|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Clubbing of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... T 399, the Tribunal has held that in the case of clubbing of clearances, appeal against one assessee without hearing the firms or units whose clearances were proposed to be clubbed with the respondents, is not maintainable. In that case, appeals against the firms whose clearances were proposed to be clubbed with the respondents, were dismissed as time barred. In the present case also, we find that the Revenue has filed the present appeal within the statutory period of limitation and subsequently the Revenue filed an appeal against M/s. Magnetic Controls which was dismissed as time barred. Since no appeal lies against the co-noticee, appeal by the Department against only one firm without hearing the other firms is not maintainable when the clearances of the units are proposed to be clubbed. Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision cited supra, we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 368 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... ting on pipe joints rdquo . Therefore, the plea of appellant relying upon following HSN notes under 4016 - ldquo (a) Pump rotors and moulds other articles for technical uses (including parts and accessories of machines and appliances of Section XVI and of instruments and apparatus of Chapter 90). rdquo will not help the case of appellants for classification under 4016 since the use is not technical but that as a special ldquo fitting-joint rdquo for a pipe and not any machine apparatus etc. Considering this purpose, function, we therefore find no grounds in the present appeal to upset the classification of the entity. lsquo Rubber Expansion Joint for pipes rsquo to be under 4004.92 as arrived at by the lower authorities. (d) emsp The decision in the case of 1985 (22) E.L.T. 74 (Tri.) relied upon is not in this product is on I.C. Engine Parts and is therefore not applicable. 3. emsp In view of our findings, classification under 4009.92 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 367 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Adjudication - Order - Transformer parts - Spools - Parts of transformers ... ... ... ... ..... ew of Chapter 85.04, without putting the appellants to a notice, therefore amounts to denail of natural justice to them as such the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld it is therefore required to be struck down. (b) emsp We find that parts are admittedly covered under Chapter Heading 85.04, then under the relevant Sl. No. of the Table which only excludes transformers and not parts thereof, would entitle the parts to the exemption rates prescribed therein. (c) emsp We refrain from arriving at any findings regarding the classification of lsquo spools rsquo since the original authority has not arrived at any findings thereon, it being not challenged in the SCN. Therefore there is no material before us to determine the nature of the items, hence the classification of the spools rsquo . 3. emsp In view of our findings we set aside that portion of the order, classifying certain parts of transformers under Chapter Heading 39.26. Appeal allowed accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 366 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... nly in 1994 and that decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in 1996. The period of demand in the present case is of 1991. In these circumstances, the appellant rsquo s plea regarding time bar also cannot find favour. 5. emsp With regard to assessable value, it is settled law Srichakra Tyre case reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (Tribunal) 1999 (32) RLT 1 that sales realisation by an assessee should be treated as cum-duty price and assessable value should be worked out after excluding the elements towards duty etc. from the sale price. The appellant rsquo s claim for Modvat credit also is required to be considered. The case is required to go back for re-computation of duty after taking into account both these grounds. Proportionate reduction in penalty will also be appropriate. 6. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand. The Adjudicating Authority shall recompute the duty and refix the penalty in the light of our observations.
-
2001 (3) TMI 365 - COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (APPEALS), CHENNAI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... xtent of 75 of the said additional duty paid on such goods”. 8. From the plain reading of the above Rule I come to the conclusion that any goods - whether it is specified under sub-rule (1) or not when imported as project import and classified under CSH 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act the same is eligible for 75 of CVD paid as Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. It is not necessary to go in classification of each and every product imported under the project import. 9. Since in the instant case the goods mentioned in Sl. Nos. 2 to 4 of the show cause notice have been imported under project import and CVD has been paid under CSH 9801.00 in the relevant Bills of entry, I hold the view that the same are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q(3). I direct the lower authority to extend the Modvat credit after verification I vacate the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q. 10. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 362 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Judicial propriety ... ... ... ... ..... le Supreme Court (supra) on which, the reliance is placed by the Tribunal. This is the only ground on which the party is asking for the rectification of the impugned order. It is observed that it is not the case of the petitioners that the Tribunal in its order has committed a mistake in following the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. It is stated that there is a mistake in the Supreme Court judgment. It is observed that if there is a mistake in the judgment of the Supreme Court, the same is to be rectified by the Apex Court by moving an appropriate petition before them. It is not for a subordinate judicial forum, to first presume a mistake in the judgment of the Supreme Court and then apply the ratio of the same by rectifying the purported mistake. This would be a judicial impropriety. In view of this, therefore, since the Tribunal has correctly applied the judgment of the Supreme Court, there is no mistake in its order. The ROM petition is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 361 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... by a doctor and by no one else. 7. emsp Nor is it possible to agree, with respect to the Vice President that the article which is carried by medical practitioners from his house to clinic is not travel goods that would result in saying that when he goes from house does not travel. The counsel for the appellant says that he does not wish to canvass such an argument. The product therefore in our opinion is nothing other than a briefcase. It would therefore fall within the definition of ldquo briefcase - all sorts rdquo specified under sub-heading 10. 8. emsp We emphasis that decision is limited to the facts of this case, after having seen the article in question and cannot be applied in the classification of goods which might superficially appear similar. Thus, we expressly refrain from saying that the ratio would apply to other articles such as gun case, camera case etc. Each such classification should be decided in its own merits. 9. emsp The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 360 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... relies upon an order of the Government of India bearing No. 32 and 33/97, dated 22-1-1997 which shows that the CIF value of LDs was Rs. 200/-. Smt. Reena Arya submits that the market value could be higher. However, I find that it cannot be as high as Rs. 2000/-. 2. emsp On the ground over valuation also on the ground that goods are not notified I grant the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 65,000/-.
-
2001 (3) TMI 359 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI
Refund - Damaged/Short goods ... ... ... ... ..... he physical examination of the consignments by the Customs in the presence of the CHA has revealed the shortage and when the CBR Form has been duly signed by the officers concerned as well as the CHA, the lower authority ought to have gone by these. No other documents, in my opinion is required to be produced by the importer to prove that he had short received the goods. The shortage was noticed by the Customs when the goods were still lying in the Customs area and as such, the claim of the appellant is justified based on the Customs documents alone. Further the Port Trust not responding to the notice issued to them by the Customs for the shortage noticed is not a ground for rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant. 10. emsp Accordingly, refund be granted to the appellant. The test of unjust enrichment will not arise, in the instant case, as the refund is on goods received short. However, verification regarding Modvat availment be made before sanctioning the refund.
-
2001 (3) TMI 356 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... e lay flat tubings were printed with the customers logo. The show cause notice alleged that printing was a process of manufacture and therefore the cost of printing should be added when computing the assessable value. The Assistant Commissioner relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of U.O.I. v. J.G. Glass Inds. Ltd. 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) 1998 (78) ECR 761 , confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The Commissioner having upheld the order, the present appeal is before us. 3. emsp Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel, fairly states that the cited order of the Supreme Court covers the issue but states that there was no cause for imposition of penalty. He submits that the assessees paid the differential duty immediately on receipt of the show cause notice. In these circumstances we find no cause for sustaining the orders of penalty. The orders of confirmation of duty are upheld. The orders of imposition of penalty are set aside. The appeal is allowed in part.
-
2001 (3) TMI 355 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... data. Even if they do not form complete data processing machines, there is no dispute that they can function as constituent units of automatic data processing system rdquo . Therefore he concluded that the items are appropriately classifiable under 84.71. Nothing has been produced in this appeal by Revenue rsquo s to upset the finding of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), who has considered that the lower original authority had also not disputed these facts and has merely stated in the Order-in-Original authority that ldquo But still I feel that the items cannot function independently rdquo . Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed this conclusion of the original authority based on ldquo feelings of his rdquo and not on material grounds and which was not passed on proper consideration of the facts. We find no infirmitiy in the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) as made out in the grounds before us. 4. emsp In view of our findings the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 354 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ements or fittings of metal, plastics etc. rdquo On a question from the Bench it was fairly admitted by the learned, Advocates that no writing/typing of any matter could be made on the entity. Therefore, we cannot accept its classification under 48.20 as claimed. (e) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying on Note 9 of Chapter 48, which specifically exclude loose sheets/Board from Heading 48.20 found that applying note 9 of Chapter Heading 48 the goods which are loose sheets in the size 18 rdquo x 23 rdquo and are printed, with each packet contains 72 sheets would not be classifiable under 48.20. He also observed that the appellants are not able to explain and to give reasons why Note 9 of Chapter 48 was not applicable. No such explanation has been given to us. Therefore we find no reasons to upset the findings of Commissioner (Appeals ). 5. emsp In view of our findings, we find no reasons to upset the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 353 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Exemption claimable at any stage - Claim to exemption, after clearance ... ... ... ... ..... rities do not dispute that the benefit of notification would be available. The only reason for rejection is that the claim for the exemption was not made prior to clearance of the goods. If this is a valid reason for denial of the claim the provision of Section 11B of the Act would be confined to cases where excess payment of duty is made purely only by arithmetical mistake. It is settled law a claim for exemption can be made at any stage. The denial of the claims on this basis is therefore wrong. 3. emsp The appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside. Payment of refund to the appellant, however, will be subject to its establishing that the conditions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act have been complied with.
-
2001 (3) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... instructed to pursue the matter before us today. This shows lack of interest on the part of the applicants. However, we cannot overlook the glaring fact that the applicants have an arguable case. 9. emsp In view of the above findings of ours, we think, it will be in the interest of justice if we allow the present application, subject to the condition that an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs be deposited by the applicants for purposes of Section 129E of the Customs Act within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of due compliance with this direction, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount. The matter will arise for report of compliance on 28th May, 2001. 10. emsp Since it appears from the record that Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant has no instruction from the applicants, the Registry should issue a copy of this order to M/s. Willingdon and Associates, Baroda at the address available on record, apart from issuance of copy to the party.
-
2001 (3) TMI 350 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ea. In fact, para 4 of that order makes it clear that the case was dealt with on the basis that for Central Excise duty purposes, instant tea was being classified under sub-heading 2101.20 as extracts, essences and concentrates of tea. The issue dealt with in that order was whether CESS was payable on lsquo instant tea rsquo . The definition of lsquo tea rsquo under the Tea Act was material to that case as CESS was leviable on tea. These factors are not relevant at all in regard to levy of duty on instant tea under the Central Excise Tariff. That issue has to be decided in terms of the description of goods in the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, we do not consider our order in Tata Tea case to be of any relevance to the present dispute. 6. emsp In view of what is stated above, we confirm the classification of lsquo instant tea rsquo under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2101.20, as has been done in the impugned order. The appeal which contends to the contrary, is rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 349 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification - Import Policy Schedule - Licence - Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to Chapter 39 has in fact been expressed earlier by a single member of the Tribunal in C.C.E., New Delhi v. Bhartiya Plastic Udyog - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 161. 7. emsp The departmental representative rsquo s objection is that the expression ldquo primary forms rdquo referred to in the tariff and the Explanatory Notes refers not only to the physical form but also to the quality of the material. Such primary form, he says, can only exist with regard to virgin material. Doubtless, the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System, while dealing with ldquo primary form rdquo indicates these forms to be the formation of virgin material. However, the same notes, as we have mentioned above, specifically include any such primary form of waste, parings and scrap of a single thermoplastic material. We have already attempted a reason for this. 8. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order confiscating goods, and imposing a penalty on the appellant is set aside. Consequential relief.
-
2001 (3) TMI 348 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... report was for 3 machines. (b) The final assessments of customs are made 3 months after the last clearance as provided by Regulation 7. Therefore the Registration is being finalised under Regulation 7 and the assessments since this finalisafion, are provisional. There is no bar on the assessments being finalised by the proper officer under Section 18(2). (c) We have considered the plea, that no bond was executed under Section 18, a perusal of Section 18 does not indicate that the order of provisional assessments thereon should be, along with and necessarily to be on execution of a bond. (d) Since, under Project Imports, it is the classification and not necessarily the value being contested non-disturbance of the value as pleased by the appellants in this case will not impugne the right of the proper officer to finalise the assessment as regards the classification, as in this case. (e) We find no merits in this appeal. 4. emsp In view of our findings, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 327 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Baggage - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... hat confiscation of the goods which were otherwise freely importable is not called for and set aside the confiscation of such goods valued at Rs 4.24 lakhs. We confirm the confiscation of the spectacle frames as not having challenged. We also confirm the confiscation of other goods valued at Rs 2.76 lakhs under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. 7. emsp We however permit their redemption on payment of fine. Having regard to the fact that the appellant did attempt to import these goods without a licence, and their value and quantity, and since the possibility that it cannot be excluded in the facts of this case, we direct the Commissioner to fix the redemption fine, not, as he may normally do, on the basis of margin of profit but by applying the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Act i.e. on the sale price less duty payable thereon. On the same consideration, we are unable to interfere with the penalty imposed and confirm it. 8. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2001 (3) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ely transcribed as ldquo M/s. Mitsubishi Chemical Inc. rdquo in paragraph 13 of the order and as ldquo M/s Mitsubishi Corporation rdquo in paragraph 14 of the order. The application for correction of the mistake is, therefore, required to be accepted. 3. emsp Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Final Order Nos. 44-45/2000-AD, dated 29-11-2000 - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 99 (Tribunal), the correct name of the applicant i.e. ldquo M/s. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Japan rdquo shall be substituted for the existing entries ldquo M/s. Mitsubishi Chemical Inc. rdquo and ldquo M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation. rdquo
-
2001 (3) TMI 322 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M
EPCG Scheme - Interest on delayed payment - Settlement Commission ... ... ... ... ..... ncerned, for reasons discussed supra, the applicant is not liable to pay any interest to the Revenue. 3. The applicant is granted immunity from payment of any fine, penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The Applicant is granted immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, the Indian Penal Code and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 in relation to the bill of entry for which the Application of settlement has been filed. 5. It is reiterated that this Order of Settlement is limited to the case under settlement relating to capital goods imported and cleared by the Applicant vide Bill of Entry No. 9309 dated 27-1-94 (Thoka No. 20/2, dated 12-1-1994) in relation to which a Duty Demand Notice No. S/40-SPL/121/94 IIA, dated 20-8-1998 has been issued by the Office of the of Customs (EP), Mumbai. 6. This Order of settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of fact.
............
|
