|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 313 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... or industrial use. This fact finds strength on the basis of the perusal of invoices as well as letter heads of appellant evidencing that they are manufacturing industrial cloth. Therefore, the goods manufactured by the appellant itself come under the purview of Chapter 59 and not under Chapter 52. The chemical report has clearly held that the product of the appellant is filter cloth and described its use for filtering purposes of sugar, paints, chemicals, etc., and similar industrial use. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants may be rejected and the product manufactured by the appellants may be classified under Chapter Heading 5911.00. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. We find that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case of M/s. Jyoti Overseas and M/s. Jagdish Silk Mills (supra). Therefore, following the ratio of the said decision of the Larger Bench, the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 312 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Order - Speaking order - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... when the transaction value has been rejected, the lower original authority was duty bound to spell out the reasons in categorical terms why he has rejected the transaction value and why he chose to resort to Rule 8 without sequentially ruling out Rules 5 to 7 of the CVR. He has not done this exercise. In view of what has been stated above we are of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the authorities below are not speaking orders. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders as well as the attendant orders-in-original and allow the appeals by way of remand to the original authority. The original authority shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing the appellants with copy of the SIB Circular together with its enclosures on which the Revenue has placed reliance to reject the transaction value. The appellants shall be afforded effective opportunity of hearing to rebut the charge of the Revenue. Thus the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
2002 (6) TMI 311 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Abatement of duty ... ... ... ... ..... l. In the decision in Verma Sports Industries v. CC - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 527 it was held that the provisions of Section 22 of the Act would not apply to the goods under consideration, since they have been supplied sub-standard. There is no finding in this decision with regard to applicability of abatement. In Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CC - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 435 (T) 1986 (8) ECR 410 provided that once the goods are cleared out of Customs control, assessment on the basis of reduced value in terms of Section 22 could not be done away. The facts in Drillco Metal Carbides Ltd. v. CC - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 138 did not relate to warehoused goods at all. The decision in Taj Mahal Hotel v. CC - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 588 was concerned with the applicability of Section 23 of the Act. 7. emsp In the result, therefore, we allow the department rsquo s appeal, holding that abatement was not permissible, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the Assistant Commissioner rsquo s order.
-
2002 (6) TMI 310 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... case, the alleged brand name owners, except for M/s. Gupta Traders to whom ldquo Ujala rdquo belonged, all others have disowned any claim or relationship with the alleged brand names. Brand name is property and it is unusual that anyone would disown such a valuable asset. In the present case the alleged owners have disowned the brand name. And there is no independent evidence to show that the words affixed on the voltmeters and ampere meters were brand names or that they belonged to any particular trader in question. In these circumstances, the finding that those were brand names belonging to others cannot be sustained and consequential relief has to be granted to the appellants. 7. emsp In view of the above position the duty demand made in the impugned order is reduced to Rs. 60,810/-, which relates to goods produced under the brand name ldquo Ujala rdquo . In view of the reduction in duty demand the penalty is also reduced to Rs. 6,000/-. The appeal is ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 309 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Evasion of duty on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... duty payment initially or any additional duty payment subsequently. Rule 57E prescribes that owing to any variation of price, change in the rate of duty, if the manufacturer of inputs happens to pay additional amount of duty later on the inputs and Modvat credit is availed on the duty earlier, then the user industry is entitled for additional duty paid by the manufacturer. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appellants are not entitled to the credit to the tune of Rs. 7,09,087/- on the basis of the certificate issued.... rdquo As already noted above, in the instant case there was no payment of duty initially nor was there any payment of differential duty and the duty was paid for the first time on detection by the department. Therefore, following our earlier decision, in the case of M/s. Amaravathy Co-op Sugar Mills (supra) we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and we therefore set aside the same and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2002 (6) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ability could not be raised before the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that he assessees could file a fresh classification claiming that the product was not excisable. 2. emsp In the present application relevance is placed upon the following judgment 1. emsp 1991 (51) E.L.T. 172 - CC v. Enfield India Ltd. 2. emsp 1995 (75) E.L.T. 329 - Maize Products v. Collector. 3. emsp 1994 (70) E.L.T. 225 - Polycone Paper Ltd. v. Collector. The application further mentions that these decisions had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. 3. emsp We find that these three judgments do not relate to the issue before the Tribunal. When the applicants themselves accept that these decisions had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal in the proceedings they are prevented from claiming that in not dealing with these judgments the Tribunal had committed an error apparent on the face of the record. 4. emsp On these grounds we find no force in the application and dismiss the same.
-
2002 (6) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... l for the appellants that roller assembly in question cannot form railway rolling stock. ldquo Rolling stock rdquo means ldquo the wheeled transportation equipment of the rail road rdquo according to Websters Comprehensive Dictionary. In commercial parlance also that is the meaning of rolling stock. The impugned orders, instead, seems to have taken a view that whatever rolls on rail is rolling stock. The appellants contentions based on HSN notes also seems to merit accepted. The classification under Tariff Heading 86.07 would appear to be incorrect and inappropriate. All the same since the impugned order has relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in another case, we consider it necessary to place this issue before a Larger Bench for reconsideration the issue of classification. 7. emsp In view of the above, registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon rsquo ble President for considering the constituting of a Larger Bench to consider the issue.
-
2002 (6) TMI 275 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Adjudication order ... ... ... ... ..... , validly or effectively issued or served under that section, notwithstanding any approval or acceptance or approval relating to the rate of duty on or value of the excisable goods by any Central Excise officer under any other provisions of the Act. However, we find that the said provisions are not having effect of setting aside the order passed by the higher authorities and does not have any overriding effect upon the orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal rsquo s order passed in the year 1994 directing the Asstt. Commr. to re-adjudicate the matter in respect of the classification only for the prospective period has become final inasmuch as no appeal was filed there-against. As such we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the corrigendum issued by the Commissioner travels beyond the directions given by the CEGAT in the above referred matter and cannot be sustained. Accordingly we find no merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same.
-
2002 (6) TMI 274 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification of goods - Fabrics - Classification - Interpretation of statutes - Taxing statutes
-
2002 (6) TMI 273 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... d thereagainst. We also take note of the fact that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant only after the Board rsquo s circular clarifying that the goods would be classifiable as insulators. Such circulars, as rightly contested by the appellant can be effective only for the future period and cannot be made the basis for demanding duty for the past five years period especially when the entire facts were known to the Revenue. In these circumstances we hold that the demand of duty is barred by limitation and accordingly set aside the same along with imposition of penalty upon the first appellant M/s. Unique Plastic Industries. 9. emsp In view of the foregoing the penalty imposed upon the other two appellants, who are partners and works manager of the first appellant are also set aside. Inasmuch as the appeal has been decided on the point of time-bar we are not passing any order on the proper classification of the product as the same would be only of academic interest.
-
2002 (6) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of Currency - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ning the following question of law ldquo (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, after setting aside the assessment for assessment year 1975-76 by its order dated 5-9-1980 in Income-Tax Appeal No. 12 (Gau.) of 1979 on Departmental appeal, was justified in taking up the case again, on assessee rsquo s appeal against the same assessment and in passing orders thereon again in ITA No. 296 (Gau.) of 1979. rdquo 11. emsp The Hon rsquo ble High Court replied to the question in the affirmative. 12. emsp Following these two judgments we rule that this is a case where the two appeals were required to be heard together for disposal. We therefore allow this application and recall our earlier cited order dated 31-1-2001. 13. emsp We accordingly proceed to hear the four appeals, namely 1. C/337/2000-Bom. Philip Fernandes v. CC 2. C/106/2001-Mum. CC v. Philip Fernandes 3. C/282/2001-Mum. CC v. Nilesh M. Popat 4. C/283/2001-Mum. CC v. Pravinbhai M. Kheni
-
2002 (6) TMI 271 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, C
Settlement of case - Admission of ... ... ... ... ..... Sheet for the year ended March, 2001. However, the Bench finds that it may not be possible to give such a facility as it would mean that the applicant would take nearly 8 years to pay the admitted additional duty liability. However, taking into consideration the financial difficulties expressed, the Bench orders payment of the additional admitted duty liability at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per month for the next nine months and the balance to be paid as a final instalment, in the tenth month. The applicant shall keep the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 7 lakhs deposited with the Revenue alive till the final disposal of the application. 9. emsp The application is thus allowed to be proceeded with in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962. With the passing of this order, this Bench acquires the exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any officer of Customs as provided under sub-section (2) of Sec. 127F of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2002 (6) TMI 270 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Compensation to Customs staff working at ICD ... ... ... ... ..... is to be separately compensated by an importer or an exporter or a warehouse keeper. Shri Jain representing the appellants, also fairly concedes that there is no other provision in the Customs Act making for recovery of the salary of Customs Officers. In that situation, we hold that the disputed amount could not be termed as, ldquo sum payable rdquo in terms of Section 142(1) of the Act. 7. emsp Shri Jain draws our attention once again to the preamble of the order as well as the clearance given by the Committee of Secretaries to the present appellants to persue this appeal in the CEGAT. We find that the bond filed by the appellants in terms of the Public Notice mention above, is not in terms of any of the bonds specified under the provisions of the Act such as Section 143 thereof. In this situation, we hold that the impugned order is an Administrative order and not one falling under the ambit of Section 129A(1) of the Act. 8. emsp The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2002 (6) TMI 269 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Adjudication - Repeated show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... We find substance in the said proposition made relying upon the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Calcutta High Court AIR 1961 Cal 195 in the case of Jiban Saha v S.K. Chatterjee wherein it was held that if the second/revised notice issued on identical terms notwithstanding the scope of the first one and taking advantage of the defence already disclosed by the noticee, in first reply thereto and also in the personal hearing, such second notice would be illogical and barred by the principles of analogous to res judicata. We do not therefore find any substance in the grounds made in the present appeal filed by the Revenue. The reasons pleaded and not applying the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of M/s. National Industries v. CCE, Nagpur, 1997 (94) E.L.T. 92 as applied by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) do not impress us. 6. emsp In view of out findings, we find no merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and dismiss the same. The cross-objection stand disposed in above terms.
-
2002 (6) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Order - Adjudication order - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... nt of the importer that the present goods would be sold to actual users remarking that the agreement between the importers and Palaria was a running account and not for specific purpose. He further observed ldquo in this view of the matter, I may safely say that but for the intervention of the Customs the goods would have been sold. rdquo On this logic he confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, this appeal. 2. emsp On hearing both sides we find that for this provision to be attracted what has to be shown is that the goods are imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by the Customs Act or any other Act. The import was in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Acts. No contravention has been established. In any case any order of confiscation passed on mere suspicion or on an estimate of the behaviour of the importer at a later date cannot sustain. 3. emsp This appeal stands allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.
-
2002 (6) TMI 261 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Appeal to Tribunal - Limitation - Conditional order - Adjudication order ... ... ... ... ..... rsquo s Counsel contended that in a way Range Superintendent had amended the order passed by the Commissioner and communicated to the appellant. On receipt of communication of the order from the Superintendent, the appellant has filed these two appeals in the Registry of this Tribunal on 26-4-2002 which are in time. Accordingly, there was no delay in filing these two appeals. 2. emsp Heard Shri Narasimha Murthy for the Revenue. Shri Narasimha Murthy on going through the conditional order passed by the Commissioner has nothing to argue and leaves it to the Bench to pass appropriate order. 3. emsp In the circumstances as explained by the Counsel and on going through the records, we are of the view that there is no delay in filing the appeals. In the view we have taken, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. Thus these two appeals are disposed off in the above terms.
-
2002 (6) TMI 259 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... . 2. emsp Heard both sides. 3. emsp It was brought to our notice that party had filed an appeal against the Tribunal rsquo s Order before the Supreme Court and the same has already been disposed of by the Supreme Court. Since the matter has already been considered and covered by the Supreme Court, we do not find any merits in the ROM application filed by the Party. Accordingly, ROM application is hereby dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 251 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Procedural lapses ... ... ... ... ..... were disallowed merely on the ground that the invoices were not authenticated which is a procedural mistake. In support of his plea, he has also referred to the following case laws - 1. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore 2000 (119) E.L.T. 185 2. CCE, Jaipur v. Herbicides (I) Ltd. 1999 (82) ECR 718 . 3. emsp Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that procedural lapse should not come in the way of denial of natural justice. Since the document with reference to duty paid is not in dispute, there is no justification to deny the Modvat credit. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Department. Therefore appeal is hereby dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... substance different in name, nature and use. The tap remains a tap and cocks or valves remain a cock or valve. It is well settled principle of law that only that activity shall be deemed to be an activity of manufacture in which a substance, new in character, name and use, is produced. In the instant case even before fixing the ticklies on taps, valves and cocks did not bring into existence any new substance and hence the process of affixing ticklies on taps, valves and cocks cannot be considered as a process of manufacture. We also note that no manufacturing process comes into operation while affixing these ticklies, ticklies are pressed with the aid of hand on taps, valves and cocks and thus the operation cannot be termed as an operation of manufacture for purpose of Section 2(f). 8. emsp Having regard to the above discussion, we hold that affixing of ticklies on taps, valves, and cocks does not amount to manufacture. In the circumstances, the appeal of Revenue is rejected.
-
2002 (6) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Assembly ... ... ... ... ..... t of components imported by them a distinct commercial product with a new name, character and use emerges rdquo . There is nothing on record in the matter to show that the process undertaken by the appellants with the help of 3-4 casual workers, a distinct commercial product with a new name, character and use has been emerging. Note 6 to Section XVI of the Tariff will only apply when there is any conversion of an incomplete or unfinished article into complete or finished article. On the other hand, Shri Mahesh Dave, Accountant, in his statement recorded on 15-3-90 itself has deposed that consignments at godown were received by Shivram Devadiga, Storekeeper, and trading in impugned goods which are purchased from various units whose names were also given by him. We are thus of the view that the Revenue has not succeeded in proving that the impugned goods were manufactured assembled by the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and both the appeals are allowed.
............
|
