|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 382 Records
-
1996 (1) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Turnkey Projects are not excisable goods, hence not liable to Excise duty ... ... ... ... ..... sion of the Tribunal in the case of J.N. Export Industries, Junagadh v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad -1983 (14) E.L.T. 2390 wherein it has been held that the plant and machinery attached to earth which are assembled or erected at site out of duty paid goods cannot be considered as excisable goods, if firmly attached to earth even by bolts and nuts. The ratio of the above cited decisions are equally applicable in these appeals also. As such I do not wish go in other contentions and submissions made by the appellants. Both the impugned orders are set aside and allow both the appeals accordingly. 5. emsp On going through the submissions and in view of the clear finding given by the Collector (Appeals) concurring with this view we hold that item in question is not excisable goods and since we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) we uphold the impugned order of Collector (Appeals) and reject the appeal filed by the Department.
-
1996 (1) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tted only in some cases but since it was essential and accessory it is to be included in the assessable value of the Tractor, according to the Department. On going through the catena of decisions referred to by the learned Consultant for the appellants it is clear that irrespective of the fact whether it is accessory and essential, if it was not supplied compulsorily to the customer then the cost of such item cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants. We find that this issue has been squarely covered by the decisions referred to by the learned Consultant. Concurring with this view that item is only optional we make it clear that cost of the lamp, as such, cannot be included in the value of the tractors manufactured and cleared by the appellants. Further, we make it clear that since fixture and fittings were also provided in the Tractor, the cost of the same is includible. With these observations, this appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (1) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... istant Collector nor Collector (Appeals) has gone into the merits of the case and in fact Collector (Appeals) at best proceeded from a wrong premise presuming classification under 8481.10. Notification No. 153/86 exempts certain valves including non-return valves from duty in excess of 40 ad valorem. Whether or not goods are such as prescribed in the exemption Notification No. 153/86 has to be gone into by original authorities in the first place. In view of this we are of the view that the matter would have to go back by way remand. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector of Customs for de novo decision in regard to classification as well as benefit under Notification No. 153/86. Ld. Consultant submits that this case pertains to 1986 and therefore prays for early decision in the matter. In view of this Tribunal would appreciate if the case is decided expeditiously say within three months of the date of receipt of this order.
-
1996 (1) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Springs - Safety valves spares ... ... ... ... ..... this position, it was necessary to declare at the time of filing of the bill of entry, the composition of the article so that it could be determined whether it was made of stainless steel or not. The respondents, however, did not do so. They also did not submit the required documents even at the time of claiming reassessment. There is also no indication they did so before the Collector (Appeals). 12. emsp Even now, they have not filed any documents to show the composition. Therefore, their contention that the article was required to be charged duty at 100 under heading 73.33/40(1) remains unsubstantiated. 13. emsp It is also obvious from the above that the error at the original stage was in indicating the sub-heading and not in indicating the rate of duty and the rate of duty had been correctly applied. Hence, the order of the Collector (Appeals) was required to be set aside. We therefore, accept the department rsquo s appeal and confirm the order of the Assistant Collector.
-
1996 (1) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... expenses could not be included in the assessable value. The Collector (Appeals) set aside this enhancement and assessable value. The department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. 2. emsp An employee of the respondent appeared before us and pleaded for adjournment on the ground that though notice had been received, the respondent could not trace the records. In an appeal filed in 1987, we do not think this is a reasonable request. The request for adjournment is rejected. 3. emsp The declared value includes the normal C.I.F. value. What was sought to be added was the extra freight and insurance charges which the respondent had to incur on account of grounding of the original vessel and transfer to another vessel. Ordinarily, such extra charges are not taken into consideration by the Customs House, since the Customs House goes by the actual freight or a particular percentage of price. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (1) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed to pass a fresh order regarding valuation indicating the short fall in the customs clearance permit and also indicating that the Deputy Collector had adjudicated the case and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,500/-. This was treated as an appealable order and appeal filed before Collector (Appeals), who confirmed the order but giving further allowance of Rs. 5,000/- in the value on account of damage. These orders are now under challenge. The adjudication order was admittedly passed by the Deputy Collector. The same was not issued to the appellant. The Assistant Collector in turn purported to pass an order on the same lines. Once adjudication by Deputy Collector is complete, Assistant Collector could not have issued an order. 2. emsp In view of illegality pointed out as aforesaid, we set aside the order passed by Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals). The order passed by Deputy Collector has no effect since it was never communicated to the appellant. Appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (1) TMI 263 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - DEEC Licence ... ... ... ... ..... g that the provisions of Contract Act are held as applicable and the licences are held as valid till they are cancelled, Section 65 of the said Act, clearly provides that whatever benefits that are derived by the party defrauding, have to be restored, and position ante has to be brought back. The Judicial pronouncements that have been referred to, have not examined the statutory provisions of Sec. 65 of the Contract Act, and hence, the ratio of those decisions could not stand attracted. Further, as has been duly discussed by my Ld. Brother, even on factual aspects, these Judgments are distinguishable. 16. emsp Thus, when a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own fraud and when the law envisages that on voiding the voidable contract, the position ante has to be restored, and when on the date on which the clearance of goods has to be effected the licences have stood cancelled, there appears no ground to interfere with the order as passed by the authority below.
-
1996 (1) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e the question required to be considered was whether the realisation for Dharmam rsquo (charitable purpose) in the Andhra Pardesh case or Mahimai rsquo (religious purpose) in the Madras case would fall within the definition of ldquo turnover rdquo contained in the concerned legislations and that the realisation is not a part of the price or the surcharge on the price but payment for the specific purpose of being spent on charitable purposes. 4. emsp The Tribunal has followed the above view in a number of cases. For example, See Mohan and Company - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 624. This view is being taken by the Tribunal since 1987. We do not think that in these circumstances we should apply the dictum laid down by the High Court of Madras in the context of assessable value of the excisable goods, since the Supreme Court has held that the sum representing Dharmada rsquo is not part of the price or surcharge of the price. We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeals.
-
1996 (1) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Vegetable Product ... ... ... ... ..... touched upon this aspect of the case. Instead he rejected the appeal filed by the appellants before him. Under these circumstances I am of the view that since the appellants failed to give the required notice of their intention in terms of Notification No. 259/83-C.E. the case should go to the Collector (Appeals) to decide the issue. However, since my Ld. Brother has suggested for the remand of this issue to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (now designated as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise) having jurisdiction in the matter to decide the issue afresh as to whether the appellants switched over from condition (a) to conditon (b) during the relevant period. I also remand the case to the Assistant Collector (now Assistant Comissioner) for this purpose. 18. emsp With the aforesaid observations I also remand both the appeals to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (now designated as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise) having jurisdiction in the matter.
-
1996 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Pan Masala - Product - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ment in the present cases is provisional and there is no time limit as we have taken a view on the classification of the product manufactured by the respondents. These three appeals are remanded for de novo adjudication in accordance with the decision taken in the four appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector shall examine the facts and the contents of the preparation in accordance with Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 21 and decide the cases in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents herein. Therefore, these three appeals are allowed by remand and the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is set aside. 13. emsp In the result, the four appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise are allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the three appeals filed by M/s. Durga Prasad Vidyasagar and M/s. Gupta Tobacco Co. are allowed by remand. The seven appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (1) TMI 257 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... ng 59 would apply or Tariff Heading 52, we are inclined to think the issue will have to be gone into in depth and analysed with reference to various other factors. Keeping in mind that a doubt was prevalent with reference to classification of the goods as would be seen from the letter of the Government cited supra and also having regard to the plea of bona fides in the above context and also keeping in mind the fact that the stake involved is very high and the issue being a recurring one would call for an early resolution, interests of justice require that the matter itself should be disposed of on merits. This was agreed to by both parties concerned, as the issue is a recurring one. In this view of the matter, keeping the issues open and alive for consideration of the matter at the time of final disposal on merits, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and as submitted and agreed to by both parties, we post the appeals itself for disposal on merits on 26-2-1996.
-
1996 (1) TMI 255 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat - Imported materials ... ... ... ... ..... e Bills of Entry, but also a certificate from the competent officer having jurisdiction over the importers rsquo factory certifying that these goods have not reached the importers factory and Modvat credit has been taken in respect of the goods, the preponderance of these evidence cannot be brushed aside on the technicality of lack of another prescribed certificate from the Supdt. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the case back to the Assistant Commissioner, before whom all the evidences, which are available with the appellants should be produced. The Asstt. Commissioner after taking into consideration these evidence and also the observations made by us, should decide on the eligibility of Modvat credit in respect of these materials imported and transferred to the appellants. 6. emsp Appeal is allowed by way of remand and hence stay application does not survive for consideration and the same is also treated as disposed of.
-
1996 (1) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ld only go to show that the authorities were satisfied that the duty due on the goods had been recovered. It is not beyond doubt and contention whether further duty could be charged after clearance of the goods in the dry state from the factory. There is no evidence to say that the appellants had withheld any information with intention to evade payment of duty or the appellants were actuated by any mala fides. In the facts and circumstances and in the absence of any evidence regarding suppression, we hold that this is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants and the longer period of limitation should not have been invoked. We, therefore, hold that in regard to limitation, the appellants succeed. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief. Since one of the issues in this appeal is in regard to limitation and appeal has been allowed on that ground, we are not going into the merits of the case.
-
1996 (1) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r rsquo because it serves the purpose of storage of the gramophone record. Now, the question is as to whether the container can be classified under sub-heading 4818.13 which includes only ldquo other printed cartons, bags and cases rdquo . lt is not the case of the Revenue that the expression container rsquo and cases rsquo are one and the same. There is a separate description of the term container rsquo and cases rsquo in sub-heading 4818.12 and it is only lsquo cases rsquo which are included under 4818.13. Therefore, the container not having been placed along with ldquo printed cartons, bags, and cases rdquo , its classification in the residuary heading ldquo Other rdquo under 4818.19 is required to be accepted as argued by the Learned Advocate. Even in the HSN ldquo record sleeves rdquo have not been placed with the cartons, bags and cases. Therefore, there is merit in this appeal. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1996 (1) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Packing material ... ... ... ... ..... interpretation thereof by the Honorable Supreme Court in East End Paper Industries - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (SC). Applying the above yardstick and going by the authoritative pronouncements on the scope of the term ldquo used in the manufacture rdquo , there is no doubt that cello tape is an input in the manufacture of the final product. It would be wholly unjustified to restrict the benefit to only those items which are used as the immediate packaging in which the actual final product is packed or filled. Package is multi level process and there may be secondary packing or further stage packing depending upon the need of the particular product and marketing and transport requirements The product to be considered is the vegetable product suitably packed as it leaves the manufacturer rsquo s factory. In that view of the matter, the eligibility of cello tape for Modvat credit is clearly established. I hold accordingly and set aside the impugned order. 5. emsp Appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (1) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... are also be applicable thereto. The inputs in the present case are iron and steel products, therefore the question of any pilferage like in the case of petroleum products or any addition to the weight because of fragmentation or moisterisation like in the case of molasses, does not arise, consequently the shortage and excess if any, in quantity of the goods covered under a Gate Pass has to be viewed seriously. It is true that the Appellants being a buyer of the goods has no control on the quantity received by them under a particular duty paying document but the supplier of the goods, who has cleared the goods, is certainly responsible to remove the exact quantity as reflected in the duty paying documents. Since the Appellant in the present case has admitted receipt of excess and short quantities on certain occasions, the Excise department should have initiated necessary action for violation of Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules, which seems to have not been taken cognigence of.
-
1996 (1) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ge in the nature of operations. The appellants themselves have admitted that a press was installed to relieve strain on the workers. We cannot accept the plea that this simple change over from manual to mechanical operation was mis-construed by the appellants. In view of this we hold that extended period as provided in Proviso to Section 11A has been correctly invoked. Under these circumstances we remand the matter to the Collector on the limited question of decision on the plea in regard to the concession under Sl. No. 1 of Notification No. 329/77 which relates to manufacture through semi-automatic process. Appellants are at liberty to produce such additional evidence as they consider necessary to support their case. The Collector while deciding this claim shall thereafter depending on the decision he takes issue orders relating to penalty by taking into account the quantum of duty involved as well as other relevant factors. 8. emsp The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (1) TMI 246 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... e not been sold to any other party. However, we find that these evidence have not been taken into account and the impugned order has been passed only on the ground that traders rsquo invoice is not forthcoming. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order and remand the case back to the Commissioner with direction that all these documents establishing proper co-relation of the movement of the goods from the manufacturers upto the appellants rsquo premises may have to be considered for taking appropriate view regarding the eligibility for Modvat credit. In view of these documents, if the traders rsquo invoice is not produced but produced subsequently, the technical requirement should be construed to be met. With this observation, we remand the case back to the Commissioner for considering these evidences, for purpose of establishing co-relation and if it is so satisfied, Modvat credit be extended. Both the appeals and stay applications are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (1) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... on VI or VII, are to be classified in the heading appropriate to that product, provided that the constituents are (a) haveing regard to the manner in which they are put up, clearly identifiable as being intended to be used together without first being re-packed (b) presented together and (c) identifiable, whether by their nature or by the relative proportions in which they are presented as being complementary one to another. 5.1 emsp Similar note appears as Note No. 1 in Section VII which covers Chapter 39 and 40. It also makes clear that the products are to be classified under the heading appropriate to that product. The same position also appears from a perusal of Note II to Tariff Item 3506 of HSN. 6. emsp In view of the above, we uphold the impugned order passed by the authorities below and hold that the subject product was correctly classified under Tariff Item No. 35.06 against the claim of the appellants under Heading 3907.30. 7. emsp In the result, appeal is rejected.
-
1996 (1) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat declaration furnished sufficiently descriptive of inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ven the description as tubes, pipes and hoses and other fittings of plastic showing the Tariff Classification 3917.00, referring to the nature of inputs as parts, the goods are found to be of plastic. These are parts of bathroom fittings. The tariff classification shown in the relevant gate passes was 8481.99 under the broad heading bathroom and sanitary fittings with the specific description, flexible tube. In view of the identity of the product as per the description in the relative gate pass being flexible tube being consistent with the declaration hoses and tubes and other fittings of plastic and these being parts of Taps, cocks, valves and such appliances, the variation in tariff classification shown by them in the declaration and the tariff classification shown in the gate pass does not invalidate the description of the goods as declared. 6. emsp In view of the above circumstances, the appeal succeeds and accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
............
|
