|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 405 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... d Advocate. 6. emsp From the reading of this, it will be very clear that this is not the case where the goods have been manufactured on a specific order and a specific design supplied as indi shy cated and are made receivable by the ordering party after indicating certain specific test. It is, therefore, to be treated as the goods which are manufactured by the manufacturer according to their own design and the order is placed to purchase the said manufactured product and the manufacture is complete as soon as the manufacturing process is complete and the goods are offered for sale. The case before us can easily come within the parameters provided under para 11 of the said judg shy ment. In this case the appellants never put before the authorities that the goods have been manufactured on a specific order. Therefore, in the absence of the same, I have to agree with the view of the appellate authorities. I, therefore, reject the appeal of the appellants. 7. emsp Appeal rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 404 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Diamonds ... ... ... ... ..... Diamonds are peculiar substances requiring great expertise for their valuation. The valuation defers widely according to the size, the quality and the manner in which the stone is cut. In case of large stones the price is often what the seller desires to charge. In this background it was necessary for the trade panel opinion to be supplied to the exporter even if the show cause notice was waived. This denial of natural justice is clear. The impugned order is set aside and the proceedings are remanded back to the Commissioner. He shall make available to the exporters both valuation reports. He shall give an opportunity to the exporters to state their case. He will, if the claim is made that the export products are relatable to the import document, examine the contention specially by a reference to the number of stones imported and exported and their comparative sizes etc. Thereafter, he shall proceed to make a well reasoned order. 6. emsp This appeal is allowed in these terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 403 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors and, in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable goods. The impugned order is in conformity with this proviso. That the value of comparable goods should be the first option for assessment of captively consumed goods is further clear from the wording of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 6 (b) which specifically states ldquo (ii) if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i) on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods. Resort to sub-rule (ii) is to be made only if assessment cannot be completed in terms of sub-rule (i). In the present case facts show that comparable goods were available. Therefore, the lower authorities cannot be faulted for assessing the poles in question based on the comparable value of other goods. The appeals fail and are dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 402 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Accountal of goods - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nts by way of appropriate debit in their RG-23A, Part-II register on the very day on which their omission to pay the duty was pointed out by the Central Excise Officers who visited their factory premises. This was long before the issuance of show cause notice to them. In such circumstances, it is not reasonable to belief that the goods were liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. It is equally unreasonable to impose any penalty on the party, since it did not appear either from records or from their conduct that they did anything with wilful intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty or wilfully contravened any of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore, the order of the lower appellate authority vacating the imposition of penalty on the party is quite sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, on merits, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. 5. emsp For the reasons discussed above, I dismiss the Revenue s appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 401 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn - Single ply yarn - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... ly justiciable. 13. emsp The learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, during the course of arguments contended that in case this Bench did not follow the view taken by the other two Benches of the Tribunal in Bhilwara Spinner Ltd. and Modern Threads (I) Ltd. and Modern Woollens Ltd. cases, (supra) the matter be referred to the Larger Bench. But this prayer of the learned Councel cannot be allowed for the simple reason that in the face of the above referred judgments of the Apex Court, which are binding on this Tribunal, the law is well settled that the duty is payable at the stage of single ply yarn which is a fully manufactured product and not thereafter at the stage when doubling or multifolding of that yarn is done. The Apex Court judgments have to take preference over the orders of the Tribunal rsquo s as per the judicial precedent. 14. emsp In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 400 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e specified and not electric light fittings. We are concerned with the new Central Excise Tariff under which the goods had to be classified under the scheme of the tariff itself. While there is no dispute that the switches in question were for motor vehicles, as we have referred to above all parts of motor vehicles are not classifiable under heading 87.08. Only those parts which are not classifiable in any other specific tariff, heading, will be classifiable under heading 87.08 read with various inclusion and exclusions as per various sections/chapter notes. 22. emsp After giving my careful consideration to the question referred, I agree with the order recorded by ld. Member (J) upholding the impugned order and rejecting the appeals. Sd./- Lajja Ram Member (T) Majority Order In the light of the majority view, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals of the Revenue are rejected. Sd/- G.R. Sharma Member (T) Dated 6-12-1999 Sd/- Jyoti Balasundaram Member (J) Dated 3-12-1999
-
1999 (12) TMI 399 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... t of non-receipt of the goods along with invoice No. 2737, dated 30-3-1996. However, they have also claimed that the inputs had been received from the same supplier earlier under Rule 57 F(3). Since there is no dispute as regards the receipt of the inputs and the invoice covering the same quantity of the inputs, it cannot be said that the substantive provisions of Modvat Rules have not been complied with by the appellants in the facts of the present case. In view thereof, I find merit in their submission that the lapse if any on their part was only of a procedural nature. Their reliance on the Tribunal decision in Tirupati Polymer (supra) is well founded. In the said case, Modvat credit was held to be admissible where duty paying documents did not accompany the goods but were received later. 5. emsp In the light of the above discussion, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential benefits will be admissible to the appellants in accordance with the law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 398 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... vy loads was not ordinary crane and therefore was classifiable under Heading 84.26. The Tribunal had applied the ratio of the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Randip Shipping and Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the heading relating to special purpose motor vehicles which was then under 87.07, does not refer to cranes at all but deals with work trucks mechanically propelled. We find that on this count the ratio of this decision would apply to this case inasmuch as that the item is for lifting heavy loads upto 140 M.T. as it is very different from work truck, but instead it is a crane. 9. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the said item would be classifiable under sub-heading 8426.12 as crane and not under Heading 87.05 as special purpose vehicle in under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The orders impugned are therefore set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief as per law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 397 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... ts on record are not clear and the original records will only be available either with the assessee or with the field authorities, reluctantly, in the interest of justice, we remand all these three appeals to the jurisdictional authorities for de novo consideration. As in one case the adjudication order has been passed by the Collector of Central Excise, we consider that, in the interest of justice, all these three matters may be taken up for decision by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. 6. emsp The learned Advocate submitted that in these appeals, the appellants have also raised the question of classification of the product Gulabjamun rsquo . They are at liberty to place their view point before the adjudicating authority to whom the matter is being remanded and who will decide the matter after giving an opportunity to both the sides afresh and pass a speaking appealable order, as per law. 7. emsp All these three appeals are thus disposed of by way of remand.
-
1999 (12) TMI 396 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... calators, conveyors, teleferics, etc. We find that the parts of these equipments falling under Headings 84.28 and 84.29 are specifically covered by Heading 84.31 which covers parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30. 4. emsp We find that under Chapter Note when the parts are specifically mentioned in any Heading of the Tariff then they would be classified under that Heading/sub-heading. The classifications of the parts along with the machines will be only when they are not separately classified in any specific Tariff Heading. As in the present case parts of machinery which are classified under Headings 84.28 and 84.29 are specifically mentioned under Heading 84.31, we consider that the classification of such parts will not be with the machinery but under the specific Heading 84.31. 5. emsp After going through the facts on record, we do not find any merit in both these appeals and the same are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 395 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... , I find that the appellants have not disputed the fact that they had failed to account for their production in the RG 1 Register after the goods had reached the inspection stage and after it had reached the stage of assigning a grade. I, therefore, find that the imposition of penalty is sustainable, ld. Counsel had argued that the quantum of Rs. 50,000/- on a total value of little over Rs. 3 lakhs was disproportionate and in terms of the ratio of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited by him, a token penalty alone was called for. Taking an overall view of the case and following the ratio of the Tribunal decisions cited above, I reduce the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) 7. emsp In the result, the order of confiscation and redemption fine is set aside. The penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal allowed in the above terms. 8. emsp The appellants will be entitled to the consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with the law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 394 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Seizure of vehicle - Misdeclaration and under-valuation ... ... ... ... ..... een filed by the department, the order of assessment passed by the customs officer at the time of clearance of the vehicle on 7-12-1988, stands unvaried. Since that order has not been varied in an appeal, we are clear in our mind that, the appellant is entitled to have the custody of the vehicle. 5. emsp The judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in writ petition No. 1792/90 is binding on the Union of India and Customs authorities. If they were aggrieved by that decision, they should have got it varied by some process known to law. Without getting it so varied, the adjudicating authority cannot in this collateral proceeding ignore or give a go-by to the decision rendered by the Madras High Court. 6. emsp In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the vehicle in possession of the appellant is concerned, is unsustainable. It is set aside to that extent. Appellant will be entitled to consequential relief according to law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 362 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ing medium to heat rexin after the two layers are laminated and that without such heat the product could not be marketable. This logic has to be accepted. It is difficult to conceive, as the Commissioner (Appeals) done, the person who manufacture the goods needlessly spending money to heat this finished product when technology does not call for it. The product in any case is held to be an input by the Tribunal in its decision in appeals E/636/97 and E/947/97 Sipta Coated Steel and Anr v. CCE 1999 (112) E.L.T. 827 (Tribunal) and in appeal E/3757/98 National Leather Cloth Mfg Co. v. CCE 1998 (99) E.L.T. 553 (Tribunal) . 4. emsp The appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (12) TMI 361 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... able ground that their constitution might have changed by this time. Retest was asked for which has not been granted. Copies of the statements of Gopi and George of the applicant rsquo s company in the papers are mostly illegible. However, George seems to use the term RDO and spray oil interchangably referring to the product as both. Apart from this, it is settled law that where classification is to be determined by scientific parameters, trade terminology is irrelevant. 6. emsp The notice does not even allege a specific circumstance justifying invoking the extended period. It makes a statement that the assessee had intent to evade duty ldquo by suppressing the facts, wilful mis-statement etc rdquo . The judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector v. HMM Ltd. - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 holding that the factors justify invoking extended period must be clearly spelt out in the notice would apply prima facie. We therefore waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.
-
1999 (12) TMI 360 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... to the Hon ble Bombay High Court of its opinion ldquo Whether coated abrasives being used in the factory is entitled to avail Modvat credit or not rdquo ? The registry is hereby directed to refer the same to the Hon ble High Court endorsing following enclosures to the order made in reference application - ldquo Whether Modvat credit can be allowed on coated abrasives which are in the nature of tool consumables? Whether it can be held that these take part in the manufacturing process and being used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product when these are used only for clearing the surface of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts rdquo . The order passed by the Tribunal on 4-12-1998 order of the Tribunal order of the Collector (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. A/222/94 and A/251/94, dated 19-8-1994. Various orders of the Assistant Collector referred to in the Order-in-Appeal Nos. A-222/94 and A-251/94. Reference application is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 359 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... g effect of the tax right from the input stage to final product stage. As long as the declared input has been used in the manufacture of the declared final product, Modvat credit cannot be denied. It is not the case of the department that the input did not suffer the duty element. There is evidence of payment of duty in the form of invoice. It is therefore felt that the ground taken by the departmert is not legal. The non-following of minor procedural requirement will not disentitle the assessee from claiming the Modvat credit. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 358 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project import - Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... satisfied for the entitlement of concessional rate shown in the entry 84.66 of Customs Tariff. They are (1) goods should have been imported against a specified contract registered with the appropriate Customs House (2) such registration should have been made in the manner prescribed by the regulations and (3) Registration of the contract should have been obtained before the order (granting permission for clearance of the goods) was passed. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, further, held that unless all these three conditions are satisfied, no importer can claim, as a matter of right, the concessional relief provided in the entry in the present case, when the goods were imported and the bill of entry filed the contract was not registered, the goods were ordered to be warehoused. As at this stage no contract was registered, therefore, in view of the ratio of the above mentioned decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 357 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Natural justice - Appellate order ... ... ... ... ..... d by the appellant. In the absence of the same, I am of the view the impugned order is wrong. 6. emsp I am aware of the fact that as far as the disposal of the application filed under Section 35F is concerned the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Jesus Sales Corporation - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 has held that as far as such application are concerned, pre-decisional hearing may not be necessary. But it does not mean that the appeal itself could be disposed of without affording an opportunity of hearing. I am therefore of the view that the instant case is wrong inasmuch as (1) no notice of hearing has been given, and (2) It is devoid of any reasons for such a dismissal. Therefore the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the Appellate authority with a direction that he should de novo determine the matter after following the principles of natural justice insofar as it relates to this appeal. Appeal stands disposed of along with the stay petition.
-
1999 (12) TMI 356 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Declaration - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nt reproduce the same entry in Annexure lsquo A rsquo to the show cause notice. The conversion table produced in this case at Exhibit lsquo E. 1 rsquo does not anyway help to support the appellant that the thickness of aluminium sheets under these two entries are one and the same. Regarding the quantity of the goods the allegation is that the actual stock of the goods does not tally with the entry in the subsidiary gate pass and not description of the quantity in the subsidiary gate pass and the delivery challan. The appellant has failed to demonstrate this aspect in response to the show cause notice. So the identity of goods is not established in that regard. The contention of the JDR is upheld. The point raised is answered in the affirmative regarding the limitation, and negative on the merits. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the show cause notice is barred by time and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief according to law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 355 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e respondents. The Assistant Commissioner relied upon the collateral evidence adduced before him by the respondents and after satisfying himself about actual receipt of the goods and about their use, dropped the proceedings and observed that the Modvat credit had been rightly claimed by the respondents. His findings in this regard had also been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is nothing on record to suggest that the goods covered by the invoices in question were never received by the respondents in the factory or that Modvat credit in respect of those goods could not be legally claimed by them. That being so, no invalidity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) can be found. He has rightly confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner allowing Modvat credit on the basis of the invoices in question to the respondents. 8. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
............
|
