|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... or used for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. 4. emsp The only ground on which the Department is contesting the finding of the lower Appellate authority is that the goods under consideration do not have direct role in manufacturing process. From the above analysis in the order of the Larger Bench of the CEGAT, it is observed that the definition does not require the use of the capital goods in the direct manufacturing process of the end products. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue in their appeal is misconceived. However, at the relevant time, the item Speco Lube used as lubricant did not fall within the definition of capital goods. The lubricants even otherwise, also are not machines, machinery or component or spare parts etc. Therefore, the Modvat credit on this item under Rule 57Q is not admissible. 5. emsp In the result, but for the item Speco Lube, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable and the same is rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 605 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand of Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... inancial year or at the highest rate prevalent during the year under consideration. In the light of these instructions, it is the submission of the ld. Advocate for the appellants that the differential duty demand made on the appellants has to be made up by the concerned plant of M/s. SAIL and not by the party concerned. However, it is observed that as the scheme itself would envisage, this scheme can have only a prospective application and cannot be made applicable retrospectively for the period under consideration. The matter is at the stay stage and I find no deficiency in the orders passed by the lower authorities. The appellants admittedly have availed the credit of duty in excess of the one paid on the inputs covered by the challans. Therefore, prima facie, they are liable to pay back the same. Accordingly, I direct them to make the deposit of entire amount of duty confirmed on them on or before 16-5-2001. The matter will be called for reporting compliance on 18-5-2001.
-
2001 (3) TMI 604 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ersal of the credit and confirmation of the order-in-original. 3. emsp None has appeared for the respondents despite notice. Hence the matter is taken up for consideration on the basis of the grounds made out by the Revenue and on the basis of the finding arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen from the impugned order that the issue of grant of Modvat Credit in respect of Fork lift used within the factory is covered by the judgements of the Tribunal noted above. Therefore, so long as the item Fork Lift is used for shifting of materials from one place to another within the factory during the course of manufacture of the final product, the Tribunal has always upheld the contention of the assessees that the item in question is considered as capital goods. As a co-ordinate Bench and in keeping with the judicial discipline, those judgements are required to be applied by this Bench. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 603 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hat these apparatus can be used for very low temperature brine applications also. rdquo (b) We find that after considering all the case law on the subject, the Tribunal in the case of Carrier Aircon Ltd., v. CCE , Delhi-III - 2001 (128) E.L.T. (485) have upheld the classification of similar lsquo liquid chillers rsquo under 8418, after considering the HSN notes, Board rsquo s instruction Nos. 242/76/96/CX, dated 3-9-1996 and have ruled cut out the classification under 8415 of the Central Excise Tariff. (c) We find that the Central Excise Tariff and the Customs Tariff, is parapari -materia as far as Headings 8415 and 8418 are concerned. Therefore, relying en on this decision of the Tribunal in Carrier Aircon, 2001 (128) E.L.T. (485), we have no reasons to uphold the revenues Revenue rsquo s appeal to classify the subject- goods under import under 8415. 4. emsp In view of our findings, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is confirmed and the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 601 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of exemption not available under Notification No. 20/99-Cus.- Interpretation of statutes
-
2001 (3) TMI 599 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
100% EOU - Demand - Customs Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... g the appellants an opportunity to present their case. 8. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order inasfar as it relates to the present appellants is set aside and the case is remanded for a fresh adjudication to the jurisdictional Commissioner. We make it very clear that the appellants rsquo plant and machinery shall be released to them immediately so that they can resume production activity at the earliest. The manufacture and sale of the goods from both the EOU and DTA unit shall in no way be affected by the remand proceedings. 9. emsp The appellant had made a deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs pursuant to our order in their stay application. Since even according to appellant, certain amount of duty would payable by them, we considered it appropriate in the facts of the case that the said deposit remains with the Revenue during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings. The same can be appropriated towards the duty adjusted at the time of final adjudication.
-
2001 (3) TMI 598 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... ss and until he is of the opinion that the order in question is not legal and proper. But the fact that the section as enacted by the Parliament, states not legal and proper. Will it not have a mandatory effect when authorizing an appeal? This is an important aspect which has to be considered by the Tribunal. We are therefore of the view that in view of the existence of the difference of opinion between the WRB in the case of Piramal Spinning and . Weaving Mills and the judgment of the Delhi Bench in the case of Nelco as also in the later WRB in Choksi Bros., we think it fit for the larger bench of the Tribunal to consider the matter and determine the issue. We therefore, direct that the appeal may be placed before the Hon rsquo ble President of the CEGAT for constituting a Larger Bench to decide the question and issues arising in the appeal. Registry is directed to send the appeal to the Hon rsquo ble President for taking necessary action in this regard. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 597 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... these submissions. I have therefore no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo order on these grounds. 4. emsp The sole exception is the ground that the penalty for not entering the goods in the RG 1 register is not maintainable for the reason that they were not ready to despatch, and were not removed outside the factory, and that the goods which were not entered, in any event, were the previous night rsquo s production. 5. emsp Taking this aspect into account, and considering the duty payable on such fabrics, I reduce the penalty imposed from Rs. 2,45,310/- to Rs. 2.00 lakhs but otherwise confirm the impugned order. 6. emsp The representative of the appellant says that, despite the appellants rsquo efforts, the amounts deposited in pursuance of the application for settement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 have not been returned. The amount so paid may be adjusted against what is to be recoverable from the appellants as a consequence of this order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 595 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... under Rule 173Q for non filing of Remission application and non transfer of the RG1 entry from lsquo tread rubber rsquo to lsquo waste/scrap rsquo before the clearance. We uphold the Commissioner (Appeals) order of setting aside the penalty under Rule 9(2) as imposed by the lower authority, since clearances are admittedly made on prescribed documents. (e) We find force in the grounds taken in appeal by the Commissioner, before us, that it is the RG 1 for accounting of goods and not form IV, but that in itself will not make commercially unexceptable lsquo tread rubber rsquo to be anything else but lsquo waste rsquo . There is therefore, no force in this ground and or any other ground to determine any duty as tread rubber. Commissioner (Appeals) orders as regards duty need to be confirmed. 4. emsp In view of our findings the appeal is partially allowed i.e. only as regards penalty of Rs. 500/- the appeal of Revenue as regards duty is dismissed. Appeal disposed off accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 593 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of predeposit ... ... ... ... ..... iny and that from that time, action against the company s assets must remain stayed as stated in Section 22 till final decisions are taken by the BIFR. rdquo The said decision has been followed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Aar Kay Concast Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 2000 (89) ECR 464. When that is the position, we hereby order waiver of payment of the duty and penalties demanded under the impugned orders against the assessees as well as the other applicants and stay the recovery thereof. 5. emsp Learned DR pleaded before us that they may be permitted to pursue the remedy before the BIFR. We, as a Tribunal, cannot prevent the Department from pursuing the remedy before BIFR. We only direct the assessees and other applicants to inform and coordinate with the Department in respect of action taken by them before BIFR. The action which the Department may take must be in accordance with law. 6. emsp Applications stand disposed of on the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 592 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalty - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... 9 of the Central Excise Rules provide for confiscation of excisable goods if any manufacturer, producer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer does any act specified in various clauses of Rule 209 in respect of excisable goods. As the Appellant company is not one of the specified persons in respect of the impugned excisable goods, the same are not liable for confiscation under the provisions of Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules. We, accordingly, set aside the confiscation of the same. 8. emsp We remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the plea of the Appellants about dutiability of the goods on the depreciated value. The Adjudicating Authority will also consider about the quantum of redemption fine in respect of goods imported by the Appellants. The issue regarding imposition of penalty on all the three appellants is kept open to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority. All the three appeals are thus disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 591 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... s to refund the amounts of Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- being the fine and penalty paid by the Applicants. 4. emsp When the very issue as to the propriety and legality of the confiscation of goods is before the Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot make such orders as it would amount to pre-judging the case in appeal. The provisions of Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, also may not be sufficient authority to make such orders. 5. emsp In the absence of any stay granted by a superior appellate authority, revenue authorities are expected to honour the last order. The Central Board of Excise and Customs have issued instructions to this effect to the field formations. In the absence of any stay application and any order thereupon, the Board rsquo s instruction would authorise the Commissioner to make payment, but as I have observed above, I would not make any directions in this regard. 6. emsp The present applicants if they desire can make an application for early disposal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 590 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation and Penalty - Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... of the impugned goods as the smuggled goods are duly concealed. rdquo On a careful perusal of the record, I do not find any evidence to suggest that the driver had any knowledge about the contents of the packages loaded in the truck and that the same were smuggled into the country. In the absence of such an evidence, it is highly improper to impose penalty on the driver Shri Md. Masroor Hussain. On the same logic, it must be held that the order of confiscation of the truck is unsustainable. As regards the other three appellants, there is no iota of evidence on record to suggest that by their actions they rendered the truck liable to confiscation. Hence, penalties imposed on them are unwarranted. It is well settled that penal action cannot be taken on mere surmise, assumption and presumption. In view thereof, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in so far as it relates to confiscation of the said truck and imposition of penalties on the appellants. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 589 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of Pre-deposit - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... 94 until February, 1996. Thereafter the tariff itself specified the nil rate of duty for these goods. The Commissioner has declined to consider this point on the ground that the exemption on the liability was not the subject matter of the show cause notice. 3. emsp On these prima facie considerations, we waive deposit of the duty demanded of Rs. 3.80 crores approx. and penalty equivalent to duty imposed on the applicant, stay their recovery and hold in abeyance confiscation of the plant and machinery ordered by the Commissioner. 4. emsp This appeal to be listed with appeals E/187-200/99-Bom. of the same appellant for final hearing, the issues being common.
-
2001 (3) TMI 588 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... at event the duty so paid would be available as Modvat credit. 3. emsp The appeal questions this latter finding on the ground that the declaration and other procedures specified in the rules relating to Modvat credit had not been complied with. In various decisions of the Tribunal, of which we may cite Roche Products Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 127, the Tribunal has held that in situations of this kind, where duty is demanded on the goods, on which no duty had been paid initially on the understanding that duty was not required to be paid, the Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground that procedure relating to it had not been followed. We therefore see no reason to interfere. 4. emsp Appeals dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 587 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to cement factory. Following the ratio of the larger bench decision, Modvat credit is not admissible on this item. In the light of the ratio of the larger bench decision reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 715 (T-LB) 2000 (38) RLT 988 in the case of Chemo Pulp Tissues v. CCE, Meerut we hold that HSD oil is also not eligible to Modvat credit. Credit is admissible on grinding media in the light of the larger bench decision in the case of C.C.E., Bolpur v. Durgapur Cement Works 1997 (90) E.L.T. 197 . 3. emsp In the result, we extend Modvat credit only on grinding media, set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellants and dispose of all the appeals in the above terms. 4. emsp Appeals are thus partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 586 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of Pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... t with in Bombay High Court judgment were not primary product but articles of plastics whereas in the present matter the impugned goods are in primary form which cannot be compared with the plastic goods. We also find that the decision in their own case by the Appellate Tribunal does not help as the matter was remanded for decision in consultation with the technical authorities. In view of the fact that the material involved is in the primary form which is different from the goods made out of the same, we are of the view that the applicants have not made out a strong prima facie case in their favour warranting total waiver of pre-deposit. We therefore direct them to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- within six weeks from the receipt of the order. On complying with this direction, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty and the recovery of the same will be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Matter to come up for reporting compliance on 29th March, 2001.
-
2001 (3) TMI 585 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Value of clearances - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... same subject, it is observed that the clearances prior to the date of amendment are clearances of the ldquo unspecified goods rdquo which cannot be logically/legally enter the foray of first clearances of lsquo specified goods rsquo . It is further observed that the notification exempts specified goods cleared for home consumption on or before 1st April in any financial year, in case of first clearance of specified goods up to an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon in terms of the tariff notification. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent rsquo s claim for seeking clearance of value from the date of Notification is fully justified and in that view of the matter do not see any merit in this appeal. Adopting the ratio of the above said decisions of the Tribunal we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Tobacco intended to be used in the manufacture of cigarettes even if not so used entitled to Exemption Notification No. 356/86-C.E.
-
2001 (3) TMI 542 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... f the Notification, or the date on which the appellant opted for the Notification, that is to be reckoned. 2. emsp This issue has been decided by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore v. Sri Kumaran Spinners P. Ltd. - 1997 (73) ECR 894, holding that it is the clearances from the date on which the manufacturer opts for the exemption that should be reckoned. 3. emsp We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief according to law.
............
|
