Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... as such but only after they are used for further manufacture of filter assemblies by someone else. The case-law therefore stands clearly distinguished on facts and is of no help to the appellants. In view of this, the phrase ldquo intended for use rdquo in the said notification is not satisfied in this case even if it is given a broader meaning than the word ldquo used rdquo . We cannot hold that because the filter elements were first used in the manufacture of filter assembly, which was then used in manufacture of I.C. Engines, therefore the said notification is satisfied. This would be even beyond the scope of the phrase ldquo intended for use rdquo because the said phrase, as already discussed above, was used in the said notification in relation to filter elements/inserts and not some other product. 8. emsp In view of the aforesaid findings, we do not find any merit in this appeal which compels us to interfere with the order impugned and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... m as sub-assemblies. The department has relied upon the definition of component in para 7(10) of the Import Export Policy according to which ldquo Component rdquo means one of the parts of a sub-assembly or assembly of which a manufactured product is made up and into which it may be resolved and component includes an accessory attachment. The learned Advocate has contended that components and sub-assemblies are not mutually exclusive. All that is necessary to make an article, a component part is that it goes into composition of another article. If an article is an element in the composition of another article made out of it, such an article may well be described as a component part of the other article. It is not in dispute that the goods imported are required goods for the assembly of photocopier machine and accordingly the goods may be described as a component of the photocopier. In view of these facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... at context, the Supreme Court has held that the Revenue had not discharged its burden of establishing that by applying the process of hydrolysis to starch for production of starch hydrolystate, the respondents manufacture any excisable goods in the sense of being goods known in the market of being marketed or marketable. The ratio of the above decision applies on all fours to the present case where the product in dispute has been claimed to be hydrolysed starch (see page 39 of the paper book and internal page 5 of the reply on 22-6-1990 to the show cause notice) and not found to be otherwise. Hence following the ratio of the judgment in the Apex Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises (supra), we hold that the product in dispute i.e. maltodextrin is not a excisable commodity and hence not liable to any duty. The penalty imposed on the appellants is also set aside having regard to our above findings. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... try, the following is shown to be covered under this Chapter ldquo Spices, i.e. a group of vegetable products (including seeds etc) rich in essential oils and aromatic principles, and which because of their characteristic taste, are mainly used as condiments. These products may be whole or in crushed or in powdered form. rdquo The note above indicates that both spices rsquo and condiments rsquo are terms used to describe the same product as far as the coverage of the tariff is concerned. Pepper is covered under sub-heading 0904, cloves are covered under sub-heading 0907 and other spices such as ginger (0910) which have the common quality of pungency are classified under the Chapter. Chilli powder serves the same purpose and therefore, would merit classification under this particular heading. Since Amchur is also used as a flavouring agent, the same logic would apply for its inclusion under this Chapter. On this observation, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Milk products - Condensed milk ... ... ... ... ..... xt of Central Excise Tariff as it stood prior to 1-3-1986 wherein there was no note similar to Note 1 to Chapter 4. Once the note has been introduced in the Tariff, we have to apply it to understand the expression milk rsquo occurring in Chapter 4. The other decision relied upon i.e., the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Food Specialities is distinguishable - the High Court found that partially skimmed milk powder was commercially known as a separate marketable commodity as compared to skimmed milk and in that context, the Court held that partially skimmed milk powder would not be covered by Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 0401.13 for skimmed milk powder....... but under CET sub-heading 0401.19 which is the residuary entry. 6. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the product in dispute viz., partially skimmed sweetened condensed milk is classifiable under CET sub-heading 0401.14, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nder Chapter 83 and have rightly been held to fall under Heading 8413.00 as parts of pumps for liquids. As for Shaft sleeves Heading 84.83 covers transmission shaft including cam shaft and crank shaft. Shaft sleeve in question is a sheet metal sleeve provided to prevent the wear and tear of shaft, is a part of power driven pump and hence the approval of shaft sleeve under Heading 8413.00 by the lower authorities is correct and the benefit of Notification 155/86 C.E., dated 1-3-1986 to these two items which are spare parts of power driven pumps has been rightly extended. In the light of the above, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... appellants do not manufacture staple fibre, but only purchase the same for the purpose of manufacture of yarn, the waste in question is not waste arising in or in relation to the manufacture of man-made staple fibre and, therefore, does not fall for classification under CET sub-heading 5503.19/5503.20 as held by the lower authorities. The HSN Explanatory Notes which states that the fibre waste (soft waste) is waste such as long fibres obtained during the formation and processing of filaments/short fibres obtained as waste from cording, combing and other process preparatory to the spinning of staple fibre, cannot over ride the specific Chapter Note viz. Note 3 to Chapter 55. Since Note 3 to Chapter 55 does not cover the goods in dispute and since Note 4 is admittedly not applicable to the waste in question, we hold that the product in dispute (soft waste) does not fall for classification under CET sub-heading 5503.19/5503.20, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Power to grant exemption ... ... ... ... ..... of Section 5A of CESA. Our attention has been invited to a number of decisions under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act. See Food Corporation of India v. CC, Bombay, reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 128, CC and CCE v. Cotton Corporation of India and Others reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 327. In both these decisions, reliance has been placed on the observation of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. Hari Vishnu Pophale and Others v. U.O.I. and Others (ILR/1981) 1 DEL 514) to the effect that the question of retrospectivity is not relevant in the context of Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, as the power is in relation to all goods. This principle would equally apply in the context of the power of exemption under Section 5A(2) of CESA. In both these decisions, the Tribunal has held that the benefit of the said order would be available to all the imports, irrespective of the date of import. 4. emsp Following the ratio of the earlier decisions referred to above, we allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... plastic or paper. We also agree that the dobby cards will not be covered by Heading 84.48 and therefore, confirm the classification as determined by the Additional Collector. 3.2 emsp Limitation emsp The charge of suppression is sustainable in view of the fact that the appellants had not obtained a licence for manufacture of dobby cards, did not maintain any records of production or clearance of the same and did not discharge the duty liability on the dobby cards, the visit of the Central Excise officers is not sufficient to hold that the assessees had disclosed to the Department that they were making dobby cards and hence we agree with the Revenue that the appellants had suppressed manufacture of dobby cards in their factory with wilful intent to evade payment of duty leviable thereon. 4. emsp The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellant is also justified in view of our finding on Issue No. 2. 5. emsp In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plastic waste - Eligible for duty free clearance under Notification No. 53/88-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... would be cleared duty free under Notification No. 53/88 and whether Modvat taken on the input could be availed of and need not be reversed in spite of such duty free clearance. In this connection, I find that I had passed a separate but concurring order in E/Appeal No. 1042/92-C (M/s. MRF Limited), referred to by the learned DR. 7. emsp I may further mention that in the present case also the inputs were duty paid and were utilised in the manufacture of final product, namely, plastic sheets falling under Heading 39.20 and the waste arising in the process of manufacture fell under Tariff Heading 39.15 and was exempted under Notification No. 53/88 in view of Serial No. 24 in the Table annexed thereto and for the reasons mentioned in our earlier order in MRF Limited (E/Appeal No. 1042/92-C), Modvat also could not be denied as the situation as covered by Rule 57D(1). Hence following the ratio of my order in the case of MRF Limited (supra) the appeal is rejected in this case also.
-
1998 (12) TMI 150 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... on the appeal against their order has not stayed operation. We thus hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to deny the refund by ignoring this judgment is not sustainable. 5. emsp Departmental Representative points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is silent on the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the goods are not shown to have been captively consumed in the appellant rsquo s factory. Advocate for the appellant undertakes to produce sufficient evidence within the two months from the receipt of this order to the Commissioner (Appeals) in support of this contention that the goods have been so used. 6. emsp Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall, by applying the principles of Solar Pesticides v. Union of India decided the eligibility to the appellant refund, according to law, after considering the evidence that will be produced before him as they, regarding use of the goods and manufacture of fertilizer.
-
1998 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... below had rightly denied the benefit of Notification 175/86 in the absence of any proof to show that brand name owner was a SSI and it was still in existence or that they had not themselves crossed the clearance limit for continuing to be a beneficiary of Notification 175/86. He referred to the observation made by the Addl. Collector in the impugned order that M/s. Comet Paints Ltd. had ceased the production. 5. emsp We find that on the facts as brought to our notice, viz. the certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Nadiad, there cannot be any dispute that M/s. Comet Paints was eligible for benefit of exemption Notification 175/86. In view of this fact, we find that the view taken by the authorities below that the appellants have not been able to prove that the brand name owner was a SSI unit was not correct. 6. emsp Accordingly, we allow all the three Appeals and set aside the impugned orders with consequential benefits to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1998 (12) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... on rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Ramachandra Bhuwani v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 396 (Bom.), relied upon by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case - in that case, the Court held that the metal tube trolley, mini trolley, storage bins, etc., usable only in factories, are not items of steel furniture in view of the connotation of the expression ldquo furniture rdquo as articles to be used for convenience or comfort of a human being either in the house or in the office. In the case before us, however, library system having been found to be a book shelf or a rack for keeping books, is a furniture item which can be used for convenience either in a house or in an office. Since book shelves and racks of all kinds fall in the excluded category in Sl. No. 4 of the Table annexed to Notification 80/90, they are not covered by the Notification. 3. emsp In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... case, since the firm has remained the same and merely location of the factory has been changed within the same city and all that was required was to get the new address endorsed for new location. Since it is not denied that the appellants otherwise continued to be a small scale unit, the officers could have allowed them time to get the address of new location endorsed by registration authority and thereafter considered whether they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 174/86. In any eventuality it is only procedural infraction and on this ground alone a substantial benefit could not be denied. rdquo 6. emsp The similar views were held by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Peripheral India, supra, wherein the Tribunal held that benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the manufacturer has shifted his premises to another place. Following the ratio of these decisions, we allow both the appeals filed by the appellants by setting aside both the impugned orders.
-
1998 (12) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ins only to whether loco shunters can be regarded as transport vehicles. 4. emsp We find that the Collector (Appeals) referred to the definition of vehicles in the New Webster Dictionary wherein a vehicle has been defined as ldquo any means of transporting something from one place to another as on wheels, tracks or runners, as conveyance, etc. rdquo He has held that since a shunter is used for transporting goods from one place to another, it is a vehicle and since Tariff Item 29 refers to transport vehicles and not restricted to motor vehicles alone, shunters satisfy the definition of the transport vehicles and, therefore, the IC engines used in loco-shunters or IC engines used as transport vehicles satisfy the description of the goods falling under Tariff Item 29(1). We are in agreement with the findings of the Department as reflected in the order of the Collector (Appeals) and therefore, see no reason to interfere with his order which we uphold. The appeal is thus rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... lowed their appeal by Final Order No. 1814/98, dated 10-9-1998. He submits that in their own case cited, there was one item namely ldquo Angle Iron Gates/Frames rdquo which they had conceded as a manufactured item. He submits that the said item is not involved in the present case and therefore the 11 items noted above are all covered by the cited judgments and the Final Order No. 1814/98, dated 10-9-1998. Therefore he seeks for allowing the appeal. 4. emsp Learned DR, reiterated the Departmental view. 5. emsp On a careful consideration, we notice that the Tribunal had already expressed its view in the case in respect of the above items. After noting a large number of judgments noted supra, has held that the activity of drilling and punching holes, painting, welding etc., does not bring into existence new goods and set aside the impugned order. 6. emsp In view of the judgments noted which apply directly to the present case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... final product is polished. The final product is taken out in actual form from the machine. Therefore, the learned DR is correct in his submission that the product satisfies the definition of strip i.e. ldquo hot or cold rolled product, rolled approximately in rectangular cross-section of thickness usually 10 mm and below with mill, rolled, trimmed or sheared edges and supplied in actual form rdquo and therefore, will fall for classification under T.I. 25(12) which provides the above definition. The earlier order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 22-1-1980 holding that the product in question is a reed wire and not a strip, is not applicable after Tariff entry 25 was amended in 1983, giving a statutory definition separately on the expression strips rsquo and separately for wires. In the light of the above, we hold that the product under dispute is correctly classifiable under T.I. 25(12) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Tariff, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... cess of manufacture. The plea that barges are not ships or boats or floating structure and even if the activity of breaking of barges is held to amount to manufacture, classification of waste and scrap so obtained would not be under Heading 7215 is also prima facie not acceptable. 4. emsp On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, we direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards duty and on such deposit, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance duty and penalty is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and rejection of appeal without further notice. Matter to come up for reporting compliance on 26-2-1999.
-
1998 (12) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by department - Limitation - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... condition of the issue of a further order for permitting recredit of the aforesaid amount though he had sanctioned the amount in principle. Inasmuch as the condition envisaged in the said letter by way of issuance of a formal order by the Asstt. Collector permitting re-credit has not been issued, we find that the respondents rsquo action in their taking the recredit suo motu without waiting for the order is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Departmental Appeal is accordingly allowed. 5. emsp Ld. Counsel had mentioned that this matter has been pending for a long time and the appropriate directions may be given to the authorities below to take expeditious steps in the matter. We find that the refund claim is relating to the period March, 1988 to February, 1989. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, we direct the Asstt. Collector to issue necessary orders in the matter at an early date in accordance with law.
-
1998 (12) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the Revenue. 2. emsp On hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, learned DR, we find that this issue has been settled by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 821-822/98-D, dated 9-10-1998 in the case of M/s. K.J. Vakharia and Co. and M/s. Suman Silk Mills P. Ltd. in which it has been held that the printing frames converted from flat bed screens are classifiable under Heading 84.42. Since the printing frames falling under the above Heading are governed by Notification 201/87, we hold that the Notification is also applicable. 3. emsp In the result, following the ratio of the order cited supra, we set aside the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and allow the appeal.
............
|