Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2000 2000 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 141 to 160 of 516 Records

• 2000 (3) TMI 866 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Forklift Trucks captively used in final product is entitled to benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 865 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  SSI Exemption - Brand name

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ich the period involved is from 1992-93. We are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Satnam Singh, SDR. 3. emsp Shri Satnam Singh, SDR submitted that the matter is already covered against the respondents by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (Tribunal). We find that the facts are admitted that the Free Abrasive Machines were affixed with the brand name of the foreign manufacturer, who was not eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption. The brand name ldquo FAM rdquo belonged to a Japanese Company as indicated in the findings part of the adjudication order. 4. emsp As the matter is already covered by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). We set aside the same and restore the order-in-original. 5. emsp As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 841 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund - Unjust enrichment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rt. In the cited order in paragraph 4, the Tribunal has observed as under - ldquo The Calcutta High Court in their judgment in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs v. East Anglia Plastics (India) Ltd. 1994 (74) E.L.T. 29 (Cal.) have also held in the same way as the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the department on identical ground in the case of International Conveyors 1996 (88) E.L.T. A165 . All these judgments were considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh v. R.K. Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. 1998 (103) E.L.T. 689 (Tribunal) . In this judgment also the Tribunal had followed the ratio of the Solar Pesticides case. rdquo 3. emsp Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The concerned authorities are, however, entitled to examine whether the contested goods were, in fact, used captively in the manufacture of final products.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 832 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Textile floor covering of jute - Classification - Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urther held that the duty demand based on classifying the aforesaid goods under chapter sub-heading 5703.90 and confiscation of the goods on that basis and imposition of penalty on the appellants are accordingly set aside with consequential bene shy fits to the appellants. He submits that their case is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal contained in Final Order Nos. 44-47/2000-D, dt. 11-2-2000 2000 (119) E.L.T. 325 (Tribunal) . He therefore, prays that the appeals of the Revenue may be rejected. 4. emsp Heard the rival submissions. Perused the grounds of appeal and the order of the Tribunal dt. 11-2-2000 and other evidence on records. We note that on merits the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and since the issue has been decided on merits and any further decision in regard to the extended period of time will be only of academic interest. Therefore even otherwise nothing survives. In the circumstances, two appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 823 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Modvat - Capital goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he quality of the final products manufactured. The same issue has also been considered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills supra wherein it has been held because of pollution control environment and that control was necessary to manufacture quality final goods, therefore, the same were eligible as capital goods. I also find that in the Aksh India supra, for manufacture of their product, air-conditioner has been accordingly allowed prior to 23-7-1996. In this case the period of dispute is of 1995, therefore I find that the said use of air-conditioners is in principle covered by the decisions of the Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills supra and directly covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Aksh India supra. As the matter is no longer res integra and therefore respectfully applying the ratios of these two decisions, I find no infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal impugned which compels me to interfere with the same. The Revenue rsquo s appeal is, therefore, rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 822 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Confiscation of goods - Penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... The importer may have given a wrong address or may have moved away. It also does not necessarily follows that because the importer is shown to be non shy existent, the goods must be ordered to be absolutely confiscated. The provisions of Section 125 of the Act have to be applied in deciding whether the goods ought to be redeemed on payment of fine or to be absolutely confiscated. That is the legal position, although as a matter of inconvenience or pragmatism absolute confiscation is ordered where there is no ownership apparent. Even if that option is given, there would be no one to exercise it. 5. emsp This ground is in direct contradiction to the next ground that the import is direct, penalty imposable on the importer has to be enhanced. Penalty cannot be imposed on a non-existent person and there would be a good case for not imposing penalty at all. However on merit we find no reason to interfere so as to enhance the penalty. The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 821 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 5. emsp Shri R.D. Negi, ld. S.D.R. submits that in the case of Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. (supra), the Larger Bench of this Tribunal considered only chemicals and resins and not catalysts. He reiterates the findings of the authorities below. 6. emsp We have heard the submissions of both sides and perused the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. (supra). We note that catalyst, in the instant case, is a chemical. We, further, note that resins are specifically covered for Modvat credit by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries. We also note that sand moulds are not goods. Thus, we find that both catalysts and resins which are the subject matter of this appeal, are covered by the decision cited and relied upon by the appellants. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 819 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Departmental Clarifications /Instructions - Departmental Clarifications /Instructions -

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... uasi-judicial authorities they have to decide the matter independently and they are statutorily protected from the said directions or instructions. It has also been observed that the Board has no power to interfere with the quasi-judicial powers of the Assessing Officer under the Act or for that matter the appellate authority under the Act. In this view, I find that as the matter was settled by the various precedent decisions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified to follow the judgment of the higher Appellate forum instead of following the Board rsquo s Circular. As such I observe that he has rightly remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision in the light of the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal. Respondents are at liberty to place before the adjudicating authority other decisions or judgment of the Tribunal or any other quasi-judicial authorities in support of their defence. Revenue rsquo s appeal is accordingly rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 799 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Oil - Hair Oil - Himgange Ayurvedic Oil

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... partment in the month of Feb., 1995 was not supplied to the appellant despite repeated requests on the ground that the case was taken closed from defence point of view .... hellip hellip rdquo The Commissioner (Appeals) findings are silent on this vital aspect of the case. We also find that if the use of the oil is to be established and only after establishing the same its classification could be determined. The classification list could be thereafter approved. While determination of the classification Heading 3305.90 should also be considered along with other headings claimed by the appellants and Department. The submissions made by the appellants and the test report of the Chief Chemist have to be also kept in mind and for this purpose the matter is required to be remanded for de novo consideration. 5. emsp In view of our findings we set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication. 6. emsp Appeal disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 795 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reference to High Court - Modvat

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Hyderabad 1997 (95) E.L.T. 520 (T) , wherein it was held that second proviso to Rule 57D was incorporated with the specific object of incorporating inputs for generation of electricity within the ambit of Modvat Scheme. I find substance in the submissions of the ld. D.R. that a question of law arises as to whether High Speed Diesel Oil which is excluded from the notification issued under 57A can be considered as input for the purpose of Second proviso to Rule 57D. Accordingly a reference application filed by the Revenue is allowed and the following question of law is referred to the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad for consideration ldquo Whether the Modvat credit during Feb., 1996 to 20th July, 1996, can be allowed on the inputs, i.e., High Speed Diesel Oil falling under Heading No. 2710.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is specifically excluded from the purview of the modvat under Rule 57A of the Rules by resorting to 2nd proviso to Rule 57D(2) of the Rules. rdquo

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 794 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ith the ratio of the above order and following the same we reject the Revenue rsquo s appeal and uphold the impugned order. 5. emsp At this stage it has also been brought to our notice that the Asstt. Commr. has referred a few of the instances where the special excise duty was paid subsequent to 28-2-1993 on account of escalation of the value of the inputs. Collector (Appeals) has observed that wherever special excise duty was paid on account of variation of price subsequent to 28-2-1993 but in respect of the goods cleared prior to the said date and the appellants had paid duty as charged by the suppliers through supplementary bill they would be entitled to get benefit of such excise duty. We fully agree with the reasonings of the Collector (Appeals) inasmuch as the payment of special excise duty on account of escalation price relates back to the inputs cleared originally prior to 28-2-1993. No justifiable reason is found to interfere with the above portion of the order also.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 791 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reference to High Court - Finding of facts vis-a-vis Question of law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 944. The Bench has held that the grounds in the notice that the assessees manufactured and cleared excisable goods without having applied for Central Excise licence, without observing formalities under the Central Excise law and without payment of excise duty are available to the Department even when the demand was raised within the normal period of limitation of six months and the extra ingredient necessary for the purpose of invoking the extended period viz. allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement is absent therein, and therefore, the time limit of 5 years cannot be invoked against the assessees for demand of duty and imposition of penalty. The above finding has been rendered on the understanding and appreciation of the contents of the show cause notice and finding thereon is a finding based on the facts and not a finding on law. Therefore, no question of law arises for reference in the present cases. Hence, we reject the reference application filed by the Revenue.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 790 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty - Goods found in the dealer’s premises without duty paying documents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... DPC was only one of the several buyers of the respondent rsquo s product. No demand is also found to have been raised in respect of the clearance to other buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, is correct in pointing out that no correlation has been made between the alleged cash payments and the goods under seizure and that the goods had not been sorted according to variety so that the prices mentioned in the price lists relied upon by the revenue could be applied to the seized goods. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in holding that the investigation had not established the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that he could not be faulted for dropping the demand on the ground of under-valuation. The appeal fails and is dismissed. rdquo 7. emsp In view of the above findings of this Tribunal, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order. In the circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 789 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and conveying it to the department cannot be mis-statement or suppression of facts, it is for the department, after conducting the enquiries necessary, to accept or reject the assessee rsquo s claim. The basis in the show cause notice for relying on the extended period is faulty. There is nothing to show that the assessee did not genuinely entertain his belief and took its stand only to evade duty. Nothing prevented the department from enquiring into the process involved or demanding more information. We have therefore to hold that the notice could not invoke the extended period of limitation contained in proviso to section 11A (1) of the Act and the Commissioner rsquo s order is therefore maintainable. 4. emsp In view of this position we do not feel it necessary to consider the other claim of the appellant the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in CCE v. Cotspun Ltd. 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 will apply to the fact of the case. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 788 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  SSI exemption - Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... take credit is under challenge in this Tribunal. 3. emsp The Departmental Representative reiterates the contention in the Commissioner rsquo s order. Respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice. 4. emsp It is not necessary for us to await the outcome of the appeal to the Tribunal rsquo s earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which the Commissioner in the order now impugned before us cites. The appeal can be disposed of in an another ground. It is not correct to say Notification 1/93 grants unconditional exemption up to Rs. 30 Lakhs. Paragraph 3 of the notification denies the exemption with the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods consumed directly by the manufacturer or from the factory in question is exceeded Rs. 2 Crores. The notification therefore is not unconditional. The assessee may have been in the view that they have not satisfied this condition and did not show that. 5. emsp Accordingly we see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 787 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand - Revision of classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ot challenged the revised classification adopted by the Department, but only have contested that the demands arising from revised classification has to be prospective and short levy cannot be levied for 6 months prior to the issue of show cause notice. In this regard they had relied on large number of judgment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) going by the provisions of Section 11A as it stood held that 6 months levy prior to issue of show cause notice is confirmable. However, this matter was referred to a Larger Bench of the Apex Court and now that the Larger Bench has held that in a circumstance where there is a revision of classification by the Department, in such cases the confirmation of duty has to be only prospective. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the ratio of the Apex Court judgment, the confirmation of demands for 6 months prior to the issue of show cause notice is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 785 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Modvat on capital goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... haustive. It is stated that the definition clearly excluded these items from lsquo Capital Goods rdquo as neither they are used in the producing or processing of any goods nor for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. 4. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. The Order-in-Appeal against which this appeal is filed by the department, very clearly states that at the relevant time the explanation 1(d)(ix) of Rule 57Q covered goods specified against items (i) and (viii) of clause (d). Sub-clause (d)(v) covered the DG Sets and therefore the impugned component being a part of DG set, rightly qualified for credit of duty paid thereon. In the Revenue appeal there is not even a whisper against these specific findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and yet the prayer is made for setting it aside. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal and the same is rejected upholding the order passed by the lower appellate authority.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 783 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty - Receipt of branded goods without payment of duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ) RLT 484, it was held that no penalty could be imposed on the proprietor of the concern, M/s. Sunny Enterprises, since its proprietor Baljit Singh had been individually held liable to penalty. In the case of Broadway Textiles Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1999 (35) RLT 729, the Tribunal has categorically held that there is no finding in the adjudication order about the role of each appellant so as to warrant imposition of penalty. 5. emsp In the present case, however, there is no challenge to the finding of liability to penal action of the appellant and the proprietor of the appellant is a person other than the Director of the manufacturing unit. We, therefore, hold that there is no ground for setting aside the penalty however, having regard to the totality of acts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- which is the amount deposited in compliance with the stay order. 6. emsp The appeal is thus partly allowed.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 782 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Modvat on capital goods - Duty paying documents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d above. Therefore, we hold that these items are capital goods for the purpose of Modvat credit in terms of the Explanation under Rule 57Q. 12. emsp In so far as Acralite Resins/Hylak Resins are concerned, we find that these are used for protection of the pipeline which is used for conveying the materials in the plant and therefore, are used in processing the material and will be eligible for Modvat credit. So also is the case with M. Seal. We note that Bakelite Sheet is an insulating material used in electrical insulation and will, therefore, be admissible to Modvat credit. 13. emsp Having regard to the above findings we allow the appeal in respect of capital goods. However, in so far as Modvat credit taken on the strength of original invoices is concerned, the appellants have no case and it was fairly conceded by the Counsel for the appellants and was not pressed before us in view of the recent Larger Bench decision. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 780 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Modvat on capital goods - Manufacture

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ot open to the Revenue to argue that the processes carried out on the TFO machine do not amount to manufacture and that therefore, the TFO machine is not used for producing or processing of any goods. The decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Revenue in their appeal memorandum do not support the Revenue rsquo s stand that twisting of yarn does not amount to manufacture since both decisions referred to are in the context of TI 18A and 18E of the schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and not in the context of the new tariff where deeming fiction has been created under note 2 to chapters 51 and 55 by which the process of twisting of yarn is a process of manufacture. 3. emsp In view of the above discussions, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has extended the credit on TFO machine during the month of August, 1996 and accordingly we uphold the order and reject the appeal of the Revenue.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 26