|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 782 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... cylinder valves and spindles and Chlorine cylinder is upheld and the Revenue rsquo s appeal in so far as these items are rejected. 13. emsp With regard to Aluminium Anode Extension Cable, Signal Cable and Omega Cable, I notice that ld. DR attempted to distinguish the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. wherein the Apex Court has applied the test required to consider the items as ldquo capital goods rdquo . The issue pertains to cables and the Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench judgment has affirmed by the Apex Court. Hence, I do not see any reason not to apply the same ratio and to distinguish the same in respect of the cables of the type used by the appellant assessee. The decision of the Larger Bench has been affirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal on these items and hence, the Revenue appeal is rejected. 14. emsp In the result, party rsquo s appeal is allowed and Revenue appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (12) TMI 781 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ld. Consultant. In that case, the Apex Court clearly held that, if the transaction value could be determined under Rule 4(1) and did not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there was no question of determining the value under the subsequent rules. The Supreme Court rsquo s ruling has been followed by this Tribunal in the cited case of Tapan Trading Company. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the orders of the lower authorities, which are manifestly erroneous in law. 6. emsp In view of our above findings, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow this appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to determine the assessable value of the subject goods, after examining the applicability of the provisions of Rule 4 save sub-rule (3) thereof, of the C.V. Rules, 1988, before examining the applicability of Rule 5. The appellants shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before final adjudication by the original authority.
-
2001 (12) TMI 780 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... without payment of duty. 2. emsp On the face of it, the finding of the Commissioner that the hospital in which the equipment was installed did not provide 40 concession to the outpatients appears to be correct. Counsel for the applicant is not able to show what steps it took in order to ensure compliance with the condition in the notification. We therefore dismiss the stay application and direct payment of the penalty by the applicant within a month from the receipt of this order. 3. emsp Compliance on 3rd January, 2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 778 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation - Delay of 195 days - Condonation of - SSI Exemption - Brand name - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty
-
2001 (12) TMI 777 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Plant ... ... ... ... ..... oticee has submitted that housing of a plant in a three storeyed building is with specific purpose to maintain level of equipment and their respective places is essential to maintain flow in continuous process. Obviously the fastening of equipment at their respective placements in different storeys of the building is with intention to maintain flow of oil subjected to the process. Noticees rsquo argument is that these equipments are embedded and fastened by civil engineering works makes them as an immovable property is therefore, incorrect because fastening of equipment at different levels is with specific intention of better function of these equipments and to achieve required result of the process. rdquo 4. emsp From the above it would appear that the plant in question would not satisfy the criterion of movability. The appellants have a strong prima facie case. Accordingly, Stay as prayed for is allowed. The matter itself to come up for early hearing on 20th February, 2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 775 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Eligible for Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... forthcoming as to why the goods are not to be treated as inputs. The reason appears to be that the goods did not form part of finished products. 3. emsp The Tribunal in its judgment in Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 578 has held that mafron, a refrigerant gas, qualifies to be considered as an input without its use in the refrigerating system for cooling water which is used to draw heat in the reactors and other vessels of the plant, as part of the heat exchanger. The ratio of that decision would apply to the aegron and mafron before us. 4. emsp In its decision in ICI Ltd. v. CCE - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 695 the Tribunal has held that chemicals, added to water treated to reduce formation of scales in the heat exchangers which are installed in the factory of the manufacturer, would qualify as input. That ratio would apply to the water treatment chemicals under consideration before us. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 774 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... orrect and proper since its use is indirectly necessary in producing or processing of the finished product or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product. Therefore, the appellants cannot be deprived of the Modvat benefit under 57A on the ratio of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal in the case of Pragati Paper Mills Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 137 (T) 1996 (66) ECR 42 which also clearly and unambiguously help the case of the appellant. rdquo 3. emsp Shri Narasimha Murthy appearing for the Revenue contends that since the party has availed credit claiming it as capital goods, Modvat credit on capital goods as such cannot be allowed. 4. emsp I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit in respect of the above items in terms of Rule 57A and not under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and on going through the impugned order I do not find any infirmity therein. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 771 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court - Modvat/Cenvat - Input ... ... ... ... ..... i Bench of the Tribunal to the Jurisdictional High Court on the same question vide order No. R/21/97-NB, dated 4-4-1997. In view of the precedence, the question is required to be referred to the Jurisdictional High Court. The question is reframed as under - ldquo Whether it is permissible to construe an item like tool kit (which is not subject to any process in the line of manufacture of vehicle) and which is not statutorily required under the provisions of any of the law, as eligible input used in or in relation to manufacture of the two wheelers/three wheelers as laid down in Rule 57A? rdquo 3. emsp Reference application is allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 770 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI exemption ... ... ... ... ..... emsp The Commissioner found that the goods bore the brand name ldquo LK Pace rdquo . It is the contention of the appellant that the brand name is its own, and registered in its own name. The appellant is a subsidiary of G.N. Laur Knudsen AS, Denmark. It had registered the logo ldquo LK Pace Switches and Accessories rdquo with the Trade Marks Registry under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. He produces certificate to this effect of the Trade Marks Registry. The use by a manufacturer of a brand name belonging to foreign company but registered in India does not attract the provisions of these notifications relating to use of brand name. This is the ratio of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CCE v. Esbi Transmissions Private Ltd., 1997 (91) E.L.T. 292. 3. emsp The ratio of this judgment would apply to the facts of this case. There was therefore no basis for denying the exemption contained in the notifications. 4. emsp Appeal is allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (12) TMI 759 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Penalty - Parallel invoices - Modvat/Cenvat - DEEC Scheme - Reversal of credit - Penalty - Prospective effect
-
2001 (12) TMI 758 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ule 57A and therefore, Modvat credit under Rule 57A on this item cannot be allowed. I have considered these submissions. It is observed that there are five decisions specific to each of the items as cited above, relied upon in allowing the Modvat credit on them under Rule 57A. The mere fact that a civil appeal in respect of one of the items is admitted by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court - in the absence of any stay against such order - in itself would not be the sufficient ground to not to follow the ratio of such case. Similarly, the Modvat credit on grinding wheel is allowed by the Tribunal under Rule 57A in case of Power Build Ltd. (Supra). This item is brought under Rule 57Q as capital goods for the purpose of availing Modvat credit much later than the period under consideration. Therefore, this contention of the revenue also does not have much force. In view of the above findings, therefore, there is no merit in the revenue appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 757 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Project import - Financial hardship ... ... ... ... ..... plant has completely stopped since 29-5-2001 and the entire staff except skeleton staff of legal department has been sacked. This lends weight to and supports the contention of the applicants regarding severe financial hardship. We also note that the goods involving duty of approximately Rs. 26 crores have not yet been cleared by the applicants and that the applicants have furnished a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 72.5 crores. Keeping all these factors in view, we hold prima facie that insistence of any pre-deposit shall result in grave financial hardship and therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty subject to following (1) the applicants shall not clear goods pending for clearance till the disposal of this appeal and (2) the applicants shall keep the Bank Guarantee alive during the period of pendency of the appeal. 3. emsp Having regard to the high stakes involved, we have fixed the appeal itself for hearing on 18-2-2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 756 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM Policy - Import under REP licences - CRGO sheets - Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in the licence making applicable in the 1989-90 Policy is a specification otherwise provided for in the condition that we have referred. It is therefore that policy that must apply, along with the restrictions and conditions therein. rdquo ldquo 8. emsp From our discussions it must be concluded that it is the 1989-90 Policy that would be for import for the licence in question subject to the face value restrictions contained in Appendix 7 of Paragraph 177 of the Policy. We are told by the advocate for the appellants that import of these goods are within the limit. Subject to this condition, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. rdquo 3. emsp The facts being identical in the present case the ratio of the judgment would apply. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The clearance of the goods under the Policy is permitted. In doing so the Revenue Officers would ensure that the imports are within the limits as observed by the Tribunal as above.
-
2001 (12) TMI 755 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Appeal papers ... ... ... ... ..... by the proper officer at the time of assessment of Bs/E in these cases. The ld. Advocate, however, drew our attention to paragraph 23 of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad wherein the Commissioner in coming to the conclusion ldquo the quantities broadly tallied rdquo and thereafter he confirmed the value as proposed in the notices. We cannot appreciate at this prima facie stage the confirmation of mis-declaration of values and penal consequences and duty liability arrived at on the grounds as pointed out to us. We find that the orders impugned before us do not conform to the law relied upon by the Supreme Court or rules of valuation to be determined under the Valuation Rules. We find a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant to order a complete stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the duties and penalties as arrived at by the lower authorities pending the appeals. We order accordingly. 4. emsp Stay applications are disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 754 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
EOU clearances to DTA - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... person is covered by the scheme of exemption is on him who claims the benefit of exemption Notification that the decision in the case of Euro Cotspin Ltd. has not been accepted by the Department. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and perused the records. We observe from the impugned Order that the Respondents had adjusted the clearance of the impugned goods against their DTA Entitlement as supported by RT-13 Return. This finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been controverted by the Revenue. The Tribunal in the case of Euro Cotspin Ltd., in similar situation, has extended the benefit of Notification No. 2/95 by holding that the ldquo goods should have been subjected to duty at the exempted rates after taking into account Notification No. 2/95. rdquo The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the said decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. The Appeal filed by Revenue is, thus, rejected.
-
2001 (12) TMI 753 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Reversal of credit ... ... ... ... ..... ellant submits before me that credit on similar inputs, has been availed by them without objections from the Department and these inputs have also being used by them in the manufacture of the final product. This aspect is however required to be examined. 3. emsp In view of my findings, I would therefore consider this denial of credit in this case by the lower appellate authority to be caused by mis-directing the procedure established by law and they should examine whether the credit on the inputs was eligible or not. I would therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent to sanction the reversal or and correction of the entries required to be made in the RG 23A and PLA by the appellant, if he is satisfied with the use of the inputs and finds them to be eligible inputs used in the manufacture of the final product may permit the correction of entries with consequential benefits if any. Appeal allowed in above terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 752 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Paper - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ain width is classifiable under heading 48.23 of the tariff and paper of another under that heading. Applying the notes, it has been concluded that the slitting of crape paper amounts to manufacture. However this note is not present in the tariff. On the other hand, note 10(A) to the Chapter provides that slitting of thermal paper does not amount to manufacture. This, prima facie, gives rise to the conclusion that slitting of any other paper does not amount to manufacture. 3. emsp Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery.
-
2001 (12) TMI 751 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of - Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... edit on Welding Electrodes. Since both these issues have been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Welding Electrodes and by the Apex Court in the case of Explosives it was decided to proceed with the hearing of appeal itself. Insofar as the admissibility of Modvat credit on Explosives is concerned I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v. C.C.E., M.P. - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Further insofar as the admissibility of Modvat credit on Welding Elactrodes is concerned the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench and the Apex Court in the case of Jahwar Mills Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3. Since both these issues brought up for decision are now finally decided by the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court. The appeal is allowed following the ratio of the decisions cited above. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
2001 (12) TMI 750 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ation is solely based upon the statement of the co-accused. 4. emsp I find that it is a settled law that the statement of the co-accused, unless corroborated in material particulars, is not to be made the basis for penalising. As far as the applicant rsquo s/appellant rsquo s own statement is concerned, the same was retracted from the jail within a period of eight days and as such, loses its evidentiary value. The said period of eight days cannot be taken to be on the higher side, especially when the applicant/appellant was admitted in the jail hospital. It is also seen that in the said statement, the applicant/appellant has referred to his past involvement with the smuggling activities and has nowhere admitted that the biscuits recovered from Shri Basanta Ghosh were to be received by him. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt to the applicant/appellant, I set aside the imposition of personal penalty upon him and allow the appeal. The stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2001 (12) TMI 747 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Processing loss and pilferage - Quantum of - Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... erage comes to 2.17 . Further the study conducted by Ahmedabad Textile Industries Research Association (ATIRA) has shown variation upto 2.22 on an average. ATIRA has also mentioned that the invisible loss is mainly attributed to loss of moisture and removal of some quantity of spin finish from LOY. The Adjudicating Authority has given his finding, however, that loss of 1.75 is reasonable without giving any reasons for arriving at such a percentage and confirmed the demand. The Revenue on the other hand challenged the dropping of demand on account of demand being time barred and the unit working under Physical control. The submissions made by both the sides, in our view, needs reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for afresh adjudication after considering the submissions made before him and by passing a well reasoned speaking order in accordance with law. Both the appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
............
|
