|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 469 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 80
Issues:
- Whether the refund claimed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is admissible to them.
Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. raised the issue of the admissibility of a refund claimed by them. The appellant contended that the amount in question was appropriated without issuing a show cause notice and without following the principle of natural justice. They argued that the appropriation was unilateral and violated Sections 59 and 60 of the Indian Contract Act. The appellant also highlighted that the deposit made by them was towards confirmed demands and pending appeals, and there was no justification for recovering the disputed amount. They emphasized that no adjudication order had been passed demanding the amount, and therefore, it was not recoverable. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their arguments, including the requirement of a proper adjudication order and the futility of considering every communication as a show cause notice.
In response, the Department argued that the appropriation of the amount was based on an appealable order, and since no appeal was filed by the appellant, the refund claim was rightly rejected. They cited legal precedents emphasizing that orders, even if flawed, stand unless set aside by the proper appellate authority. The Department also contended that the appellant could not claim a refund based on a decision in another person's case and that the appellant had not followed the proper procedure to challenge the appropriation of the amount.
After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the amount in question had been appropriated without a proper demand or adjudication order as required by law. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory requirement of issuing a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and held that the letter intimating the appropriation could not be equated with an order necessitating an appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the deposit made by the appellant was under protest and not linked to any specific pending demand. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and holding that the refund claim could not be disallowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 79
Issues Involved:
1. Availing Modvat credit on forged Bills of Entry.
2. Penalties imposed on the company and its officers.
3. Dropping of proceedings against certain officers.
4. Evaluation of evidence and complicity of individuals.
5. Application of Central Excise Rules and Sections.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Availing Modvat credit on forged Bills of Entry:
The case revolves around the availing of Modvat credit on seven forged Bills of Entry under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, during December 1991 to May 1992. The fraudulent act was allegedly committed with the active connivance and collusion of the company's officers.
2. Penalties imposed on the company and its officers:
Upon adjudication, the Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondent-company under Rule 173Q(1)(bb). Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on Shri M. Rambabu under Rule 210, while penalty proceedings against Dr. A.J. Prasad, Shri Kondal Reddy, and Shri M.S. Sastry were dropped.
3. Dropping of proceedings against certain officers:
The Revenue appealed, arguing that the penalties were too low and that the proceedings against Dr. A.J. Prasad, Shri Kondal Reddy, and Shri M.S. Sastry should not have been dropped. They contended that these individuals were liable for penalties based on the evidence provided.
4. Evaluation of evidence and complicity of individuals:
- Dr. A.J. Prasad: The evidence suggested that Dr. Prasad was aware of the fraud by May/June 1992. However, the Commissioner found no direct evidence implicating him in the fraud. The company had taken steps to address the forgery upon its discovery.
- Shri Kondal Reddy and Shri M.S. Sastry: The primary evidence against them was the statement of co-accused Shri Rambabu. The Commissioner found no corroborative evidence to support their involvement, leading to the dropping of charges.
- Shri M. Rambabu: Admitted to preparing forged Bills of Entry under instructions from Reddy and Sastry. However, the Commissioner ruled that penalties under Rule 209A or Section 9AA were not applicable as the goods involved were 'imported goods' and not 'excisable goods'.
5. Application of Central Excise Rules and Sections:
The Commissioner carefully considered the applicability of Rule 209A and Section 9AA and concluded that these provisions were not applicable in this case. Instead, penalties were imposed under Rule 210, which provides a maximum penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. The appeal did not challenge the invocation of Rule 210, thus confirming the penalties imposed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for enhancement of penalties. The penalties imposed were deemed appropriate given the circumstances, and no further penalties were warranted under the contested rules. The Tribunal also noted that judicial findings in related prosecutions supported the adequacy of the penalties imposed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 78
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dismissed the appeal by STP Ltd. regarding denial of a discount on imported goods. The Tribunal found that the discount was a standard commercial practice based on negotiations, and upheld the assessment based on the invoice price.
-
2003 (8) TMI 69
The appeals were filed against a common Order-in-Appeal regarding the entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 45/94-Cus. The issue was whether the goods (Poly Vinyl Alcohol) were actually used or capable of being used in the leather industry. The Tribunal ruled that actual use is not required for availing the benefit of the notification, only capability of use is sufficient. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
2003 (8) TMI 67
Issues involved:
Claim for refund of bank guarantee amount, applicability of Section 11B of the Act, entitlement to interest under Section 11BB.
Analysis:
1. Claim for refund of bank guarantee amount: The appeal was filed against the order disallowing the refund amount of a bank guarantee of Rs. 42.50 lakhs. The appellants had furnished the bank guarantee along with a Bond in Form 13 as their assessments were made provisional under Rule 9B. The Department encashed the bank guarantee to recover the duty demand, but the order of the Commissioner was set aside by the Tribunal. The appellants then claimed a refund, which was rejected as time-barred by the Deputy Commissioner and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Act: The Tribunal held that the right to claim the refund of the bank guarantee amount accrued to the appellants from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, not from the date of encashment. The authorities' view that time should be computed from the date of encashment was deemed erroneous and contrary to settled law. The Tribunal referred to the Grasim Industries case and a Board's Circular, stating that bank guarantees should be returned to the assessee when the matter goes in their favor, as in this case.
3. Entitlement to interest under Section 11BB: Since the provisions of Section 11B of the Act were held not to be applicable in a case of bank guarantee furnished in provisional assessment proceedings, the appellants were not entitled to interest under Section 11BB, as the bank guarantee was considered security, not a duty deposited in advance.
In conclusion, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed with consequential relief. The authorities were directed to release the money to the appellants within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 64
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi directed payment of interest at 12% on a refund amount of Rs. one lakh from the date of expiry of three months from the Final order. Compliance to be reported on 23-9-2003.
-
2003 (8) TMI 63
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi directed the respondents to refund Rs. one crore paid as pre-deposit by the appellants in appeal Nos. E/1151/2000-NB(A) and E/1192/2000-NB(A) under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal granted interest at 12% from the date of expiry of 3 months from the final order dated 18-9-2001 till the date of payment.
-
2003 (8) TMI 62
Issues:
Determining entitlement to deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983.
Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether Respondent No. 1 was entitled to the benefit of deemed Modvat credit as per Notification No. 208/83-C.E. The Respondent, engaged in manufacturing parts of motor vehicles, availed Modvat credit on inputs but faced a notice proposing recovery. The adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal, but the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, citing precedents like the case of Machine Builders v. Collector of Central Excise. The petitioner sought a legal declaration based on a Division Bench judgment and argued against the benefit of deemed Modvat credit for the Respondent.
The Court considered various arguments and precedents. The Division Bench judgment in Upper India Steel Manufacturing case emphasized the burden on the manufacturer to establish conditions specified in the government order. The Supreme Court's ruling in Collector of Central Excise v. Decent Dyeing Co. highlighted the manufacturer's liability for excise duty payment and the burden of proof on the department regarding duty payment. The Full Bench of the Tribunal in Machine Builders case interpreted government orders and discussed the burden of proof in cases of conditional exemption, emphasizing the responsibility of the manufacturer to take a stand on deemed credit eligibility.
The Court concluded that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Decent Dyeing Co. case, followed by the Tribunal, was binding. The Division Bench's view in Upper India Steel Manufacturing case was deemed incorrect for not considering the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned orders did not have any legal flaws, and no substantial question arose for determination. Therefore, the petition was dismissed based on the established legal principles and precedents cited in the judgment.
-
2003 (8) TMI 61
Issues involved: Challenge to the dismissal of an appeal u/s Customs and Central Excise Act based on non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act.
Summary:
1. The petitioner appealed a decision by authorities but failed to comply with the Tribunal's order to deposit specified amounts within given time frames, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
2. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have considered financial hardship before directing the deposit, and non-compliance should not result in automatic dismissal of the appeal, citing relevant case laws.
3. The respondent contended that the petitioner had ample opportunities to comply and the appeal dismissal was justified.
4. The Court noted the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and emphasized that dismissal should not be mechanical, even if the deposit directive was not followed. Financial hardship should be considered in such cases.
5. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed a reconsideration of the matter in accordance with the law for a merit-based decision.
6. The petition was disposed of with the above directions.
-
2003 (8) TMI 60
Issues:
Interest payable on import duty in respect of goods imported by the petitioner.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in this writ petition is the determination of interest payable on the import duty for goods imported by the petitioner. The dispute revolves around the date from which the interest on the custom duty becomes payable, with the petitioner arguing for a later date than contended by the revenue authorities.
2. The Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Bangalore Wire Rod Mills is crucial in resolving the issue at hand. The Court interpreted Sections 59(1) and 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing that the liability to pay interest arises only after the expiry of the period specified in the notice of demand. In the absence of a specified period in the notice of demand, the amount becomes payable immediately on the date of the notice, as in this case, 5-7-1991.
3. The judgment clarifies that interest on customs duty cannot be charged for any period prior to the date of the notice of demand, which in this case is 5-7-1991. The notice of demand issued on that date is significant as it triggers the obligation to pay interest on the customs duty. Therefore, any demand for interest before this date is deemed invalid and must be set aside.
4. Furthermore, the date of clearance from the warehouse, 13-7-1991, is identified as the relevant date for computing customs duty under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since there was no change in the duty rate between 5-7-1991 and 13-7-1991, the duty computed in the notice of demand on 5-7-1991 remains applicable. Consequently, interest on the customs duty becomes payable from 5-7-1991 onwards.
5. The judgment concludes by quashing the notice of demand dated 5-7-1991 to the extent that it demands interest for the period before the notice was issued. The petitioner is directed to pay the interest amount due for the period 5-7-1991 to 13-7-1991 within a week, after which the bank guarantees will be discharged. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs, settling the matter of interest payable on the import duty for the goods imported by the petitioner.
-
2003 (8) TMI 59
Issues:
1. Failure to file affidavit-in-opposition in a writ petition.
2. Alleged evasion of excise duty by a petitioner-company.
3. Tribunal's order directing deposit of a certain amount for hearing an appeal.
4. Review application seeking reduction of the deposit amount.
5. Tribunal's rejection of the review application.
6. Challenge to the Tribunal's order in a writ petition.
Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with noting the failure to file an affidavit-in-opposition despite directions in a writ petition.
2. The petitioner-company, engaged in manufacturing tin containers, faced allegations of evading excise duty following a raid by Excise authorities. Documents were seized, and a show cause notice was issued, indicating discrepancies in Modvat accounts. The petitioner did not respond to the notice, leading to an order demanding payment of around Rs. 25 lakhs.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the Tribunal, which required a deposit before hearing the appeal. The Tribunal directed a deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs, which the petitioner failed to make, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
4. The petitioner then filed a review application, citing inability to pay the assessed tax or the deposit. The Tribunal extended the deposit deadline without reducing the amount. The High Court intervened, setting aside the dismissal and directing the Tribunal to reconsider the review application.
5. Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal maintained the Rs. 10 lakhs deposit requirement, prompting the petitioner to challenge this decision in a writ petition. The Court found no valid reason provided in the review application to reduce the deposit, emphasizing the presence of current assets in the petitioner's balance sheet.
6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the deposit amount and finding no grounds for interference. No costs were awarded, and interim orders were vacated.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural history, legal arguments, and the Court's reasoning in addressing the issues raised by the petitioner-company in the excise duty evasion case.
-
2003 (8) TMI 58
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the demand for recovery of rebate of duty wrongly granted.
2. Validity of statements made by the Petitioners under duress.
3. Linkage between exported goods and duty-paid goods.
4. Invocation of the extended period of limitation.
5. Handling of the case by the Excise Authorities.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legitimacy of the Demand for Recovery of Rebate of Duty Wrongly Granted:
The Joint Secretary of the Government of India upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the demand for recovery of rebate of duty wrongly granted to the Petitioners. The authorities found that the Petitioners could not establish the linkage between the exported fabrics and the duty-paid fabrics purchased for export. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand and levied penalties on the Petitioners, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Joint Secretary. The High Court found no fault with the orders passed by the authorities below, as the Petitioners failed to prove that the export goods were made from duty-paid raw materials.
2. Validity of Statements Made by the Petitioners Under Duress:
The Petitioners argued that the statements of Petitioner No. 2 were taken under duress and did not reflect the correct position. However, the High Court noted that the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were never retracted and were voluntarily made. The Court emphasized that vague statements made in reply to the show cause notice cannot be considered a retraction. The Court also highlighted that the statements were sought to be retracted only after several years, indicating that the retraction was merely an afterthought.
3. Linkage Between Exported Goods and Duty-Paid Goods:
The Petitioners contended that the linkage between the exported goods and the duty-paid fabrics could be established through various documents. However, the Court found that the Petitioners did not maintain any stock register and could not provide any document to show that the fabrics purchased from dealer C were the same fabrics on which duty had been paid by dealer A. The Court noted discrepancies in the length of the fabrics purchased and exported and concluded that the Petitioners failed to unequivocally establish the linkage between the export goods and the duty-paid goods.
4. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation:
The Petitioners argued that the show cause notices were time-barred as the factual position was within the knowledge of the Department. The Court, however, held that the Excise Authorities were justified in invoking the extended period of limitation due to the discrepancies and the Petitioners' failure to establish the linkage between the export goods and the duty-paid goods. The Court rejected the contention that the show cause notice was barred by limitation.
5. Handling of the Case by the Excise Authorities:
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the case was handled by the Excise Authorities. The Court noted that despite knowing in September 1995 that the certificates issued by the Excise Officers were incorrect, no action was taken against those officers. The Court criticized the inaction of the higher authorities in the Central Excise Department and emphasized the need for immediate and prompt action to prevent such cases from recurring.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition with costs, upholding the orders of the authorities below. The Court found that the Petitioners failed to establish the linkage between the exported goods and the duty-paid fabrics, and the statements made by Petitioner No. 2 were voluntarily given and not retracted. The Court also justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the Excise Authorities and criticized the inaction of the higher authorities in handling the case.
-
2003 (8) TMI 57
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the authority to issue a show cause-cum-demand notice.
2. Time-barred nature of the notice.
3. Applicability of the proviso to Section 11A for extending the limitation period.
4. Allegations of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement.
5. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Authority to Issue a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice:
The petitioners challenged the show cause-cum-demand notice under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, issued by the Collector-I, Central Excise, Calcutta-II. The court acknowledged that writ courts typically refrain from interfering with show cause notices, but emphasized that this notice was not a mere show cause but a show cause-cum-demand notice, implying a reason to believe in the necessity of its issuance. The court highlighted that interference by writ courts depends on various circumstances, especially when the jurisdiction of the authority is in question.
2. Time-barred Nature of the Notice:
The petitioners argued that the notice dated April 3, 1995, was time-barred, as it was issued beyond the six-month period allowed under the Act. The court noted that the six-month period could only be extended to five years in cases involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The court found that the goods in question were disclosed to the authorities, and the classification lists were verified, thus negating the claim of suppression of facts. The court emphasized that fiscal statutes require rigid principles and mathematical precision.
3. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 11A for Extending the Limitation Period:
The court examined whether the extended period of five years under the proviso to Section 11A could be applied. It concluded that the mere mechanical repetition of the language of the provision in the show cause notice does not confer jurisdiction to issue such a notice beyond the six-month period. The court referred to several judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's rulings, which established that the extended period requires a positive act of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
4. Allegations of Suppression of Facts or Wilful Misstatement:
The court scrutinized the allegations of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. It found that the classification lists were duly approved by the excise authorities, and there was no evidence of deliberate omission or misstatement by the petitioners. The court reiterated the principle that suppression of facts must be deliberate and not merely an omission. The court cited several judgments, including Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay, which clarified that suppression must involve a deliberate act to escape duty payment.
5. Availability and Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies:
The Union of India argued that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of alternative remedies. However, the court noted that when the foundation of the show cause-cum-demand notice is challenged, the writ petition is maintainable. The court emphasized that if the notice is time-barred and lacks a valid foundation, the argument for alternative remedies is not tenable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly, which held that once a writ petition is entertained on merits, it cannot be rejected on the ground of non-exhaustion of statutory remedies.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the writ petition should succeed, confirming the interim order and disposing of the petition without costs. The court refused the prayer for stay and directed that xeroxed certified copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties within seven days.
Note: The summary maintains the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text, ensuring a comprehensive and detailed analysis of each issue involved.
-
2003 (8) TMI 56
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding deposit amounts and stay applications.
Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders P. 1 and P. 2 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) in New Delhi. Order P. 1 directed the petitioner to deposit a total amount of Rs. 5 crore 80 lacs in a specific manner by a set deadline. Failure to comply would result in vacation of stay orders and dismissal of appeals. The petitioner sought modification of the order, which was rejected by order P. 2 due to lack of new grounds for waiving deposit or modifying the stay order. The petitioner was given the opportunity to restore appeals if the directed amount was deposited within a specified time frame. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, leading to dismissal of the appeals by CEGAT.
The petitioner argued being a sick unit, unable to receive payments directly, and hence unable to deposit the ordered amount. The CEGAT's findings in order P. 1 highlighted discrepancies between bank statements and RT-12 returns, indicating potential issues with duty computation. However, the CEGAT noted the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for total waiver of duty and penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the need for detailed examination of the discrepancies and the importance of applying case law based on specific facts of each case. Additionally, the financial position of the petitioner was considered concerning allegations of clandestine removal and statutory figures not reflecting sale proceeds.
In the High Court's judgment, it was noted that the amount ordered to be deposited by CEGAT was just and reasonable considering the total liability of Rs. 51 crores. The Court found no grounds to interfere in the writ petition and subsequently dismissed it. The High Court upheld the decision of CEGAT regarding the deposit amount and the dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and fulfilling obligations as directed by the Tribunal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 55
Export - Rebate claim - Amended limitation period - right to retate of duty accrues - Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("Act") which came to be amended with effect from 12th May, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In present case, when the exports were made in the year 1999 the limitation for claiming rebate of duty u/s 11B was six months. Thus, for exports made on 20th May, 1999 and 10th June, 1999 the due date for application of rebate of duty was 20th November, 1999 and 10th December, 1999 respectively. However, both the applications were made belatedly on 28th December, 1999, as a result, the claims made by the petitioners were clearly time-barred. Section 11B was amended by Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 12th May, 2000, wherein the limitation for applying for refund of any duty was enlarged from 'six months' to 'one year'. Although the amendment came into force with effect from 12th May, 2000.
Section 11B merely debars the remedy if the claim is not filed within the period of limitation set out therein. if there is alteration in the procedural law, there is no reason to presume that the amendment was not intended to apply retrospectively. In other words, where the amended statute alters the existing practice and procedure of enforcing the substantive rights, then the amended, procedure would apply for enforcement of the substantive rights existing on the date when the amended provisions came into force. Accordingly, we hold that the limitation of one year provided by amendment to Section 11B with effect from 12th May, 2000 would apply retrospectively and would cover exports made one year prior to 12th May, 2000. To put it differently the amended limitation of one year with effect from 12th May, 2000 would apply to all exports made after 12th May, 1999. In the present case, the exports were effected on 20th May, 1999 and 10th June, 1999 i.e. within one year from 12th May, 2000 and hence, the amended limitation period of one year would apply to the case of the petitioners.
Alternatively, once it is held that the limitation u/s 11B is procedural, then any amendment to such procedural law can be said to have retroactive effect if not the retrospective effect. The amended Section 11B, without affecting the existing substantive right, merely enables an expanded remedy period. In other words, even if the amendment is not to have retrospective effect, it would nevertheless have retroactive effect and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner's would be covered within the amended period of limitation and thus the petitioners would be entitled to rebate of duty. In the light of the view taken, for the reasons recorded, we do not think it necessary to dwell upon other contentions raised by the petitioners.
In the result, petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition with no order as to costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 54
Remand - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Delay in disposal - Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:-Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT] had also an occasion to consider the serious issue of delayed delivery of judgment by some of the High Courts and had occasion to lay down certain guidelines regarding pronouncement of judgments by the High Courts. The similar guidelines can conveniently be laid down for the CEGAT so as to prevent delayed delivery of the judgments which at the end of the day results in denial of justice as happened in the instant case.
We, therefore, direct the President of the CEGAT to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT] and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the CEGAT in that behalf. We hope and trust that suitable guidelines shall be framed and issued by the President of the CEGAT and followed strictly by all the benches of the CEGAT.
Now turning to the merits of the challenges made out to the impugned order, prima facie, we are satisfied that some of the vital points raised in the petition and canvassed before us are not to be found in the judgment of the CEGAT though, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they were canvassed before the CEGAT. Omission to make reference to the contentions canvassed can only be attributed to the delayed delivery of judgment. In the circumstances, without going to the merits or demerits of the impugned order, delay in delivery of judgment by itself is sufficient to set aside the impugned order passed by the CEGAT to the extent it is challenged by the petitioner arising out of Appeal Nos. C/500 of 1988 and C/614 of 1988.
In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it is challenged and the appeals being Appeal Nos. C/500 of 1988 and C/614 of 1988 are restored to the file of the CEGAT with direction to rehear of the said appeals filed at the instance of the petitioner and decide the same afresh with a reasoned order dealing with all contentions raised and canvassed on its own merits. All the rival contentions are kept open for being decided by the CEGAT on its own merits.
Petition stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 53
Issues:
Challenge to order enhancing penalty and rejection of reference by the Tribunal.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order enhancing the penalty and rejecting a reference by the Tribunal. The case revolves around the smuggling of silver bricks, leading to proceedings under the Customs Act. The Collector of Customs confiscated the silver bricks and imposed penalties on the involved parties. The Tribunal later enhanced the penalties on the petitioners, prompting the challenge before the High Court.
The High Court considered the objective of levying penalties under the Customs Act as a deterrent measure against smuggling activities. It highlighted the economic nature of offenses under the Act and emphasized the need to prevent repetition by those involved in smuggling. The Court referred to legal precedents and scholarly opinions to support the importance of imposing penalties to curb economic offenses effectively.
On reviewing the facts of the case, the High Court found that the petitioners were indeed engaged in smuggling activities, with one petitioner admitting to involvement in smuggling for 25 years. The Tribunal's decision to enhance the penalties was deemed justified based on the petitioners' active roles in the smuggling operation and the substantial value of the smuggled silver. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's orders to deter smuggling activities and safeguard the country's interests.
Regarding the rejection of the reference application, the High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that no legal questions necessitated referral to the Court. Given the Court's affirmation of the penalty enhancements, it declined to set aside the Tribunal's decision. The Court stressed the importance of implementing stringent measures to combat smuggling effectively, suggesting legislative actions to address repeat offenders and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petitions challenging the penalty enhancements and directed relevant government authorities to consider additional legislative measures to combat smuggling effectively. The judgment underscores the significance of curbing smuggling activities to safeguard the Indian economy and emphasizes the need for robust enforcement strategies to deter repeat offenders and protect national interests.
-
2003 (8) TMI 52
Issues:
1. Claim for interest on refunds under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Rejection of interest claim by Respondents.
3. Statutory right to interest on delayed payment.
4. Adjudicatory order for interest.
5. Appealability of the order Annexure-N.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Claim for interest on refunds under Section 11BB
The petitioner, a manufacturer and packer of instant coffee, exported goods without payment of Central Excise duty and sought a refund of Modvat credit. Refund claims were made, and after a series of rejections and appeals, refunds were ordered. The petitioner then sought interest on the refunded amounts as per Section 11BB of the Act, which provides for interest on delayed payments.
Issue 2: Rejection of interest claim by Respondents
The Respondents rejected the claim for interest, stating that no interest was payable as it was granted within three months from the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner after remand. The Respondents argued that the petitioner should have filed an appeal against the impugned order if aggrieved.
Issue 3: Statutory right to interest on delayed payment
Section 11BB of the Act provides for interest on delayed payment of refunded duty. The Court noted that the petitioner had a statutory right to interest on delayed payment in the absence of an order disposing of the application under Section 11BB(1). The Court emphasized that any subsequent settlement after remand does not negate the statutory right to interest.
Issue 4: Adjudicatory order for interest
The Court held that the rejection of interest by the Respondents required intervention as the petitioner was invoking a statutory right. The Court directed the Respondents to pay interest at 5% from the date of the application, citing previous legal precedents where Courts granted interest under Article 226 of the Constitution in the absence of a specific provision.
Issue 5: Appealability of the order Annexure-N
The Court clarified that the order Annexure-N was not an adjudicatory order but an endorsement, making it non-appealable. The Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to settle the interest at 5% within three months from the date of the order, from the date of the application till the date of payment, without imposing any costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 51
Issues:
1. Quashing and setting aside Tribunal's order dismissing Appeal No. E/4388/95.
2. Quashing and setting aside Tribunal's order declining restoration of Appeal No. E/4388/95.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner, a government undertaking, was engaged in construction activities and faced a demand for excise duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa. The petitioner appealed to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 25th January 1999, citing refusal of adjournment requests. The petitioner filed an application for restoration, which was dismissed due to lack of prosecution. The Tribunal's decision was based on the belief that the counsel should have proceeded with the case despite difficulties in obtaining instructions. However, the High Court found that the petitioner was not served the notice of hearing due to the closure of its office in Goa, depriving them of a fair hearing. The High Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal and held that sufficient cause existed for the petitioner's absence. Therefore, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh hearing within 12 weeks.
Issue 2: Following the dismissal of the restoration application, the petitioner filed another application, which was also declined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal restored a different appeal but declined to restore Appeal No. E/4388/95. The High Court found that the Tribunal's reasoning for refusal was flawed as the petitioner had valid reasons for non-appearance. The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision to decline restoration was unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's orders, and directed a fresh hearing of Appeal No. E/4388/95 within 12 weeks with proper notice to the petitioner.
-
2003 (8) TMI 50
Whether the extracts were goods for the purpose of the Central Excise Act and if so, whether they were classifiable under Chapter 13 or 30 of the Act?
Held that:- Whichever way we look at it the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. That the circular is binding on the Revenue Authorities cannot be disputed in view of the well established law summarised in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren chemical Industries reported in [2001 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Since the concurrent finding of act is that the liquid extracts used by the appellant in the manufacture of the medicines had therapeutic value, then they can, according to the CBEC circular be classifiable only under Tariff Entry 30.30 and not 13.03. In favour of assessee.
....
|
9911796707
