|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 354 Records
-
2003 (6) TMI 78 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... s to be accepted. The penalty has been imposed under Clause (b) of Section 112, on the ground that Bureau Veritas vetted this declaration of the value by the importer. The lack of care that the Commissioner assigns on his part fall short of the requirement of abetment, implying a conscious awareness of the act or omission of an abettor, that is required for penalty to be imposed under this clause. It would also follow from our earlier discussions on the appeal of the importer that the price of a rig depends upon the industry plays of number of factors. In view of the background, it is difficult to imagine that Bureau Veritas would have changed its value if the importer had brought to its notice the fact of the earlier sale. It must also be noted that sales of rigs are not a secret matter. They are regularly reported in the publications of Bassoe Jeferies, no doubt others. We, therefore, do not find grounds for imposition of penalty. 28.The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 77 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... d in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints Ltd. - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 and Pawan Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24. In Ujagar Prints, the Supreme Court said that value for assessment of the goods manufactured by a job worker will consist of the total of the cost of raw material, manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit. Rule 11 is residuary rule determining the value. In other words, the value of such goods manufactured on job work will be governed by the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints. 5. Apart from anything else, the Board s circular was binding upon the departmental authorities who could not issue a notice contrary to or pass an order not being an appellate authority, contrary to it. We have already indicated above that the provision of Rule 8 will not apply to a situation of job work. 6. The appeals are allowed and the impugned orders set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 75 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Interest on delayed payment ... ... ... ... ..... 41) E.L.T. 278 (T) 2002 (48) RLT 177 (CEGAT - Bang.) as well as decision in the case of Eicher Demm v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 227 (T) 2001 (47) RLT 275 (CEGAT - Del.) . He said that in both cases it was held that provisions of Section 11AB not invocable in a Modvat case as proceedings are not under Section 11A ibid. In both cases, levy of interest under Section 11AB has been set aside. 3. Heard Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, JDR, for Revenue who justified the action of the Department in imposing the interest. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. On going through the relevant Sections 11AB and 11AC and taking into consideration of the wordings thereon and following the decisions referred to above, I find there is no justification to levy interest under Section 11AB since the wordings are of the same as that Section 11AC. In view of this position, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In the result the appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 71 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Boards - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... earlier. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Revenue appeal. 3. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue at length in the light of the Tariff note and HSN note. He has rightly held that the item has become a part of the machine as it has got a specific part number and it has been designed to work as a part of the machine and it is identifiable as a specific part of the machine. It is also seen that the Collectors conference has also expressed their view that the item is required to be treated as a part of the forge press. Furthermore, the Revenue is seeking a different heading from the one already adopted by the authorities, which cannot be done so at this stage as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Fertilisers Co. v. CCE (supra) and in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Senapathy Symons Insulations (P) Ltd. (supra), we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence, the Revenue appeal is rejected.
-
2003 (6) TMI 70 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Specified goods - First clearances - Valuation (Central Excise) - Cenvat/Modvat
-
2003 (6) TMI 69 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Vessel - Foreign going vessel - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... was no deliberate intent to evade duty attributed to the importer, we do not think any justification for penalty upon the importer or its employees. We set aside these penalties. 14.In our decision in Sedco Forex, we had found that the owner of the towing vessel could not be expected to be aware of the complexity of the law, and noting the absence of any intent, set aside the confiscation of the towing vessel and penalty. The same position would not apply here. Since the towing vessel Malaviya IV was on charter to Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the owner of the tug, Great Eastern Shipping Co., would have no knowledge of the intended use to which it was to be put. However, Oil and Natural Gas Commission being the person in charge of the vessel would have been fully aware of it. The rig would have been towed by the tug on its specific directions. In these circumstances, we confirm the confiscation of the tug, but reduce the fine to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
-
2003 (6) TMI 67 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ave two options. Either they can avail of the small scale exemption under Notification No. 9/99 for the entire financial year or they can work outside the scheme of Notification No. 9/99 for the entire financial year if that is more beneficial to them. In view of specific condition in Para 2(i) of the Notification they do not have an option to work within the scheme of the said notification for part of the year and to work outside the scheme for remaining part of the year. 7. In view of the foregoing, we do not see any merit in the appeal and we dismiss the same. However, we allow the appellants to approach the original authorities with a request to allow them to continue under the exemption notification beyond 17-8-1999 till the end of the financial year and if such a request is made, the original authorities should sympathetically consider the same notwithstanding the fact that the appellants had earlier withdrawn from the scheme. 8. Appeal is dismissed in the above terms.
-
2003 (6) TMI 66 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Sample - Dutiability and marketability ... ... ... ... ..... ng is essential for making the goods marketable. In the absence of testing the goods cannot be sold and they cannot be treated as marketable. This was the view expressed by this Tribunal in a number of decisions which have been relied upon by the Appellants. The Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd. has held that the quantity of cigarettes sticks that is destroyed in the course of quality control test is not liable to Excise duty. We do not find any force in the submissions of the learned DR that tyres are marketable even before the tests are carried out by the Appellants. If this contention is accepted, every product can be used even before testing. But testing is a must so that the product is certified as properly manufactured and fit for being bought and sold. Accordingly, following the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Tribunal we hold that no duty is chargeable on tyres which are destroyed in the process of testing. Both the appeals are thus, allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 63 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... erused the records and have heard the learned SDR also. The penalty has been imposed in the present case under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 4. The goods in question had been cleared against approved price lists. The Apex Court had held that in such a case there could be no evasion of duty. The duty demand is, however, being defended based on clause (i) of Section 112 of Finance Act, 2000 which was enacted to validate the duty demands made. However, Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 has an explanation granting exemption from penalty. It is also noted that the impugned order has no finding about the goods being liable to confiscation and that the appellants dealt with the goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the penalty imposed is not sustainable. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the penalty imposed is vacated. The pre-deposit made in terms of our interim order shall be refunded to the appellants.
-
2003 (6) TMI 62 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refund - Adjustment against demand ... ... ... ... ..... allenging the above demands by way of appeals and they were pending before the respective appellate authorities. In respect of Sl. No. 1 as pointed out by the appellants Counsel, appeal was pending before the Tribunal at that time. As rightly observed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Section 11 of the Act provides for adjustment/deduction of the amount payable to a person from whom same is recoverable or due under the Act. In the instant case, though adjudication has been completed, the appellants have challenged the same by way of appeal and his application for stay was also pending before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount has become recoverable or due from him. In the facts and circumstances Section 11 was erroneously applied by the adjudicating authority and the order passed by the authorities below on this issue deserves to be set aside. We do so accordingly. In the result appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2003 (6) TMI 61 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... on of the sale is to M/s. PAPL and that they are sharing publicity expenses with the appellant would show that the sale between the appellant and PAPL is not one principal to principal. 6. We find no merit in the stand taken by the Revenue. Revenue has no case that the price at which FRS is sold to M/s. PAPL is different from the sale price to the other dealers. Therefore, unless Revenue is able to show that there is additional consideration flowing to MBL from PAPL it cannot be held that the sale is not one principal to principal. By applying the ratio of Philips India Ltd. it cannot be held that sharing advertising expenses would amount to flow of additional consideration. There is no material placed by the Revenue to show that M/s. PAPL is a relative of HBL as defined under the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, even if it is sole distributor it will not come within the term related person . 7. In the light of the above, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeals.
-
2003 (6) TMI 59 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oard Circular is quite clear. The Board vide Circular No. 87/87/94-CX., dated 26th December, 1994 has clarified that in such a situation, the liability will be of the merchant-exporter. Therefore, the action, if any, called for was against the exporter and not the present appellants. As observed above, there is no material on the record to suggest if any action had been taken against the exporter. Moreover, the initial lapse, if any, committed by the exporter, of not obtaining the Block Transfer Certificate in time, stood rectified as the same was produced after the clearance of the goods as is evident from the impugned order itself. Therefore, for the minor lapse on the part of the merchant-exporter, the appellants could not be saddled with the duty demand and penalty. 5. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2003 (6) TMI 57 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waterproof fabric ... ... ... ... ..... specifically excluding from heading fabrics of Headings 59.06 and 59.07. None of these has been done. The Board s circular no doubt expresses one point of view, that it is the presence of visible layer that it determined for classification. It however does not answer the question as to why, if that were the intention, none of these steps which comes to account was taken. In that situation, therefore, we do not think it would be appropriate to say that the sole test to be applied of the visibility or otherwise to the naked eye of the coating, covering or impregnation. That would in effect result in ignoring the terms of Headings 52.06 and 52.07 which demand classification of waterproof fabrics in them without any qualification. On balance therefore, we must conclude that there is no ground for reconsideration of the earlier decision of the Tribunal, holding that such fabrics are classifiable in Chapter 52. 12.The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 50 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) - Components of engine - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tation operation, a Larger Bench of 5 Members of this Tribunal has held in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., supra, that the cost of post importation operation could not be decisive in directing the applicability of Rule 2(a). In Sony India case, Learned SDR has pointed out that many components were subjected to working operation which is not so in respect of the present matters. Moreover, Explanatory Notes of HSN mention that for the purpose of Rule 2(a), articles presented unassembled or disassembled means articles the components of which are to be assembled either by means of fixing devices or by riveting or welding, for example, provided only assembly operations are involved. The Note further mentions that no account is to be taken in that regard of the complexity of the assembly method. Accordingly, we hold that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules is applicable in the present matters. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals filed by the Revenue.
-
2003 (6) TMI 49 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Customs) - Price re-negotiation ... ... ... ... ..... procedure at its root, particularly a commercial procedure which is generally internationally followed as well as locally. Annexure Srl. No. Name of respondent and appeal no. Date of original agreement and original price Date of amendment and reduced price Date of bill of entry Reason for price reduction 1. Choudhary Ship Breakers C/1174/01 12-1-1999 US 6,62,171 21-1-1999 US 6,39,617 27-1-1999 Generator found of 400 KW instead of 500 KW 2. Rai Metal Works C/1176/01 27-1-1999 US 5,09,190 10-2-1999 US 4,88,072 19-2-1999 Generator found of 450 KVA instead of 450 KW 3. Rushil Industries C/1175/01 22-3-1999 US 16,78,560 27-4-1999 US 16,18,971 29-4-1999 Spare Anchor missing and one generator not working 4. Rushil Industries C/268/02 12-10-1998 US 10,91,302 23-10-1998 US 10,62,457 26-10-1998 Some parts missing viz conveyor belts and accessories 5. Attam Manohar Shipbreakers C/426/02 13-4-1999 US 9,70,906 20-4-1999 US 8,70,960 29-4-1999 Four pumps and four generator sets not working
-
2003 (6) TMI 48 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture - Labelling - Repackaging ... ... ... ... ..... rly refers to a process other than those earlier specified in them. Such other treatment cannot, therefore be one of the modes of treatment already specified, but must be some other treatment that is not specified. The Departmental Representative has no other ground to question the ratio of Ammonia Supply Co., or its applicability to the facts before us. By applying that ratio it would have to be held that the labelling or relabelling undertaken by each of the appellants did not amount to manufacture. Duty could not have been demanded from it or penalty imposed on it or on its employees. 19.Since we have found that the judgment in Ammonia Supply Co. is applicable to the facts before us, we have not considered the other elaborate arguments which were raised by both the appellants, including those on limitation, and attempted to be rebutted by the Department, summarized in the written submissions filed by both sides. 20.The appeals are allowed and the impugned orders set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 47 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... Ink and not under heading 3215.90. 3. We also take note of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Camlin Ltd. reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 638 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein the Tribunal observed that there is no reason to restrict the understanding of the words - Writing Ink , and after taking note of the H.S.N. Explanatory Notes, it was observed that the sub-classification of ink under 32.15 should be based on constituent material. The classification in the sub-headings is to be made on the basis that Writing Inks as per the H.S.N. Head Notes under 32.15 indicate that ordinarily such inks are based on water. The appellants had taken a specific stand before the authorities below that the ball point ink is water-based and as such, according to the said judgment, would fall under heading 3215.10. We agree with the above contention of the appellants. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2003 (6) TMI 46 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Tiles - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... aracteristic rendering them suitable for the use to which they are put. Such a contention however has to be supported by acceptable evidence. No such evidence is referred to or cited. 6. The second contention in the appeal, that the goods are known in the market as plastic tiles, is unacceptable. This from anything else, there is no evidence in support of this contention. It appears to us as misleading as the claim made by the respondent appears in its advertisements that the tiles are made of marble. It is relevant to note in this context that although marble and limestone may chemically be the same, marble is technically different from limestone on account of its crystallization. However, it is settled law that misleading claims as to nature of the product made by a manufacturer cannot form the basis of classification. 7. There is, ultimately, totally insufficient material in the appeal to justify the Commissioner (Appeals) contention. 8. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 45 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Manufacturer - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... yone else. It appears to us from the statement that he was functioning as an independent job worker receiving the materials from Godrej converting them into their required components of refrigerators and returning them to Godrej. We do not see any great significance in the isolated sentence contained in the statement of Ambre that this was a dummy unit. This one admission if that is what it is cannot have the effect of overriding the other evidence in this case showing to have its independent existence. There had been plenty of evidence to show Vijay Ambre and Co. was in fact nothing other than a hired labourer. The mere fact that he was a manufacturer could not rightly have impelled the department to come to the conclusion that he was the manufacturer. If at all duty was payable on the goods, they should have been demanded from Vijay Ambre and Co. 5. Penalty then would also not be imposable on any one. 6. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 43 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Dutiability - Marketability - Valuation (Central Excise) - Demand - Limitation - Penalty
....
|
