|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 107 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... as such the refund claim is not time barred. This was the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bolpur v. Bhandiguri Tea Estate, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that first staking of refund claim which may not be in proper format has to be considered as the date for the purpose of limitation . The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given his finding that as the duty was paid by the Appellants as per the assessment on the Bill of Entry which was not challenged by them the refund is not maintainable in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Flock India Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). I find that no show cause notice was issued to the Appellants for denying refund claim on this ground at all nor Dy. Commissioner has dealt with the same in the adjudication order. So, no opportunity has been afforded the Appellants to deal with this point. The refund claim is not deniable to the Appellants on the ground of time limit.
-
2002 (6) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Apart from the above even if such proceedings were being processed in accordance with statutory provision, we find that there is no justification for the long delay which had caused in these cases. 9.A reference to the dates given in E/COD/17-95/2002-NB would show that the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), dated 26-4-99 was accepted in review on 4-8-99. It is also relevant to note that similar orders had been accepted even earlier. Subsequently, the direction by the Chief Commissioner to file appeal came after about two years. Even thereafter it took about seven months to file an appeal. To explain such inordinate delay no reasonable explanation is forthcoming except the ground of administrative delay. Similar are the facts in all the other appeals. We are not satisfied that the explanation offered is just or reasonable in the facts of the cases before us. We, therefore, dismiss the applications to condone the delay. 10.As a result, all the appeals also stand dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 101 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Penalty - Imposition of - Interpretation of statutes ... ... ... ... ..... of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty. In the absence of any such evidence, it is not permissible to impose any penalty. The quasi judicial proceedings are being quasi criminal proceedings in nature, penalty cannot be imposed unless there is sufficient evidence to the effect that there is mens rea or guilty mind on the part of the party. No such evidence is forthcoming on record. In view of this, I do not propose to impose any penalty either under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration the factual position as analysed by the Commissioner in Para 8.6 of his order we do not find any justification in imposing the penalty. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 99 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Extended period ... ... ... ... ..... of any material fact by the appellants from the Department. In all the above referred cases, relied upon by the learned Counsel, it has been observed by the Tribunal that where demand has been worked out from the RT-12 returns furnished by the assessee, extended period of limitation could not be invoked as suppression of material facts could not be attributed to the assessee. No case law to the contrary has been referred to by the learned JDR. Therefore, following the ratio of the law laid down in all these cases and taking into account the facts of the case, referred to above, we have no option but to hold that extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequently, the duty demand for the disputed period must be held to be time-barred. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed on the question of limitation with consequential relief, permissible under the law.
-
2002 (6) TMI 97 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... rder of confirming the demand under Rule 160 is therefore bad law and requires to be set aside as this is not a case of unaccounted shortages of warehoused goods but is a case of reassessment under Rule 159(2). The question of amendment of AR-3 documents as urged by the ld. DR does not arise. (c) If the provisions of Rule 159(2) are followed, we do not find any reason brought out to deny the benefit of assessment on the value of Rs. l830.26 PMT since goods have been put in use for spiking-crude and not for manufacture of fertiliser for other use by direct consumers. In this view, we do not find any reason to sustain the demands of duties as ordered by the Commissioner. (d) If the demands of duties short paid, cannot be sustained there is no case for payment of interest or penalty as arrived at by the ld. Commissioner. The orders on the same cannot be sustained. 3. In view of our findings, the order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit as per law.
-
2002 (6) TMI 95 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation (Customs) - Confiscation and Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... e is fully covered by the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of CC, Calcutta v. Bharat Teachest Industries (supra) and the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Eicher Tractors (supra). Since there is no mis-declaration the goods are also not liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. We, therefore, set aside the redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since there is no mis-declaration or suppression from the Department no penalty can also be imposed on them in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of HMM Ltd. (supra) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. We also set aside the order of enhancement of unit price of Tin Free Sheets and Tin Plates in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. In view of the above facts and circumstances the order passed by the ld. Commissioner is set aside with consequential relief if any, as per law. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 93 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Excisability of goods - Demand - Accountal of goods - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e the duty liability on the goods removed as free sample. The extended period of limitation for demanding duty is invokable as there is nothing to show as to why the Appellants entertained a bona fide belief that duty of excise is not payable. The facts in the case of Centre for Development of Advance Computing are different as they bonafidely believed that the goods were manufactured by them during experiments and research which were exempt from payment of duty. The ratio of the said decision is not applicable. I, therefore, uphold the demand of duty in respect of goods cleared as free samples. 5. As the goods were found short and the goods have been removed without discharging duty liability, penalty is imposable. However, taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet if the Appellants are directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- only. I Order accordingly. 6. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (6) TMI 92 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Medicines and pharmaceuticals preparations - Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... 99. (f) We also do not approve the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no violation of ground of natural justice to the appellants by the adjudicating authority, since they had been heard on similar matters earlier they need not be heard in this matter. Natural justice is not a grant, but is a right of the assessee. Right of hearing is sine qua none proceedings continued by violating this right cannot be upheld on account of any reason, except that of public expediency where post decisional hearing should be granted. The present orders passed by denying the right of hearing are to be set aside only on that account. (g) When we find on merits there are no reason to uphold the present orders of classification under sub-heading 2108.99 of CETA, 1985 and the orders are passed by depriving the right to natural justice, they are required to be set aside. 4. In view of our findings, the orders classifying the entities under sub-heading 2108.99 are set aside.
-
2002 (6) TMI 90 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... 4 the Tribunal mentioned that the subject product mentioned that the product was manufactured in technical collaboration with M/s. GEA Weigand GmbH Ltd., Germany. It is his case that the finding of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in this case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. We have seen the judgment. We have also seen a number of other judgments on this issue. In holding against the assessee what has been seen by the Tribunal in a number of judgments is the existence of the logo and a distinctive identity of the foreign collaborator on the body of the product. In the present case, as we have observed above, there is no such logo or trademark of the foreign collaborator. There is merely a mention that the goods are produced in technical collaboration with the foreign company. We find merit in the plea that the ratio of the cited Weigand case is squarely applicable to this case. 5. On this ground we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2002 (6) TMI 86 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Remand - Scope of de novo proceedings - Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... we are not passing any orders on the same. 12.As regards penalty, we find that the same has been imposed under the provisions of rule 173Q read with section 11AC. The Tribunal has already held in the earlier orders that provisions of section 11AC is not applicable. The issue as to whether the wagons under Own Your Wagon Scheme introduced by the Railways would attract exemption or not was a bona fide dispute on law which does not call for any warrant for imposition of penalty upon the appellant. Accordingly we set aside the imposition of penalty upon them. 13.In a nutshell the appeal is disposed of in the following terms - 1. The demand of duty is confirmed against the appellant. However, the amount already paid by them, as recorded in the impugned order shall be adjusted. 2. The quantum of duty confirmed against the appellant will get reduced by the quantum of Modvat credit available to them. 3. Penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000.00 (rupees two crore) imposed upon them is set aside.
-
2002 (6) TMI 85 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand based on Tribunal's decision ... ... ... ... ..... ceive processing charges which includes expenses plus profit for the purposes of determining excise value and the cost of raw material supplied by M/s. Britania Biscuits will have to be included in addition to appellants manufacturing cost and profit. 6. In the present case the appellants were paying duty in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Etc. Etc. v. Union of India (supra) which is not disputed by the Revenue. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the facts of the case are more akin to the facts of the case of M/s. Pawan Biscuit Company (P) Ltd. held by the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pawan Biscuit Company is set aside by the Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, the demand based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pawan Biscuits Company (P) Ltd. v. Collector (supra) is not sustainable, hence set aside. Consequently, penalties are also set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 81 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Refrigeration plants - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... pressors, ducting, pipings, insulators and sometimes cooling towers, etc. They are in the nature of systems and not machines as a whole. They come into existence only by assembly and connection of various components and parts. Though each component is dutiable, the refrigeration/air-conditioning system as a whole cannot be considered to be excisable goods. Air-conditioning units, however, would continue to remain dutiable as per the Central Excise Tariff. 2. In the light of the above, these appeals are to be allowed. It is very unfortunate that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider it mandatory on him to follow the ratio of a decision of this Tribunal, even when it was brought to his notice. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to 2001 (132) E.L.T. 86 (T), but he has failed to give the reason for not following the binding decision of this Tribunal. 3. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals stand allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 80 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Sunpac is profile shape ... ... ... ... ..... ibunal that the goods are classifiable under 39.16 as profile shapes. They would not be classifiable in Heading 39.26 to be so, they must not be specified elsewhere, as the words of the heading require. The goods are specified in Heading 39.16 as profile shapes. In our opinion, they would not be entitled to the exemption contained in Item 57 to the table to the Notification 4/97 since that entry does not include articles of 39.16. The Counsel for the appellant points out that this was not the basis that these were sheets and not entitled to the exemption. He cites the decision of the Supreme Court in Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (113) ELT 24. In view of the finding of the judgment that the Tribunal should be limited to the issue raised in the show cause notice, we hold that the notices proposing to deny exemption on the ground that the goods were sheets classifiable under 39.20 cannot be sustained. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (6) TMI 79 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Chemistry, Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute. In that certificate Dr. Joshi said that the test report showed the absence of any visible impregnation. When confronted with this argument the Commissioner does not dispute that the impregnation is not visible. He seems to say that it ought to be visible because the weight of the substance used to impregnate the fabrics is almost half, 40 of the weight of the fabrics. We do not see how the relative weight of the impregnation material has any bearing on the issue. What is required to be considered is the visibility or otherwise of the impregnation, coating or covering. 8. 8195 Counsel for the appellant also drawn our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Ratan Tarpaulin Water Proof Industries - 2000 (126) ELT 782. The ratio of that decision which has been applied in Ducksole (I) Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 830 find support with our decision. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (6) TMI 78 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Bulk Sales - Departmental clarifications - CBEC circulars ... ... ... ... ..... t or statutory provision. Revenue cannot challenge the position taken in the Circular even though it is open to challenge in the hands of the assessee. Following decisions of the Supreme Court are on the same issue. Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) and CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 . In the light of the binding pronouncement of the Apex Court, the Revenue cannot be heard to contend that the Circular dated 28-2-2002 is not binding on it. It is not the case of the assessee that a benefit has been granted to it for the first time under the circular. It is relying on the circular in support of its stand that the law that is applicable to the facts of the case is Sec. 4 and not Sec. 4A. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that assessee cannot rely on a recent circular. 7. In the result Misc. Application E/Misc./144/2002-A is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 74 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation (Customs) - Under valuation - Contemporaneous imports ... ... ... ... ..... ve to be taken into consideration where the transaction value is sought to be rejected. In the present case the adjudicating authority after rejecting the transaction value has proceeded to determine the value under Rule 5 of the CVR, 1988 by relying upon two importations viz. M/s. Diamond Traders and that of M/s. Gandhi Traders. We have already held that the importations made by these two parties cannot be considered as contemporaneous. It is also not the case of the department that there was clandestine remittance of value in excess of the invoice value and mutuality of interest existed between the two parties. In view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are therefore of the considered opinion that the department has not discharged the burden cast on them that the importers have misdeclared or undervalued the goods. We therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals, with consequential relief, in accordance with the law.
-
2002 (6) TMI 73 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) - Over valuation of Export - Proof ... ... ... ... ..... ification of market value. We also agree with the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the evidence tendered by the two witnesses inspire no confidence. Those opinions contained no details about the sample seen by them, the material of its make, its quality etc. One also treated leggings as paijamas. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the evidence of those two persons cannot guide the determining of the market price of the woollen leggings in question. We are also clear that there was no justification for confiscation of the goods or imposing penalties, inasmuch as no violation of the provisions of Customs Act was involved. 6. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the impugned order had no evidence to stand on, nor it is sustainable in law. Accordingly, it is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. It is made clear that the appellants shall be allowed DEPB benefit as available at the declared FOB value and market value.
-
2002 (6) TMI 71 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ove findings, the appeals are ordered as under - 1. Duty demand of Rs. 27,35,960/- is confirmed on appellant, Alfa Ceramics. 2. Duty demand of Rs. 11, 05,036/- is confirmed on appellant, Globe Ceramics. 3. Penalty of Rs. 27,00,000/- is imposed on Alfa Ceramics. 4. Penalty of Rs. 11,00,000/- is imposed on Globe Ceramics. 5. Penalty imposed on Shri P. Chordia is confirmed. 6. Penalties imposed on Shri Mahendra Khandelwal are confirmed. 7. All other penalties imposed under the impugned orders on the present appellants are set aside. 8. Confiscation of plant and machinery ordered under the impugned orders is set aside. 9. The appellant-manufacturers shall, in addition, pay interest at appropriate rates in respect of short-levy with effect from 28-9-1996. 10. It is made clear that payments and deposits already made by the appellants during the investigation and in accordance with stay orders of this Tribunal shall be adjusted towards payment of duty demands confirmed hereinabove.
-
2002 (6) TMI 70 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Medicaments - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t levy is also required to be accepted. This issue is now well settled by the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd., and Others v. CCE, Madras - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T) 1999 (32) RLT I (CEGAT) and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). It is, therefore, ordered that the duty demand shall be re-computed treating the price as cum-duty. 19. In view of the above findings, the appeal is ordered as under - (1) Lal Tail and Janam Gunti are not eligible for classification as medicaments under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Act. (2) The classification of Lal Tail under sub-heading 3304 is confirmed. (3) The issue regarding classification of Janam Gunti is remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision. (4) Short levy shall be computed treating the price of the goods as cum-duty. (5) Duty demand shall be restricted to the normal period of six months under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
-
2002 (6) TMI 66 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... Excise Department by them, they had been rightly held to be guilty of suppression of material facts from the Department with intend to evade payment of duty. Therefore, extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked and as such the duty demand cannot be held to be time-barred. 16.However, the contention of the learned Counsel that penalty under Section 11AC of the Act for the period prior to 28-9-1996 - the date when the provisions of this Section came into force, could not be imposed, deserves to be accepted. The duty period involved is from 1-4-1995 to 27-7-1998. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, equal to the duty amount, deserves to be modified. We accordingly reduce the penalty to Rs. 13 lakhs (rupees thirteen lakhs only). 17.Except for the modification in the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, the impugned order of the Commissioner is upheld. Consequently, both the appeals of the appellants stand disposed of accordingly in the above terms.
....
|
