|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 354 Records
-
2003 (6) TMI 414
Settlement Commission - Payment of admitted duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... t possible time frame. The intention for establishment of the Commission is to expedite and settle the cases and not to prolong litigation. For this purpose both the applicant and the Revenue shall have to cooperate with the Commission. In this case, it is found that the applicant has not cooperated with the Settlement Commission. The applicant has failed to comply with the orders passed by the Commission from time to time inspite of the opportunities given. As a result neither the revenue is realised nor the proper officer is in a position to take steps to realise the pending dues. 13. emsp The Commission therefore finds that the applicant has not cooperated with the Commission and is therefore sending the case back to the Central Excise Authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of Section 32L(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as if no application under Section 32E of the said Act has been made. 14. emsp All concerned may be informed suitably.
-
2003 (6) TMI 413
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... Authorities are rejecting the claim for Modvat credit on the ground that the Bill of Entry submitted by them was not authenticated by the Customs and there is no stamp and signature wherever the corrections were made on the Bill of Entry. It was open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to have taken up the issue in the event of any doubt regarding authenticity of the entries or investigations with Customs authorities that the correct amount of credit was taken. In these view of the matter, we hold that this matter requires to be examined afresh by the adjudicating authority to satisfy himself as to the authenticity of the entries stated to have been made by the Customs officers and pass orders afresh after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The adjudicating authority shall obtain the necessary clarification from the concerned Customs Authorities viz. Nhava Sheva Commissionerate before passing orders afresh. 3. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
2003 (6) TMI 412
Modvat/Cenvat - Demand for recovery of Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... order, before it is made, should be preceded by issue of a proper show cause notice mentioning the grounds under which the tax is demanded or Modvat credit is sought to be denied. In the instant case before me show cause notice simply state the non-availability of the Modvat credit to the assessee and it is not permissible on that count. It does not disclose the grounds under which the Modvat credit is sought to be denied. This would not have enabled the assessee to file a proper reply. In the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority has chartered a different route altogether in paragraph 8.3 of the order-in-original. It talks of ownership and duty on the transferability of the goods. The order-in-original in paragraph 7 extract above goes on entirely in different route. I therefore hold that the proceedings initiated by the lower authorities in the circumstances are wrong in law and therefore set aside. 7. emsp Hence I allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
2003 (6) TMI 411
Yarn - Metallic Yarn - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... of aluminium by the vacuum deposition process. To protect the aluminium deposition of metallised film, process of lacquering is a must. Out of duty paid metallised/lacquerred polyester film, metallic yarn is manufactured through micro slitting machine. rdquo 3. emsp It is seen that film was first metallised and that lacquering is a subsequent process which is carried out to prevent oxidation and to protect the aluminium deposit of metallised film. There is no dispute that the polyester film obtained for the manufacture of metallic yarn has discharged duty. In view of the above, we hold that the condition set out in Col. 4 against Sr. No. 10 of the Table to Notification No. 45/86 has been fulfilled by the respondents. Therefore, we extend eligibility of the benefit of the exemption under the Notification to them. 4. emsp In the result we uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals. 5. emsp The cross objection filed by M/s. Vac-Met Corporation is disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 410
Confiscation of goods - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... there has been no material justification it is not the question for the Commissioner (Appeals) for dismissal of the appeal. The imported item mentioned in bill of entry filed by the importer as ldquo RED VITON COMPOUND (Methanol Resistant). rdquo There is no dispute that the classification claimed was under Chapter sub-heading 3904.90. The classification was denied only on the ground that the goods were in the irregular shape. The classification of goods was made under Chapter heading 39.04 and it is found to be correct. Just because the goods were in irregular in shape that does not entitle the authorities below to bring the case under clause (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. The authorities were wrong in holding that it was expected of the importer to mentioned that the goods imported were in sheet form or bulk form, when the law does not require imported to do so. Orders passed by lower authorities are wrong. 3. emsp Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order.
-
2003 (6) TMI 409
Demand - Limitation - Extended period ... ... ... ... ..... ubjected the goods resulted in their transformation from industrial synthetic fibre. The Commissioner records this when he says that the fact that the assessee manufactured diamond polishing powder. We have held in similar order that there has been no such transformation and that the cleaning of the product has not resulted in emergence of the new substance. Perhaps, as we have indicated, it could be argued that sieving resulting in different grade of powder for different application could be manufactured. It could be then said that the sieving by it with the other processes resulted in emergence of a new commodity. The assessee had clearly indicated, in its declarations first filed on 1-4-1997, the fact that the product is graded by sieving. The information that was required was therefore available to the Commissioner. There would then to be no ground for invoking the extended period of limitation. 7. emsp The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 408
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... re. That is clearly unacceptable. Which process amounts to manufacture is to be determined after considering each of the processes in question. No doubt the cutting of the polyester film and laminated plastics is a necessary step towards the emergence of the final product, zari, laminated product, but to say that each such process itself will be manufacture is simplistic. If this were to be so, it would follow that in the manufacture of a fan blade from a large sheet of steel, each of the articles which emerges at each stage until the fan blades emerges is the result of manufacture. There has been a failure here to apply the test of emergence of new commodity. Sticking together at the edges of two smaller sheets polyester again would not amount to manufacture. It does not result in the emergence of the pouch. The product if it can be so called having three edges cannot fulfil the functions of a pouch, of holding something. It continues to be a sheet. 18. emsp Appeals allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 407
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... tment wants to put the final product that is after slitting the imported material under chapter sub-heading 48.23 which reads as under ldquo 48.23 Other paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres, cut to size or shape other articles of paper pulp, paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres. rdquo It is nowhere stated in the chapter sub-heading classifying the paper on the basis of the dimension of it namely width of the paper. Note 10(a) of the Chapter 48 mentions that process of slitting or cutting shall amount to manufacture in respect of thermal paper. Here admittedly imported material is not thermal paper. The show cause notice does not state that the product is of thermal paper. In the absence of such a claim in the show cause notice the entire action of department treating the activity is wrong. 4. emsp Hence, the impugned orders stand set aside and the appeal stands allowed with consequential relief, if any according to law.
-
2003 (6) TMI 406
EXIM - Re-engineering - Computers - Valuation - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... es not deny this. He however finds that while the order for the goods was placed on the Singapore firm by Tangerine Infomatique Ltd., the consignee was the appellant, located in SEEPZ, which is an associated company. We do not see how this fact precludes the availability of the lower price. The payment for the goods was made to the foreign supplier by Tangerine Infomatique Ltd. who would in turn recover the price from its sister concern. In that situation, we do not see either in law or in commerce the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of lower price. Therefore, there would be no misdeclaration of value. We also note that even if such misdeclaration, it is only academic in nature, since the goods in question have not been found liable to any duty. On this consideration, we do not find any ground for confiscation of the goods and therefore penalty on Hemrajani were not called for. 10. emsp Appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
2003 (6) TMI 405
EXIM - Import without licence - EXIM - Import without licence - Import - Capital goods -Exemption
-
2003 (6) TMI 404
... ...
... ... ..... umed for fabrics and how much would be sold after doubling. In view of the fact that the duty has been paid on yarn, we are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned Jt. CDR that the appellants should be asked to pay duty again and claim refund of the duty paid by them at the time of clearance of double yarn. It is difficult to see why such adjustment of duty paid and duty payable could not be done by the Deputy Commissioner himself. 3. emsp In view of the forgoing, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal as well as the order-in-original passed by the lower authorities and remand the case back to the Deputy Commissioner to adjust the duty paid at the time of clearance of the double yarn against duty payable on single yarn at the spindle stage. The appellants will be entitled to being heard before such adjustment is made and they will be liable to make good any short fall in the duty paid after such adjustment is made. 4. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2003 (6) TMI 403
Penalty - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... him had been exhonorated by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, no capital out of this judgment can be made by the appellant. Similarly, the ratio of law laid down in Hukmi Chand Ghewar Chand Saraf v. Collector of Customs - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 56 as well as Amco Electronics v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 650 referred by the Counsel, do not in any manner help the appellant in claiming the money especially when he himself had admitted that the money did not belong to him but to Mohd. Haniff. That being so, the claim for the release of the confiscated currency can be lodged only to Hanif Mohd. and not by the appellant who was only a carrier of money on his behalf. 5. emsp In view the discussion made above, the impugned order to the extent of imposing the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant is set aside and the rest of the order is maintained. The appeal of the appellant stands accordingly disposed of with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2003 (6) TMI 402
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ent relies on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Montari Industries Ltd. - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 662 (T-LB). It is seen therefrom that the gate passes in the said case were issued prior to 1-4-1994 and therefore the said Larger Bench decision is not applicable in the case of the respondent. Further, he also relied on the decision in the case of Chaphekar Engg. P. Ltd. reported in 1996 (64) E.C.R. 58. 3. emsp I have gone through the photocopies of the said decisions filed by the said Manager Excise and I find therefrom that original gate passes were issued prior to 1-4-1994. Therefore, he can hardly get any help from the said decision. 4. emsp After hearing both sides and perusal of the records and the case laws relied on, I find that the appellants have failed to fulfil one of the conditions of the said Notification No. 16/94 and in the absence of any relaxation to the said condition I am bound to go by the same and as such the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 401
Refund claim - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... actory prices also does not appear to have any merit. The assessments were originally allowed on provisional basis only because the depot prices, after necessary deduction was to constitute the assessable value. The provisional assessment have been finalised except on the question of discount, based on the depot sale price. In these facts and circumstances, the question of discount is also required to be determined taking the depot price as the basis. It is settled law that discounts, whatever be the name under which they are known, are eligible for deduction. In view of these facts, and circumstances, we are of the opinion that refund as claimed by the appellant merits acceptance. 7. emsp The refund claim relates to excess duty paid by the appellant about 8 years back. It is, therefore, just and proper that further delay does not take place. Accordingly, it is directed that refund amount shall be paid to the appellant within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2003 (6) TMI 400
Demand - Cause of action - Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, this plea also fails. 11. emsp So far as imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) concerned, we find that this Section deals with penalty for improperly imported goods. In the instant case it cannot be said that the goods have been improperly imported. Therefore, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) imposed on the appellants. As regards, order of the adjudicating authority for charging interest under Section 28AA of Act, we note that Section was inserted by Finance Act, 1995 (22 of 1995) whereas the dispute pertained to the period 27-9-1991. It is settled proposition of law that the provisions of Section 28AA cannot be invoked retrospectively. Therefore, order of the lower authority for recovery of interest is also set aside. 12. emsp In the result, while duty demanded in terms of the impugned order is confirmed, the penalty imposed on the appellants and order for recovery of interest are set aside. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 399
Confiscation - Vessel ... ... ... ... ..... y were used for transporting the smuggled goods. The Tindels of the vessels filed the necessary declaration regarding the list of private property of the crew members and store list. Therefore, it cannot be said the vessels were used for transporting the smuggled goods. There is no allegation that the private property of the crew members was not as per the list submitted by the Tindels of the vessels. 7. emsp In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the vessels were used for transporting smuggled goods with the knowledge of the owner or his agent. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Haji Harun Aloo and Sons and Others relied upon by the appellants in a similar situation set aside the confiscation of the vessels. The Tribunal held that the goods were declared in the private property list of crew members hence cannot be said to be smuggled. In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal on similar facts, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 398
Remission of duty - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ssment under Section 18 in respect of the goods in question. The finding of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to this effect has only to be upheld. It is also pertinent to note that, in the refund application, the party has not pleaded that the assessment is provisional and therefore, the claim for refund is not barred by limitation. On the other hand, they have specifically pleaded that the claim is not hit by limitation ldquo as the matter was in CEGAT rdquo . But this plea appears to have been abandoned in the memorandum of appeal. Moreover, the appellants themselves have no case that the refund claim was filed for any relief consequential to the Tribunal rsquo s order. 7. emsp The duty was paid on 18-12-96 and the refund claim was filed in April, 2000 only. The limitation provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act are applicable to this claim. The lower authorities have rightly found that the claim is time-barred. The impugned order is upheld and the present appeal is rejected.
-
2003 (6) TMI 397
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... er, the respondents admitted that they are only liable to reverse the credit of Rs. 19,790/- which was lying in their Modvat credit on the date when they opted for Compounded Levy Scheme. 6. emsp We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Rajkot v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricator, reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 277 (Tri. - LB) 2002 (48) RLT 789 (LB) held that the utilised credit is not liable for reversal when the final product is exempted from payment of duty. 7. emsp In the present case, the Revenue is admitting that some of the credit was utilised for payment of duty before opting the Compounded Levy Scheme by the respondents. As per the Compounded Levy Scheme, the only credit of duty lying unutilised was to lapse, therefore, only the credit of Rs. 19,790/- which was lying unutilised was to lapse and the credit utilised for payment of duty before opting for the Compounded Levy Scheme is not recoverable. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2003 (6) TMI 396
Winding-up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... being, I do not intend to cancel the bail of accused Nos. 5 and 6, but they shall execute a further bond before this court for their appearance before the investigating officer as and when they are required for investigation purposes. So far as the directors of the company are concerned, viz., accused Nos. 1 to 4, the bail has to be cancelled, otherwise, the public will loss confidence and faith in the judicial system itself. This court cannot take a passive approach in the matter and join with the laments of the poor depositors and express a sort of helplessness, but should rise up to the occasion and take appropriate deterrent measures to meet the ends of justice. 16. Hence, the bail granted to accused Nos. 1 to 4 shall stand cancelled. The investigating officer shall arrest accused Nos. 1 to 4 and produce them before the appropriate magistrate who shall detain them in judicial custody in accordance with law. Their release shall be only as per the directions of this court.
-
2003 (6) TMI 395
Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... oner. However, in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court which have already been noticed and analyzed, particularly in view of the fact that the earlier decision of this Court in W.P. No. 19442 of 1999 dated 10-2-2000, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1831 of 2000 dated 2-11-2001 and particularly in view of the subsequent decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8294 of 2002, which is directly on the point, I am unable to accept the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In such view of the matter, directions sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued. However, it is made clear that the respondents 1 and 2 may take steps for filing appropriate application before the Board under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of subject to the aforesaid observation. No costs. Consequently, WPMP. No. 27417 of 2002 is closed.
........
|
