|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 308 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clasisifcation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 11A of the Central Excise Act is not available to the Department for demanding duty. The Respondents have filed classification list which had been approved by the Competent Officer. In such a situation it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that there was suppression of facts by the Respondents. If the Revenue wanted to know the details regarding functioning of the impugned product before approving the classification list, the Department could have called for the same from the Respondents. The Department cannot demand duty for extended period by alleging that a detail regarding functioning of the product was not given with the classification list. The duty will be demandable only for the period of six months prior to the date of issue of show cause notice. The decision in the case of Cotspun Ltd, Supra is not applicable as the Respondents have not brought on record classification list for 1990-91 duly approved by the Departments. 9. emsp The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 307 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ct. It is well settled that the Central Excise authorities are not expected to go behind the certificate issued on other enactments by the competent authority empowered thereunder. rdquo hellip hellip hellip 6. emsp e also observe from the perusal of the said order that Tribunal also gave its findings to the effect that the Department cannot be including the person who had come for repairing job as a worker that some of the witnesses who were cross examined have also not supported the department rsquo s case that ldquo in these circumstances the demand for duty on the ground that the Appellants fall within the definition of lsquo factory rsquo under the Factories Act is not well founded and is not based on tangible evidence. rdquo Once the Tribunal has held that the respondents are not factory within the meaning assigned in the Factories Act the question of confirmation of demand for extended period does not arise. In view of this, the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 306 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Early hearing when recallable ... ... ... ... ..... ground that senior counsel engaged would be available only on Fridays, and therefore he is not available. The request is also made for adjournment so that this matter could be clubbed for early hearing with some other case. 2. emsp We find that the appellants after prevailing upon the Tribunal to grant out of turn hearing have advanced some frivolous grounds for adjournment. This bunch of cases is adjourned with the direction that they be posted for hearing in the normal course.
-
1999 (12) TMI 305 - CEGAT,MUMBAI
Appeal - Memorandum of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... d by rules made in this behalf. These rules are called the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Rule 8(3) prescribes that the appeal memorandum should be signed and verified by the appellant personally. The same is the requirement for any application made in terms of the provisions relating to the appeal. In the present case the appeal memorandum has been signed by the advocate for the appellant. The application for condonation has similarly been signed by the advocate. The appeal and the applications are defective. 3. emsp Registry to issue notice under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules asking the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for such defects.
-
1999 (12) TMI 283 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... or any other person said to have been handling the matter to prove the contentions raised. The matter had been adjourned for more than four occasions giving opportunity to the new Consultant Sri M. Chidananda Rao to file an affidavit to support the case, as the matter said to have been entrusted to Sri Lalit Mohan Chandra, while the present Consultant now engaged is Sri Chidananda Rao. Despite several opportunities given, no affidavits have been filed except the appellant vide his letter dated 28.12.1999 seeking adjournment of the case. 2. emsp As sufficient opportunities have been given and the appellants have not taken due care to explain the delay, except to say that the matter had been entrusted to one advocate and later re-entrusted to the other, the details of entrusted date chart and affidavit have not been filed and therefore, the application for COD is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed as time barred and as a consequence the stay application is also rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... terials by a process involving a change of temperature. This requirement is not being fulfilled by the condensers and cooling coils in question. We also agree with the submissions of the learned DR that the Collector (Appeals) has not mentioned any reasons to arrive at the conclusion that these products were used only in the manufacture of air-conditioners. The learned DR had also referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes according to which condensers are classifiable under Heading 84.18. The HSN Explanatory Notes mentions that the condensers as liquifiers where the gas is cooled and liquified are classifiable under Heading 84.18. This was the function which was observed by the Assistant Collector in his adjudication order. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances and the classification in the HSN Explanatory Notes, we agree with the Department that the condensers and cooling coils are to be classified under Heading 84.18 and accordingly allow both the appeals.
-
1999 (12) TMI 281 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... hat during the relevant period Rule 57G permitted having Modvat credit on original invoice and hence the issue is totally covered in favour of the appellants. Further I notice that the aspect pertaining to filing of declaration and correct particulars has not been seriously questioned by the Commissioner in his appeal and I take it that during the relevant period there was no dispute with regard to filing of declaration, but only a minor variation in writing had occurred in the declaration with regard to the description of the item lsquo Spindle Tape rsquo which has been handwritten and in remarks column, lsquo M/s. Janaka Systems rsquo had been handwritten. This has been verified by the Superintendent and already certified. There is not much of dispute left on this point for consideration and I accept the plea of the appellants that the declaration was in order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1999 (12) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Remission of duty - Warehoused goods ... ... ... ... ..... tion 23. The Court said that the point of time before which the right can be exercised is the passing of the order of clearance of the goods for home consumption before that is done, it is open for the importer to relinquish the title. Even in case, where a demand is made by the Assistant Collector under Section 72(1)(b) of the Act, it is open for the importer to relinquish the title to the imported goods provided an order for consumption is not passed. 4. emsp These observations of the Court very much apply to the facts before us. It is not in dispute that even though the bond period had expired, no order for home consumption had been passed. As a matter of fact, the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the goods had themselves been taken over by the department on an auction which supports the view that the title to the goods have been passed on to the department from the importer, is not challenged. 5. emsp We therefore see no reason to interfere, and dismiss the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CTD bars and twisted bars covered by Exemption Notification No. 202/88-C.E., ... ... ... ... ..... er on by Notification, dated 2-9-1978 whereby that condition was deleted. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that later notification, dated 2-9-1978 was not merely clarificatory nor did have any retrospective effect and that it was a fresh notification laying down fresh condition deleting earlier condition No. 2 about colour specification for tallow. It is on this reasoning that the Apex Court held that the disputed imports were not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 141/76, as it stood prior to its amendment on 2-9-1978. In the present case however, the expression lsquo but including those twisted after rolling rsquo existed in the notification prior to 20-5-1988 and was re-introduced on 16-8-1989 and thus was not a fresh condition. 5. emsp Following the ratio of the Apex Steels decision (supra), we hold that the goods in dispute are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e predominance in weight or volume does not confer essential character on the goods and what is to be seen is the purpose for which the material is used. It referred to the definition of the term ldquo leather cloth rdquo and rexine in the textile dictionary and that the Explanation that this cloth is made to stimulate various kinds of leather, for which plastic coating is essential. The classification claimed by the appellant therefore has to be accepted. 4. emsp Appeals allowed. Impugned orders set aside. Corrigendum to 2000 (117) E.L.T. 548 (Tribunal) In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Midi Tools (P) Ltd. printed at page 548 of Excise Law Times for 1st May, 2000 (Vol. 117 Part 3), the Members rsquo name given above the cause Title may be read as ldquo S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J), Lajja Ram, Member (T), A.C.C. Unni, Member (J), P.S. Bajaj, Member (J) and G.R. Sharma, Member (T) rdquo . The inconvenience caused due to this misprint is regretted.
-
1999 (12) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... ction is not sufficient evidence that the applicant is a sick unit. The next contention that the provisions of Section 129E did not confer power to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the order is also not acceptable. It is now settled that if the stay order is not complied with the appeal has to be dismissed. The Supreme Court observed in Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise and Customs - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 679 that an appeal cannot be kept indefinitely merely because the stay order has not been complied with. 3. emsp We therefore dismiss the application.
-
1999 (12) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reflector - Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 62/86-C.E. is not available ... ... ... ... ..... t parts of parts are also parts, as held in Bajaj Auto case, supra, does not help the case of the respondents. Notification No. ensp 63/86 only exempts accessories and not the parts of accessories. When the notification is silent about the exemption to the parts of accessories, the benefit cannot be extended to the parts of the accessories. It is settled law that when the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject. (Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.). The facts in the case of M.P. (I) Ltd., supra, are different as the tyre is a part of the cycle which is not so in the present matter and as such ratio of that decision is not applicable. Accordingly, we hold that the benefit of Notification No. ensp 62/86 is not available to Reflector manufactured by the respondents and accordingly the appeal filed by revenue is allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Watch straps and watch bands - Benefit of Notification No. 72/86-C.E. not available ... ... ... ... ..... watches, watch cases, watch straps, watch bands etc. were classifiable. We find that under heading No. 91.13, the watch straps, watch bands, and watch bracelets and parts thereof have been specifically described. The Notification No. 72/86-C.E. covered watch components. As the watch straps and watch bands cannot be considered as watch components, the benefit of Notification No. 72/86-C.E. was not available to the watch straps and watch bands when they were cleared independently. They could be considered as accessories and not the watch components. After taking into account the express wordings of the exemption notification, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the watch straps and watch bands were parts or components of watch. We are not concerned with the rest of the findings of the appellate authority. 3. emsp In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Export of goods under bond without payment of duty - ... ... ... ... ..... ibunal in the case of Dinpdhwala Resin v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 451. He, therefore, prayed that these appeals may be rejected. 5. emsp We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused various decisions of this Tribunal and the two decisions cited and relied upon by the assessee. We find that Notification No. 49/94 was issued under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which permitted export of goods under Bond without payment of duty. Without payment of duty is not the same thing as goods wholly exempt or goods chargeable Nil rate of duty, therefore, the provisions of Rule 57C are not attracted. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dinpdhwala Resin was applicable. Following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal cited by the appellant, we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible to the assessee on the inputs. In this view of the matter, the appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... me terms. 3. emsp Regarding classification of products at Sl. Nos. 3 and 4 above, we are of the view that the authorities below have rightly classified them under CET Sub-heading 8543.00 as ldquo electrical machines and apparatus having individual function, not specified or included in this Chapter rdquo , since both the machines have electric motor as inbuilt mechanism and their function is exclusively to wind pancakes on hub and applying screws on audio cassettes pneumatically and that the plea of the assessees for classification under CET Heading 8479.00 as ldquo machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter rdquo is not acceptable, since both machines are in the nature of electrical machines more specifically covered under Chapter 85. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on classification of items at Sl. Nos. 3 and 4. 4. emsp In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by remand and partly rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... n and sales or on management control and special financial relationship existing between the units or profit sharing or financial flow back. If the combination of circumstances create a pattern indicative of the clearances from the plurality of units being made by ldquo a manufacturer clubbing is warranted. rdquo 5. In the present case, Shri Babu Ram Verma, in his statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, admitted the fact that the sale invoices of M/s. Freezland were signed by him. Before the adjudicating authority, the appellants also admitted that substantially common labour is used for manufacture of goods in both the units. The appellants are also not denying the fact that after the starting of manufacturing of goods, M/s. Freezland also shifted to the same premises on which M/s. Verma Frost was situated. Therefore, in view of common control of management and sales, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals, filed by the appellants are rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification - Confiscation and penalty
... ... ... ... ..... produced before us by the appellants refer to Silvertech car body covers of about the same value at which the goods have been imported. We are, therefore, unable to accept the appeal with regard to valuation. In the result the appeal is allowed to the extent that the Commissioner (Appeals) order classifying the goods under ITC purpose is not approved and classification being under Heading 6307.90. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. 7. emsp We would like a copy of this order to be sent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs to examine for what reason there was to detain this consignment for more than a year when identical consignments were being released prior to and subsequent to the import of the seized consignment. 8. emsp In view of the delay that has taken place it is hoped that the consignments covered under these two bills of entry under consideration are released promptly in accordance with our order, if the normal practice so warrants detention certificates are issued.
-
1999 (12) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ger Bench of the Tribunal. The facts and circumstances of this case do not throw up any issue to be referred to a Larger Bench. Therefore, the prayer of the learned JDR for reference cannot be acceded to. 11. emsp On the basis of the findings given hereinbefore, I hold that the input credit of Rs. 10,745/- and the capital goods credit of Rs. 17,638.52 taken by the appellants are in order, while the input credit of Rs. 1,645/- on lsquo floculating agent rsquo , taken by the party is not so. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall stand modified to this extent. Since there was no allegation in the show cause notice that the party had taken Modvat credits with any mala fide intention, the imposition of penalty on them by the adjudicating authority and the confirmation thereof by the lower appellate authority cannot be sustained. Hence, the penalty stands vacated. 12. emsp The appeal is partly allowed as above, with consequential benefits (if any) to the appellants.
-
1999 (12) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... reach the appellant. The endorsement given by M/s. Simplex Sales Agency was therefore not a necessary condition for availment of Modvat credit by the original customer. The fact that M/s. Simplex Sales Agency chose to endorse the said gate passes does not make the subsidiary gate pass which was a valid duty paying document, a less valid document. In the light of the explanation given by the appellants even at the time of replying to the show cause notice, it appears that the endorsement given by their Unit No. I was also for the purpose of avoiding any confusion as to the identity of the actual receipient of the consignment. I also find that the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Electronics Ltd. (supra) supports the contention of the appellants. 7. emsp In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the Appeal has merit. Consequently I allow this Appeal after setting aside the impugned order. Appellants will be eligible for consequential relief if any, under law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Modvat - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rcumstances of the case. Therefore, the demand raised against the appellants by the Department in the show cause notice in question fails on the plank of limitation. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to go into the merits of the Modvat issue involved in the case. Needless to say, apart from the failure of the Revenue rsquo s case on account of the bar of limitation, that the Deputy Commissioner rsquo s order of imposition of penalty on the appellants is unsustainable even otherwise inasmuch as such order is not supported by any finding of existence of mala fide intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of Central Excise duty by wilfully contravening mandatory provisions of law and that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is absolutely non-speaking insofar as penalty is concerned. 7. emsp In the light of the discussion and findings given above, the appeal succeeds. The appeal is accordingly allowed, with consequential reliefs (if any) to the appellants.
............
|
