|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 491 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... rity. In view of this they are not required to pre-deposit any amount, and, therefore, the stay petition becomes infructuous. As the issue involved is in a very narrow compass, I take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both the sides. 3. emsp The items in respect of which capital goods credit has been allowed are EPABX and lighting lamps and fittings. EPABX is nothing but communication system between the various sections of the factory and lighting lamps and fittings are only for the purpose of lighting the area. Both these goods cannot be claimed to be used in producing or processing any goods or bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final products namely, Cement. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hold that these are not capital goods eligible for Modvat credit. The appeal is thus rejected.
-
2002 (6) TMI 490 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Transport charges from factory to sales depot ... ... ... ... ..... tion 4(1) (a) refers to a situation when there is a sale price available, namely, a wholesale price. In cases where such wholesale price is available, the amendment to Rule 4 relating to place of removal will have consequences. But in cases when there is no wholesale price available, it has to be determined with reference to retail price, and then the procedure to be followed is Rule 6(a). A reading of the show cause notice or the impugned order would not show that a change in the percentage of reduction is required on the basis of trade practice in the commodity during the relevant period. As mentioned earlier consideration of trade practice is an essential requirement while applying Rule 6 for arriving at the assessable value. Therefore, we are of the view that there was no reason to modify the rate of deduction granted to the appellant under order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9-2-78. 7. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (6) TMI 489 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... said amount of Modvat credit with the observation that Rule 57Q allows Modvat credit on those capital goods which are used in the factory, but in the instant case, the goods used in the mines are not in the factory and therefore the Modvat credit is disallowed under Rule 57U. The party filed an appeal but the same is rejected by Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal vide his Order dated 2-11-2000. 2. emsp This appeal is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri A. Bhattacharya, Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.C. Verma, JDR for the respondents. The facts of the present case are covered against the appellants by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Jay Pee Rewa Cement v. CCE, Raipur - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in which it is observed, ldquo in view of the provisions of Rule 57Q, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The appeal is dismissed rdquo . 3. emsp Following the ratio of the above judgment, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 488 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Cross objections ... ... ... ... ..... d certain contentions regarding rate of duty and the quantum of duty on the vessel as such that will not enable the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the question since it was not an issue in the proceedings before him. As mentioned earlier, apart from the fact that no such ground was taken in the cross appeal by the assessee in the nature of the proceeding before the original authority, the assessee could not have filed an appeal raising grounds regarding the rate and quantum of duty on the vessel. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the Commissioner (Appeals) for not considering certain contentions raised by the assessee in the written submissions which are not part of their cross appeal. Since the assessment regarding the vessel had become final as early as in 1990 the assessee could not have challenged the assessment by way of a cross appeal filed in 1999. For these reasons we find no merit in the contentions raised in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 487 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Petroleum storage tank - Dutiability - Fabricated in site ... ... ... ... ..... that the order passed by the Commissioner is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind and incorrect appreciation of the facts of the case. A part from that, the issue involved herein has been covered by the decisions of the Tribunal. In support of this contention, he referred to the following decisions - (a) J.S.T. Engineering Services v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 350 (T) 2001 (46) RLT 1 (CEGAT-Del.) (b) Palmtech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 492 (T) 2001 (45) RLT 547 (CEGAT-Ban.) 5. emsp Heard Smt. Radha Arun, SDR for the Revenue. 6. emsp Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the fact that the issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases, following the ratio of the same, we accept the plea of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2002 (6) TMI 486 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Remand - Grounds ... ... ... ... ..... ny penalty on the present appellants and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. I find that after the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad has passed the impugned order, further developments have taken place in this matter. The above cited Order of the Tribunal is also a part of the same developments. It is further observed that the Commissioner in his order has not taken into consideration all the contentions raised by the appellants before him. In this view of the matter, this case would call for going back to the Original Authority for reconsideration and passing a de novo order. I therefore set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and remand the matter to him for passing a fresh order in the light of my above observations. The appellants shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and making further written submissions. 4. emsp The appeals are thus allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
2002 (6) TMI 483 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... provides for availment of Modvat credit of deemed duty in respect of the inputs specified in the Notification and on which duty has been paid under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Para 4 of the Notification provides that ldquo the provisions of this Notification shall apply only to those inputs which has been received directly from the manufacturer of the final products from the factory of the manufacturer of the said inputs under the cover of invoice declaring that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid on such inputs under the provisions of Section 3A of the said Act. rdquo It is not disputed by the Revenue that the appropriate duty has been paid as it has been certified by the Range Officer concerned. It is only the interest payable on account of delayed payment of Central Excise duty which has not been deposited by the supplier. As the duty has been paid, the benefit of Notification cannot be denied for not depositing the interest. The Appeal is thus allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 481 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Import - Car ... ... ... ... ..... . All these documents remain unassailed. There is a signed invoice dt. 18-12-95 in the Appellant rsquo s name. This leads us to believe that the original assessment was correctly made and the car released out of Customs charge by the proper officer, after accepting the documents, cannot be impugned on the grounds now being alleged and arrived at. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the original assessment made by the proper officer, as regards the eligibility of the imports of the subject car under ITC public notice. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to uphold the subsequent proceedings launched to upset the clearance order given by the proper officer of Cochin Customs on the Bill of Entry No. 2241, dt. 17-4-97 and levy Redemption fines and penalties. The order on fines and penalties are required to be considered. 8. emsp In this view of the findings, we would set aside the redemption fines and penalties and allow this appeal with consequential benefits.
-
2002 (6) TMI 480 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Camera - Endoscopic Camera - Customs exemption ... ... ... ... ..... uo s request for such Certificate has been rejected as recorded by the Lower Authorities. No such Certificate has been produced in the present appeal before us. We, therefore, find no reason to grant this benefit in appeal by setting aside the order of the Lower Authorities. Therefore, the order of Lower Authorities on denial of benefit of Notification No. 64/88 are confirmed. However, as the learned Doctor has produced certain arguments in his detailed written application, as extracted above, which has not been considered by the Lower Authorities for examining the benefit under lsquo entry serial No. 47 of the Notification No. 138/88 rsquo and the benefit of an alternative notification has to be considered. We would, therefore, set aside the order and remand the matter back to Original Authority to determine the liability in view of these materials produced by the learned Doctor, under the alternative notifications. 5. emsp Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (6) TMI 479 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... that being the basis for denial of credit, is a curable one and if opportunity is given, the defect could be got rectified by the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the matter may be sent back for authenticating the documents. The ld. DR reiterates the finding of the authorities below and highlights the aspect that the documents ought to have been pre-authenticated and subsequently getting them authenticated will not help the assessees. 3. emsp We have considered the rival submissions and perused the cited case laws to the effect that since minor procedural defect could be cured subsequently, substantial benefit could not be denied. We are, therefore, satisfied that this is a fit case for remand. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. The assessee shall get the invoices in question authenticated and on their satisfying the authorities, credit shall be extended to them. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
2002 (6) TMI 478 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Wool - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... this, the appellant filed an affidavit from their Association stating that laps of wool or carded wool is not traded or marketed. The Department has not produced any comparable decision. No doubt while making a reference to the Chemical Laboratory, there was an indication that they wanted it from the Chemical Examiner to know whether the goods are marketable or not but the test report on the issue is silent. 20. emsp In the above view, we consider it a fit case for remand. The matter is remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner to examine whether the goods are marketable and brought to the market for purpose of sale and purchase in the market. He will also examine the applicability of the notifications as claimed by the assessee. He will provide the appellant an opportunity of personal hearing and presenting their case in defence and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 21. emsp Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2002 (6) TMI 475 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-export of contravening goods imported after obtaining clarification from DGFT - Confiscation and penalty
-
2002 (6) TMI 473 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... credit on the basis of duplicate copy was not provided under the law, the Modvat credit is not deniable to the Respondents on this ground. This was the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Parikh Chemical Industries wherein it was held that the learned Counsel is correct in submitting that the requirement of invoice issued by a trader being marked as duplicate for transporter was introduced in Rule 57GG only w.e.f. 19-1-95 even though the requirement existed in terms of Rule 57A for invoices issued by manufacturer hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip .. rdquo I hold that the credit has been rightly availed of by the appellants and there is no warrant for disallowing the credit rdquo . Following the ratio of this decision the Modvat credit is not deniable to the Respondents. As the Respondents are being held eligible for the Modvat credit I am not deciding the issue whether the show cause notice was hit by time-limit or not. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2002 (6) TMI 470 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn - Poly propylene yarn - Dutiability - Marketability - Demand - Limitation - Modvat/Cenvat - Penalty
-
2002 (6) TMI 468 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... trical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits (for example, switches, relays, fuses, surge suppressors, plugs, sockets, lamp-holders, junction boxes), for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 volts rdquo . We agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate that only specified products namely relays and that too particular relays are covered by sub-heading 8536.10 and all other electrical apparatus such as switches, fuses, surge suppressors, plugs, sockets, junction boxes fall under sub-heading 8536.90. The Revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that switches in question manufactured by the Respondents are not switches but are relays for air-conditioning appliances. In absence of any evidence brought on record, the Revenue has not succeeded in proving that the impugned goods are, in fact, relays. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order and accordingly reject the appeal.
-
2002 (6) TMI 465 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ption but to issue them. This is a legal requirement under the Sales Tax Law and therefore, purely on the basis of the issue of E-1 forms, it cannot be concluded that the Company was encouraging diversion of goods. No correspondence or any other document has been cited to corroborate the allegations that the E-1 forms were issued with any mala fide intention. Therefore, I am not able to accept the issue of E-1 forms as an evidence to prove the company complicity in the diversion of the goods to evade Central Excise duty. rdquo 3. emsp On going through the facts and circumstances, we find that the point at issue has been properly analysed by the Commissioner while allowing the discount as claimed by the party. The Departmental Representative has not placed any evidence or case law contrary to the finding given by the Commissioner with regard to the issue of E-1 form. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 464 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Transit sale ... ... ... ... ..... rder of a registered person. In the present case the molasses is sent by the manufacturer to M/s. Gurdaspur Distillery for conversion into industrial alcohol and not directly to the consumer viz., the present appellant. Besides, the invoices issued under Rule 52A by the manufacturer do not include the details about the consignee rsquo s name and address, the registered person rsquo s name and address on account of whose instructions the goods had been dispatched. The molasses is sent by M/s. Oswal Sugar Limited, Mukerian to the job worker at Gurdaspur without mentioning the name of the present appellants as consignee user in their invoices nor is there a mention of M/s. Santokh Ram Narinder Nath, Phagwara as registered dealers on account of whose instructions the goods were dispatched to the job worker. In this view of the matter, there is no ground for an interference in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal thus has no merit and the same is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 459 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ufacture of final products is eligible for availing the Modvat credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q. In the present case, the final product of the unit in which the Modvat credit is availed is clinker which is neither packed nor the machine is used for it. The machine is used for packing cement which is not the final product of this unit. The cement is manufactured in another unit of the same party. The Modvat credit therefore is not admissable to the appellants on such packing machine. Appeal No. E1769/2001/NB/SM 5. emsp In this case, the appellants have availed the Modvat credit of Rs. 38,536/- on the Rotary Air Valve used in their clinker unit as capital goods whereas this machine is exclusively used for the discharge of cement in their cement unit. Following the same arguments, the Modvat credit on this item is also not admissable to the party in their clinker unit. 6. emsp As a result, both the appeals are dismissed upholding the orders passed by the lower authorities.
-
2002 (6) TMI 458 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e first clearance up to an aggregate value not exceeding fifty lakh rupees made on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year. The respondents are not availing this exemption as they are paying duty 16 from the 1st day of April as per classification declaration filed by them. As the respondents are not availing of exemption under a notification based on the value of clearances in a financial year, they are not eligible to discharge their duty liability on monthly basis. We agree with the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The decision in the case of Krishna Engineering Works Ltd., supra, is not applicable as the facts are different. The appeal filed by Revenue is thus allowed. In the cross objection filed by the respondents no other prayer has been made except that the appeal filed by the Commissioner, Delhi-II may be rejected/dismissed. Accordingly, the cross objection gets disposed of.
-
2002 (6) TMI 455 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Arbitral award ... ... ... ... ..... misler, authorised clerk, a sub-broker who is registered with SEBI as affiliated with that member or employee or any other person with whom the member shares brokerage) arising out of or in relation to dealings, transactions and contracts made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto or in pursuance thereof or relating to their construction, fulfilment or validity or in relation to the rights, obligations and liabilities of remislers, authorised clerks, sub-brokers, constituents, employees or any other persons with whom the member shares brokerage in relation to such dealings, transactions and contracts shall be referred to and decided by arbitration as provided in the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners and the respondents. 8. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
........
|
