|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 509 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stores - Duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... matter. 7. emsp The second contention raised by the ld. Counsel was in relation to the duty imposed on the scrap sold by the appellant. According to the ld. Counsel the adjudicating authority did not accept the valuation given by the appellant but resorted to his own method of valuation. On going through the records, we find precious little in this argument. We do not interfere with the impugned order on this count. 8. emsp The question of penalty to be imposed necessarily depend on the reassessment of the duty in the light of the observations made earlier in this order. So the quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. We make it clear that depending on the fresh conclusion arrived at by the adjudicating authority on de novo consideration, the question of penalty will have to be considered in accordance with law. The question of interest imposed on the appellant must also be reconsidered in accordance with law. 9. emsp The appeal is allowed as indicated above.
-
1999 (12) TMI 508 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... y assessee rsquo s own financial health is bound to be in utter jeopardy. This interpretation of the provision for related person in the scheme of valuation of excise goods is entirely untenable as it would almost make all buying/selling transactions between interested/related parties. As no evidence has been brought on record to show that the transaction value between the appellant and Samtel is a non-commercially favoured low price, we find no merit in the finding that the sale price between them could not be treated as assessable value. Accordingly, the duty demand and other claims made in the order have no legal basis. They are, therefore, set aside. In this view of the matter, other issues become irrelevant for the decision of this appeal. We are, therefore, not going into them as we have held that the order is not legally tenable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside in its entirety with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
1999 (12) TMI 507 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Import - OGL - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... at the said goods are made of plastics with one loose and the other end with a notch, where the loose end can be inserted and pulled to make a sort of noose to hold the bundle of loose wires or cables. In view of the definition of the couplers and couplings as considered by the first appellate authority and reproduced above the said goods cannot be considered as couplers or coupling so as to extend the benefit of licence free import to the same. Accordingly I hold that a licence was required to import the goods and the non-production of the same makes the goods liable for confiscation. However, keeping in view the fact that this is a bona fide dispute as regards the question of the goods being freely importable or requiring a licence and there being no mala fide on the part of the appellants, I set aside the personal penalty imposed upon him and reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 1.75 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. But for the above modification the impugned order is otherwise upheld.
-
1999 (12) TMI 506 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... of manufacture falls under the same Tariff Entry is not relevant for determining dutiability as both are differently identifiable goods in the market. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made by learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. We find that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has given his findings to the effect that the excise duty is chargeable only when there is complete transformation of the raw material/inputs into an identifiable, distinct new product, as a result of all the process or processes undertaken on them that in the instant case, the C.R. Strips remains C.R. Strips after hardening and tempering except that the strips after such process acquire certain additional physical property such as hardness. It is not the case of Department that the strips do not remain strips only, before and after the said process. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1999 (12) TMI 487 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ispose of it or to allow the applicant represent before passing of the order. None of these two options were exercised in this case by the Commissioner (Appeals). This covers area mentioned in para 4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The unfettered discretion is not exercised in the instant case in a reasonable rationale manner free from vagaries and arbitrariness. Under these circumstances this judgment will not help the respondent 6. emsp In view of the above position the matter requires to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the above application. So, I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the pre-deposit of the disputed amount is waived and recovery stayed. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the application dated 18-1-1999 filed by the appellant M/s. Evergreen Engineering Co. Ltd. and hear the appellant and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (12) TMI 486 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er that advance licence. Record does not indicate such import was in fact made or by him. We are however not concerned with that. What we are concerned is whether modvat credit could be denied. There is prima facie no contravention of Central Excise rules relating to modvat credit. While the Commissioner concludes that some of these rules have been contravened, the annexure to the show cause notice does not spell out any detail of any contravention. It only refers to the notification 203 and 204/92. The fact that the appellant may have fabricated document to show receipt of inputs, on which duty was paid and to show that they were utilized in the manufacture of export product again would be significant in considering the applicability of 203 or 204/92. But it is entirely irrelevant insofar as denial of credit is concerned. 4. emsp In the result, we do not find it possible to sustain the order of the Commissioner and set it aside and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1999 (12) TMI 485 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... t applying principles of law that would generally apply to cross-examination of witnesses. However principles of law that are laid down apply to all persons, irrespective of whether they have successfully escaped investigation, or have fully cooperated with it. A separate principle of law cannot be evolved or applied only in respect of persons who have successfully frustrated the investigation. The law applies equally to all person. 15. emsp It will therefore follow that Additional Collector rsquo s order was not maintainable. It is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed. The Additional Commissioner shall adjudicate upon the show cause notice after making available to the appellant the presence of Gandhi for cross-examination. 16. emsp We may mention that in view of our finding on the ground of cross-examination we have not find it necessary to examine the argument of either side on the legality of basing an order for penalty solely on the admissions made by a co-noticee.
-
1999 (12) TMI 484 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... 2000 (116) E.L.T. 265 (Tribunal) 1999 (83) ECR 629 (Tribunal) held that where the manufacturer is clearing the goods with the plate engraved with the wording lsquo Indian Railways rsquo , the benefit of small scale exemption notification cannot be denied to him as the name plate affixed on the machinery is only indicative of the ownership and does not amount to use of the brand name of non SSI unit. 12. emsp In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, we find force in the arguments of the appellants and hold that the appellants were entitled for the benefit of small scale exemption notification in respect of regulators and valves supplied to the gas companies. The appeal filed by the appellant in this respect is allowed. 13. emsp In the present case, the penalty of Rs. 10 lakh was also imposed on the appellants. As we partially allow the appeal, the penalty imposed on the appellants is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- from Rs. 10 lakh. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
1999 (12) TMI 483 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... ell out the reasons to invoke the extended period. We notice that the Commissioner had already decided the issue pertaining to non-includibility of the cost of containers in the value of biscuits vide his order dated 27-12-1979, which had not been reviewed and therefore, the appellants had rightly not included the said cost. The show cause notice ought to have been brought out as to why they were required to disclose this fact again in the light of the assessment having been finalised and R.T. 12s approved. Therefore, there was no suppression in the matter with an intent to evade duty and also we agree with the learned advocate rsquo s view that after the culmination of the proceedings by one show cause notice dated 30-7-1981, the department cannot re-open the matter again by issue of fresh show cause notice dated 19-7-1984. 5. emsp In that view of the matter, we uphold the pleas raised by the appellants in the matter and set aside the impugned order by following the appeals.
-
1999 (12) TMI 482 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Rectification of Mistake - Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... der of the Tribunal reproduced above, nowhere gives a finding that the Reference Applications filed by the Revenue were after a year of passing of the Tribunal rsquo s Ordrer, as is sought to be made out by the Commissioner. The observations of the Tribunal were to the effect that the Revenue rsquo s contention as regards the actual date of receipt of the Order was made after a year of passing of the order and was without any proof to that effect. The said Tribunal rsquo s order has been wrongly understood by the Commissioner as if the Tribunal had observed that the Reference Applications were made after one year of the receipt of the order and on such a misunderstanding, he was remarked that the Tribunal had not made correct observations. I can only hope that before making such remarks, the Commissioner should have understood the language used by the Tribunal and its meaning thereof. I need not say anything further on the subject. Miscellaneous Applications are thus allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 481 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... find that the justification given in the COD application for not filing the appeal within the statutory period is not convincing at all. Official visits of officers concerned is a matter of routine. It is the responsibility of such officers to see that alternate arrangements are made during their absence for due compliance of their statutory duties. Such visits cannot be taken as a ground for seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. I, therefore, reject the Application for condonation of delay. 3. emsp Since the Appeal has not been filed within the period of three months as prescribed under Section 35B (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Appeal itself is not maintainable and is accordingly, rejected.
-
1999 (12) TMI 480 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... between him and the importer for defrauding the Revenue or of a conspiracy to achieve such an objective. I am unable to read into Shri Thadani rsquo s instructions to CHA any malafide intention. In my view, the explanation given on behalf of the appellant mdash that he gave the said instruction to the CHA more out of fear of harassment for not obtaining prior permission mdash is quite plausible. 23. emsp In the result, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Member (T) that the Appeal of Shri Hiro Mulchand Thadani merits acceptance and penalties imposed on him requires to be set aside. 24. emsp The Difference of Opinion matter referred to me is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (A.C.C. Unni) Member (J) MAJORITY ORDER emsp 25.In the light of the majority opinion, the penalties imposed on Shri Hiro Mulchand Thadani are set aside and his appeals (C/1753/94-D and C/1760/94-D) are allowed. Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated 2-12-1999
-
1999 (12) TMI 460 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ation. This could easily have been obtained from the supplier of the component. Although this is not strictly relevant to determination of the issue here, we are unable to see why the department should have taken more than a year and half to ascertain this information. Obviously the question of calculating the duty yet to be paid does not arise. 6. emsp Allowing a reasonable period of 15 days to the department to have taken action to safeguard the duty on the past clearances, we get the date of 8-7-1989, It will have to be held that the demand for the period from this date onwards to 31-3-1990 is barred by limitation and the duty on the clearance and the order confirming the demand during the period is set aside. 7. emsp Having regard to the facts of this case, we do not think the penalty of Rs 1.00 lac imposed calls for any interference. 8. emsp Appeal allowed in part. The department shall refund to the appellant any duty found to be collected in excess, if permitted by law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 459 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Pre-deposit of duty, pending appeal, refund of ... ... ... ... ..... y as possible, at any rate soon after request for such refund was made by the party. When the request made by the applicants for refund was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, the applicants have approached this Tribunal under Rule 41 ibid. 14. emsp In the light of the observations and findings above, I allow the present application by setting aside the Assistant Commissioner rsquo s order dated 20-8-1998 rejecting the applicants rsquo refund claim. I further direct the Assistant Commissioner to refund the amount of Rs. 2,17,389/- and return the National Savings Certificate of Rs. 60,000/- to the applicants within a period of 3 months from today (29-12-1999). There will be, further, a direction to the Commissioner of Central Excise to dispose of the party rsquo s appeal pending before him pursuant to the Tribunal rsquo s order of remand, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from today (29-12-1999), if the appeal has not already been disposed of.
-
1999 (12) TMI 458 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... he expression capital goods under the Explanation to Rule 57Q(1). Having perused the said decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, I am convinced that all the goods in question would fall under the category of capital goods under the Explanation to Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules in the light of the interpretation, by the Larger Bench, of the provisions of the said Explanation. The learned advocate has further submitted that the decisions relied on by the appellants in their grounds of appeal are no longer good law on the subject in the light of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra). 7. emsp Having carefully considered the rival submissions, I hold that the issue whether the goods in question are capital goods eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q during the relevant period is covered by the decision of the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra). In this view of the matter, I dismiss the Revenue s appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 457 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... fication list. 6. emsp It is difficult to accept where the demand itself is issued after the Assistant Collector initially approved the classification of the product, there has been suppression to justify the invoking of extended period. The Departmental Representative rsquo s reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in C.C.E. v. Cotspun Ltd. - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 24 is of no avail to him there is no question here of any demand being confirmed for a period of 6 months prior to the notice. There is a gap of about 3 years of the period for which duty is demanded and the date of the notice. We are not entirely satisfied on the basis of the evidence before us that the product is in fact classifiable under Heading 29.42. However, that is not the issue before us. On that issue i.e., classification under Heading 35.06, we have to hold on the basis of our discussions that the applicant has a strong prima facie case. We accordingly waive deposit of duty and penalty and stay its recovery.
-
1999 (12) TMI 456 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the inputs while removing from depot of SAIL is different from the weight of the inputs actually received, there is substance in the submissions of the ld. counsel that the difference is not substantial and it may be on account of weighing on different scales. Again this could not be a ground for disallowing the Modvat credit when the duty paid nature of the goods and its use are not in dispute. rdquo From the observation of the Tribunal mentioned above, I am of the view that the ground taken in the notice that there is a difference in weight at the place of procurement of the inputs and place of usage in the factory of the assessee cannot be a ground for disallowance of the Modvat credit. This also answers the arguments made by the department in the grounds of appeal. I am therefore of the view that the appeals are devoid of any merits and they are dismissed. Both the cross-objections are more in the nature of replies to the appeals only and hence they are also disposed of.
-
1999 (12) TMI 455 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Valuation - Class of buyers ... ... ... ... ..... ilise the said credit for discharge of duties on their final product that is aluminium manufactured in their Angul Unit. Otherwise also there being no dispute about availability of substantive benefit non-compliacne with the procedural aspect cannot result in denial of the benefit of Notification to the appellants. Accordingly we hold that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the said Notification for the period after 1-3-1989 and prior to 15-3-1995. 14. emsp Accordingly the issues raised in all these appeals are answered as follows (i) The price at which the calcined alumina, loose as well as packed, is being sold to M/s. BALCO shall be adopted as an assessable value of calcined alumina being transferred to their sister unit (ii) No demand of duty can be raised in respect of the price list No. 2/87 and (iii) Benefit of Notifn. No. 217/86 is available to the appellants for the period after 1-3-1989 and prior to 15-3-1995. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 454 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... dit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In order that such goods should be eligible for the Modvat credit as capital goods, the same should be used in the manufacture of sugar by the appellants and not in relation to the manufacture of sugar. This distinction is very clear on the face of the text of Rule 57Q as it stood at the material time. Since the weighment of sugarcane has already been held to be an activity anterior to the commencement of process of manufacture of sugar, the weigh bridges were not used in the manufacture of sugar, and other products in the appellants factory. Therefore, neither the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) nor the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court relied on in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. would be of any support to the appellants rsquo case at present. 15. emsp For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is liable to be upheld as proper and legal. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 453 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... al Spinning Mills Ltd. is clearly distinguishable which was on different facts and on different aspect of the matter. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of these submissions and on a perusal of the order impugned, I notice that there is no dispute with regard to the item being used as handling equipment for handling the raw materials during the process of manufacture. In light of the Hon ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works any process which involves handling of the raw materials has been treated as a process in or in relation with the manufacture of final product. This principle has been applied in large number of judgements and even in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd., the Tribunal have taken a consistent view and that there is no doubt in the aspect of the matter and the judgement cited by the Revenue in respect of Velathal Spinning Mills is clearly distinguishable and not applicable. As there is no merit in the appeal, the same is rejected.
............
|
