|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 431 Records
-
1998 (6) TMI 406 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ted 6-7-1991, and that the present market value of Lupofresh Aromatic Hop Pellet with 15 alpha was Rs. 2000/- and that of Lupofresh Aromatic Hop Extract with 30 Alpha was around Rs. 3800 to Rs. 4000/- per Kg. 19. emsp In view of these incriminating evidence coming directly from the Managing Director and Directors, that there has been under-valuation by quoting low prices in the invoices, it is clear that the prices were under-valued, we have to hold that the Commissioner was most judicious in reducing the invoice from DM 69.7 per Kg. CIF to DM 36 per Kg. This he has arrived at only after the importer rsquo s had produced evidence to seek lesser value. Therefore, it does not fall for the importers to say that there is under-valuation in the matter. The Commissioner has also not imposed any penalty. A redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs is commensurate with the admitted evasion and the duty amount involved in the case. There is no merit in this appeal and hence the same is rejected.
-
1998 (6) TMI 393 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Adjudication - Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... emsp I have carefully gone through the records of the cases and the submission made with the appeal memo and at the time of hearing. I find from the record that during the course of investigation, statements under Section 14 of Central Excise Act were recorded of some of the factory officials but copies thereof, have not been made available to them, before the adjudication of the case despite repeated reminders by the appellant. It is seen from records that appellant were not given either a SCN or an opportunity for personal hearing and as such the contention of the appellant sustainable. They were also not given the relevant records demanded by them. 6. emsp In view of submissions made and facts on records, the cases are being remanded for de novo adjudication by the adjudicating officer for passing of fresh order after taking into account of the intimation etc. which the appellants claims were not taken into consideration and after following the principle of natural justice
-
1998 (6) TMI 386 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Erroneous refund ... ... ... ... ..... en rdquo in the matter of earlier demand. In the present period, no such lsquo erroneous rsquo refund has been given. C/Ls being approved provisionally were rightly finalised for classification u/h 44.08 following Woodcraft. As regards C/L dated 1-3-1992, as already stated above, arrears of over Rs. 20 lakh accumulated for clearance during the period from 28-5-1992 to 17-3-1993 by virtue of interim C.R. 944/92, dated 28-5-1992 are covered by bank guarantee on direction from the Supreme Court on the appellants rsquo appeal to that court against Guwahati High Court rsquo s final judgment and order dated 22-3-1993 in C.R. 922/92. Appellants having lost that appeal before the Apex Court. Department cannot be denied access to that amount. Department obviously did not-issue show-cause notice because the matter was before the Apex Court and the Court had secured the Revenue by bank guarantee. We therefore, dismiss Appeal No. E/R-360/97 and confirm demand of duty of Rs. 90,05,787.16.
-
1998 (6) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... p Although, in view of the foregoing finding, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the show cause notice is barred by time or not, yet we observe that respondent did not mis-state or suppress anything in its declaration to the Revenue. It rsquo s clearly mentioned ldquo calcium propionate rdquo . Respondent rsquo s further declaration that it is fungicide rsquo was a matter of his belief which is clearly bonafide in view of its uses as mold inhibitor in bread. Calcium propionate was and is a well-defined chemical compound. Revenue could, as it sought to do subsequently, classify it differently under Chapter 29. No new fact has emerged after the visit of Central Excise Officers leading to the impugned order. Therefore, the show cause notice would be barred by time for bulk of the period. 18. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no warrant for confiscating the seized goods and imposing any penalty. 19. emsp Hence Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 381 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Punches - Eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 42/78-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... to show that the Custom House has since been classifying the item only under Chapter 84 and granting benefit. All these aspects have not been considered by the lower authorities and as the technical aspect of the matter has not been examined and classification itself not dealt with, it is but proper that the impugned order are set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. 7. emsp The authorities shall consider the aspect of classification of the item under Chapter 84 and give a detailed speaking order in the light of the HSN Notes and also the ITC Policy relied by the appellants. The judgment of the Jain Engineering case cited by the appellants are also to be looked into. The appellants claim that the Custom House is classifying the items under Chapter 84 in terms of the 25 Bills of Entry is also to be considered by the lower authorities in the de novo proceedings. 8. emsp Thus the appeal is allowed by remand to the original authority.
-
1998 (6) TMI 380 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cast articles of aluminium and copper - Departmental instructions ... ... ... ... ..... rt such as C.C.E. v. Jayan Dalal Pvt. Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 63. 4. emsp One of the examples cited in the circular of the Board is Notification 180/61. The notification exempted synthetic organic dyes from duty if they were made from ldquo primary dyes on which excise duty or countervailing Customs duty has already been paid. rdquo The contents of the circular would therefore apply to the notification presently under consideration. 5. emsp The notice therefore is unsustainable having been directly contrary to the instructions of the Board. In view of this, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the arguments of the Departmental Representative that the present Notification does not use the word ldquo appropriate duty of excise rdquo and the views expressed in the Supreme Courts rsquo judgment with regard to the applicability of notification under consideration before it would not apply to the notifications under consideration. Appeals allowed. Impugned orders set aside.
-
1998 (6) TMI 379 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sanitaryware - Ceramic glaze - Dutiability - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 5/85 and mentioned that in these notifications for the words, figures and brackets ldquo falling under Item No. 14 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) rdquo , the words, figures and brackets ldquo falling under Chapter 25, 27, 28 or 32, as the case may be, of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) rdquo shall be substituted. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the appellants continued to be under the belief that their product even if excisable remained non-dutiable. Hence, in the absence of any evidence of clandestine removal or suppression or mis-statement of facts with intention to evade duty, only normal period of time was available to the department and proviso to Section 11A could not be invoked. The show cause notice having been issued on 30-10-1987/3-11-1987 with reference to the period 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1987 was time barred. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the appeal accepted.
-
1998 (6) TMI 378 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Notification 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... aid to indicate any connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and M/s. Merino Plywood and Chemicals Ltd. 8. emsp We also take note of the fact that the Commissioner in his impugned Order has observed that the appellants have also used their own brand name. The appellants rsquo brand name of M/s. Pelican is more prominently displayed on the plywood and immediately striking the idea of relation with Pelican brand to the persons purchasing the goods rather than the small symbol of lsquo MERINO rsquo used in a less prominent way on the goods. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the notification and allow the appeal of the first appellant namely, M/s. Emkay Investments Private Limited. 9. emsp As the first appellants rsquo appeal has been allowed, the appeal of the second appellant firm namely, M/s. Plyking, who a mere trader, is also allowed. The impugned Order is set aside with consequential reliefs to both the appellants.
-
1998 (6) TMI 365 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import of used car ... ... ... ... ..... lower authorities have held that the importer herself had not been in possession of the car abroad and therefore is hit by the condition referred to above in the public notice. It would appear in the circumstances of this case that this is a highly technical view to take. Admittedly the car has been in the possession of the family of the appellant and the appellant was living in Dubai as housewife with no independent means of her own. The car had been purchased by her husband and kept for the use of the appellant and her children and hence it was in their use. These are circumstances which could be given due regard especially when it is found that the other conditions in the public Notice No. 21/ITC (P.N.) 1992-97 have been duly satisfied in this case. In this view of the matter the order of confiscation and penalty on the appellant appears to be harsh. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to consequential relief.
-
1998 (6) TMI 361 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Smuggling - Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... much as in all those cases, neither the driver, cleaner etc. was found to be present in the truck at the time of interception and as such, the onus was in respect of their knowledge as against the carrying of contraband. In the instant case, the truck was found to be unmanned. There is an F.I.R. by the owner of the Truck against the driver. In the circumstances the inferences drawn by the adjudicating authority from circumstantial evidences that it must be the driver of the truck who has brought the truck at place of seizure of the same are unwarranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the confiscation of the truck and order its immediate release as the same has been lying in the Department rsquo s custody for the last 7 years. 7. emsp As the appeals in question not relate to the confiscability of yarn, no order is being passed in respect of the same. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above.
-
1998 (6) TMI 359 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... discount also appeals succeed however, on the issue of freight subsidy while it is held that appeal succeeds on the principle of the said freight rebate being deductible from the assessable value on the question of consequential relief, the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority for verification of facts as discussed above. 12. emsp The impugned Order-in-Appeals are set aside to the above extent and the appeals are allowed by way of remand as per paras 10 and 11 above. Rest of the appeals succeed. While considering the consequential reliefs flowing out of this order on each of these issues, the jurisdictional Asst. Collector/Asst. Commissioner shall also consider the applicability of provisions of Section 11B as far as unjust enrichment is concerned, by applying eligibility as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) 1997 (68) ECR 209 (S.C.). We order accordingly.
-
1998 (6) TMI 358 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ons. It becomes obvious from a reading of para 4.3 of the said judgment, which records as ldquo but the forgoing cannot be considered a final finding rdquo . As such it becomes evident that the Bench was only considering the different contradictory trade notices issued by the various Collectorates. On the other hand the decision relied upon by the ld. Consultant specifically deals with the certificates issued by the Hindustan Copper Ltd. In all of the said judgments it has been held that the same are valid duty paying documents for the purposes of Modvat credit. Accordingly following the ratio of the relied upon decisions by the ld. Consultant I hold that the Modvat credit availed by the appellants during the period of December, 1990 to March, 1991 on the basis of certificates issued by the Hindustan Copper Ltd. was available to them. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed itself. As the appeal is allowed, Stay Application also gets disposed of.
-
1998 (6) TMI 357 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rder also accepts that the appellant had disclosed in the price list that the rate included freight element and that they would be claiming refund of duty paid on freight. The only dispute is whether the duty collected on freight is to be added in the assessable value of the goods or to the wholesale price on this, the appellants have rightly relied on the decision of the CEGAT in Digvijay Cement case. The Tribunal held in that case that the duty element on the deductible freight charges should be added not to the assessable value but to the wholesale price. The case is, therefore, required to be reconsidered in conformity with this decision of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand with the direction that the Assistant Collector shall reconsider the appellants rsquo refund claim and reassess the goods by adding the duty element charged on the freight to the wholesale price and refund, if any, due on such reassessment, shall be paid to the appellant.
-
1998 (6) TMI 353 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Confiscation of goods - Non-accountal of goods - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to that under Rule 226 and in this regard rely upon the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 298 (T) 1994 (54) ECR 643 (T). 7. Rule 226 also provides for confiscation of goods of which due entry has not been made in the prescribed records, account or register within the time prescribed in the relevant rule. The appellants failed to made entries in the daily production account prescribed under Rule 53 and, therefore, the goods found in excess of the balance recorded in daily stock account are liable to confiscation. However, in the absence of proven mens rea on the part of appellants a token fine in lieu of confiscation would meet the ends of justice. 8. emsp In view of above discussion, the fine an lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and penalty is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- which is the maximum amount prescribed under Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
-
1998 (6) TMI 352 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CALCUTTA
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ea that the time gap between issue of Reserve Bank of India notification and its dissemination has caused the infringement carries credibility. Moreover, I find that it is not a case that the impugned currencies were found in a concealed manner reflecting the guilty mind of the appellant. There is also no evidence on record establishing the involvement of any smuggling racket. 10. emsp However, strictly from the legal point of view non-declaration of impugned currencies by the appellant is a violation of provision of FERA and accordingly, the order of confiscation of the impugned currencies cannot be held to be illegal. Nevertheless taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view is warranted while deciding the question of fine and penalty. While I confirm the order of confiscation I offer an option to redeem the impugned currencies for re-export on a redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only). Penalty is waived for reasons discussed supra.
-
1998 (6) TMI 349 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... uct and the fact that receipt of the goods under original copy of the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry not controverted by the department, Modvat credit cannot be simply denied on the basis of that. They have submitted an attested copy of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry along with monthly statement to the Range officer. Once the department is satisfied about the receipt of the inputs which are imported one and which were imported by the appellants themselves and the inputs have been utilised in the manufacture of finished product, it may safely be presumed in the light of these facts that the substantial compliance for availing the Modvat credit has been done by the appellants and merely presenting a reconstructed copy of the Bill of Entry should not debar them from availing the Modvat credit. In the light of these facts and circumstances, we hold that the appellants are eligible to avail of Modvat credit in the present matter and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 348 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Marketability - Reed Type Frequency (RTF) meters - Marketability - Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... that case there was an application under Rule 56B of Central Excise Rules, facilitating the movement of the semi-finished goods, from one factory to another was pending before the authorities, and further, that was not a case of sale of the products by one factory to another as in this case. 14. emsp In these circumstances it is held that the duty demand in this case from EEW is sustainable and it is upheld. However, as no mala fide could be attributed on the facts of the case to the appellant, there is a case for relief in the matter of personal penalty on them, and the fine in lieu of confiscation, and the penalty is accordingly reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- in the case of EEW. The order of confiscation of plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2) appears to be harsh and it is set aside. The redemption fine in the case of the meters is also reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 1,000/-. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (6) TMI 347 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e of the smuggling and accepted that they were not aware of the vessel being used for carrying the gold, it would follow that the vessel could not be confiscated. The decisions which the Departmental Representative cites related to Section 115 as it stood before amendment. In National Harbour and Launch Services v. Additional Collector - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 385 it was not in dispute that the liner had been used for smuggling with the knowledge of the person in charge of the ship. Penalty imposed on the master of the vessel Hentrith Maersk in GP Volkart Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 824 (Tribunal) 1987 (10) ECR 95 was confirmed by the Tribunal for the reason that notwithstanding the absence of any personal knowledge or involvement on the part of the master of the vessel, he had not taken proper precautions to prevent the misuse of the vessel. These decisions are therefore not relevant to the facts of this case. 18 emsp All appeals allowed. Consequential reliefs, if any.
-
1998 (6) TMI 346 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... N.M. Patankar the ld. Advocate contended that the wording of the notification have to be strictly construed and according to the Notification only complete transformers are excluded and not parts thereof although they may fall for classification under the same heading as the transformers. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we are of the view that if it was the intention of the Notification issuing authorities to exclude the parts of transformer from the ambit of the exemption they would have been specifically mentioned for such exclusion. This conclusion gets supported by a perusal of the other serial numbers in the Notification were articles which are in the nature of parts are specifically mentioned for exclusion at Serial No. 2 and there are other entries at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 where parts are specifically excluded. In these circumstances we do not see any reasons to interfere with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (6) TMI 345 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... last one being dated 4-6-1998. Such an approach on the part of the petitioner may lead to an inference that any further protection given to him would impede the even course of inquiry or investigation into a serious allegation now pending, The effectiveness and utility of the inquiry may be very adversely affected which the DRI had to conduct under the statutory provisions of the Customs Act. Apart from the aforesaid angle of view I have been also persuaded by the contentions raised on behalf of the opposite party that this relates to an economic offence of very serious nature with involvement of crores of rupees by way of evasion of customs duty. 8. emsp For the reasons, aforesaid, this revisional petition has no substance and I am of the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the remedy as sought for either by way of setting aside the impugned order or by granting regular bail. This revisional petition is thus dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
........
|
