|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 701 Records
-
2005 (3) TMI 669 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Duty payment - Fortnightly basis - Default in payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... exceed the value of clearances during the said month. Obviously, the proviso contained the maximum limit for a penalty under Rule 173GG(3). Any discretion exercisable by a quasi judicial authority in the matter of determining the quantum of penalty would stand limited by these parameters. The indisputable fact is that the penalty imposed by the lower authorities on the appellants is the minimum prescribed under Rule 173GG(3). As rightly pointed out by ld. JDR, the authorities did not have any discretion to reduce the quantum of penalty below this minimum limit nor this Tribunal have any such discretion. In this context, the High Court rsquo s decision in Pee Aar Steels (Supra) becomes relevant. In that case, it was held that the Tribunal was not competent to reduce penalty under the 4th Proviso to Rule 96ZP(3). 4.For the reasons noted above, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 16-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 668 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... 4 cannot be sustained. rdquo She, therefore, pleads that since no duty has been confirmed either against the job worker or the appellants nor the goods in dispute were found liable for confiscation, therefore, penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be imposed on the appellants. emsp 3.Heard Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR. He reiterated the findings of the Appellate Authority. 4.On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that demand against the job worker has been set aside by the Tribunal under Final Order No. A/634/04-NB(C), dated 2-9-2004. I also find that neither the original Authority nor the Appellate Authority had given any finding about the liability of the confiscation of the disputed goods. Therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A of the Rules. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on the appellants and allow the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 667 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs ... ... ... ... ..... on inputs for all items manufactured by the assessees. Therefore, credit is admissible on ingots used in the manufacture of all the final products manufactured by the assessees. The reasoning of the Commissioner that particular quantum of input consumed in the manufacture of specified final product and credit availed of on the said input should only be utilized towards clearance of the said products as per the declaration made in this regard i.e. insistence on correlation between credit availed and its utilization, is not sustainable. All the final products are covered by the modvat declaration. In these circumstances, restriction of credit on ingots used only in the manufacture of corrugated sheets is not justified. We hold that credit of duty paid on ingots used in the manufacture of all the final products of the assessees is admissible to them, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 14-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 666 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... rew Conveyor. emsp 4.The contention of the Revenue is that pollution control equipment is specifically covered under the definition of capital goods whereas the component, parts and accessories of the pollution control equipment are not covered under the definition, therefore, the credit was rightly denied. emsp 5.I find that regarding the use of Screw Conveyor the Revenue is not disputing that it is used with the pollution control equipment to derive the dust particles from the system. Further I find that Screw Conveyor is classifiable under Heading No. 84.21 and as per the definition of capital goods as provided under the Rule 57Q is that all goods falling under Chapter 84 including 84.21 are used in the factory of manufacture are entitled for the benefit of capital goods. In these circumstances, as this item is used with pollution control equipment which is entitled for the credit of capital goods. The appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 14-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 665 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay application - Limitation period ... ... ... ... ..... taken within a reasonable period. In the facts of the present case, it appears, the stay application, which was not filed along with the appeal, was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) after a period of one month, which period would appear to be reasonable, having regard to the normal period of pendency of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should have entertained the stay application on its merits and then proceeded to deal with the appeal in accordance with law. emsp 4.In the above circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the assessee rsquo s stay application on its merits and then proceed to deal with their appeal, depending on the results of the stay application. Needless to say, the appellants should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, both on the stay application and on the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 664 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Online lottery receipt ... ... ... ... ..... inted out that the appellant is entitled to import all kinds of paper and print them into ticket etc. Some such items require thermal paper for printing. emsp 2.As against the above contention of the appellant, learned DR contends that appellant rsquo s claimed of printing on thermal paper cannot be accepted as it is well-known that thermal paper is not suitable for printing. 3.A perusal of the records shows that the appellant is printing all types of products. Some of those items are to be printed on thermal paper also. From the HSN note and other material placed by the Counsel it is clear that the appellant rsquo s activity is basically printing and its products fall under Chapter 49 as printed products which are exempts from duty. Prima facie the duty demand is not sustainable. Those demands are stayed and the requirement for pre-deposit is waived till the disposal of the appeal. Matter to come up for hearing on 27th April, 2005. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 663 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... f Modvat credit as held in Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal). emsp 3.On a careful consideration, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly noted that the Registration Certificate has been issued to both the Units of the assessee. They are manufacturing the final products and clearing the same and, therefore, in the light of the amended Rule 57Q by Notification No. 6/97, they are eligible for the benefit of the Modvat credit on capital goods. The Registration Certificate clearly discloses that the assessee is manufacturing the final products and not merely carrying out any process of the inputs. Therefore, the judgment of Majestic Auto Ltd. is clearly distinguishable. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Furthermore, the plea of time-bar raised by the Counsel is also justified in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Bhalla Enterprises (cited supra). (Pronounced in open Court on 14-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 662 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ave or taken into account the transportation charges, on transporting the goods for those distances from the refinery and recovered or and added the same in the price as in the case of Loni Terminal sales the transportation charges for transporting the goods was added. That by itself cannot be a reason to conclude transportation charges to be added to sales effected Ex-Vashi especially on a notional basis. (b) When there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants had not charged any amount towards transportation charges, apart from the price realized for the sale and delivery ex-Vashi Terminal and that they have not claimed any deduction towards transportation charges, the notional addition of an amount towards transportation charges to the price charged by the appellants for the sale of HSD and MS from Vashi Terminal is incorrect. The demand is not sustainable. emsp 3.In view of the findings, the order is set aside and appeal allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 11-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 661 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... s were packed in the packet bearing the brand name of the foreign Company. In view of this, the contention that assignment of ownership prima facie made them eligible for the benefit of Notification is not correct as the foreign Company can always withdraw the assignment of their brand name. Therefore, prima facie the appellants have not made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount. The learned Counsel also pleaded financial hardship on the ground that they have incurred a loss of Rs. 3,60,000/- as on 31-3-2004. After taking into consideration the financial hardships, we direct the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand) within six weeks and report compliance subject which pre-deposit of the balance of duty and the entire penalty shall stand dispensed with and the recovery thereof is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Matter will be called for reporting compliance on 2-5-2005. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 660 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... o not correct for the reason that duty was partly paid through PLA and partly through deemed credit account. emsp 2.We have heard both sides. 3.We note that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out by the applicants in terms of Rule 8(3) which states that if the assessee fails to pay the amount of duty by the due date (in the case of goods cleared during the first fortnight of a month, due date for payment is 20th of the month and in the case of goods cleared during the second fortnight of a month, the due date of the demand is 5th of the following month), he shall be liable to pay outstanding amount along with interest..... The objection of the Revenue to payment of duty partly through deemed credit account is also not prima facie sustainable in the absence of any order debarring the applicants from making payment through deemed credit account. We, therefore, waive pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 659 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... with the cash assistance from District Rural Development Agencies....... rdquo Since there is a comma proceeding as well as after the term lsquo by women rsquo s societies rsquo the condition of Rural Area stipulation prima facie will not apply to them and specified goods would be covered by the exemption. Moreover the definition of lsquo Rural Area rsquo is the notification of its coverage and the coverage under Commissioner Trade Notice 2/96 will have to be examined in detail. At this prima facie stage, keeping in mind the nature of the society in appeal before us, we would consider a prima facie case to have been made out for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F. We order accordingly and stay the recovery pending the regular hearing of the matter. 3.The plea of early out-of-turn hearing made will be considered only on a regular application being made by either or both sides. This application disposed of in above terms. (Pronounced in Court on 11-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 658 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Customs Act detention certificate will be issued, ld. Counsel could not mention any provision of the Customs Act. This is, in our view, purely administrative action and order being not passed under any provisions of Customs Act no appeal lies. In view of this we dismiss the appeal. Early hearing application is also disposed of. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 657 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... th the sides. Provisions of sub-rule (6)(b) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are very specific, as it provides that the additional duty of excise leviable under Textiles and Textile Articles Act, can be used only towards payment of duty of excise leviable under the said Act. We are thus of the view that the applicants have not made out a prima facie case in their favour in view of the statutory provisions contained in Cenvat Credit Rules. There is also no prima facie force in the arguments of the ld. Advocate, that the demand is hit by time limit, as they were mentioning a consolidated figure in their statutory records. We, therefore, direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks from today. On compliance with this direction, there shall be waiver of the remaining amount of duty and penalty and stay of recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. To come up for reporting compliance on 5-5-2005. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 656 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Penalty - Delayed payment of duty under Compound Levy Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... the Rule has been declared ultra vires by the High Court. These judgments have been followed in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Satavahana Rolling Mills Final No. 1642/2004, dated 28-10-1004 and in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Vijay Textiles Ltd. and Ors. Final Order Nos. 250-258/2005, dated 18-2-2005 . 2.On going though the case laws relied on by both sides and on submissions made, I do not find any merit in the argument advanced by the learned SDR to accept the Mumbai Bench judgment rendered in the case of Nirav Textile Processors v. CCE, Mumbai-VI 2002 (148) E.L.T. 838 as the same Bench subsequently set aside the penalty in the case of Shree Sai Prasad Dyg and Ptg Mills (supra) on the ground that the Rule 96ZQ has been declared ultra vires by the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court. The ratio of the citations relied on by the learned Consultant has to be followed in this case. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 655 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ulds. Moreover, there is no clause which would make the transfer of technical know-how as a condition for the purchase of imported goods namely Models and Moulds. The Tribunal has consistently been holding the view that the technical know-how fee should have a nexus with the imported goods. As far as the present case is concerned the paras pointed out by ld. JDR do not make us conclude that payment of technical know-how fees is a condition of sale of the goods to be valued. The paras pointed out by ld. JDR would only indicate the manner and timing of the technical know-how fees. All the case laws cited by ld. Advocate are squarely applicable to the present case. It is also seen that the Models and Moulds have been invoiced separately and appropriate duty has been paid. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the Revenue does not have a strong case. Hence we allow the appeal of the appellants. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 9-3-2005).
-
2005 (3) TMI 654 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ilt on chassis supplied by customer would fall under Heading No. 87.07. Ld. Counsel has also relied on the Board rsquo s Circular No. 447/13/99-C.X., dated 22-3-99, wherein it was clarified that the above ruling of the Apex Court was applicable lo the period prior to 25-7-91 i.e. before insertion of Chapter 4. 3.After carefully considering the submissions, we find that the payment, by the assessee, of duty on the value of the body built on the duty-paid chassis of ambulance on 26-3-91 is perfectly, in accordance with the Apex Court rsquo s ruling in Ram Body Builders (supra) clarified by the Board in the cited circular. The value of the chassis was not to be included in the assessable value as the activity of building body on it did not amount to manufacture at the material time. The contra view taken by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court on 10-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 653 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... by them is not correct. 3.We have considered the submissions of both sides. The issue before us is whether the applicants are eligible for the Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used by them in relation to the manufacture of Tarpaulin. Learned Advocate mentioned that the classification of Tarpaulin under the Chapter Heading 63 of the Central Excise Tariff was decided. During the material period provisions of Modvat credit were not applicable under the Chapter Heading 63 of the Tariff. The applicants have not thus made out a prima facie case in their favour for waiver of entire amount of duty and penalty. We therefore, direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- lakhs within six weeks from today. On complying with the above direction, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amount and recovery thereof remains stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Matter will come up for reporting compliance on 26-4-2005. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 652 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 667 has classified the impugned product under Chapter 21 only and as such the applicants should have filed declaration after Note 7 was inserted in Chapter 21 that as they had not filed any declaration the department was not aware and as such the extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding the duty. emsp 4.We have considered the submissions made by both sides. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the Department was classifying the impugned goods under Chapter 32 of the CETA and against the Tribunal rsquo s decision classifying in Chapter 21, appeal was carried to the Supreme Court. In view of the facts, prima facie the department rsquo s claim that the applicants should have classified their product under Chapter 21 only is not sustainable. We therefore stay the recovery of the entire amount of duty and penalty on the ground of demand prima facie being time barred. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (3) TMI 651 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
EXIM - Export obligation - Non-fulfilment to prescribed limit ... ... ... ... ..... er the concerned authority has given their finding and take action with regard to the value addition norms and other aspects of the matter. We do not find the order having been passed in terms of the citations given by the learned Counsel and the order, therefore, is not legal and proper and the same has been passed without due application of mind including on the aspect pertaining to confirmation of interest when the duty is not liable to be paid. Therefore, we set aside the order and remand the matter for de novo to Commissioner to grant full opportunity to the appellants to argue on all aspects of the matter and decide the case strictly within the ambit of law and the judgments cited by them. The adjudication has to be done only in terms of the Board rsquo s Circular and Ministry rsquo s letters noted in the order, after the matter has been dealt with by DGFT. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand for de novo to Commissioner (Appeals). (Pronounced in open Court on 8-3-2005)
-
2005 (3) TMI 650 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... and not a manufacturer that they were doing only piece work for TNEB and they are only hired workman of the Board. 3.We have considered the submissions of both sides. The applicants are not hired workman of the Board since they have been awarded contract to manufacture PSC poles for TNEB. The contract showed relationship between TNEB and contractors was on principal to principal basis. It is settled law that the actual manufacturer has to discharge the duty demanded. As such the applicants have not made out a prima facie case in their favour, for waiver of entire amount of duty and penalty. We therefore, direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- lakhs within six weeks from today. On complying with the above direction, there shall be waiver of remaining amount of duty, entire amount of penalty and stay the recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal. Matter will come up for reporting compliance on 16-5-2005. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
............
|
