Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 200 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Paper - Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e, the order of the Assistant Collector levying duty on wrapper under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is illegal and frivolous and is liable to the quashed.. rdquo 9. emsp We find that the ld. Adjudicating Authority had gone by the formula for arriving at the ream weight and had not clearly controverted the submissions made by the respondents which has already been extracted above. 10. emsp The ld. Collector (Appeals) had given a categorical finding that duty was paid on the total weight of the ream cleared from the factory which included the weight of the wrapper. He also observed that the conclusion drawn by the adjudicating authority was not correct. No further material was placed before us to justify any interference in the view taken by the ld. Collector (Appeals), Central Excise. We do not find any ground to disturb this finding of the fact of the adjudicating authority, as a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 199 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... and (iii) destruction charges. We consider that the additional testing charges, if incurred after the clearances of the goods, had not to be taken into account for arriving at the assessable value, subject to verification. Similarly, destruction testing charges which the ld. Advocate explained was to test the overall longivility of the product was not to be taken into account while determining the assessable value. 12. emsp In Appeal No. E(SB) - 4144/93, the duty liability is of Rs. 77,404.63 and penalty of Rs. 7,000/- has been imposed. In Appeal No. E(SB) - 5042/93, the duty liability is of Rs. 2,15,394/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the amounts of penalties imposed in both the appeals. 13.Subject to our above observations with regard to additional testing charges and destruction testing charges, both the appeals are otherwise rejected. We order accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Bus seat and back rest being parts of non-wooden furniture is not covered under Notification No. 80/90-C.E.
-
1998 (12) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... called as having basis of coffee and therefore, classifiable under Sub-heading 2101.10. I also observe that the product as the name suggest is concentrated coffee blended with chicory (soluble coffee chicory blend) and not roasted chicory blended with coffee as claimed now in appeal. Further to above, if the classification of the product mixutre consisting coffee in predominance (70 ) which also gives its essential character/taste to the product, is viewed in light of the Rules for interpretation to the Central Excise the appropriate classification of the subject goods would be under sub-heading 2101.10. rdquo The appellants have not satisfactorily established that CET sub-heading 2101.10 covers only products of pure coffee and since the product contains 70 coffee alongwith 30 chicory, it has rightly been treated as preparation with basis of coffee. Hence we do not interfere with order with which we concur. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import of car ... ... ... ... ..... on of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. At the same time, however, we note that the car had run more than 7,000 kms. in the two years, in which it was in the importer rsquo s possession, about 300 kms. per month. This shows the evidence of use of the car. We do not find unreasonable, the contention raised on behalf of the importer that he was provided transportation by his employer for his work, and therefore, used the car sparingly, by making use of the services of his friends to drive the car on the occasions when he used it. Such instances of friends driving another rsquo s car are not unknown or unacceptable. It is not as if this car has been purchased and stored merely for taking the benefit of the public notice. It has been put to use, even if sparingly. The public notice does not prescribe a minimum extent of use and only says that the car must have been in use of the importer. We are satisfied that this requirement has been fulfilled. 4.Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... shows that nowhere is there any word or phrase to specify that it is clarificatory in nature or that it applies with retrospective effect. Therefore, as per settled law, we refuse to read any intendment in it and the respondent rsquo s plea on this account fail. Respondents in their cross appeal cite some circular of the Board. This Tribunal is not bound by it and would only consider the wording of the said notification. 7. emsp Following the same, I accept grounds made by the department. However, in respect of items at Sl. No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 they are used in post carding operation. Hence, following the said judgment of the Tribunal in Singaravellar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 630 (Tribunal) 1998 (28) RLT 872 and the judgment of the Tribunal in Kandagiri Spinning Mills Ltd., I allow the appeal in respect of Carding machine and Spare parts of blow room. As far as remaining items are concerned, I dismiss the same. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 194 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... nly lsquo U rsquo shape is not a square shape. Nor a square shape having a U rsquo shape on opposite sides namely one U rsquo and Inverse U rsquo also cannot be considered as a square as given in the definition. We are, therefore, satisfied with the plea of ld. JDR that product is classifiable as other rsquo profile under Tariff Heading 7407.29 given in the Chapter Note 1(f) of Chapter 74, it cannot be classified as lsquo wire rsquo under Tariff Heading 7408.11. It has been rightly classified under Tariff sub-heading 7407.29 as other profiles. 4. emsp Before parting with this order, ld. Advocate has attempted to justify the case of the appellants on the commercial nomenclature as also of essential character of the goods and ISI too. In our view, those are not the material points in view of the statutory definition for the profiles and wire in the schedule of CETA, 1985. 5.No other points have been pressed before us by the appellants, therefore, we dismiss the appeal as above.
-
1998 (12) TMI 193 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... sed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding finalisation of all classification lists. We agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate, Shri P.K. Dutta that the Tribunal, in its order dated 29-6-1998 has dealt with all classification lists independently. The point argued by the appellants is merely an empty formality when, soonafter, the appellants were issued the show cause notices under Section 11A which has led to the other appeals and those appeals have been dealt with in details in the Tribunal rsquo s order dated 29-6-1998. We are, therefore, of the view that this is an issue which is not an error apparent from the record. Therefore, we dismiss these points taken up by the appellants/applicants in their application. 10.Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in the above manner. 11.Since the Miscellaneous Application has been disposed of, the Stay Petition also gets disposed of because the Stay Petition has been filed pending decision on the Miscellaneous Application.
-
1998 (12) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... eligible for the concessional rate of duty. The ld. Collector of Customs had extended the benefit as applicable to light sensitive time switches for street light controls. It is clear from the Order of the Asstt. Collector of Customs that the goods were meant for use along with a Pace Maker. This has also been indicated in the Invoice where the goods had been described as Electronic Items - Programmers for Pace-makers Type LS38 3 x 16 Amps 110/220 Volts. In the bill of entry, asse- ssable value of Rs. 1,00,855/- has been given for 582 pieces weighing 754 kgs. 6. emsp From the product description and from the discussion on record, we do not consider that the view taken by the ld. Collector that the goods were light sensitive for street light controls was correct. 7. emsp After taking into account the relevant facts and considerations, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals). As a result, both these appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Adjudication - Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... er of Molasses with a copy to the Resident Inspector, Central Excise Range. From the said letter it is apparent that the molasses of 1986-87 season had deteriorated to below grade molasses. It is for this reason that the appellants had filed an application in February 1989 before the Collector for remission of duty inasmuch as the molasses of both 1986-87 and 1987-88 season lying within their factory had become unfit for human consumption. That application is still reported to be pending. In the absence of disposal of that application before the Commissioner it was not competent for the adjudicating authority to issue a show cause notice and decide the present case, as has been done. On this count as well, the demand of duty is not correct in law. 5.4 emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in demand of duty as confirmed by the lower authorities. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (12) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... e amount of duty. 5.Heard the submissions of both sides. Unit of the applicants is closed. The applicants are SSI unit and do not have resources enough to pay the entire amount of duty. Looking to this fact, I direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 lac on or before 12-2-1999. I also observe that the applicants had already deposited Rs. 2 lac, if that be so they will deposit only the balance of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 12-2-1999. Compliance of this order should be reported by 19-2-1999. In case the applicants have already deposited Rs. 2 lac provisionally for the month of September, 1997 and September, 1998 then they will not withdraw this amount unless the appeal is decided by the Tribunal. 6. emsp On compliance of this order, deposit/recovery of the balance amount of duty shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Non-compliance of the order shall lead dismissal of the appeal without any further notice. Stay petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 189 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... company. The applicant resumed the duties sometime in September last week. I could very well imagine if he had filed the appeal in first week of October, it should show bona fideness. In the application he does not say what prevented him from filing the appeal for nearly one-and-half months. The learned advocate argued before me that he was in grief because of the demise of his father. Everybody has grief to loose his parents, but that grief cannot force him to file in a much belated way especially the time was already over. I am not convinced of the reasons. Hence, I dismiss the COD. Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. I also dismiss the appeal. 2. emsp Appeal stands dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 188 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... Consultant reiterates the same contentions raised before the lower authorities, before us and invited our attention to the various decisions including the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Polychem Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 156. The ld. Consultant also argued that there is a resource crunch and the appellant has incurred already a loss of Rs. 70.00 crores. He also contended that part of the demand is barred by limitation. 4. emsp The departmental representative, as against this, argues reiterating the grounds mentioned in the orders of the authorities below. 5. emsp We have considered the rival considerations. Prima facie we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case. However, to safeguard the revenue, we direct the appellant to freeze a sum of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs in their RG 23A or RG 23C account within one month from today. On such a freezing as indicated above there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of its recovery. Compliance on 28-12-1998.
-
1998 (12) TMI 187 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... tructions to deliver the blocks directly to the assessee or in some cases assessees get the block prepared and sell the same to the customer without profit. The blocks are repeatedly used for several times, till the customer requires and the same does not get into the finished goods. The question is whether the value of such finished material added to the value of the printed cartons. The question is not res integra. It has been held by this Bench in M/s. Velpack Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-I in Appeal No. E/6222/92-A that the value of the printed block cannot be added to the valuation of the printed cartons. Hence following the said order we allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.
-
1998 (12) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... y on the above issue and Revenue rsquo s appeal has already been dismissed by the Apex Court. We are, therefore, of the view that this matter is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. 7. emsp Another distinguishing feature in the present case is that the goods rsquo carry the appellant rsquo s own brand name Osama rsquo . Sony rsquo appearing on the dial of the radio cassette recorder is incidental to the use of the said imported part and the Radio Cassette Recorder as such cannot be considered to have the trade name Sony rsquo affixed on it in the face of the other brand name Osama rsquo on it. The goods in question cannot be said have been identified with the radio cassette recorder affixed with brand name Sony rsquo , as held by the Apex Court in Paliwal Electricals - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) 1996 (64) ECR 312 (S.C.) . 8. emsp Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with the consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1998 (12) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... he State Government purported to act under Rule 4(3) of the Rules in issuing the impugned notification is of no consequence. When the source of power can be validly traced then the State action in the exercise of such power cannot be struck down on the ground that it was levelled under a different position rdquo . The Tribunal following the said judgment upheld the levy of penalty. The judgment of Agarwal Udyog rendered in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 133 also held that as long as reading of the order makes it clear as to which sub-clause of Section 112 is relied upon for the purpose of imposition of penalty specific non-mention will not be fatal to the case of the department. 5. emsp In the instant case I am of the view that the penalty can be invoked in this case under Section 112(b) of the Act. As long as this can be identified easily the impugned order cannot be vitiated. Hence, in my view the argument of the learned Counsel Shri Jerry Lewis cannot be accepted. Appeals are dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Lamps and light fittings - Eligibility to Notification No. 96/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... JDR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. As regards to applicability of the circular, learned JDR states that this was not available to the adjudicating officer. He has no objection to the matter being remanded. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advance from both the sides. 5. emsp We are inclined to agree with the submission of the learned JDR Shri A.M. Tilak for the Revenue. Since this circular was not available at the time of adjudication and yet it clarifies the scope of Notification 96/86-C.E., inasmuch both Notifications 80/90-C.E. and 96/86-C.E. are pari materia, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority should readjudicate the matter in the light of this circular treating it to be as applicable to the products in question if those products otherwise fulfill the condition of this circular. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and matter is remanded for readjudication in the light of the aforesaid direction.
-
1998 (12) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... s net price to the wholsale dealer was not feasible because the certificate dated 23-9-1994 was issued from the manufacturers rsquo Marketing Department fro Middle East and Africa indicating gross FOB price to the dealer, intimated by the manufacturer is not net price to wholesale dealer. He therefore, submits that the Department went by the invoice price and this is permissible and there is no reason to hold that the invoice price cannot be accepted. 3. emsp On consideration of submissions from both the sides, we agree with the ld. JDR that it is not possible to accept the manufacturer rsquo s price as can be seen from the Certificate, as a basis for valuation, in view of the reasons contained in the adjudication order and that the Department had rightly accepted the invoice price for the basis of assessments. In this view of the matter, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the order of the lower appellate authority and uphold the same. The appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... dity. Reliance placed by the ld. Advocate on Tribunals judgment in the case of Adreena Industries is well taken and following the same way hold that the fabric under consideration is not a processed fabric. Consequently the product will be entitled to the benefit of Notification 109/86-C.E. read with Tariff Heading 52.05 because in the fabric as a whole cotton fibre predominates and the explanation to the Notification 109/86 comes into play for the purpose of determining the rate of duty under the Notification. Since we have held that the benefit of Notification 109/86-C.E. is applicabe to the product under consideration during the relevant period the demand of duty is set aside. 7. emsp In view of our decision as aforesaid we do not consider it necessary to look into the question whether the demand is time barred or not. 8. emsp In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no case for imposing any penalty. Therefore, we set aside the same. Appeal disposed of in above manner.
-
1998 (12) TMI 181 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Re-export - Option not availble to smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... emption fine to be Rs. 2.50 lakhs in the case of gold imported by Geeta Maciejovsky and Rs. 6 lakhs in the case of gold imported by Mohini Bhatia. On payment of such fine within 3 months from the receipt of this order the gold may be cleared for home consumption. We have not acceded to the request made for re-export of the gold. In view of the discussions as to the circumstances in which the gold was attempted to be cleared without declaration, and in the case of Mohini Bhatia actually so cleared, we do not think the appellants should be put in the advantageous position of starting at square one. The conduct of the appellants does not justify grant of re-export. 17. emsp We consider that the penalty imposed of Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs on Mohini Bhatia and Geeta Maciejovsky are in commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by each of them and the role played by each of them and the value of the gold seized. 18. emsp Appeals allowed in part. Consequential relief.
............
|