|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 496 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ad were diverted for sale in the local market. Similarly Section 111(o) contravention is clearly brought out, since the goods were exempt from duty subject to the condition that they were cleared to diplomats and this condition was not fulfilled since the goods were not so cleared and further the non-observance of this condition was sanctioned by the Proper officer. 11. emsp In the result, we uphold confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 1,68,750/- and Rs. 7,51,404/- (total value Rs. 9,20,154/-) with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. We set aside the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 4,05,080/-. Penalty on Shri Lakhjit Singh is set aside in the absence of any role played by him. Penalties on the other appellants are reduced as under - 1. M/s. B.T. Agencies Rs. 2 lakh 2. Shri S.S. Bindra Rs. 1 lakh 3. Sh Ashok Kumar Sharma Rs. 10,000/- 4. Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain Rs. 10,000/- 5. Shri Assad Moin Khan Rs. 10,000/- The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 495 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Customs House Agents ... ... ... ... ..... ri Doiphode submits that on a plain reading of the column 11 the information was required to be given where the applicant had been penalised. In the order by the Joint Commissioner made much later no penalty was imposed upon Shukla. The penalty imposed upon him by the Commissioner (Import) was at a later date than on the date of application. It is his case that on the date of the application Shukla had not made any wrong declaration and therefore the ground on which the Commissioner suspended his licence was improper. On perusal of the specific wording in the proforma we find this submission to be correct. We find that the grounds on which the Commissioner ordered suspension were not correct. This order suffers on this ground and is liable to be set aside. We set aside this order, allow the appeal making it clear that this order does not debar the learned Commissioner from proceeding against the CHA in terms of regulation 21(1) read with regulation 23 of the said Regulations.
-
2000 (10) TMI 494 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... manufacturer of the imported goods of design, drawing etc. which had been developed abroad at the cost of the importer. That the know-how included the cost of drawings etc. of the proprietary equipment is made clear by the memorandum dated 2nd April, 1986 among the parties. Clause (5) of the memorandum states as under - ldquo As a special gesture again. TOSHIBA/MC agreed to reduce their Lumpsum Know-how fee from Yen 680 million to Yen 650 million. rdquo It is obvious from this clause that the know-how is a lump sum fee for M/s. Toshiba as well as M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation. In terms of Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) their value is required to be included in the assessed value. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was justified in ordering the addition of the know-how fee of about Rs. 2.15 crores to the assessable value of machinery imported from M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation. 7. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 493 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... istant Collector did not accept this contention and held it was marketable and confirmed the duty. The appellant paid the duty confirmed in this order, and later claimed refund of it. This was rejected on the ground that the Assistant Collector s order, not having been appealed, became final. Hence this appeal. 3. emsp The contention of the advocate for the appellant that in another case relating to the same product, the Tribunal has held sodium rosinate not to be marketable and hence not liable to duty and therefore refund should be granted in the present case is not acceptable. We are concerned here not only with whether sodium rosinate was marketable or not but the legal consequences flowing from the Assistant Collector s order. The appellant had not appealed that order and therefore, that order has attained finality. In that situation, it cannot be said that the duty paid in pursuance of that order was wrongly paid. We see no reason to interfere. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 492 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s greater . rdquo One has to search in vain in the order impugned in this appeal to find out circumstances which made the appellant liable under this rule. Commissioner in his order has not found that the appellant had, at any point of time, come into possession of any of the goods manufactured by the holding company or Super Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Nor has he stated that the appellant had anything to do with the transportation, removal, deposit, keeping, selling or purchasing of the commodity manufactured by them either. In such a situation, the appellant could not have been made liable for the penalty contemplated by Rule 209A. Since the appellant was not party to any of the circumstances contemplated by Rule 209A of the Rules, the Commissioner was clearly in error in imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs on the appellant. On this short ground, the order impugned in this appeal, in so far as it relates to the appellant is set aside. 3. emsp Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 491 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Import - Advance Licence ... ... ... ... ..... ed. Ld. Consultant was relying upon the definition of lining . However the said definition also emphasized that ldquo Choose the weight of lining to suit the weight of the fabric and choose the quality according to the type of garment and its prospective life. For example, a cheap talleta can be used to line an evening dress rdquo . This by itself will not make gents wear material as a lsquo lining material. rsquo We cannot stretch the definition of lsquo lining rsquo to bring within its ambit a gents suiting material used as a inner reversible jacket. What we are required to consider is the primary use to which a lining material is put to. A gents suiting material is not traded as a lsquo lining material rsquo . 11. emsp Therefore, the order passed by the Dy. Collector is sustainable and the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside. The Revenue succeeds in this case. The impugned order is set aside and Order-in-Original is confirmed. Appeal allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 490 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - New plea ... ... ... ... ..... to have following was to have dismissed the appeal of the Excise authorities making it clear that it was open to the Excise authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice to the appellant on the basis that the tablets were classifiable under Heading 17.04 as items of confectionery. This would have given the appellant the opportunity to place on record such material as was available to it to establish the contrary. It is impermissible for the Tribunal to consider a case that is laid for the first time in appeal because the stage for setting out the factual matrix is before the authorities below. rdquo 4. emsp Following the ratio of Apex Court rsquo s judgment we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. It is, however, open to the Excise Authorities to issue a show cause notice for changing the classification in accordance with law. 5. emsp As the appeal filed by Revenue is being rejected, nothing survives in the Cross Objection filed by the Respondents for being decided by us.
-
2000 (10) TMI 489 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Benefit of Notification No. 55/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... ing actual use of the molten steel for manufacture of billets etc. in the adjacent factory i.e. M/s. Arakonam Castings which was ignored by the lower authority. We find no reason in the present case not to allow the benefit in view of the decision of the larger bench in the case of Arti Paints and Chemicals (supra) wherein on similar facts it was held that L-6 licence holder cannot be blamed for misuse of licence. In the present case we cannot hold that the appellants who are L-6 licence holders have misused the Notification. (b) emsp In view of the submission of the learned Counsel regarding the issue of time-bar and the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra) we do not uphold the plea on bar of limitation made out by the appellants. 6. emsp In view of our findings and in view of the decision of the larger bench in the case of Arti Paints and Chemicals, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 488 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification of goods - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... rs are being provided by them. In fact the appellants are themselves calling the goods in question as drive away chassis indicating that the same are not motor vehicles but are only chassis for the motor vehicles to be fabricated on the same. 16. emsp In view of our foregoing discussions that DAC are properly classifiable as chassis under Heading 87.06. 17. emsp However, we agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate that in view of Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T) 1999 (32) RLT 1, the amount of differential duty now being confirmed against the appellant is required to be deducted from the overall realisation made by them from their customers for the purpose of assessable value and the demand is required to be re-quantified accordingly. We direct the lower authorities to do so and remand the matter for re-quantification of demand. 18. emsp As a result appeal is rejected subject to re-quantification of demand.
-
2000 (10) TMI 487 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 76 (T) has held that specialised material for jointing/fixing rails would be properly classifiable under Heading 73.18. We see no reason to defer from the above decision of the Tribunal. Case law cited by the learned Consultant is in respect of the different items. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court rsquo s decision in the case of Ideal Jawa (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 226 (Kar.) deciding classification of the bolts and nuts for motor vehicle is in connection with the erstwhile tariff item was not under new Central Excise Tariff wherein classification has to be guided by the interpretive rules, section notes and chapter note. We also find reference to Rule 1 and Rule 3(a) of the interpretative rules of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, by the authorities below is appropriate. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the goods are properly classifiable under Heading 73.18. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and the impugned orders are upheld.
-
2000 (10) TMI 486 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... T. A144. 6. emsp In CCE v. V.S. Engineers, supra also the Tribunal had followed the ratio of the law laid down in Havell rsquo s Industries, and observed that fuse switches are classifiable under Heading 85.37 of the CETA. 7. emsp In view of this settled law regarding the appropriate classification of the products in question i.e. fuse switches and switch fuse units under Heading 85.37 of the CETA, the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) to the contrary by holding the classification under Sub-heading 8536.90 of the CETA, on the face of it can be said to be erroneous and not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and that of the Assistant Collector accepting the classification of these products under Heading 85.37 of the CETA as claimed by the appellants in their classification, is restored. 8. emsp Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is accordingly allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2000 (10) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... e imported without valid import licence the Assistant Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allow to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 45,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed appeal and the same was rejected. 4. emsp Heard learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. 5. emsp In the ground of appeal, the contention of the appellant is that the goods in question are not consumer goods and as the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rice Cookers and the Spoons and Shovels imported by them are accessories of the Rice Cookers. The appellant had not produced any evidence in support of their contention in the appeal. The goods in question are Spoons and Shovels and in absence of any evidence produced by the appellant, they cannot said to be accessories of Rice cookers. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 484 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... toms assessment purpose the goods have been deemed to be cars as a result of legal fiction. The imported goods, however, remain to be components assemblies or sub-assemblies. Similar views were also held by the Tribunal in the case of Wipro G.E. Medical System Ltd. v. C.C., Bangalore, 1999 (106) E.L.T. 169. In that case the Appellants therein had imported two sets of Cat Scan Systems in SKD/CKD condition and the Tribunal observed that Central Excise Department has correctly levied duty on the system after they are fully manufactured as what was imported was merely deemed to be a system though for ldquo Practical Purpose rdquo were component parts. The Tribunal also observed that the Appellants therein had to establish a utility costing over rupees one crores to put the components together. We therefore hold that the process of assembly undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Appeal is thus rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 482 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... affixing it at the site. It is therefore has a complex mechanism and there is no material on record that it is understood commonly as a stamping machine by people who are dealing with it. Therefore, by applying the commercial parlance test, we find that the lsquo labelling machines rsquo under import are covered under more specific heading 8422.30. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to uphold the classification as arrived at and ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). (e) We also find that the product was being assessed and classified under 8422.30 which is explained as a classification adopted at Chennai Sea Port, a major Custom House. This classification at the major Custom House cannot be simply brushed aside by the Air Custom House Chennai in the present case and shift the classification to 96.11. 5. emsp In view of our findings, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals allowed by classifying the lsquo labeling machines rsquo under heading 8422.30.
-
2000 (10) TMI 481 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... r Section 112, since we find that Section 114A puts liability of penalty only on the persons who are determined to pay duty under Section 28 while Section 112 cause a liability of penalty on other persons also who deal with the goods and are not necessarily liable for payment of duty. We therefore cannot uphold this finding of the Commissioner. (d) We find that the certificate of lsquo no Modvat availed rsquo has been placed on record in the paper book which is dated 26-3-1999 and this should have been considered by the Commissioner. However, since this document has not been considered by the Commissioner, we are not arriving at any finding on this submission of the ld. Advocate as also the fact that M/s. Bangalore Sales Corporation is not in appeal before us. 7. emsp In view of our findings, the appeal of the appellant before us M/s. Dhevi Super Leathers is allowed, by setting aside the penalty imposed on them under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 480 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 52/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... ken in the review order by Commissioner under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which he could not have done without putting the appellants to a proper notice. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained since there are no reasons given in the Commissioner rsquo s original order of review of the classification list. We are in agreement with the grounds taken in appeal that review of an approved classification list is not called for on a mere change of opinion and the Commissioner was required to come to a conclusion in this case that glass fibres are impregnated, coated, covered with plastics before they are denied benefit of the notification. No such facts or evidence has been brought on record by the Commissioner in his grounds. Therefore, we have no reasons to support the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 6. emsp In view of our findings, we set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal with consequential benefit, if any, as per law.
-
2000 (10) TMI 479 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... there are no other customers other than railways and the manufacture was only tanks for fitment into railway coaches. Therefore, he submits that the issue is totally covered in their favour and the appeal is required to be rejected. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of these submissions, the grounds made by the Revenue and look into the judgments cited, we notice that the issue is totally covered in favour of the respondents in terms of the cited judgments. We have perused the Board s Circular No. 31/93, dated 22-11-1993, referred to by the learned Counsel, in support of the Tribunal s rulings and in view of the said Circular the appeal is required to be rejected. We have also perused the judgments cited by the learned Counsel and the said rulings are applicable to the facts of the present case and hence there is no reason to take a different view in the matter. In view of the judgments cited above, there is no merit in the present appeal and therefore, the same is rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 478 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Paper - Waste paper - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the goods under 4811.90 cannot be upheld. The same is required to be set aside. (c) In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any reason to give a finding that there has been misdeclaration of description of the goods calling for certification and/or refund of mutilation of the goods made for the first time on 13-3-2000 and thereafter repeatedly by various letters which should have been considered and granted. Therefore, there is no cause for coming to a conclusion regarding confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) or penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 especially when we find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the bona fides of the importer in the present case. We also come to the same conclusion that there was no intent to misdeclare the goods. 5. emsp In view of our findings above, we set aside the order and allow the appeal and order clearance of the goods as waste paper after verifying mutilation. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 457 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... t on account of bottles being returnable and durable was permitted, therefore, the question of double benefit is ruled out. The second question therefore, arose that when there are no price lists to be approved what should be the evidence that could be accepted for holding that the cost of packaging material is included in the assessable value of the aerated waters. We get the answer to this query from the judgment of the South Regional Bench in the case of Charminar Bottling Co. Ltd. cited (supra). In the instant case, we note that the appellants have submitted a Chartered Accountant rsquo s certificate which clearly indicated that the cost of bottles on instalment basis has been included in the cost of aerated waters. Thus, we find that the requirement of the Explanation under Rule 57A is fully complied with. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
2000 (10) TMI 456 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Manufacturer - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... iability to confiscation. 16. emsp Since the bulk of demand has been found not sustainable, we find no reason to uphold the orders of confiscation of the plant and machinery, these orders are specifically set aside. 17. emsp To sum up, accepting the plea of limitation, we set aside the demand confirmed for the extended period and also remit the penalties imposed upon all the five appellants. As regards the demands made within the normal period as also for dealing with the liability to confiscation of the seized goods, we remand the proceedings back to the Jurisdictional Commissioner. He shall permit the appellants to make due submissions and pass appropriate orders on the extent of confirmation of duty. At that time he shall be free to deliberate upon the fact whether penalties are required to be imposed on the five appellants afresh within the scope of the remand. In view of the significant period that has been passed we expect the Ld. Commissioner to grant an early hearing.
............
|
