|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 497 Records
-
2005 (6) TMI 434 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ssed in the impugned order. 7.We, therefore, do not find any valid ground for totally waiving the pre-deposit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, direct that a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 crores and 50 of the penalty amount imposed be made by the assessee in Appeal No. E/1376/05-B within eight weeks from today, failing which the appeal will stand dismissed for non-prosecution. As regards the other applicants, we direct that each of them will deposit 50 of the penalty amount imposed on the respective applicant within eight weeks from today, failing which the appeal of the applicant, who does not deposit the amount, will stand dismissed. On the deposits being made as ordered, there will be waiver in respect of remaining amount and the impugned order will remain stayed during the pendency of the Appeals. All these applications are disposed of accordingly. 8.To come up for reporting compliance on 19th August, 2005. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court).
-
2005 (6) TMI 433 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ge Superintendent, Ghaziabads letters and report of Surat officer sent for verification to Ghaziabad. The insistence of the adjudicator on a certificate to be sine qua non under Central Excise Rules, 2002, Rule 20(G) (sic) on a perusal of that rule does not appear to be well founded. Full waiver and stay of recovery is therefore granted pending the regular hearing of the appeal. Application disposed in above terms. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 432 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... is on record nor the warranty charges are being claimed as abatement for determining duties. The price to the customer being cum warranty charge, we find no prima facie reason to uphold the duty demand. Full waiver of pre-deposit is granted and recovery stayed. 2.Considering the early hearing application filed, not listed and the fact that full waiver of amounts with stay of recovery have been arrived, out of turn hearing granted and matter fixed for regular hearing on 25-7-2005. 3.Stay and early hearing application disposed in above term. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 431 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... and the Board rsquo s Circulars are binding on the Commissioner. The ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellants are citing judgments delivered in their own case. The prima facie case being in their favour, hence, the stay application is to be allowed. The mere financial hardship is not a consideration while granting waiver of pre-deposit as held by a large number of High Court judgments including Apex Court judgments. The case laws cited in favour of the appellant rsquo s case are as follows - (i) CCE v. Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corporation - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.) (ii) Union of India v. Hindalco Industries - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). emsp 4.As the issue is covered one, the stay application is allowed granting full waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of the amounts till the disposal of the appeal. As the amounts are huge, the matter to come up for final hearing on 18th July, 2005. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 430 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ed that the order is not a speaking order and violates the Principles of Natural Justice. The pleas urged by the appellants that the entries were wrongly done and later, correction was required in terms of the financial statements, has not been considered in the main order. They have contended that the Steel Melting Shop had been shut during the period and the labourers were on strike and there is impossibility of any production. There is no other enquiry made by the investigating officers on this point. Therefore, prima facie, the order suffers from lacuna. The appellants have a strong prima facie case. Furthermore, the appellant is a BIFR Unit and faced with colossal loss as stated. Therefore, on both these grounds, the stay application is required to be allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery in the matter. As the amounts are huge, the appeal is required to be listed for out-of-turn hearing on 29th July, 2005. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 429 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Penalty on employees of Airlines - Confiscation of currency ... ... ... ... ..... learned Counsel has demonstrated from the record that the Airline carriers were not involved in the acting of smuggling. The entire illicit act was done by their Duty Manager viz. Shri C.M. Uthappa without the knowledge of the Airlines. The seized documents from Shri C.M. Uthappa rsquo s residence clearly indicated that the Air Bill sent by the Airlines from Dubai tallied with the description in the parcels and that they had not tampered with the evidence. They were not aware of the acts of smuggling by their Duty Manager Shri C.M. Uthappa. The learned Counsel has relied on a large number of judgments wherein it has been held that the Aircraft cannot be confiscated and penalty imposed on the Airlines. Respectfully following the ratio of the judgment cited, we set aside the order passed against the Lufthansa Cargo India, imposing a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs The appeal of Lufthansa Cargo is allowed. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced in open Court on 16-6-2005)
-
2005 (6) TMI 428 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... eal against the Adjudicating Order nor issued any notice for recovery of erroneous refund. Therefore, the impugned Order is not sustainable. 4.In this case the admitted facts are that refund claim was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority and against this Order, Revenue had not filed any appeal nor any notice was issued for recovery of erroneous refund. The Appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) only seeking relief of interest on the amount of refund which was paid after 3 months from the date of filing the refund. In such a situation the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Appellants are not entitled for refund is not sustainable. The impugned Order is set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of interest in respect of amount sanctioned to the Appellants after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellants. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 427 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ss scrap/waste generated from the returned bottles of other branches of aerated waters which are not the appellant rsquo s raw material, would not be liable to excise duty and such quantification was to be done by the Revenue, further pre-deposit is waived and recovery stayed. Matter to be listed in its own turn. 2.Application disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced in Court.)
-
2005 (6) TMI 426 - CESTAT,MUMBAI
EOU - DTA clearance ... ... ... ... ..... to the provisions of levy, as per proviso to section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot he upheld. (c) Demands were required to be made, under section 11A(1) since there is no clandestine clearance demand under rule 9(2) are not called for or be made. (d) Valuations shall be determined as if the said goods was imported in India and Revenues case cannot be upheld on demands based on domestic sale prices were higher as held on Tata Coffee Ltd. 2004 (168) E.L.T. 460 (T) 2004 (64) RLT 699 CESTAT- Bombay 3.1.Consequently, the order impugned cannot be sustained.The same is to be set aside and appeal allowed. 3.2.Appeal E/1374/05 and Stay application E/S/1150/05 on the same issue and similar consequences of duty demands and penalty for the period October, 1999 to November, 1999 are to be allowed, following our decision in E/2255/03 is appellants own case. Appeal allowed, application stands disposed as a consequence. 3.3.Both appeals allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 15-7-2005)
-
2005 (6) TMI 425 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... msp 4.On a careful consideration, we notice that the Assistant Commissioner has filed the applications without giving any reasons. He has also asked for condonation of delay and to admit the appeals. In the absence of any convincing and satisfactory reasons, the applications cannot be considered. The judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., clearly applies to the present case. The citation relied by the learned SDR as in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that the Apex Court has condoned the delay on being satisfied with the reasons given in that case. As there were no reasons forthcoming and furthermore the issue is covered in assessee rsquo s favour by Larger Bench judgment (supra), there is no merit in the COD and in the appeals. COD applications are rejected and as a consequence, the stay applications and appeals of the Revenue are also dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 424 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... to them, prior to the goods removed for manufacture. Therefore, it cannot be held that the loss has taken place during the course of manufacture as contended by the learned Counsel and the judgment cited by him are not applicable to the facts of the case. The representative Shri Iqbal has clearly admitted about the clandestine manufacture and removal and which is not controverted by Mohammad Ali but in fact, he only gave an evasive answer of likelihood of inputs having been lost in the air. The stand of appellant have correctly not believed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgments cited by the Commissioner and relied by the JDR clearly applies to the facts of the case. The denial of benefit by the Commissioner is correct. There is no need to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which is correct and legal. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2005 (6) TMI 423 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... e same. The Commissioner has given clear reasons that the pre-fabricated building or goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 7308 of the C. Ex Tariff Act, 1985 and not under Heading 9406 as proposed in the show cause notice. emsp 2.On a perusal of the Commissioner rsquo s Order, prima facie, the order appears to be correct and sustainable. The appellants have not given any reasons to establish a prima facie case in their favour. There is no financial hardship pleaded also. Therefore, they should pre-deposit the amount within two months and report compliance on 16th August, 2005. Failure to comply will entail dismissal of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... paying the appropriate duty as if such capital goods have been manufactured in the said factory. I find that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. (Supra) while interpretating the Rule 57F(1) of Central Excise Rules which is in respect of the inputs removed as such from the factory of manufacturer. Rule 57F(1) of Central Excise Rules provides that inputs on which credit has been taken, can be moved from the factory as such after obtained necessary permission from the proper officer and on payment of duty as such inputs have been manufactured in the factory. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of the rule held that the reversal of credit taken on such inputs is sufficient for the purpose of the rule whereby the inputs are removed as such from the factory of manufacturer. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal and circular dated 25-4-05. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated in the open Court.)
-
2005 (6) TMI 421 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... of the 8 gold bars purchased earlier from M/s. Mahavir Bullion Co., Ahmedabad, and the correctness of that Bill was even accepted by the said company. 4.In the face of said overwhelming documentary evidence, it could not be said that the seized gold bars were smuggled goods so as to warrant confiscation and imposition of penalty on any of the appellants. 5.No gold bars or any other incriminating documents were recovered from the business or residential premises of Shri Motilal Mohanlal Khatri or Shri Vishnubhai Keshavlal Patel, appellant. The Indian currency seized from Shri Motilal Mohanlal Khatri, appellant, had been released by the adjudicating authority as he was able to account for the same from his books of account. 6.In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside against all the appellants. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, as per law. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 420 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Captive consumption of cotton yarn ... ... ... ... ..... iled by the Revenue, M/s. JCT Ltd. the assessee that they are not required to pay duty in respect of the yarn, which is used in the manufacture of fabric, which was exported by them. 5.The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that M/s. JCT Ltd. are entitled for the refund of the interest paid against the captively consumed cotton yarn used in the manufacture of cotton fabric. The only contention of the Revenue is that the exported fabric was cleared on payment of appropriate duty on the yarn. Therefore, the present respondents are not entitled for the refund of the interest. 6.As the Revenue is not disputing the fact of export of the fabrics manufactured by the appellant, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby, the interest is refunded in respect of the duty paid on yarn captively consumed in the manufacture of cotton fabrics, which were exported. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
-
2005 (6) TMI 419 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... astly, when the matter arose yesterday, ld. Consultant requested for hearing today. Today, there is nobody to represent the party. In the circumstances, we propose to dispose of the application after examining the records and hearing ld. DR. emsp 2.On a perusal of the above Notification, it appears to us that it exempted SSI units from payment of Basic Excise Duty (BED). In any case, there is no reference in this Notification to AED leviable under the aforesaid Act. Ld. DR submits that the AED demanded from the appellants is independent of BED and is leviable on ad valorem basis. The SSI exemption cannot be claimed in respect of this duty. Prima facie, this argument is valid. The appellants have not made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. We direct them to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and report compliance on 19-7-2005. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 418 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... those capital goods which are used for ldquo producing or processing of any goods or bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. rdquo Ld. Consultant for the respondents is contesting this ground on the strength of the Tribunal rsquo s larger bench decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal). 3.After considering the submissions, we note that, prior to 16-3-1995, the capital goods used for ldquo producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products rdquo were eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The subject equipments were used for testing and measuring purposes, both integrally connected with manufacture of marketable products. The respondents rsquo plea has to be accepted in view of the larger bench decision. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 417 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the Bench grants full immunity from interest. Fine, penalty and prosecution Keeping in view the facts that the applicant has made a full and true disclosure, has co-operated with the proceedings before the Commission, in proper spirit of settlement, admitted the total duty liability and given a revenue deposit much in excess of its liability, we grant it immunity from fine and penalty that could be imposed under the Act and prosecution that could be launched under the Act. As regards prayer for grant of immunity from prosecution under the IPC, the FEMA, the FT (D and R) Act, these cannot be granted as the authorities administering these Acts have not been made parties to the proceedings. 11.The above immunities are granted to the applicants in terms of Section 127H(1) of the Act. 12.This order of settlement shall be void if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 13.All concerned are informed accordingly.
-
2005 (6) TMI 416 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... erpreting the term lsquo removal of capital goods, inputs and semi-finished goods rsquo with consequent liabilities under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.On perusal of Circular No. 77/99-Cus., dated 18-11-1999, prima facie no liabilities could be made out. Full waiver and stay of recovery is granted pending the final decision of this appeal. 3.Application disposed of in above terms. Both sides at liberty to apply for early hearing. (Pronounced in Court.)
-
2005 (6) TMI 415 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... r RG-23 records. Further, contention of the appellant is that the goods cleared by them without payment of duty were exported. The appellant produced the copies of shipping bills by M/s. Alaska Exports, these shipping bills show that the goods were exported under DEEC Scheme and in the pass book maintained for this purpose shows that the appellants were supporting manufacturers and the quantity exported by M/s. Alaska Exports also include the quantity of pedals cleared by the appellant. These evidences produced by the appellant were not disputed by the Revenue. In these circumstances, I find that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to show that the goods cleared without payment of duty are exported out of India and also that they were maintaining separate record regarding the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 10-6-2005)
............
|
