|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 839
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ) RLT 801 (CEGAT). As referred to by the learned Advocate, Tribunal have taken exactly the same view in the case of M/s Aum Air Products Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bombay 1999 (35) RLT 120 (CEGAT), and M/s Indian Refrigeration Industries v. C.C.E., New Delhi 2000 (121) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal) 2000 (38) RLT 936 (CEGAT). The ratio of the said orders is applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I entirely agree with the view of Learned Member (Judicial) that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. is available to the appellants and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. emsp Registry shall initiate appropriate further action in the matter. Sd/-(S.N. Busi)Member (Technical)Dated 30-10-2000 FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the appeal is allowed by extending the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. Sd/-(S.N. Busi)Member (Technical)Dated 31-10-2000 Sd/-(Archana Wadhwa)Member (Judicial)Dated 31-10-2000
-
2000 (10) TMI 838
Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 taxable event, in case of warehoused goods, is when the same cross the customs barrier i.e. are cleared for home consumption. rdquo The Commissioner, therefore upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeals. 3. emsp Arguing the case, Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate submits that since the matter has finally been decided by the Apex Court, he has nothing to add further. 4. emsp Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp Heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the case law cited and relied upon. We note that the issue has since been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Spinning Mills. Following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kiran Spinning Mills, we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The impugned order is therefore upheld and the appeals are rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 825
Classifiaction - Electrical insulation - Fleece ... ... ... ... ..... insulation. This was so because they did not even consider the initial applicability of Heading 85.46. We are therefore of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) should be given an opportunity to decide on whether the product is in fact made out to be an electrical insulation by sufficient evidence. We however emphasise that this is the only purpose for which the matter is being remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) and reiterate our earlier view that Heading 85.46 is more specific than Heading 56.03. The advocate for the appellant undertakes to produce before the Commissioner (Appeals) evidence to show the use of electrical insulation within a month from the receipt of this order. After considering this material, as well as the material which the department may produce in its support, and after hearing the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass orders on the classification of this product. 6. emsp The appeal is thus allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 824
Shapes and sections of Iron & Steel manufactured by cold formed or cold finished method ... ... ... ... ..... f facts. Where the goods are found (as was the case in - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 171), to have been clearly identifiable as specific parts of motor vehicles, they are to be classified under heading appropriate to such parts), where (as in the case of the Larger Bench decision) this is not the case, they are to be classified under Chapter 72. The facts before us are not sufficient to enable us to decide the issue either way. We are therefore left with no alternative but to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on this aspect, keeping in mind the two decisions of the Tribunal that we have referred to above. 4. emsp Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, after considering any submission in support of its contention that the appellant may make, decide, within two months from the receipt of this order, on the classification of the goods, in keeping with the observations above, in accordance with law.
-
2000 (10) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... arious engineering industries or have multifarious uses. The learned SDR has contended that the impugned goods have been specifically designed for being used as parts of car air-conditioner and the same has not been controverted by the Appellants. The Purchase Order at Page 51 of the Paper Book given by M/s. Escorts Ltd. speaks of oil cooler but there is nothing to relate this purchase order with the impugned goods in respect of which demand of duty has been confirmed. In absence of any evidence on record to show that the aluminium, skived tubes in question could be used for car air-conditioner as well as for other use, we find no infirmity in the impugned order as far as confirmation of Central Excise duty is concerned and we uphold the same. However, we agree with the learned Advocate that penalty is on higher side which requires to be reduced. We, accordingly reduce the penalty from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The Appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 803
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hot water. Mucilages are closely related to gums, and the distinction between them is not always clear. rdquo 3. emsp Emphasis in the definition that the distinction between mucilages and gum is not been always clear is significant. The only basis shown in the appeal for treating the product for mucilage is that it swells in cold water. Mucilage is not the only product that swells in cold water. Many substances do so. The fact that the product under consideration does so is not by itself sufficient to determine its classification as claimed. 4. emsp We do not find the reasons cited sufficient to state that the goods must be treated as mucilage. The appeal cites ten clinical uses of the product. However, it is not possible to say that the Commissioner (Appeals) view that because it is unmixed and was not imported unsuitable for retail sales it cannot be under Heading 30.03, is incorrect. We are therefore unable to accept this proposed classification. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 802
... ...
... ... ..... gned order held that the enquiries made by Range Officer shows that supplier/manufacturer of the inputs to the appellants were not manufacturing the inputs on which the appellants availed the credit. 2. emsp Since the manufacturer who supplied the inputs was not in a position to manufacture the goods and the appellant failed to prove that inputs were received in their factory. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at this stage.
-
2000 (10) TMI 801
Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ide. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 4. emsp Ld. S.D.R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that physical verification of stock was done in the presence of Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, partner of the company and he admitted the shortages of raw materials as well as the final product and deposited the duty amount. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be dismissed. 5. emsp Heard both sides. 6. emsp In this case certain shortages of raw material as well as of final product, were found at the time of verification of the stock. Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, partner of the appellant company, admitted the shortages and voluntarily debited the duty amount in respect of shortages. Therefore, now the appellants cannot say that no physical verification was done. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal penalty imposed on the appellants is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 50,000/-, otherwise the impugned order is up-held.
-
2000 (10) TMI 781
Classifictaion ... ... ... ... ..... he issue is no more res integra. Hence, the reasoning of the learned Member (Technical) as contained in his order remains a mere academic discussion which is left at that without further comments thereon. 28. emsp Respectfully following the said decision dated 18-2-1997 of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Ambey Laboratories and fully agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Member (Judicial), I hold that the subject goods are correctly classifiable under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3808.10 and as such eligible for benefit under Notification No. 14/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 29. emsp The Registry may take further follow-up action in the matter. Sd/- (S.N. Busi) Member (T) 25-10-2001 FINAL ORDER In view of the majority decision, the appellants rsquo product, lsquo Phenol rsquo is classified under sub-heading 3808.10 with the benefit of Notification No. 14/94 dated 1-3-1994. Sd/- (S.N. Busi) Member (T) Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (J)
-
2000 (10) TMI 780
Export production - EPCG Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... s required for assembly or manufacture of Capital goods by the importer. 7. emsp The explanation given under the table defines Capital goods as any plant, machinery, equipment and accessories. Therefore, when Green House has been held as an equipment in the light of the Circular and equipment is included in the definition of capital goods, plastic sheets under import which are necessary for making/erecting Green House have to be considered as a component of the capital goods namely Green House. The findings of the lower Authority that all the components of the capital goods required for assembly or manufacture of Capital goods should be imported to be covered by the ambit of the Notification is totally without any basis and is not supported by either the wordings of the Notification or any Circular/ Clarifications issued by any authority. As such, the order of the lower Authority is not maintainable. 8. emsp Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the order-in-original.
-
2000 (10) TMI 779
... ...
... ... ..... by ERB directed the appellant to execute a personal bond, which has since been executed by them and is alive today. The objection raised by the learned JDR at Delhi that the signature of the Superintendent is appearing in column of witnesses whereas the same should have appeared below the column required to be signed by the witnesses is only a technical procedural objection inasmuch as admittedly, the Supdt. has signed the bond and the Revenue has accepted the same. 3. emsp We agree with the above contention of the learned Advocate and the appeal is restored to its original number.
-
2000 (10) TMI 778
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... iscount as availed has to be granted to them if eligible as per section 4(4)(d)(ii). Since the matter is being remanded to the Commissioner for re-determination of the quantum of duty demandable, we direct the Commissioner to keep in mind this submission when he finalises the demand de novo. 11. emsp In view of our finding above we set aside the order of penalty and direct that the question of imposition of penalty and its quantum should be re-determined in the facts of this case. Hence, we leave the question of penalty open including its leviability. 12. emsp In view of our findings above, we remand the case back to the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter after offering personal hearing to the appellants and re-determine the quantum of duty and penalty. 13. emsp In view of our above, the order on M/s. BMF Beltings Ltd. is also set aside and remanded back to decide the issue afresh after the issue in the case of FIL is determined. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 777
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... nsumed in the process of manufacture is not an input under Rule 57(A) of the Central Excise Rules? rdquo On receipt of the above order from the Hon rsquo ble High Court, Revenue was directed to prepare the statement of facts. The Learned SDR Shri V.K. Chaturvedi appearing for the Revenue submits the statement of facts. Accordingly, registry is directed to annexue the said statement of facts with this order and forward the same along with other relevant papers to the Hon rsquo ble High Court.
-
2000 (10) TMI 775
Penalty - Personal penalty on Managing Director ... ... ... ... ..... has been held that penalty on the Managing Director in addition to penalty on the company is not justified unless there is any material relating to the role played by him in committing the offence by the company. 5. emsp In the instant case, we find that the Appellant resigned from the directorship of the company after the offence of importing the goods without payment of duty had been committed. However, in the impugned order, nothing has been discussed by the adjudicating authority as regards the personal involvement of the Appellant. There, is no material on record to reflect upon his active involvement in the alleged offence committed by the private limited company. As such, we are of the view that the penalty on the Appellant is not justified, in the absence of any material on record indicating the specific role played by him. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside that portion of the impugned order by which the penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant herein.
-
2000 (10) TMI 774
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... The second reason for denying of Modvat credit in respect of cam profile is that the same has not been declared as an independent item by name. The appellant rsquo s contention is that cam profile is a part of Dobby which has been declared by them. Even in the duty paying documents cam profile has been shown as Dobby in the bracket and as such contends the learned Consultant that there was no justification for denying the benefit of Modvat credit. 3. emsp I have also heard the learned JDR. I fully agree with the submissions made by the learned Consultant that delay in filing the declaration by one day should not be made the ground for denying the credit of duty paid capital goods which was otherwise available to the assessee. Similarly, I find that cam profile is a part of Dobby which was also declared in the duty paying document. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 773
... ...
... ... ..... nal and allowed the appeal of the Department. 3. emsp The present appeal is against the afore-stated order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, JDR for the Respondents. The ld. Advocate for the appellants has relied on the ratio of the following decided cases, in which the Modvat credit is held to be admissible on the returned goods (i) CCE v. Meerut Tin Manufacturing Co. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 290 (T-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 197 (CEGAT-L.B) (ii) CCE, Meerut v. M/s. Bhushan Steel and Strips - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 293 (T-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 200 (CEGAT-L.B.), and (iii) M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 711 (T-LB) 2000 (38) RLT 986 (CEGAT-L.B.) 3. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions made before me, it is observed that the facts of the present appeal are fully covered by the ratio of the above cited decisions. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential belief, if any.
-
2000 (10) TMI 772
Confiscation - Waste/Scrap - Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ollector has ordered mutilation if the goods are cleared for home consumption. Mutilation, in other words, was not in response to the importers rsquo request. 6. emsp Since the finding of the Addl. Collector had Found the goods to be serviceable, winch is not questioned by the Collector (Appeals), confiscation ordered of them by the Addl. Collector has to be restored, setting aside the order of the Collector (Appeals). 7. emsp In the facts of this case, we do not find any basis for imposing penalty. The value of the consignment was around Rs. 96,000/-. Therefore, the value of the serviceable goods should be a little over Rs. 30,000/-. The redemption fine is of Rs. 15,000/- and the Addl. Collector rsquo s finding of the absence of mala fide, which is supported by the fact that 30 of the consignment was plastic rolls which it appears might be considered to be unserviceable by the supplier of the goods being misprinted and of irregular shape, etc. 8. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2000 (10) TMI 771
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... this, I do not have to see whether it figures in the expanded list of items under CH 30.05 in terms of Chapter note 3. In fact I observe that this Chapter note 3 has been lifted from chapter note 4 of Ch 30 of HSN. Chapter note 4 of HSN deals with CH 30.06 which is equivalent to our tariff CH 30.05. The CH 30.06 of HSN does not contain any sub-heading for ORS and that is the reason why ORS does not figure in the list of items described in Chapter Note 4 of Ch 30 of HSN. In our tariff, we introduced ORS under CSH 3005.30 in the budget for 1997-98. But obviously through inadvertence we have not included ORS in the list of items covered under CH 30.05 in the Chapter note 3. This omission in isolation can not be held against classification of branded ORS under CSH 3005.30. 8. emsp In view of the foregoing, I hold that the appellants have been correctly classifying the item under CSH 3005.30. I accordingly set aside the order in original and allow appeal with consequential relief.
-
2000 (10) TMI 770
Modvat - Aluminium Photo Sensitised Plates, printing of laminated cartons ... ... ... ... ..... late used in the Photo Printing Machine for printing of laminated cartons. The Tribunal vide its earlier order in the appellants rsquo own case being order No. S-661/A-978/CAL/99, dated 6-9-1999 has held the said P.S. Plate to be an eligible input under the provisions of Rule 57A. Accordingly, following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 769
Modvat - Penalty - Invoice, pre-printed ... ... ... ... ..... ld. JDR for the Revenue I find that the allegations against the appellant is that the invoices issued by them were not pre-printed in respect of any of the requirements. The statutory requirement of Rule 57GG is that such particulars should be pre-printed on the invoice. Although such technical procedural lapse has been held to be not sufficient so as to deny the Modvat credit to the customers, but the fact remains that such procedural statutory contravention has taken place at the appellants rsquo end. The appellant had not denied the violation of the statutory requirements. As such I hold that the appellants are guilty of such procedural requirements. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances I hold that a token penalty of Rs. 500/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I reduce the penalty from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 500/-. But for the above modifications in the impugned order, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
........
|
