|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 663 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Export - DTA clearance ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 8/97, through Notification No. 11/2000, the expression ldquo any other law for the time being in force rdquo had been inserted and these words are of wide amplitude. Therefore, as a result of this amendment, the 100 EOUs are liable to pay basic excise duty along with the additional excise duty in respect of the clearances made in DTA. 12. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner. From 1-3-2000, the additional duty of excise was payable by the appellants on the cotton and polyester/cotton yarn, which they manufactured from indigenous raw material and cleared for sale in domestic tariff area. Since they had not paid this duty, the impugned order of the Commissioner confirming the duty demand of the amount in question and imposing penalty under Rule 209 on the appellants is perfectly valid and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants being without any merit, is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 659 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... view of Tribunal rsquo s finding on this issue, we find that the issue has already been decided and the ratio is required to be followed in the present case also. Further, we notice that in the case of CCE Calcutta v. Bitumen Products (India) (supra), the Tribunal clearly noted that chapter 68.97 covers lsquo other articles of stone, plaster, cement asbestos, mica or similar materials were not specified or included in chapter 68. It also referred to note (C) of chapter 68, which clearly excluded the items manufactured out of coated, impregnated or covered textile fabrics of chapter 56 or 59 from the purview of chapter 68. It also referred to the earlier order passed in Order-in-Appeal No. 142/Cal-I/92, dated 28-9-92 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue rsquo s appeal. 7. emsp In view of matter having already been decided by the Eastern Bench of the Tribunal in the cited case on the same product, we do not find any merit in these appeals and reject the same.
-
2002 (7) TMI 658 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Cost basis - Compressors ... ... ... ... ..... hakra Tyres, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (Tri.-LB) also deserves to be given to the appellants as in that case it has been observed that the wholesale price will include the element of duty payable on the goods, cannot be accepted when there had been under valuation of the goods by the appellants. 10. emsp In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner accordingly stands modified. The matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for recalculation of the duty demand by taking the fair selling price as calculated and detailed in annexures 7/8, of the report of Cost Accountant, referred to above, as the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the disputed period and adjustment of duty already paid by them shall also be given. The appellants will be liable to pay the balance duty, if any, as per law, thereafter. 11. emsp As a result, the appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in the above terms accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 656 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Order - Appealable order ... ... ... ... ..... i-II reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1021 (Tribunal), it has been held that the letter written by Superintendent calling upon the assessee to reverse Modvat credit are not proper and the process of adjudication, by way of issuance of show cause notice and passing of adjudication order should have taken place. In the instant case also, I find that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that such a letter by the Superintendent, cannot be held to be an appealable order suffers from no infirmity. However, such a letter cannot be also held to be proper. The authorities below are at liberty to start the adjudication proceeding against the appellants by following the principle of natural justice. Appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
-
2002 (7) TMI 655 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Shoe stitcher - Customs exemption ... ... ... ... ..... not made before the assessing officer and the appellants had not produced any documents or catalogue of the machine in question to prove their claim. 2. emsp Heard both the sides. 3. emsp The appellants are claiming benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. mentioned at Srl. No. 141, Srl. No. 141 of notification covers outsole Stitching machine. The contention of the appellants is that the machine in question is outsole stitching machine, therefore, they are entitled for concessional rate of duty. 4. emsp The appellants had not claimed this benefit of the notification in the Bill of Entry. The appellants claimed the benefit first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) and without any evidence to show that the machine in question is outsole stitching machine. As the appellants had not produced any evidence in support of their claim before the Commissioner (Appeals) nor before us in the present appeal, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
2002 (7) TMI 654 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Manuals imported with Software ... ... ... ... ..... differential duty is thus demandable in respect of these two bills of entry. In respect of remaining Bill of Entry No. 010637, dated 27-12-93 the software imported is NETWARE SFT 3.11 and the Manuals are also meant for Netware 3.11 only. The learned Representative of the Appellants, however, contended that the Manuals are meant for the original NETWARE 3.11 whereas software imported are different software as these are for SFT 3.11 which is used in the case of fault etc. No technical literature in support of this contention has been produced by the Appellants nor any technical data for rebutting the same has been adduced by the Revenue. This being a technical matter requires re-examination after obtaining the views of a technical expert. Accordingly the matter in respect of Bill of Entry No. 010637, dated 27-12-93 is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for getting the opinion of a technical expert before re-adjudicating the matter. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2002 (7) TMI 653 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper and paper board manufactured from non-conventional raw materials. ... ... ... ... ..... er arising during manufacture of paper is actually recycled in the same factory and wood pulp is produced from the same. The exemption under Notification No. 10/96 exempts goods produced in a factory and consumed in the manufacture of goods specified in the notification. Wood pulp is one of the items so specified. Therefore, the notification specifically covers the use of broke paper in a paper factory in the production of wood pulp. The clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance puts this position beyond doubt. We find that appellants had claimed this exemption in their reply to the show cause notice and they were rightly eligible for it. 9. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the denial of exemption to the appellant assessee under Notification Nos. 6/2000 and 10/96 was not correct. The duty demand made as a consequence cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
2002 (7) TMI 652 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
T.V. Tuners - Parts of - Customs exemption ... ... ... ... ..... red to suspend a CHA licence. For use of this authority, the order of suspension must contain the gist of the events and allegations bringing out the culpability of the CHA. In the absence thereof, it would not be known whether the action on part of the CHA deserved to result in suspension of his licence. Tested on this touchstone the impugned order is unable to survive. Shri Nagarkar informed us that no proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 have been instituted pursuant to the alleged misdeclaration. In that situation, we find that the order of suspension was premature nor was it a speaking order. 8. emsp On these observations we allow the appeal and set aside the order of suspension of the licence. 9. emsp We make it clear that when the inquiry instituted in the case of alleged misdeclaration is complete or has reached such a stage as to justify the action either under Regulation 23 or Regulation 21, this order shall be no bar against the Customs House taking such action.
-
2002 (7) TMI 651 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
T.V. Tuners - Parts of - Customs exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ting authority admitted the fact that the respondents imported only the components which are to be mounted on bare P.C.Bs. which have also been imported. The adjudicating authority held that only items not imported are IC and Jumper Wire and some minor consumables and after relying on Rule 2(a) of Rules for Interpretation held that the goods in question are T.V. Tuners. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Nippon Precision Bearing Ind. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 57 (Tribunal) held that for interpretating the provisions of notification, Chapter Note or even Interpretative Rules cannot be applied. Notification is required to be interpretated strictly. In the present appeal, the respondent imported only components and it is admitted fact that Integrated Circuit i.e. I.C. which is imported part of the Tuner is not imported along with the goods in question. In this situation, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (7) TMI 649 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... art/component of their galvanising line falling under Chapter Heading No. 8479.19 or metal rolling mill falling under sub-heading No. 8455.10 on which the Modvat credit is admissible under Rule 57Q that being a part of such factory machinery, the Modvat credit on motor vehicle and the tank should be allowed. Prima facie, I do not find much force in this argument. Admittedly the tanks and the motor vehicle are received in the factory of the appellants under the invoice classifying the item under Heading No. 8704.20. The motor vehicle used for transporting the propane fuel as such cannot be considered as an integral part/component of the factory machinery. However, this aspect will be gone into only at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the appellants have not made out a prima facie case in their favour. I therefore direct them to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- on or before 20-8-2002. The matter will be called for reporting compliance on 22-8-2002.
-
2002 (7) TMI 648 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... d the following order ldquo Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed rdquo . The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Computer Software imported for expansion of Mobile Switching Centre (MSC) for telecom purposes were entitled to the exemption benefit under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-1997 at the relevant time and subsequent amendment to the said notification vide Notification No. 3/98-Cus., dated 11-2-1998 could not be given any retrospective effect rdquo . 6. emsp On a specific query, during the course of hearing, the ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue did not dispute that the facts and the law involved in the present case are covered by the ratio of the afore-mentioned decisions of the Apex Court in Usha Martin Telekom. Ltd. and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Magnum Solutions (P) Ltd. 7. emsp Following the ratio of the above decisions, therefore, we dismiss the appeal upholding the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).
-
2002 (7) TMI 643 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Dutiabilility - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... en incorporated in the sale price, must be excluded. This decision of the Apex Court pertaining to waste and scrap is squarely applicable to the instant case. The counsel has claimed only the benefit of a legal provision, which is permissible at any stage of the legal proceedings. We, therefore, accept the plea which is well supported by the cited decisions under reference. 6. emsp While sustaining the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) rendered on other issues, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of abatement of duty element from the invoice price of the goods for the purpose of valuation under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the C.E. Act, and, accordingly, the original authority shall grant this benefit to the assessee. It is submitted by the counsel that the assessee has paid the duty as demanded and confirmed by the lower authorities. The original authority will therefore re-quantify the duty in terms of our order and refund the amount found paid in excess.
-
2002 (7) TMI 642 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Re-export of goods - Wrong-shipment by foreign supplier ... ... ... ... ..... es allowing re-export of the goods without fine and penalty was upheld. rdquo 8. emsp Inasmuch as we find that wrong-shipment of the goods by the foreign supplier, was not on account of any mala fide on the part of the appellants, the same seems to be a genuine mistake, re-export should be allowed without any redemption fine. The appellants have established their bona fides by taking immediate steps on coming to know about wrong-shipment of the goods. The observations made by the Commissioner are in the realm of assumption and presumption and in the absence of any evidence reflecting upon the appellants rsquo conduct to import the wrong goods by mis-declaring the same, cannot be held to be conclusive. As such, we are of the view that the imposition of redemption fine and penalty upon the appellants are not justified. We accordingly set aside the same allow the re-export of the consignment without any redemption fine, penalty and duty. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (7) TMI 640 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... us only to prove that 42 Core Communication Cables manufactured and removed by them were used as specially devised parts which run on Windmills. This they have sufficiently proved by producing (1) certificate issued by the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of NEPC identifying Power Cables and Communication Cables as specially devised parts used in the Windmills. (2) purchase order of NEPC wherein specifications of the Cables and part number of Windmill allotted to such cables were duly given, and (3) the end-use certificate dated 22-4-96 given by NEPC to the effect that the communication cables supplied by respondent were used in Windmills as part of the Windmills. 5. emsp We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. Following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Delhi v. Skytone Electricals reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 723, we allow the appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently we dismiss the objections filed by the respondent.
-
2002 (7) TMI 639 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Hearing - Adjournment - Manufacture - Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... he detergent powder itself does not come within the definition of manufacture contained in Section 2(f) of the Act. Detergent powder that was in the bulk pack and that contained in the repack both are commercially known as detergent and having same nomenclature and use. It is only by introduction of the deeming provision in 1997, subsequent to the period with which we are concerned (1989-90), that the process was considered to be manufacture. In fact the Chandigarh Collectorate rsquo s trade notice relied upon indicates that such repacking does not amount to manufacture and credit of the duty paid on bulk product cannot be utilised for repacking. Both the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had relied upon the fact that the permission granted to Godrej Soaps Ltd. was specifically conditional on the ground that in the process no manufacture, or emergence of a new commodity would take place. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 628 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Dutiability - Immovable property ... ... ... ... ..... l water treatment plants need not suffer excise duty. Thus, when the facts of the case were known to both sides, there is no substance in the allegation that relevant facts were wilfully suppressed by the appellant with the intention to evade payment of duty. 32. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the appeal is required to be allowed. rdquo 6. emsp In view of this Bench having decided in the appellant rsquo s own case by majority order holding that the process of assembly at site does not bring into existence excisable goods and are not liable to duty, therefore, the impugned orders in orders-in-original in these 27 appeals are required to be set aside by allowing the appeals. The COD application in Appeal No. E/177/02 is taken up and allowed in view of the main appeal already pending before the Tribunal and which is already listed for today for consideration. The stay applications are also allowed in the same term, with consequential relief, if any.
-
2002 (7) TMI 627 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Car under transfer of residence rules ... ... ... ... ..... eals) is therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the Original Authority for de novo consideration and passing an order afresh as per the analysis recorded above. Appeal No. C/230/02/NB/SM 5. emsp This appeal is filed by Shri Patel Sajeed Dawood against the confiscation of a used Toyota Aristo Car imported by him and released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 55,000/- and penalty of Rs. 8,000/- as per the Order dated 21-2-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai. The facts in this appeal are identical to those in the case of the appeal of Shri Abdul Razzaque recorded above. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this case also therefore, is set aside and the matter remanded to the Original Authority for de novo consideration and passing an order afresh on the same terms and conditions. 6. emsp Both the appeals are thus allowed by remand in the above terms. The appellants should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
-
2002 (7) TMI 626 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and penalty - Clandestine removal - Demand - Accountal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ellants have never accepted that the aforesaid quantity was used in the manufacture of ethyl alcohol which is cleared without payment of duty as averred above. No doubt, they have not been able to explain the reasons for shortage in the molasses - their raw material, but the conclusions by both the lower authorities that in the absence of adequate explanation, such molasses could have been used only in the manufacture of ethyl alcohol which was cleared by them clandestinely without payment of central excise duty - in the absence of any evidence in support - is entirely arbitrary and subjective. The authorities could have proceeded against the party for recovery of the dues, if any, on account of shortage of raw material as per law but no duty could be demanded on the supposed conversion of such raw material into the finished products and its hypothetical clandestine clearance without payment of duty. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in appeal.
-
2002 (7) TMI 625 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Interpretation of statutes ... ... ... ... ..... Circular No. 562/58/2000-CX, dated 8-12-2000 does not clarify wherever Kerosene is mentioned it will cover ATF also. Notification No. 5/98 (S. No. 27) provided concessional rate of duty in respect of Kerosene which is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. Doubts were raised whether the Kerosene oil distributed from the PDS should be considered as satisfying the said condition as there is no mechanism to ensure actual use of Kerosene cleared for Public Distribution System. In context of these doubts, it was clarified by the Board that if the consumer also use kerosene oil for any other purposes, the exemption will continue to be applicable as the Kerosene oil in question is ordinarily used for illumination of oil lamps. As observed by us earlier, there is nothing on record to show that the ATF in question is ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. We, therefore, reject the Appeal.
-
2002 (7) TMI 624 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... les of natural justice as was rightly pointed out by the Counsel. It was brought to our notice that the appellants had requested for cross-examination of the witnesses but were allowed to cross-examine only one witness and the request to cross-examine the remaining persons whose statements were relied upon by the Commissioner not been acceded to and proper reason for rejection has not been given in his findings. In these circumstances, the order is set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh, on giving an opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine the concerned witnesses and to pass an order accordingly. Thus, these appeals are disposed off in the above terms.
............
|
