|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 202 Records
-
1994 (5) TMI 105 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cise Duty. 61. Order per G.P. Agarwal . - When the case was called on for delivery of judgment, Smt. C.G. Lal, learned SDR, appeared on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 62. emsp At the outset, Smt. C.G. Lal, learned SDR, pointed out that in paragraph 6, page 54 of the separate order written by the learned Technical Member, Shri P.K. Kapoor, there appears to be a typographical error, that is to say, instead of the words ldquo the appeal is rejected rdquo it should be ldquo the appeals are allowed rdquo adding that this is the logical conclusion in view of the findings recorded in the earlier paragraphs. After going through the order we find that the learned SDR is right in her contention. Accordingly, we order that the words ldquo the appeals are allowed rdquo be read in place of the words ldquo the appeal is rejected rdquo in paragraph 6, page 54 of the order. 63. In accordance with the majority opinion, all the appeals are hereby allowed.
-
1994 (5) TMI 104 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... es for classification of parts of machines rsquo would mean ldquo parts rdquo which are not complete machines in themselves. If expression parts of machines rsquo in Note 2 of Section XVI is read as applicable to parts of a plant i.e. various machines constituting the plant, various headings specifying ldquo machines rdquo on the basis of their functions in Chapters 84 and 85 would become meaningless. It would violently disturb the structure of classification in Chapters 84 and 85. 21. emsp I agree to reconsideration of the matter by the original authority inasmuch as the classification advanced by the assessee (appellant) for calcinator rsquo as dryer rsquo or that adopted by the lower authority treating it as an Oven rsquo or furnace rsquo are not acceptable for one reason or the other. Function of calcinator rsquo goes beyond that of the dryer rsquo . Nor is it understood as an Oven rsquo or a furnace rsquo . Similarly for other equipments, as elaborated by my ld. Brother.
-
1994 (5) TMI 103 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand for shortage in stock - Stock-taking ... ... ... ... ..... he Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court judgment, I hold that the demand for duty in terms of the impugned adjudication Order passed in terms of Rule 223A has to be upheld. I order accordingly and dismiss the Appeal. 9. emsp Before parting with the matter, I would like to take note of an anomalous situation that may arise in certain cases involving shortage of excisable goods detected in stock-taking where the shortage is found to be due to unauthorised removals without payment of duty. Such action would constitute contravention of the statutory provisions with intent to evade duty. In such cases, recovery of duty is regulated by Section 11A(1) and in terms of the proviso thereto, the notice can be issued within the extended period upto 5 years. If that is the position in a serious offence case and, on the contrary, in a case of stock-taking shortage simpliciter which is, however, not explained satis- factorily if no time limit is held to be applicable, it appears to be anomalous.
-
1994 (5) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit - Ribbons used in manufacture of final product ‘Line Printers’ ... ... ... ... ..... ted in 1977 Vol. 39 STC 8 in coming to its conclusion. It appears that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Jayshree Industries (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Bench in the case of Wipro Infotech. 7. emsp From the above, two schools of thought emerge on the question as to whether it is only those inputs which are required during the course of manufacture of the final products which are eligible to Modvat or whether all items provided normally with the final product ready for delivery at the factory gate would also qualify as inputs for Modvat purposes? 8. emsp Our attention has also been drawn to the letter C. No. IV(16) Review/17/90/1779 dated 26-4-1994 addressed to the learned JCDR by the Collector in which it is stated that the appellants rsquo invoices of line printers show that the ribbon is sold with the line printers. 9. emsp In the light of the above, we place the papers before the Hon rsquo ble President for reference of the matter to a Larger Bench.
-
1994 (5) TMI 101 - CEGAT , CALCUTTA
Modvat credit - Inputs Lacquer Disc ... ... ... ... ..... (63) E.L.T. 3 had disapproved the Tribunal decisions in Shivaji Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (50) E.L.T. 50 and Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (50) E.L.T. 175 that sand moulds prepared using certain chemicals were not intermediate products, coming into existence during the course of manufacture of the final product, iron and steel, on the ground that the same moulds were independently manufactured. The present case of matrices is on even stronger ground as they are in the nature of a raw material containing the recording which gets progressively transferred to the records and gets worn out in the process and is to be discarded. It is not that the raw material should get completely consumed and converted into the final product. The vital and valuable part thereof containing the music recording gets converted into the final product viz. the records. 8. For the forgoing reasons, we allow the Appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
1994 (5) TMI 100 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ors v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 292 where the Gate Passes showed the goods as tin sheets while they did not receive such tin sheets but lacquered sheets. Again, in Collector of Central Excise v. Triton Valves - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 289 (Tri.) Modvat Credit was held to be admissible to the Respondents even where their declared input was Copper Billet while they received Copper Wire Bars. The Tribunal held that the mistake in the input description in the declaration should be construed only as procedural irregularity with no revenue implication. The present case is on much stronger ground as the declaration ldquo Calcined Magnesite rdquo would cover the material in powder form or lump form. They cannot be denied the Modvat Credit for having got the material in lump form ground to powder form before receiving it in their factory for use in the manufacture of their final product. The Appeal is allowed, as already announced in the Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1994 (5) TMI 99 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Scheme - Wax Emulsion ... ... ... ... ..... is not admissible. 6. As regards the plea of time bar, we find the notice has been issued in September, 1988, before the amendment of Rule 57-I on 6-10-1988 inserting the time limit provision therein. Though this Bench had held in such cases also that time limit as in Section 11A will be applicable, an application under Section 35H has been proposed for referring such an issue to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court by West Regional Bench of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise v. Maradia Steel (P) Ltd. vide 1992 (59) E.L.T. 59 in view of the conflicting views of different High Courts in this regard. As we are remanding the matter for de novo decision about the applicability of Rule 57H for the other input ldquo Wax Emulsion rdquo , the plea of time limit for the second item Magnesite may be considered by the Assistant Collector in due course, after the legal question involved is resolved by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. 7. Appeal is allowed by remand on the above terms.
-
1994 (5) TMI 98 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... oner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437. The difference between this case and the present case was taken note of by us. In its essential features, the said case is, however, similar in the sense that the distinction between what was a matter of form and what was one of substance which the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court highlighted in the said case was equally applicable in the present case. In that case, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court took the view that after the period to which the adjustment related had expired, no permission could at all be granted. It was held by them (Supreme Court) that a permission of this nature was a technical requirement and could be issued making it operative from the time it was applied for. Such an approach is fully justified in the present case. In the circumstances, no question of law requiring a reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court has arisen in the present case. The Reference Application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (5) TMI 97 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... n could not be made to lapse with the rescinding of the Notification. It was ordered in such cases that the amounts of such credits which could not be utilised for such reasons. When they could have been under the then existing law, should be credited to their P.L.A. or if that is not possible, it should be paid to them by cheque or cash. Such cases are - (1) emsp MRF Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 482. (2) emsp MRF Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 546. 8. emsp In the present case, we are not ordering the refund of the amount to the Respondents but direct that they may be permitted to use the amount equal to such credit amount from their P.L.A. 9. The Appeal is allowed partially by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal subject to the above-mentioned utilisation of the credit amount and the release of the equivalent amount in their P.L.A. 10. The operative part of the Order was announced in the Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1994 (5) TMI 96 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... e dutiable, but for the exemption. Dutiability is only on final products. Hence, such intermediate products are also final products for levy of excise duty. They are, however, intermediate products in relation to the final products made therefrom. If such products are not so used capatively for further manufacture of final products but cleared outside, then they will not be intermediate products but final products. In the present case, the wrapping/packing paper are intermediate products in relation to the final product, packed paper. The application of the extended period for issue of the notice is totally unjustified. The case for Modvat inputs is fully merited and the Appellants had rightly availed the same. There was no suppression or misstatement. There was no contravention of any provision in availing the benefit. The Appeal succeeds on this score also. The impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed as already announced in the Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1994 (5) TMI 95 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand for reversal of - Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ld have entitled the Appellants to the credit and not otherwise. The charge of suppression would acquire meaning if it is found that they had availed modvat credit for non-admissible inputs by furnishing incomplete declaration which fact came to be discovered later on. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the longer period of limitation is not at all attracted in the present case. The incompleteness of description in the declaration given in March, 1986 was not a serious irregularity meant to derive any undue or unadmissible benefit. The incompleteness or downright omission of the inputs in question in their subsequent letter written in reply to the Department rsquo s direction cannot retrospectively illegitimise their past availment of credit with the stigma of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. We accordingly allow the Appeal and set aside the Order appealed against. 5. The operative part of the order was announced in the Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1994 (5) TMI 94 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ce Question No. (i) has been decided that Section 110 and Section 124 are independent of each other and the appellant has not challenged the imposition of levy of penalty and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and the detailed reasons given by the Member (T) in his order, I hold that confiscation of the goods is in accordance with law, and I answer accordingly. With the above observations, I direct the Registry to place the matter before the Regular Bench for passing appropriate orders. Dated 29th April, 1994. Sd/- (Harish Chander) President FINAL ORDER 17. emsp In view of the majority decision, it is held that the confiscation of the goods in question is in accordance with law. Since the penalties imposed on the Appellant under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act are not challenged by him, the same are confirmed. 18. emsp In the result, the Appeals are dismissed. Date 4th May, 1994. Sd/- (T.P. Nambiar) Member (J) Sd/- (K. Sankararaman) Member (T)
-
1994 (5) TMI 93 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit - Deemed Credit ... ... ... ... ..... with by them at the material time. The further action required by them to complete the rest of the formalities by way of entering the particulars in the RG-23A Part-II remained to be completed. But this, as we have already held, is not a disentitling lapse as the records to the extent maintained support their case. In the light of the legal position about the accrual of Credit earned at a time when the same is admissible and its irreversibility in spite of the change of law from a date subsequent to such accrual as laid down in a number of decisions relating to Money Credit under Rules 57K to 57P of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the case of the appellants is clearly established. The observations of the Honourable Gujarat High Court in Dipak Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. v. Union of India which have been extracted earlier clearly support this view. Accordingly, the appeal is to be allowed and we order accordingly. The appellants would be entitled to the consequential reliefs.
-
1994 (5) TMI 92 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund in cash - Unjust enrichment when inapplicable ... ... ... ... ..... n law to grant you such permission. But see language of Clause 5. Since we did not give you the permission you cannot be permitted to adjust. rdquo ldquo We are sorry we should have given you the permission. But now that the period is over, nothing can be done. rdquo The Honourable Court observed that the appellants did not have prior permission because it was withheld by the Revenue without any justification. They observed that a permission of the nature was a technical requirement and could be issued making it operative from the time it was applied for. 8. emsp We feel, with respect, that the approach taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above case would be applicable in the present case. This, coupled with the harmonious reading of the provisions of Notification 201/79 and Section 11B(2) proviso (c) will show that the reliefs granted by the Collector (Appeals) are fully merited and his decision warrants no interference. We order accordingly and dismiss the appeals.
-
1994 (5) TMI 91 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Modvat credit - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... le prior to such amendment. rdquo 9. Thus, following the ratio of the said decision we hold that the subject goods may be removed only on payment of duty as prevalent at the time of the clearance of the goods during November, 1989 as demanded in the Show Cause Notice. The case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. and I.T. Commissioner, Kanpur, supra, do not advance the case of the respondents as nobody is extending the legal fiction beyond the legitimate field in the instant case. 10. In the result, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal so far as it relates to the setting aside of the demand and restore the order of the Additional Collector so far as it relates to the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 43,535.94 and pass no order regarding personal penalty as neither in the Memorandum of Appeal nor during the course of arguments it was contended by the Revenue that the personal penalty should be imposed on the respondents. 11. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (5) TMI 90 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... and use of a large number of bags was actually removed from the factory. No record, private or statutory has been brought as evidence to show that there was removal of this large quantity supposed to have been manufactured and thus, we find that suppres shy sion of production and clandestine removal has not been proved. 9. In the circumstances and the evidence on record, we hold that the demand of duty on the presumed quantity of cement is not maintainable in law. 10. However, having regard to the fact that two sets of timings were being maintained for the running of the same mill one for the purpose of showing production in RG-1 register and the other for showing the running of the mill, we hold that the imposition of penalty is sustainable in law. As the quantum of penalty does not appear to be large, we do not see any reason to interfere with the quantum of penalty. 11. But for the above modifications, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (5) TMI 89 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Statement of co-accused ... ... ... ... ..... d some smugglers must have kept it there. The Adjudicating Authority also stated that Shri Dalal had given different versions at different times. In such circumstances, he being a co-accused and when he had given different versions at different times, that statement of his alone is insufficient to hold that it was the appellant who delivered the gold in question to Shri Dulal Chandra Dalal. There must be some corroborative evidence in this regard corroborating the statement of Shri Dulal Chandra Dalal that the appellant was the person who handed over the gold to Shri Dulal. There is absolutely no iota of evidence corroborating this statement and in such circumstances, we find that the evidence of the co-accused alone is insufficient to find the accused guilty. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed and the penalties imposed on this appellant under Gold Control Act, 1968 as well as under Customs Act, 1962 are set aside. The appeals are thus disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (5) TMI 88 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... tually used in the factory were coated with zinc or not coated with zinc. Under Central Excise Act, goods are sent along with the GPI. There is no dispute here whether the duty paid was less or more or whether the goods actually used were different from the goods described in the declaration or in the Gate Passes. The only dispute is that the goods were not properly described. Having regard to the fact that both coated as well as uncoated wires fall under the same tariff sub-heading as also the fact that the gate passes with the description as coated with zinc were being accepted by the department over a period of time even for the purpose of allowing Modvat credit. I find that the case is prima facie in favour of the applicant. I, therefore, waive pre-deposit of the amount of duty. Recovery proceedings if any, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The case may now be listed for Regular hearing in the normal course. (Pronounced and dictated in the Open Court)
-
1994 (5) TMI 87 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... and considered them. The only short dispute is whether cutting blocks of Thermal Insulation material into smaller size to make them marketable or according to the specifications of the buyer amounts to manufacture or not. There are a number of judgments of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court that marketability is one of the test for deciding the question of manufacture or a process in relation to the manufacture of the goods. In the case before me, I find that the running blocks are being cut to size only to make them marketable and, therefore I am inclined to hold that the process of cutting the running length block of thermal insulation material is a process of manufacture and any waste arising in this process shall be governed by the provisions of Rule 57D(1) and hence, denial of Modvat credit on the waste cleared for destruction at NIL rate of duty is not justified in law. Accordingly, the Modvat credit will be available to the appellant. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
-
1994 (5) TMI 86 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Accounts and records - Non-entry of production in RG 1 ... ... ... ... ..... , whether pre-RG 1 register could be considered as a valid Central Excise document or not so that on the strength of this register action under Central Excise Law could be taken, I find that in the absence of any provision in the Central Excise Rules or the instructions issued by the Collector such a register cannot get the place of prescribed Central Excise document, and therefore recording of the production in a Central Excise prescribed document was necessary. But having regard to the fact that private record in Pre-RG 1 register was being maintained, I am inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2,000/-. However, as recording was not being done in the statutory record, I sustain the order of imposition of penalty. Consequential relief shall be available to the appellant in accordance with the law. 6. But for the above modifications, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced and dictated in open court).
............
|
