Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 213 Records
-
1993 (6) TMI 159
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... earned SDR as to whether the Department would give up the evidence of the expert and sustain the impugned order on other evidences the learned SDR submitted that the Department cannot give up the opinion of the expert. The learned SDR in fairness at this stage submitted that the issue may be remanded so that the Department would endeavour to persuade the expert to present himself for cross-examination. The learned SDR also submitted that the Department would also find out the correctness of the plea of the appellant that the Department was classifying similar goods of other manufacturers as testing equipments and prayed that a remand would be better in the above circumstances. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, for the reasons stated above we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for disposal of the issue afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of our above observations. Ordered accordingly.
-
1993 (6) TMI 158
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... m change-over switches could also be covered under Chapter 85.36 and in the event of covering change-over switch under Heading 85.36, the same should be classified under the items other than one described at (i) of the Serial No. 13 of the Notification No. 160/86. In view of the opinion given by the DGTD being a highest technical body of India and in view of the trade parlance and the test of trade is still paramount as it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Metal and Farrow Alloys Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 165 and since the item in question is not specifically excluded under the exclusion clause, we do not find any justification to deny the benefit of exemption to the change-over switches in terms of Sl. No. 13 of the above said notification. Accordingly, change-over switches are eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 160/86, dated 1-3-1986. All these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (6) TMI 157
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... . Sulfur percentage is usually from 1 to 3 , with strong acceleration the time can be as short as three minutes at high temperature (150 deg C). Vulcanisation can also occur at room temperature with specific formulations (self-curing cements). Vulcanisation was discovered in 1846 by Charles Goodyear in the U.S. and simultaneously by Thomas Hancock in England. Its over-all effect is to convert rubber hydrocarbon from a soft, tacky, thermoplastic to a strong, temperature-stable thermoset having unique elastic modulus and yield properties. See also rubber, rubber synthetic . In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. MRF Ltd. (supra) the product had a presence of lsquo Rubber Compound - 12 (b) Rubber Chemical 3 (c) solvent 85 yet the classification under Heading 35.06 of Central Excise Tariff has been confirmed applying the ratio of Elgi Polytex rsquo s case. In the result, we uphold the appellant rsquo s contention and allow their appeals by setting aside the impugned order.
-
1993 (6) TMI 156
Exemption - Chapter X Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... tral Excise licensing requirement, they need not observe Central Excise formalities. Fourthly, the appellants have produced in their present appeal confirmation No. PTF 3809 dated 4/1984 from Premier Tyres giving particulars of receipt and utilisation of Zinc Oxide from the appellants which the lower authorities had no occasion to go into. In the result, following the ratio of the precedent decisions cited supra, it is held that the exemption under Notification No. 21/55 cannot be denied to the appellants merely for not following the details of Chapter X procedure so long as they are able to establish by evidence substantial compliance therewith and in this light the jurisdictional Assistant Collector may consider the refund claim subject to being satisfied regarding the evidence produced of the receipt and utilisation of the exempted material by the user manufacturer M/s. Premier Tyres in the Cochin Central Excise Collectorate. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (6) TMI 155
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... icating authority had not cared to refer to these records which were in his custody to verify the appellants rsquo claim that the disposed quantity of 641.610 MTs of Ammonium Nitrate was also fully accounted for in these records as having been utilized captively. 8. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the appellants rsquo claim that the quantity of Ammonium Nitrate Flakes used captively in terms of Notification No. 118/75 was not being entered in RG-1 and RT-12 on account of the detailed accounting of the entire production of Ammonium Nitrate Flakes in their private accounts, in the interest of justice we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, in accordance with law. We direct that while re-adjudicating the case the appellants should be granted personal hearing and full opportunity to account for the disputed quantity of the goods with reference to their private records. 9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by way of remand.
-
1993 (6) TMI 154
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... notified final products declared in the declaration filed. It is seen that the Hylam sheets as such are placed as a protective cover on the epoxy sheets to prevent burring of the holes and to facilitate drilling of the holes in a very precise manner. The sheets by themselves are not bringing about any change in the epoxy sheets being drilled. In view of above, we hold that Hylam sheets will not fall within the excluded category. We observe that the items excluded have to perform specified functions as set out in the explanation as above before the same can be taken to be excluded from the purview of the term lsquo inputs rsquo as set out in Rule 57A of the Modvat Rules. In the present case as seen from the facts placed before us the Hylam sheets do not perform any one of the functions as set out in the explanation which would disqualify these for the purpose of being considered as input for Modvat purpose. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 153
Electronic industry ... ... ... ... ..... alls for a wider and liberal construction. rdquo The Supreme Court has further held that an exemption notification has to be read in its entirety and construed as a whole but a construction which results in inequitable results and is incongruous, has to be avoided. In the instant case, since we have found that maintenance spares are eligible to the benefit of Notification 315/83, full effect of the notification has to be extended thereto. We also agree with learned Counsel that Tariff Heading 98.01 has not been divided into two distinctive parts but is a single entry and has therefore to be read as a whole. 6. In the light of the above, we held that maintenance spares imported by the respondents herein fall within the scope of Notification 315/83 and are eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 35 ad valorem thereunder. Accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the order of the lower appellate authority and therefore uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
1993 (6) TMI 152
Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... artment could first of all take cognisance of a photocopy of the statement of the person concerned and also rely on the same against the appellants, without making the person concerned available for cross-examination to the aggrieved party, particularly in the teeth of a specific direction by the Tribunal directing the Department to afford an opportunity of cross-examination. Even if the photocopy of the letter written by the lady who is now facing a forgery charge was shown to the Managing Director of the Company at the time of hearing it would not give the Department any authority under law to place reliance on the same as a piece of evidence against the appellant. Therefore, on consideration of the entire evidence we hold that imposition of levy of penalty on the appellant is not called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In this view of the matter the penalty imposed on the appellants under the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 151
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the appellant Company along with RT-12 returns had produced the duty paying documents, the delivery challans as also the extracts of RG-23A records. These records were scrutinised by the Central Excise Officers and they allowed the Modvat Credit to the appellants to that effect. The officers were also under a bonafide impression as the appellants themselves were. In such circumstances, the question of invoking the extended period does not arise in view of the fact that there was no suppression of material fact or wilful misstatement of any fact made by the appellants. In that view of the matter, we hold that the demand is barred by limitation. At best it can be said that it is only a wrong availment of Modvat Credit for which the show cause notice should have been issued within six months rsquo time. In that view of the matter, the demand is barred by limitation. The impugned order confirming the demand of duty and imposing a penalty is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 150
... ... ... ... ..... were actually selling the resin coated sand was not rsquo considered by him. 6. In view of above I remand the case back to the Assistant Collector to give his findings as to why the prices of M/s. Shell-sand were ignored and why their goods were not considered comparable and why only the price of M/s. Mutha Founders which were based on Chartered Accountant rsquo s certificate were only accepted. Since there is a substantial difference in the sale price of M/s. Shell-sand and the manufacturing cost of M/s. Mutha Founders Ltd., the Assistant Collector should be able to find out if there was material difference in the quality or the composition of the sand and he should therefore after ascertaining the respective qualities pass a reasoned order for rejecting or modifying the price claimed by the appellants. 7. The appeal is therefore allowed by way of remand back to the Assistant Collector to decide the case afresh in accordance with the directions given in the preceding paras.
-
1993 (6) TMI 149
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e 2(b) of Section XVI the imported item would clearly fall under the above sub-heading 84.56 of CTA, 1975 and the classification adopted by the ld. Collector is correct one and it requires to be upheld. 11. As regards Revenue s contention that the explanatory note to Heading 73.40 of CCCN is to be applied for classification purpose, it has to be observed that, now it is well settled that explanatory notes are having persuasive value and it cannot override the Section Notes and Chapter Notes of CTA, 1975. Moreover, the Chapter 73.40 refer to other articles of Iron Steel the Revenue having dropped the charge of the item being made up of Steel, cannot now urge that the item is of steel one. The items to be classified in Heading 73.40 is more in a nature of a general parts and not those parts which form integral part of a machine. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. Collector and we order, for dismissal of the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
-
1993 (6) TMI 148
Reference to High Court in Modvat cases ... ... ... ... ..... finality thereon. 8. The decision of the Supreme Court in Re Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (supra) is in relation to charging of Sales Tax and also on different set of facts where raw material was admittedly used for maintenance of.... Similarly in this Bench rsquo s decision in Re Mukund Iron and Steel, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 84 (Tri.) the use of the alleged input was proved to be the one in relation to the preparation and maintenance of equipment. The ratio of neither of these decisions therefore could stand attracted here. 9. It may be clarified that in availment of MODVAT credit, each case has to be examined individually and the case law can be applied only when the same relates to the same item taken in the same type of use, as the scheme basically is related to the nature of use. 10. In the result, there does not appear any issue of law arising out of the impugned order of this Bench and no reference to the High Court is called for. 11. The application is therefore rejected.
-
1993 (6) TMI 147
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... fication of cane juice. Hence we cannot appreciate the stand taken by the Collector (Appeals) that the phosphoric acid is a tool or appliance. We also carefully considered the Board rsquo s clarification referred to by the ld. JDR. Though production of crystal sugar may be possible without addition of phosphoric acid in these cases, where cane juice has the required P 205 content, in a case where the cane juice does not have the desired level of P 205 content and on account of that phosphoric acid is necessarily to be added for purpose of clarification, it cannot be dismissed as not an input. What is required to be established is whether in the context of its usage, it is necessary for bringing out the final product. Viewed in this context, the addition of phosphoric add is a necessity and hence we could not agree with the clarification given by the Board. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we allow the appeals and direct the authorities below to restore the modvat credit.
-
1993 (6) TMI 146
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... cture of Caustic Soda have been held to be not tools, or machines and hence entitled to Modvat benefit. Further, the finding that the coated paper is used only in relation to the machine and not in or in relation to the manufacture of goods may need a second look. It is felt that these can be said to be used in the manufacturing process itself. It is a consumable item used in the machine. The machine is already there even before the paper is used therein for polishing purposes. It is not an integral part of the machine which can be said to be used only for completing the get up or structure of the machine without any use in the manufacturing process proper. 10. The decisions cited earlier regarding the use of BOPP films and Lap film cover analogous issues and would apply to the present case. 11. As there is a conflict of views between the two Benches, the matter is referred to the Hon rsquo ble President of the Tribunal for constituting a larger Bench for resolving the issue.
-
1993 (6) TMI 145
Adjudication order passed two years after the hearing ... ... ... ... ..... d with the prescribed requirement of filing a proper classification list and price list duly complying with excise formalities. The chart merely focusses on the quantity in respect of each type of goods in question and the appellants rsquo calculation and remarks. On the other hand, the Department has filed in reply paragraphwise comments with reference to the chart produced and these two documents do not tally in material particulars. Therefore, while looking at the case as a whole, it is evident that the matter is serious and the appellants are evidently liable to penalty in the light of observations made above, the exact quantum of duty and penalty would bear re-examination at the original level. Hence I agree with my learned brother that the adjudicating authority should re-examine the matter with reference to the charts and comments submitted by both sides and thereafter pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of being heard in the matter to the appellants.
-
1993 (6) TMI 144
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e scope of the earlier show cause notice also does not hold good in view of the fact that both show cause notices allege suppression on the part of the appellants. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is not correct to state that the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi set aside the earlier order of the Deputy Collector on the ground of time bar - we have gone through the remand order of the Collector (Appeals) and find that the order of the Deputy Collector was set aside for want of authority and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by the proper authority. We, therefore, confirm the order of the adjudicating authority relating to duty demand and confiscation of the seized goods with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. 5. Subject to the above modification, the appeal stands rejected.
-
1993 (6) TMI 143
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... here the assessee is not the manufacturer of the inputs, but purchases duty-paid inputs which were cleared from the original manufacturer, there is no justification for the recovery of higher rate of duty at the time of removal from his factory. This position, in our opinion, would hold good only after 1-3-1992 after the Rule 57F was suitably amended and prior to that period, the rate prevalent on the date of removal of the goods from the factory from which the goods were removed under Rule 57F would have to be applied, in view of the specific provision of the rule prior to such amendment. 6. In the instant case, it is seen from the grounds of appeal that the inputs were removed under Rule 57F on 30-4-1986 and the SCN was issued on 6-7-1987 i.e. after more than 14 months. There is no allegation about suppression etc. The demand is thus time-barred. 7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law, without going into the merits of the case.
-
1993 (6) TMI 142
Export - Cash compensatory support on exports - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ted transactions and now it is not just to demand back the amount by claiming that payment was erroneous. On our enquiries as to what is the approximate amount of additional cash compensatory support paid by the respondents to all the exporters of blended yarn, neither Shri Bharucha nor Shri Bhabha were able to give any specific answer. In our judgment, equity demands that the petitioners should not be compelled to return the additional 5 of cash compensatory support already received. 6. Accordingly, petition partly succeeds and it is declared that the cash compensatory support of additional 5 is not available on export of blended yarn in accordance with the circular dated September 22, 1988, but the respondents are restrained from recovering back or adjusting the additional cash compensatory support of 5 already paid for the period between September 22, 1988 and July 2, 1991. Rules disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 141
Appeal against Assistant Collector’s order when lies to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... se notice to the appellants and proceeded to adjudicate the matter on the basis of the Show Cause Notice which had already been adjudicated upon by the Collector. Under these circumstances we are of the view that on the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of K.S. Diesel Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay (supra) it should have been evident to the appellants that the appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector would lie to the Tribunal. Consequently, we are of the view that the appellants were not prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals before the Tribunal within the stipulated time limit of 3 months. We, therefore, do not find any reason to condone the delay. The applications for condonation of delay are, therefore, rejected, and as a sequel thereto both the appeals are dismissed as time-barred. In view of the above no separate orders are required to be passed on the stay applications. Hence the stay applications are also dismissed as infructuous.
-
1993 (6) TMI 140
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... s an appliance and hence ruled out its eligibility for credit. All the same, we cannot hold that there is a deliberate or wilful misstatement or suppression of material factors. There can be a bona fide misconception for treating it as a consumable input. We don rsquo t find any deliberate design on their part in their declaration and it could be an issue in dispute. Hence we are of the view that though credit of duty paid on molywire is not admissible on merits, the demand even for this item cannot be confirmed by invoking the extended period with proviso to Rule 57-I or Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. In this context, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chemphar Drugs and Liniments 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.) 1989 (29) ECR 182 (S.C.) appears to be squarely applicable. Hence we hold that penalty and extended period are not sustainable. 11. In the result, subject to our observations made in paras 8.5, 9.2 and 9.3 above, appeals are allowed in the above terms.
........
|