdictional High Court. The questions are reframed as under - ldquo (1) emsp Whether instructions issued by Board not being the instructions issued under Sec. 37B of the Central Excise Act are binding on the Judicial or quasi judicial officers in light of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I. (2) emsp Whether it is permissible to construe an item like tool kit and screw jack with handle (which is not subject to any processes in the line of manufacture of motor vehicle but it is supplied with the motor vehicle) which is not statutory requirements under the provisions of law, an eligible inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the motor vehicle as laid down in the Rule 57A. rdquo 3. emsp Reference Application is allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 705 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... which were cleared on duty. The lapses pointed out by the Adj. Officer were unintentional and procedural and had happened because of lack of awareness of the provisions of the C. Excise Rules by a small-scale industry rdquo . 3. emsp The learned JDR has not been able to assail the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on any ground. The Commissioner has rightly overlooked the lapses on the part of the respondents of having claimed Modvat credit before filing declaration and on the same date on which the invoices were issued. I do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) for condoning lapse of the respondents, especially when there was no dispute about the receipt of the inputs and utilisation of the same by the respondents in the manufacture of the final products. 4. emsp In view of the discussions made above, there is no merit in the appeal of the Commissioner and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 704 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... aken in the reply. 4. emsp Shri Mondal, in addition states that the LAB was imported at Kandla and therefore the show cause notice issued by the Mumbai Custom House was without jurisdiction. He however, squarely concedes that this had not been brought before the Commissioner. 5. emsp On hearing both sides, we find that various pleas raised by the assessee before the Commissioner were not fully appreciated by him. The point of jurisdiction although raised for the first time before us is a point of law and has to be examined. This is on two grounds. Firstly, that the show cause notices does not show the bill of entry number at all. Secondly, the bill of entry placed on record indicates that it was filed at Kandla. 6. emsp The appeal is thus allowed and the proceedings are remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner. He shall give an opportunity to the present appellants for submitting their case. The appellants shall place before him the evidence to establish their submissions.
-
2001 (12) TMI 703 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty - Induction furnace ... ... ... ... ..... there is evidence both in favour and against the case of the appellants. In terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, the Commissioner can consult any technical authority to determine the annual capacity of a factory in which the goods are manufactured in an induction furnace unit. In view of the facts obtaining in this case, it is considered a fair proposition that the capacity of the induction furnace is re-determined by consulting any technical authority. The order passed by Commissioner therefore is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for re-determining the capacity of the furnace by appointing an expert technical authority as per the provisions of this rule. The assessee shall be furnished a copy of the report of the technical authority and afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before arriving at the final decision in the matter. 8. emsp This appeal is thus disposed of by remand in the above terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 702 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... present applicants for the deemed credit of Rs. 3,17,171.28. Therefore, prima facie, the authorities were right in denying this credit. However, the question whether the applicants rsquo right to avail deemed Modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by an input-manufacturer working under the Compounded Levy Scheme should be restricted by extraneous conditions like non-finalisation of annual capacity of production of the input-manufacturer is arguable at the hearing stage of the appeal. Thus the applicants seem to have an arguable case in respect of the deemed credit of Rs. 3,17,171.28. In the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, I direct the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within six weeks from today and report compliance on 4-2-2002. In the event of this deposit being made as directed, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of the entire balance of duty and penalty amounts as also stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.
-
2001 (12) TMI 701 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... e Delhi High Court rsquo s judgment, which was concerned with removal of goods under Rules 12 and 13, would support the applicant rsquo s case. 5. emsp The applicant however has a much stronger case with regard to the second aspect. The show cause notice demands duty on all inputs used between April, 1994 to August, 1996 and quantifies the duty paid by pro rata correlation between Modvat credit taken and the total quantity of goods cleared and duty. Therefore it appears that it does not exclude inputs which were used for more than one product or not used for the manufacture of exempted goods at all. The applicant has raised this point in its reply but has not been dealt with by the Commissioner. 6. emsp Taking this aspect into account, we think that a deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs would be appropriate. On the applicant depositing this sum within a month from the receipt of this order, we waived deposit of the remaining duty and stay its recovery. 7. emsp Compliance on 24-12-2001.
-
2001 (12) TMI 700 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Return of duty paid goods for repairs after 6 years ... ... ... ... ..... only a procedural contravention therefore cannot be justified. 3. emsp The Counsel for the respondent raises the point, which has to be granted that unless it is shown that the process, to which subject goods amounted to manufacture. The duty is not required to be paid once again. This is clear from sub-rule (4) of Rule 173H which provides that the goods retained in the factory may if not subjected to any process amounting to manufacturer, be removal from it without payment of duty. It is however not possible for me to say whether the goods in the present case were or not subjected to the process of manufactured. The Counsel for the respondent states that if the respondent is given an opportunity of being heard, it will be able to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner that no manufacture has taken place. I therefore allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. He shall adjudicate upon this aspect after giving the respondent an opportunity of being heard.
-
2001 (12) TMI 699 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... dervalued and the department bases its claim on the basis of certain quotations obtained by the department by seizure from the applicant rsquo s premises. The case of the applicant is that the quotations are not of the supplier but of a third party. Therefore this cannot be relied for purpose of enhancement of value of the imported goods for calculating the payment of customs duty. The learned Counsel as well as the learned Departmental Representative took us through the findings given by the adjudicating authority. We are of the view that the duty covered by the quotations may cover about Rs. 12 lakhs approximately. We are also of the view that prima facie the quotations cannot find basis for enhancement of value for purpose of levy of duty. This is our prima facie view. In view of the fact that Rs. 20 lakhs has been paid towards duty, we waive deposit of the remaining sum of duty and penalties on all the applicants and stay their recovery during the pendency of the appeals.
-
2001 (12) TMI 698 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Confiscated goods not redeemed ... ... ... ... ..... has concluded that evidence has not been produced to show that such treatment, so considered, was provided. 3. emsp When once goods are ordered to be confiscated, the title to them vests with the Central Government as provided in Section 126 of the Act and the goods shall, therefore, continue to vest with in the Central Government, till such time as the option to redeem the goods on fine is exercised. That option has not been exercised in the case before us that is what the representative of the applicant says. Therefore, the question of deposit of fine does not arise. 4. emsp As far as the penalty is concerned, the issues are debatable. These proceedings have come up a second time, the matter having been remanded earlier by the Tribunal to the Commissioner for considering the evidence that the importer has produced before him. In the earlier order, the penalty imposed was only Rs. 20,000/-. Having regard to these facts, we waive deposit of the penalty and stay its recovery.
............
|
