|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 5175 Records
-
1997 (12) TMI 469 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... rial in support of the appellant rsquo s case, we are inclined to agree with the view of the Department that the processes undertaken by the appellant bring into existence a new commercially known product, quite different from original pipes received from the suppliers and, therefore, the processes amount to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act and the product is dutiable. This is the view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier batch of appeals. 8. emsp Learned Counsel for the appellant at one stage stated that if the processes amount to manufacture, the final product and the raw material may fall under the same Tariff Heading or Tariff sub-heading. This may be so. But as held in several decisions this does not have much relevance indicating the question whether the processes amount to manufacture. See Laminated Packings Pvt. Ltd., 1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (S.C.) 9. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 462 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Air-conditioners - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... p He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification 93/76, which clearly goes to show that the use of the above said goods in terms of the above said Notification was also not disputed by him. The only ground which he held against the appellant is that the supplier while sending the goods has mentioned in the gate pass that they are being sent under Notification 56/78. Since the duty is now demanded from the appellant, the mere fact that the suppliers have mentioned Notification 56/78 will not come in the way of the appellant in claiming the above said notification and more particularly, in view of the finding of the learned Collector (Appeals) himself that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 93/76. 6. emsp In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and we set aside the same, holding that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 93/76.
-
1997 (12) TMI 458 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ontract in that case was for supply of tubes subject to isomerisation process. Such a process is in the course of manufacture and any expenses incurred in that regard would add to the value of the goods. The situation is different as far as additional or optional testing of manufactured goods carried out at the instance of buyer which tests over and above the normal manufacturing process carried out by the manufacturer himself in which process there can be test carried out by himself. We see that the issue of impulse testing charges for transformers stands covered by the Tribunal decision referred to above. That decision was also taken following the earlier decision in the Shree Pipes Ltd. case. The appeal by the department against the Tribunal decision in that case was dismissed by the Supreme Court as briefly reported in the feature Court Room Highlights in 1992 (62) E.L.T. A51. Respectfully following the said decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 456 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electric motor portion of monoblock pump ... ... ... ... ..... . SDR arguing for the Revenue submitted that excisability of the product is not an issue before the authorities below but whether the value of such electric motor portion is to be included or not is the issue. Since the assessees themselves have admitted that it was duitable, the same question cannot be raised at this stage. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. Excisability being a question of law can be raised at any stage and accordingly we are not convinced with the argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue on this plea. We also take note of the fact that the issue involved in this case with reference to the excisability has already been considered by the Tribunal in the cases referred to above holding that the item is not excisable. Since the issue has already been considered and covered by the decisions referred to above, following the same, we accept the contention of the party and accordingly appeal succeeds.
-
1997 (12) TMI 455 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... , cleared from the factory. This question is not res integra in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria v. Collector - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 676 where the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that duty paid on input in regard to which Modvat credit was available by manufacturer is not includible in the assessable value of final product under Section 41B of the Act and Rule 6(b)(2a) of the Rules. The said view has been further reiterated in the further two judgments of the Tribunal in Arpee Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 110 and Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad 1997 (93) E.L.T. 492. The Department seek to rely on the judgment of Incab Industries 1990 (45) E.L.T. 342. We have to state that Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Collector 1996 (81) ELT 676 has considered the judgment of the Incab Industries rsquo case held against the contentions raised by the Department. We are therefore of the view that the appeal does not have any merit and hence appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 452 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ate products while the tools are final products. On this finding of fact in the present case the provisions of Rule 57D(2) will get attracted. We also find that the position has been clearly elucidated in the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 168 (Tribunal) holding that Rule 57D(2) carves out and exception to the operation of Rule 57C, insofar as intermediate products are concerned. The two provisions should be read harmoniously, observed the Tribunal. While Rule 57C will enter the picture only when the final product is exempt, Rule 57D(2) will operate in all cases where the intermediate product is exempted to put it differently, in cases where the intermediate product is exempt from duty, it is Rule 57D(2) that should be applied and not Rule 57C. We find that the ratio of the Tribunal decision clearly covers the facts of the present case. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 451 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electronic components ... ... ... ... ..... olour specification was an error and the error be removed but for that reason it could not ignore the colour specification when it was the part of the law. We entirely agree with the view of the Tribunal that even if the Central Government corrected its error about condition No. 2 from 2-9-1978 by issuing a fresh notification, the earlier colour specification requirement remained operative for imports made by the concerned importers prior to 2-9-1989 when the earlier notification dated 2-8-1976 was holding the field. The latter notification can not be said to be merely clarificatory notification nor can it have any retrospective effect. It is a fresh notification laying down fresh condition deleting the earlier condition No. 2 about the colour specification. Hence this submission is of no avail to the learned Counsel for the appellants. rdquo 8. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 450 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty under exemption notification - Determination of - Notification No. 213/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... ed not on the rate of duty that was attracted when the goods were under Tariff Item 68, but the rate or rates attracted by these goods when re-classified under the new tariff. The Assistant Collector is not clear in his order as to how the rate of duty attracted was 20 . He should have shown the correct classification of the goods in the new tariff and should have also referred to these notifications, which determined the effective rate of duty. In the absence of these details, it will not be possible for us to determine whether the calculation of 5 effective duty taken by him was correct or not. For this limited purpose, we set aside both the orders and remand the proceedings back to the Assistant Collector. In his de novo proceedings, he shall state the classification of the products and the notification fixing the effective rate of duty. He is free to re-determine the quantum of refund payable, in terms of his findings as to the effective rate of duty. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 449 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... of Henna Powder. On the other hand, Shri Swaminathan submitted that bulk referred to in the above order is applicable to both the items. 4. emsp On going through the relevant order referred to by the assessees, we find that the issue involved with reference to the classification of the products namely Herbal Shikakai Powder and Henna Powder has been covered. Accordingly, we hold that if the item was cleared in bulk it was classifiable under Chapter 14 or otherwise it was classifiable under Chapter 33.05 as held in the order. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Since the quantification of duty in view of the above findings is required to be done, the matter is remitted to the concerned Adjudicating Authority for quantification. Penalty aspect may also be looked into by the concerned Adjudicating Authority and the penalty amount may be redetermined after determining the exact amount of duty payable in respect of the above two items. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 448 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ds that the Commissioner has cogently and in detail dealt with the explanation for the delay and there is no material for to interfere with the dismissal. 5. emsp It is a fact that two orders on the same issue passed by the same authority were received by the appellant within a short span of each other. The appellant being a small scale unit it is reasonable to conclude that the staff in the factory not being well versed in legal matters, could have missed the significance of the second order, confusing it the first and hence taken no action. The decision of Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Mst. Katiji and Others - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other substantial justice deserves to be preferred would apply to the facts of the case. In this view, we condone the delay, allow the appeal and set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner shall now decide the appeal before him according to law.
-
1997 (12) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Lamps - Automatic head lamps ... ... ... ... ..... erve that on the Bill of entry the appellants while giving the description as bulb has subscribed to the declaration that they were going to avail the benefit of Modvat credit. Even otherwise the goods imported by them were declared to be inputs for the purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As we have observed above the assessments from 29-9-1989 onwards were provisional and will not be hit by time bar. For the earlier period we consider that the demand was hit by time bar. 11. emsp In view of the above discussion we consider that only the demand when the assessment were provisional is sustainable. 12. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case we also consider that there was no ground for imposing penalty. 13. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account the demand with respect of the bill of entries where the assessments were provisional is confirmed. The order relating to the imposition of penalty is vacated. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nd Salt Act, discretionary power vests with the Appellate Authority even to condone delay in filing the appeal for further period of three months. Assuming that there was a delay of one day, in the interest of justice, he should have condoned it. In the facts and circumstances, the delay if any in filing the appeal has been condoned and the matter has not been decided on merit. The same is remanded to the concerned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit after providing an opportunity to the appellant. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand. In this context it was brought to my notice by Shri S.S. Aggarwal that goods which have been confiscated were detained and the department has issued a notice for auction of such goods. I make it clear that if the goods have not been auctioned, the department is directed not to auction the same during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Ordered accordingly. Copy of this order may be given DASTI.
-
1997 (12) TMI 445 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... e of under-invoicing, which may be established. 6. emsp The appellants, it is seen, were sending a sample supply and the price agreed to has to be found out in that background. It is not unusual in the trade that when first sales which by way of sample supplies are made, the appellants may even choose to supply at a loss, but that is not to say that the appellants resorted to under-invoicing. 7. emsp In view of the above, we hold that the learned lower authority has not examined the issue indepth and, therefore, it is not proper and we set aside the same and remand the same for de novo consideration and decision in the light of our observations above, particularly after taking into consideration the parameters of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and also laying a basis with evidence as to the degree of under-invoicing, if any. 8. emsp We, therefore, allow the appeal by remand. The pre-deposit made shall abide by the final outcome of the proceedings in the de novo adjudication.
-
1997 (12) TMI 444 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions. The appellants have claimed before the adjudicating authority that the machinery after fully manufactured are removed on payment of duty to their customers site for installation and that the installation and commissioning charges are optional at the preference of the customers. This claim of the appellants has not been rebutted in the finding. In such a situation, the Tribunal decision in the case of Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. supra will come into play, wherein the Tribunal has held that where such erection and commissioning charges are optional then such charges cannot be included in the assessable value and in the other Tribunal decision relied upon by the appellants it has been clearly held that these are in the nature of post removal expenses and have no nexus with the manufacturing and marketability of the product. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 443 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty - Goods cleared without payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... atter. 3. emsp Heard the ld. JDR Shri Ravinder Saroop for the Department. He pointed out that in view of the fact that the goods in question are removed without payment of duty, penalty imposed is just and proper. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made by both sides. It is now seen that the bonafides of the appellant are established in view of the fact that even without the requirement of SCN, they made voluntary payment. This is also admitted in the impugned order and this act of the appellant, according to the Adjudicating Officer, was sufficient to take a lenient view as mentioned by him in para 16 of the impugned order. However, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be met, if the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and we order accordingly. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 442 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... cess of mining carried out could not be taken to be encompassed as manufacture of cement. Since the question of Modvat credit under Rule 57A has to be related to a unit which is manufacturing a particular product, in our view the operations which are carried out with a view to generate the raw material, unless this generation is connected to the process of manufacture of the commodity, it cannot be taken to be integral to the process of manufacture of the notified finished product. In the above view of the matter, the benefit of the Modvat credit as claimed has to be denied rdquo . 6. emsp A perusal of the above observation clearly goes to show that we have dealt with exactly a similar matter as in the present case. After taking into consideration the various operations we have held that the process does not come within the purview of Rule 57Q. Since we have already taken a decision in this regard, following our earlier decision, we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants.
-
1997 (12) TMI 441 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Computers ... ... ... ... ..... quo ble Supreme Court in the case of PSI Data Systems Limited, reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 3. emsp The two disputed bought out items are Dot Matrix Printers and Numerical Co-Processors. In our opinion, the Numerical Co-Processor must be regarded as an essential part of the computer. But the same cannot be said of Dot Matrix Printers. Every user of a computer may not require a printer. Persons and institutions which use several PCs may have one printer to serve. In these circumstances, the printer is not shown to be an essential part of a computer. 4. emsp The order impugned in Appeal No. 5296/93 is set aside to the extent it includes the value of software and printer in the assessable value of computers. The appeal relates also to penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the Appellant. Considering the value involved, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 500/-. The appeal is allowed in part. 5. emsp The order impugned in Appeal No. 5297/93 is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 440 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Machines - Benefit of exemption under the notificationNo. 96/91-Cus available.
... ... ... ... ..... ion of the imported machine was drilling and there was no justification to widen the scope of the notification, since language is very clear. The facts of the present case are different. We have already indicated that the imported machine performs functions required to be performed by machines covered by Sl. Nos. 12 and 84 and therefore the combined machine attract the benefit of the notification. In the facts of the present case, the decision relied on by the department is inapplicable. 8. emsp For the above reasons, we hold that the machine imported by the appellants would be covered by the exemption notification. Therefore the refund claim which was rejected by the lower authorities will have to be considered on the basis of that the benefit of ememption notification was available to the appellants. The impugned order is set aside and the refund claim is remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating for decision of fresh after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.
-
1997 (12) TMI 439 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE,
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... y. The authenticity of the documents themselves have not been questioned. The requirement of duplicate copy is to ensure primarily that they are not misused for availing Modvat credit fraudulently again after the credit has been availed on the original copy of the invoice. As such the requirement is to ensure that duplicate gate passes are not misused in case credit is availed on the original copy of the invoice. Since the suppliers of the inputs and the appellants are working in the jurisdiction of the same range and division, effective measures against such misuse can be taken. The fact is that substantial benefit of Modvat cannot be disallowed for such procedural lapses if the payment of duty on such inputs and their use in the final product is not in doubt. Under the circumstances, the appellant is eligible for the Modvat credit and I hold accordingly. The appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside. The stay applications and appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Utensils - Benefit of Notification No. 119/78-C.E. etc. allowed. ... ... ... ... ..... ircles. The Appellants have requested the case to be decided on merits. They cite Tribunal judgements in their favour. They state that the issue is no longer res integra and that their contentions are required to be held. The Appellants here cite the case of Ajit Metal Industries v. C.C.E., reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 81 which in turn follows the ruling of the Patna High Court in the case of Tata Yodogawa Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 521, Indira Metal Works v. C.C.E., Pune by Final Order No. E/150/94-B1, dated 7-3-1994, M/s. Jitendra Smelting and Rolling Mills v. C.C.E., Pune by Final Order No. E/346/97-B, dated 20-2-1997. 2. emsp Ld. D.R. confirmed the position. 3. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the records we notice that the issue is no longer res integra and issue has already been settled in the above judgments. Respectfully following the ratio of the above judgments the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
............
|
