|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 696 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Test results - Natural justice - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t to merits of the case i.e. classification of the goods correctly, we have already held that the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority. Therefore, the order-in-original is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration only on merits of the case as we find that the period of 6 months prior to the date of issue of show cause notice would not be covered by the proviso to the said section and would therefore be available for consideration to Revenue. The Learned Commissioner shall no doubt give effective opportunities to the appellants to be heard and shall fully consider the above submissions made before him and then proceed to pass a speaking order in the matter, taking into consideration that the issue of the extended period is not remanded before him, but the classification of the product, the confiscability of the goods under seizure and the imposition of penalties, if any, would be the subject matter in these de novo proceedings ordered by us.
-
1999 (12) TMI 689 - ITAT JABALPUR
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... count maintained by the assessee in the regular course of business. The assessees have already filed the returns of income of respective years prior to the search. No material is found during the course of search, so as to establish that the credits as entered in the regular books of account are non-genuine. Therefore, in my opinion, the credits under consideration cannot be said to be undisclosed income detected as a result of search. Hence the same is out of the purview of the assessment under chapter XIV-B. Accordingly, I delete the additions of Rs. 24,000 in the case of Sudhir Kumar Potdar, Rs. 69,200 in the case of Shailendra Kumar Agrawal and Rs. 42,000 in the case of M/s. Kunjilal Jamnaprasad Agrawal. Before parting with the matter, I may clarify that the Revenue is at liberty to consider the genuineness or otherwise of the credits, while making regular assessment of the above assessees in the respective years. 7. In the result, the assessees rsquo appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 688 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty - For concealment of income ... ... ... ... ..... (c) of the Income-tax Act. The explanation of the assessee has been substantially accepted. Even explanation relating to majority of items belonging to Smt. Mamtaben has also been accepted. The addition of Rs. 12,728 has been sustained in the absence of day-to-day cash book. Reliance on such cash flow statement prepared after a gap of several years can hardly support the assessee rsquo s contention. The claim has not been accepted, but it cannot be said that the same was not a bona fide claim. Further, there is no material to show that jewellery did not belong to Smt. Mamtaben as claimed and was concealed income of the assessee. The test of probabilities is not satisfied in this case. We are, therefore, unable to hold that on facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is exigible in respect of addition of Rs. 12,728. The same has rightly been cancelled and we uphold the impugned order. 5. In the result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 679 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ce for today rsquo s hearing had been issued on 4-11-99. It is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued on 8-1-91. We are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR. 3. emsp We find that on limitation, the matter is covered by the Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the case of Cotspun reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) 1999 (34) RLT 709 (S.C.). There is no dispute that the classification list had been approved. The appellate authority had not challenged this submission of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case following the Supreme Court rsquo s decision aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal on this limited ground and as a result, the appeal is allowed. Refund, if any will however be governed by the law of unjust enrichment as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). With these observations, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 678 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... r that the statement could not be taken to be an admission of undervaluation. 18. emsp When the department cannot rely upon the statement, the only course open was of determination under Rule 8. Since it is the best judgment, method, the bona fides of the importers do not come into question. Even otherwise, Surekha s statements are not sufficient to establish suppression of price. 19. emsp I, therefore, agree with the ld. Member (Technical) that in the facts and circumstances of the case there were no grounds for imposition of penalty. 20. emsp The Reference is answered in these terms. The papers may now be placed before the original Bench for appropriate orders. Sd/- (J.H. Joglekar) Member (Technical) ORDER 21. emsp In the light of the answer given by the third member on the point of difference, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Collector imposing penalty on the appellant is set aside. Sd/- Sd/- (G.N. Srinivasan) (Gowri Shankar) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
-
1999 (12) TMI 664 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... Central Excise. The appeal filed by the appellants for classifying their product was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise upholding the order passed by the adjudicating authority for classifying their product under heading 8536.90. Thereafter, the appellants filed the appeal before the CEGAT which was withdrawn by the appellants. In this situation the order passed by the adjudicating authority classifying their product under Heading 8536.90 of the Central Excise Tariff is still in force. We find that the effect of an order passed by a competent authority in accordance with law cannot be taken away by the Supdt. of Central Excise by issuing some letter admitting the claim of the assessee. As the adjudication order is still in force, therefore, the amount in question which was deposited in respect of that adjudication order cannot be refunded to the appellants. 6. emsp In view of the above discussions, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 657 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... s are advanced in the appeal as to why this view of the Collector is improper or illegal. The law does not require specific quantification in each case. Although quantification is always desirable in order to avoid further proceedings, it is not possible in each case. The Collector has clearly enumerated the basis on which the demand should be calculated and it is only the valuation of the goods that he has asked the Assistant Collector to do. We therefore see no reason to interfere. 3. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 656 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of taxi carrying contraband goods ... ... ... ... ..... nature of the goods sought to be transported in his vehicle. 4. emsp I have gone through the impugned order and have considered the submissions made from both the sides. Taxi, is, no doubt, a public vehicle and can be hired by any passenger on the road for his baggage transportation. It is definitely not practicable for the taxi driver to check the luggage of the passenger and to satisfy himself about legal character of the same, especially, when there is no reason for him to entertain any doubt about the nature of the goods sought to be transported in his taxi. No circumstances have been brought on record by the Revenue to show that either the owner or the driver who was the person-in-charge of the vehicle, was in knowledge of the fabrics being smuggled goods. As such, I hold that the confiscation of the taxi as also imposition of penalty is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (12) TMI 643 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Clearance of grey fabrics after processing without payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ed although they figured in the lot register. The explanation for this was that there has been damage and lost during the process, which took shortly after the factory was set up. The Additional Collector rsquo s view that no evidence in support of the appellant rsquo s claim that the fabrics were destroyed was produced is not successfully challenged. The Additional Collector also finds that department was not informed of any such loss. There thus is total absence of evidence in support of the appellant rsquo s claim. 7. emsp The departmental representative does not dispute that the Additional Collector rsquo s order with regard to confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in Pioneer Silk Mills v. Union of India, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507. We therefore set aside the order of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty and allow the appeal with regard to these, but otherwise dismiss it. 8. emsp Appeal is allowed in part.
-
1999 (12) TMI 642 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... da v. Cotspun Ltd. reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the present case. In the case before the Apex Court, the duty demand for clearances between February 1977 to May 1977 were raised on 28-9-1977 and the demand for the period 1-6-1977 to 17-6-1977 was issued on 18-10-1977 i.e. within the normal period of limitation and the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider a situation where the demand notices were issued beyond six months, alleging fraud, suppression, misdeclaration, etc., while in the present case, the demand has been raised under the proviso to Section 11A and the ingredients of the proviso have been held to be established against the appellants. 6. emsp Since the appellants do not dispute the classification of the PCM-MUX assembly, cleared by them during the relevant period, in view of our finding that the demand is not barred by limitation, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 641 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Computers - Data processing machine - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... l consideration for the goods and are liable to duty. The Supreme Court in its judgment in Baroda Electric Meter Co. v. CCE - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 had held that charges collected from buyers as freight and insurance but not actually incurred would not form part of the assessable value. It has said that the excise duty is not a tax on profit made by the appellant in this regard. The departmental representative rsquo s efforts to distinguish the case do not seem appropriate. His contention that the factory gate price was not available in the present case is not very relevant that the factory gate was available in the case before the Supreme Court. The demand on this count is also not sustainable. 28. emsp Penalty of Rs 2.00 lakhs imposed on the appellant in Appeal E/1186/96 and confiscation ordered of seized goods has thus to be set aside. 29. emsp Appeal 1330/95 is dismissed and Appeal 1186/96 allowed. Consequential relief, if any, after calculating duty due as indicated above.
-
1999 (12) TMI 639 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d the Revenue rsquo s appeal pertaining to dropping of the proceedings relating to mandatory penalty is required to be set aside. 2. emsp The learned DR submits that he does not have any information from the Commissioner in this regard and leaves the matter to the Bench. 3. emsp On consideration of the submission, I notice that the assessee had challenged the impugned order pertaining to confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalty. The said appeal has been disposed of under the KVS Scheme as the designated authority i.e. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore had accepted the application of the assessee for settlement of the issue under the KVS scheme and issued Form 3 in full and final settlement of the matter under the same scheme. It follows therefore, that the appeal cannot be agitated pertaining to dropping of proceedings regarding mandatory penalty. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue is also deemed to have been settled and this appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 637 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ter of the inputs, their use in the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products on payment of duty were in dispute, failure on the part of the manufacturer to comply with other procedural requirements cannot stand in the way of their availing Modvat credit. 3. emsp On consideration of the submissions made and on perusal of the record, I find that the Department rsquo s appeal has merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the respondents though he had himself noted that the invoice did not bear the Rule number under which it was issued, and the invoice did not also bear the particulars showing the payment of duty taken as credit. Further, invoice No. 403622 was only an extra copy whereas credit can be taken on duplicate copy. I find that the cumulative effect of the lapses referred to above would make the deficiencies in the invoices beyond the scope of being curable lapses. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
1999 (12) TMI 636 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... on of taxing statutes has been discussed. The consensus is that taxing statute is to be interpretted strictly and literally. The strict construction of notification is that, in order to become eligible documents, the endorsed gate pass must have been endorsed prior to the date 1-4-1994. It would therefore appear that under this notification a gate pass prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed after this date would cease to become eligible document. 6. emsp We are satisfied that a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal decision which is required to be referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court on the lines of the question of law, framed above. 7. emsp The Registry may send the necessary papers along with this order to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. The Registry may also enclose therewith a copy of the Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 for appropriate consideration by the Hon rsquo ble High Court. 8. emsp The Reference Application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 633 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Waste Oil - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... imported by them are drained from industrial system after original lubricating preparation have outlived their utility and their any further use in the system can serve no purpose. The Collector (Appeals) also in the impugned Order has also observed similarly. The Revenue has not challanged the findings of the Collector (Appeals) in respect of the intrinsic nature of the imported oils. No material has also been brought on record to prove that such Waste Oils emerge as a result of any process of manufacture or are being produced or manufactured in India. In view of these facts and circumstances, respectfully following the ratio of the judgment in Hydrabad Industries case, we hold that additional duty of customs cannot be levied on Waste Oils imported into India. We make it clear that appropriate Basic Customs duty, if any specified under Heading 34.03 of the Customs Tariff Act will be leviable on the imported Waste Oils. 8. emsp Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 632 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... e clearances of the factories of appellants, cannot be clubbed together and all the units are entitled for the benefit of small-scale exemption separately. 7. emsp In respect of penalty, we find that in the impugned order, the provisions of Sections 11AC and 11AB were invoked by the adjudicating authority for imposing penalty. We find that in the show cause notice, no such proposal was made for imposing such penalty. Therefore, the penalty and interest imposed under Sections 11AC and 11AB is not sustainable. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q is sustainable. 8. emsp As some of the units of appellants exceeds the limit as provided under exemption notification, the Revenue is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the units which exceed the clearance of specified goods from the limit provided under exemption notification. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
1999 (12) TMI 607 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... of computing the aggregate value of clearance under Notification 175/86. Issue (d) 5. emsp In view of our finding on issue (c) above, we do not consider it necessary to go into this issue. Issue (e) 6. emsp In the light of our finding on issues (a) and (b) that duty is payable on branded goods manufactured and cleared by IBPL and MIT, we hold that both IBPL and MIT are liable to penalty however, in view of setting aside of the duty demand of over Rs. 27 lakhs covered by issue (c) and upholding of duty demand of only Rs. 4,04,319/- covered by issues (a) and (b) , we also hold that the penalty on Shri Arvind Nanda is justified since, as Director of IBPL and partner of MIT, he was looking after all affairs of the company and the partnership firm, and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 209A are applicable to him however, since we have upheld the duty demand of Rs. 4,04,319/- only, we reduce the penalty imposed upon him to Rs. 40,000/-. 7. emsp The appeals are thus partly allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Order - Appellate order ... ... ... ... ..... y of duty. This matter has not been dealt with by the Appellate Commissioner in the order impugned. 4. emsp In the circumstances detailed above, according to me, the matter has to go back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo disposal of the appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue. While disposing of the appeal, the argument advanced by the importer, as stated earlier in this order, should be borne in mind by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp In view of what has been stated above, Order-in-Appeal No. 535/99/DEEC(Deptt.) NCH, dated 18-5-1999 is set aside and the Commissioner is directed to restore the appeal back to his file with its original number and to dispose of the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the matter is old one, I direct the Commissioner to pass final order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 605 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Production capacity based duty - Compounded Levy Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ument. The proviso to Section 3A(3) makes it a condition for grant of abatement that the manufacturer does not produce any goods. The same words are echoed in sub-rule (7) of Rule 96ZQ. To be fair, we must note that the Board which considered this aspect also has in a different circular, contents of which have been reproduced in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, Trade Notice No. 47/99 has said that the compounded levy scheme, so far it concerns to textile processor, operates on payment of duty on the basis of a stenter or chamber in the stenter, therefore abatement also to be based on this. However, the Commissioner has not touched upon any of this in declining the abatement. We have already dealt with the reasons furnished by him. His order is entirely silent about the other aspect figuring in this paragraph. Therefore, establishing the merits or demerits of this argument is not relevant case for disposal of the appeal. 5. emsp The appeal allowed and impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (12) TMI 604 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... DRI Jaipur. Though this is an administrative adjustment of the amount being deposited by the appellants in one Commissionerate, I find that the directions have been passed by the Commissioner in the form of an adjudication order. Once the Commissioner admits that the duty confirmed by him has already been deposited by the appellants, I do not find any justification for direction to deposit the amount again. The accountability of the money already deposited by them is an internal adjustment between the two Commissioners for which the appellants should not be burdened to deposit the duty confirmed for the second time. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are under no legal obligation to pay confirmed amount once again in Calcutta. With these observations, I uphold the impugned order confirming the demand of duty and imposition of penalty upon the appellants and dispose of the appeal in the above manner. As the appeal has been disposed of, stay petition also gets disposed of.
............
|
