|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 354 Records
-
2003 (6) TMI 114 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Freight charges - Depot sales ... ... ... ... ..... mandate for adding the freight charges incurred for transporting the goods after the sale from the depot to the customers premises. The issue whether cost of transportation can be excluded when it is shown in the invoice on equalized basis would arise only in cases where Rule 5 is applied and where the assessee is claiming a deduction in respect of freight charges from a consolidated price shown in the invoice. 5. The above not being the position in this case, we find no reason to uphold the order passed by the Commissioner. 6. We, therefore, hold that in spite of the amendment brought to the statute and coming into force of the new Valuation Rules freight charges are not liable to included in the assessable value of the goods concerned in this appeal. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal. It is also ordered that the appellant will be entitled to all consequential reliefs including refund of excess payment made, if any. Appeal is allowed as above.
-
2003 (6) TMI 112 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Smuggling - Attempt to export - Confiscation of conveyance - Penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... of the appellant s car. The confiscation has been ordered on the ground that the appellant travelled to the Airport driving the car. This can hardly be considered as using the car during the attempt to smuggle the currency out of the country. Accordingly, we set aside the confiscation of the car and order its release. 10.The case involves attempt to smuggle over US 61000 out of India in a cleverly concealed manner. The appellant also was deliberately misusing his privileged position as a Pilot of the national carrier to commit the offence. In such a case imposition of penalty is fully justified. However, taking into account the fact that the currency did not belong to him and he was only carrying it out of the country on behalf of another person and the appellant is only a salary earner, we reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. 11.In the result, the impugned order is confirmed except for the relief indicated above with regard to the car and penalty.
-
2003 (6) TMI 110 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Freight charges ... ... ... ... ..... e assessees is justified in the facts of the case, whether the freight charges were shown on an equalized basis or actual basis, is totally irrelevant for consideration. 5. We, therefore, hold that in spite the amendment brought to the statute w.e.f. 1-7-2000 and the New Valuation Rules, freight charges are not liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods concerned in these appeals. 6. In Appeal No. E/3003/2002-NB(A) at the instance of M/s. Indian Glycols Ltd. demand relates to the period prior and subsequent to 1-7-2000. As far as demand prior to 1-7-2000 is concerned the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.). Demand for the subsequent period is also not sustainable in the light of the view which we have taken on the common issued raised in these appeals. 7. In the light of the above, we set aside the orders impugned and allow the appeals.
-
2003 (6) TMI 106 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Pre-mature - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... covery of duty which has not been levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded within one year in the case of imports and six months in other case or extended from the relevant date. Sub-section (3) defines relevant date and clause (b) of this sub-section provides that the relevant date in case where duty is provisionally assessed under Section 18, the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment. The notice that was issued to the appellant which has resulted in the adjudication or did not propose to finalisation of the provisional assessment but merely demanded duty under Section 28 of the Act. That notice is therefore premature. The correct course would have been to finalise the provisional assessment and if there was any short-levy, if required, issue a notice under Section 28 thereafter in the event that the department was of the view that there was short-levy or non-levy or erroneous refund. 7. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 104 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal ... ... ... ... ..... similar explanation was given in respect of trading activity of their trading. The Revenue authority had not made any investigation from the persons/ Firms mentioned in the slips to contradict the stand taken by the appellant. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Bajaj made to statements. In the first statement there is no admission regarding removal of the goods without payment of duty and in the second statement the proper explanation was given regarding the entry in the loose sheets. 10.There is no evidence produced by the Revenue to show that explanation given by the appellant in their statement is false or untrue. The explanation given by the appellant is verifiable, there are persons whose names were mentioned in the slips where they had send any goods to the appellant for job work or not. This exercise had not been undertaken by the Revenue. In these circumstances the demand is not sustainable. Therefore, is set aside. Consequently, penalties are also set aside. Appeals are allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 102 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
EPCG Scheme - Export obligation ... ... ... ... ..... e EPCG licence issued to them hence they were free from bank guarantee executed by them and also the letter of undertaking executed with the DGFT. In spite of the fact that the period of export obligation had been extended and that the obligation had been fulfilled within the extended period and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Commissioner he held that the condition of the notification as set out had been violated. Although the appellants did not bring to his notice the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 to Notification No. 160/92 which held that the extension of period of export obligation would operate retrospectively it is a fact that the law makes it clear that the extension of period for fulfilment of the export obligation was with retrospective effect and therefore the duty demand and the penalty are not sustainable and therefore we set aside the same. Confiscation is also set aside. 6. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (6) TMI 101 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... delivery has to be added to the value of the plant. The specialist supervision for dismantling of the plant and also engineering and consultancy, services rendered cannot be treated as adding in any way to the value of the plant. Since there is no clear indication as to how the various services have been valued separately. 10 of the amount of DM 23,100,000 should be added to the value of the plant on this account. 6. Accordingly, out of the sums payable by the appellant to Met-Chem specified in the technical supply agreement, only the amounts payable for obtaining a process licence from Midrex in relation to the proposed sponge iron plant would have been includible in the value of that plant, if imported. However, that plant was not imported. By amendment made on 25-7-1992 to the agreement of the purchase order for supply of sponge iron plant was deleted. This sponge iron plant was therefore not imported. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 98 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... .T. 342 (T), the Tribunal has observed that the credit of the pre-deposited amount after the passing of the order in favour of the assessee by the appellate authority in their PLA can be taken without filing the refund application. To the same effect is the law laid down in the case of Vimal Alloys v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2002 (48) RLT 550 (T). In face of this position of the law, the appellants had rightly taken the credit of the amount of Rs. 59,000/- in their PLA after the passing of the favourable order in their favour by the Commissioner (Appeals) under whose orders they initially made the deposit when they challenged the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, before him. 5. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the face of it is not sustainable being contrary to law and is accordingly set aside. The appeal of the appellants stands allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law and so also the stay application.
-
2003 (6) TMI 96 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refund - Maintainability of refund application ... ... ... ... ..... f duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India . And does not include excess debits taken under Rule 173-I(2). This case cannot be considered therefore to be covered by Section 11B. Therefore, it is not possible to uphold the orders of the lower authorities who have applied the provisions of Section 11B and not Rule 173-I(2) which would be the specific rule applicable in this case. In this view of the findings, the order of the lower authorities is set aside. (d) Since there is no claim required to be entertained for refund , the refund application as made should be returned to the appellants with directions that they should follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 173-I(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as applicable in this case. For this purpose, the matter is required to be returned back to the original authority. 4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2003 (6) TMI 95 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... uzafarnagar Steel, that act of approval was not merely a passive act or concurrence but involves active decision making and the Asstt. Collector was required to fully satisfy himself about the particulars of goods being manufactured and the process of manufacture wherever necessary and the relevant facts and then only determine the classification and pass the appropriate orders. In view of the fact that the classification list has been revised and the reasons of such revision has been advanced by the appellants and the appropriate officer has approved the classification list, extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked. The entire demand pertaining to the period from 8-1-93 to 31-3-94 is hit by time limit specified in Section 11A(1) of the Act as the show cause notice has been issued on 12-12-97, which is beyond the normal period of 6 months. We, thus, allow the appeal on time limit without going into the merits of the case.
-
2003 (6) TMI 94 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Valuation (Central Excise) - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... that this issue on merit is covered against the assessee and the Tribunal in the cited judgments referred to by DR wherein it has clearly held that the price of the goods which are sold are required to be adopted for arriving at the assessable value with regard to goods consumed captively. In that view of the matter, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. We notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly understood the ruling and ratio of the judgment in the case of MRF Ltd (supra) which has been incorrectly applied as has been noted in the grounds of appeal. The ratio of MRF case pertains to price of different class of buyers which is not the case in the present matter. As such, the citations referred to by Revenue to adopt the price of goods sold to outsiders for captive consumption applies to the facts of the case. Therefore, in view of Commissioner s order being not legal and proper, the said order is set aside and Revenue appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 93 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) - Contemporaneous imports ... ... ... ... ..... fact that a similar machine had been imported at Patparganj, ICD at a price of Rs. 12 lakhs. In an appeal filed by Revenue, we confirmed this order vide our Final Order dated 12-6-2003 in Appeal No. C/169/2002-NB(A). It is not known how the present adjudication proceedings which are subsequent to that order, missed this information and went by the data provided by an agent about a purported 1993 import at Madras, that too when import data is believed to be stored in computer and available for reference. It is also clear from this that there is variation in the prices of second-hand Adast Dominant Offset Printing machine and the present valuation at over Rs. 24.55 lakhs is not supportable. Needless to say, what is true of second-hand Adast Dominant Offset Printing press would be true of second-hand Heidelberg and Ryobi machines also. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2003 (6) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... t clear that the doctrine of unjust enrichment would apply to capital goods also. As noted above, the above noted judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the cases of Solar Pesticides does not say anything about capital goods and it deals only with captive consumption of imported raw material. Be that as it may, in the instant case, the facts are entirely different as noted above as capital goods viz. ESPs have been only used captively for pollution control purpose and the same were not used for processing or manufacturing of any final product, hence there is no question of passing of the burden of duty to anyone. 6. In view of our discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), is not legal and proper and we set aside the same, restore the Order-in-Original No. 8/99, dated 31-1-99 passed by the original authority and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
2003 (6) TMI 89 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Show cause notice - Confiscation - Demand - Export obligation not fulfilled ... ... ... ... ..... ommitments undertaken by them while obtaining the licence and having breached the same, they cannot clothe themselves with their plea that their Unit has been declared as a Sick Unit. In any case, the appellant cannot be extricated from the duty liability which has arisen and for which they had executed Bank guarantee. In our view, the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court cannot come to the rescue of the appellants as the facts and circumstances in the present case are entirely different. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner was right in proceeding against the appellants under the Customs Act. In any case the thrust of the plea of the appellants vide para 6 of the grounds of appeal was that the order of confiscation of the capital goods was not legal. We have held above that the order of confiscation of the goods was not legal and proper and we have set aside the order of confiscation of the goods. 6. The appeal is thus disposed in the above terms.
-
2003 (6) TMI 86 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... treading the article again emerges into original form as a tyre. This also answers the contention of the learned SDR that after the processes employed by the Respondents laser printer cartridge can do printing which the empty laser printer cartridge could not have done. But this is the purpose of carrying out repair/reconditioning to make the article reusable. The Tribunal has similarly held the activity of repairing defective picture tubes by dismantling the same and by adding new parts as not amounting to manufacture in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Samtel Color Ltd. - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 286 (T) 2000 (41) RLT 333 (CEGAT). Finally, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.S.S. Printing Industries P. Ltd., supra, has held that the work carried out to re-engrave the rollers second, third or fourth time, as the case may be, will not amount to process of manufacture. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order and reject the appeal filed by Revenue.
-
2003 (6) TMI 85 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation of goods - Absolute confiscation - Smuggling of watches - Redemption fine and penalty
-
2003 (6) TMI 82 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty and interest ... ... ... ... ..... al with the consent of the ld. DR for final disposal as per law. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has also filed copy of the Final Order No. 381/2003, dated 22-5-2003 rendered in their own case, wherein this Bench has set aside the imposition of mandatory penalty as the issue was covered in their favour by the judgment of this Bench render in the case of Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2003 (54) RLT 675 (CEGAT-Che.). The appellants had paid voluntarily the duty to the Government even before the issue of show cause notice. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules will not be leviable including the interest under Section 11AB. In view of the judgments rendered by the Tribunal and by the co-ordinate Benches the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. The stay applications are also disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 81 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit
... ... ... ... ..... o be paid. Recently the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Noida, Misc. Order No. 78/2003-NB(A), dated 1-5-2003 has directed the Department to pay interest at the rate of 12 from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 12-2-2002. The learned Advocate for M/s. Sharda Synthetics Ltd., has pleaded for payment of interest after three months from the date of Tribunal s Order dated 19-10-94. Thus, following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd., supra, we hold that the Appellant No. 1 is eligible to interest on the amount of Pre-deposit from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 19-10-1994 till the date of payment i.e. 22-6-2000. M/s. Hindustan Wires Products have claimed the interest from 8-5-1996 to 14-1-99 which is admissible to them. Thus both the appeals are allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 80 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Cross-objection - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Policy that gold may be sent to the Government mint or private mint and may be returned to them in gold bars, i.e. by not using the term waste or wastage. The Policy recognises that in the manufacture of gold and jewellery, there can be invisible wastage. In fact Clause (10) of the notification specifically provides that the Assistant Commissioner may allow the loss of percentage of gold in column 2 of the table. From the reading of Clause (10), it is clear to us that the Government recognises such invisible loss arising in the manufacture of jewellery out of the gold imported. 19. We are therefore of the view that on the merits also the department does not have good case. Therefore, imposition of penalty on the appellants is wrong in law. We are of the view that the words used in Clauses (5), (8) and (10) of the notification have not been appreciated by the adjudicating authority. 20. All the appeals are therefore allowed with consequential relief, if any, according to law.
-
2003 (6) TMI 79 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Software - Computer software - Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... invoice or in the price list, the appeal memorandum filed by the Department indicates that the split of the value is not reasonable and is artificially done. Therefore, we hold that the satisfaction of the proper officer required under the said proviso (b) to Section 19 does not exist. 20.Accordingly, we hold that the printer merits classification under sub-heading 8471.60 and the driver software on CD is classifiable under sub-heading 8524.39. However, both together are liable for assessment under sub-heading 8471.60 on a combined value of US 150.27 per piece, since no separate value is indicated for the software either in the invoice or in the price list. We also hold that the provisions of Section 19 of Customs Act, 1962 and Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963, have been applied correctly in the instant case by the original adjudicating authority. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and restore the order-in-original. 21.Department s appeal is allowed.
....
|
