|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 468 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 108 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... ssued at the time of removal of the goods from the factory, the allegation of undervaluation should fail and no demand on that basis can be sustained. Since we hold that the entire demand is not sustainable, it is not necessary for us to refer and consider in detail the contention raised in the appeals by the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner for the reason that he has not sustained the entire demand in the show cause notice. Since we are holding that the Revenue has not been successful in proving the allegation of undervaluation, we are not going into the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised by the assessees that, as a matter of fact, sale to the Bhiwandi buyers took place at the factory gate and not at Bhiwandi. 8. In view of the above, we dismiss appeals E/2943-2945/02 and 2946/02, E/1711/03 and E/1610/03. Appeals filed by the assessee E/2786/01, 3091-92/02, E/2787-2788/02 and C.O./56/03 in E/1610/03 are allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 107 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... permitted to operate prejudicially to the assessees. 9. In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that when the refund claim under Rule 173L of the Rules was rejected on the ground that the process of re-making or refining to which returned goods were to be subjected were not disclosed, otherwise, the manufacturer had complied with the provisions of Rule 173L of the Rules, in such a situation, the refund claim cannot be denied only on the ground that the processes of remaking were not explained by the manufacturer. 10. In the present case, appellants had complied with the provisions of Rule 173L of the Rules by filing D-3 intimations regarding receipt of the defective goods and by maintaining a record which was duly authenticated by the revenue officer, in respect of the movement of the goods in the factory and their clearance on payment of duty. In such a situation, the impugned orders are not sustainable, hence set aside. The appeals are allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 106 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Hinges and components thereof for motor vehicles ... ... ... ... ..... s). This heading does not, however, extend to goods forming as essential part of the structure of the articles, such as Window frame or swivel devices for revolving chairs. The heading covers (A) Hinges of all types (e.g. butt hinges, lift off hinges, angles hinges and garnets). 6. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) held that the structure of Central Excise Tariff is based on the internationally accepted nomenclature found in HSN and, therefore, any dispute relating to Tariff classification must be as far as possible, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by HSN Explanatory Notes unless different intention is indicated by the Central Excise Tariff itself. 7. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and in view of HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 8302.00, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 103 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Classifications of goods - Condenser parts ... ... ... ... ..... raph 8419.90 as part of heat exchange unit HEAT EXCHANGER 12. Core sub-assembly It is an assembly of tubes, fins and other parts made of aluminium alloy which is then brazed to hold together 8419.50 ITEMS OF GENERAL USE 13. Nuts Made of aluminium alloy. This is a machined Hexagonal nut with Internal threads 7616.10 Other articles of aluminium 14. Connectors made of aluminium This is a machined item made of aluminium alloy with holes to connect other parts 7616.10 Other articles of aluminium 15. Union Half (Pipe fitting) Made of aluminium alloy. This is a Hexagonal nut with External threads 7616.10 Other articles of aluminium PART-IV ALUMINIUM PIPES USED FOR HEAT EXCHANGER 16. Pipes Made of aluminium alloy. It is a bent tube with one hollow cross-section. It is bulged and flanged at either end 7608.20 aluminium tubes and pipes 4. In view of our findings, the classification is confirmed as per Para 3(g). Appeal disposed off in above terms with consequential relief, as per law.
-
2003 (8) TMI 101 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Manufacturer - Job work - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... produced. (e) No duty liability on stators, used in compressors repaired, could be effected from the appellants. The Show Cause Notice demands, ab initio, as confirmed are required to be set aside. (f) The Commissioner has imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the appellants. When no duty demands could be ordered to be confirmed in the facts of this case, on the appellants, they were not required to be visited with a penalty. If the appellants are not held to be the manufacturers of the excisable goods in question, viz. stators, they were not required to take out any license Registration under the Centre Excise Law and follow any Central Excise Procedures. Hence there is no case for infringement of any Central Excise Rules with an intention to evade duty, therefore, invocation of penalty under Rule 173Q is not called for and penalty as imposed is required to be set aside. 8. In view of our findings, the order is set aside and appeals allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 98 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Hospital equipment - C.T. Scanner ... ... ... ... ..... and Rehabilitation Centre. Following the High Court s ruling, we have to hold that the appellant s institution was not a hospital within the meaning of the notification and, therefore, they were ab initio ineligible for the benefit of exemption under the notification. Even assuming to the contrary, we note that the Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the DGHS was withdrawn by the licensing authority and, consequently, the appellants ceased to be eligible for the exemption from payment of customs duty. A plea of limitation also appears to have been raised in this appeal, which does not seem to be of any relevance inasmuch as, under the impugned order, there is no demand of duty. The imported equipment was rightly confiscated by the lower authority on the ground of violation of the conditions of the notification. The quantum of redemption fine cannot be said to be unreasonable as it has not been challenged at the bar. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 97 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Tubes and pipe fittings ... ... ... ... ..... ment are to be classified in Note 2A to Section XVI. The provision of Note 2 to Section XVI are subject to the provisions of Note 1 to it which excludes the classification of such goods. 5. The judgment of the Supreme Court that the departmental representative relies upon was not concerned with classification of components of goods classified in Chapter XVI. It was concerned with classification of bolts and nuts which ultimately form parts of motor vehicle. In coming to its conclusion that such bolts and nuts would not be parts of automobile under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 the Court was influenced by the provisions of Notes 2(b) and 3 of Section XVII. We are not concerned with these notes. Therefore the ratio of the judgment would not apply to the facts before us. Reliance by the Commissioner (Appeals) upon the various decisions of the Tribunal that he cites therefore cannot be questioned. We do not find ground for setting aside his conclusion. 6. Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 96 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Price variation clause - Limitation - Starting of - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... sification price indicated by the Department at the time of removal of the goods at the factory gate the assessee becomes liable to payment of duty on that day and time and subsequent reduction in price list for whatever reason (emphasis supplied) cannot be a matter of concern to the Central Excise department. Insofar as reliability of payment of excise duty was concerned, and confirmed the decision in the Tribunal in that refund would not be permissible to the assessee on the ground that the price at which it had sold its tyres had subsequently been reduced by an order of the Central Government. 10. We must also note that the certificate of the chartered accountant by itself would not constitute sufficient authority that the duty has been passed on. However, it is not necessary to consider this aspect since we have held it could not be allowed on merits. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside and the order of the Asstt. Commissioner restored.
-
2003 (8) TMI 95 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Cenvat/Modvat - Procedural lapses ... ... ... ... ..... g of credit which permitted the authorities to impose penalty which has been upheld. In the present case, there has been no mistake committed for imposition of penalty as held by the Madras High Court in the case of DCW (supra), the penalty is not imposable when bona fides of assessee is established. It is also held that penalty is not leviable for mere procedural lapse in absence of intention of evade duty. Now, it is well settled in terms of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. HMM Ltd. (supra) cited by the Counsel that intention to evade duty or any action which is not a procedural lapse should be proved to impose penalty. In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.), the Apex Court has held that penalty is not leviable even for Veneal breach. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner is correct, legal and proper and as there is no infirmity in the same, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 92 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Demand - Limitation - Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... searched the premises of both the Respondents and Corona Plus. In view of this it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that the facts were suppressed by the Respondents as the Department had already searched and an enquiry was under progress. Accordingly the Respondents are liable to pay the duty in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 11-1-2000 only for the period 6 months prior to the date of the show cause notice. The Department has not succeeded by bringing any evidence on record to show that V.C. Pai was on the Board of M/s. Corona Plus throughout the demand period. They have also not rebutted the findings of the Commissioner that V.C. Pai had resigned on 30-1-91. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Commissioner for computing the amount of duty payable by the Respondents. On intimation by the Commissioner the Respondents are liable to pay the duty as they are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 88/88-C.E. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2003 (8) TMI 91 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) - Comparable goods ... ... ... ... ..... and also the DR During the hearing the ld. DR produced a few specimen copies of invoices of Pile Fabrics . The said invoices related to the supply from Taiwan. Imported goods are of Chinese origin. No copy of the invoice containing the price of 0.84 US per yard equivalent to US 3.06 per Kg. has been produced before us. The appellants had agitated this point before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he has totally glossed over the issue. It is, therefore, not known as to how the said price can be applied to the present imports in the absence of establishing a case that the price relates to the price of comparable goods. The same difficulty is experienced in respect of copies of the invoices that have been produced during the hearing. In the absence of any other collateral evidence justifying rejection of transaction value orders passed by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, we set aside the order impugned. The appeal succeeds and the same is allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 89 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... Counsel placed before us decision of this Tribunal in Final Order No. 225/03-NB(A), dated 23-5-2003 and also Board s Circular 643/34/2002-CX, dated 1-7-2002 referred in the above mentioned final order. 3. We have heard ld. DR also. He submits that since the machines are removed from the appellant s factory in three parts, the decision relied on by the appellant as well as the Board s circular would not be applicable in the facts of this case. 4. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Even though the machine is removed from the factory in parts, admittedly excise duty is being paid as machine and not as a part of the machine. We are of the view that the ratio of decision in Final Order dated 23-5-2003 would be directly applicable to the present case also. The appellant s appeals will be covered by the circular of the Central Board of Revenue dated 1-7-2002, referred in the above final order. We, therefore, set aside the orders impugned and allow the appeals.
-
2003 (8) TMI 88 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ntinued with the Department. 3. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand would contend that there was suppression on the part of the appellant regarding the dispute relating to the 0.5 . He also submitted that since the appellant had not raised any objection on merits, on levy of duty, he cannot be permitted to contend before this Tribunal that the duty is not liable to be paid. 4. Taking into consideration the contentions raised by both sides, we feel that penalty imposed on the appellant is on the higher side. It is true that the provisions contained in the first proviso to Section 11AC, which came into force on 11-5-2001 is not directly applicable to the appellants case as the demand is in respect of an earlier period. But the principle contained therein can be applied here also. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards the demand of penalty. The order impugned is modified as above. The appeal stands partly allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 87 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... partners say, a, b and c has got more than one factory, all these factories should of course be combined. Limited companies whether public or private are separate entities distinct from shareholders composing it. Hence each limited company is a manufacturer by itself and will be entitled to a separate exemption limit. The above portion would show that the limited companies whether public or private are to be treated as separate entities distinct from shareholders and that each such limited company which is a manufacturer will be entitled to separate exemption limit. By applying the above provisions the production of M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. has to be considered separately for the purpose of exemption limit. We clarify the above position and dispose of the appeals. We, therefore, hold that the production of Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. cannot be clubbed with the production of LD Industries and LR Industries for the purpose of assessment. 4. Appeals are disposed of as above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 85 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... f the adjudicating authority shows that the chart filed by the appellants was not relevant, cannot be appreciated by us. He had no power to make such an observations, rather he was bound to decide the case de novo in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal and to take into consideration the documents submitted/furnished by the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order having been passed by the adjudicating authority in violation of the directions given in the remand order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication of the case in accordance with the directions contained in the earlier remand order dated 20-3-96, referred above of the Tribunal after affording an opportunity for hearing to the appellants and after allowing them to produce if they request, more documents/evidence in support of their defense. The appeals of the appellants accordingly stand disposed off.
-
2003 (8) TMI 84 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Export - DEPB credit ... ... ... ... ..... ed as academic or ipsi dixit. The general observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the basis for fixing DEPB rate cannot constitute the basis for varying the rate or quantum. The authorities administering DEPB scheme have fixed DEPB benefits for the product covered by that scheme at a particular percentages of FOB value. In the present case, the lower authorities have arbitrarily computed the FOB value and have fixed the credit as percentage of the computed FOB value. Such an action has no legal basis and if it is permitted it will cause chaos. It is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the finding that the export price is not genuine and has been misdeclared with intent to avail higher DEPB benefit. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. In the light of what has been stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be extended DEPB credit on the basis of the declared FOB value.
-
2003 (8) TMI 83 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... view of our findings herein above, that recoveries as ordered cannot be made due to absence of machinery provisions for recoveries, we would have to set aside the present order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner to consider whether recoveries of the credit originally availed could be effected under the provisions of Rule 57-I of the Modvat Rules and corresponding provisions, as applicable. We make it clear that the appellants will have the right to question the issue of such reversal notices on limitations, if such recoveries are proposed to be effected. 6. In view of our findings as arrived at herein above, we set aside the order and remit the matter back to the Commissioner to re-determine the issues of recovery of credits, if permissible, in light of the plea of limitations, which the appellants will have the right to address in facts of these proceedings. With these observations, the appeal is allowed as remand to the original authority. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 82 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Duty and penalty - Evidence - Statement ... ... ... ... ..... ccept the appellant s submission that in the remand proceedings duty and penalty should not have been enhanced despite this Tribunal s order of remand in Revenue s appeal and reduce the penalty to Rs. 10 lakhs. However, we make it clear that the appellant shall be liable to pay interest on the duty amount arising with effect from 28-9-96, the day on which Section 11AB came into effect. 14.Appeal Nos. E/473 to 475/2001 of S/Shri B.K. Jain, Padam Jain and Sandeep Jain are directed against the imposition of separate penalties on them. Penalties have been imposed on these appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. That rule relates to possession, transport, buying, selling, etc., of offending goods. In the present case the persons concerned are involved as manufacturer of the goods. We feel that separate penalties on these individuals are not warranted. Accordingly, these penalties are vacated and appeals allowed. 15.The four appeals in question are ordered as above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 81 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... shown no interest in prosecuting their appeal inasmuch as they on their own admission had not been pursuing the appeal right from 1998 when the same was dismissed. Even if the factory was closed and they were interested in prosecuting their appeal they would have remained in touch with their Advocate to know about the fate of the appeal. It appears from their application that they had not enquired any time about the appeal from their Advocate as they have mentioned that only in June, 2003 they came to know from Range Supdt. about dismissal of their appeal. Moreover they have not even informed the change in their address to the Registry of this Tribunal so that the notice of hearing and the Order could be sent to them at the changed address. As the present application has been filed after more than 5 years of passing the final order dismissing their appeal and the delay has not been explained satisfactorily at all, we reject their application for restoration of their appeal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 80 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Show cause notice - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... law. The law requires the said notice to be issued under a specific provision of law and not as a correspondence or part of an order ................... Therefore, it will be futile to contend that each and every communication or order could be construed as a show cause notice. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Metal Forgings, we hold that neither there was any demand nor any order by the department confirming the demand on account of RPO charges etc. The letter of the Supdt. intimating the appropriation of an amount cannot be equated with an order which requires an appeal on the part of the Appellants. We also observe that the Appellants have deposited an ad hoc amount of Rs. 10 crores under protest and the said deposit was not with reference to any particular amount pending against them as a result of Adjudication Order. We, therefore, hold that the refund of the said amount cannot be disallowed to the Appellants. The appeal is thus allowed.
....
|
