Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 339 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 191 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Limitation - Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... onstrue it to be a non-appealable communication and it is left to the assessee to make payment voluntarily or otherwise. When the order itself carries the preamble that it is appealable to the Tribunal and the assessee have come up in appeal before the Tribunal along with the stay petition, the Tribunal rsquo s jurisdiction to entertain both the appeals as well as the stay petition cannot be questioned. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Misc. application. We have also considered the appeal in detail, in the aforesaid paragraph along with the submissions made in regard to Misc. application and held that the demand made by the Collector under Section 11D, which is in the form of an advice, has to be construed in the context of the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and when it is so construed, it goes beyond a period of 6 months and is hit by time bar. The extended period cannot be invoked in this case. 6. emsp We therefore allow the appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Yarn exported under Bond ... ... ... ... ..... collected in respect of the goods actually not exported. We also observe that Rule 13 provides for exemption from duty in respect of goods actually exported. Rule 14 of the Central Excise Rules is in aid of Rule 13 and provides for execution of a general Bond. In the circumstances, the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules are applicable in respect of additional duties under the 1978 Act. We also observe that Section 3(3) of the Act itself makes it clear that the provisions of the Act and the Rules inter alia relating to exemption of Central Excise will apply to additional duty of excise under the 1978 Act. If therefore, there is any rule exempting the imposition of Central Excise duty then such rule should also apply to levy of additional excise under the 1978 Act. In this view of the matter, we find that there is prima facie a strong case in favour of the applicants. In this view of the matter, pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived. The stay petition is therefore, allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ed to the Customs Authorities and not the date of clearance of such goods from the Customs. In this case the appellants contends that the relevant Bill of Entry was filed on 3-2-1987, a date well before the deadline of 6-2-1987, the concessional rate of duty could not be denied to the appellants. We are, however, unable to accept this proposition. In fact the procedure in such cases is that Preventive Officer of Customs, on receipt of application for granting entry inward, certifies that he has received the stores list and after scrutiny he certifies that he has granted entry inwards to the vessel, specifying also the exact hour and date such entry inwards is granted. This date is entered along with serial rotation number in the Inward Entry Register. The appellants have failed to substantiate their claim that the date in Inward Entry Register is 3-2-1987 and not 6-2-1987. We, therefore, do not see any merit in the appeals and upheld the impugned order and reject the appeals.
-
1996 (11) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... re, the imports could not be treated as unauthorised. In the present case also, the licence was cancelled subsequent to the imports as shown by the date of the Bill of Entry. Following the ratio of this judgment, we hold that the imports made by the appellants under the cover of licences, which were subsequently cancelled as having been obtained by fraud, were valid at the time of importation. The orders of their confiscation under Section 111(d), therefore, do not sustain and have to be set aside. 7. emsp Penalty under Section 112 can be imposed only where the act or omission by any person renders any goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. Since in these cases, we have held that the goods were not liable to be confiscated, the orders of imposition of penalty also do not sustain. 8. emsp We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the Additional Commissioner in so far as they relate to the appellants and direct consequential relief, if any.
-
1996 (11) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... sed also. 12. emsp In the case of Union Carbide Ltd. the goods dry battery cell which have been taken for testing and later which are rejected have been considered to fall within the ambit of term waste and scrap rsquo in terms of Rule 57(1) of C.E. rules. The ratio of this would clearly applicable to the present case also, as the item is required to undergo testing and for that purpose a portion of it is required to be cut for such quality control test and they break during the test and therefore, such operations, would certainly fall within the ambit of Rule 57(1) of C.E. rules as waste and scrap rsquo . Both the ratio of the judgments cited directly applies to the fact of the present case and also in terms of Notification No. 171/78 which has not been rescinded. The appellants are entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit, therefore, in the circumstances, the order confirming the duty demand is required to be set aside by allowing this appeal. 13. emsp I order accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 186 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... e matter, the Collector (Appeals) has correctly decided the matter. But, he has come to a wrong conclusion while confirming the orders of the Asstt. Collector. Therefore, the duty in this regard has to be worked out taking into consideration the shrunk material as emerged after processing. 8. emsp As far as inclusion of art charges are concerned, both the authorities below have clearly stated that these were collected separately by the appellant from the customers. On a query from the Bench as to whether this finding of fact of the authorities below are controverted in the appeal. 9. emsp The learned Consultant stated after going through the grounds of appeal that the same was not specifically denied or challenged by the appellants in the appeal. Inasmuch as the appellants have collected the charges from the customers, the value of the same is to be added for the purpose of the assessment. This finding of the lower authorities are confirmed. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... rding Company. This decision, however, was rendered in the context of Project Import Regulations Act, 1965. Project Import Regulations Act 1986 however, specifically excluded establishments which offer services such as Hospitals, Hostels, Photographic system, Studios, Photo Processing Laboratory etc. In case of Subhash Photographics v. U.O.I. - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 270 (Bom.) Bombay High Court held that Photographic machineries or mini-lab systems imported by Photographic studios and photographic film processing laboratories are not entitled to project import benefit of Heading 90.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Again, Tribunal in case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Pfoston Colour Processing Lab - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 257 (Tribunal) held that ldquo Film Processor rdquo was not eligible to benefit of project import. 4. emsp In view of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court and various orders of the Tribunal we set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue Appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... ubmissions of the learned DR that there is nothing on record to show that what the appellants had ordered was sheets and not plates. - there is no declaration also as to what their inputs are - whether sheets or plates. Even if their case of wrong description is to be accepted then there is nothing to show that the appellants took any action on receipt of the wrong items viz. plates when they had actually ordered sheets and it is also clear from the bills and cash memos that the goods have been clearly described as plates of 5 mm thickness. In the absence of any material to substantiate the contention of the appellants that the inputs received by them were sheets and not plates, the Department rsquo s finding that the inputs received by the appellants on which they had taken deemed credit are plates and, therefore, not entitled to deemed credit, is not to be faulted with. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below and reject the appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ation is true to the circumstance under which the law has been laid down. As regards the present case is concerned, the facts are distinguishable inasmuch as the Tribunal has considered the settled law applicable to the present case. The department had considered the goods as exempted and had permitted the appellants to clear the goods. Only a change view in classification necessitated the appellants to pay the duty. In such peculiar circumstances, the non-filing of declaration was considered as not fatal as the appellants had maintained all the registers. Therefore, the Tribunal followed the lay down law that the Modvat credit is required to be granted in such circumstances. Reference to High Court would not arise when such questions are simple, obvious and self evident and had been answered in several judgments of the Tribunal. 5. emsp In view of the discussion, we do not find a question of law in the application for reference to the High Court and hence we reject the same.
-
1996 (11) TMI 182 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... more against the appellants which could be proceeded by the adjudicating authority in view of the fact that such allegations were not stipulated in the show cause notice. The appellants were also not put on notice on the basis of the cause which is made in the adjudication order. Reference to para 74 of the Annexure to the show cause notice, as pointed out by the learned DR, can only be read in the background of clubbing of clearances of the four units. Once when that charge is dropped nothing survives for consideration when the adjudicating authority himself has come to the conclusion clubbing of production of the four units is not warranted. The demand of duty therefore, on another ground which is not made out in the show cause notice cannot be sustained. In the premises, the appeals are allowed and we order accordingly and the demand of duty as well as the penalty are hereby set aside. It is open to the department to take further proceedings if any in accordance with law.
-
1996 (11) TMI 181 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
Classification
... ... ... ... ..... ontrol devices which compare the measured rate of flow or volume with that of actual flow or volume. 5. emsp Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Moorco (India) Ltd. supra held with reference to old tariff that flow meter is specifically classifiable under Heading 90.24 whereas Heading 90.26 is general in nature. It applies to every production meter or any meter for gas, liquid or electricity supply. The Tribunal committed an error of law in classifying the goods under Heading 90.26. 6. emsp This Tribunal also vide its Final Order C/1191-1194/96-B, dated 20th September, 1996, held that such goods under the old tariff are classifiable under old Tariff Heading 90.24 and under new tariff under 90.26 CTH. 7. emsp Following the ratio of these orders, therefore, we hold that parts imported for flow meters would be classifiable under 90.24 under the old tariff and 9026.90 under the new tariff. 8. emsp In the result, we allow both the appeals and set aside the impugned order.
-
1996 (11) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Project Import - Service Establishment ... ... ... ... ..... nts rsquo factory cannot be taken to be excluded from the purview of the term Industrial Plant rsquo . As it is, the machine imported is a part of an integrated arrangement for the purpose of manufacture of the recorded cassette tapes. 7. emsp The learned Consultant has taken a plea that the blank tapes and recorded tapes as it is for excise purpose are treated as two different commodities and recording of the tape is treated as a process of manufacture. 8. emsp We observe that we are not called upon to go into this aspect, inasmuch as for the purpose of consideration whether the respondents rsquo machine is entitled to the benefit of assessment under Tariff 98.01 what is to be examined is whether the respondents rsquo establishment can be treated as a service establishment. We have already negatived the plea of the revenue in this regard as above and we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is sustainable in law and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 179 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... at as to which particular project as certified is the one for which these goods were required as a part of substantial expansion. It has to be shown that the goods imported are relatable to that particular project and that particular project involves substantial expansion as set out under the regulations. Without going into these aspects, the benefit of the concession could not have been allowed. Inasmuch as these legal aspects with reference to the facts in question have not been gone into, we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is not proper. In this view, we set aside the order of the learned lower authority and remand the matter to the ld. lower authority for de novo adjudication in the light of our observations and after affording the respondents an opportunity of hearing. The revenue is also free to make their submissions before the Collector (Appeals) on the substantial question of law and also the scope of the project import involved for consideration.
-
1996 (11) TMI 178 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Benefit of exemption Notification No. 75/84-C.E. not available ... ... ... ... ..... n regard to limitation, we observe that there was an earlier SCN which was dated 26-4-1989 and this was not adjudicated separately, even though the learned Counsel has pointed out that a personal hearing was held by another Assistant Collector. Subsequently, we find another SCN dated 25-10-1989 was issued which covered the earlier period along with some period. The original authority in his order which forms the basis of the proceedings in regard to the goods in question passed an order on 4-5-1990 and the issue has been decided upon in respect of both the demands. In that view of the matter, we hold that since the earlier SCN was issued within time and the second SCN was also issued within the six months for the period which was not covered by the first SCN, the demand can be taken to be made within the period of six months. In this view, we hold that the appeal of the revenue for setting aside the order of the learned lower authority has to be allowed. We order accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 177 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Re-import - Goods exported under DEEC Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ities by the appellants in this regard after giving the benefit of Notification No. 97/95. In this connection reference is also invited to the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3. We find the benefit of notification was made available to the appellants in case they had not availed Modvat credit on those inputs. The same principle laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts before us. In that particular case after the Modvat credit which was taken by the appellants was reversed and the benefit was allowed to them. On the same analogy if the DEEC entries are cancelled, the appellants are certainly entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 97/95 which was also agreed in principle by the Collector (Appeals) as per his observations in Para 13 of the impugned order. In this view of the matter the appeals are allowed in the above terms.
-
1996 (11) TMI 176 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - `Silica gel’ - Coating oil ... ... ... ... ..... r marketing. Supreme Court has held that in the case of use of name plate on the product before it is cleared from the factory is to be taken to be in or in relation to the manufacture of the product. In the present case, the use of the oil is to keep the goods in the marketable form. We hold that the appellants are eligible to the benefit of Modvat credit. In regard to platinum rhodium catalyst, as the very name suggests, that it participates in the reaction as a promoter of the reaction while retaining its identity. The Larger Bench has held in case referred to supra that use of items like felts, wires, etc. in the paper machine would be in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product and the benefit of Modvat credit would be available. In the present case, since the use of the material is a technical necessity and which is not notified in the excluded categories of items under Rule 57A, the benefit would be available. We therefore accordingly allow the appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Bakelite sheets - Acid Degreaser - Glazed Transparent Paper ... ... ... ... ..... oards. These two items also do not find place in the list of items included in the excluded category. Therefore we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on these items. 10. emsp Glazed Transparent Paper, Gummed or adhesive paper or rolls - These items are used for packing purposes and purpose of using these as such we observe that these three items are used for making the product marketable. The Apex Court in the case of East End Paper Industries held that those items which make the product marketable are considered to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Following the ratio of this decision of the Apex Court we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on these three items. 11. emsp Having regard to the above discussion and finding the order-in-appeal (impugned order) is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequential relief if any shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1996 (11) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... It does not indicate that such filters should be placed inside the engine.The basic fact remains that these filters filter oil going in the IC engine.These, therefore, can be considered as oil filters for Internal Combustion Engines. 8. emsp Ld. Advocate also fairly cancedes that they are not pressing their claim of time-bar in revenue appeal as he concedes that it was filed in time. 9. emsp In this view of the matter therefore since these are filters and filters are specifically mentioned under 8421.23, we are of the view that the impugned goods cannot be taken away from their legitimate parentage under this sub-heading and consigned to the orphanage of a residuary sub-heading like ldquo others rdquo under 8421.29. In the result, for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, we reject the appeal of M/s. Bharat Sales Corporation (C/295/88-B2) and allow the Revenue Appeal No. C/2258/88-B2. The Cross Objection No. 273/88-B2 in Revenue rsquo s appeal are also disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tended period of limitation had been rightly invoked in these proceedings. 16. emsp From para 8 of the show cause notice, it is seen that the grinders had been supplied with electric motors at the price ranging Rs. 3100 to Rs. 3200 and the cabinet at the prices ranging from Rs. 1725 to Rs. 1790 and the total value had been worked out accordingly. The appellants have not submitted any documents to challenge the above prices taken for calculating the duty liability. 17. emsp The amount of central excise duty demanded in these proceedings is Rs. 69,879.60. The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Gurukrupa Trading Co. Ltd. 18. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). 19. emsp Subject to the reduction of amount of penalty from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as above, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1996 (11) TMI 172 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Feeder Cables - Dutiability - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... en Modvat credit in respect of the Cables, the appellants rsquo products should be treated as a new product even though they are held to be Cables. 5. emsp We observe that Section Note 6 reproduced above clearly stipulates that conversion of an item to give it the status of finished product ready for use from its incomplete or unfinished form even though it may have the character of complete or finished article shall amount to manufacture. The cable cut lengths and the form in which the cables are received apparently could not be used as such unless these are cut to length and were fitted with the terminal ends. In this view of the matter, in the above circumstances of the case, we hold that the provisions of Section Note 6 would be applicable and we for that reason hold that the goods have been rightly classified under Tariff Heading 85.44 and the demand has been rightly made. In the above circumstances we therefore uphold the duty demand. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
............
|