|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 200 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ght out in the show cause notice. I observe that the appellant did not maintain any record of production of the clinker in question as required under the rules and there is no explanation for the same. In the absence of any record having been maintained and in the absence of any explanation for the same, the appellant rsquo s plea that there was no suppression cannot be accepted and the appellant is to blame for non-maintenance of the records as required under the rules. I, therefore, hold that clandestine production of clinker in question has been established and before, longer period of limitation in terms of proviso to Section 11A of the Act is invokable and the learned lower authority has rightly demanded duty. However, taking into consideration the plea that Cement Industry is in the recession, I hold that ends of justice would be served, if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand). Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 199 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Release of seized goods ... ... ... ... ..... oad Service was also carrying one of the consignments in their truck. They are only transporters. In order to impose penalty on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, it must be proved by the Department that they carried these goods with the knowledge that these are liable for confiscation. But there is nothing in the impugned order to show that this Appellant carried these goods with the knowledge that these are liable for confiscation. Moreover, they are only transport companies who received the goods in the usual course of their transport business. There was no duty cast on them to find out whether these goods are smuggled goods or not. Unless there is something positive to show that they had the knowledge that these are the goods liable for confiscation, no penalty can be imposed on them. There is no such evidence produced by the Department in this case. Hence, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on them is hereby set aside. Appeal C-73/93 is thus allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand and penalty for clandestine manufacture and removal ... ... ... ... ..... the learned Advocate, should have gone by other parameters like electricity consumption and even done some experiment to find out as to how much tread rubber could be produced by the consumption of unit of electricity. He admitted before us the consumption of 7,788 units of electricity during the period from May 1987 to 28-7-1988. In view of the above we hold that it was necessary in the present case for the lower authority to have gone into other parameters having a bearing on the production of tread rubber and we are of the view that in the facts of this case the authorities should have examined the production of appellants in the light of the electricity consumption in the unit for corroboration after verification regarding the units consumed. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned lower authority and remand the matter to the learned lower authority for de novo decision in the light of our observations above. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by remand.
-
1994 (4) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... cision in the case of East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. C.C.E. relied upon by the lower authority. We are fortified in our view by the decision of this Bench in the case of C.C.E. v. Wipro Information Technology, reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 172, rendered in the context of Rule 56A the provisions of which are similar to the MODVAT Rules except for the range of the specified items covered under the two sets of Rules. In view of what we have discussed above the interests of Revenue, therefore, can be taken care of under Rule 57F(1)(ii) and the authorities can initiate action for recovery of duty as and when inputs, which were lying in stock, were taken into use for manufacture of the finished product which are exempt. However, since there is a divergence of views between the two Benches, the matter is referred to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench. 6. emsp The Registry is directed to forward the papers to the Hon rsquo ble President of CEGAT for the purpose.
-
1994 (4) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... account, we are of the opinion that the pre-deposit of the duty demanded in the facts and circumstances of this case would not cause undue hardship to the appellants. However, taking note of the earlier proceedings with regard to the related issues, in the interest of justice, we order the appellants to deposit only a sum of Rs. 5 lakh (Rupees five lakhs only) in cash (out of the duty demanded amounting to Rs. 8,91,022.93) within 12 weeks of the receipt of this order. On depositing the above sum within the time as stipulated above, the pre-deposit of the balance duty amount shall be dispensed with and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of this appeal. If the appellants fail to deposit the above sum of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only) within l 2 weeks of the receipt of this order, then this order shall be automatically vacated, and the appeal shall also be liable for rejection. 20. emsp To come up for compliance after 15 weeks of the date of despatch of this order.
-
1994 (4) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... l and that it should also be considered. On a perusal of the Miscellaneous application it is seen that the Department has submitted therein that the Tribunal ought to have taken decision to rehear the appeal on the basis of an application for the purpose given by the assessee-appellants only after hearing the revenue in the matter and such an application should have been heard by the Bench before which the arguments had been addressed earlier by both the parties. However, it is found from the records that the matter has come up before that Bench constituted for the day by virtue of a Presidential order, consequent upon one of the Members of the earlier Bench having been transferred. Moreover, in the view we have taken, and the terms of disposal of the appeals as above, based on the precedent which had followed High Court and Tribunal rulings on the subject, we are of the view that nothing of substance survives in the Miscellaneous application which is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (4) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... he case of Ballarpur Industries (supra) has laid down that input used in the integrated process of manufacture is raw-material used in the end product. It has further been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. East End Paper India - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (SC) 1990 (26) ECR 10 (SC) that anything that enters into and forms part of the manufacturing process is raw-material or component part. The ratio of the two above Supreme Court decisions were applied by the Tribunal in Formica India v. Collector of Central Excise see 1989 (43) E.L.T. 585 (Tri.) 1990 (30) ECR 435. In the present case, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, hard, soft and coaltar pitch do enter into and form an essential part of manufacturing process of aluminium. As such have to be considered as raw-material eligible for set off under Notification 201/79. There is no reason therefore, to interfere with Collector (Appeals) order. The appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... legal position discussed above, we are of the view that Modvat credit reduction given to the purchaser has to be deducted from the price. 5. emsp Now coming to the question whether the appellant has shown as a deduction of the price. The facts have to be seen. Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules provides that the input credit can be utilised towards the payment of duty on the final product. It provides that the said credit can be utilised for reducing the assessable value. The assessable value has to be determined in terms of provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In view of the above observations, we remand the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction and to calculate the excise duty payable in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s decision dated 18th March,1994 in the case of ITC Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, Order No. 61 to 65/94-A 1994 (72) E.L.T. 315 (Tri.) . 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1994 (4) TMI 187 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption - Reference to Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... e Act and the decisions of the CEGAT, any appeal relating to the eligibility to an exemption notification falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Benches and thus it is outside the jurisdiction of a Regional Bench. Since the present case relates to the eligibility of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., the South Regional Bench had no jurisdiction over it. Consequently no reference to Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India under Section 35H would lie because a reference under Section 35H can only be on those questions of law which come within the parameters of Section 35G i.e. questions other than those relating to rate of duty or valuation. In view of the above legal position the matter needs to be reconsidered and the reference made by the South Regional Bench to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India, needs to be recalled since it seems to have been made without jurisdiction and in violation of Sections 35D(2), 35G and 35H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
-
1994 (4) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t all would be leviable on fabrics calendered with plain rollers had the goods been cleared from the respondents rsquo factory under Notification 79/82. 21. The demand for duty has been raised for the period 1-3-1982 to 31-12-1982 by the show cause notice dated 19-12-1983. There is no allegation of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts in the said show cause notice. It is not clear whether the respondents herein ever raised the question of time bar before the lower authorities. Nevertheless, being a question of law it can be considered at any stage. I agree with the learned Vice President that the demand would be time-barred as well. 22. In the above aforesaid facts and circumstances, I agree with the learned Vice-President and answer the point of difference accordingly. Sd/- (P.C. Jain) emsp Dated 19-4-1994 Member (T) 23.In view of the majority opinion the appeal is emsp dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva (S.K. Bhatnagar) Dated 26-4-1994 Member (J) Vice President
-
1994 (4) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... I.O.C. referred to by the learned counsel, it will be more appropriate to consider their prayer at this stage. 14. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances and noting the above aspects in particular, we waive the pre-deposit of the amount in question and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal. 15. emsp At this stage the learned counsel seeks leave to mention in spite of their informing the authorities that the stay application is pending before the Tribunal for hearing, the authorities had detained their goods worth of rupees one lakh vide Superintendent rsquo s order dated 3-8-1994. A copy of the panchanama dated 17-8-1994 is produced in this connection and it is requested that the authorities may be suitably directed in view of the above order of the Bench. 16. The learned DR has no objection. 17. emsp We accordingly, direct the Assistant Collector and the Superintendent and others concerned to immediately lift the detention and release the goods.
-
1994 (4) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty - Input material need not be present in final product ... ... ... ... ..... of the end-product for its essential presence at the delivery end of the process. Supreme Court was also of the view in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Jay Engineering Works - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 169 that the name plate fixed on the electric fans has to be considered as input eligible for set off under Notification No. 201/79. It is clear from the decisions of the Apex Court that it is not necessary for the material to be present in the final product but it is sufficient if it has been used in the end-product to avail the benefit of set-off of duty under Notification No. 201/79. Since then Tribunal has been consistently taking the view of this issue in favour of the Assessee holding that issue is no longer res integra since the issue is covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court. We are not inclined to take different view on this issue. Following the precedent, we uphold the impugned orders and, accordingly, the appeals filed by the Department are hereby dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import under Duty Exemption Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... order and hold that the imported tin-plates having thickness of 0.19 mm are not eligible to benefit under Notification 159/90-Cus. as amended. 5. emsp Before parting with this case one point stressed by the learned advocate was regarding tolerances of .02 mm to .03 mm range which would bring the imported goods within the range of materials used in the manufacture of export goods. We do not find much force in this plea of the learned counsel. Question of tolerances would arise only when the goods had been ordered for importation as per the specifications of the goods used in manufacture of export goods and they would have been found to be of slightly different specifications within the tolerances. Such is neither the case of the appellants nor has any evidence been brought on record that this actually is the position. Therefore, the benefit of tolerance so assiduously argued upon by the learned advocate for the appellants cannot be given to the appellants in the instant case.
-
1994 (4) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Benefit of doubt in smuggling cases ... ... ... ... ..... ed nature of the goods and also failed to investigate in the matter and apprehend the real person namely Monty to ascertain the truth of the mater. As can be seen from the statement of appellant, Monty had told him that he was having proper documents in respect of the said goods. In the absence of the Deptt. having investigated in this matter fully a serious doubt arises about the whole case and the benefit of such a doubt should be given to the appellant. In the result, following the ratio of the citations placed before me and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I accept the opinion of ld. Vice President and order for accepting the appeal. The appeal papers should be placed before the Original Bench for passing the final order. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Dated 12-4-1994 Member (J) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion the appellant is granted the benefit of doubt and his appeal in respect of only penalty is accepted. Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Dated 18-4-1994 Member (J)
-
1994 (4) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... sellers by the manufacturers. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Department was not satisfied in treating the price at which M/s. Universal Oxygen Company sells the item should be assessable at the hands of the assessee. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned D.R. that matter should be remanded far re-quantification of the duty taking into consideration of the money value of the additional consideration based upon the recent case law. It was not the case of the Department to add value of additional consideration in determining the assessable value and there was not even charge either in the show cause notice or in the order. We are of the view that remand should not result in to cover the deficiencies or to make out a new case. 6. emsp In the view we have taken, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. Cross objections filed by the Department are also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Warehoused goods ... ... ... ... ..... in order that facility may be availed of by other importer as well. The interest is thus a payment to be made for a failure to clear the warehoused goods within a reasonable time or even within the extended time and in this case, though part of the duty had been paid on 28-4-1983, the duty paid goods and that part of the goods on which such duty had not been paid had not been cleared, and the clearance of the goods from the warehouse was only on 28-11-1983. Interest claimed by the customs authorities is nothing but compensation for delayed clearance and the rate of interest is nothing but a standard measure of computing the compensation for delayed removal or overstay of the consignment in the warehouse. rdquo In our view the ratio of the ruling of the Kerala High Court cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable in the light of the view taken by the Madras High Court. In this view, following the ratio of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1994 (4) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Re-packing of aluminium ... ... ... ... ..... uminium paint, as held by the Collector (Appeals), are not available on the records. 8. emsp It is seen that the lower authorities have not examined the question of excisability of the disputed goods having regard to the marketing and invoicing pattern of the appellants on the basis of relevant documents such as A.R. 1, Gate Passes and R.T. 12 etc. They have also not examined in details the other instructions given by the manufacturer on the containers. We are therefore of the view that the impugned order shows non-application of mind and is not based on proper appreciation of facts. 9. emsp In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for readjudication in accordance with law and having regard to the observations made by us in this order. We direct that before deciding the matter the adjudicating authority should grant personal hearing to the appellants. 10. The appeal is therefore allowed by way of remand.
-
1994 (4) TMI 178 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... esentative, the consequences of duty payment have been completely lost sight of by the authorities. When the duty is paid on the generated scrap, it becomes a duty paid input for the appellant, which can be legitimately sent to the job workers under Rule 57F(2), for which no objection can be taken by the deptt. Only for this reason the Board appears to have allowed such generated scrap of Aluminium under Rule 57F(2) in an earlier circular. Hence, so long as the dept. is satisfied that the scrap generated has been sent to the job workers and processed goods have been returned in the form of rods and castings to the appellant, there is no purpose in recovering the amount and again giving it as credit. Subject to verification of this aspect, the appeal from the appellant is allowed and the demand for duty could be confirmed, only if there was a diversion of generated scrap for any other purpose. In the circumstances, the penalty also is not sustainable and the same is set aside.
-
1994 (4) TMI 177 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference to High Court - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... f the appeal and any new evidence procured at a later date could not be used for the purpose of pleading an erroneous finding of the Tribunal. 6. emsp Going through the records and the submissions now made it appears that the deptt. is seeking reference on the issue which is basically one of fact and by procuring the evidence which was not available at the time of decision in the appeal. The provisions for reference to the High Court are restricted only to such of the issues which arise out of the order of the Tribunal, given in the specified set of circumstances existing at the time of hearing of the appeal. They cannot be used for the purpose of bringing on record any other evidence procured subsequent to the decision in the appeal and not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. 7. emsp Reading the issue as formulated it is purely a question of fact and no issue of law can be said to have arisen. In the result, the Reference Application cannot be entertained and is rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... imposed in the instant case was unconditionally dispensed with inter alia taking into consideration that the charge of the suppression of facts and demanding duty is not prima facie well founded. The Advocate Shri P.M. Dave who had argued the present appeal earlier has filed his affidavit to the effect that during the hearing an argument was also advanced by him that the demand raised in this present case was hit by limitation. From the said order passed by the Tribunal it appears that this plea was not considered at all. Thus, we recall the said Final Order only to the extent to consider the plea of the appellants as to whether the demand(s) raised in the present case was time-barred or not and consequently as a sequel thereof also to consider the legality of imposition of the penalty and its quantum if need be. 4. emsp In the result, all the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to list the case for hearing on the said issue only as stated above.
........
|
