|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 435 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Heard both sides. 6. emsp The contention of the revenue is that the inputs were not under the process of manufacture of final product at the time of fire. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit on these inputs. The adjudicating authority, in the adjudication order after relying upon the report of the Range Supdt. gave a finding of fact that fibre, in question, was issued to the manufacture stream and the process of mixing was completed and next process of laping was in progress at the time of fire. This finding of fact was not controverted by the revenue in the present appeal. The Tribunal in the case of Asmaco Plastic Industries (supra) held that Modvat credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product and destroyed during the process of manufacture before finished goods, cannot be denied. 7. emsp In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal, filed by the revenue, is rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 434 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... export import code number and also that licence and permission from Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. of India obtained subsequently to the imports would render goods liable for confiscation. We find that certain letters issued before information by the Ministry of Surface Transport were produced but they were not found to be adequate and thereafter corrective steps were taken. If the Ministry has not issued letters in the proper proforma, the importer cannot be found fault with. (b) We appreciate the arguments made by ld. Advocate, which has lot of force that if the intention was to indict the imports made by persons nor having an import export code number, then it should have been brought about in very clear terms under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 as well as under Customs Act. 7. emsp In view of our findings, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Commissioner s order. We, therefore, confirm the same and reject the appeal of Revenue
-
2000 (10) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. - Manufacture - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... led law that an exemption notification can be claimed at any stage. A claim now made for the exemption therefore cannot be denied. Since Supreme would be entitled to exemption under Notification 77/85 in 1985-86, it would, by virtue of proviso under clause (b) of paragraph 4 of the notification, be entitled to the benefit for 1986-87 and 1987-88. BIJ Tex and Pattern Trust would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86, one of the three years 1985-88 and Pattern Textile for 1986-87 and 1987-88, since the value of the clearances in any of these years did not exceed the value of Rs. 7.50 lakhs. 8. emsp As a result of this order, the duty being payable by each of these appellants are to be requantified on determination either of the question of manufacture or the availability of the notification or both. Therefore, penalties if they are liable to be, would also be redetermined. 9. emsp Accordingly, we set aside the penalties. 10. emsp Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 432 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. rdquo Therefore, the conditions of availing the refund application, is only introduced as a procedural safeguard vide Notification No. 85/97. In fact, the condition in this Notification itself provides that where exports are in large quantities, the refund applications could be made more than once in each quarter. Therefore, when we find that there is no other allegation of loss of any revenue and suspicion of any mischief, the mere fact that the refund applications have been filed on 17-7-1997 should not debar the grant of benefit which the exporter is entitled to under Rule 57F(13). Relying on the two decisions of the CEGAT to which we agree, we would also consider granting the refund in this case. In this view, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and we allow the appeal with consequential benefits to the appellants.
-
2000 (10) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machine tool ... ... ... ... ..... by the Apex Court, after referring the matter to an expert to be nominated by Central Machine Tool Institute Bangalore, we are of the view that same procedure should also be adopted in this matter. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to get the examination carried out by an expert to be nominated by the Central Machine Tool Institute Bangalore, provided the machine is in the form in which it was imported and with the same features subject to ordinary wear and tear over the period since it was imported. The opinion given by the expert, so nominated will be binding on both the sides. As the main issue is being remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, we are not considering the other question of assessment of parts imported by the Appellants and whether they had resorted to under-valuation. These points are left to the Commissioner for decision while adjudicating the matter afresh. 5. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (10) TMI 414 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... about the non-availability of benefit of Rule 173H, they would have taken proper steps for claiming Modvat credit in accordance with Rule 57G of the Rules. They admittedly used duty paid single yarn for manufacturing the doubled yarn. Therefore their claim for Modvat credit deserves to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority keeping in view the facts and circumstances and observations of the Apex Court in the Formica India Division case (supra). 9. emsp Accordingly the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is partly set aside to the extent to which he had disallowed the Modvat credit to the appellants, and for reexamining their claim, the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority who will after hearing the appellants decide the same in accordance with law. However the rest of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming duty demand of Rs. 2,93,170/- on the appellants is affirmed. 10. emsp Appeal of the appellants accordingly stands disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... dmissibility of the benefit of Notification No. 53/65 in respect of the same, already stands decided in favour of the respondents in their own earlier appeal decided by the Eastern Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/447/CAL/96 dated 10-7-96. In that case, the Bench had already held that the product of the respondents i.e. Tarfelt is classifiable under sub-heading 5909 of the CETA and benefit of Notification in question No. 53/65, dated 20-3-1965 is available to them. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner holding the classification of the product in question (Tarfelt) under sub-heading 5909 of CETA and allowing the benefit of Notification No. 53/65, dated 20-3-1965 to the respondents, is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any affirmity so as to call for any interference. 6. emsp Consequently there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 412 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ciassification ... ... ... ... ..... emsp Heard ld. DR and perused the appeal papers, as none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. 4. emsp The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, relied upon the earlier order-in-appeal No. A-20/95, dated 11-1-95 and No. A-31/95, dated 17-1-95. The appeals, filed by the revenue, against the earlier order-in-appeal, relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. C-I/3801-02/WZB/2000, dated. 24-10-2000. In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the appeals and rejected the same.
-
2000 (10) TMI 411 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Remand - Delay in de novo proceeding ... ... ... ... ..... complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. The applicant has been closely pursuing the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Customs who is the adjudicating authority. The last letter written by the applicant himself is dated 23-8-2000. The said correspondence neither evoked any response nor the de novo proceedings have been completed by the adjudicating authority. It is very unfortunate that the adjudicating authority failed to take serious note of the direction of the Tribunal. While expressing displeasure of the Tribunal, I direct the adjudicating authority to finalise the de novo proceedings within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order shall be given to the ld. SDR and the ld. Consultant today itself so that ld. SDR can send the same to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Calcutta for close monitoring regarding disposal of the case by the Adjudicating Authority.
-
2000 (10) TMI 410 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nt appeal of the Revenue is against the decision of the Collector (Appeals). 3. emsp It is submitted by ld. SDR that an identical issue has been decided in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal (Larger Bench) in the case of Light Publications Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Mumbai 2000 (121) E.L.T. 495 . Ld. Counsel for the respondents has, fairly, conceded. 4. emsp The main ground of the Revenue rsquo s appeal is that the machine in question worked on the photographic principle and was, therefore, appropriately classifiable under CTH 90.10. There is no rebuttal of this contention before us. 5. emsp In Light Publications (Supra), the Larger Bench held that, if the photographic principle was employed in the working of the machine, the article would fall under CTH 90.10. We find that this ratio is squarely applicable to the instant case. Therefore, following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order of ld. Collector (Appeals).
-
2000 (10) TMI 409 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Duty for non-accountal and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... or L-6 licence has included thinner amongst the goods to be manufactured by it. It said that if the department being aware that thinners are not covered by notification, it chose to issue licence under Rule 192, the duty could not be recovered under Rule 196. 6. emsp The learned advocate for the department had no specific answer to this point and relies on the Collector s order. The Collector only says that the appellant misused the concession by declaring the products that were not specified in the notification. This however, does not answer the question as to why the department, being aware that CBFS was not one of the products mentioned in the notification, (if that is the case), chose to issue L-6 licences on two occasions which were permitted to continue undisturbed for over a period of ten years or so. 7. emsp We accordingly hold that demand for duty under Rule 196 is not valid and penalty therefore could not be imposed. 8. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 408 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... The departmental representative contends that the appellant is required to pay the duty, since is required to abide by the provisions of notification 305/77. 3. emsp Notification 305/77, now repealed, provided inter alia that the supplier of the goods to a job worker must declare the value of the goods to be processed and manufactured by the job worker, and also declare the price at which such goods must be sold. The fact that the appellant had signed the declaration under this notification does not by any means render him manufacturer of these goods. The duty in question was therefore not required to be paid by him. 4. emsp The appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 407 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... s not in pink colour. Even though the decision of the Larger Bench in CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 is that when a particular thing is directed to be performed in a manner prescribed that should be done in that manner and if it is not done in that manner, it will not be a compliance with the provision, that decision may not be of any assistance in this case because the colour of the duplicate invoice can be termed as pink as well. Therefore, the Revenue is not in order in raising a contention before this Tribunal that the invoice on the basis of which respondent in this case took Modvat credit is not a legal document. Commissioner (Appeals) after having seen the duplicate copy of the invoice allowed the respondent to avail Modvat credit. I do not find any justification to reverse that finding. It therefore follows that the appeal filed by the Revenue has only to be dismissed. I do so. 4. emsp Appeal is rejected as stated above.
-
2000 (10) TMI 406 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cotton waste - Dutiability - 100% E.O.U. ... ... ... ... ..... al in the case of Vikram Ispat, supra. The reliance placed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision in Winsome Yarns Ltd. supra, is not correct as it was not held by the Tribunal that customs duties are separately leviable on the clearances of the goods effected by 100 E.O.U. The Tribunal mentioned in that case that for ldquo levy of duty, we have not to consult the Central Excise Tariff Act but we have to look at the Customs Tariff Act, rdquo as the duty is Excise duty which shall be an amount equal to the aggregate duty of Customs. Even in that decision the Customs Tariff Act provided levy of duty 25 on soft waste of cotton but in view of Notification No. 2/95-C.E. dated 4-1-1995, the effective rate of duty was reduced to 12.5 . In the present matter the Notification provides Nil rate of duty and as such no duty is payable by the Appellants on the cotton waste falling under Heading 52.02 of the Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, we allow appeal filed by the appellant.
-
2000 (10) TMI 405 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... aflet it is clearly mentioned that it measures electricity. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The remote terminal unit which is installed at the existing Watt-hour meter does the function of optical reading of electricity which has been consumed by a consumer. Such reading is transmitted through the power line to the Concentrator. The ld. Advocate has rightly pointed out that the Explanatory Notes of HSN provides that chapter 90 covers as functional units the electrical instruments which make up an analogue or digital telemetring system. Notes below Heading 85.17 clearly excludes such system from the purview of heading 85.17. As the impugned goods are combined as a single unit with the apparatus at the transmitting end as well as devices at the receiving end, in the light of Note 3 to Chapter 90, the impugned goods are to be considered as a functional unit, falling under Heading 90.28 only. Accordingly the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 404 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ccepted that the shell which is ultimately mounted on the shaft is manufactured by the respondents, even then this process will not suffer any excise duty. The court further held in that case that the shell was only an intermediate product. The Customer does not place order for the manufacture of a shell. The shell is not sold separately in the market. In view of the above specific finding of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is binding on us, the review order by the Board cannot be accepted as legal. There is no material produced in the review order regarding the commercial marketability of the shell. It questions separately as identifiable product, without a basis and also there is no material available as to why the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. cannot be granted to these cascading (shells) as per Board Circular No. 225/59/96-CX., dated 1-7-1996. Hence we reject the appeal of the department and dismiss the same upholding the impugned order.
-
2000 (10) TMI 403 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Provisional assessment - Finalisation of ... ... ... ... ..... tion, if any sum is going to the assessee, the proper officer should refund the same and if anything falls short, the proper officer should make a demand. Thus, the responsibility was cast upon the Asstt. Collector to conduct this particular exercise and to arrive at the sum finally payable after assessment. He has disregarded what was going to the assessee. The order is, thus, unsustainable. 4. emsp We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the proceedings back to the Asstt. Commissioner with direction that he shall give the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. The assessee shall present to him their calculation as to what is due to them during the period. The Asstt. Collector shall verify the statistics and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. emsp In view of the substantial period has been elapsed, we expect the Asstt. Commissioner to complete this proceeding within a month of the receipt of this order.
-
2000 (10) TMI 402 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Customs house agent licence - Renewal of ... ... ... ... ..... proprietary firm it did not have an identity separate from that of its proprietor. The licence therefore automatically lapsed. Therefore there is no licence for renewal on January, 1997. Advocate for the appellant says that in identical circumstances renewal has been permitted by the Bombay Customs House. On seeing the relevant document we are unable to agree. The document that has been produced before us indicates that Ms. Nalini Vazirani (the daughter of Vashindas Vazirani) was allowed to transact business temporarily as Customs House Agent. It is true that this document mentions M/s. Vinsons. Even if we accept the contention of the advocate for the appellant that the Custom House renewed the licence in the name of some other person we do not see how such an act which appears to be a patent illegality binds upon us in carrying out our functions. The Tribunal is not governed by the wrong practice (that is what it appears to be) of the Customs House. 3. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 401 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... applied. It is being mixed at a place away from the site where it is to be applied. So, the Board s circular relied on by the Learned Counsel representing the appellants cannot apply to the facts on hand. 4. emsp On going through the papers, and hearing the learned Counsels representing the appellants and the Learned Departmental Representative, we are prima facie inclined to take a view that the ready mix concrete dealt with by the adjudicating authority in the instant case is covered by Board rsquo s Circular No. 315/31/97-CX dated 23-5-97. In that view, prima facie, the so-called product is fully exempt from duty as per Notification 4/97 dated 1-3-97. Consequently we stay operation of the order impugned in these appeals and direct the respondent not to take any coercive step for realising the amount covered by the orders impugned until further orders. Condition of pre-deposit as contemplated by Section 35F of the Act is waived. Appeals are posted for hearing on 14-12-2000.
-
2000 (10) TMI 400 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... refore ordered the payment of the refund claimed. The department appeals this order. 3. emsp The ground in the appeal that the Appendix to the notification contained provision that the grant of permission contained in the CT3 certificate shall expire on 31st December every year, and that therefore the certificate was not valid for claiming the exemption has to be accepted. However it is clear that this certificate has in fact been renewed. A copy of a certificate dated 28-1-1993 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bagalkot, where 100 EOU is located, produced by the advocate of the appellant, shows the receipt and use by the 100 EOU of a consignment of compressors sent by the appellant before me. The goods were sent by the respondent on 5-1-1993, that is, when the certificate for the previous year had expired, but had not yet been renewed. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s order. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
............
|
