|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 140 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... to accept the submission by saying that there is no difference between packed PTA and unpacked PTA. 9.Neither the show-cause notice nor the Assistant Collector s order quantified the amount of duty payable. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter for quantification of duty. The duty was quantified by order dated 14-4-1996 of the Assistant Commissioner. The duty payable was determined to be Rs. 1,56,96,296/-. The amount was quantified after issuing notice to the appellant, which again did not give particulars of the items. In the reply to the notice the appellant broke up the demand into various components, interest on receivables, packing cost included in the assessable value and other deductions. The costs incurred towards packing are shown to be Rs. 79,47,651/-. In the absence of anything to the contrary in the records we accept that this is the amount that is payable on this account. 10.The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
2000 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ies of customs payable on such goods if imported into India. Invoices under which the duty was paid showed the components of the duty separately i.e., duty equal to the basic customs duty payable and the amount of the duty equal to the basic duty, and the additional duty of customs. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the fact that what was payable and paid is not customs duty. It is excise duty. It is only for the purpose of calculation of duty that reference to customs duty payable on such like goods if imported into India becomes relevant. The character of the duty is not altered by the fact of it being calculated with reference to customs duty. This is the view affirmed by the Larger Bench in its decision in Vikram Ispat and Another v. CCE in appeals E/1353/96 2000 (120) E.L.T. 800 (Tribunal - LB) and others. The appellant was therefore entitled to take credit of the entire duty on the goods. 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 136 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Additional Excise duty - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... he Commissioner has proceeded by the circular issued by the CBEC vide F. No. 59/6/97-CX, dated 3-1-98. He contends that the Tribunal, after due consideration, did not accept the Board s circular and the same was rejected in the said order. He submits that Revenue has taken up the matter before the Hon ble Apex Court. He contends that as the case is fully covered and the 3 of their units have already been granted the benefit therefore the impugned order is for granting waiver of pre-deposit and granting stay of the same. We are not in a position to accept the appeal kept in abeyance till such time the Apex Court judgment issued is delivered. The Hon ble Apex Court has not granted any stay of the operation of the Tribunal s judgment, in applicants case. Therefore, the Tribunal s judgment in appellants own case is binding on a coordinate Bench. Therefore, following the ratio of the applicants own case, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ated the grounds taken in appeal. It appears that the department has come in appeal on the ground that octroi receipt should be the basis in determining the clandestine removal. The Commissioner has held that cannot be made purely on the basis of octroi basis. It was also observed by the Tribunal in the case referred to above that no investigation was conducted in respect of the goods alleged to have been removed without payment of duty, even though the names of the consignees were appended on the octroi receipts. In a way it was held that octroi receipt cannot be form the basis of clandestine removal unless other circumstances/ evidence was brought on record. Since this has not been proved by the department the Tribunal has taken the view that there is no justification to arrive at the conclusion that there was a clandestine removal. In the facts and circumstances and following the previous ruling, I do not find any infirmity in the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 132 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI
Rubber products - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the Appellants and we hold that the product is classifiable under Sub-heading 4008.21 of CETA (Now 4008.22) and not under Residuary Sub-heading 4016.99 of CETA. 9. We, however, agree with the learrned Advocate for the Appellants that no penalty is imposable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act as it relates to the classification of product and the Appellants had filed the classification declaration and assessments were finalised for the past period. As far as classification of criss-cross patches of unvulcanised rubber is concerned, the impugned order does not contain any finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly we remand the matter regarding classification of Criss cross patches of unvulcanised rubber to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to pass a speaking well reasoned order in respect of the said product after following the principles of natural justice. 10. The appeal is, thus, disposed of in these terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 131 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... Collector or the Collector cannot determine the normal production unless all the factors mentioned in the Rule are present simultaneously. It has been held that Rule does not say so nor is it capable of being so interpreted. It has been held that in a case like the one in question, where the accounts are found fabricated and untrue, the figures of raw material utilised or the particulars of labour employed may not be available. It is not the case of the appellant that even though acceptable material with respect to these factors was available, it was not considered. On that plea, the Apex Court rejected the appeal. However, we notice that evidence had been brought by the Revenue to sustain the case. But in the present case, such evidence is not available. Therefore, we hold that a private note book is not sufficient for confirming clandestine removal. Hence, we accept the prayer of the appellant for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 128 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Exemption (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... the impugned goods imported by the Appellants. We, therefore, uphold the demand of Customs duty against the Appellants. 9.We however, agree with the ld. Advocate that neither the penalty is imposable on the Appellants nor interest is chargeable from them under Section 28AB of the Customs Act. Merely because they claim benefit of exemption Notification No. 51/96 in the Bill of Entry, it can not be said that there was any wilful mis-declaration or suppression of the facts. The Appellants have claimed that they had presented all the documents relating to the import before the Customs Authorities at the time of import. Perusal of Bill of Entry reveals that they had mentioned themselves as the importer. No case, thus has been made by the Revenue for imposition of penalty and as there is no wilful mis-declaration, etc., provisions of Section 28AB are also not invokable. We therefore, set aside the penalty imposed and interest demanded. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 127 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Demand - Second demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... such additional collection of funds. This allegation has also been upheld in the adjudication order upon a detailed examination of the evidence available. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed. 8.Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue. Appeal No. E/2095/2000-A of the Revenue is against the method of requantifying of duty on the basis of cum-duty price and the imposition of a small penalty in the impugned order. Since we have held the duty demand to be not maintainable, the correctness or otherwise of its computation is not a relevant question in the present case. The appeal also does not make out any ground as to how penalty is small, except for stating that it is meagre and small. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. 9.In view of the findings above, we set aside the duty demanded in the impugned order. We also confirm the penalty of Rs. 1 crore imposed on the appellants. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 124 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Molten wax - Hotmelt wax - Marketability - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ugar Syrup is heated at 80 C produced in the intermediate stage of operation for captive consumption. 9.We also note that it is a well-settled principle of law that the onus to establish the marketability of the disputed product is upon the Revenue. The Department in the impugned Order has not referred to any evidence showing that the hotmelt wax at the stage in which it emerges in the appellants factory, is capable of being bought and sold in the market. In the absence of such evidence so produced by the Revenue and in the light of discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, we hold that the hotmelt wax produced by the appellants Unit is not capable of being marketed and as such, cannot be considered as goods liable to duty of excise. 10.As the appeal has been allowed on merits, we do not express any opinion on the demand being barred by limitation. 11.In view of the forgoing, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (10) TMI 122 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat on capital goods
... ... ... ... ..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the pipelines would be covered under the definition of factory as given in the Act, it is incorrect to submit that the use is not within the premises of the Respondents factory. He submits there are no other grounds in the said appeal and the same should be rejected. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and find that the pipline can be considered in the factory in this case, it would be covered by the definition of the word factory under Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, we cannot find any other reason to uphold the Revenue appeal, since we find that the use of this subject pipline is extension of the pipelines inside the factory to be used within the premises of the Respondent s factory. We find that the case of Vikas Industrial Gases (supra) has been adequately distinguished by the ld. Counsel and therefore we find no reason in the Revenue appeal. Accordingly we reject the Revenue appeal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI
Rubberised coir mattresses and cushions - Adjudication - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... d have both an oil mill and a solvent extraction plant both of which manufacture vegetable oils, but that is no reason, in our view, to place upon the plain words of the notification a narrower meaning than that to which they plainly lend themselves, the notification exempts goods manufactured in factories of the oil mill and the solvent extraction industry. The appellants goods are goods manufactured in a solvent extraction plant and must, on the plain words of the notification, receive the benefit of the exemption that it confers. 13.The Tribunal, after relying upon the above mentioned decision of Hon ble Supreme Court, vide Final Order Nos. 110-111/99 dated 16-2-1999, held that rubberised coir mattresses and cushions are entitled for the benefit of notification no. 115/75. 14.In view of the above decision of the Tribunal and in view of the test report of the Chemical Examiner in respect of the goods, in question, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 119 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... been made for the cost of printing on them. However, that is not what this paragraph says. It specifically alleges that Mahalaxmi, WIG and GCD are related persons within the meaning of Section 4. Paragraph 57 emphasises the financial flowback from investments made by GCD in Mahalaxmi and WIG. This might support the view that they are related. We are not able to see any nexus, by virtue of these paragraphs, between Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules and the facts contained therein. 8.It would then follow that no valid notice was issued proposing the method of valuation adopted by the Collector. His order cannot be upheld. 9.The department s appeals, on the ground that the Commissioner was in error in not quantifying the duty imposed and in asking the Directorate of Anti-Evasion to quantify the duty, would not survive in the light of our finding that the order is not maintainable. 10.Appeals E/2501/93-A, E/2499/93-A and E/120/95-A are allowed. The other three appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 118 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Remission of Duty - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... e said that fire was not avoidable. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present matter, we do not agree with the findings in the impugned Order that the accident occurred purely due to inept handling and carelessness on the part of the Appellants. As far as intimation of fire is concerned, the appellants have claimed to have informed the Superintendent Central Excise, Range Kosikalan at 7.50 A.M. on 28-2-97. No doubt no proof of Phone call has been brought on record. But the submissions of the Appellants that the Central Excise Officers visited their factory on 28-2-97 itself has not been rebutted by the Revenue. Finally we find substantial force in the submissions of the learned Consultant that as the bailing press was purchased in 1994 under Notification No. 57/94, the condition specified in another subsequent Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 cannot be made applicable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 117 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Jurisdiction - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... the matter relating to the availment of the Modvat credit on the products having already been settled by the original authority in favour of the party should not have been raked up by Commissioner (Appeals) in his order without any appeal filed by the Revenue before him. There is also force in the submissions of the party that the particulars required to be furnished in the invoices under the stated notifications all relate to the invoices to be issued by the dealers. Since the BPCL depots are not dealers, there is no question of furnishing such particulars in the invoices issued by them. The duty is paid on the bonded excisable petroleum products for the first time at the depots of the oil companies and the particulars of such duty payment are fully reflected therein. Therefore, there is no ground to deny them the Modvat credit on the impugned items. I accept these submissions of the appellants and allow their appeal setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities.
-
2000 (10) TMI 116 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... onclusion of the proceedings. It clearly shows that appellants are not interested in the proceedings. Only after a lapse of six years they have approached the department for a copy and the Superintendent, by his letter dated 21-12-1999 clearly indicated to the appellants about the services of the order on 1-12-1994 . Therefore, appellants ought to have demonstrated before the Commissioner (Appeals) while filing the appeal against the OIO, dated 1-11-1994 that they had not received the order at all and the order was received by them only after 21-12-1999. Appellants having failed to show that the OIO was never served on them for six years cannot plead now that appeal was not barred by time. The statutory authorities have no powers to enlarge the time beyond three months under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act. In that view of the matter we uphold the contention of ld. DR that appeal is not maintainable. As such the stay application and appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2000 (10) TMI 115 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... he Collector (Appeals) in fact has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Mysore Lac and Paint Works Ltd. - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 598 (Tribunal) 1991 (17) ECR 61. This decision holds that in the absence of a specific rule, it has to be held that the manufacturer can take credit within a reasonable period and fixed six months as the reasonable period. In my view, in the absence of a specific provision prohibiting taking credit in a particular period, the manufacturer is entitled to take credit at any time. Normally no person would fail to take credit of duty, and act to his own disadvantage. No motive can be attributed in this case. In any case, there is no loss to the department. In these circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to go into the question of six months as not a reasonable period. Otherwise, as long as the rule had been specifically or by implication providing taking credit, it can be taken. 5. I therefore decline to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 114 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... uty free final goods. Rule 12 cannot be read in isolation but that the inputs would first have to pass the test of Rule 57C and Rule 57CC. In other words, where the credit is capable of being allowed it could be allowed to be utilised. The utilisation under Rule 57F(12) could be claimed only if the same is allowed under Rule 57C. 7.On receipt of this order the assessees in each case claimed that they had taken the route prescribed by Rule 57CC. Today each of the appellants has produced certificates from the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officials supporting this claim. Copies of these certificates had been marked to the DR also. The certificates are in addition to the Affidavit earlier filed by each of the three appellants. On persual of the certificates, we find that the test of passing the hurdle or Rule 57CC has also been completed by the appellants. 7.In the result we find that the Commissioner s order does not survive. These appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
2000 (10) TMI 113 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... uary, 1992 and registered vide Case No. 511/92. The learned Advocate argues that as the applicants have a strong case in their favour on merits and their financial condition being precarious, adequate grounds exist for grant of unconditional stay. 3. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the reasoning contained in the Order-in-Original and submits that there is no case for grant of stay. 4. We have heard both sides. On a careful perusal of the Orders-in-Original referred to by the learned Advocate and also the Contract between the applicants and M/s. Northern Coalfields Ltd., we are of the view that the applicants have made out a prima facie case in their favour. Moreover, their financial condition is also not on a sound footing. Having regard to these factors, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the applicants are granted an unconditional stay as prayed for. Ordered accordingly. The Stay Petition is thus allowed unconditionally.
-
2000 (10) TMI 112 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Brand Name ... ... ... ... ..... statutory authority that recognises the assessee as a sole proprietor in the said communication. Once that has been established the denial of the benefit of the notification under consideration in our view is wrong in law. More-over the Tribunal s decision in the assessees own case in an earlier proceedings in Appeal No. 3461/93 clear of clinches in their favour that is the position the grounds taken before us which has been extracted above, clearly indicated that they would reiterate what is mentioned in the show cause notice. The trade mark registry s communication were clearly decided the case in favour of the assessee, apart from the decision of the Tribunal in their own case. In view thereof the grounds of department namely that some other assessee in some other Collectorate have been denied of exemption under the Notification has no legs to stand. 8.Appeal No. E/3691-R/98 filed by the assessee is allowed and Appeal No. E/254-R/2000 filed by the department is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 111 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... apprehension, desires not to accept the transaction value. We cannot uphold such determination of valuation under rule 4 and/or going into Rule 8 in this case. The certificate can be accepted in totality or not accepted. One cannot pick and choose and accept part of the same certificate. Either the author is competent to issue the certificate or not competent. The lower authorities have not questioned the same certificate for Import Control Regulations and used the same for determining the conditions of the goods, but rejected the same for the purpose of valuation. They are again accepting the valuation for the same goods as given in the certificate when they were new and unused and granted adhoc depreciation on such new values as indicted in the certificate. This cannot be accepted in logic and in law. (c) We find no ground to reject the transaction value. 3. In view of our above findings, the order is set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential benefit as per law.
............
|
