|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 538 Records
-
2000 (5) TMI 903 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Sugar ... ... ... ... ..... hagwati SSK Ltd. and Another v. CCE (Appeal E/1329 and 1549/99) 2000 (115) E.L.T. 120 (Tri.) have considered this identical issue which arose in respect of two other sugar mills, and concluded that the price for assessment of duty of the sugar would be the price at which it was cleared and not the price determined subsequent to the clearance, and allowed the appeals filed by the sugar mills. Applying the same ratio, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (5) TMI 902 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... vised duty-liability on the basis of escalated amount. However, it has been neither contended before us by the Revenue nor shown to us that the said provisional assessments have been finalised by the proper officer. Shri Partha Banerjee, learned Advocate submits that they have already given an undertaking to the Commissioner (Appeals) that the escalated price, when realised from their customers, would form part of their assessable value, but submitted that they would be only on the finalisation of the assessments and as the assessments are provisional as on date, the demand raised by the Revenue is premature. In this connection, he also relies upon the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 586 (T). 4. emsp We agree with the respondents. There is no dispute about the fact that assessments are provisional. As such, the demand raised by the Revenue is premature. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same.
-
2000 (5) TMI 901 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ancial position we note that the sales during the period ending as on 31-3-1989 were to the tune of more than Rs. 3 crores and after income from other sources and the closing stock etc. the total income is to the tune of Rs. 4.9 crore. The appellants have also transferred reserves and surplus to the tune of Rs. 4.25 lac. As such we do not find that the appellant rsquo s financial position is poor. 7. emsp Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case we direct the appellants/applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lac (Rupees five lac only) toward duty within eight weeks from today. Subject to the above deposit, the balance amount of duty and penalty is dispensed with and its recovery is stayed during the tendency of the appeals. Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 17th July 2000. Penalties imposed on three Directors and the Managing Director are waived and their recovery is stayed. All the stay petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (5) TMI 900 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... applied in this case. 5. emsp In the grounds of appeal of the Revenue, they also stated that the limit of six months contained under Rule 57-I should be applicable in this case. I am afraid, I cannot accept this position as this is not a case where the Revenue has demanded any duty short levied or Modvat credit erroneously taken. Only the recovery thereof would be covered by Rule 57-I. In this case, the issue involves Rule 57G which is totally different set of circumstances. Therefore, I find that there is no merit on that ground also. In fact the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals (supra) the question of limitation under erstwhile Rule 10 of the C.E. Rules covers a situation where a demand is raised. Therefore it has no applicability to the facts of this case 6. emsp In view of the above finding, I do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeals which compels me to interfere with the order impugned. Hence the appeals are rejected.
-
2000 (5) TMI 898 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Adjudication - Demand - Miscellaneous goods - Excisability - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... shall be considered and then alone duty liability worked out. We are afraid we cannot give clearer directions than this with respect to emergence of a concise and speaking order in adjudication proceedings. We also direct the ld. Commissioner to hear the appellants after giving details of miscellaneous goods sought to be charged to duty under Item No. 17 of the annexure to said show cause notice and to consider each of the items therein in the same manner as noted above. In this connection, ld. Commissioner shall consider earlier decisions on 15 items submitted by the ld. Advocate which he has submitted that have acquired finality before coming to any conclusion in these de novo proceedings. Since the matter is very old, and the Tribunal has no other option but to remand for the third time to the original authority, we expect ld. Original Authority to commence and complete the adjudication proceedings on a priority basis. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed by remand.
-
2000 (5) TMI 894 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... er was not deposited by the particular date, therefore the appellants should have deposited the amount adjudged against them and since they have not deposited the entire amount, therefore there is no question of restoration of the appeals after their dismissal. 3. emsp We have heard the submissions of both sides. We find that stay order was passed by this Tribunal directing the four appellants to deposit particular amounts. We note that the particular amounts were not deposited by the date indicated in the stay order. Thus due to non-deposit of the amount by that particular date, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F. Therefore the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance. We note that the applicants have not placed before us any order of the High Court or Supreme Court for extension of time. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to restore the appeals. Therefore the Misc. applications for restoration of the appeals are rejected.
-
2000 (5) TMI 893 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty and Redemption fine Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... accepted by them and duty paid accordingly. In these circumstances he prays that there was no justification for imposition of such high redemption fine. 2. emsp Countering the arguments, Shri J.M. Kennedy, learned JDR submits that apart from misdeclaration of the description and value of the goods, the appellants have also failed to produce the licence for import of the items in question. As such he submits that the items are liable for confiscation and justifies the redemption fine. 3. emsp After hearing both sides and after taking into account the observations of the Commissioner as regards the mens rea on the part of the appellants, we hold that though the goods in question were technically liable to confiscation, high redemption fine was not warranted. Accordingly we reduce the same to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). As a nominal penalty has been imposed, we do not think if fit to interfere with the quantum of the same. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (5) TMI 888 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty - Quantum thereof ... ... ... ... ..... lty inasmuch as there was no mala fide intention on their part. 3. emsp We have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue. 4. emsp We find the appellants rsquo statement that the duty was deposited by them immediately, to be correct. We also note that the appellants were entitled for Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs while computing the quantum of duty against them, though this plea was not raised by them at any point of time, probably because of the reason that they were not registered with the Central Excise Department. However, this factor is a mitigating factor for deciding the quantum of penalty against the appellants. As such, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the conduct of the appellants in depositing the duty amount immediately, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 30,000.00 to Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand) only. As the confirmation of demand has not been challenged, no orders are being passed on the same.
-
2000 (5) TMI 860 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... given the reasonable proof of his having come into the possession of the Misc. goods from the legal means and therefore, the order is required to be set aside. 3. emsp The burden of proving the illicit importation rests very heavily on the department which burden cannot be discharged merely by finding fault with the evidence rendered by the applicants. On perusal of the facts of the case, I find that the applicant had made a prima facie case. The condition of pre-deposit of the penalty is waived and stay of recovery is granted, pending disposal of the appeal.
-
2000 (5) TMI 858 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Negligence ... ... ... ... ..... ustify the penalty. That there has been negligence by Air India of a high order is clear. Apart from anything else it was the duty of the consignor and consignee of the goods to deliver it. The fact that the goods which throughout were in the control of Air India were shown to be short landed, while although they had been removed from the Customs area highlight this negligence. At the same time, however, negligence alone is not enough for imposition of penalty. For penalty to be imposed under clause (a) of Section 112, they will have to be shown an act or omission to perform a duty cast by law. Neither of these two is proved. The departmental representative was not able to say what duty it was, the performance of which that was cast upon the airline that was not done or what sort of the omission justifies the penalty. It will therefore have to be concluded that there was no basis in law for imposition of penalty. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (5) TMI 855 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - Contract Price ... ... ... ... ..... hich period is subsequent to the expiry of the earlier contract. As per the appellants the earlier contract was extended by their buyers for additional quantities of explosives to be supplied at the same rate vide letter dated 3-12-93. The Revenue has not doubted the genuineness of the said letter vide which the original contract was extended. The only reason for denying the benefit of the contract price is late filing of said letter with the Revenue, which according to us cannot be made a justifiable ground for denying the appellants the benefit of the contract price. There is neither any allegation nor any evidence that the price at which the goods have been sold by the appellants to their customers is not the actual price recovered by them from their customers. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification for rejecting the contract price and adopting the normal assessable value under section 4(1)(a). As such we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (5) TMI 854 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... a decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat v. Garden Silk Mills reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 369 (Tribunal) 2000 (37) R.L.T. 904 (CEGAT), wherein it was held that the importer can relinquish his title to the goods in terms of Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provided no Order of clearance for home-consumption has been made. Learned Consultant submits that in the instant case, no Order of clearance has been made for home-consumption and therefore, they have got a case for relinquishing their title. On this ground, he pleads that there is a strong case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the said Customs Duty. 3. emsp Countering the arguments of the learned Consultant, Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR adopts the reasoning of the lower authority. 4. emsp After hearing both sides and on following the ratio of the decision in the said case, we are convinced that there is a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (5) TMI 851 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Wrongful importation of a boat - Words and phrases ... ... ... ... ..... e clarification of the licensing authority raises the question as to what exactly the scope of the item in the negative list is. It cannot be disputed that sailing boats or yachts are in the nature of water transport craft. If the licensing authority took the view that these crafts do not fall within the meaning of the term lsquo water transport crafts rsquo , the respondent could be reasonably concluded that it was entitled to import the boat for carriage of a maximum of five persons. The respondent rsquo s contention here is that the boat was of a particular kind for transport on shallow waters of river Tapti, where it reaches the sea is also significant. Considering, these aspects and the fact that the boat was imported for actual use, I do not think that interference with the Commissioner (Appeals) finding not to impose penalty is called for. In my view, perhaps enhancement of redemption fine is called for but that is not asked for. 7. emsp I therefore dismiss the appeal.
-
2000 (5) TMI 849 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Exemption - Demand - Limitation - Confiscation and Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... e Rules, as the penalty of Rs. one crore is imposed on the appellant firm, I agree with the Hon rsquo ble Vice President whereby he held that the confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery, owned or possessed by the appellant concern, is harsh and redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is also harsh and is, therefore, set aside. The appeal papers be placed before the original bench. Sd/- (S.S.Kang) Member (J) MAJORITY ORDER 35. emsp We uphold the confirmation of duty demand penalty on the appellant company is reduced to Rs. one crore penalty on Shri S.S. Khaitan is reduced to Rs. one lakh penalty on Shri Anil Khaitan is reduced to Rs. 35,000/- penalty on Shri S.K. Khaitan is reduced to Rs. 1,75,000/- penalty on Shri N.K. Vasu is reduced to Rs.7,500/-. Confiscation of land and building under Rule 173-Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is set aside. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (V.K. Agrawal) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J)
-
2000 (5) TMI 847 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Credit to Government ... ... ... ... ..... ved and protected and kept intact to be worked out and quantified and liability determined from the date on which the steps are taken to provide requisite machinery. This judgment does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Bench whose order Commissioner cites in the order. We consider it appropriate to consider the judgment of the High Court. 5. emsp Accordingly we allow this appeal, holding that in the absence of any provisions of law to quantify and adjudicate upon claims under Section 11D of the Act it is not permissible for the Commissioner to quantify the duty and order it to be credited to the government. We, however, make it clear that the liability of the appellant to pay the amount in question, in terms of Section 11D, will continue subject to adjudication of the notice in accordance with the provisions of law. We note in passing, that steps have been proposed to insert into Act, by the Finance Bill, 2000, the requisite machinery for such adjudication.
-
2000 (5) TMI 846 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... T. 258 (S.C.) 1996 (83) E.L.T. 30 (Ker.) 1997 (96) E.L.T. 407 (Tribunal) AIR 1988 Supreme Court 897 3. emsp I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. The delay in this case is just a little over two months and the appellant rsquo s reasons for the same i.e. misplacement of files due to the shifting of their office, merits fair consideration. In the light of the facts as well as the various case laws cited, in particular the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s observation that substantial justice deserves to be preferred to technical considerations, and also seeing that there is no gain to the appellant by any deliberate delay, I hold that this is a case where the delay deserves to be condoned. I accordingly condone the delay in filing the claims. The order of the lower authority is consequently set aside and the case remanded for de novo consideration and disposal on merits. 4. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (5) TMI 845 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants rsquo submission that the transaction value has not been disputed by the adjudicating authority and no evidence has been placed on record to show that the prices so entered into between the importer and the foreign supplier, were influenced by any commercial consideration or the relation between the two. Reliance placed by the appellants on the various decisions of the Tribunal - for example - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 1998 (25) RLT (1) 1999 (105) E.L.T. 637 (T) 1999 (31) RLT 353 1999 (107) E.L.T. 329 - is appropriate. The gist of all these decisions is that in the absence of any doubt of transaction value, the same should not be dismissed lightly. Similarly, we find force in the appellants rsquo contention that only one day rsquo s LME Price has been picked up by the adjudicating authority, whereas there was lot of variations in the LME prices also on the various dates. In view of the foregoing discussions, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (5) TMI 842 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... customer for a long time, it has to be considered that the seller did not pass on the incidence rdquo . 6. emsp We are not convinced with the above reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is admitted that the duty levy has not been received from the appellants from their sister unit at Hyderabad. Merely raising of demand by itself is not sufficient to prove that the duty element has been received by the appellants from their sister concern as has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In any case we find that the appellants rsquo unit at Calcutta and their unit at Hyderabad is one and the same and a common balance sheet is being maintained by them. As such it cannot be said that the appellants have received duty element from an independent customer and allowing of their refund claim would make them doubly enrich. As such we hold that the appellants are entitled to the amount claimed by them as refund. We allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (5) TMI 839 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... appeal against the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, vide which he confirmed the reduced quantum of duty than as proposed in the show cause notice. The said appeal of the Revenue was also accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for adjudging the case afresh. The appellants have filed an appeal against the said Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. emsp After hearing both sides, we find that the entire demand of duty confirmed against the appellants have already been set aside by the Tribunal, vide Order dated 10-5-2000, by extending the benefit of Serial No. 10(2) of Notification No. 57/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 to the appellants. As the entire duty of duty has been set aside, the Revenue rsquo s contention that the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the lower demand of duty than the one proposed in the show cause notice, does not survive at all. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (5) TMI 838 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Shortage of stock ... ... ... ... ..... CX. 6 dated 26-7-1979 fixed the percentage as guidelines while deciding the case of investigation report on various items has not been considered by the learned Collector in his impugned order. To our questioning this point whether this was before the Collector or not, the Advocate and the Departmental Representative confirmed the same. We find that the loss as prescribed by the Board in the Circular issued by them has to be considered by the adjudicating authority and only thereafter the shortages in stock-taking should be determined and duties quantified. Since this has not been done we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority to readjudicate the matter in the light of the Board rsquo s Circular and any other submission that the parties move after giving due opportunity of hearing to them. The question of time-bar is left open for the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. Appeal is allowed by remand for de novo proceedings afresh.
............
|
