|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 716 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty - Abatement of duty - Closure of factory ... ... ... ... ..... the intimation was for commencing the production from Saturday, i.e. Production was restarted on 13-12-97 in the said case, but the letter dated 13-12-97 was received by the Department on 15-12-97 on account of both the 13th and 14th December, 1997 being closed holidays. The facts remained that the Appellants had sent an intimation on the specific date but the same could not be delivered by the Courier as the offices were closed. In the present matter, the Appellants have not sent the intimation at all on the date specified in Rule 96ZO(2). Similarly in the case of DC Steel Pvt. Ltd. the facts are different inasmuch as when the Superintendent verified the stock and the meter reading, it was found to be same as declared in the letter, no such pleading had been made in the present matter. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner for denying the abatement for the period 31-1-98 and 1-2-98. 7. emsp The Appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 715 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Order - Natural Justice - Speaking order ... ... ... ... ..... he Commissioner. I have heard Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant and Shri H.C. Verma, JDR for the respondents. As one can see, the above order by the Commissioner is non-speaking and is passed without considering the facts. It is not stated as to why the godown in which the excisable goods are destroyed by the fire accident is not considered the declared one. It is also not stated as to why the precautions taken by the party are not considered proper precautions to avoid the fire accident. This Order is therefore subjective and arbitrary and it cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the appellants are granted the stay. The impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to her for passing a de novo speaking order in the matter. The appellants shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of making written representation and personal hearing before taking the final view in the matter. The appeal is thus allowed by remand in these terms.
-
2002 (7) TMI 714 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M
Settlement of case - Immunity from penalty, interest, fine and prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ould meet the need of justice. Duty The amount of Rs. 2,29,341/- already paid by the applicant towards full duty liability is confirmed for settlement. Penalty and Interest Considering the co-operation and true disclosure of duty liability a total immunity is granted from penalty and interest. Fine Considering the above facts, it is noticed that the goods were liable to confiscation and they were provisionally released on Bond and Bank Guarantee. However, for the reasons discussed above a fine in lieu of confiscation amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs is imposed on the applicant. This amount should be recovered from the Bank Guarantee of Rs.10 lakhs already furnished by the applicant. The remaining amount of Bank Guarantee is ordered to be released. Prosecution Considering the above facts of the case, full immunity is granted from prosecution. 24. emsp This order shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of fact.
-
2002 (7) TMI 713 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M
Settlement of cases ... ... ... ... ..... erves that the applicant has co-operated with the Settlement Commission and has made a full and true disclosure of his duty liability without any protest. In this view of the matter, the Commission waives imposition of fine and penalty on the applicant under Central Excise Act, 1944. (c) emsp Interest As discussed supra the applicant has agreed and admitted the entire duty liability as demanded in the show cause notice without any contest. The applicant has also co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceeding before it. Keeping this in mind, the Commission grants immunity from interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944. (d) emsp Prosecution The applicant is given immunity from prosecution under Central Excise Act, 1944 and under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to the matter covered in this application. This settlement order shall be void if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts.
-
2002 (7) TMI 712 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation - Suppression ... ... ... ... ..... ay cannot be afforded too. Your help and guidence is solicited. 7. emsp A reading of the above letter show that the appellant placed all the facts before the Revenue. We also note that inspite of all facts having been placed before the Revenue they were not granted a manufacturers rsquo licence, but were regd. as a dealer. The factum of registration as a dealer reflects upon the Revenue rsquo s understanding at that point of time that the appellant is not to be considered as a manufacturer. As such it is not open to the Revenue to allege suppression against the appellant subsequently and confirm demand of duty by invoking the extended period of limitation. From the impugned order we find that the Commissioner has not given any justifiable reasons for invoking the extended period. In these circumstances we are of the view that the entire demand is barred by limitation. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2002 (7) TMI 703 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Prosecution - Criminal law - Revision ... ... ... ... ..... the inherent powers but it will not treat as a second revision to interfere unless it is one of those rare cases where power necessarily has to be exercised. 14. emsp Learned Counsel for the petitioner took care and read statements of certain witnesses to urge that there is no criminal conspiracy that can be held to have been established qua the petitioner. Indeed once the Trial Court has held that there is a prima facie case drawn and revision petition has also been dismissed, this Court would ordinarily refrain itself from re-appraising the evidence and minutely go into the same. The interest of justice do not require in the peculiar facts of the present case that such an exercise should be gone into. Suffice to say without expressing any further opinion that it would not be appropriate to upset findings as if an appeal or revision was being heard. Therefore, necessarily the petition must fail. 15. emsp For these reasons petition being without merit fails and is dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 702 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ed under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had clarified that the above goods were appropriately to be classified under CETA Heading 39.17. 2. emsp Today, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, ld. Counsel submits that this Bench has already classified the goods under CETA Heading 39.17 in acceptance of the Board rsquo s circular in the present assessee rsquo s own case. Ld. Counsel further produces a copy of the Final Order Nos. 1719-1720/2001, dated 3-10-2001 CCE, Coimbatore v. M/s. Salzer Controls Ltd. - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 446 (T) passed by this Bench. 3. emsp Ld. SDR, Shri Sreekumar Menon, fairly concedes that the issue stands settled under the cited Final Order of this Bench. 4. emsp In view of the above position, we follow our earlier decision and hold that the impugned goods was classifiable appropriately under CETA Heading 39.17 for the material period (1-10-1996 to 15-1-1997). In the result, the Revenue appeal cannot be sustained and the same is dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 701 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Precedent - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 234 (Tribunal), West Coast Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 478 (T) Coromondel Prodorite - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 458 as also on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 713 (Tribunal). The Revenue in their memo of appeal have only contended that the said decision have not been accepted by Department and Civil appeals have been reportedly filed before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and the same stands admitted. However, it is not the Revenue rsquo s contention that the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has granted stay of operation of the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). As such, we are of the view that the Tribunal rsquo s decisions holding the field are required to be followed till the same are set aside by the Higher Appellate Forum. As such, we do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same.
-
2002 (7) TMI 697 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - Contemporaneous import ... ... ... ... ..... nvoice issued by the manufacturer, the Deputy Commissioner has also referred other bill of entries dated 26-9-2001 and 5-9-2001 showing the price of lsquo maxam rsquo brand soap as US 5.00 per carton. These bill of entries are more contemporaneous to the appellants rsquo importation inasmuch as the appellants rsquo invoice is dated 27-6-2001. The Deputy Commissioner has also observed that the other comparable soaps and brands from China are being imported at US 5.00 per carton. The appellants, though contended that they have produced evidences of contemporaneous import before the lower authorities, but we find no mention of the same in the impugned order. The appellants have also failed to show that such evidences were placed by them before the lower authorities. They have also not shown any written contract between them and the foreign supplier for supply of the goods at such a lower rate. In view of the above discussions, we find no merits in the appeal and reject the same.
-
2002 (7) TMI 696 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Re-adjudication - Production capacity based duty - Annual capacity of production ... ... ... ... ..... sue involved and on the other hand they have submitted a report of a Technical Expert certifying that the quality of the steel manufactured by them can be made only by intermediate process of secondary refining. The Revenue has not brought on record any report from a technical person. In view of this, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with direction to get the plant of the Appellants examined by a Technical Expert to ascertain the factual position as to whether it is a composite plant consisting of induction furnace with secondary refining facility and possessing continuous casting facility, within the same premises at the relevant time and then adjudicate the matter afresh after following the principles of natural justice. The Appellants will also inform the Department about any modification/changes made by them in the plant and machinery during/after the relevant period. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. The Stay Petition also stands disposed of.
-
2002 (7) TMI 691 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim when matter is sub-judice ... ... ... ... ..... ount deposited by them has to be appropriated towards the duty affirmed against the appellants. The learned Counsel has not disputed that even the order of the Commissioner affirming the duty demand against the appellants, has been upheld by the Tribunal. He has no doubt stated that the validity of that order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellants and the matter is sub judice before the higher Court, but he has admitted that the operation of the order of the Tribunal has not been so far stayed. If that order of the Tribunal is ultimately set aside, it is only then that the appellants will become entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them. But, at this stage, they have no right to claim the refund of the amount, so deposited when the duty demand stands confirmed against them. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and uphold the same. 4. emsp As a result, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 688 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim when matter is sub-judice ... ... ... ... ..... ount deposited by them has to be appropriated towards the duty affirmed against the appellants. The learned Counsel has not disputed that even the order of the Commissioner affirming the duty demand against the appellants, has been upheld by the Tribunal. He has no doubt stated that the validity of that order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellants and the matter is sub judice before the higher Court, but he has admitted that the operation of the order of the Tribunal has not been so far stayed. If that order of the Tribunal is ultimately set aside, it is only then that the appellants will become entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them. But, at this stage, they have no right to claim the refund of the amount, so deposited when the duty demand stands confirmed against them. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and uphold the same. 4. emsp As a result, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 685 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Import, fraudulent, by an unknown person - Confiscation - Re-shipment ... ... ... ... ..... port. From the impugned order, we do not find, any effort made to determine as to what was the value as per Section 14 of the Customs Act of the goods i.e. lead scrap, Ball Bearings permissible and restricted under import. The determination of value under Section 14 was required to be arrived at by the proper officer, as the Mazhar values cannot be accepted as Section 14 value. After arriving at these findings, a nominal reshipment fine only related to banned/restricted value goods, should have been determined. Since no valuation has been separately arrived at, we are not in a position to determine as to what could be the nominal fine for re-shipment in the facts of this case. We would therefore, set aside the order and remit the same to the Adjudicator, to redetermine the CIF value of the different kinds of goods, separately, and thereafter determine the reshipment fine, if any, required to be imposed, in the facts of this case. 6. emsp Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (7) TMI 684 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - EXIM - VBAL - Review by Board ... ... ... ... ..... ure of export products under DEEC. There is no basis for the Department rsquo s stand that the order of the Commissioner is not correct. Therefore we dismiss appeal No. C/400/1999-Bom of the Revenue. 6. emsp In view of the above we accept the contention of the importers that the correct amount required to be reversed and actually reversed by them was only Rs. 5,24,829/-. Since the importers had reversed the above mentioned amount and also paid interest thereon within the amnesty period i.e., 31-1-1997 the condition of Notification 203/92, dated 19-3-1992 stood fulfilled and the importers were entitled to refund of the excess reversal of Rs. 1,11,75,467/- made by them. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and allow appeal No. E/1837/2000-Mum and set aside the confirmation of duty demand and allow the appeal No. E/3260/2001-Mum. 7. emsp In the result the appeal of the Revenue is rejected while the appeals of the importers are allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 683 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... he contention raised by the applicant. On a reading of the Memorandum of Appeal, it is seen that the appellant intended to file the same as an appeal. But for the purpose of escaping from the provision of limitation, the applicant submits that it has to be treated as cross appeal. Since cross appeal is held not maintainable, the applicant submits that memorandum is to be treated as a memorandum of appeal and not cross objection. We do not find the above as justifiable reason to condone delay in filing the appeal. Apart from the above, on going through the memorandum of appeal, it is seen that the challenge is against the final finding and not against the notification. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) that the appeal from the final finding of the Designated Authority is not maintainable. 4. emsp In the light of the above, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal.
-
2002 (7) TMI 682 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Remand - Rectification of mistake in Deputy Commissioner’s order ... ... ... ... ..... nk it is incumbent on us to remedy a vice that has crept into the impugned proceedings. The aforesaid mistake relating to tariff sub-heading in the operative part of the Dy. Commissioner rsquo s order is obviously a typographical or clerical error. The Dy. Commissioner had no power of review. Hence the power of review vested in the Commissioner ought to have been exercised under the relevant provision of the Customs Act for correction of the mistake. Unfortunately that did not come about. The Revenue could have atleast made an effort to get the above mistake corrected through the procedure of cross-objections under Section 129A (4) when the appeal filed by the assessee was before the Commissioner (Appeals). That also did not happen. The matter has ultimately come up before us and we have got to set things right. Accordingly, we order that the Tariff Entry noted as 3810.20 in the operative part of the original authority rsquo s order shall stand corrected and be read as 38.12.
-
2002 (7) TMI 681 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... icating authority has passed an order which is appealable under the statute and the party aggreived has not chosen to exercise statutory right of filing of an appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund. In the instant case also we find that the appellants rsquo refund claim is based upon the classification of the imported items i.e. HCL Synthesis Furnace Parts, which have been classified by the Revenue under Chapter 68. The appellants rsquo refund claim is based upon their plea that the correct classification of the imported goods falls under Chapter 84. However, they have not filed any appeal against the classification issue. As such, in terms of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s order the correctness of the classification adopted by the Revenue cannot be challenged by way of filing refund claim subsequently. Accordingly we reject the appeal filed by the appellant.
-
2002 (7) TMI 680 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... the provisions contained in Rule 56A. We are therefore of the view that the exemption under Notification 201/79 dealt with by the Tribunal in the decision under consideration is on a different footing from the exemption under Notification 225/86. There is, no doubt, a passing reference of Notification 225/86 in the order such a reference however cannot constitute affirmation of the claim made by the appellant that the notification in question dealt with. 5. emsp The further contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed a number of such refund claims which has not been challenged by the department is also found to be incorrect. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the copies of the orders which the counsel for the appellant produces only has remanded the matter and in fact his order is silent on the applicability or otherwise of sub Section (2) of section 11B of the Act. We therefore find no ground for interference. 6. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 667 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Resin - Phenol formaldehyde resin ... ... ... ... ..... d phenolic resins and cannot be considered as phenolic formaldehyde resins. Chief Chemist rsquo s report has been obtained well after the issue of the show cause notice and a reading of the adjudication order and lower appellate authority rsquo s Order-in-Appeal E/2731/1998 does not show that this report was furnished to the assessees. In the other appeal there is a mention in the adjudication order that an abstract of the Chief Chemist report was given to the assessees. However, the lower appellate authority nowhere refers to the report of the Chief Chemist but relies entirely upon the report of the Dy. Chief Chemist which we have seen earlier, is not sufficient for the purpose of holding that the goods in dispute are not phenol formaldehyde resins. Since the material on record is not sufficient to establish that the goods are other than as declared, the contention of the department remains unsubstantiated. Hence the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 666 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... , hold that repacking of yarn does not amount to manufacture and hence we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 13. emsp In so far as the appeal of the assessee regarding imposition of penalty is concerned we note that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has rendered a finding that sufficient evidence was supplied by the assessee and, therefore, no cause existed for invocation of extended period. Since this aspect has not been agitated in the appeal filed by the Revenue we do not see any reason to ignore this finding. And since the extended period was not invocable to the demand of duty the penalty cannot be imposed as was held by the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. M/s H.M.M. Ltd. (supra). 14. emsp The two appeals are disposed of in the above terms by upholding the impugned order in regard to dropping the demand and setting aside the impugned order in regard to imposition of penalty.
............
|
