|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 602 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Bought out items - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nel to operate and maintain it are not to be included in the assessable value of the computer. Department was not justified in questioning the correctness of the decision taken by the Commissioner in dropping the claim based on installation, commissioning and testing in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. 10. emsp In view of what has been stated above, we allow appeal Nos. E/773-774/98-A filed by the assessee and dismiss appeal E/278/99-A filed by the Revenue. 11. emsp When appeals E/773-774/98-A were filed, assessee/appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs for entertaining these appeals in terms of the provisions contained in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since orders passed by the Commissioner have been set aside, the appellant is entitled to get back that amount without any delay. Departmental authorities are directed to return that amount of Rs. 6 lakhs within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2000 (10) TMI 601 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and fine - Non-accountal of seized goods - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... find force in this argument of the counsel, we accordingly hold that the penalty of Rs. 3,74,2440/- (sic) is not sustainable in law. 14. emsp Insofar as imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on M/s. Essex Marketing is concerned, we note that the adjudicating authority has stated that M/s. Essex Marketing were well aware that the impugned goods were imported goods, therefore it was their duty to find out whether proper duty was paid on the goods or not. However, on perusal of this finding, there is nothing on records to show that M/s. Essex Marketing were aware that the goods were cleared from the customs at concessional rate of duty. In absence of definite finding on the issue, we hold that M/s. Essex Marketing had no knowledge about the goods being cleared at concessional rate of duty. In the circumstances, we find that there is no case made out for imposition of penalty, the penalty on M/s. Essex Marketing is, therefore set aside. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 600 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Possession of non-duty paid goods ... ... ... ... ..... se of manufacturer of the excisable goods in this case and keeping in mind the findings therein that for an innocent breach of law due to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the notification, penalty on the manufacturer has been reduced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2000/-, we would therefore consider that present appellants who is only the recipient of the subject goods should not be liable for invocation of any penalty on them. (c) We also find that total duty, determined by the lower authorities, of Rs. 44,226/- may be get reduced by the application of the formula prescribed for valuation of such goods. Therefore, penalty cannot be determined, till such time, the duty liability is determined, which will be, to our mind, substantially lower. Therefore, we find no case or cause for imposition of penalty on the present appellants. 4. emsp In view of our findings, we would allow this appeal after setting aside the order of penalty. Ordered accordingly with consequential relief.
-
2000 (10) TMI 599 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Penalty & Interest ... ... ... ... ..... he show cause notice. We also see force in the appellants submission that the additional evidence is vital for determining the valuation issue. Therefore, while upholding the finding that the appellants cleared processed cotton fabrics in the guise of processed hosiery and that, therefore, they are liable to pay duty, we remand the case to the Commissioner for fresh decision on the correct width and correct value of the fabrics, after allowing the miscellaneous application. We also accept the contention of the appellants that no interest can be levied and no penalty can be imposed for the period prior to 28-9-96 and hence direct the Commissioner to recalculate the quantum of interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. He shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in person. 4. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 598 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of conveyance used for smuggled goods - Release of ... ... ... ... ..... eir name was also shown in the Registration document of the truck in question. In spite of that, the Revenue has not made any efforts to get in touch with them. However, when they came to know about the seizure and the subsequent confiscation of the truck, they approached the Commissioner taking their claim of ownership of the truck and release of the same to them. 3. emsp I find that the appellants have approached the Revenue by way of an affidavit only on 24-4-2000, whereas the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner on 14-2-2000. As such, there was no occasion for the Revenue to appreciate and consider the claim of the appellants. In these circumstances, I think it fit and proper to remand the matter to the Commissioner to consider the appellants rsquo claim as regards the ownership of the truck in question and the release of the same on payment of redemption fine under the provisions of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (10) TMI 596 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification list - Approval of ... ... ... ... ..... notices raising demand of duty have been issued beyond the normal period of limitation of six months. The Commissioner has justified invocation of longer period of limitation on the ground that the classification of the said goods was wrongly done under chapter sub-heading No. 6901.00 by the assessee during the material period. It is now well-established that approval of classification list is not an empty formality and is not a mechanical act of grant of approval. The proper officer before granting approval to the classification list is required to make verifications and conduct enquiries. Having approved the classification list under Heading 6901.00, wherein the appellants have given the correct description of the products in question, they cannot be held guilty of suppression or mis-statement with an intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly we hold that the demands are also barred by limitation. 16. emsp As a result appeal is allowed on merits as also on limitation.
-
2000 (10) TMI 556 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal vide Order No. A-1139 dated 31-7-2000. As such, without insistence upon their deposit and with the consent of both sides we take up the appeals itself for disposal. 3. emsp The issue involved is as to whether the appellants, who were small-scale manufacturers and were enjoying the benefit of Not. No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-93 during the relevant period, would become disentitled to the benefit of the said Notification in respect of the clearance made subsequent to exports made to Nepal on payment of duty in terms of Para 4 of the Notification. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Jagadamba Plyboard Industries Ltd. vide its above order has held that such clearance to Nepal on payment of duty not be covered by Para 4 of Not. No. 1/93 and will not disentitle the manufacturer from availing the benefit of the Notification in respect of subsequent clearances. As such, following the ratio of the above decision we set aside the impugned orders and allow all the four appeals
-
2000 (10) TMI 555 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine - Provisional release ... ... ... ... ..... 7-2000 requesting for the hearing to be fixed on 9-10-2000 and accordingly on his request the matter stood adjourned to this date. The ld. Advocate for the respondents is however, not present even today. The Revenue in their appeal are relying on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) wherein it is held that if the goods are released to the appellant on an application made by him and on his executing a bond and if subsequently it is found that the goods were liable for confiscation, then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond executed would not take away the power of customs authorities to levy redemption fine. 4. emsp Following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra), the appeal of the Revenue succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed setting aside the part of the order of the lower Appellate Authority appealed against.
-
2000 (10) TMI 544 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Reference to High Court - Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... In pursuant to the order passed by the Hon rsquo ble High Court on the reference application moved by the Revenue, the Department was directed to prepare the statement of facts. Learned SDR, Shri V.K. Chaturvedi appearing for the Revenue submits the statement of facts. Shri B.J. Mookherjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents agrees with the statement of facts submitted by the Revenue. Accordingly, the registry is directed to forward the above statement of facts along with the present order and other relevant documents to the Hon rsquo ble High Court.
-
2000 (10) TMI 543 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... egistered therein on 29-8-1994 and hence, held to be beyond the period of six months. However, there is no dispute that if the date stamped application for refund of 22-8-1994 is taken, then the application is within time. 2. emsp We have heard both sides in the matter. We have perused the acknowledgement issued to the party on 22-8-1994 by the office of the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. The rubber stamp is affixed thereon as 22-8-1994. The lower authority rsquo s view that the refund application can be considered to have been lodged only on the date of signing of the same by the AC is not correct view. The date of lodging the claim in the office is to be reckoned and not the date on which the officer puts his signature at his own convenience. Therefore, we hold that the refund application was filed within time. Since the matter not having been decided on merits, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the original authority for decision on merits.
-
2000 (10) TMI 542 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... At the initial examination and on the examination of the Chemical Examiner rsquo s test result, the authorities have clearly held the product to be sealant. The Explanatory Note extracted above also supports the plea in the light of the product literature itself that the product is classifiable under Chapter 32 only. The judgments relied by the Counsel were based on evidence produced by the party and the same had been properly examined by the Tribunal to hold the item to be Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) as held in the case of Inarco Ltd. Even the product literature indicates that the function of the product is that of a sealant and it helps in preventing the passage of air and moisture between the compounds of metal, glass, wood and many plastics including GRP. In that view of the matter, the view expressed by both the authorities that the appellant has not substantiated their claim requires to be upheld. There is no merit in the appeal and hence the same is rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 541 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nt of 0.5 granted to a dealer whose hundies are not dishonoured is really nothing other than a discount for prompt payment and will have to be treated as such and thus allowable. (d) emsp Quantity discount of 3 for shirting and dress materials has been disallowed on the ground that it was not known at the time of removal of the goods. The discount was provisionally allowed in 1989 on the price list filed by the appellant and therefore, could not be said not to have been known when the provisional assessment was finalised later. The reason for denial of this discount, this is not valid, and it is allowed. (e) emsp The last is the discount of. 5 allowed to dealers who deal exclusively for the goods manufactured by the appellant, and did not deal in any goods manufactured by a competitor. The criterion is purely a commercial criterion and here again there is no element of discretion involved that we can see. This also is allowed. 3. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 521 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Export Licence - Valuation - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... st the obligation. As the goods as examined by various experts appear to be covered by the list of goods permitted to be exported and they are not prohibited or/and dutiable. We cannot find any reason to apply chapter notes of Customs Tariff for export goods to deter them being lsquo M.S. Section rsquo as is being alleged in this case. Therefore, we cannot find any mis-declaration of the goods under export. Therefore, we find no reason to indict them under the provisions of Section 113 (i). (g) When we do not find any reason to invoke the provisions of Sections 113(d) and 113(l) to hold the goods liable for confiscation read with the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and the Rules made thereunder or/and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, we find no reason for a need of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the exporter company or anybody else. 4. emsp In view of our findings, the impugned order is set aside and appeals allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 520 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... of Air from Cold Water and Hot water, in Water Softening plants, Industrial billet heating equipments etc. The Department thus has not brought sufficient evidence on record to prove their case that the valves manufactured by the Appellants are Expansion Valves or Solenoid Valves classifiable under Sub-heading 8481.10. The Tribunal in Sant Industrial Control case (supra) did not accept the plea of the Revenue that the valve will be classifiable under Sub-heading 8481.10 merely because these are used in installation of air-conditioning system observing that Note 5 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff does not provide that whenever any system is installed everything used therein would become part of that system. We, therefore, hold that the impugned goods are classifiable under Sub-heading 8481.80 and accordingly set aside the impugned Order. As the appeal is allowed on merit we are not considering the other submissions regarding time limit. Both the appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 512 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, N
Settlement application - Admission of ... ... ... ... ..... oming before the Commission. The Revenue accepted that the applicant have satisfied these parameters. The applicants were filing the monthly return, that they have been issued a Show Cause Notice, that the duty liability is over Rs. 2 lakhs. 8. emsp The Commission has gone through the case records and the submission made by the Revenue as well as the Applicant. 9. emsp The Commission holds that the Applicant meet the conditions for admission as laid down under the provision of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . The applicant is allowed to be proceeded under Section 32F(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant shall pay the admitted additional liability of duty of Rs. 4,63,593/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and produce proof thereof before the Registry of the Settlement Commission. 10. emsp Attention of all concerned is drawn to sub-section (2) of Section 32-I of Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. emsp All concerned are informed accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 511 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty, on Customs House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... des and on a careful perusal of the relevant documents, it is felt that the king-pin in the whole affair is Shri Bharech who engaged the services of the appellant as a clearing agent. There is no positive evidence on record to suggest that the appellant had played an active role in the alleged act of attempt to export prohibited goods. It is observed that as required under Regulation No. 10(2)(b) of the Customs House Agents Regulations, 1984, he assisted the exporter in storing the export goods and rendered the services as required under the said Regulations. I, therefore, fully agree with the arguments of the learned Advocate that the appellant has nothing to do with the contraventions as alleged by the Customs. In view thereof, imposition of penalty on the appellant is uncalled for and unjustified. 7. emsp In view of the above findings, I set aside that portion of the impugned order which relates to imposition of penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 510 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fore it must benefit from the Supreme Court judgment. In the Maharashtra Fur Fabrics judgment the Tribunal further that the finishing given by calendering to the fabric was not of a lasting nature and on this ground they held the process as not a process amounting to those end-listed in the definition. 10. emsp Thus we find that the ratio both of the Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. judgment and the Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd. judgment applies to the facts of the present case. 11. emsp It has therefore to be held that the process undergone by the fabric on the Comet Rolling Machine was not equivalent to ldquo any other process rdquo as given to the relevant Tariff Entry. The benefit of the subject notification was available in the first part taking as comparable fabrics those falling under sub-heading 5507 and in the second half the duty attracted was for the fabrics classifiable under sub-heading 5801.31. 12. emsp These appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.
-
2000 (10) TMI 509 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Vehicles - Hero Basic - Remand - Re-adjudication - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n claimed or made under the Customs Tariff by them for export purposes. All these facts have been withheld by them but these are very essential and important for determining the true classification of their product. In the impugned order also these facts have not been noticed by the adjudicating authority. The stand of the Revenue that the product is covered under Chapter 87 sub-heading 8705.00 being a special purpose motor vehicle, can be also more appropriately appreciated if all these facts are brought on record. Therefore, the matter deserves to be readjudicated, in the interest of justice, and for proper classification of the product in question once for all. 13. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for determining the classification of the product in question afresh in the light of what has been discussed above, after hearing both the sides.
-
2000 (10) TMI 498 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Appea ... ... ... ... ..... ltaneously at the pressing of button viz. (i) dispensing water and (ii) dispensing hot water or cold water at the user rsquo s option. Neither of the functions was dominant over the other. Neither of them found specific mention in any of the headings or Sub-headings in Chapter 84. Therefore, ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that the machine could be appropriately classified under TH 84.79 which housed residuary machines having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84. We have noted that, in the present appeal, there is no challenge to the said finding of the lower appellate authority. On the other hand, the appellant has sought to make out a new case for classifying the product under TSH 8543.90. Such a new case, different from the case alleged in the SCNs, cannot be considered at appellate stage as rightly noted by the lower appellate authority. 6. emsp In view of the above findings, we dismiss the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 497 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, N
Settlement application - Admission of ... ... ... ... ..... Applicant, since there was no documents forthcoming, regarding duty payment on CR sheets. It was explained to the Revenue, by the Commission, that these issues will be considered, at the time of final hearing Revenue had no objection, in admitting the case. 7. emsp The Commission has considered the case records and the submission made by the Revenue and Applicant The Commission holds that the Applicant meets the conditions for admission, as laid down under the provisions of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Application is allowed to be proceeded with under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act., 1944. 8. emsp The Applicant, shall pay the admitted additional duty liability of Rs. 4,54,806/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and produce proof thereof, before the Registry of the Settlement Commission. Attention of all concerned is drawn to sub-section 2 of section 32-I of the Central Excise Act, 1944. All concerned are informed accordingly.
............
|
