Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2004 2004 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 520 Records

• 2004 (5) TMI 404 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Classifiaction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ct from 1-3-1997 in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority accepting the appellants claim. Our attention has been drawn to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Pesticides Mfg. and Formulators Association of India reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) wherein the order of the Hon rsquo ble High Court, Delhi holding that Technical Grade Pesticides, Insecticides etc. in bulk form are as classifiable under Heading 38.08 has been upheld. The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 727/43/2003-CX, dated 29-7-2003 has accepted the above judgment of the Supreme Court and has directed statutory authorities to classify the goods in question under Chapter 38.08. 2. emsp In view of the foregoing the issue is no more res integra. Accordingly the order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 403 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Classifiaction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y ldquo Reformer Tubes rdquo as per catalogue of the manufacturer are assembly of tubes, as per design with caps/cocks/valves placed as per design and are not only inter-connected tubes but are in desired sets strapped or on frame work. The entity does not offer any resemblance in specification or and performance of the products or on the principle of ejus dem generic to be covered and or listed under 73.07, which covers only fittings for joining of pipes or end closures. When entity is not covered under 73.07, the exclusion from the Chapter 84 by reading Section Note 2 as per the ground taken is not called. (c) Perusal of the CCE (Appeals) reveals that the said order has been arrived that after considering all the issues and the same cannot be asseailed in any manner to impugn the classification arrived at for Reform Tubes under Heading 84.1700. (d) Once classification is confirmed under 84.17, there cannot be duty and penalty demands. 4. emsp Consequently appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 402 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Evidence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ustoms before whom the statement was given. Ld. Consultant, therefore, claims a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant. It is not disputed by the SDR that the statement of the applicant recorded by the Superintendent of Customs, was not signed by the latter. Such a statement is prima facie, invalid in law and any reliance placed on it by the adjudicating authority for the purpose of penalising the applicant is apparently erroneous. In this view of the matter, it has to be observed that the applicant has made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is dispensed with and stay of recovery of the amount is granted.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 401 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Classification - Value of clearances - Computation of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tion II to the said Notification. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) as stated above are correct and duty of Rs. 4,41,844/- has been correctly demanded from the appellants. Once assessable value was accepted and declared by the appellants and was not disputed and assessments were finalised, now they cannot claim that additional demand on that value may be taken as cum-duty price. Therefore the decisions relied upon by them for taking the sale price as cum-duty price are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. emsp We therefore modify the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that Bonding Gum/Repair Gum will be properly classifiable under sub-heading 4006.90 and the appellants are eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 on the said product. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 1,76,853/- is set aside and rest of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 400 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Manufacture - Stainless steel rods - Cenvat/Modvat - Credit - Refund - Reversal of Modvat credit - EXIM - VBAL - Modvat credit

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 399 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Appeal by Department - Strictures against Department

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ch the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (A) is not correct. rdquo 3. emsp The Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order has held that the departmental officers cannot take a stand contrary to the Board rsquo s circular. The appeal filed before the Tribunal by the applicant Commissioner is clearly based on the presumption that the Board rsquo s circular is contrary to the statutory provisions. However, neither the applicant Commissioner nor the lower authorities have provided any clue to which circular they are referring to. Nor any copy of the same has been filed along with the appeal. 4. emsp Filing appeals before the Tribunal under the presumption that the Board rsquo s circular is contrary to law and not even enclosing a copy of the circular and not providing any reference to the same clearly amounts to filing a frivolous appeal apart from clear non-application of mind. 5. emsp The appeal filed by the applicant Commissioner, therefore, is dismissed.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 398 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Railways - Goods supplied to Indian Railway - Classification of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rovision or classification would remain under Heading 4016.99. (c) As per Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 86 the goods covered to be Axles, wheels, wheels sets (running gear) metal tyres, hoops and other parts of wheels, Frames under bogies and bisssel bogies, Axle boxes, break gear, Butter for rolling stock hooks and other couplings gear and corridor connection, Coch work. The dictionary meaning of words lsquo inter alia rsquo when consider would not bring the subject goods under the purview of the Chapter Note. 4. emsp From the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) it is found that he has considered the very same material in arriving at the order of our classification of the product under 8607.00. Since the goods are undisputedly meant for use solely and exclusively for the railways and do not found use elsewhere since they are so designed. We find no reason to interfere with the classification arrived at by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp Appeal is therefore dismissed.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 397 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Penalty - Import

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mined all the Apex Court judgments in upholding the imposition of penalty. He submits that in the present case, the penalty is required to be imposed and for this purpose, the matter is required to be remanded for de novo consideration. 3. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned DR and on perusal of the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of V. Solomon Jeyapandian (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner has committed an error in not imposing penalty on a violation of Exim Policy. The grounds made by the Revenue for remanding the matter for the purpose of imposition of penalty on the Respondent is justified. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for the purpose of imposition of penalty and also enhancement of redemption fine by granting an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent. The Revenue appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam for de novo consideration.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 396 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Appeal - Condonation of delay

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... or the applicant submits that, since it was a common order covering all the three appeals, it was their bona fide belief that, the appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., would cover the grounds against the impugned order raised in the applicant rsquo s case also. However, on realizing that a separate appeal is required to be filed, the instant appeal has been filed, which involved the delay of 42 days. 2. emsp Heard both sides. 3. emsp Considering the submissions made by the ld. Counsel, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case to condone the delay. 4. emsp Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The appeal shall be taken up for regular hearing in due course.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 395 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Demand - Cenvat/Modvat on inputs used for manufacture of exempted goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... at if the case of Wheel and Axle Plant v. CCE, Bangalore-II - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 843 (T) 2003 (58) RLT 878 (CESTAT-Bang.) on a similar issue, this Bench has set aside the order on the ground that there is no machinery existing for recovery of the amount. 3. emsp The learned DR disputes the fact of the above situation which covers the issue. He submits that for the subsequent period, the provision has been incorporated and in the present case, the issue pertains to a period from August 98 to November 99 which is an earlier period. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the afore stated judgments, we notice that the Revenue has not incorporated the provision for recovery of the amount as held by the Tribunal in the above stated judgments. In view of this position, the demand cannot be confirmed in the light of ratio of the judgments. The impugned order is set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 394 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Confiscation and penalty - Seizure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e goods have been purchased from one Sujavuthin. Further, I note that the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Chand and Others v. State of Punjab (supra) has also held that in the case of seizure by the police and transfer of the goods to the Customs, the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs are not satisfied. Further, in identical cases this Bench has allowed the appeal. V. Muniyandi and others vide final Order Nos. 186 to 188/2004 2004 (167) E.L.T. 215 (T) Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has also taken similar views in identical cases. One such order is in the case of Sadbavana v. CC, Indore reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 652. In view of the above, I hold that there is no material to sustain the order of confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellant herein. I therefore set aside the impugned order and the attendant order-in-original in so far as it relates to the present appellant and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 393 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI
  

  Refund claim - Amendment - Correction of amount payable - Strictures against department - Refund - Delay in payment

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 392 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Classifiaction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... f Central Excise Tariff 1985 with the Heading 90.33 and in absence of any material on record, as to how the entity in dispute would be specifically designed and for which article/apparatus/machine falling under chapter 90, classification under Heading 90.33 of the entity can not be approved. The reliance of the revenue on Technical Encyclopaedia is well founded. All sorts of lsquo resistors rsquo would find a berth under 85.33 and the entity being akin to the entities under Heading 85.33, would stand classified thereunder. 4. emsp Consequently, revenue appeal is allowed. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) set aside and classification arrived at under Heading 85.33.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 391 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Department under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. I, therefore, see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower authority in demanding the sum of Rs. 5,18,118/-. rdquo 2. emsp We have heard ld. Advocate Shri G. Natarajan, for the appellants and ld. DR, Shri B.R. Jagadish for the Revenue. 3. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded as above by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from infirmity. Prima facie, the order is correct. The appellants cannot adjust the payments due under Section 11D from the lapsed Modvat balance. There is no force in the grounds taken up by the appellant on this aspect of the matter. They are required to pre-deposit the entire amount within three months from today. It is made clear that if the appellants do not deposit the amount within the said time, appeal shall be liable for disposal under Section 35F of the Act. Call on to report compliance on 27th August 2004.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 390 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Confiscation - Non-accountal of goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ntention on the part of the appellants to remove the goods without payment of duty. They always cleared the Slags in bulk quantity such as 20 MT, 60 MT etc. 4. emsp The contention of the Revenue is that the goods are the Silico Slag though, it is waste, is liable to excise duty and this quantity is not recorded in their statutory record. It is admitted by the Revenue that Silico Slag of sub-standard grade which is arising out of the Silico Manganese. It is also admitted by the appellants that this slag is liable for Central Excise duty. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as the dutiable goods were entered in the statutory record, hence I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the goods were confiscated. However, taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 389 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... f manager. Through the present application, the appellants have pleaded that Mr. Kabir was indeed the authorised person to file the said appeal. 2. emsp We have heard both sides. 3. emsp We note that the appellants have also now produced a copy of the resolution of Board of Directors of the appellant rsquo s company authorising Mr. Kabir to file rectifying the Appeal E/2263/02/Mum. signed and filed by Mr. Kabir on behalf of the company before the Hon rsquo ble CEGAT. 4. emsp In terms of the said authorisation now on record, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. Stay petition to be heard on 9-7-2004.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 388 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Accountal of goods - Confiscation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the appellant has not availed any credit in respect of the duty paid on the steel wire as the same was purchased from the dealers. The Tribunal in the case relied upon by the appellants held that the inputs which are not entered in the stock are not liable for confiscation. In view of this, the confiscation of steel wire is not sustainable and hence set aside. 7. emsp In respect of confiscation of ACC and ANT conductors, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the appellants were manufacturing the goods on job work basis. The only objection is that no intimation for sending the goods for job work was given to the Revenue. The intimation should have been given by M/s. H.M. Conductors for sending the goods to the appellants on job work basis. The goods were duly returned. M/s. H.M. Conductors also produced copies of job work receipt and dispatch of these goods. In these circumstances, the confiscation of these goods is not sustainable and hence set aside. The appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 387 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  SSI exemption - Benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the notification would be available only to those assessees who had been availing the benefit of Notification No. 38/97 prior to 2-6-98. The use of expression lsquo or rsquo Makes it clear that in other case the benefit could be available with the condition that clearances made prior to the said date would be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the limit of Rs. 50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). Thus we are of the view that the appellants would be entitled to clearances at concessional rate for the period under dispute and the clearances effected prior to the said date would be taken into consideration after computing the clearance value of Rs. 50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). 5. emsp In view of the foregoing we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for extending the benefit of notifications in the light of the observations made by us in the above paragraphs (Supra). The appeal is thus disposed of in above terms.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 386 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Refund - Interest

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in three months from that date. As per the appellant rsquo s contention, the first date of hearing was fixed in June, 2001 i.e. after expiry of the said period of three months. As per the Regulation 9 of the Refund Application Regulations, 1995, the Revenue is required to scrutinise the Refund Claim, and, if there is any deficiency in the documents submitted by the appellants, Revenue is required to issue a Deficiency Memo, and the Refund Application is required to be returned with directions to re-submit the same being complete. It is only in those cases that the date on which the complete application was re-submitted, is required to be considered as the date of application for the purposes of interest. As such, we set aside the impugned Orders and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority with directions to re-decide the issue in the light of the above decisions and our observations made in the preceding paragraph. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2004 (5) TMI 385 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Medicines - Patent and proprietary medicines

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... (P) Ltd., 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) has classified the distinction between lsquo House Mark rsquo and lsquo product work rsquo and holding that House Mark is compulsory under the Drug Rule and Product Mark is based ------ is the identity upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. ldquo Hence this appeal. (a) There is no finding in both the orders whether the disputed invented words on the packages are words permitted and mentioned in the Pharmacopoeial. Therefore the additional involved words would constitute and bring in the application of Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30 to cause for a classification under 3003.10. The note does not stipulate any restrictions on size of the Type font used or package size to exclude classification for 3003.10. There is no reason to find the different marks as lsquo House Mark rsquo of the appellant. (b) In this view the orders of the lower authority cannot be sustained. They are to be set aside and appeal allowed. 3. emsp Ordered accordingly.

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 26