|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 603 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods, Accessories of ... ... ... ... ..... n judicial authority been cited to counter the reliance placed on the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Emgees Clubley (supra). In the circumstances, I am convinced that the issue involved in this appeal can be settled in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Emgees Clubley (supra). Accordingly, I hold that HPWJ pumps and spares falling under chapter sub-heading 8424.90, being accessories to evaporator falling under chapter heading 84.41, are capital goods covered by clause (d) under Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules and are, therefore, eligible for the Modvat credit under Rule 57Q(1) as it stood at the material time. The orders of both the lower authorities are bad in law as the same have resulted from the erroneous interpretation of the Explanation (1) ibid. I, therefore, set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and allow the appeal, with consequential benefits to the appellants.
-
1999 (12) TMI 602 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Order - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... he Commissioner should have dealt with each and every issue giving a finding whether the persons were said to be arrested by the Police are, the same persons whose statement he relied upon in adjudicating the proceedings. The order also suffers from infirmity inasmuch as the hand writing expert opinion dated 15-12-1997 was not supplied to the party. Since he has very much relied upon the said statement in the order, he should have supplied the same to the party whether it was interim or otherwise. In view of these infirmities I am of the view that the matter will have to go back for re-consideration. Accordingly, I am remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner to decide the matter afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellant. The appellant may make use of this opportunity to substantiate his defence during the re-adjudication proceedings. 8. emsp Thus, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 571 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... fore the lower authorities was it agitated that the items concerned did not qualify as spare parts or components or accessories of capital goods as per Rule 57Q. The only dispute was in respect to the cut off date of 1-3-1994 as already noted above, therefore, this ground also has no merit. rdquo 5. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that applying respectively the ratio of the three decisions noted above, there is no merit in these Revenue appeals. While arriving at this conclusion, we are also guided by the fact that a reference application on this issue filed by the Revenue was also rejected by the Tribunal in the case of Delta Paper Mills Ltd. vide Order No. Ref./113/98, dated 14-5-1998. In the said order, the Tribunal upheld order given by the Commissioner (Appeals) by rejecting the Revenue appeals. Therefore, respectfully following the judgments of the Tribunal in the above said decisions, the impugned order is confirmed and the Revenue appeals are rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 570 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification - Import policy - Redemption fine, margin of profit ... ... ... ... ..... lysis and findings, we modify the impugned Orders in-Appeal only with respect to the Appeal of M/s. Pooja Exports (India) to the extent that the fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,50,000/- adjudged therein on CD Jewel Box imported is set aside and to that limited extent, the matter is remanded to the original authority for re-consideration of the redemption fine to be imposed, after taking into consideration the submissions to be made by the present respondents before him on the issue of margin of profit involved. Since the matter is old, we expect that the said original authority shall be able to complete these de novo proceedings in respect of CD Jewel Box imported by M/s. Pooja Exports (India) only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal of the Revenue against M/s. Delhi International is, therefore, totally rejected and the appeal of the Revenue with respect to M/s. Pooja Exports (India) is partially allowed in the above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 557 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... of the impugned order. It is clear from the above entry that the goods otherwise classifiable under Heading No. 51.02 of the Central Excise Tariff when were of wool, were to be classifiable under sub-heading No. 5102.11 if the same were of only carded, and under sub-heading No. 5102.12 if they were carded and combed. It is clear from the scheme of the Tariff that only those goods, tops etc. which were not of wool will only be covered by sub-heading No. 5102.90. 4. emsp As it is an undisputed position that the carded gilled slivers were of wool we consider that they have rightly been classified under sub-heading No. 5102.11 as they were only carded and were not combed. As the goods were carded wool and as Sl. No. 2 of the table annexed to Notification No. 50/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 covers carded wool we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the adjudicating authority. We do not find any merit in this appeal by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 556 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Collector in depth. He has simply denied the benefit of this notification by opining that the goods in question were not being manufactured at the site, but has failed to take into account that the site at which they were manufacturing the goods was once allotted to them by the Government under the agreement, as contended by the counsel and it was not possible to put up a manufacturing plant for preparation of the websols and the crushed stones adjacent to the site of construction of the bridge and the roads. This has also resulted in miscarriage of justice. 12. emsp In the light of discussion made above, the impugned order of the Collector deserves to be set aside and the case must be remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. 13. emsp Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is accepted. The impugned order of the Collector is set aside. The case is remanded to the Collector for de novo decision in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties.
-
1999 (12) TMI 555 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Remand - Natural justice - Seizure - Smuggled gold ... ... ... ... ..... id statements on the first available opportunity read with the other detailed representations made to various authorities, I have no hesitation to hold that the statements relied upon by the Department are not voluntary and true statements. In any case, Shri Jugeshwar Dayal had been consistently denying the ownership of the gold right from the beginning. As such, I hold that the recovery of the gold from the appellants rsquo possession is not proved beyond doubt and they are entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt. In any case, I have already held that because of the absence of the source of power of seizure in the seizure memo, the seizure itself becomes vitiated and the consequent proceedings become unsustainable. In view of this, I set aside the personal penalties imposed on all the three captioned appellants. 12. emsp However, as the appellants are not claiming the gold, the Order of confiscation of the same is upheld. The appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
1999 (12) TMI 554 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Mushrooms (canned) - Cess ... ... ... ... ..... the above statutory provisions, it is immaterial as to whether the mushrooms belong to Fungus category or that they are not sold as vegetables in the market. When the statute clearly provides that mushrooms would be regarded as vegetables under Chapter 7 and when they have been preserved as discussed above, therefore they would rightly be classified under Chapter 20 as proposed in the show cause notice and as upheld in the Order-in-Original. We are also unable to accept ld. Consultant rsquo s submission that the term ldquo vegetable rdquo should be considered in the light of the judgment cited and noted above. That judgment was in the context of another statute and therefore cannot be applied in this case. 7. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, we find that there is great merit in Revenue rsquo s appeal and that the Order-in-Appeal has erred in coming to the findings contained therein. Therefore, the Order-in-Appeal is set aside and Revenue appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 532 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... attached to the show cause notice. Appellant is liable to pay the said amount of Rs. 34,130/-. Modvat claim to that extend if made by Punjab Tractors Ltd., will have to be dealt with by the Department as per the Provisions contained in Rule 57E Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Appeal No. E/1876/99-A In Appeal No. F/1876/99 a show cause notice was issued on 26-12-1995. It was in relation to transaction covering the period from 1-1-1991 to 14-1-1995 for the reasons already stated heroin before the show cause notice can be valid only for a period of 6 months immediately prior to the date of its issue. Duty payable by the manufacturer during that period will have to be computed by the authorities below and the same claimed from the appellant. In this situation if claim for Modvat is put forth by the manufacturer, that will have to be dealt with by the Department under Rule 57E of the Rules. Appeal of the Revenue 1876/99 is ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 525 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Chassis ... ... ... ... ..... r in respect of these items to the authorities below to examine whether the value of spare wheel carrier is included if it is included then Modvat credit will be admissible. 7. emsp Insofar as the electric storage batteries are concerned, we find that the item is claimed as another/additional battery for bus chassis. Since the appellants are not manufacturing bus chassis only but also are manufacturing other chassis. For particular type i.e. LP 1312 chassis, we, therefore, allow Modvat credit on another battery. However, it is essential to verify that only bus chassis LP 1312 another battery is also fitted at the time of clearance of the chassis and also that this is not an optional accessory, therefore this part of the appeal is also remanded. 8. emsp Ld. Counsel did not press claim of Modvat on chassis record bag and dash board cover, therefore no orders are being passed on these items. 9. emsp In view of the above findings, the appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded.
-
1999 (12) TMI 524 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ner has given his finding in the adjudication order that the ldquo Principal function is digital printing even 86 of the total machine is devoted to the said function. rdquo It has also not been disputed by the lower authorities that the impugned product is connected to an automatic data processing machine or network. The Assistant Commissioner has classified the product in question in residuary heading as it was not an exclusive unit of the automatic data processing machine as it can work independently. The reliance was placed on Note 5(B) to Chapter 84. We observe firstly that Note 5(D) is not subject to Note 5(E) and the Note applicable in the present matter is Note 5(D) and not 5(B). Secondly, even note 5(B)(a) provides that a unit is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system which the impugned goods is. In view of this the impugned goods is classifiable under sub-Heading 8471.60. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Appellants is allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 518 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... clause B(f) of the Explanation to Section 11B ibid. In the instant case, the duty was paid by the appellant at the time of provisional release. Moreover, this payment was not made under any protest. As such, the refund claim was required to be filed within a period of six months from the date of payment of duty rdquo . The above observation of the Collector (Appeals) cannot found fault with. The limitation as prescribed under the Act and Rules has to be strictly complied with by the adjudicating authority. It is not the case here that the applicant has paid the duty under protest. If the payment has been made under protest then the question of limitation would not be applicable vide Rule 233B of the Central Excise Act. The limitation is binding on the departmental officers and this is what judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). Hence following the same, the appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
-
1999 (12) TMI 517 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... -256/95-C, dated 31-8-1995). In this common order disposing of number of appeals, the Tribunal has held the goods to be classifiable under Heading 4818.90 of the Tariff from 1-3-1988 onwards. The period with which this appeal is concerned is March, 1988 onwards. The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal on merits. 2. emsp Accordingly we allow this appeal holding that the goods are classifiable under 4823.90 and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief, if permitted by law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 516 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... efore has been correctly classified under 8907.00. 3. emsp The two notices issued to the appellant are dated 28-5-92 proposing recovery of duty of goods cleared between February and May, 1992, and 10-2-93 for clearance from September, 1992 to January, 1993. It is only by the notice dated 28-5-92 the classification was proposed to be reversed. Any demand for clearance prior to this date therefore would not be sustainable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the CCE v. Cotspun Ltd., 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353. 4. emsp The notice dated 28-5-92 therefore cannot be maintained. The notice dated 10-2-93 could be maintained because it is for a later period which is the period covered by the date of the earlier notice, by which the appellant has been issued notice that the classification earlier arrived was not approved. The order is maintainable to the extent of the duty demanded by the notice. 5. emsp The appeal is therefore allowed in part. Consequential relief, if permitted by law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 515 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... t Dye Intermediates which were intitially cleared by the appellants, and the Dyes, which were subsequently cleared, are goods of the same class. The fact is that both Dye and intermediate Dyes fall under the same tariff item viz. T.I. 14D, but this does not mean that goods cannot be considered as belonging to the same class only for the reason that they fall under different headings. The Tribunal has not held that unless goods received and goods cleared fall under the same tariff heading, they cannot be held to belong to the same class. Since the goods initially cleared by the appellant before us and subsequently cleared after reprocessing are synthetic filament yarn, we are of the view that they belong to the same class of goods and hence, provisions of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules are attracted. So we hold that they are entitled to refund, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequent relief, if any due to the appellants, in accordance with law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 514 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... that in the absence of any statutory provision for charging interest or of a direction of the High Court there was no authority for the department to demand interest. 5. emsp A simple reading of the provisions of Sections 59 and 61 of the Act would show that at the relevant time there was no provision for levy of payment of interest in a case such as this, where the duty was not paid at the time of removal with the order of the Court. The Court had not in its order ordered payment of any interest. 6. emsp The judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong v. Basanta Kumar Agarwalla and Another, (1983) 140 ITR 418 that where the answer to a question is evident and obvious, that question need not be referred to the High Court is relevant in these proceedings. We therefore decline to refer the questions to the High Court. 3. emsp There is nothing in the present proceedings to impel us to take a different view. Accordingly the application is dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 513 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... s long as the Department is not able to show that the goods received were not falling under Heading 27.10 and they were not used in the manufacture of the final products, the apparent contradiction between the tariff heading shown in the declaration and the invoice cannot be made a ground for denying Modvat credit. The case law relied on by the ld. JDR relates to the case where the final product manufactured by the assessee did not find a place in the declaration. In the cases relied on by the ld. advocate the ratio has been to the effect that wrong description/classification of the inputs in the declaration will not stand in the way of allowing Modvat credit where there is no dispute about the actual use of the inputs in the manufacture of the final products. 5. emsp Having regard to the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s order allowing Modvat credit to the respondents on Sulnit UG Oil. The Departmental appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 512 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... manufactures any excisable goods, or who stores such goods in a warehouse, shall pay the duty or duties leviable on such goods to such person as may be designated, in or under the authority of these rules. Appellant before me, is not the person who manufactured flush doors in respect of which proceedings were initiated by the Department. He was not even the first dealer who purchased it from the manufacturer. In such a situation, I am clear in my mind that the action initiated by the Department against the present appellant was clearly erroneous and without jurisdiction. The result therefore, is that the entire proceedings initiated against the present appellant are quashed. I make it clear that financial liability imposed on this appellant by the orders of the authorities below are unsustainable and are quashed. Any amount, if paid pursuant to the impugned order must be refunded to the appellant as expeditiously as possible. 2. emsp The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 511 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... late authority has neither considered the ratio of J.K. Synthetics (supra) nor dealt with the issue whether TEG was used in relation to the manufacture of polyester films in the appellants rsquo factory, In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate authority is liable to be set aside. 7. emsp The learned JDR has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and has prayed for rejecting the appeals, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ester Industries (supra). I am unable to accept this submission for the reason that the decision of the Two-Member Bench in the case of Ester Industries (supra) is sub-silentio as regards the question whether TEG can be accepted as an input used in relation to the manufacture of the final products and for the further reasons already stated hereinbefore. 8. emsp In the light of the discussions and findings above, I set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the present appeals.
-
1999 (12) TMI 510 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... the Control Panels of DG Set will not function. He submits that this plea was categorically taken before the Asstt. Commr. and it was explained that the airconditioning machine is an accessory maintaining the required temperature for proper functioning of the electronic equipment of the P and C System of the DG Set. This stand taken by the appellant has not been rebutted by the Asstt. Commr. As such the ratio of the decision relied upon by the SDR is not applicable. 5. emsp I agree with the submissions made by Shri Acharaya. The Package Airconditioner in question is required for maintenance of a proper function of the DG Set. The respondents rsquo stand that DG Set cannot work in the absence of such airconditioning equipment has not been rebutted by the Revenue. The decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. emsp In view of the foregoing I do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same.
............
|
