|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 547 Records
-
1997 (12) TMI 437 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Chucks whether accessories or components parts of machine tools - Refund - Unjust enrichment - Short-shipped goods
-
1997 (12) TMI 436 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... its. 3. emsp We have heard the learned DR for the department. He reiterated the reasoning in the impugned order. 4. emsp In order to apprecaite the points of the appellants, we reproduce the description under chapter sub-heading 0901.20 0901.20 Coffee substitutes containing coffee in any proportion. 5. emsp It is seen that coffee substitutes containing coffee in any proportion falls under Heading 0901.20. The appellants also contend that the product is a mixture of coffee and chicory and is not a coffee substitute. Their plea is that the coffee powder contained in the mixture is 80 to 90 . Their plea that their product comes within the purview of Heading 0910.90 has no force in view of the fact that under Heading 0901.20 coffee substitute containing coffee in any proportion is to be classified under Heading 0901.20. In view of the above, we hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and we find no force in the plea of the appellants and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 435 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund not rejectable on the ground of finality of price-list and payment of duty was without protest
-
1997 (12) TMI 434 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ot excluded. The items excluded are in the nature of tooth wheels and not this item. The lower appellate authority therefore in our view, has not appreciated the scope of Tariff Heading 8483.40 in the correct perspective. We observe that the customs tariff is based on the HSN and the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Wood Craft Industries v. C.C.E., reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 at para 18 has held that in case of any doubt the position as set out in the HSN can be relied upon for resolving the same. The HSN clearly sets out that chain sprockets are covered by Tariff Heading 8483.40 We are therefore of the view that this Tariff Heading is specific for chain sprockets and order accordingly with consequential relief subject to the provisions of the amended Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Inasmuch as we have taken the classification under this heading in appeal filed by the appellant i.e. C/1232/89, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue i.e. Appeal No. C/1270/89.
-
1997 (12) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Rubber sole sports shoes - Benefit of Notification No. 66/87-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... is no dispute that the Upper Soles Upper are made of mixture of Rubber and Leather and that the only plastic part is the logo in plastic affixed to the top portion of the shoes. It is presence of the plastic logo which, according to the department takes these footwears from out of purview of the notification. We cannot agree with the above conclusion of the lower authorities. Merely because plastic logo is affixed to the upper made of rubber and leather, the uppers cannot be regarded as made of plastic. 3. emsp In this view, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 432 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Review/Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... he legality and proprietary of order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, subordinate to him. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have been considered from this angle. In this context the ld. DR also referred to and relied upon the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of Shivanand Pipe Fitting v. Supdt. - 1994 (45) ECC 77 wherein the Madras High Court has held that provision of Section 11A are not attracted in proceedings under Section 35E of Central Excise Act 1944. We therefore remand the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad for considering the issue afresh in the light of the two sections of the Act are concerned namely the Section 35E and Section 11A to determine the question of limitation in the context of the scope of objective of these two sections. The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded in the above terms. The Commissioner (Appeals) may also give hearing to the Respondents. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Seizure - Reasonable belief - Confiscation - Evidence - Statement ... ... ... ... ..... nd Singapore Dollars. We have also perused the allegation in the Show Cause Notice in this regard as also the findings in the Order-in-Original. We are convinced by the evidence led by both sides before us that foreign currency was liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. We, accordingly, uphold the confiscation thereof. 52. emsp On the question of cross-examination of the Panch witnesses and Inspector Dhakar, we find from the records that cross-examination of S/Shri Harsh Bahadur, Superintendent and S.N. Sethi, Inspector was allowed. Panch witnesses witnessed the recovery of foreign marked gold biscuits, foreign currencies and Indian currency. Recovery of the goods is not denied. Hence the denial of cross-examination of Panch witnesses has not prejudiced the cause of the appellants. 53. emsp In view of the above findings, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 430 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... He is the one who was concerned with packing of the goods and also transacting with the dealers. In the statement given it was stated that he was active participant with Neelamarthandan and he was working under the direction of Neelamarthandan being his brother-in-law. The learned Counsel has stated that he is 20 years old and he did not know what Neelamarthandan was doing. In my view he acted on the instructions of Neelamarthandan in view of the nature of the transactions he was connected with. 110. emsp The learned DR for the department pleaded that in view of his active role, he is liable to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that while the appellant is liable to penalty, ends of justice would be served if the penalty on this appellant is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and I order accordingly. 11. emsp The appeals are decided in the above terms.
-
1997 (12) TMI 429 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... on, where the notices (sic) are cleared along with rsquo the final product. The notice is vague. It says that the mirrors were cleared separately/along with the vehicle. This would mean that in some cases the mirrors accompanied the scooters and in other cases they did not. The basis for the earlier stay order was also that the mirrors were cleared along with the vehicle. Prima facie it is difficult to see how if an item which ultimately forms part of the final product, if cleared separately, would be considered to have acquired the status of a part of the product when the final product left the manufacturer rsquo s factory. Taking into account the ambiguity in the notice, we consider it appropriate that the applicant should keep unutilised in his Modvat account credit to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs till the pendency of the appeal. Upon this being done, we grant waiver of deposit of the amount of duty and penalty and stay its recovery. 4. emsp Compliance on 19th January, 1998.
-
1997 (12) TMI 428 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... rticular manufacturing stream cannot be taken to be a part of the manufacturing process of the finished product unless it could be shown that integrality of the operation by virtue of technical requirement was there. The ld. DR, therefore, submitted that since there are conflicting decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal on the same question, this may be referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. 5. emsp Heard the submissions of both the parties. We observe that the decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal on the question of admissibility of fuel oil used for generating electricity as an input for purposes of Modvat credit under Rule 57A has not been consistent as would be seen from the discussions above. 6. emsp Having regard to this position, we agree with the prayer of the Departmental Representative to refer the question to a Larger Bench of this Tribunal. 7. emsp Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the matter before the Hon rsquo ble President.
-
1997 (12) TMI 427 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Waste/Scrap ... ... ... ... ..... hed product which cannot be marketed as such because of manufacturing deficiencies has to be treated as waste and scrap is not in dispute rsquo . In other words, he has accepted the plea of the appellants that the goods in question are waste and scrap and not forgings even though they were entered in RG1 register as forgings. That being so, while it was open to the department to have imposed a penalty for contravention of the relevant rules namely entry in the Waste and Scrap account without obtaining the permission of the Commissioner, duty demand cannot be sustained as the products are not forgings. The learned Counsel is correct in pointing out from the Assistant Collector rsquo s order that it has been recorded that waste and scarp was cleared on payment of appropriate duty. Since the demand of duty cannot be sustained and there is no penalty imposed by the lower authorities, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the appeal allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 426 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tobacco - Goods liable to confiscation - Notification No. 356/86-C.E. - Demand - Limitation
-
1997 (12) TMI 425 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... EC was issued subsequent to the date of export, the same had been issued on their application where these items had been mentioned. Accordingly, it will not be correct to say that the applicant did not know about the obligation to use the items applied for in the manufacture of the product exported by them. As the certain items like zip fasteners and velore tape had admittedly not been used by the applicant in the manufacture of the export product. They were not eligible for duty free release on the strength of the DEC as has been correctly held by the Commissioner in his impugned order. 3. emsp I have taken note of the rival submissions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the applicant has made out a prima facie case which would justify the grant of waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudged penalty amount. I accordingly direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of two months from today and report compliance on 2-3-1998.
-
1997 (12) TMI 424 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... . At the relevant time there was no time limit specified in Rule 57-I. The larger bench of this Tribunal in its decision in Breaks India v. C.C.E. - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 434 (Tribunal) 1996 (15) RLT 68 has read into the rule as it stood before the amendment in 1988, the limitation of six months in the normal cases, and five years in cases where factors such as suppression exist for recovery, such period to be computed from the date on which filing RT-12 returns are required to be filed. By applying this limit, the demand dated 6th May, 1988 is entirely barred by limitation. Demand dated 13th May, 1988 is barred by limitation to the extent of credit taken prior to 1st December, 1987. 10. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Advocate for the appellant says that despite waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted by the Tribunal, the amount has been recovered from the appellant. The amount recovered is to be returned to the appellant rsquo s credit in consequence of this order.
-
1997 (12) TMI 423 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... r. While it exempts the first clearance upto Rs. 30 lakhs of all commodities, for a single commodity, the limit given is Rs. 15 lakhs. The claim of the ld. Advocate that the certificate should have imparted knowledge to the department of the assessee rsquo s plan to exceed the exemption limit does not contain any merit. Where the assessee manufactures more than one produce, it is for him to ensure that he is within limits stipulated in the notification for his commodity. There was no way for the department to know of their excess clearances since the proceeding show that the assessees throughout the year did not maintain any statutory documents at all. In these circumstances, the invocation of extended period on account of deliberate suppression has to be upheld. We find no merit in this appeal. We find that the adjudicating authority was extremely lenient in imposing a token penalty in spite of the gravity of the offence. Upholding the impugned order, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 422 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of auction - Recovery of Government dues by auction of goods ... ... ... ... ..... 2-1997 to 5-12-1997. 3. emsp Since they had already filed the stay petition before the Tribunal, they had requested the Assistant Commissioner to wait and he had given ten days time. Hence, it is their request that the stay petition may be fixed for hearing immediately or in the alternative, an interim order staying auction may be passed, keeping in view that they have already paid a substantial amount of duty out of the total demand. 4. emsp In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel and the documents filed before us including the copies of the detention order and the notice for auction for disposal of the goods, after hearing the learned DR, we direct the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Gwalior, not to auction the goods in question (i.e. which are the subject-matter of these appeals) pending hearing of the stay applications and orders thereon. The stay applications are fixed for hearing on 6-1-1998. A copy of this order may given dasti to both the sides.
-
1997 (12) TMI 421 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Adjustment in duty credit - Excess duty paid ... ... ... ... ..... the manufacture of declared outputs. There is also no dispute that the invoice in question had been issued from the depot and bears the printed mark to the effect duplicate for transporter for taking Modvat credit rsquo and for removal of excisable goods under Rule 57G and also bears the attested stamp of Ficom Organics Limited, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the invoices issued from the depots or registered dealers are prescribed documents under Rule 57G. In these circumstances, the benefit cannot be disallowed merely on the ground of suspicion that the authentication might had been done later on purely technical ground of requirement of pre-authentication. It has been repeatedly held by this Tribunal in a catena of orders that where substantive compliance is shown, the benefit should not be denied merely on the ground of minor procedural infractions. 10. emsp In view of the above position, I set aside the impugned orders and accept the appeal as already announced
-
1997 (12) TMI 420 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valve - Pressure valve ... ... ... ... ..... es would prevail. It is in this respect that context becomes absolutely necessary, and therefore, a finding in regard to nature and characteristics of goods is a first step towards arriving at a decision whether goods are really such as are covered by Heading 84.81. This is essentially a question of fact. In this connection, we may refer to Tribunal rsquo s decision in case of Krishna and Co., New Delhi. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2017. 7. emsp The appellants have also contended that Collector did not at all consider their claim for benefit under Notification 60/87 even while assuming that classification under Heading 84.81 was correct. 8. emsp In view of this, we consider it is necessary to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for arriving at a de novo decision on all the pleas made after according appellants an opportunity of being heard. Appellants are at liberty to produce additional evidence which they consider would support their case.
-
1997 (12) TMI 419 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty and Fine - Evidence - Confessional statement ... ... ... ... ..... nalty on master of the vessel was not imposable unless there was a positive evidence of his involvement in bringing the goods on the vessel or to the effect that he was in the know of the crew members concealing the goods specially when vessel was (sic) and the crew members could bring in the goods conceal them in the vessel without the knowledge of the captain. In the case of Jayant R. Patel v. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 164 (Tribunal), it was observe penalty was imposable only with respect to the excess quantity imported. None of these judgments in any way justify the misdeclaration involved in these proceedings. The goods valued at Rs. 6.7 lakh were found in excess. The duty evaded was of over Rs. 9 lakh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakh and the penalty of Rs. 5 lakh was fully justified. 12. emsp We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 418 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Second show cause notice on same issue ... ... ... ... ..... ssification. It is apart from the fact that in March and April, 1986 there was correspondence with Department intimating them the nature of the products manufactured by them. 5. emsp In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that there was any ingredient mentioned in proviso to Section 11A which could be invoked to sustain larger period. When facts are in possession of both sides, larger period obviously cannot be invoked. 6. emsp In view of this, we hold that appellants succeeded on the issue of limitation. It was pleaded by the ld. Advocate that this appeal relates only to limitation and the merits are not being urged through this appeal. We make it clear, therefore, that our order relates only to the issue of time bar in regard to show cause notice issued in October, 1988. Since we have held that larger period is not invokable, penalty cannot be sustained. Penalty is, therefore, set aside. 7. emsp In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
............
|
