|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 520 Records
-
2004 (5) TMI 149 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... erty. The authorities below have held that the value of the bought out items is to be added to the assessable value of traffic controller. On a perusal of the judgments cited by the Counsel we find that the value of the bought out items is not required to be added to the duty paid goods cleared by the assessee from their factory. These judgments clearly apply to the facts of the case while the citations relied by the SDR pertains to a situation where bought out items are essential parts of the items supplied by the assessee and hence its value was required to be added. The situation is not the same in the present case as all the bought out items are sent to the site for erection of traffic signal system. Hence, they become part of the immovable property and cannot be considered as part of the traffic controller unit cleared by the appellant. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the judgments cited by the Counsel, the impugned order is set aside and appeals allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 147 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Tanks - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... heir respective foundations, as observed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order on the basis of statement of Shri C.S. Naik, Project Manager of the Principal contractor, did not make them as movable goods when these had been also embedded to earth permanently and could be removed only after dismantling the same. These tanks could be taken out only as sheets/scraps. Therefore, the duty demand raised in respect of these two tanks cannot be sustained. 7. Since the duty demand is liable to be set aside on the above discussed ground, the issue of availability of benefit of Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995 allowing exemption from payment of duty in respect of capital goods when used within the factory of production, as claimed by the appellants, is not required to be gone into. 8. In the light of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2004 (5) TMI 145 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... es at a lower price of Rs. 85/- per qtl. Thereafter the appellant received liquidated damages to the extent to Rs. 10,12,000/- on account of non-lifting of molasses as mentioned above. 3. The Revenue took the view that the above amount is addable to the assessable value of the molasses cleared by the assessee. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority. In view of the above, the assessee has come up in appeal. 4. We heard ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as ld. DR for the Revenue. 5. The issue is settled by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Spring Fresh Drinks v. CCE, 1991 (54) E.L.T. 333 CCE, Jamshedpur v. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd., 2000 (117) E.L.T. 647 and Inox Air Products Ltd. v. CCE, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 224. We follow the ratio of the above decisions and hold that the liquidated damages received by the appellant cannot be added to the assessable value. The order impugned is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 143 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Synthetic soft drink concentrate ... ... ... ... ..... be accepted, as the appellants cannot be given any licence to act against the Statute and to evade the payment of the appropriate duty leviable on their product. They cannot be permitted to take advantage of the wrongs being allegedly committed by other manufacturers. It is for the Department to deal with other manufacturers, as per law. But the product of the appellants for that reason cannot be held to be classifiable under sub-heading 2108.99 instead of 2108.10 which is the correct sub-heading of the CETA. 4. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order holding the product of the appellants classifiable under sub-heading 2108.10 of the CETA and accordingly confirming the duty demand against them is upheld. However, keeping in view the issue involved regarding the classification of the product, the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on the appellants deserves to be set aside and the same is set aside. The appeal of the appellants in these terms stands disposed of.
-
2004 (5) TMI 141 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Corrigendum to adjudication order - Hearing necessary - Natural justice - Valuation (Customs)
-
2004 (5) TMI 140 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... f the assessee in not taking necessary precautions to safeguard the goods. He further finds that the fire fighting system and fire alarms were not adequate, which could have helped to control the damage. Consequently, he ordered recovery of duty and imposed penalty. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. We note that there are no foolproof safety measures to avoid altogether accidental fires through electric short circuits. Even star hotels having best of the fire prevention system had been victims to such fires. The findings recorded in the order can as best be read as the lack of adequate fire fighting and alarm systems. We are unable to see any negligence, or any purposeful act of causing fire. We therefore hold that the appellants have a strong prima facie case to waive the pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty. Accordingly, we waive the pre-deposit of the entire amount and stay their recovery till the disposal of appeal. 4. Post for regular hearing on 16-7-2004.
-
2004 (5) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Import - Second-hand capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... definition of capital goods. We do not find any rationale in the Commissioner s argument. For goods to be qualified as capital goods it is enough if they are used for testing without them being useful in research and development. As per the second leg of Commissioner s argument that the services should be only those services which are inclusive in the GATT agreement and such services should earn foreign exchange, we observe that the Commissioner was wrong in restricting the meaning of services as appearing in Para 9.46. The Commissioner erred in holding that the definition of services in Para 9.46 is restrictive in its scope and meaning. An inclusive definition is wide enough to cover all services. The Commissioner erred in holding that the goods under imports are not capital goods. We hold that the goods are not liable to confiscation. They are freely importable under the Exim Policy as capital goods. 7. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 137 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... or the appellants points out that the duty demand has been confirmed relying on Board s Circular No. 258/92/96, dated 30-10-1996 without taking into account the subsequent Circular No. 692/08/2003, dated 13-2-2003 which modified the earlier circular. He further states that the subsequent circular clearly clarifies how to compute the cost and refers to CAS-4, which in paragraph 5.7 excludes administrative overheads including marketing, corporate office expenses etc. It is his claim that the impugned order is not in accordance with the said Board Circular dated 13-2-2003. 3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we are of the prima facie view that the later circular of the Board dated 13-2-2003 supports the claim of the appellants that the expenses relating to the corporate office are not includible in the cost calculation. As such, we waive the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty from on both the appellants and fix the regular hearing of the case on 14-7-2004.
-
2004 (5) TMI 135 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... ine, and once genuine sale price is available, comparable goods price can not be applied. 3. Sale by tender, if the tender system is not found fault with would be contract prices and contract prices for sale are acceptable under Section 4(1)(a) value. When contracts between principal-to-principal and not otherwise impugned. These sales do not therefore require Rule 6 of Valuation Rules determinations as proposed. Nothing arises is found in the impugned order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The same is to be upheld and Revenue s appeal dismissed. 4. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (5) TMI 134 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Abatement of duty - Compounded Levy Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ne cannot be blamed for the same. If appellants were not co-operative to follow the procedure prescribed under Trade Notice No. 42/99, the Range Superintendent would have not sealed the stenter by the procedure prescribed earlier. There is no dispute that the stenter was sealed on 25-8-1999 and the same was desealed and opened on 6-10-1999. Since the closure is more than one week, therefore the Commissioner was not justified in disallowing the credit on the ground that they have not followed the proper procedure. In fact the procedure for sealing is to be followed by the Range staff with the co-operation of the assessees. When the Range staff have sealed the appellants stenter without following the proper procedure benefit to the appellants cannot be denied. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Commissioner and direct the Commissioner to consider the claim of the appellants for abatement treating the stenter as closed during the relevant period. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... n respect of capital goods adequate depreciation may be given as per the rates fixed in Setter F. No. 495/16/93-Cus.VI, dated 26-5-1993, issued on the Customs side . 5. We heard the learned SDR who submitted that the orders impugned are not liable to be interfered with. 6. On going through the relevant portion of the Circular mentioned above, we find the appellant had followed the procedure referred therein. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also referred to the abovementioned circular but without assigning any reason he has rejected the contention taken by the appellant. Once the appellant has followed the circular issued by the Board and his action is not against any statutory provision, we find no reason to deny the benefit to the assessee. In the present case the assessee has adopted the value on the basis of which Cenvat Credit was taken. If that be so, demand in the show cause notice cannot be sustained. The order impugned is therefore set aside and appeal stands allowed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 132 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 280 (Tri.-LB) after considering the earlier decision of the Larger Bench in the case of C.C.E., Rajkot v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricator, reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 277 (T) held that Modvat credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock is liable to be reversed when the final product becomes exempted from payment of duty. In view of the above decisions, I agree with the view taken by Hon ble Member (Technical) and the appeal filed by M/s. Sansui India Ltd. deserves to be dismissed. Dated 4-3-2004 Sd/- (S.S. Kang) Member (J) MAJORITY ORDER 13.As per majority the Modvat Credit in respect of inputs lying in stock of M/s. Sunsui (India) Ltd. is liable to be reversed when the final product manufactured by them became exempted from payment of duty. Accordingly the appeal filed by M/s. Sunsui (India) Ltd. is rejected. Sd/- (P.G. Chacko) Member (J) Sd/- (V.K. Agrawal) Member (T)
-
2004 (5) TMI 123 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... year in which capital goods were received in the factory of the manufacturer. We find that corresponding provisions are made in Rule 4(2)(a) and (b) of Cenvat Rules, 2002. We find that these provisions do not deny credit, if it is not taken in the same financial year in which the capital goods were received. It only restricts that in the financial year in which capital goods were received, the credit not exceeding 50 of duty paid on such capital goods can be taken as credit in that financial year. Therefore, denial of 50 credit to the appellants on the ground that they had not taken the same in the same financial year in which the capital goods were received is contrary to the Rules. The rules do not provide that if 50 credit is not taken in the same financial year in which capital goods were received, then it will lapse. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct that 50 credit denied to the appellants should be allowed to them. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2004 (5) TMI 122 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ded with regard to the clearances of such a huge quantum of cement to an extent of 59245-113 MTs of cement and 5286-450 MTs of clinker for the period in question. There was no investigation from the transporters for having cleared the goods to any specific buyers. Prima facie the Commissioner ought to have examined these grounds and should have also considered the 28 judgments cited by the appellants, which are recorded in Para 14 of the Order. The Commissioner has not given any findings on these aspects of the matter. Prima facie appellants have shown that there was no manufacture or clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, the prayer for waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalties is accepted and stay applications are allowed. There shall be no recovery of the amounts during the pendency of the appeal. As the amounts are high in terms of the Tribunal s practice, the appeals are required to be heard expeditiously. Appeals to come up for final hearing on 11th August 2004.
-
2004 (5) TMI 121 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Condensers - Chillers - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... and reversals were made even before the issue of notice. The fact that there is no change in the classifications required to be effected in the case of condensers this case is found to be a case where there is no requirement to invoke penalty clause on the assessee and or the Executives. The penalties as imposed are not upheld. (e) Since condensers classification as arrived at is not upheld and condensers are found to be classified and remain to be classified under Heading 8419, and chillers have to be classified under Heading 8418, and no classification and demands under Heading 8418 have been confirmed, the duty demands as made of short payment of duties under 8415, by misclassification of these two goods is required to be not upheld and set aside. (f) The duty demands on Modvat reversal are confirmed. (g) The penalties on the Executives and the assessee cannot be upheld and are to be set aside. 3. In view of the findings above, these appeals are allowed in the above terms.
-
2004 (5) TMI 117 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund claim - Limitation - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... acation of the protest. In the present case the Assistant Commissioner passed appealable order way back in 91 vacating the protests. The above-cited case does not help the respondent. 10. There is no gain saying the fact that the claim for refund/Modvat credit was made 3 years after the respondent succeeded in appeal against rejection of his claim by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner s direction that the entire claim be given/sanctioned as Modvat credit irrespective of the time that has elapsed between the passing of the order in the respondents favour and the actual claim is not tenable. The Revenue s stand that the claim itself had been made after a lapse of three years has not been discussed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner s order has to be set-aside on the ground that the direction contained in his order is against settled principle of law in regard to the provisions under Section 11B. 11. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner is set aside.
-
2004 (5) TMI 115 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... es it clear that the difference in price between supplies made to the market (M/s. TAFE, Madras) and clearances made to appellants Hosur unit is on account of the fact that the transfers to the Hosur-unit were of semi-finished items which required further processing, while the sales to buyers is of fully finished items. Thus, there was a valid explanation for difference in prices. Penal provisions can not be invoked in such a cases. 3. The appeal of the Revenue, therefore, has no merit. It is rejected after condoning the delay.
-
2004 (5) TMI 114 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Newsprint manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... h Jan., 2000 by the Under Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Industry refers to their application for inclusion of their name in the Schedule-I to the Newspaper Control Order, 1962. The above letter suggests certain clarifications which, according to the appellant, were submitted in time. 6. Under these circumstances, the appellant should be treated as having been included in the Schedule w.e.f. 23-12-1999 for the purpose of the benefit of Nil rate of duty under the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. In the light of the above finding, we send back the matter to the adjudicating authority for calculating the duty liability of the appellant for the period prior to 23-12-1999. On computation of such amount, the appellant will be entitled for adjustment of its duty liability from the amount paid as pre-deposit in this appeal. In the light of the above finding, we are inclined to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal stands disposed of as above.
-
2004 (5) TMI 113 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... lates to the manufacture of WTG in India. Service fee is also in respect of service of manufactured product, namely, WTG. Apart from the fact that the agreement for supply of parts/components was entered into much earlier to the technical licence fee agreement, we find that the technical licence fee was payable in relation to WTG manufactured in India by the appellant and not in respect of parts/components imported by the appellant. Licence fee is not payable as a condition of sale of the imported goods. Therefore, according to us, both the licence fee would not satisfy the required conditions under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 for being added while assessing the value of the imported goods. We had occasion to consider a similar issue in M/s. Mando Brake Systems India Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 333 where we have upheld a similar contention raised by the assessee. 6. In view of the above we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
-
2004 (5) TMI 111 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Fermentor - Customs Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... r imported by the appellants is for the production of vaccine which is a commodity. Therefore, the fact that the vaccine produced by this machine is in crude form which requires purification and bottling for the purpose of marketing, is immaterial and cannot be made basis for disallowing the benefit of the above said Notification to the appellants for want of any such condition laid down therein to the appellants. Therefore, in our view, the benefit of the Notification has been wrongly denied to the appellants. The machine imported by them is meant for production of vaccine which itself is a commodity. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. 4. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the adjudicating authority denying the benefit of the Notification in question detailed above to the appellants is set aside. The appeal of the appellants accordingly stands disposed of with consequential relief if any permissible under the law.
............
|
