|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 520 Records
-
2002 (11) TMI 732 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department - Limitation - Delay in filing appeal by 23 months ... ... ... ... ..... given any such power as has been granted to the Board under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, it cannot be taken that delay was caused while proceedings were being initiated in accordance with the statutory provision. Apart from the above even if such proceedings were being processed in accordance with statutory provision, we find that there is no justification for the long delay which had caused in these cases. rdquo 4. emsp In this case the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 16-3-2000 was accepted in review by the Commissioner on 20-4-2000. Subsequently the direction was received from the Chief Commissioner after more than 20 months to file the Appeal. Even then the Revenue took more than three months in filing the Appeal. There is no reasonable explanation to explain the delay. I, thus, following the ratio of the decision in Vishwanath Iron, do not find any reason to condone the delay. As a result the Appeal also stands dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 731 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Defence purpose goods ... ... ... ... ..... rts cannot be considered to be components for specialised vehicles peculiar to the defence services and thus be eligible for the exemption under the table Sl. No. 4(III). The imports in this case are by the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, which is engaged in manufacture and supply of vehicles of all kinds, specialised or otherwise for the defence services. This aspect of the notification is to be determined and for that purpose the matter is required to be remitted back to the original adjudicating authority for re-determining the exemption notification. 4. emsp Since we are remanding the matter for re-determining the eligibility to the notification under serial No. 4(III) of the table list A, we keep the other issues open for both the sides. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed as a remand to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration of the refund claim after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. 6. emsp Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
2002 (11) TMI 730 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat / Modvat Credit - Valid duty paying documents - rectification of mistake - Held that: - The deficiencies are such which are of procedural nature and on rectification the documents become valid for availing the credit. The deficiencies pointed out are such which will not have any adverse effect on the duty paying character of the goods.
-
2002 (11) TMI 729 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Show cause notice - Scope ... ... ... ... ..... e goods to fall under the definition of capital goods, is that, it should be used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. rdquo 5. emsp The Commissioner has further held that, w.e.f. 18-5-1995, Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods was admissible under Rule 57D(2). Thus, the ground on which the show cause notices proposed to deny Modvat credit on the afore-listed items under Rule 57A has been virtually rejected by the original authority itself. No other ground was raised by the Department in the show cause notices to deny the Modvat credit. The adjudicating authority ought to have vacated the demand of duty on the strength of its own findings. In this view of the matter, the credit of duty on the afore-listed items used in the manufacture of electric arc furnace and ferro alloys is held to be admissible to the appellants under Rule 57A. The appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 728 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Readjudication on remand - Scope of - Refund arising out of change in classification
-
2002 (11) TMI 727 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Maintainability of - Quasi-judicial action - Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... e under Section 11A of the Act was illegal. In Hyderabad Industries (supra) this Tribunal set aside Central Excise Supdt. rsquo s letter demanding duty, on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 11A was not followed. In Aluminium Industries, (supra), the question arose as to whether an order of the Supdt. asking the assessee to reverse Modvat credit under Rule 57-I was quasi-judicial or administrative. It was held that the order was in exercise of quasi-judicial power under Rule 57-I and hence appealable under the Act to the Collector (Appeals). In Shree Baidyanatgh Ayurved Bhawan (supra) a communication sent by the Supdt. raising a demand of duty on the assessee was set aside on the ground that it was not preceded by issuance of show cause notice. All these decisions are squarely in support of the present appellants rsquo case. Hence the proceedings of the Supdt. of Central Excise and the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside and the present appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 726 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration - Misplacement ... ... ... ... ..... aspect of the matter. In the present case the contention is that the declaration has been filed and acknowledgement has been misplaced. The appellant had produced corroborative evidence which was accepted by the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) in parallel proceedings pertaining to the same period has noted that there is force in the submission of the appellant that they had filed declaration as it had been noticed by the audit party and after due verification of all the records and other declarations filed. There is preponderance of evidence in favour of the appellant which was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 101/99 dated 21-12-99 pertaining to the same period in respect of two show cause notices. In that view of the matter I am inclined to accept the plea that the said dated acknowledgement had been misplaced and the appellants had filed declarations in the matter and as such the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 725 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... e lower authorities have rightly denied the extra 5 credit taken by the appellants after six months. 4. emsp After hearing rival submissions and perusal of the records I waive the pre-deposit and proceed to decide the appeal. I find that the appellant rsquo s case is not covered by Rule 57G(5) inasmuch as it is not a case of not taking credit within six months. It is a case of taking credit of a lesser amount under a wrong notion that the credit is restricted to 10 . This wrong notion has not been rectified even by the assessing officer. Since 10 credit has already been taken within the time-limit of six months by the assessee, he cannot be held to have violated the stipulation under Rule 57G(5). As a result, I hold that the appellants are eligible to get credit of another 5 as allowed under the amended Notification No. 60/97-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 27-11-1997. Consequently, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities including the order of penalty.
-
2002 (11) TMI 724 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS
Cenvat/Modvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... authority in his order-in-original No. 47/96, dated 22-4-96 in the case of M/s. Vijaylakshmi Mills Ltd. has held that the Modvat credit cannot be denied on the capital goods used in drawing, rowing and simplex process through which cotton carded/combed is not manufactured. The ring frame is used after the stage of drawing. The Central Excise Rules are common to all assessees. Therefore, when a facility as provided for under the rules are extended to some assessee, the same is eligible to other assessees also. So the Modvat credit taken on draw frame, ring frame and the components for the ring frame are correct. Regarding the credit taken on sapcostat oil, the lower authority has already condoned the delay with reference to the declaration under Rule 57T(1) and also observed that these goods are eligible for Modvat credit. So, the credit on them is allowed. 4. emsp In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the lower authority is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 723 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Additional customs duty paid by importer of inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ake it clear that as long as duty paying documents contain essential particulars relating to details of payment of duty, description of goods, their value, name and address of the factory or warehouse, credit cannot be denied provided that the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the inputs has been or intended to be utilised in the factory of manufacture of final products on which duty has been paid on the inputs. It is not the contention in the notice that any of this second requirement has not been complied with. As we have noted, it is only that there was no date mentioned in the declarations that were filed by the importer before the customs authorities intimating its intention to take credit. We note that on identical matter, another bench of the Tribunal held that credit could not be denied to the same appellant. Accordingly, we find no reason not to apply the ratio of the earlier decision. 6. emsp Accordingly, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order.
-
2002 (11) TMI 722 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Machines for fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... Nos. 1043 to 1067/02, dated 17-9-2002 and the judgments rendered by the Kolkata Bench in the case of Rupa and Co. Ltd. v. CC, Kolkata (supra) and Ruia Cotex Ltd. v. CC (Air Cargo), NCH, New Delhi (supra), has left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the case records and the judgments rendered by this Bench in the case of Premina Exports and 24 others (supra) and the judgments rendered by the Kolkata Bench in the case of Rupa and Co. Ltd. v. CC, Kolkata (supra) and Ruia Cotex Ltd. v. CC (Air cargo), NCH, New Delhi (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the knitting machines imported through the EPCG scheme are meant for the actual process of manufacturing the final product i.e., readymade garments for export and are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 29/97, dated 1-4-1997, under EPCG scheme. By respectfully following the above judgments, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 721 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding-up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ri Kurup. She has undertaken to hand over the said cheques to Shri Kurup who in turn would hand over the briefs, papers and files as per the list submitted by the company to the representative of the company who is present in the court. 8. It is clarified that the aforesaid two cheques are in respect of the company Phulchand Exports Ltd. and Rivian Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Shri Kurup who is now present in the court has received the cheques and has handed over the papers relating to the matters of the aforesaid two companies. It is further clarified at the instance of Shri Kurup that it would be open to him to institute a suitable civil proceeding for recovery of the other amounts from the other companies mentioned in his notice dated March 24, 2002. These two payments do not cover the other companies mentioned in the said notice. It would be open to the companies to dispute the claims of the petitioner. 9. The company petitions are dismissed as above with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 720 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Refund claim filed claiming benefit of Notification No. 121/92-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... the exemption from the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) contained in the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Nos. 26/92-Customs, 34/92-Customs, 108/92-Customs, 109/92-Customs, all dated the 1st March 1992. rdquo It was also submitted by the Counsel that the party has not obtained any benefit in terms of the following Notification viz. No. 26/92, 34/92 or 108/92 and 109/92. This position has been fairly conceded by the D.R. 4. emsp In view of this position, we do not find any justification to deny the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 121/92. Accordingly, party is entitled to refund claim. In view of the submissions made by the DR, whether refund claim is subject to unjust enrichment or not has also to be considered by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law. Thus, this appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
-
2002 (11) TMI 719 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 9 of CETA, and not under Chapter sub-heading 3401.11 as a medicated soap, as claimed by the applicants. 2. emsp On hearing both sides and noting that it is not in dispute that Tetmosol soap is a medicated soap use for the treatment of the skin infection ldquo scabies rdquo , and also noting that the method of usage is only at the time of bathing, we see prima facie force in the submission of the applicant that the more appropriate classification is under sub-heading 3401.11 as claimed by them. We also note that the Commissioner has noted from the package/literature of Tetmosol soap that lsquo it should not be used by patients who have previously reacted badly in any way to the product. Rarely, a rash can occur after using ldquo Tetmosol rdquo , if this occurs stop using the product rsquo . In this view of the matter we hold that a prima facie case for waiver has been made out and hence dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.
-
2002 (11) TMI 718 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Adjustment of credit ... ... ... ... ..... chase, incidence of duty cannot be transferred at all. 7. emsp The object of requirement in sub-rule (2) of Rule 57E that the incidence of duty should be transferred is not clear. Unlike in the case of refund of excise duty where such a provision ensures that the benefit of the refund is passed on the ultimate buyer of the goods, there will be no particular loss or gain involved to the parties of the transaction. However the requirement, since it exists in the rule, must be complied with. The debit that was made of the duty paid by Lever to the account of the appellant had taken place before the appellant took the credit. The department does not dispute that the debit was not made or that it was made fictitiously. The reality of the debit not being questioned, the incidence of the duty has thus been passed on. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to take credit in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57E. 8. emsp The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (11) TMI 717 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Film sets and settings - Excisability - Works of art - Sculptures - Manufacture - Building hardware - Tailors dummies - Furniture pieces by the RFC division - Classification - Valuation - Furniture supplied to hotels/cafeteria - SSI Exemption - Furniture found dutiable by Tribunal
-
2002 (11) TMI 716 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... the presence of nitrogen is essential to prevent contact of the oil with the atmosphere avoiding oxidation. He however also says that it is essential to prevent an explosive atmosphere in the reservoir and their absence of inert atmosphere may give rise to explosion in the reservoir ldquo finally leading to stoppage of synthesis gas compressor and hence the production stoppage for the plant rdquo . Therefore, even if the use of the nitrogen is in the manner specified by the Commissioner, the consequence is clear that without it the final product methanol cannot be manufactured. Apart from the probability of explosion, the synthesis gas compressor will cease to function and so will be production of methanol. In such a situation, it is clear that the nitrogen gas is used in relation to the manufacture of finished product and it therefore qualifies for consideration as inputs. Duty paid on it is available as credit. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (11) TMI 715 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM - Unauthorised import - Date of effect of policy - Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... hat would be the position even if for some reason the announcement of that policy has been delayed by the Government. This being the case, the finding that the importation of the goods was unauthorised cannot be interfered. 4. emsp The Commissioner (Appeals) has said, ldquo I am not inclined to reduce the quantum of fine or penalty as the appellant did not tell the truth and tried to mislead me. rdquo He does not specify how he was attempted to be misled. The quantum of fine ordered and penalty imposed had to be considered on the merits of the case and it is not appropriate for the Commissioner (Appeals) to let his personal feelings as to the conduct of the appellant rsquo s representative influence him in coming to the conclusion in this regard. There is however, no material to show that margin of profit of such goods was lower than the fine imposed. Having regard to this fact, I set aside the penalty on the importer otherwise confirm the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
-
2002 (11) TMI 714 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Cenvat/Modvat - Delayed re-credit after initial reversal ... ... ... ... ..... ices. Affidavits of the transporters were also filed. However, the Asstt. Commissioner has not considered the said applications and has not given any reasons about the dissatisfaction about the loss of the duplicate. He has simply observed that since you have taken the credit on basis of the original the appellant is required to reverse the same vide his letter dated 1-3-95. As such, I am of the view that once the appellant takes a stand that the duplicates have been lost and he has followed the procedure, the Asstt. Commissioner should have considered the said ground of loss of duplicates and should have allowed the Modvat credit. For the said purposes, I remand the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner for de novo adjudication in respect of the demand of duty on this ground. He would also look into the appellants rsquo grievance of the demand being time barred. 7. emsp Needless to say that the appellant would be given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order.
-
2002 (11) TMI 713 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... . for 1993-94 and Rs. 3,641.42 per M.T. for 1994-95. No appeal has been filed by the appellants against the said order within the time limit specified under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act. If the appellants were aggrieved with the determination of the assessable value of the resin coated sand, the right forum to approach was the Appellate Tribunal and not to enter into correspondence with the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner. The appellants have not thus advanced sufficient cause for explaining the delay in filing the present appeal. In our view, correspondence with the department on the adjudication order duly passed by the competent authority cannot be a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal with the Appellate Tribunal. The letter dated 18-4-2002 cannot by any stretch of imagination can be treated to be an Adjudication Order. We accordingly reject the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
........
|
