|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 520 Records
-
2004 (5) TMI 384 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... (12) to (16) of the Final Order are not correct. The reference is to the finding that there is nothing on record to show that the applicants could be considered as the ldquo owners rdquo of the goods. 3. emsp After examining the records and considering the submissions made by both sides, we are convinced that the above finding has not taken into account some of the pleadings and documentary evidences in the case. The applicants rsquo claim is that they are the owners of the goods. This claim, which is vital to the party rsquo s challenge against confiscation of the sale proceeds of the goods, has been negatived through the above finding. We have noticed that the finding is the result of a patently erroneous appreciation of facts pleaded and evidence addressed by the party. 4. emsp For the above reasons, we sustain the applicants rsquo plea of apparent mistake, allow this application and recall the Final Order ibid. 5. emsp The appeal is posted to 30-8-2004 for fresh hearing.
-
2004 (5) TMI 383 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Acrylic fibre - Words and Phrases - Expression ‘acrylic fibre’ in Notification No. 80/88-C.E.
-
2004 (5) TMI 382 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... have perused the records and heard both sides. The contention of the ld. Counsel of the appellant is that the method claimed by the appellant is in accordance with the Circular No. 258/92/96-CX, dated 30-10-96 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. There is no dispute about this. It is well settled that a circular of the Board is binding on the officers of the Revenue. The present duty demand has been arrived at by adopting a method contrary to the method approved in the Board rsquo s Circular. Such a demand cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
-
2004 (5) TMI 381 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Precedent and practice - Later is better - Flour Mill (Domestic) ... ... ... ... ..... the appellants are absent in spite of notice. 2. emsp The appellants want the benefit of Boards Classification Circular No. 82/82/94-CX, dated 5-12-1994 stipulating the classification of the entity under 84.37. The present order impugned before us is dated 10-6-1999 and on a perusal of the same it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the contentions of the assessee as regards application of Board rsquo s Circular in this case. Since the decision of the Apex Court upholding the classification under 85.09 is subsequent to the Board rsquo s Circular, the Board rsquo s Circular is not found to be applicable is the finding arrived. We find no infirmity in the CCE (Appeals) decision in not being bound by Board rsquo s Circulars after pursuing and having read the provision of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to us. The order of classification, based on Supreme Court rsquo s decision is to be upheld and this appeal dismissed. 3. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (5) TMI 380 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... t Smt. C.N. Saroja, wife of Shri M.A. Nataraj, Managing Director of the appellants, was seriously ill since 10-12-2003 and she ultimately expired on 29-12-2003. Therefore, the whole family was busy in attending to Smt. C.N. Saroja and could not attend to the matter of filing of the appeals, submits the learned Consultant. He has also submitted a copy of the Death Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore. In view of the above position, he submitted that the delay was beyond the control of the appellants and hence prayed for condoning the delay. 3. emsp Shri C. Mani, learned JDR after perusing the Death Certificate produced by the learned Consultant, leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 4. emsp After hearing both sides in the matter and after perusing the death Certificate dated 7-1-2004, I am convinced that the delay has occurred beyond the control of the appellants. I, therefore, condone the delay, in filing of the appeals. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (5) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... al in the case of Shiv Textile Printing Mills v. CCE, Jalandhar, Final Order Nos. A/1460-1462/2003, dated 27-11-2003 to submit that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 5. emsp The contention of the Revenue is that the appeal filed against the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Single Judge is pending before the Division Bench and the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2004 (93) ECC 633 where Hon rsquo ble High Court held that the penalty is imposable under compounded scheme. 6. emsp Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is not a fit case for total waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The applicants are directed to pre-deposit Rs. 45,000/- within a period of 4 weeks and on deposit of the above-mentioned amount, the remaining amount of penalty is waived. Adjourned to 13-7-2004 for reporting compliance.
-
2004 (5) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Board’s clarification - Demand - Cenvat/Modvat - Cum-duty price ... ... ... ... ..... out the duty liability of the appellants in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E., Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., (supra). Since both these issues have not been considered while working out the duty liability of the appellants, in our view, the matter deserves to be sent back to the adjudicating authority. 8. emsp In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order regarding the classification of the product in question under Chapter 46 of the CETA is upheld, but for working out the exact duty amount payable by the appellants, the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision, after considering the modvat claim of the appellants on their production of the duty paying documents within two months from the date of receipt of the order by the adjudicating authority and by treating the price as cum-duty price. The adjudicating authority shall also afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants to present their case.
-
2004 (5) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... stances, the lower authorities were justified in holding that short recovery has taken place on account of suppression of facts. The appellants rsquo contention that there was no suppression or intention to evade duty cannot find acceptance, since the appellants were making separate recovery for tooling charges. It is clear that those tooling charges included part of the post of producing the metal components and in the absence of tooling the metal components could not have been produced. In these circumstances, the appellants rsquo claim that there was no intention to evade duty cannot be considered. The issue of a clarification letter in 1996 about the method of allocation of tooling cost cannot be interpreted to mean that till that clarification, the legal position was that the cost of tooling was not required to form part of the value of components produced with those toolings. 5. emsp In view of what is stated above, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 376 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Processing ... ... ... ... ..... edures envisaged under Notification No. 49/94-C.E. (N.T.) not being applicable for such duty free removal will also be of no significance. We note that, the respondents could have effected the removal for job work through job work mechanism by preparing challans in appropriate formats. Besides, we also note that, the cut and packed processed fabrics, having been actually exported from the premises of the respondents and the process of cutting and packing being incidental and ancillary to the completion of manufacturing process in respect of processed fabrics, the respondents can also be covered under the category of the ultimate exporter. In the absence of an allegation that the duty free material was not used in the export product, we feel that there is no case for demanding duty as pleaded in the revenue rsquo s appeal. 6. emsp Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order does not require to be interfered with. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue is rejected.
-
2004 (5) TMI 375 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Plastic pouches manufactured from plastic films made out of granules purchased from market ... ... ... ... ..... uty is being paid. Therefore, there is no justification for treating granule as input for the pouches. The input for pouche was film. There is no dispute raised that the duty paid on the film has been taken as Modvat credit. The notification makes no distinction as to whether the manufacture of pouches is in the same factory where film is manufactured. The condition relates only to taking of Modvat credit on input. The dispute raised by the revenue is wholly irrelevant to the notification. The assessee had correctly availed of the exemption. The duty demand and penalty imposed in the impugned order is not warranted. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 6. emsp The appellant has already made a deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs towards the duty demand. Some goods are also under seizure. Since we have set aside the order impugned, the seized goods and deposit made shall be returned to the appellant immediately.
-
2004 (5) TMI 374 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Delay in deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... er authorities were not justified in imposing penalty equivalent to the duty amount, when the delays involved were only of a few days, ranging from 1 day to 28 days. That too when interest at 24 had been paid. 3. emsp They have also relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Processors v. CCE reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 633 and Supertik Industries v. C.C.E., Bangalore reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 993 wherein the Tribunal held that maximum penalty is not required to be imposed. 4. emsp We nave perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The appellants have paid the duty amounts due from them. The delay involved is only of short periods and Revenue has been compensated for the delay by paying interest 24 . In these circumstances, imposition of penalty of a huge amount was not justified. Accordingly, penalty amount is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) and the appeal is partially allowed to that extent.
-
2004 (5) TMI 373 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... on and proceed to decide the said issue, by including Para 6 in the said order. ldquo (6) As regards interest, the appellant rsquo s grievance is that the provisions of Section 11AB will not apply in the instant case as the period involved is from August 1994 to December 1996, whereas the said section came into existence on 28-9-1996. We agree with the appellant that it is now well settled that the said section is not retrospective. As such, the confirmation of interest for the period prior to 28-9-1996 is not called for. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order and set aside that part of the impugned order vide which interest for the period prior to 28-9-1996 has been confirmed. The original adjudicating authority would recalculate the quantum of interest payable by the appellant accordingly. rdquo Para (6) of the order which is to the effect that the appeal is accordingly allowed in part would be re-numbered as Para 7. 3. emsp ROM application is disposed of in above terms.
-
2004 (5) TMI 372 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand/recovery of Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ansactions and save costs for both parties. Therefore, the Revenue is not justified in rejecting those transactions as false. There is also a complete lack of corroborative material. The Revenue rsquo s allegation is that no scrap was purchased from the two parties in question and scrap was actually purchased from the market. The transactions involved several thousand MTs of scrap. The investigation has not found any material relating to such market purchase, payment, transport or on any other aspect relating to the procurement of such a large quantity. In these circumstances it has to be held that Revenue rsquo s case is not supported by acceptable evidence. 12. emsp In the light of what is stated above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The pre-deposit made in terms of the interim order, or any other payment made by the appellant in relation to the present demand, fine and penalty shall be returned to the appellants immediately.
-
2004 (5) TMI 371 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Waste and scrap of Iron and Steel - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ill, on which the duty of Excise is paid under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Thus for the application of this Notification, the waste and scrap should arise in the course of manufacture of specified products on which duty is paid under Section 3A of the Act. The impugned waste and scrap has arisen during the course of manufacture of goods when the duty of Excise was payable under Section 3 of the Act and not under Section 3A of the Act. Secondly even after the introduction of Compounded Levy Scheme, the duty is payable on these final goods not under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Thus the conditions specified in the Notification are not satisfied in respect of the waste and scrap in question. Accordingly the benefit of Notification No. 49/97-C.E. is not available to the impugned waste and scrap. We, therefore, uphold the demand of duty. No penalty is imposable as the issue relates to interpretation of the Notification. Appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
-
2004 (5) TMI 370 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... open to them to challenge that, in this appeal. 4. emsp On a careful consideration, we find force in the DR rsquo s submission. The aspect pertaining to provisionality of assessment has to be raised in the proceedings where demands were confirmed in Order-in-Appeal Nos. 324-325/2003-C.E., dated 11-12-2003. It is too late in the day to raise this ground in the appeal. This matter pertains only to imposition of penalty as the duty amount had been confirmed earlier. Therefore, penalty is leviable. In similar matter, the appellants have been put to terms, therefore, we direct the appellants to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand only) within a period of three months from today. On such deposits being made, the balance of penalty is waived and recovery stayed. It is made clear that if the amounts are not deposited, then the appeal will be liable for dismissal under Section 35F of the Act. Call on report of compliance on 10th September, 2004.
-
2004 (5) TMI 369 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... cess to internet while connected with the TV. 8. emsp On going through the materials produced before us, we are inclined to take the view that set top box would come under 8517. The view is supported by its inclusion under 8517.80.30 when 8 digit classification was introduced with effect from 1-3-2003. The reference to the Information Technology Agreement to which India joined on 25th March, 1997 would also show that one of the goods covered by the agreement in respect of which there is a commitment to reduce the Tariff is set top box. It is shown as an IT product falling under Tariff Item 8517.80. It is described as a Microprocessor based device incorporating a modem for gaining access to the internet and having a function of Inter Active Information Exchange. 9. emsp In the light of the above discussion we hold that set top boxes imported by the appellant are to be classified under 8517.80 and not under 8543.89. The order impugned is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 368 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... .L.T. 170. However, the claim of the appellants for the refund of the excess duty paid after that date, has to be governed by the principle of unjust enrichment as the same was paid every month when simultaneously clearances were also made by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants were required to prove that the incidence of duty had not been passed on by them to their buyers. But they have failed to do so. Even if it is taken that duty was paid by them under protest that will not debar the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment in view of the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the refund of the alleged excess duty paid by them, after 15-7-99. 6. emsp In the light of the discussions made above, the impugned order accordingly stands modified. The appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2004 (5) TMI 367 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Enhancement of value -Import of goods by trader for use in leather industry ... ... ... ... ..... undertaking to the Asstt. Collector of Customs to the effect that the said imported goods shall be used for the purpose specified in the notification, that the party will keep an account of use of the imported goods, etc. The insoles in question falls under category A of the notification. There is no condition stipulated in the proviso for such items. May be, the notification treats insoles or midsoles and sheets therefor as material usable only for the Leather Industry. Whatever be the case, the lower authorities were in error in holding that the goods in question could be used in other footwear of other materials, particularly when they had not collected any material which indicated such use. Therefore, the finding regarding denial of exemption was also entirely unwarranted and unjustified. 6. emsp In view of what is stated above, we hold that the impugned order is entirely unsustainable. It is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2004 (5) TMI 366 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... emsp In the present case the appellants filed the declaration, during the relevant period, seeking credit in respect of disposable syringes and needles with the declaration that these are neither raw material nor component or packing material, or catalyst or solvent. The disposable syringes and needles are packed with injections and sold as unipack. The contention of the appellants is that as per Chapter Note V to Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff, the adoption any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to manufacture and the Revenue treats the process of packing medicines with disposable syringes and needles as manufacture process liable to duty. The Revenue on this ground is adding the value of disposable syringes and needles in the assessable value of unipack. In this situation, the Revenue cannot deny the claim of Modvat credit in respect of disposable syringes and needles. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 365 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Fabric - Book binding cloth - Dyed D/C book binding cloth - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... king material for coated abrasives. It is therefore clear that all these decisions are distinguishable on facts and do not help in deciding the classification of the impugned goods. In our view, the reliance on these decisions to decide the classification of book binding cloth is misplaced. The Revenue relied upon the cases cited supra which have a direct ratio on the subject of classification of book binding cloth. The Tribunal in Para 14 of its decision in Bhor Industries case has given a detailed reasoning as to why book binding cloth has to be classified under 5901.10. This decision has been affirmed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court as well as reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. A153. 19. emsp In view of what has been discussed above, we conclude that the Commissioner rsquo s decision to classify the impugned goods under Chapter Heading 52.06 is incorrect. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the Revenue rsquo s appeal. Cross-objections are also disposed of.
............
|
