|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal - Evidence - Admissibility ... ... ... ... ..... ce show two clearances, one on payment of duty, and another without payment of duty. We are also satisfied that the Commissioner rsquo s findings based on the instances referred to in paragraph 10 of the impugned order clearly go to establish the modus operandi adopted by the appellants for clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots. It is pertinent to note that the Director of the appellant firm could not explain as to how the same Challan was used more than once. As regards the excess quantity of 6.950 M.T. of MS Ingots also, the appellants had not been able to give any explanation excepting that the said quantity had reached marketable stage and was about to be entered in the RG 1 Register. As has been held by the Tribunal in Ganga Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (40) E.L.T. 102 , Rule 173Q is attracted in such cases. 9. emsp In view of the above we find no scope for interfering with the impugned order. The same is as a result upheld and the Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n his behalf by his agent. The slot charterer himself is neither the master nor his agent. If the slot charterer failed to intimate the master the details of the containers, that is a matter between the slot charterer and the master of the ship. In the absence of provisions in this regard it is not a matter concerning the customs department. Much less is the customs department concerned with the activity of the local agent of the charterer. Further the manifest itself was permitted to be amended and the cargo cleared. The contention of the Departmental Representative that the penalty has been imposed for the reason that the slot charterer omitted to supply the particulars to the master of the vessel hardly calls for an answer. It is in any case not explained why the local agent was subjected to penalty when the slot charterer himself was not penalised. We find that the penalty is without basis whatsoever. 4. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (12) TMI 218 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Redemption of goods - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... oner has decided the case without referring to the said prayer of the applicant/appellant. If the working sheet were not available, an intimation to that effect should have been given to the applicants before the adjudication of the case instead of keeping silent on their request. I also find force in the ld. Advocate rsquo s submissions that the various pleas and contentions raised by them have not been dealt with by the adjudicating authority. Further, I find force in the submissions of the ld. Advocate that as per the provisions of Section 34, the Commissioner should have given an option to the appellant for redeeming the goods on payment of redemption fine as may be found fit by her in the facts and circumstances of the case. For all these reasons, I hold that the matter is required to be remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication in the light of the observations made above. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and remand the case for fresh adjudication.
-
1998 (12) TMI 217 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... issued by a dealer, which established duty paying character of the goods, cannot be made to suffer. The dealer may therefore be taken to task for the lapse of not having the godown for the receipt, storage, and despatch of the goods, but since this requirement has no bearing on the duty paying character of the goods, the failure to comply with the requirement of Trade Notice could not render the invoice invalid. In any case, this reason cannot be taken as a basis for treating these invoices as invalid documents for Modvat credit when issued prior to the said trade notice. However, the receipt and utilisation of the goods needs to be ascertained by means of documentary evidence of transportation like lorry receipt, octroi receipt, payment particulars to the transporters, factory gate receipt and its actual utilisation in the manufacture of the final products in the appellants, own factory. 7. emsp Appeals are disposed of as per the directions contained in this Order-in-Appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... e set aside. rdquo The lower authority has rightly followed the judgment in the case of J and K Synthetics and that is the decision given by Two Members Bench. The grounds made out by the department, to my mind is quite inappropriate to the facts of the case. The ground made is regarding the reference to the judgment of East Punjab Traders with reference to import policy, which is not in respect of legislation. In the case of J and K Synthetics, Hon rsquo ble Members referred to the Budget Speech made by the Finance Minister, which is absent in the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court case and therefore, I am of the view that the said judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. I am bound by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J and K Synthetics. I, therefore, dismiss the grounds made by the department and dismiss the appeal following judgment of the Tribunal in the case of J and K Synthetics. 4. emsp The appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 215 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Handicrafts ... ... ... ... ..... een specifically mentioned about the sales tax, value of resale of the goods repair and labour charges should not be considered for calculation for determination of assessable value. The Chartered Accountant has clearly given the certificate which is at page 96 of the paper book and there is no discussion of the same by the Collector in the impugned order. 7. emsp We therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Louis Shoppe - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 13 set aside the impugned order with a direction that the test laid down by the Supreme Court has to be looked into with reference to facts of the case and adjudicating authority has to give a specific finding as indicated in the instant order. In doing so the adjudicating authority has to look into the reply filed by the appellant on 24-2-1992 especially para 14 and 15 and thereof along with the certificate issued by the chartered accountant and give a definite finding. 8. emsp Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1998 (12) TMI 214 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Dolomite - entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... d not be made by this Bench inasmuch as the question whether the reming mass is entitled to benefit of Modvat credit (or of Notification No. 217/86) has been referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madras in the case of Andhra Steel Corporation v. C.C.E., Bangalore - 1996 (83) E.L.T 404. He therefore prays that the stay petition be allowed inasmuch as the matter is still under consideration of the Madras High Court. 6. emsp We have considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We are unable to accede to the prayer of the ld. JDR for the Revenue. Reference on a question of law to High Court does not call for the prayer that he has made. There is already a judgment of five Member Bench of this Tribunal in favour of the respondents herein. We are bound by that judgment. Consequently we do not find any substance in the Revenue rsquo s appeals. Hence we dismiss the appeals as such. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing dismissal of appeals, stay petitions also get disposed of.
-
1998 (12) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... f final product rdquo . We find that the Hon rsquo ble High Court came to the conclusion that Ramming mass and Kalminax Sleeves are parts of machinery. Beyond that they did not examine whether parts of a machine are covered by the exclusion clause or not. However, the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Limited (supra) had examined this aspect and came to the conclusion that apart or parts of machinery are not covered by the exclusion clause under the explanation to Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and hence are eligible inputs for Modvat credit. Thus, the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Karnataka High Court is distinguishable. 19. emsp Having regard to this aspect, we find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the Appellants and hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on the items as indicated above except the items for which we have specifically held that no Modvat credit will be admissible. 20. emsp The 23 Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... only technical experts can certify. Furthermore, the adjudication authority has given reasons as to why even this certificate was not acceptable and he was right. In their written submissions, the respondents have repeatedly asserted that they have produced evidence in support of their contentions but none of that material has been filed before us and none has been enclosed with the written submissions and they have not caused any appearance to explain their point of view. In the above circumstances their contentions remain unsubstantiated and we have no reason to interfere with the order of the Assistant Collector. 9. emsp Ld. Collector (Appeals) has, therefore, erred in merely relying on Chartered Accountants rsquo certificate and considering it sufficient for the purpose of determining the assessable value. In the above facts and circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assistant Collector. The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 211 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Non-submission of invoices alongwith RT 12 returns ... ... ... ... ..... e documents in question. Instead of doing the needful the Superintendent issued a show cause notice alleging contravention of the provisions of Rule 57G(4) and for imposition of penalty on the appellants. No doubt Rule 57G(4) requires the appellants to file the invoices along with their returns, nevertheless the appellants being new entrant was required to be properly guided by their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities especially when he is making a request to the Superintendent for fixing a date for defacing the original documents. Instead of directing the appellants to file the invoices with monthly returns, notices for penal action have been issued to them. I do not find any justification in the Orders of the authorities below to impose penalty upon the appellants, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this particular case. Accordingly I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal. As the appeal itself has been allowed, stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
1998 (12) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of suspension of licence of Customs House Agent - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... , 1982 also a provision exists in the form of Rule 41 whereby the Tribunal is competent to make order or give appropriate directions to prevent abuse of its process or to secure ends of justice. 7. emsp On reading the order we find that there was considerable time gap between detection of excess valuation and the need to take ldquo immediate action rdquo . From the narration we are not able to co-relate the action on part of the exporter in over-invoicing the goods to any action taken by the present applicant. Thus, on the face of the order also we find no reason to resort to the extra-ordinary action provided for in the said Regulation. 8. emsp In view of our finding we stay the operation of the order. The applicant shall be permitted to continue their business as Custom House Agents during the pendency of the appeal. 9. emsp We make it clear that this order would not operate as a bar for the Commissioner to proceed with the enquiries contemplated under the same Regulations.
-
1998 (12) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Advance licence ... ... ... ... ..... . Ltd. dealt with whether cashew shells used in kiln were consumed in the manufacture of other goods. In the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, each of these expressions had a different significance and scope of the expression which we are concerned with. These judgments are not, therefore, relevant to the present case. It would also be not correct to say that the Supreme Court in Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. has decided upon the eligibility of the goods considered before it to the Notification without taking note of the distinction between the two phrases. The reading of the judgment immediately shows that the Supreme Court did note of the distinction between the two phrases. 11. emsp The contention that the Supreme Court did not have occasion to consider as to the requirement of condition (d) of the Notification is not relevant. The notice did not allege a contravention of this condition. 12. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside with consequential relief.
-
1998 (12) TMI 208 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
SSI Exemption - Dummy manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... h may go to prove that the funding was common or there was financial flow back. For treating one unit as a dummy unit of the other, and it is essential that there should be mutuality of interest as also common funding and financial flow back. No evidence was brought to our notice to prove that the sale proceeds of one unit were going to the account of the other unit or both the units were drawing upon funds from the same source. Even if funding is common, the flow back is essential to establish that one unit is a dummy of the other which has not been proved. In view of above analysis of the evidence and the case law cited we find that all the aspects of the case are fully covered by the decisions cited above. Following the ratio of the above decisions and in view of the above discussions we hold that the two units are independent of each other and therefore clubbing of their clearances is not permissible in the circumstances of the case. In the result the appeals are allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI.
Confiscation of gold, silver and conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... sent case. Lower appellate authorities observation that the said Circular of the Board has no force inasmuch as the Customs Act, 1962 gives powers to the Inspector of Customs to effect the seizure of silver which is liable to confiscation, in my view, is a statement which cannot be countenanced. C.B.E. and C. is the Chief Customs authority administering the Customs Act. Directions issued by it are binding on all subordinate authorities except the appellate authority under the Act. It will cause chaos in administration of the Customs Act if some officers at enforcement level obey the instructions of the Board and some do not. 12. emsp Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the goods are not at all liable to confiscation. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Gold, silver and car are ordered to be released. Penalty imposed on the appellants herein are set aside. In short appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (12) TMI 206 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure of Indian currency ... ... ... ... ..... pport of his submissions he relied upon the following decisions - (1) emsp Tarsem Kumar v C.I.T. and Ors. - I.T. 1974 ITR (94) 567 (P and H) (2) emsp C.I.T. v Tarsem Kumar - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) AIR 1986 (S.C.) 1477 2. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR argued in support of the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. emsp Vide the judgments relied upon by the ld. Advocate it has been laid down that the Customs authorities are bound to return the Indian Currency to the same person from whom it was seized, once the proceedings against the accused person are dropped. Any sebsequent action by the Income Tax authorities in respect of the same money was unwarranted as laid down in the judgments relied upon by the ld. Advocate. Accordingly, while upholding the order of release of Indian Currency and setting aside the adjudicating Order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). I set aside the last paragraph of the Order reproduced above. 4. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... per the requirement of the Drugs Act. They had submitted that the Air-conditioner was directly related with the manufacturing/processing of Capsules. 6. emsp I also find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Sunil Synchem Ltd. - 1998 (28) RLT 49 (CEGAT). In that decision, the Tribunal had held that the parts of Air-conditioning plant were essential for the purpose of completion of process of manufacture of Gelatine capsules of pharmaceutical grade and that the Modvat credit in respect of such parts of air-conditioning plant installed in the premises where Gelatine capsules were manufactured, was admissible. 7. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, I do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) with regard to the use of air-conditioner by M/s. Pharmasynth where the capsules in question were produced. As a result, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 204 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ndition only after being packed in the cardboard boxes duly sealed and in view of that fact, the cellotape adhesives were component of the final product. But in the instant case, the marketable condition of the horlics bottle is not along with the steel bowl attached at the lid of the bottle. The same is being affixed as a free supply in regard to promote the sale of horlics to the limited class of overseas buyers. As such, the P.V.C. tubing cannot be considered as an input for the purposes of Rule 57A. Reference by Commissioner (Appeals) to the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Paper Industries reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.) that ldquo anything required to make the goods marketable must form part of manufacture and any material used for the same would component part of the end product rdquo is also appropriate. Accordingly, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the order of the authorities below and upheld the same.
-
1998 (12) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
composition of the blended yarn ... ... ... ... ..... al referred to above in the appellant rsquo s own case. We observe that the issue involved in the present case is whether the re-testings on dry mass basis are necessary to be carried out for determining the composition of the blended yarn on that basis it was found that the composition of the blended yarn is as per the declaration of the appellant rsquo s herein. Consequently following the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the appellant rsquo s own case, referred to above, we allow this appeal after we set aside the impugned order.
-
1998 (12) TMI 202 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... terials has to be seen in the light of the other articles specifically mentioned in the Tariff Entry No. 68.07, i.e. stone, plaster, cement, asbestos and mica. From the description of the goods as given by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal we do not consider that the Bitumen was similar to these products. 5.The appellate authority had classified the goods under sub-heading No. 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered other textile products and articles suitable for industrial use. The appellate authority has referred to the I.S.I. Specification No. IS-1322-1982 and has also referred to the earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 142/Cal-I/92, dated 28-9-1992 of his predecessor. 6. emsp On going through the details of the product and the discussion by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) we find no material on record to take a different view than the one taken by him. 7.As a result we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 201 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... om whom the gold was seized. The presence of foreign markings constituted sufficient material to entertain reasonable belief in the minds of seizing officer that the gold was of foreign origin. The provisions of 123 were therefore rightly invoked. In the event, the appellant has to discharge the burden of proving that gold was not smuggled. Since he has not been able to discharge that burden, presumption which was raised that the gold was foreign origin has been rightly confirmed. 6.The last argument is that the penalty imposed is a composite penalty and was not permissible. This point has to be accepted. The Additional Collector erred in imposing penalty taking note of the fact that Gold (Control) Act has been repealed and the gold has been absolutely confiscated. It would be appropriate to set aside the penalty imposed under the Gold (Control) Act and to confirm Rs. 5,000/- as penalty imposed under the Customs Act. 7.Appeal G/1/98 allowed in part. Appeal C/317/92 dismissed.
............
|
