|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 110 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI
Cement concrete blocks - Exemption - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... defined in rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production He submitted that factory of production refers the items produced in the factory and not the finished product as understood by the department. On going through the relevant notification and wordings Shri D.K. Verma, ld. SDR has nothing to argue further. Shri G. Shivdass, ld. Advocate also referred to the decision by the Tribunal in the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (36) RLT 619 in support of his contention. There is some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee that Notification No. 67/95 grants exemption to capital goods manufactured in the factory and used within the factory of production. In view of the matter we do not find any justification to deny the benefit in terms of Notification No. 67/95. Accordingly, appellants succeed on this issue also. 7. Thus, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 109 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in other words, not more than one mode of carriage. We are not able to accept the contention of the departmental representative that penalty ought to be imposed in respect of the two containers which were admittedly not re-exported. The object of the notification is to facilitate movement of containers which had now been universally accepted as the preferred mode of transport of goods having proved advantageous to all parties concerned. Thousands of containers come into and go out from the major ports all over the world (including in India) and it is inevitable that there would be difficulty experienced by the carriers and therefore their agents in accounting for all of them. It would, in our view, be flying in the face of progress to impose penalty for a failure to account for one such container. The same view would apply to the confiscation of the containers. 5. We therefore allow the appeal in part and set aside the demand on the four containers, penalty and confiscation.
-
2000 (10) TMI 108 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Imports and Exports ... ... ... ... ..... is there must be value restriction in respect of the imports made. In our view the thrust of the department s case is wrong. If licence has been wrongly issued or such a licence has been issued in one particular way indicating rights of the licensee and, if there should be a restriction in respect of the usage by the licensee then the licensing authorities ought to have taken proper action in terms of the licencing regulations under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 along with its regulations. Without action being taken under the such regulations nobody can question the validity of the imports. This is what judgment of the Supreme Court has held in East India Commercial case - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 and Sampatraj Dugar case 1992 (58) E.L.T. 739. We are therefore of the view the approach of the department as contained in the appeal is not based on law. It is therefore rejected confirming the order passed by the Order-in-Appeal by the appellate authority.
-
2000 (10) TMI 104 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... ng arrived at by the Collector in the order impugned in this appeal . 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue that since the Partners of the assessee are the Directors of the buyer company, the assessee should be treated as a related person. Furthermore, nothing on record to substantiate that there was mutuality of interest or money flow back in between the two concerns as it was rightly argued on behalf of the respondent. It cannot be said that buyer M/s. H.V. Industrial are the sole selling agent in the absence of any allegation in the show cause notice or in the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances, the case law cited by the respondent is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. Following the ruling of the aforesaid case, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Cross objections are also disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... Thus, refund of credit of duty to the applicants is permitted. Our finding is supported by the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of C.C.E., Bhubaneshwar v. Orient Paper Mills, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 648 and C.C.E., Kanpur v. Brooke Bond Lipton, 1999 (107) E.L.T. 228. 4. In the light of the above decisions, the finding of the lower Appellate Authority that requirement of cost data on HDPB tapes is irrelevant since duty on tape was paid at specific rate and that verification of modvatable documents showed the total credit available, amount of duty paid, amount of duty to be debited against sale of fabrics and the total amount refundable and that, therefore, the respondents were entitled to refund of Rs. 1,16,28,268.60 P, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, we accept the contention of the respondents that credit of the above mentioned amount is admissible to them, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal of Revenue.
-
2000 (10) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... recoverable from the party under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that the appellants availed the benefit of modvat credit on the strength of invoices, which do not contain the particulars, such as, rate of duty, etc. required under Notification 15/94. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that no declaration, under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, was filed. 6. In the show cause notice, there is no allegation for denying the benefit of Modvat credit on the ground that no declaration was filed. The show cause notice was issued on the basis of necessary particulars in respect of inputs lying in stock, used in the final products, cleared on payment of duty and inputs used in the final produce, which is under process, whereas the impugned order is passed entirely on different considerations. Therefore, the impugned order is passed beyond the scope of show cause notice and is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 100 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to the manufacturer had cited these decisions of the Tribunal holding this view. 5. The position that emerges then is that where, by reason of the department s action or default the manufacturer is unable to avail of the Modvat credit which he was entitled to, it is in order to give him relief following the order of the Tribunal by giving relief in cash. In the case before us it was due to no fault of the assessee that the credit was denied. The assessee was thus compelled to pay the duty which was otherwise payable from the Modvat credit account by cash i.e. from the personal ledger account. Had the credit not been denied the assessee would not have been required to pay the cash and would have saved the amount in cash. It is therefore appropriate in a situation where credit cannot be utilised in the payment of duty that the relief to the assessee is paid by cash. This is what the Commissioner (Appeals) has done. 6. We therefore see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 98 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ent should not be meted out to the assessee. Shri Prakash Shah states that having held at page 59 of the paper book that mistakes is not on the part of the assessee, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have fastened the liability on the assessee in an alternative way. He states that all orders of assessment should be specific. DR adopts the reasoning of the lower authorities. 7. I have considered the arguments, I agree with the contentions raised by Shri Prakash Shah. Having held that the assessee is not to be blame for the mistake of the sellers of the goods namely Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., he should not have passed the orders as mentioned above even in an alternative way I therefore set aside the impugned order which does not discuss these aspects and order grant of the Modvat credit to the assessee setting aside the impugned order. Appeal is allowed ordering consequential relief to the assessee. In view thereof Stay petition filed in this appeal stands disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 96 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ect to say that there is any value addition as a result of this process, if at all, there is a value reduction, both on account of lower prices and on account of expenses incurred in the process. The demand on this ground is therefore clearly not sustainable. 7. The demand has also been raised on another ground. It is that during the period June to September 1997 the appellant affixed on the cartons of the goods sold by it to CSD, label appearing the words Canteen Stores Department - in the service of defence services - Golden jubilee - 1949-1998 The Commissioner has held this also to be treatment rendering the goods marketable. On the reasoning that we have explained earlier, this labelling also did not confer on the goods any attribute of marketability that they did not possess earlier. This was obviously a method by which inception to the raising of the CSD to advertise its virtue. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
2000 (10) TMI 93 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ing error or mistake to be taking of the credit if the entry for making of credit taking is more than six months. We do not find any bar in the Rules providing for such a delay to prohibit availment of Modvat credit. What prohibits is starting of taking credit after six months of the date of issue of the documents on which the goods said to have been received in the factory and not the process of taking credit. Taking of credit starts with receipt of goods and if the receipt of goods in the factory have been effected within six months period, if credit in part one register taken and part two has not been taken for some reason, these credit entries are not completed within a period of six months and it takes more than six months, we cannot find any reason to bring any bar in Rules as envisaged in the present appeal. 5. In view of our findings, we find no merit in the appeal and therefore, we confirm the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2000 (10) TMI 91 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... subject goods are parts of gear box and clutch which are classifiable under Heading 8483.00, therefore, these items cannot be said to be articles of Section XVII, which are not excluded by Section Note 1K to Section XVI. Therefore, we find no merit in the grounds urged in the appeal filed by the Revenue when the gear box is classified under heading 8483.00, parts thereof as per Notes have to be classified thereunder and not as parts of Motor vehicle under Chapter 87 as proposed in the Revenue appeal. The parts are not understood as parts of motor vehicle but are understood as parts of gear box and therefore, not only by reading of interpretation of Chapter Notes as conducted by Commissioner (Appeals) but also by commercial parlance, the goods will get classified as parts of gear box under Heading 8483.00. Therefore, we find no reason to uphold the present appeal. 5. In view of our findings, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the Revenue appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 90 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Machine parts ... ... ... ... ..... ants except a letter dated 18-9-2000 seeking the case to be decided on merits. Therefore, we proceed to decide the same. After considering the submissions made by ld. DR and the material on record, we find - (a) Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the C.E.T. Act, 1985 is very specific and has been correctly applied in the facts of this case. We find therefore no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. (b) the order of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellants is covering the items bushes and therefore same cannot be applied to the items in the present case since the items here are definitely and remarkably different items classified separately. For the classification of parts, section note (2) would be segregant and are binding and we find no reasons given the present appeal to differ from the classifications as applicable vide this section note to Section XVI. 4. In view of our findings, the appeal is rejected and the orders of the lower authorities are confirmed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 87 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund (Customs) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... . There being also no justification either in law or on any other consideration for enforcing the bond and bank guarantee. 9.The position therefore is that the refund claim is not barred by limitation. It could in fact be considered to be premature. By the same logic, that the assessment continues to be provisional notwithstanding that one of the reasons for finalisation has been dealt with, it will continue to be provisional till the project import is finalised. 10.The dismissal of the refund claim on the ground of limitation and the confirmation of the dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld. The Commissioner (Appeals) s order is set aside and the appeal allowed. Consequential relief according to law. 11.In the light of the fact that the recovery of a sum of Rs. 41.35 crores was premature, hasty and not in accordance with law, we expect that the department will at least now act in the manner it ought to be and refund the amount due to the importer promptly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 85 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Air-Conditioners ... ... ... ... ..... 481.91 and heading 9032.91 shows that it does not set out to exempt only parts in the strict engineering sense but also assemblies of such parts. There was therefore no basis for denying the exemption by relying upon a definition of parts which is at variance with the generally understood scheme of the tariff or the Harmonised System of Nomenclature upon which the tariff is based. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) also finds that the appellant had colluded with some other manufacturer to manufacture and supply complete split machines. There is however nothing in the show cause notice to say that the appellant manufactured a complete split machine. The Commissioner (Appeals) was necessarily required to be within the limits set out in the notice. It is another matter that the appellant may have embarked upon this manufacture with a view to ultimately assemble these machines elsewhere but this again is not established. 6. The appeal is thus allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 84 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit - Dutiability - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... sleepers by the respondents. 8. 8194 Therefore, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondents cannot be denied Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the concrete cubes under Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules, cannot be subscribed and must be held to be erroneous in law. 9. 8194 In Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. CCE., Nagpur 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) , it has been ruled by the Apex Court that Modvat credit can be claimed on the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and not on the non-dutiable goods. Therefore, by following the ratio of the law laid down in this case and the facts and circumstances referred to above, in our view the respondents are liable to reverse the proportionate Modvat credit taken by them on the inputs used in the manufacture of the concrete cubes. 10. 8194 Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 83 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 0 and issued on 18-9-2000) we have therefore taken up the instant appeal with the consent both sides after waiving pre-deposit. 3. 8194 As stated in the first paragraph issue involved in this appeal is about classification of the goods namely 180 MT of goods described as Dried Garlic. In our judgment 6-7-2000 (supra) we have held that the product should be classified to come under 0712.90. (Infact in our earlier judgment it is wrongly typed as 0701.90 at paragraph 8 which is a typographical error). We follow the above judgment and held that the goods come under heading 071290.04 (ITC) as Dried Garlic set aside the impugned order namely order No. 93/2000 dated 20-7-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva and also hold that goods are not liable for confiscation because they are coming under the category of OGL. We also order consequential relief if any according to law. Appeal stands allowed as indicated above along with the stay petition.
-
2000 (10) TMI 82 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... n the shipping bill. The Commissioner has imposed penalty on the CHA for the reason that its partner subscribed to the truth of the contents of the declaration in the shipping bill. 3. In that situation, something would be required to show that the CHA knew, or would have reason to know or believe, that the consignment contained goods other than those which were declared. In the normal course, CHA files a shipping bill or other documents to the Customs on the basis of the materials given to him by his client, an exporter, importer, or other persons, as the case may be. If the CHA in the exercise of his functions believed in good faith that these documents were genuine, penalty would not be imposable. The facts of this case prima facie do not indicate any reason or basis for the CHA to believe that the goods were anything other that what they were stated to be by the exporter i.e. castings. 4. On this prima facie view we waive deposit of the penalties and stay their recovery.
-
2000 (10) TMI 81 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... d clear some other goods at the concessional rate of duty by availing of Modvat procedure. The Tribunal held that, in terms of the words of the notification, it was the manufacturer, who had to decide in respect of the goods manufactured by him to elect one of the two options he could not elect one option for some goods and another for other goods manufactured by him. We are, however, concerned here with a situation where the goods were cleared by the manufacturer both by availing of the notification and also without availing of it. The manufacturer in fact could not have availed of the notification for the goods bearing the brand name of other person. That decision therefore will not apply. It will be clear that any option that has to be exercised is for all the goods covered by a notification. That option will not arise in cases where the manufacturer clears the goods to which the notification cannot apply. 4. We therefore see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 80 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
STD/PCO Monitor and parts/accessories - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... duty for such period as the goods stood classified under Chapter 90 of the Tariff during the period. 5. We have carefully examined the rival submissions. It is now settled law that a circular of the Board is binding on the Departmental authorities. The earlier circular dated 24-1-1994 which held the classification of the products under Chapter 90 of the Tariff remained in force till it was superseded by the circular dated 5-4-1999. The impugned demand is for a period between 24-1-1994 and 5-4-1999, for which the party had paid duty at the appropriate rate. There being no question of short-levy, the demand has been rightly vacated by the lower appellate authority following the Apex Court s ruling in Paper Products Ltd. (Supra). The ground raised in the appeal memo, with reference to Section 110 ibid, is irrelevant to the issue involved in the case as rightly pointed out by ld. Advocate. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Revenue s appeal and we reject the same.
-
2000 (10) TMI 79 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Pumps, power driven ... ... ... ... ..... be allowed. 4. Shri S.N. Singh, ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the case law as also the clarification of the CBEC. On careful consideration of these documents, case law and the evidence on records, we find that the CBEC have clearly clarified that principal function of the pump set is that of pump, the pump set is rightly classifiable under chapter heading 84.13. It is also well settled law that the department is prevented from arguing against the clarifications issued by the CBEC. Since the position has been clarified by the CBEC, we agree with the clarification. We, therefore held that the power driven pump sets manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under chapter heading 84.13 and will be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 64/86. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any shall be admissible to the appellant in accordance with law.
....
|
