|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 339 Records
-
1997 (10) TMI 267
Runners and risers used in manufacture of steel castings entitled for benefit under Notification No. 152/77-C.E.
-
1997 (10) TMI 266
... ...
... ... ..... ision charges in assessable value will amount to double taxation, as they have already paid income tax on the amount earned by the foreigners, does not have much force because the question is to determine the assessable value of the imported goods in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act and Valuation Rules, having no nexus with provisions of Income Tax Act. 8. emsp It is further held, following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Essar Gujarat (Supra), that payment towards training charges cannot be added to the assessable value in any way. In that case also there was payment towards theoretical and practical training outside India and the Supreme Court, as noted above, held that it is not includible in the assessable value. 9. emsp Therefore, the appeal is disposed of by holding that the addition of supervision charges pound 6,57,900 to the assessable value is sustainable and is upheld. 10. emsp It is further held that training charges pound 82,610 is not includible.
-
1997 (10) TMI 265
Water Filter - benefit of exemption under Notification No. 155/86-C.E. and Notification 54/93-C.E. not available.
-
1997 (10) TMI 264
Valuation - Construction of Projects on contract basis ... ... ... ... ..... and the same is reported at Volume No. 84 E.L.T. at page A-108. He referred to the relevant show cause notices issued in these three cases which are similar to the earlier show cause notices which were the subject matter of dispute in the above order passed by the Tribunal which has been upheld by the Apex Court. 4. emsp Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue fairly conceded that issue involved in this case has already been settled by the above decision referred to above as it was rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the matter. Since the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the very party rsquo s case that Project by itself being an immovable property is not goods rsquo and this view was upheld by the Supreme Court, following the above decision, we accept the contentions of the appellant and, in the result, all these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1997 (10) TMI 263
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... that the oils are used for lubricating purpose only and not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. It is the contention of the respondent that the use of the oils is not only for lubrication of the machines but on the materials also in the manufacturing process. Such use is definitely in the manufacture of the products. The use for lubricating the machines also is in relation to the manufacturing process only and without such use manufacture will not be commercially expedient. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in the J.K. Spg. and Wvg. Mills rsquo case is satisfied. The items are used in a manner satisfying the requirement of Rule 57A and they do not fall under the excluded category as per the Explanation therein. The Tribunal decision sought to be referred to the High Court has been passed after taking note of this position. The order has not given rise to any question of law as raised in the application or otherwise. The application is dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 262
... ...
... ... ..... rved that when the show cause notice was issued on 26-2-1988 the costing certificate for the year 1987-88 may not have been available but as the adjudication order was issued only in May, 1989, the costing certificate would have been available. He raised the question why the differential duty or the final duty was not collected on the basis of costing and directed that the assessment of stators and rotors for the year 1987-88 be finalised on the basis of cost certificate. We hold that this approach is correct subject to the condition that the certificate would relate to the period in question. The reason why the Assistant Collector did not accept the certificates produced earlier was that they related to earlier years. We hold that the impugned order in appeal is correct and should be understood as referring to certificates of the relevant period, namely 1987-88. So understood, the order in appeal does not call for any interference. We hold accordingly and dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (10) TMI 261
Smuggled goods - Burden of proof on Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... 91 wherein it was held that the mere fact that ball bearings were of foreign origin, is not sufficient to hold that they are smuggled goods. The Tribunal held that the circumstances that the consignee firm was fictitious and that the appellants could not name the broker, may give rise to suspicion. But suspicion cannot take the place of proof. The Tribunal held that the initial burden cast upon the Department has not been discharged. In the present appeal also, the facts of this case are almost akin to those of the present appeal wherein there is evidence that the consignor firm was fictitious and the appellants could not name the broker. In these circumstances, following the ratio of the orders cited supra, I hold that the Department has not discharged the burden of proving that the ball bearings in question were imported in violation of the law, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any due, to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (10) TMI 260
Confiscation of currency
... ... ... ... ..... ight be, cannot take the place of proof and hence directed the return of the seized Indian Currency. The same view has been expressed in the case of Ramchandra (supra) wherein it has been held that before violation of Section 121 has been established the following ingredients must be satisfied (i) emsp there must be a sale. (ii) emsp the sale must be of smuggled goods. (iii) emsp the sale must be by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were of smuggled origin. (iv) emsp the seller and purchaser and the quantity of gold must be established by the Customs authorities. 11. emsp This judgment has been followed in the case of Hukmi Chand Ghewar Chand Saraf v. Collector of Customs (supra). 12. emsp In that view of the matter, on application of ratio of the judgments noted above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner and hence the Revenue appeal is without merit and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 259
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... . C.C.E., New Delhi - Final Order No. A/536/97-NB, dated 3-7-1997, 1997 (95) ELT 667 (Tribunal) that credit is not available on the strength of original invoice unless the duplicate invoice has been lost in transit. Therefore, I agree with the learned DR that credit of Rs. 800/- is not available to the respondents herein. Regarding the balance amount of credit, I find that the lower appellate authority has held that all the supliers in question have purchased the inputs directly from the manufacturers as is evident from the details given on the top of the relevant invoices and, therefore, accepted them as valid duty paying documents in terms of Notification 15/94, dated 30-3-1994 read with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Learned DR has not advanced any arguments to warrant this finding being dislodged and accordingly I uphold the same. 6. emsp In the result, save for rejection of Rs. 800/- the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 258
Natural justice - Cross-examination - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ctated by the Central Excise Authorities, we note that the statement has not been retracted. We also note that Shri Bansal is an educated person and wrote the statement in his own handwriting and we hold that the statement is true and voluntary. 30. emsp On the question of denial of natural justice, we note that the case was posted for personal hearing that the appellants attended the personal hearing as they were granted the personal hearing on 10-2-1995 when their Advocate appeared and reiterated his submission already made in reply to the show cause notice. Thus there was no denial of natural justice. 31. emsp Having regard to the above discussions and having regard to the facts that it is the case of detailed investigations which proved the intention of the appellants to fraudulently take credit of duty on the strength of fake gate passes, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 257
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hine. In fact, they do not perform any function relating to milling as such. They could at best be treated as accessories to a milling machine. 12. emsp Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI clearly indicates that parts which are goods included in any of the Headings of Chapter 84, 85 are in all cases to be classified in their respective Headings. Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI indicates that other parts usable solely or principally with a particular kind of machine or with a number of machines of the same Heading are to be classified with the machine of that kind. The position that therefore emerges is that these jet air filters are at best accessories to the milling machine and not parts of milling machine and Chapter 9806 covers only parts and not the accessories. 13. emsp In view of this, we hold that the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under 8421. In view of this, the impugned orders are set aside and Revenue Appeals allowed. Pronounced in open court on 7-10-1997.
-
1997 (10) TMI 256
S.S.I. Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... rloskar or others. In fact, the sample displayed in the Court also indicates prominently the brand name TRACKO on all the package and has the following written ldquo Suitable for piauguts bore 90M Size STP rdquo 5. emsp In other words, it is very clear that reference to other manufacturers is only for the purpose of identification of the impugned goods for use with particular engines of other manufacturers. 6. emsp We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellants are not using brand name as such of other manufacturers but are indicating the name of other manufacturers not in any stylised form but only to indicate suitability of their product for use with a particular model of engine of other manufacturers. It has also been submitted by the ld. Advocate that subsequently this concession has been extended to them and they have been continuing to avail S.S.I. exemption under the relevant notification. 7. emsp In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (10) TMI 255
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... iff Act, 1975. It would therefore be seen that there is no condition relating to the availment of the credit under clause (ii) of this Notification. The impugned goods arise from manufacture of metal containers which were taxable under the Heading 8312.12 at the metals too. This heading is not specified at clause (i) of the table against Sl. No. 3 of notification and therefore such scrap would be entitled to exemption. Since the appellants are working under Modvat scheme the wastes arising from the manufacture of final product of metal containers can be either destroyed, exported, or removed for home consumption on payment of duty. Notification No. 54/86 prescribes rate of duty for scrap classifiable under heading 72.03.20. In view of this Rule 57C cannot be pressed into the service since the rate payable on metal scrap under Notification itself is nil. In view of this we reject the Revenue Appeal and uphold the impugned order. Cross Objections are also disposed of according.
-
1997 (10) TMI 254
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... plies to the facts of this case. 18. emsp In order to apply the principles of Gora Mal Hariram case, there must be sale to a particular class of buyer. In this case, the transfer of goods to selling agent is not the sale and it cannot be said that selling agent is a class of buyer because they have not purchased any goods. 19. emsp It is now seen that in Part-II price list they have shown the namesof Baldevsons Industrial Corporation and Bindu Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. But actually the goods have gone to be selling agents which fact was not mentioned and this amounted to suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of duty. That was the suppression which was alleged in the SCN also and therefore Invocation of longer period is applicable to the facts of this case. In such circumstances, the demand of duty is in accordance with law. The penalty also is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above. 20. emsp The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 253
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rrect or not. As fairly conceded by the ld. Consultant, the reason given by the ld. Lower Authority for rejecting the classification under 98.06 is quite in order and we hold, for that reason, the order of the ld. Lower Authority is sustainable in law. The appellants have shifted their stand in regard to re-classification of the goods and at this stage they wanted to go back again to the claim under the original classification that was sought i.e. Tariff sub-heading 8501.33 read with Notification No. 59/87, claiming the goods to be merely Electric Motor. The ld. Lower Authority in his order has clearly observed that the item is a device of controlling the valve operations and the goods are not merely a Motor. In view of shifting the stand of the appellants and in view of the facts of this case, we observe that the appellants cannot be allowed to reagitate the matter in the matter of re-classification under Tariff sub-heading 8501.33. 6. emsp The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 252
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n shown that TV sets were cleared with boosters for being sold in the market as TV sets. It is further seen that before a self contained item which though may be used in conjunction with TV, it still does not become part of the TV. It can at best be an accessory and the accessory is not covered by Heading 85.29. TV booster has its own electronic circulatory to receive TV signal and thereafter amplify the signal as output from the signal and gets fed into the TV. In this view of the matter, the function of booster can be taken to be independent of the TV and it is this function which can be considered as independent functioin performed by boosters. The HSN relied upon by the learned Counsel in our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case does not advance the case of the appellant as on facts the item stands apart from TV though used with the TV. In this view of the matter, we hold that there is no force in the plea of the appellants and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (10) TMI 251
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... leaded that the I.D. Blower is an integral part of the Boiler to function efficiently and is a piece of equipment used with the boiler and the Ld. lower authority has rightly extended the benefit in respect of the same. The Economiser Coil, he pleaded, is a piece of equipment used as an adjunct to the boiler and performs the important function in the energy management in the unit and therefore it should be given the benefit of Modvat credit. 5. emsp A reading of the use of the items clearly brings out that both the items i.e. I.D. Blower and Economiser Coil are accessories of the boilers and since the Boiler itself is eligible for the benefit of MODVAT credit and use of both these items is to make the Boiler function efficiently, no fault can be found with the ld. Lower Appellate authority rsquo s order for extending the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of same. 6. emsp I therefore hold that there are no merits in the appeal of the Revenue and accordingly dismiss the same.
-
1997 (10) TMI 250
Measuring instrument - Benefit of notification 139/90-Cus.not available.
... ... ... ... ..... eaded that the source of radiation as it is built in the instrument and therefore, the question of the instrument being an agency for detecting the measurement does not arise. 4. emsp We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the instrument has been designed for measuring the thickness of the coating. The source of the radiation is built-in in the instrument and it is not for the purpose of detecting or measuring this radiation in question as enumerated in Sl. No. (c). The radiation is being used only as an aid for quantifying the parameter of thickness of coating. The coverage of the type of instrument or apparatus under Sl. No. (c) under the explanation or use therein can be taken to be only such as are designed for measuring or detecting the radiation as enumerated in the sub-heading. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellants have been rightly denied the benefit of the Notification. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (10) TMI 249
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... ng any brand name either on the pouch or on the tools manufactured by them. These brand names are printed by the manufacturer from whom the respondent is purchasing the same. Therefore, on the plain meaning of the notification, it is seen that clause 7 of the notification is not attracted to the facts of this case, in view of the fact that the respondent has not affixed, either the tools or the pouches, with any brand name. In construing the notification, the plain words are to be read and if the plain words are read, it is very clear that in order to disentitle the appellant for the benefit of the notification, it must be shown that they have affixed a brand name on the goods in question. They have not affixed any brand name either on the tools or on the pouches and, therefore, clause 7 of the notification is not attracted is this case. 7. emsp In the above view of the matter, we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 248
Export - Proof of export ... ... ... ... ..... m for remaining goods valued at Rs. 10,44,660/- and they receive the same subsequently for passing of the order and requested that to remand the matter. All the relevant documents will be produced before the concerned authority. 5. emsp It was the contention of the departmental representative that they were required to produce the documents within the six months from the date of export. 6. emsp We find that even the documents which the appellants have produced for Rs. 18,58,920/- was after six months and the same was accepted by the Assistant Collector. In the facts and circumstances we are remanding the matter to the concerned jurisdictional adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh and to pass an order accordingly after providing an opportunity to the appellants. The appellants may make use or this opportunity and produce the relevant documents in support of their claim. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is also disposed of accordingly.
........
|
