|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 7228 Records
-
2004 (12) TMI 616 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - Evidence, Accounts and records of third party - Valuation - Adjudication order, findings in the order contrary to earlier adjudication order
-
2004 (12) TMI 615 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Seizure - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... der clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months rdquo . emsp 5.The requirements under the above provision was considered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and it was held that the extension of the period of six months in terms of the proviso could be carried out only after issue of show cause notice to the parties and after hearing them. It was also ruled that, in the event of failure to observe these requirements, the seized goods should be returned to the parties. The Tribunal has also passed many orders following these judgments. In the circumstances, the appellant rsquo s claim is required to be allowed. In the result, Revenue is directed to return the seized goods to the appellant forthwith.
-
2004 (12) TMI 614 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Freight and turnover tax - Equalised freight - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... t they had paid the turnover tax in certain states and produced the documentary evidence. In this Appeal also, we find that the direction contained in Final Order No. 167/2001/A, dated 11-4-2001 has not been complied with. The Tribunal has clearly held therein relying on the judgment in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. that turn over tax is admissible deduction from the price. The matter was remanded only to examine on the basis of evidence placed by the Company as to whether Rs. 61 represents turnover tax or not and also whether sales tax is paid separately by them and ldquo if the examination of the evidence reveals that Rs. 61/- represent the element of turn over tax, it will be admissible deduction from the assessable values rdquo . We are Constrained to remand the matter once again to jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh on the lines of directions contained in the Remand order. Thus, the Appeal No. E/1760/2004-NB(A) is allowed by way of remand.
-
2004 (12) TMI 613 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Import ... ... ... ... ..... (163) E.L.T. 333. It is therefore, clear that Collector of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. has no application whatever in the present case where the royalty or licence fee relates to post importation manufacture in India, and the contention is wholly untenable. (f) State Bank of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 597 (S.C.) dealt with the licence fee payable in respect of imported software. The amount was payable, and paid, as a part of the purchase price of such imported software. This judgment has no relevance whatever in the present case. (g) In view of the facts herein as regards the nature of payments, the same cannot be added fully in Larger Bench decision in case of Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 62, SDT Scheme Service 2003 (155) E.L.T. 274 . Panalfa Dongwon India Ltd. 2003 (155) E.L.T. 287 . 3.2In view of the findings, this appeal of Revenue is required to be rejected. 3.3Ordered accordingly. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 612 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssioner (Appeals) pertain to the same goods. One relates to assessment and other relates to consequential refund. Now that it stands established that the assessment made at the time of clearance of the goods was only provisional and that the original authority has been directed to finalise it, there is, now, no dispute of the fact that the refund claim is premature and the same can be considered only upon finalisation of the assessment. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, this aspect has not been adverted to in the impugned order. The finalisation of assessment will have to be done by the original authority in terms of Order-in-Appeal No. 503/2003 (which is binding on that authority insofar as assessment is concerned) rather than the impugned order. 4.The impugned order is set aside, with the observation that it is open to the assessee to claim refund if the assessment is finalised on a lower price. The appeal is disposed of. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 611 - DELHI HIGH COURT
EXIM - DEEC scheme - Advance licence - Penalty - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... of quantity of penalty, I am of the considered view that taking into consideration that the total Customs duty involvement is about Rs. 5.8 lakhs, the export commitments having been fulfilled and the petitioners having paid the redemptions fine, the same be reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The amount to be paid by the petitioners in one month from today. emsp 39.It may, however, be noted that in view of the stand taken by learned Counsel for the respondents, and rightly so, as the abeyance orders have come to an end, the petitioners should be entitled to benefits in respect of the exports made for the said period and subsequently thereto and to that extent, prayer (iii) is liable to be granted. The needful be done within a period of three months of the petitioners sending the details of benefits which the petitioners are entitled to and have not been granted to the petitioners. emsp 40.The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 610 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Precedent and practice - Binding precedent - Writ jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ly there is no plea in this regard either in the affidavit in support of the writ petition or in the reply affidavit despite the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit at para-16 of the counter affidavit referred to supra. Even in this view of the matter, the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is needless to say that when the Writ Petition is being dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable the other questions touching the merits and demerits of the matter need not be adverted to. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Judge on the aspect of want of jurisdiction and the same are hereby confirmed. 12.The Writ Appeal shall stand dismissed being devoid of any merit. In the peculiar facts of the case since the Writ Petition itself had been dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction, costs made easy.
-
2004 (12) TMI 609 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ch were issued much before six months from the date of taking credit. Since the show cause notice related only to this issue, the decision also has to be taken only on this issue. The clearance of the inputs by the appellants in 1997 has nothing to do with denial of the credit in 1995 on the invoices which were more than six months old from the date of taking the credit. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly upheld that the credit is not available to the appellants and the subsequent clearances the appellants after the issue of the show cause notice has nothing to do with the charge levelled in the show cause notice. The case laws relied upon by the appellants are not relevant in the present case as in this case, the issue is limited only to taking of credit without authority of law and not allowing any exemption for recovery of credit. 5.In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected. Order pronounced in open Court on 23-12-2004
-
2004 (12) TMI 608 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants followed the Trade Notice 111/94 of Chandigarh Commissionerate as they informed the range Superintendent about the loss of duplicate copy of invoice on 22-6-1998. They sought permission of Assistant Commissioner for credit on 22-7-1998. Affidavit regarding loss of duplicate copy of invoice was filed. I find the affidavit shows the invoice number which was lost. If the Assistant Commissioner had noted that vehicle number is not shown in affidavit which could have been included then he could have called for fresh affidavit showing vehicle number. Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down by the Tribunal in various decisions relied on by the appellants and also the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (para 10), I do not find any reason to disallow credit to the appellants. I, therefore, allow the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court).
-
2004 (12) TMI 607 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... In pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal the adjudicating authority again solely relying upon the standing order enhanced the value of imported goods. 4.We find that the appellant challenged the impugned order which is passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal. Earlier the value of the imported goods was enhanced on the basis of the standing order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay. The Tribunal set aside the order and remand the matter by holding that value of imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of standing order only and other imports shall be taken into consideration. We find that the lower authority again rejected the value declared by the importer on the basis of the stand order only. There is no other material on record for enhancing the value of goods. In these circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable hence set aside and the appeal is allowed. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court .
-
2004 (12) TMI 606 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Compounded Levy Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... as we find from the facts recorded in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. Apart from this, in our view, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalties against the respondents is not legally maintainable. The provisions of Rule 96ZO are mandatory and in a case of default by an assesse, in making the payment, the imposition of penalty is a must. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the penalties in toto on the respondents specially when the default in making the payment in time, was not disputed before him by the respondents. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard cannot be sustained and deserves to be modified. 4.Therefore, keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the case and payment of entire duty by the respondents, we impose penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each, on the respondents. The appeals of the Revenue accordingly stand disposed of. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 605 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - 100% EOU - DTA sales ... ... ... ... ..... ade above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in view, the appellant-company is directed to make pre-deposit Rs. 4 crores within a period of 8 weeks from today and on making this deposit, the pre-deposit of the balance duty and the entire penalty shall stand waived and its recovery stayed against the appellant-company. Similarly, the appellant No. 2, the Director of the company who had been managing the entire show of the company and abetting the company in the evasion of the duty is directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within the above said period. On making this deposit by him, the pre-deposit of the balance amount of penalty, by him shall stand waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. But in the event of failure by either of the two appellants to comply with the order, the appeals shall be liable to be dismissed under Section 35F of the Act. Compliance to be reported on 17-2-2005. (Dictated in open Court on 8-12-2004).
-
2004 (12) TMI 604 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... tion on the Stay Order. In view of the Larger Bench decision in the cases of Dinkar Khindria and Arora International referred to above, this Tribunal has no powers to recall its own Order. The Larger Bench has considered this issue in detail and has come to the conclusion that the Tribunal is a creation of statute and it can exercise only those powers which are conferred under the statute. The Tribunal has no inherent powers as are available with courts established under the Constitution or Codes of Civil Procedure. Since the applicant/appellant company has not deposited the amount as ordered by the Tribunal in its Order dated 2-9-04 and as per the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s directions contained in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs referred to above, the application to recall the Order of the Tribunal is dismissed. Since the applicant/appellant company has not made the pre-deposit, the appeals also get dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court.
-
2004 (12) TMI 603 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... hout going into the merits. However on going through the Preamble to the Order in Appeal cited supra, it is seen that the appellants have been advised that the period of appeal is three months. Consequently, the appellants were under the impression that the limitation period is three months and have filed the appeals within a period of three months. I find that in identical situation the Tribunal in the case of Bansal Ispat Udyog v. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2003 (160) E.L.T. 813 (Tribunal) 2004 (61) RLT 654 (CESTAT - Del.) have remanded the matter for decision on merits. 4.In view of above and inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merits of the case and dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation, the impugned order is set aside, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the matter is remanded for decision on merits after hearing the appellants in accordance with law. (Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open Court on 3-12-2004)
-
2004 (12) TMI 602 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Re-export of imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... n No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995. Admittedly, re-export has been made within a period of six months from the date of taking possession of the goods. On the other hand, the revenue rsquo s view is that six months have to be calculated from the date of final assessments of the bill of entry. 3.However, we do not find any sufficient force in the above reasoning of the authorities below. The appellants have drawn our attention to the Circular No. 14/97, dated 3-6-1997 clarifying that the time period of six months as stipulated in the notification, for the purposes of re-export, has to be calculated from the date of actual clearance of the goods and not the date of filing of bill of entry. As such, we are of the view that the appellants have been able to make out a good prima facie case in its favour so as to allow the stay petition unconditionally. We order accordingly. Inasmuch as a short issue is involved, we fix the appeal also for hearing on 21-1-2005. (Dictated in Court).
-
2004 (12) TMI 601 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of service of order or decision whereas Section 128 creates a statutory right to file Appeal within three months from the date of communication or order. Any order, though sent to the Appellants by registered post/speed post does not reach them, there is no communication of order to them and in absence of the said order they can not file the Appeal. The Tribunal has also held in the said decision that ldquo as the Revenue has to prove a positive act, affidavit by itself is not sufficient which only shows despatch of the order and not their service upon the Appellants. rdquo The ratio of said decision clearly applies to the facts of the present matter. In view of this, I hold that the Appeal filed by the Appellants before Commissioner (Appeals) was not hit by time limit as the order was communicated to them only in 2003. In view of these facts, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 600 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he present matters also, the normal price at factory gate is available, the goods removed to their unit No. II will be assessed to duty on the basis of normal value. Undisputedly the demand of duty covered in appeal No. 2675/2004-A is within the time limit specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, and therefore, we uphold the demand and penalty and reject appeal No. E/2675/2004-A. As far as the second appeal No. E/2521/2004 is concerned we observe that the lower authorities have not considered the submission of the Appellants that they had filed the price declaration regarding transfer of the goods to their other unit. This aspect of invocability of the extended period of limitation has to be examined by the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority in the light of the price declaration filed by the Appellants. We, therefore, allow the appeal No. 2521/2004-NB(A) and remand the matter to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority for considering the aspect of time bar.
-
2004 (12) TMI 599 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... finds to the effect - ldquo I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 - (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) under Rule of I73Q of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. Penalty under Sec. 11AC and interest under 11AH cannot he invoked in present case as there are no suppression of facts. rdquo 4.We find that provision of rule 7(b) of Cenvat Rules which deny on supplementary credit, is pari materia the provision of section 11AC. When no reasons to invoke the provisions of section 11AC are found by Deputy Commissioner Incharge of M/s. BPCL under section 11AC to be established in the facts of these supplementary demands determined by him, we cannot therefore find reason to apply the provisions of Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Rules to deny credit to the present appellants, who have received the supplementary invoices showing the payment of duty and also have paid said amount of duty to BPCL. Orders of the Commissioner to the contrary are therefore, set aside and present appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 598 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay of petition ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 2 of 2002 and Rule issued and hearing expedited. Therefore these application seeking the stay of petition under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 imposed on the respondents are granted following 1986 (24) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) AIR 1986 SC 421 paragraph 38 and 2003 (158) E.L.T. 340 and nothing contrary shown pending the reference. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2004 (12) TMI 597 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Quantification of ... ... ... ... ..... severally liable to pay the duty hellip .. rdquo (underlining supplied) without determining the individual amounts determinations is not good in law, neither can it assist us to direct or enable the person desirous of appealing against this order, to arrive at the amount required to be deposited with the adjudicating authority under the provisions of Section 35F. 2. emsp Consequently, we order full waiver and stay recovery of the amounts. Keeping in mind the amounts involved and the oral alternative submission of the ld. Jt. CDR, we fix the appeals for Regular hearing on 28-1-2005. 3. emsp Applications disposed in above terms. (Pronounced in Court)
............
|
