|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 452 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ing process has been given in the impugned order which is similar to the manufacture of flush door with the exception of PVC skins glued to the plywood. Further, we observe that following 7 types of doors are mentioned in the Book ldquo Building Construction rdquo - (i) Ledged and Battened Doors, (ii) Ledged, Battened and Braced doors, (iii) Framed, Ledged, Braced and Battened doors, (iv) Framed and Panneled doors, (v) Glazed or Sash Doors, (vi) Louvred or venetion doors, (vii) Flush doors 6. emsp The learned Advocate for the Respondents, on being asked, could not classify the impugned product in any of the types of doors from (i) to (vi) above. The impugned goods manufactured by them are manufactured as described in the Book for Flush Door except the fact of glueing the PVC skins on the plywood. We are accordingly of the view that the impugned product is to be classified as flush door falling under sub-heading 4410.11 of CETA. We, thus, allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1999 (12) TMI 451 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... . emsp The contention of the advocate for the applicant that steam is not a final product but an intermediate product may hold true. The two third of the steam is used for making other excisable goods directly. The term lsquo final product rsquo in Notification 217/86 has to be given the same meaning as defined in Rule 57A. It is now recognised, by decisions of this Tribunal, that the objection of Notification 217/86 is to avoid unnecessary transactions by way of paying duty and taking credit in the same factory where the goods are manufactured and utilised for manufacturing other goods. However, prima facie, it is difficult to say that this position will hold true for that portion of the steam used for the manufacture of electricity. Accordingly we direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 1.5 lakh within two months from the date of this order and report compliance on 16th February, 2000, whereupon we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalty and stay its recovery.
-
1999 (12) TMI 450 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Importer is the person who is concerned with bringing the goods into India ... ... ... ... ..... tion, the duty in question would not be recovered from it. Duty is leviable on imported goods by the importer, which, in pursuance of the definition of ldquo import rdquo in Section 26(2) would be a person who is concerned with bringing the goods into India. We also clarify that if the goods after importation were kept in bonded warehouse were cleared, the person who cleared form the bonded warehouse would be the importer notwithstanding that it had not caused the physical bringing of the goods. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall verify whether the appellant was in fact an importer and disclose to him within 3 months form the receipt of this order evidence, if any. He should also disclose the evidence to show that Modvat credit was taken. If such evidence is not available he shall then give the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard. In neither case if evidence is available or not, he shall pass orders according to law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 449 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Declaration of Strips as inputs and Hoops as final product ... ... ... ... ..... the subject matter of a number of decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has consistently held that where the tariff heading is correctly shown, the difference on account of sub-heading should not result in denial of Modvat credit. As in the present case, it has been shown to me that the strip was also used as hoop and was reflected in the stores ledgers for hoops and was used for foot-ring of the cylinder, I do not find this difference in the sub-heading as material so as to result in denial of credit to the appellants. As long as the appellants have received the goods and have used the same in the manufacture of final product for which there is neither any allegations nor any evidence, they are entitled to get the Modvat credit on the strips. With these observations I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants without going into the question of condonation of delay in filing the subsequent declaration in respect of strips.
-
1999 (12) TMI 448 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... moval. Therefore, the notification would still assist the assessees. Shri Vyas submits that if the benefit is given no duty would be leviable. At this stage on finding that a prima facie case having been made, we grant stay and waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty aforesaid as well as the equivalent penalty. 5. emsp The Third applicant is Rajesh Kadormal Baheti, the son of the Proprietors of the earlier named two units and a trader who purchased the products of the two units. In the orders of the Commissioner, the ground for imposition of penalty is that he was deemed to be aware of the improper clearances made by the two units without payment of duty. This ground may not be sufficient to sustain on penalty under 209A. We, therefore, grant waiver of the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on Shri Rajesh Kadormal Baheti. 6. emsp Where the deposits are directed to be made they shall be made within 8 weeks of the receipt of this order. 7. emsp Compliance to be reported on 16-12-1999.
-
1999 (12) TMI 447 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ading is for aluminium powders and flakes. It has not been shown that the powder comply to the requirement of 95 of it passing through one millimetre mesh sieve contained in the section note referred to above. Flakes are not defined in the tariff. At this stage, it is not possible for us to say that these flakes may be the same as the granules referred to in the notice. The notice does not refer to flakes. It speaks of powder, granules. The Commissioner has also prima facie not rebutted satisfactorily the contention with regard to the scrap on which Modvat was claimed under Rule 57H and the scrap stated to have been sold for which invoices were produced. Duty liability on these two counts will be Rs. 8.00 lacs (approx). Taking all these aspects into account, we direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 15.00 lacs towards duty and penalty within two months from to-day, thereupon we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and stay its recovery. 7. emsp Compliance on 29-12-1999.
-
1999 (12) TMI 446 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Goods supplied directly to job-worker ... ... ... ... ..... th the Rules to suit one s convenience deserves to result in penal action. I have at this stage taken into consideration the plea that unit is closed down and the orders of restoration of the reverse credit would be of not avail to the unit. On this ground I do not wish to give any remission in the quantum of penalty. The possibility that the Modvat credit so restored may not be used is an unfortunate factor. It does not go to lessen the contraventions committed by the assessees of the procedural Rules. I, therefore, uphold the imposition on the quantum of penalty. 7. emsp As regards the confiscation of the polypropylene tower packing it is not denied that these goods were not entered in the books of A/c. The Addl. Collector has taken a lenient view. The quantum of fine is not really larger. Therefore, no interference is warranted with this portion of the order. 8. emsp Except for the restoration of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,62,838/-, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 445 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... before 1-4-1994. 10. emsp In a large number of judgements the manner and method of interpretation of taxing statute is to be interpreted strictly and literally. The strict construction of notification is that, in order to become legible documents, the endorsed Gate pass must have been endorsed prior to the date 1-4-1994. It would, therefore, appear that under this Notification a Gate pass issued prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed after this date would cease to become eligible document. 11. emsp We are satisfied that a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal which is required to be referred to the Hon ble High Court . The question of law is framed as under Whether Gate passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed after that date would fall under the coverage of entry No. 10 in the Table to the Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 and would consequently become eligible for taking credit under the Modvat Scheme.? Referencre application is allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 417 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Export of polyester cotton fabric manufactured out of duty free polyester fibre ... ... ... ... ..... gree that the lower figure should invariably be accepted. It is, no doubt, the practice in the Customs House, as the Departmental Representative says, to do so. We in fact note that the samples have been sent to two different institutions with very little to choose from. Whatever are the reasons for this, the fact remains that two reports have been received at variance with each other. In the interest of to be fair to both parties, we are of the view that the figures should be averaged one. After all, we must note that, it is Customs department which decided to send the samples to two organisations and accordingly it should accept a consequence of such a decision. We therefore allow the appeal to the extent that the proportion of the polyester yarn content in the exported consignment be worked out by averaging the quantity determined by applying each of these two reports, and the duty free entitlement corresponding to it accordingly worked out. 3. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
1999 (12) TMI 416 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... raised by the Departmental Representative as to whether recording of sound on video cassettes amounts to manufacture or not. The Supreme Court s judgment, holding that recording of sound on duty paid magnetic cassettes does not amount to manufacture as no new products emerges by such recording has to be followed by us. The principles enunciated in that judgment will equally apply to video cassettes. The principles of recording on the cassettes and the medium for such recording are identical for both audio and video, except for the size of the tape. The position therefore would be that the product manufactured by the respondent is not an excisable commodity. 4. emsp On this ground we dismiss the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 415 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e combination sets in which the recording and/or reproducing facilities were in-built. Such combination sets were rightly classifiable under Sl. No. 10(b) which covered ldquo all other goods rdquo . We also agree with the view taken by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) that when in the exemption notification, a specific description has been given, it is not possible to extend the area of exemption to the combination products which in the same housing had sound recording and reproducing facilities. He has also observed that in common parlance as well as by the people who are in the trade, it is not considered that the radio cassette sets on the one hand and radio cassette recorders or stereo radio recorders on the other, were the same. 5. emsp After going through the description of the products and the relevant tariff entries, we agree with the view taken by the learned Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 414 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Limestone, crushing of - Manufacture - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the present appeal are, indisputably prior to 17-6-1994. Thus, it appears, that all the circumstances which had persuaded the party to maintain the bona fide belief as above in the earlier round of litigation did exist as such during the periods in disput in the present appeals too. Therefore, the observations of the Tribunal as contained in the said order dated 17-6-1994 with regard to the conduct of the party should be held to be holding ground for all purposes of the present appeal as well. Accordingly, I find that there was no reason for imposition of penalty on the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner or for upholding such imposition of penalty by the lower appellate authority. This apart, no valid reason whatsoever has been stated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order for upholding the imposition of penalty on the party. In the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... vat credit will be admissible. Since this issue has already been decided by the Hon rsquo ble Patna High Court, thus, there was no question of reference to any High Court on the issue. 5. emsp Through Flow Mixer is pollution control equipment. Whether pollution control equipment is admissible to modvat credit as capital goods, the matter came up before the Supreme Court in the case of IFFCO 1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 wherein the Apex Court held that the pollution control equipment is essential in the manufacture of any goods and that the pollution control equipment is the capital goods and was eligible to modvat credit. In view of the fact that all the three items were the subject matter of decisions either by the High Courts or by the Supreme Court and the decisions of these courts has not been set aside or no contrary view has so far been expressed by any High Court, therefore the matter as on date is finally settled. In this view of the matter, reference application is rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 412 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Demand - Shortage of inputs ... ... ... ... ..... nalty under Section 11AC. In this view of the matter, we set aside that part of the order in which the mandatory penalty equal to the duty has been imposed under Section 11AC. 7. emsp Insofar as the shortage is concerned, we note that no doubt some of the inputs may be volatile but while using those inputs for the manufacture of finished goods the effect goes inasmuch as the quantity recorded is taken issued and thus there cannot be any accumulated effect. In view of the fact that regular stock taking report or any evidence to show that this shortage was accumulated was not product before us, we don rsquo t agree that shortage was an accumulated one. In the absence of such evidence, we do not like to interfere with the impugned order in regard to the demand of duty on this count. 8. emsp Having regard to the above findings, we set aside that part of the order in which penalty under Section 11AC has been imposed. Rest of the order is upheld. Appeal is therefore partly allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 411 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ees rsquo favour by the decision of the Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal). 5. emsp I have carefully examined the rival submissions and have also perused the order of the Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench cited by the learned advocate. I observe that all the aforesaid goods were rightly held to be eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57Q ibid by the lower appellate authority relying on the decisions of the Tribunal in various cases. I further observe that all the aforesaid goods can rightly be held to be covered by the expression ldquo capital goods rdquo under Rule 57Q ibid in the light of the interpretation given to the said Rule by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra). None of the grounds in the Revenue rsquo s appeal can be sustained in the light, of the decision of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 410 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... orged, since that certificate itself also contains the same description of the items imported as was declared on the Bills of Entry, therefore the said certificate could not have misled the department on the merits of the availability of exemption notification. Also, the said certificate certified that batteries made out of these imported items would be supplied for Defence purposes. This part of the certification has also not been found to be factually incorrect in as much as that order-in-original impugned itself has found that such batteries were in fact supplied to M/s. HAL. 8. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that charge of misdeclaration or suppression of information with an intent to evade duty, thus, does not survive. Therefore, the order-in-original impugned which has confirmed the demand of duty or invocation the extended period, which we find was not available to Revenue, is set aside. 9. emsp Appeals are allowed with consequential relief as per law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 409 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - SSI exemption ... ... ... ... ..... he above set of facts, the impugned order cannot sustain and has to be set aside. We therefore hold that appellants claim to be owners of the brand name Golden Oriole on the date of visit of the officers to the appellant s factory on 10-8-1994 is established on the basis of the assignment deed and accordingly, they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. 19. emsp The appellants had claimed that even otherwise the benefit of Notfn. 1/93 could not have been denied to them since their clearances were within the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs and no duty demand could have been made. There is no finding on this aspect in the impugned order. 20. emsp Since we have held that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Notfn. 1/93-CE in view of the deed of assignment dated 3-4-1993, the consequential benefits will be admissible to the appellants subject to the other conditions of Notfn. 1/93-CE. 21. emsp Appeal No. E/2071/97-C is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 408 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... mediate product. Intermediate product if they come into existence and even if for the time being, they are exempted from payment of duty, Modvat credit taken on the inputs used in the manufacture of the GP Cylinders will be admissible in terms of Rule 57D (2). rdquo In this view, the Bench upheld the action of the Commissioner allowing Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs which went into the manufacture of GP Cylinders. That decision has not been questioned by the Revenue till date. It binds the Revenue. In the light of that decision, the Revenue is not entitled to contend that the respondent is not entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs which were utilized for manufacture of GP Cylinders when it is conceded that those cylinders were captively consumed by the manufacturer in producing printed laminated plastic film which is liable to duty. 3. emsp In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 407 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... L covering the period up to 31-3-1992 was approved and since the demand has been raised for the period for which CL was approved, their case was fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 . We find that the CL was approved in respect of SCN dated 27-2-1992, 15-5-1992 and 18-8-1992. Since CL for these SCNs was approved and since SCNs are covering the demand for the earlier period, therefore in view of the Apex Court ruling in the case of Cotspun Limited, we set aside the demands covered by SCNs dated 27-2-1992, 15-5-1992 and 18-8-1992. Other demands are confirmed. These two appeals are disposed of as under - (a) the goods are classifiable under chapter heading 32.08, and (b) the demands raised (in appeal No. E/2500/94-C) under SCNs dated 27-2-1992, 15-5-1992 and 18-8-1992 and demand under SCN dated 13-10-1989 (in Appeal No. E/1537/96-C) are set aside. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms, (c) other demands are confirmed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 406 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ntral Excise to follow the same. He set aside the orders passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents. 2. emsp In their communication dated 22-11-1999, the respondents have prayed for decision on merits and have submitted that their financial position was not sound. 3. emsp We have heard Shri Ashok Kumar, DR, and have gone through the facts on record. We find that the assessee was doing the job work and had declared the cost of raw material and thereon labour charges. When they had declared their labour charges, it was their contention that it as well included their margin of profit and under the Valuation Rules, no further addition was required. This submission was agreed to by the appellate authority which we consider in the facts and circumstances of this case rightly so. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Collector (Appeals). As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
............
|
