|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 568 Records
-
1999 (8) TMI 501 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to change the name of border customs station from Jogbani to Jai Nagar. This clearly brings out the role of M/s. Baid Organisation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Road Star Carriers. Looking to the facts and the role of these two firms/ we hold that they were concerned with the transport of the goods illegally and the goods were liable to confiscation, we hold that the penalties have rightly been imposed on these two appellants. 22. emsp Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having held all the penalties have rightly been imposed, we reduce the penalties from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh each on Shri Manvir Singh and Sh. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 40,000/- on Shri Jitendra Nath and from Rs. l lakh to Rs. 20,000/- each on S/Shri Subh Karan Lalwani, Subh Karan Baid, Suresh Kumar Lalwani, M/s. Road Star Carriers and M/s. Baid Organisation Pvt. Ltd. 23. emsp But for the above modifications, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (8) TMI 500 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plant and Machinery - Value thereof - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... d alleging that the capital investment on plant and machinery had exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs from the financial year 1981-82 itself and as such department was aware of the fact that the appellants had allegedly exceeded the limit of capital investment. The department thus cannot claim in 1989 that they were not aware of these facts and the appellants had availed of exemption under Notification No. 77/83-C.E. dated 1-3-1983 by misdeclaring the value of plant and machinery. As the demands are hit by time limit, there is no need to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for determining the capital investment on plant and machinery. 19. emsp The matter may now be placed for regular Bench for pronouncing the order as per majority view. Sd/- (V.K. Agrawal) Member (T) FINAL ORDER In the light of the majority view, the demands are held as time barred and are hence set aside and the appeals allowed. Sd/- (C.N.B. Nair) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated 5-8-1999
-
1999 (8) TMI 499 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Show cause notice - Fire-extinguisher, parts - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... contrary being led by appellants. (b) As far as second ground of appeal is concerned namely that the goods were not marketable, we find that the order-in-appeal impugned has clearly recorded that there was evidence on record that such parts were indeed sold to consumers for replacement of defective parts in the fire extinguishers earlier supplied by the appellants. No evidence to the contrary has been led by the appellants in this appeal. Therefore, on this ground also, there is no merit in the appeal. 8. emsp We, therefore, conclude that the show cause notice clearly alleged that what was cleared was parts of Fire extinguishers, and the order-in-appeal impugned has also found them to be parts of fire extinguishers for the reasons recorded therein, therefore it is also not correct to hold that the said order impugned has traversed beyond the show cause notice. 9. emsp In view of the aforesaid findings and analysis, we do not find any merit in the appeal and same is dismissed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 498 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Provisional assessment - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... Officer concerned, has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The impugned order cannot, in the light of the above, be sustained. The Appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. 7. emsp We have taken note of the submission made by the ld. SDR as regards the appellants rsquo claim for the benefit of Notification No. 31/88 which relates to bulk drugs. For deciding eligibility under this notification, according to the D.R., chemical examination report may have to be called for and therefore on this aspect, the matter has to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority. However, since we have taken the view that the claim of the Department that the items were only provisionally assessed is not legally sustainable, the classification claimed by the appellants in their C.Ls and RT 12 returns hold good. These items being eligible to Nil duty in the Tariff itself, no duty demand remains. 8. emsp The Appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (8) TMI 470 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ation shown therein was not for payment since it was not a commercial transaction. Invoice was to make procedure proper, in the sense for filing it before the Customs. That invoice was produced before the authorities. The entry therein was known to the department in November, 1992 itself. If they had any suspicion, they ought to have enquired into the details without any delay. They slept over the entire issue. So we are clear in our mind that Commissioner was not justified in invoking the extended period of five years provided under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. 5. emsp Since we come to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner was clearly barred by limitation, we do not think it necessary to go into merits of the contentions raised by the appellant. 6. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the order passed by the Commissioner on 31-1-1998 which is impugned in this appeal, is set aside. Consequential reliefs should be given to the appellant.
-
1999 (8) TMI 469 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Adjudication - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... s sustainable only if the vehicle is used for transporting the imported contraband. In this case, there is no allegation that foreign currency was smuggled into India and was a contraband. Therefore, confiscation of Contessa Car is set aside. 13. emsp We note that a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Wirsa Singh looking into all the facts and circumstances and discussions above, we find that the penalty is on the higher side, the same is therefore reduced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs. (Rs. two lakhs and fifty thousand only). 14. emsp In so far as the case of Shri Naresh Kumar is concerned, we find that foreign currency was recovered from the Scooter. Since there is no allegation of the foreign currency being smuggled into India, confiscation of the Scooter of Shri Naresh Kumar is set aside. Penalty on Shri Naresh Kumar is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only). However, confiscation of Rs. 11,000/- Indian currency is upheld under Section 121 of Customs Act, 1962.
-
1999 (8) TMI 468 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural justice - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... appellants during working hours from 1-9-1999 to 30-9-1999. Expenditure incurred by the appellant is not reimbursable from the Department. Learned Counsel representing the appellants rightly and fairly conceded before us that the expenditure for taking copies of the documents will be borne by the appellants. After getting copies of all the documents by 30-9-1999 they should file their written objection, if any, on or before 22-10-1999. If no written objection is filed by the appellant on or before 22-10-1999, the Commissioner can proceed as if the appellants have no written objection to be filed. Commissioner should then afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellants herein of being heard in the matter. After affording reasonable opportunity and hearing them, if they personally appear before the Commissioner or through authorised representative on the date fixed by him, final order has to be passed in accordance with law. 6. emsp Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (8) TMI 467 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... er under Rule 41 etc. In this connection, we find that this issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Ahura Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, wherein it was held that an order of provisional assessment under Central Excise Act would be an order of interim in nature and therefore, would not be appealable before the Tribunal. Section 129A is pari materia to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act and therefore, we find that since here also the provisional assessment is involved, therefore, the ratio of the said decision would clearly be applicable to the facts of this case. 7. emsp In view of the above analysis and findings, with great respect, we are unable to entertain and admit this appeal before us. Hence, following the ratio of the above decision, we have no other alternative under law but to reject this appeal on the ground of non-maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction. 8. emsp The Miscellaneous application is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (8) TMI 466 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Lubricating oils - Tariff, definition - Exemption - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ication No. 120/84-C.E. was not available to the Super T.T. Oil. With regard to limitation also, I agree with him. 34. emsp Thus, I agree with the order proposed by the learned Member (T) now Vice-President. Sd/- Lajja Ram Member (T) FINAL ORDER 35. emsp In view of the majority order, the appeals are disposed of in the following manner 1. emsp The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. l20/84-C.E. to Super T.T. oil. 2. emsp Show cause notice dated 28-1-1994 in Appeal No. ER/349/96 is barred by limitation, and is set aside as such. Accordingly, demand of duty and penalty is set aside. 3. emsp Demands of duty against show cause notices dated 29-1-1992 and 25-2-1993 being within six months from the relevant date are confirmed. 4. emsp Demands of duty against show cause notices, dated 3-8-1992 and 1-10-1992 should be revised in the light of application of Clause (A) or clause (B) of Section 11A. Sd/- Archana Wadhwa Member (J) Sd/- P.C. Jain Vice President
-
1999 (8) TMI 465 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... enalty, we observe that now the Modvat credit except to the extent of shortages of inputs has been allowed to the appellants, the quantum of penalty is required to be decided by the adjudicating authority in the light of the demand of duty that may be sustainable against them and also the amount of Modvat credit except to the extent of shortages, which may be admissible to them. Therefore, the question of quantum of penalty is also to be decided afresh by the adjudicating authority. We observe, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, that there is no warrant of penalty on M/s. Mona Chemicals inasmuch as M/s. Mona Chemical and Sona Fibre have been treated as one and the same person. We agree with this contention of the learned Advocate. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is set aside on M/s. Mona Chemical and we further held that Mona Chemical would not be liable for any penalty even in the readjudicating proceedings. 6. emsp Appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
1999 (8) TMI 464 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ion rdquo 6. emsp We have perused the records of the case and have considered the rival submissions we find that the appellants have made a strong case on the ground of time bar itself. The department was fully aware of the procedure followed by the appellants, that they were clearing the yarn to job workers, that certain amount of waste arose during the conversion into twine that certain quantity of twine was being sold after payment of duty for the purposes other than the ones stipulated in the notification, that the appellants were bringing back the waste arising during conversion into twine. The appellants had also sought permission for bringing the waste to the factory. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that allegation of suppressing facts or misstatement of facts with intent to evade duty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds on time bar itself. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (8) TMI 448 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OF CUSTTOMS & CENTRAL EXCIS
Modvat - Inputs in process ... ... ... ... ..... ocess is on the quantity of 6325.000 kgs., i.e. less quantity, i.e., less than what was in stock and in process. 5. emsp From the above, I find force in the contention of the appellant that records of input in process is not maintainable nor such records are required to be maintained under the provision of the Rules. The stocks of such inputs nevertheless, can be worked out taking into account the stock position as on 1-4-1997 and subsequent receipt and consumption of inputs till the date of opting for credit under Rule 57H. The statistics based on the above basis have been submitted by the appellant during the course of hearing which should be verified with the relevant record maintained for inputs to arrive at the quantum of inputs in process. 6. emsp The case is, therefore, remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after considering the above and passing an order a fresh. The impugned order is set aside. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (8) TMI 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Clandestine removal - Confiscation - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... erefore is required to be examined further. I, therefore agree with the findings and observations of the Hon rsquo ble Vice President given in paras 7 to 9. Date of last hearing 7-5-1999 Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 17. emsp In the light of the majority view, the confiscation of video cassette housing without magnetic tape and duty demand of Rs. 726.60 thereupon is set aside, duty demand of Rs. 9,187.50 on 500 video cassettes found short in stock is set aside, penalty imposed upon the appellant company is upheld, penalty on the General Manager is reduced to Rs. 1500/-, while the issue of confiscation of plastic components, kits seized from the tempo in the factory premises and 10 video cassettes found in the factory gate office is remanded for further examination in the light of the findings and observations in para 9 of the order of the original Bench at pages 8 and 9. Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Technical Member Dated 24-8-1999 Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Judicial Member
-
1999 (8) TMI 443 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Intermediate product - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... e should have 99 purity for being marketed nor there is any such mention in Hawley rsquo s Condensed Chemical Dictionary. It is also seen from the Show Cause notices issued in this matter that Silver Chloride (75 ) is being sold in the market. We, agree with the Commissioner that the Silver Chloride manufactured by them is marketable. The ld. Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, has claimed the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 as according to him Zinc is also retrieved by using silver chloride and their main commodity is Zinc and Silver is only a bye product and reliance has been placed on the decision in their own case as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 155 (T). We find that the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 has not been considered by the Commissioner. We, therefore, remand this matter to the Commissioner with the direction to consider the applicability of Notification No. 217/86 in respect of Silver Chloride after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellants.
-
1999 (8) TMI 442 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... except in a few cases, the number of such cases amounts on an average to 0.5 . The explanation given for these exceptions, that sometimes one or the other component was sent as replacement for earlier supply where that component earlier supplied had become unusable due to spillage or contamination, is not unreasonable. 14. emsp Accordingly we hold that the classification claimed by the appellant is correct and should be confirmed. This view is in accordance with the view expressed by this Tribunal in Din Chemicals and Coatings (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 112 and Cibatul v. C.C.E. - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 197. In each of these decisions, the Tribunal confirmed the classification under Heading 35.06 of goods, cleared in sets, intended to be mixed together before use as adhesives, consisting in the first decision of polyvinyl alcohol and glycerin and in the second decision of epoxy resin and polyamides. 15. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1999 (8) TMI 441 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... at the items are not to be considered as pieces of art, the test to be applied is only whether the ordinary buyer of such item would still use them as Tableware, Kitchenware or other household articles in spite of their ornamentation/decoration. Even taking into consideration the fact that the buyers of the items may be from a segment who can afford items of luxury, on a visual examination of items we are inclined to agree with the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) that these items do not belong to the category of items which are put to ordinary use in any household. Despite the fact that the items are capable of being used for the same purpose as Tableware or Kitchenware, we are of the view that because of the highly decorative and ornamental nature of the goods, they would not fit in the category of articles classified under 6911.10 (Tableware and Kitchenware) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 7. emsp Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1999 (8) TMI 432 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal - Non-production of relevant documents ... ... ... ... ..... ich covers generic description includes electromagnets. 2. emsp shy The appellants have not appeared in this case despite notices issued on large number of dates. Ld. D.R. points that the appellants have not produced any literature, classification list, technical details, etc. for the purpose of considering their case . They have produced only Order-in-Appeal and on that basis the matter cannot be decided. He points out that Order-in-Original had also not been produced. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. 3. emsp Considered. We have gone through the files and notice that the appellants have not produced the Order-in-Original, classification list, literature, technical details and other details required for deciding this appeal. The appellants have also not appeared despite notice. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Rule 11 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules for non-production of documents for deciding the case on merits.
-
1999 (8) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Additional realisation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t at all disclosed that the collections bore no relation to sales tax/service charges and that they were at the same rate as the sales tax which was prevalent. Even if a certain cost is incurred towards delivery of the goods to the buyers inside the factory it is includible in the assessable value. It is clear from the rate at which the collection has taken place that the realisations made by the respondents cannot be towards service charges of the tankers. In these facts and circumstances, we accept the submission of the Revenue that the order impugned in the present appeal is erroneous with regard to findings on time bar and merits. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order with the direction to work out the correct amount of duty leviable on the additional collection made by the respondents during the period covered by the notice after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case regarding the quantum of duty leviable. The appeal is allowed on these terms.
-
1999 (8) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation for export - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... xporter gives the full export value of the goods, customs authorities have no jurisdiction to confiscate the goods under Section 113(d) of the Act or to impose penalty under Section 114(1). The decision of the Calcutta High Court cannot now be pressed into service in view of a subsequent Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Collector of Customs v. Pankaj V. Sheth, 1997 (90) ELT 31 (Cal.) where a contrary view was taken. The later decision appears to be in consonance with the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in McDowell and Co. Ltd. In the decision of the Tribunal reported in Shilpi Exports reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 302 (Tribunal) , none of the above aspects were considered. Therefore, we feel that the decision relied on by the learned counsel is not of any assistance to him. 12. We find no ground to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal. We confirm the order of the Commissioner and dismiss this appeal.
-
1999 (8) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... TSU2-EOIP and TSU2-EOIP R190733 are sattelite tuners and conform to the specifications for sattelite tuners. Therefore, the Customs authorities were right in adopting the higher value for the consignment as declared to Hong Kong Customs. As the correct description of the goods as sattelite tuner had been concealed from all the import documents, and as the value was also grossly under-declared, it has to be held that the appellants have misdeclared the goods with intention to evade duty. In these facts and circumstances, the confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalty on the appellant company and demanding duty at the higher value have been correctly done in the impugned order. However, imposition of penalty on Shri Sunil Wadhwani is found to be unjustified, as no evidence of his personal involvement in making the misdeclaration is noticed. Therefore, his appeal, being Appeal No. C/45/98-A, is allowed and Appeal No. C/44/98-A of M/s. Weston Components Limited is rejected.
............
|
