|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 697 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Registration – Words and Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... clearly applicable to the appellants rsquo case and their application for single registration ought to have been allowed. 7. emsp Ld. Sr. advocate has also referred to the Tribunal rsquo s decision in K.M. Sugar Mills case. The Commissioner has not relied on his earlier order passed in K.M. Sugar Mills case. Nevertheless, it is an admitted fact that the Commissioner rsquo s order in K.M. Sugar Mills case stands set aside by this Tribunal vide Order No. A/662/2001-NB(D) dated 3-9-2001 2001 (133) E.L.T. 567 (T) . I find that there is factual parallel between the instant case and the case of K.M. Sugar Mills. I would follow that decision too. 8. emsp In view of the findings recorded above, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the said proceedings are set aside and the present appeal is allowed. The Commissioner is directed to issue a single registration to the appellant-company in respect of the Sugar Division and Distillery Division under reference.
-
2001 (12) TMI 696 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... by using the goods in question, it is not established that the incidence of duty has not been passed. The very possibility that it would be included in the price that would be the normal price in this case. It is not necessary that the bill shows the incidence of duty separately. There is no such requirement in law either. 8. emsp It has therefore to be concluded that the requirement contained in law that for a claimant to be given the refund, it must be shown that he has not passed on the incidence of duty would apply to the refund that the respondent claimed and that the respondent has not been able to show that the incidence of duty has not been transferred. We are therefore of the view that the refund in question has been correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund Account instead of being paid to the respondent. 9. emsp Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
-
2001 (12) TMI 695 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... Section can be regarded as inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. We, therefore, remand this matter to the adjudicating authority with the direction to look into the submissions made by the appellants that the inputs have gone, in fact, in the manufacture of the equipments only. The appellants will produce within two months from the date of receipt of this order the detailed submissions co-relating the inputs to the manufacture and removal of the final products and submit to the adjudicating authority who will take into consideration the same before deciding the matter afresh. At this stage, ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that they could correlate the use of inputs which are of high value and not in respect of 100 inputs such as small items like screws, etc. We may only mention that the adjudicating authority may consider this plea of the appellants also while deciding the matter afresh. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2001 (12) TMI 694 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Corrigendum to invoice - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... he goods and certified them to be second hand machinery (as required by the Import Policy) of pound 4,850 ought to be accepted again requires dismissal. The Tribunal had ordered valuation on the basis of the invoice and not based on any other document. 5. emsp We therefore find no ground for interference with the value accepted by the Dy. Commissioner. 6. emsp Counsel for the appellant then contended that he would be able to show that the incidence of duty, of which the refund would be otherwise due had not been passed on and requested time to produce documents in support of his contention. The matter was therefore adjourned to 27-9-2001. On that date, the Counsel conceded that he has been unable to obtain such document. It would then follow that the finding that the refund is payable, not to the appellant, but to the credit of Consumer Welfare Fund for the reason that it has not been shown to any other person, has to be confirmed. 7. emsp The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 693 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Credit of duty paid on inputs contained in waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal to that authority. A second remand, in my view, may not serve the ends of justice. I am, therefore, inclined to give a quietus to the matter at this stage. 5. emsp The waste and scrap, which were lying in stock as on 9-3-94, were ldquo final products rdquo within the meaning of this term under Rule 57H. The CR Sheets (inputs) covered by valid duty-paying documents were used for the manufacture of such waste and scrap. The duty-paid nature of the CR Sheets is not in dispute. Rule 57H permitted the appellants to avail Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the waste and scrap which were lying in stock as on the date (9-3-94) on which they filed the Rule 57G declaration. The assessee satisfied all the conditions for the input-credit. Therefore, the credit in question was admissible to them. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. I set aside that order and allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2001 (12) TMI 692 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Newsprints - Exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... by a newspaper which is registered by the Registrar of Newspapers for India. Admittedly this condition is fulfilled by the appellants. Once having admitted that this condition for exemption is satisfied by the appellants, in our view it is not open to the Commissioner to travel beyond the specific provisions of the exemption notification and to delve into discussion as to what should constitute a newspaper and whether GETIT Yellow Pages is a newspaper or not. Admittedly no definition of Newspaper is provided in the Central Excise law. It is well settled that an exemption notification has to be interpreted strictly as per the expression used in it and following this principle, we find no discrepancy in the case of the appellants for which they should be denied the exemption and subject to a penalty. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (12) TMI 690 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods - Duty paying documents - Invoice - Modvat on input ... ... ... ... ..... inal product. He relied upon the decision in Singh Alloys Steel Ltd., supra, wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that ldquo merely because chemicals are used for the machinery does not make the chemicals machinery. It does not matter that the items are used in the machinery or for the purpose of the machinery. rdquo Admittedly, these chemicals are used so as to avoid rusting of circuit of diesel engine and it is not disputed that diesel engine is used in the manufacture of the final product and accordingly, it cannot be claimed that these chemicals are not used in relation to manufacture of the final products. Following the decision of Calcutta High Court, these chemicals are eligible modvatable inputs. 10.2 emsp Similarly, Sapcolube 1710B is used for drawing of wires in their factory and is eligible input. 11. emsp In view of our findings, no penalty is imposable on the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the same. 12. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 664 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Fabric - Double texture fabric/unvulcanised sandwiched fabrics - Dutiability - Marketability - Intermediate product
-
2001 (12) TMI 658 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Defective goods ... ... ... ... ..... the case is exactly identical to the one covered by its earlier order dated 22-11-99. I note that this finding has been recorded on the basis of a concession by the assessee rsquo s Counsel who submitted that on an exactly identical issue their appeal for a previous period had been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Order-in-Appeal No. 344/99 ibid. There is no challenge against this finding of the lower appellate authority in the present appeal before me. The issue covered by Order-in-Appeal dated 22-11-99 of the same Commissioner (Appeals) has since been decided against the assessee by this Tribunal in the cited case of Peacock Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II 2001 (129) E.L.T. 476 (Tri.) 2001 (45) RLT 174 . There is no report of any stay of operation of the decision. I, therefore, respectfully follow that decision to hold, in the present case, that the lower appellate authority has decided the issue correctly. I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.
-
2001 (12) TMI 657 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ake place in Rigid PVC Pipes, but takes place in Electrolyzer. (c) M.S. TUBES are part of water cooling tower, which is an equipment for supply of water which controls heat generated during caustic soda production process. (d) STEAM UNION is used for giving cooling effect only. 2. emsp The only contention raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that these are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product. As per the functions specified above in respect of each of the item in the manufacturing process undertaken by the respondents, the contention of the appellants is not correct. In my view, these above items are properly covered under the Explanation (1) of Rule 57Q as held in the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore and Others v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. - 2001 (132) E.L.T.3 (SC). The Revenue appeal thus has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 656 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... the notification are eligible for Modvat credit even if they do not satisfy any of the three tests mentioned in the second part of clause (a) of the Explanation. Such goods, even if they are not satisfying the test, will become eligible for Modvat credit by the specific inclusion by the notification with effect from the date of the notification. rdquo 4. emsp I have carefully considered the matter. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra), it is settled position now that the item in question is eligible to avail Modvat credit. In the decision of the Tribunal (Larger Bench) in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. referred to above, it was clearly held that effect and ambit of notifications issued in 1995 and 1996 enlarging the ambit of Rule 57Q cannot have any retrospective effect. Following ratio of the decisions referred to above, I accept the contention of the party. Accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (12) TMI 655 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nalty of Rs. 4.36 Lacs, totalling to Rs. 8.62 Lacs. It was out of this amount of over Rs. 8.62 Lakhs that an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was directed to be pre-deposited with the lower appellate authority so that the appeal could be heard on its merits by that authority. The assessee rsquo s plea of financial hardships was duly considered by the Tribunal while issuing such direction. 6. emsp In the above circumstances, it is not possible for me to accept ld. Consultant rsquo s request for deleting para 8 of the final order. As regards his submission that certain submissions of the applicants were not considered by the Bench at the time of passing the final order, I observe that, as rightly pointed out by ld. SDR, any such non-consideration can hardly constitute a ldquo mistake apparent from the record rdquo within the meaning of this expression under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the present application does not stand on valid grounds and the same is rejected.
-
2001 (12) TMI 654 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Remand - Burden of proof - Assessable value ... ... ... ... ..... t taken into consideration included rental also. However, we are of view that the Commissioner should have also taken into consideration the submission made by them before the Tribunal on the basis of which the matter was remanded. We are, therefore, constrainted to remand the matter once again to the Commissioner for re-adjudication. We direct the appellants to submit all necessary proofs and materials which they want to rely before the Commissioner within a period of one month of the date of receipt of this order. Then, the Commissioner will re-adjudicate the matter after affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 4. emsp At this stage, ld. Consultant, Shri Jha requested that as the matter is very old, some time limit may be specified within which the adjudication is completed by the adjudicating authority. We hope that considering the oldness of the matter, the Commissioner will appreciate the same and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.
-
2001 (12) TMI 652 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Customs House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... car must have been in use of the importer and on that plea allowed the benefit. In the case of M.K. Elumalai v. C.C., Madras (supra), the Tribunal held that status of a person is not to be taken into consideration for allowing clearance under the Transfer of Residence Rules. In the case of Sanco Trans Ltd. v. C.C., Bangalore (supra), it has been held that penalty is not to be imposed for mere lack of exercise of proper inspection supervision and diligence of CHA. 6. emsp In view of the fact that no specific allegations of any offence have been brought out in the SCN and the Commissioner in his finding has held that appellant CHA knew the passenger that he was poor which by itself will not lead any evidence for imposition of penalty in the absence of any specific and clear allegation of any provisions of law. In that view of the matter penalty imposed against the CHA is unjustified and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
2001 (12) TMI 649 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ground. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. case (supra), relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal had taken the view that material handling equipments are eligible capital goods for claiming Modvat credit. No contrary law has been cited by the learned JDR. Therefore, there exists no cogent reason to disagree with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had taken the view that the electric hoist is material handling equipment and the respondents are entitled to the Modvat credit in respect thereof. 3. emsp Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 648 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Import - DEEC scheme ... ... ... ... ..... he item is mainly dyeing cotton material and not a leather dye. The report also had relied on Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology Third Edition, Volume 8 by Mr. K. Kirthomeer published by John Wilson besides condensed Chemical Technology Tenth Edition of Gessner G. Hawley which explains that sulphur dye was usually to cotton. We notice that the Commissioner has only taken into consideration the clarification of goods on previous occasion by the customs authorities. However, there is no categorical examination and finding on the report and chemical opinion by the Colour Chem Ltd. Therefore, this matter is also required to be remanded back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. The Commissioner in both the matters will grant sufficient opportunity to the importers after due services of notices and re-adjudicate the matter in the light of allegation and the test results produced by the Revenue. The respondents submission may also be taken in for consideration as per law.
-
2001 (12) TMI 645 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Exemption - Interpretation of - Notification - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... should not be disturbed. However, we notice that the basic dispute with regard to notification itself has been raised and hence it is but proper that this matter is also re-examined afresh in the light of the Revenue rsquo s contention and also taking into consideration the plea of the importer that the Notification No. 23/98 does not contain any such condition pertaining to export of 50 of the goods and the Board rsquo s circular does not have any legal binding. In that view of the matter, the impugned Order No. 62/2001 is also set aside in revenue and importer rsquo s appeals and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall call for records, if necessary, in this regard from the original authority and also to take all evidences on record and after observing principles of natural justice decide the case de novo. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall also take Revenue rsquo s pleas in the matter while deciding the case.
-
2001 (12) TMI 616 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Declaration, discrepancies in chapters specified ... ... ... ... ..... to be denied on the ground that the declaration filed under Rule 57G(1) did not contain all the details required to be contained therein. It follows that, even if the Chapter Headings were not mentioned in the declaration, Modvat credit on the inputs could not have been denied to the assessee on the ground of absence of mention of Chapter Headings. In the instant case, Chapter Headings were mentioned but happened to be different from the Headings stated by the input-suppliers in their invoices. In the instant case, the period of dispute is December, 1997 to February, 1998, which is prior to the aforesaid amendment to Rule 57G. However, the Larger Bench appears to have permitted application of the amended rule to periods prior to the date of amendment. In this view of the matter, the Modvat credit on Heat Sink and Connector, taken by the assessee during the above period of dispute, would be admissible to them. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals.
-
2001 (12) TMI 614 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... panel the issue went up to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 2001 ( 132) E.L.T. 3 (SC) held that Modvat credit will be admissible. In this view of the matter I do not find any reason for disallowing the Modvat credit on these items. 8. emsp In so far as the grinding media is concerned I note that the issue is covered by the decisions of this Tribunal as indicated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Since no contrary decision has been brought to my notice I am bound to follow the decisions of the Larger Bench and Division of this Tribunal. Since the issue of grinding media on the admissibility of Modvat credit is already decided by the Bench of this Tribunal in favour of the assessee I do not see any reason to disagree with the decisions cited and relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 9. emsp In view of the above findings the three appeals filed by Revenue are rejected.
-
2001 (12) TMI 613 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... he Authorities below. 6. emsp I have heard the rival submissions. I note that in so far as the particulars are concerned I find that essential particulars were furnished. I also note that in some cases along with the supplier rsquo s invoice of the earlier manufacturer was also furnished to suppliment the information. There is no dispute about the receipt of the inputs, the duty paid character or their use in the final product on which duty was paid. Having regard to this aspect I hold that Modvat credit will be admissible to the appellant. 7. emsp In regard to registration of the dealer I note that invoices pertained to the period prior to 4th July, 1994. Since the registration of dealer became necessary w.e.f. 4-7-1994, therefore, this requirement is not applicable in the instant case. 8. emsp Having regard to the above findings I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible, to the appellant(s) in accordance with law.
............
|
