|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 623 Records
-
2007 (1) TMI 450 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal by Department - Cross appeals ... ... ... ... ..... able value and the respondent had not paid duty on the same. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Consultant, Shri B. S. Janpathi informed that against the same impugnad order, the Respondent preferred an appeal and the Tribunal allowed the Respondent s appeal vide 2006 (3) S.T.R. 205 (T) Final Order No. 483/2006, dated 28-2-2006. In these circumstances, the Revenue s appeal has become infructuous. Hence I dismiss the Revenue s appeal as infructuous. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 449 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Newsprint ... ... ... ... ..... is not classifiable as newsprint under Chapter Heading 4801, the applicability of tariff rate prescribed under Chapter 48 simply does not arise and the assessee has to pay duty on the paper so manufactured by classifying it under proper heading. The exemption Notification No. 6/2002 provides a concessional rate of duty at the rate of 8 in respect of all papers falling under Chapter 48 irrespective of sub-heading, manufactured from pulp which contains 75 by weight of pulp made from material other hellip hellip ... It is not the Revenue case that the paper manufactured by the respondents did not satisfy the condition laid down under Sl. No. 86 of Notification No. 6/2002. In view of the same, the respondents were under obligation to pay duty and cannot be allowed exemption from the whole of duty even if they so desire. In view of this, I find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 448 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Special Excise duty ... ... ... ... ..... of February, 1993 may be utilized towards payment of duty on final products cleared subsequent to 28th day of February, 1993 but prior to the 31st day of March, 1994 for the manufacture of which such inputs were permitted to be brought into the factory rdquo . There is no dispute that the final products were cleared by the appellants between 28-2-1993 to 31-3-1994. According to the department, the utilization of credit should also be prior to 31-3-94. However, the language of the Rules does not lend itself to the interpretation of the Revenue. The Rule prescribes the period during the final products are to be cleared and does not restrict utilization of credit during that period, particularly when the Rule itself was introduced in the statute only in August, 1993. 3. emsp I, therefore, hold that the credit was admissible to the assessee towards payment of duty on final products cleared after 28-2-1993 and prior to 31-3-1994, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2007 (1) TMI 447 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... icient cause for the Tribunal to condone the delay. 5. emsp Learned SDR would point out that this is a case where the appellant was not pursuing relief against the adjudication order-in-appeal at all. Instead, they were seeking the route of settlement. He, therefore, would submit that this is not a case falling within the scope of Section 14. He would also point out that this is not a fit case for condoning delay in as much as the appellant, has not abided by the direction contained in the Tribunal rsquo s earlier remand order. The contention of the learned SDR is that the appellant is making efforts to avoid an adjudication of the dispute by not filing its reply. 6. emsp Having considered the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant was diligently following the issue before other authorities and almost the entire delay in filing the appeal was caused by it. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 446 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Exemption - Wooden furniture ... ... ... ... ..... 6. emsp Having heard both the sides and after perlustration, it appears to us that the entire matter needs to be examined in full perspective before arriving at a decision whether the goods exported were ldquo handicrafts rdquo or not. At this juncture for the purpose of stay, the certificate issued by EPCH is apodictic (sic) particularly since it is another agency of the Government and the angst expressed by the Revenue is devoid of any demonstration or proof. No clear-cut or dependable definition of ldquo handicrafts rdquo - either from the Technical manuals or from the subject dictionaries has been brought to our notice by the Revenue. The Apex Court rsquo s judgment solely relied upon by the Revenue is not in the context of the notification-in-question and hence it appears prima facie that it has no relevance here. The stay application, filed by the Revenue is therefore, rejected. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 5-05 made by the Commissioner (Appeals). Merely because over a period of time, the Apex Court took a different view and overruled its earlier decision in the case of JK Udaipur Udyog (Supra), that did not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This is not a case of rectification of mistake, and therefore, the decision of the Apex Court holding that when the Court has construed a provision of law, any contrary construction by any authority should be treated as an error apparent on record so as to merit rectification under Section 35C, will have no application. 5. emsp The applicant has, therefore, not made out any sufficient ground for condonation of the gross delay, because to condone delay in a matter like this will more at the concept of finality attached to the orders made in the proceedings which at the relevant time were not challenged before the higher authorities. Both the applications are, therefore, rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court).
-
2007 (1) TMI 444 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
EXIM - Capital goods - Valuation - Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... e and also in view of the fact that BHCS/RKDS acted only at the behest of the M/s. Wipro, there is no justification in imposing penalty on them. Hence, the penalties on BHCS/RKDS are set aside. 7.4 emsp As the import has been made without licence and also in view of the misdeclaration of the contents and value, the impugned goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority is reasonable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to reduce the penalty on M/s. Wipro GE from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- in each of these appeals. 7.5 emsp Summing up, the Appeal No. C/95/2005 of M/s. Bellary Health Care Services Pvt. Ltd. (BHCS) and Appeal No. C/98/2005 of M/s. R.K. Diagnostics Services Pvt. Ltd. are allowed and Appeal No. C/96/2005 and C/97/2005 of M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. are disposed of on above terms. (Pronounced in open Court on 17-1-2007)
-
2007 (1) TMI 443 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ued in that appeal. It is also to be noted that the assessee did not challenge the order of the Tribunal before the Hon rsquo ble High Court. Thus, the demand in regard to the credit irregularly taken credit as well as the finding regarding fraud remains confirmed. 4. emsp As already noted, finding regarding irregular taking of credit by fraudulent means remains confirmed. The amount involved is Rs. 15,38,296/-. In the present remand proceedings also, no materials have been adduced to justify a different view. In the light of the ruling of the Hon rsquo ble High Court in the case of Illpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (4) S.T.R. 416 (P and H) 2006 (204) E.L.T. 22 (P and H) penalty equal to the amount is required to be levied in the present case. Accordingly, we confirm the penalty of Rs. 15,38,296/- imposed by the Commissioner. Our 2004 (178) E.L.T. 172 (T) Final Order Nos. A/199-200/04-NBC, dated 5-3-2004 shall stand modified to this extent. (Order dictated in the open Court).
-
2007 (1) TMI 442 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Limitation for taking ... ... ... ... ..... is their claim that only subsequently, the triplicate copy has been misplaced. They have, however, produced a xerox copy of the bill of entry certified by the Customs authorities. In view of the fact that the original copy of the bill of entry is not traceable, the appellants are directed to submit an indemnity bond securing the duty amount against possible misuse of the triplicate copy. Subject to such bond being filed, they will be allowed to avail the credit which they have already taken. Miscellaneous application is disposed of in the above terms. rdquo 6. emsp In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the adjudicating authority is directed to examine the documents placed by the appellants and to decide the matter in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Emmes Metal Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ate the dealers to make advertisements on behalf of the company. It appears from the records that, for whatever advertisement they have made for the company, they have received reimbursements from the latter. Circulars of the Board have also been relied on by both sides, but these do not appear to support the Revenue rsquo s case insofar as the question whether the advertisement expenses incurred by the dealers on their accord were includible or not in the assessable value of the goods sold to them by the appellants during the above period. Prima facie, the appellants seem to have a case against the impugned order. Accordingly, there will be waiver of pr-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. 3. emsp At the same time, the Revenue has a high stake in this case and hence, in our view, the appeal requires to be disposed of finally as early as possible. The appeal is directed to be posted to 4th April 2007. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 440 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Refrigeration package ... ... ... ... ..... ligible for Modvat credit. It is being pointed out that this judgment of Tribunal was upheld in appeal by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court Commissioner v. Tablets India Limited as reported at 2006 (199) E.L.T. A181 (S.C.) . 5. emsp The provision sub-rule (5) in regard to components, spares etc. in Rule 57Q makes no reference to tariff classification. Therefore, classification is altogether irrelevant when it comes to credit on components, spares etc. That is the position clarified by the Board also. This position also remains confirmed by the afore-mentioned judgment of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. In the present case, there is no dispute that the refrigerating package unit is an essential item for the functioning of the plant. It is very similar to the vapour absorption heat pump covered by the decision in the case of Century Rayon. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Invoice of second stage dealer ... ... ... ... ..... voices for recovery of credit which was availed by the customers of appellants on the ground that in fact no material was supplied. Only duty paying documents were supplied to the customers. In respect of the proceedings initiated against M/s. Indo Asian Fusegear and M/s. Sudheer Steel Industries, demand was confirmed and penalties were imposed on similar ground and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and imposition of penalty after going through the evidence such as octori receipts. The Commissioner (Appeals) also has taken into consideration that the customers of appellant paid the consideration amount through cheques. In the present case, the appellant produced the octroi receipts. The appellants received payment through cheques from the customers. In this situation, as the present demand by recovery of Modvat credit from the appellant and imposition of penalty is not sustainable. The appeals are allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 12-1-07)
-
2007 (1) TMI 438 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - lifting of Corporate Veil - separation of power plant into a new company - manufacture of the final product - HELD THAT:- In the present case, initially the power plant was also part of the steel mill and was also owned by Steel Authority of India Ltd. The deed of March, 2001, whereby power supply company was hived off into a new company through transfer of a certain business, was part of a restructuring exercise only. This is clear from clauses A, B, C and D of the deed. Other clauses in the deed also make clear that what is involved is not sale and alienation of assets; but transfer on assignment. The sale was only to ensure that the new entity had enough resources for the purpose of effectively financing its own function.
The transfer by assignment was not alienation of property. After the transfer also, the power plant continued to remain in the same use, dedicated solely for the generation of power for use in the steel mill. We find that this factual aspect are almost identical to the case of Renusagar Power Mill’s [1988 (7) TMI 367 - SUPREME COURT] and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this is not a case of sale of the power plant.
Manufacture of the final product - The mere location of the capital goods outside the factory premises is no ground for denying the credit. While passing this order, Tribunal was following the ratio of Supreme Court ruling in Vikram Cement [2006 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]. In the light of the decision, there is no merit in the contention that the rotor in question was located outside the steel mill premises.
Thus, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. It is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
2007 (1) TMI 437 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Validity of ... ... ... ... ..... guiding the assessee to file FIR, affidavit chooses to keep quite on the letter dated 10-10-1996 and seeks to deny the credit on the basis of non-filing of FIR, affidavit of the driver. If the revenue would have responded to the letter dated 10-10-96, the assessee would have tried to get the FIR lodged etc. Having not guided the appellant on the letter seeking the permission to avail credit on original invoice, now the revenue cannot cry foul and deny credit. In the case of Trishul Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 249, it was held that - ldquo Duplicate copy of invoice of appellant having been lost, Modvat credit taken on original invoice - Assistant Collector to make enquiry from Range Superintendent about duty paying character of the consignment, and then allow or disallow Modvat credit. rdquo 5. emsp In view of the above decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 10-1-2006)
-
2007 (1) TMI 436 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... unal is not maintainable. Hence the appeal in respect of this credit is dismissed. 4. emsp As regard the credit of Rs. 2,21,974/-, the same has been denied on the ground that the invoice was marked as customer rsquo s copy. 5. emsp I find that Rule 57G has been amended to the effect that credit was not denied if all particulars are mentioned in the duty paying documents and this amendment is available to the pending cases also. In the present case, the Revenue is not disputing the payment of duty on the inputs and there use in the manufacture of final product. In view of the amendment to Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, and in view of the fact that the period in dispute is 1994 whereas the invoice system was introduced in March, 1994 and that was the initial period, hence the impugned order whereby credit of Rs. 2,21,974/- was denied is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above. (Order dictated and pronounced in the Court on 2-2-2006).
-
2007 (1) TMI 435 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs used in mines ... ... ... ... ..... findings in the case of J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II 2002 (147) E.L.T. 996 that ropeway used for bringing material from outside the factory are capital goods. 8. emsp In the present appeals, there is no dispute that the dumpers in question serve the same purpose as ropeways, i.e. both are used for transporting mined material to the factory for manufacture. Thus, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court is that transporting arrangements for bringing material from mines to the manufacturing factory are eligible for modvat credit. This has to be seen as a secular ruling in respect of any mode of transport, because modvat rules make no distinction between one mode of transport and another or of one type of capital goods and another. 9. emsp In view of the above, we held that credit is available in regard to lubricating oil used in dumpers also. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed with consequential relief, in any. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 434 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ted certificate explaining the reason for the mistake. This fact was not disputed by the authorities below. Further, there is no dispute that the goods in question were used in the manufacture of finished products and duly recorded in their register. Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Ralson India Limited (supra) held that credit availed on original copy of the invoices without taking/applying for permission from competent authority is not a substantial question of law when there is no dispute regarding duty paid character of inputs and their receipt and utilization in manufacture of the final product and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. In this case, the registered dealer rectified the mistake as evident from the invoices in question and certificate. As such, following the decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (1) TMI 433 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... , sent the goods to the appellants. In support of this plea, there is no evidence even copy of invoice is not on record to show that as to what are the goods processed by the job worker and received by the appellants. In these circumstances, credit was rightly denied. 4. emsp In respect of structural items, the contention of appellant in the present appeal is that the goods in question are used in the repair of various machines. I find that annexure to show cause notice, the Revenue pointed out the items on which and the ground for denying the credit. The appellant in the present appeal simply made ascertain (sic) that goods are used for repair and maintenance of machines. No further particulars are given or any evidence was produced to show which items are used as parts of which machines. In this situation I find no infirmity in the impugned order where the credit was given to the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 8-2-07)
-
2007 (1) TMI 432 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... payable is Rs. 20/- the appellants would show in the invoice two figures Rs. 80/- and Rs. 20/- to indicate the duty. Even from the beginning, the appellants took the stand that no duty is leviable on the scrap derived from old machinery. Since the department demanded duty, he paid the same and showed it in the invoice. Later, when it was held that the goods are not liable to duty, we cannot say that he passed on duty burden of Rs. 20/- to the buyer. Irrespective of the fact that the goods are dutiable or not the appellants would be charging Rs. 100/- only. When he pays duty, he gets lesser profit. In other words in a case like this, where the contract price is inclusive of duty payable there cannot be unjust enrichment even if the duty payable is either reduced or nil. The case laws relied on by the learned JCDR are not relevant. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Operative portion of the Order already pronounced in open Court on conclusion of the hearing)
-
2007 (1) TMI 431 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration - Filing of ... ... ... ... ..... Notification No. 7/99-C.E., dated 9-2-97 to the effect that credit shall not be denied on the ground that declaration filed under sub-rule (i) does not contain all the details required to be contained therein. The decision relied upon by the appellants are prior to this amendment and are not applicable to the facts of present case. In the case of Kamakhya Steels v. CCE 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 , the Tribunal held that this amendment is applicable to pending cases also. In the present case, the respondents filed declaration. However, certain inputs were not mentioned properly in the declaration. Therefore, in view of the amendment to Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, which is also applicable to pending cases, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby credit was allowed particularly when the revenue is not disputing the receipt of inputs and their use in the manufacture of final product. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 3-1-2007)
............
|
