|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 264 Records
-
1994 (10) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sugar - Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ity of sugar produced during the period commencing from the 1st day of December, 1972 and ending with the 30th day of April, 1973. It is evident that in the said clause there was no requirement that the production should have necessarily commenced form 1st December 1973. In the appellants rsquo case it is an admitted fact that even though they commenced production on 10-12-1973, they had during the period commencing from 1st day of December 1973 and ending with 30th day of April, 1974 produced sugar in excess of 110 of the quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding period during the previous financial year. Under these circumstances we hold that they were eligible for the concessional rate of duty in respect of the excess quantity of sugar produced in terms of the clause against Serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to the said notification. 5. emsp In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1994 (10) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... 84.83. 3. The learned Advocate Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran for the non-applicants (respondents in appeal) concedes the aforesaid position. 4. emsp We agree with the learned JDR that there has been an omission in not classifying gears and gearing rsquo . In view of the principles laid down in the Tribunal rsquo s order dated 18-2-1994 and the fact that these are specifically mentioned in Tariff Heading 84.83, gears and gearing are classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.83. We hold accordingly. Accordingly, sub-para 3.6 shall be read after sub-para 3.5 in the Tribunal rsquo s order dated 18-2-1994 as follows - ldquo In view of the fact that gears and gearing are specifically mentioned in Tariff Heading 84.83, this is the more appropriate Heading than Tariff Heading 84.48. We hold accordingly rdquo . 5. emsp Para No. 4 of the Tribunal rsquo s order shall be replaced as follows - ldquo In view of the above discussion, we dispose of the appeals of the Revenue in the above terms rdquo .
-
1994 (10) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-appearance of the appellant ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal on the said date i.e. 28-4-1994 in the morning but he was given to understand that the Bench was not available in the morning. He did not know that the Bench was to sit in the afternoon session. His failure to attend the Tribunal for submission of the application for adjournment was due to his lack of familiarity with the work and not due to any negligence. Shri Swaminathan requested that the restoration of appeal may be allowed in view of the circumstances explained. 2. Shri V.C. Bhartiya, learned Departmental Representative left the matter for decision by the Bench. 3. emsp We are satisfied that this is a fit case for restoration of appeal. We order accordingly. Appeal is now posted for the hearing on 26-10-1994.
-
1994 (10) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-import - Goods manufactured ... ... ... ... ..... judgment quoted above, duty would be recoverable on goods in terms of clause (c) to the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. 7. emsp The judgment in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 327 relied upon by the SDR is not relevant since it relates to the interpretation of a notification. 8. emsp From the records of the case it is not clear whether the appellants executed any bond in terms of the relevant notification for importation without payment of customs duty any materials for the manufacture of the goods in question under DEEC prior to their export out of India. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for readjudication in accordance with law, having regard to the Madras High Court judgment referred to in this order and also the provisions of the DEEC Scheme. We direct that the appellants should be granted personal hearing. 9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by way of remand.
-
1994 (10) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Trade discount ... ... ... ... ..... n 4 as the words trade discount rsquo in this Section have not been qualified by the word uniform rsquo . Even otherwise, the trade discount is bound to vary if some dealers take guarantee of purchasing larger quantities. The different percentages can be given for various reasons such as (1) status of buyer (2) class of buyer (3) quantity of the goods sold (4) favourable or unfavourable market conditions in a particular region or at a particular point of time (5) financial crisis (6) cut-throat competition and (7) introduction of a product in a new region. But whatever may be the reason for allowing different rates of trade discounts, their variation must be based on commercial considerations. Therefore, different rates of trade discount are admissible so long as the lack of uniformity is not found on any extra-commercial consideration. 7. emsp In view of our foregoing conclusion, we set aside the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1994 (10) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification - Date of effect ... ... ... ... ..... le . 10. emsp In other words the emphasis was on the mode of publication and the act of publication and the Supreme Court had noted that ldquo the impugned notification dated 13th February, 1986 was published in the Gazette on the 13th Feb., 1986 . 11. emsp This Tribunal had also in the past inquired about the date of publication of the notification and decided the cases on that basis. The appellants have however not been able to show in the present case that the Notification was not published on the date indicated on it. 12. emsp The fact that they came to know about it later on is immaterial. It would have of course been better if the department would have been able to ascertain from the Govt. of India Press the actual date of its publication. But in the absence of such information, the normal presumption that a gazette notification is published on the date indicated on it will apply. Hence, following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment cited above we reject the appeal.
-
1994 (10) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... onsidered the pleas and have perused the records. The department had accepted the plea of the assessee for getting the sealed samples tested with NITRA, on the contradiction and insufficiency of the results of the Dy. Chief Chemist and that of the Chief Chemist, as pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, the report of NITRA assumed importance and requires acceptance. The ld. Collector has not given any convincing reasons to reject the NITRA rsquo s report. We find that the ld. Collector has not considered the plea for extending the larger period and also not considered the plea of bona fides urged by the assessee, for not extending the larger period and also for not imposing the penalty. As the order is not a detailed one and without application of mind, the same is required to be set aside and remanded for de novo consideration, to consider the pleas of the assessee and also to consider the plea of accepting the NITRA rsquo s report. 8. Thus, the appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1994 (10) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e under Tariff Item 68. However, from the Explanatory Notes we find that tool tips whether sharpened or not or otherwise prepared will fall for purpose of classification under the CCN Chapter 82.07 which is called tool tips and thus, this contention is also negatived. 12. emsp In so far as the other points contended by the appellant are concerned, we find that the ld. SDR had referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Tool Manufacturers v. CCE, reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 527, paras 6 and 8 the Tribunal had held - 13. emsp It would be seen that remaining pleas put forth by the appellant have been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal in the above two paras and the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Inserts were tool tips and were classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 62 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We fully agree. 14.In view of the above findings the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (10) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of Shree Pipes decision (supra) as confirmed by the Supreme Court as also of the Tribunal decision in the case of GEC of India v. Collector of Central Excise (supra). The Tribunal in the General Engineering Works decision (supra) had also noted the reliance on the Madhav Nagar Cotton Mills (supra) placed by the Department but had not found it to be applicable. In the result, we are satisfied that the appellants, herein, have made out a case for the exclusion of the inspection charges incurred by the customers in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by following the ratio of the above quoted decisions of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the appeals are allowed. Stay Order . - On hearing both the parties we grant stay following such grant of stay on identical issue of the same applicant for the reason that the matter is covered by precent decision in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 (T). This appeal to be taken up along with connected appeals which are also listed today.
-
1994 (10) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants to adduce evidence in support of their contention with reference to the charges made in the corrigendum. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Collector to re-adjudicate the matter after giving an opportunity to the appellants and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appellants may make use of this opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contention whether similar quality of goods were sold to other independent buyers other than M/s. Minsulate India at the same price and other evidence, if any, in support of their contention with reference to the charges made in the original show cause notice as well as with reference to the corrigendum. Since the matter is old one the Collector is expected to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible on receipt of this order and the appellants should also co-operate with the Adjudicating Authority for such an early disposal. 7. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1994 (10) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... so, by stating that it does not apply to their case, as the proforma credit was not taken immediately but only after the GP was duly endorsed by the concerned officer. Therefore, the Additional Collector rsquo s denial of the benefit on this ground is not sustainable. As the assessee has duly complied with the Board rsquo s circular in question, the benefit of proforma credit availed by them cannot be denied to them. Further the demands pertain to utilisation of MODVAT Credit against GP 1, dt. 13-6-1987, 15-6-1987 and 16-6-1987. The show cause notice is dt. 17-1-1989 issued against the audit objection. There is no allegation of suppression or mis-statement. The department was fully aware of this availment of this benefit, as can be seen from the records. The RT 12 returns for the said period has also been accepted. Therefore, the demand is not enforceable as it is clearly time barred. In the result the impugned order is set aside and appellants succeed. 12. Appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... had gone away on leave is no excuse because it was upto the appellant to make alternative arrangements and ensure filing of the appeal promptly. 21. It is also interesting to note that the appeal (with certified copy) was received in the Tribunal only on 5-12-1988 although it had already been verified on the 19th day of November which shows that it was ready for filing on 19th November but even then steps were not taken to file it immediately and the time gap between this date and the date of actual filing has also not been explained. Further it shows that the appellants were in a position to prepare and make ready the appeal even in during the absence of their Excise Assistant and his absence could not be considered but a flimsy excuse which was not acceptable. 22. emsp In view of the above position we hold that sufficient cause for condonation of delay has not been shown and therefore, we reject the COD application. 23. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as time barred.
-
1994 (10) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Fabrics - Processed fabrics - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ated machines. In support of his contention he has filed a note prepared by one R.M. Mittal, Research Associate of Ahmedabad Textile Industry rsquo s Research Association. This note having been filed before us at the time of hearing cannot be taken into account since being in the nature of additional evidence which should have been filed with a proper application with the prayer for being allowed to plead additional evidence. It has been observed by the Additional Collector the appellants had admitted that large vessels being used by them for boiling water and cloth were locally known as kier rsquo . Hence, on this account as well, as held in the impugned order, in terms of Explanation (i)(a) to the Notification 130/82, as amended, the appellants were not eligible for the benefit in terms of the said notification. 8. emsp In view of the foregoing, we see no merit in the submissions made by the Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants and accordingly the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (10) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... goods and therefore cannot be considered as equipment. In such circumstances resins have to be treated as used in or in relation to manufacture of cores and credit is admissible. In this case, the Tribunal followed the precedent decision in the case of Leader Engineering case 1993 (63) E.L.T. 687 (Tri.) 1992 (38) E.C.R. 361 and held that they were departing from decisions of West and South Regional Benches as such decisions appear to have been passed sub-silentio since the arguments advanced before East Regional Bench were not canvassed before West Regional Bench and South Regional Bench. 6. emsp Following the ratio of this judgment I am of the view that legal position in law as regards the marketability and other factors such as have been taken into consideration is already settled and therefore no question of law meriting to reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court arises out of the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. A/61/94-NRB. The Reference Application is therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... er sale and purchase of rejected goods. It is well settled that appreciation of evidence is a question of fact and not a question of law. Based on statement of the Engineer of the company, that no sub-standard pipes were ever sold and the fact that these pipes were specifically not indicated as rejected, or sub-standard in the classification list which requires appellant to give full description of the goods, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was a suppression. This finding of fact was based not merely on omission of specific description in the classification list but also on other evidence such as a statement made by the Company employee himself that no rejected pipes were sold. This being a pure question of fact, therefore no question of law arises from the Tribunal rsquo s Order. Questions set out against 5, 6, 7, 8 of the first para therefore are not questions of law meriting reference to Hon rsquo ble High Court. Reference Application is therefore, rejected.
-
1994 (10) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ully due to the Government), as far as we can see, there is no bar on such voluntary payment and acceptance thereof. The time bar in such cases puts restriction on the right of the department to recover but does not put a ban on the citizens rsquo privilege to pay the rightful due to its Government. 25. emsp Since, the application of the Notification No. 217/86 was not considered at all at the Collector rsquo s stage and the alternative prayer by the appellant, which we have agreed to consider, has made a sea change and both the sides have prayed for remand, we do not wish to put any fetters on the discretion of the Collector. 26. emsp In view of the above position, we remand the matter to the Collector with the direction to consider all the relevant aspects of the matter, keeping in view our above observations and the law. The Collector may allow an opportunity to the appellants to make submissions before him (consistent with their undertaking) and pass an appropriate order.
-
1994 (10) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... nsel. It is well settled that in a partnership concern, one partner can represent the concern on behalf of the partnership before a court of law and merely because the managing partner was not able to attend the business, the business was, admittedly not closed and was being carried on by other officers. Therefore, in such circumstances the plea raised by the learned Counsel cannot considered to be proper or sufficient ground for condoning the delay of 2 months 19 days. It is well settled that in respect of the orders relating to the condonation of delay and also other similar orders relating to interim orders there is no binding precedents and each case has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case relating to the same. We hold that the facts in the case cited and relied upon by learned Counsel and referred to supra are distinguishable under the facts of the present case. In this view, the application is dismissed and consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... the instant case as aforesaid the process of adding water in respect of formulated/standardised and prepared acid dyes is only undertaken by the appellants with respect to the liquid blue, we are of the opinion that this process so undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture as the process of mixture or dilution does not amount to manufacture as held by the Madras High Court in the case of Coromandal Prodorite Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India and others, supra. 8. emsp In the light of the above, we are not required to examine the alternative claim of the appellants that they were eligible for exemption as per Notifi- cation No. 114/73 as amended since we have held that the activity that were carried on by the appellants as aforesaid does not amount to manufacture. 9. emsp In the result, we answer the question as posed above by us in the negative. Consequently appeal filed by the appellants is allowed with consequential relief to them, if any, according to law.
-
1994 (10) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT
SALE OR PURCHASE - INPUTS - NOTIFICATION REDUCING RATE OF SALES TAX TO ONE PER CENT ON SALE OR PURCHASE OF INDUSTRIAL RAW MATERIALS (INPUTS)
-
1994 (10) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... lly it will amount to hardship. We dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty amount in the case of Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation and further order that during the pendency of the appeal the Revenue authorities shall not pursue any recovery proceedings. Now, coming to the prayer for stay in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. we dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount and penalty on the condition of the applicants depositing Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 5 lakhs within four months from today. The appellants have to report compliance of the order within five months from today. In case the appellants fail to comply with the terms of the stay order, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. It is further ordered that during the pendency of the appeal the revenue authorities shall not pursue any recovery proceedings of the penalty amount ............. The matters are listed for mention on 7-2-1995.
............
|
