|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 772 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 632
Demand - DTA Sale - Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... 1,00,000/- would be sufficient in the facts of this case which would be required to be imposed, after upholding the confiscation of the goods. (f) Since the appellant had made declaration and have subsequently taken out the registration and also they have produced materials to evidence eventual export of the goods (terry towel) from India to USA and the duty liability is only to be restricted to a small quantity which they eventually cleared without payment of duty to domestic market in India. We would reduce the penalty imposed on the appellants under the Central Excise Rules to Rs. 5,000/- only. (g) In view of the finding as arrived at herein above, we would allow this appeal by ordering recovery of duty of the Terry Towelling Fabrics used in the terry towel sold in India as per Annexure L. The redemption fine reduce to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty reduce to 5,000/- has allow the appeal partially in above terms after upholding the exports. 4. emsp Appeal disposed accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 631
Countervailing duty - Adjudication - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... d the case is sent back to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the duty, interest and the penalty by taking into account these facts. (i) The appellants are liable to pay anti-dumping duty on the imported goods in terms of Notification No. 72/2001-CX., dated 12-2-2001 at the rate of US 180 per kg. whereas they had originally paid duty at the rate of US 9.73 per kg. in terms of Notification No. 81/97, dated 24-10-97 (ii) While calculating the CVD, the element of anti-dumping duty is to be excluded for arriving at the assessable value (iii) since the goods had been found to be of Thai origin and the department earlier enhanced the assessable value by treating the same as of Thaiwan origin, the declared value of the goods by the appellants is to be accepted which was US 0.80 per kg. (iv) the penalty imposed on the appellants is not to exceed 25 of the re-calculated duty amount. The matter will be decided by the adjudicating authority after hearing the appellants.
-
2005 (2) TMI 630
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... ted in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 117 (Tri.-Del.). He submits that the appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as directed by the Tribunal in the stay order when recovery proceedings were started. In view of the Tribunal rsquo s decision referred to above by him, he requests that the ROA application should be refused. 3. emsp At this stage, ld. Advocate, Shri Agarwal submits that it is not because of the recovery proceeding that they have deposited the pre-deposit as ordered by the Tribunal but because of financial crisis, they could not deposit the money in time. 4. emsp After hearing from both sides, we find that in this case, the appellants have deposited the pre-deposit amount, though there is a delay of 19 days. He could not attend the hearing before the Tribunal on 26-10-2004, as the train was late. Considering the decisions referred to above by the ld. Advocate, Shri Agarwal, we restore the appeal filed by the appellants. MA for ROA is thus allowed in the above terms.
-
2005 (2) TMI 629
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ded in the assessable value. 3. emsp The learned Counsel submits that the change in definition of Transaction Value does not affect the ratio of the judgment or the Board rsquo s Circular. The Board rsquo s Circular has been issued after the new definition of Transaction Value has been brought in. 4. emsp On a careful consideration, prima facie, we find merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel in the light of the Board rsquo s Circular, Tribunal rulings and the Supreme Court judgments. The brand name owner is the beneficiary of the advertisement done by him. No such benefit flows to the assessee. Therefore, the appellants have shown that they have strong prima facie case in their favour. Hence, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amount and staying its recovery. As the amounts are more than Rs. 2 crores, the appeal to be heard out of turn and the same to come up for hearing on 3rd May, 2005. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (2) TMI 628
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nality. In view of above he submits that the appellant may be granted total dispensation of duty and penalty. He submits that the appellant when received the inputs has taken the Modvat and when cleared their product, they have paid the duty. So it is a case of Revenue neutral. 2. emsp Heard Shri J.R. Madhiam, learned JDR for the Revenue. He reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the lower authority in his order. 3. emsp We have heard both the sides. We find that Board rsquo s Circulars are binding on the Departmental Authorities as held by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. We also find that Board has clarified in the Circular referred to above that slitting of HR/CR coils of iron and steel sheets into strips amounts to manufacture. We find that prima facie the appellants have made out a good case for dispensation of duty and penalty and we dispense with duty and penalty till further orders. Case to come up for hearing on 25th of April, 2005.
-
2005 (2) TMI 627
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nality. In view of above he submits that the appellant may be granted total dispensation of duty and penalty. He submits that the appellant when received the inputs has taken the Modvat and when cleared their product, they have paid the duty. So it is a case of Revenue neutral. 2. emsp Heard Shri J.R. Madhiam, learned JDR for the Revenue. He reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the lower authority in his order. 3. emsp We have heard both the sides. We find that Board rsquo s Circulars are binding on the Departmental Authorities as held by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. We also find that Board has clarified in the Circular referred to above that slitting of HR/CR coils of iron and steel sheets into strips amounts to manufacture. We find that prima facie the appellants have made out a good case for dispensation of duty and penalty and we dispense with duty and penalty till further orders. Case to come up for hearing on 25th of April, 2005.
-
2005 (2) TMI 626
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... above the appellant may be directed to pay the full duty and penalty. 3. emsp After hearing both the sides we find the appellants were working under compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for which no Modvat facility was extended. The appellants have received the modvatable capital goods in January and February, 2000. We find considerable force in the argument of the learned JDR that at the material time the credit was available under Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules and the provisions to take Modvat after 1-4-2000 was available only under Rule 57AG. 4. emsp In view of above we find that the appellants have not made out a case for dispensation of duty and penalty. In view of the facts circumstances in the case, we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 4.00 Lakhs within a period of 12 weeks from today. Upon payment of this amount, rest of the duty and penalty shall be stayed. Case to come up for compliance and hearing on 18th of May, 2005.
-
2005 (2) TMI 625
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... osquito Coil Manufacturing Co. v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 107 (Tri.-Bang.) He has also drawn our attention to Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 where ldquo Combi Pack rdquo has been defined. He submits that the product of appellant is a combi pack. Referring on the Tribunal rsquo s decision quoted above, he submits that his case is covered one and the Appellant should be given full dispensation from the duty and penalty. 2. emsp Heard Shri Madhiam, learned JDR who reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. 3. emsp We have heard both the sides. We find that in cases referred to above. Tribunal has already taken a view that while selling certain varieties of excisable goods, the appellants supplied small quantities of other varieties free- such free supplies are not includible in the assessable value. We grant stay from duty and penalty to the appellant till further orders. Case to come up for hearing on 12th April, 2005.
-
2005 (2) TMI 624
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... cally mentioned as input under the Rules and since the Motor Vehicle Rules had prescribed the First Aid Box as compulsory item supplied with vehicle in question, it merits treatment as accessory. He also points out that the Excise Authorities were including the cost of First Aid Box in the assessable value of the goods. 3. emsp Learned DR points out that First Aid Kit Box is not within the scope of accessory also. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. M and B Footwear Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida ndash 2004 (176) E.L.T. 705 (T) 2004 (97) ECC 407 wherein it was held that plastic carry bags supplied for carrying footwear do not become inputs. 4. emsp Since the First Aid Box is a compulsorily prescribed item and its value forms part of the assessable value, prima facie, the appellant has a strong case on merits. Stay is allowed and recovery of the amount is also stayed. Appeal to come up for hearing on 6th June, 2005. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court).
-
2005 (2) TMI 623
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... processes on duplex board. It was different from duplex board in name, character, commercial identity and use. Hence, in terms of the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to by ld. SDR, the process of conversion of duplex board to Blister Card should be held to be lsquo manufacture rsquo within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The contra view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. Apparently, as he did not consider the above process as manufacture, he had no occasion to examine classification and allied issues. The case, therefore, requires to be remanded to the lower appellate authority for a decision on such issues. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned order, we direct ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to take a decision on classification and allied issues in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. 4. emsp The appeals stand allowed by remand. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (2) TMI 622
Demand - Imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... es for no penalty and interest to be recovered, if goods are exported even after the expiry of bond period. Option being granted to the appellants. The same should be offered to the appellant who may opt for destruction and thereafter pay duty at the rates as applicable to waste/scrap/reject rubber or they can even opt to re-export the gaskets, as in the condition, they are, or after they are destroyed, without any duty and or interest and or objection by the Customs department. In any case there can be no charge of levy of duty. The reliance by the appellants on the Tribunal rsquo s decision vide Order No. 4801-4802/2004/C-III, dated 30-7-2004 covers the present case. 3. emsp In view of the findings herein above the order is set aside and the appeal allowed with directions that options are available to the appellants as under the law and the Board rsquo s circular should be granted and they should exercise the same as per their free choice. Appeal allowed in the above terms.
-
2005 (2) TMI 621
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... ice. The order is also passed without hearing the appellants. In these circumstances and further for the reasons that the plea regarding extension of benefit of Notification as the Department has not disputed the use by the appellants of indigenous raw materials, requires to be considered, although the adjudicating authority has noted clearly that several opportunities for personal hearing were afforded to the appellants and they did not avail of the same, interests of justice require that the case be heard afresh by the Commissioner to whom we remand the matter after setting aside the impugned order. He shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law after supply of copies of the documents viz. Annexure C-2 and D-I and on receipt of these documents, the appellant shall file reply to the show cause notice. Sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be extended by the Commissioner to the appellants before passing fresh orders. 3. emsp The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2005 (2) TMI 620
Import - OGL - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. holding that Video Conferencing equipment is capital goods is also required to be applied to the present case. 5. emsp In so far as the enhancement of value is concerned, we find that the authorities have proceeded to enhance the value solely on the basis of bond value shown on the Internet. Such procedure adopted to enhance the value on the basis of Internet has been decreed in the citations cited by the Counsel. The Apex Court judgment in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. has clearly held that the transaction value is required to be accepted in the absence of any contemporaneous evidence in respect of same items during the same time and period. As there is no evidence on record with regard to import of same items at higher prices, therefore, the adoption of higher value is rejected. In that view, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2005 (2) TMI 619
Bathing Bar - ‘Dove’ Bathing Bar imported - Classification of ... ... ... ... ..... decision of this Tribunal on the very same terms as in the chapter note, in the case of Lupin Laboratories Ltd. - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 366 2001 (47) RLT 987, Lakme Lever Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 790, Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 475 is well founded following the same we have to grant the benefit to the assessee, as nothing contrary has been shown. 4. emsp The activity in any case has been conducted in the premises of the job worker, who is an independent principal and demands if any under the Central Excise Act, 1944 should have been directed/determined on job worker and not the appellants herein, that issue is well settled and the findings of the Respondent in that regards cannot be upheld. 5. emsp In view of the findings herein, no demand on the company or and the goods impugned can be determined, no liability of penalty, interest etc. can therefore be arrived on the appellants. The order is required to be set aside and appeal allowed. 6. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 618
... ...
... ... ..... pre-deposited as per Stay Order. This issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee in terms of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. CCE. The amounts were deposited as a result of finalisation of provisional assessment. Therefore, the question of ordering the amounts to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund does not arise. Furthermore, we notice that the appellants have not calculated the amount representing as duty in their invoice and hence, Section 11D is also not attracted in this matter. All the citations relied by the Counsel would apply to the facts of the case. The order passed by both the authorities is not proper and requires to be set aside with consequential relief. The Revenue should return the amounts pre-deposited. The interest as already ordered by the Supreme Court and confirmed by the Board in their Circular should be paid along with the duty as a consequence of this order. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
2005 (2) TMI 617
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... has accepted this order passed in the case of M/s. Starchem Industries Ltd. situated in the same Commissionerate. We have seen the Tribunal rsquo s order of remand in Final Order No. 1832/99, dated 23-7-1999 and the order passed in OIO No. 39/2002, dated 25-9-2002 and find the facts to be identical and there is no difference in the same. There is no need to remand this matter. In view of the Revenue not having produced any evidence and as in similar matters, the Revenue has accepted the findings of the OIO, we hold that the order passed by the Commissioner is correct and proper. We find that the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Parental Drugs (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 259 (Tri. - Mumbai) is also applicable to the facts of the case. So also, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Textile Processings v. CC, Tuticorin - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 86 (Tri. - Chennai). There is no merit in this revenue appeal and the same is rejected.
-
2005 (2) TMI 616
Adjudication - Re-test - Rejection of prayer for re-test ... ... ... ... ..... matter remanded for de novo consideration. Samples should be drawn and sent for re-test to a reputed lab chosen by the department in the matter. The plea that no RF and penalty is imposable as there is no provision made out in respect of Anti-Dumping Duty is well accepted. On re-adjudication, this point should be taken into consideration and there should be no levy of RF and penalty in the matter. Furthermore, the enhancement of valuation has been challenged by the appellants on the ground that there is no contemporaneous import showing higher value. As the appellants have chosen to waive the Show Cause Notice, the department can still adduce evidence and furnish the same to the appellants at the time of de novo for enhancing the valuation. In the absence of any evidence, their plea that enhancement of value cannot be done, is required to be reconsidered by following the principles of Natural Justice. Thus, the matter is remanded for de novo consideration on the above terms.
-
2005 (2) TMI 615
Demand - Additional demand on reclassification of goods to be prospective ... ... ... ... ..... nce Act, 2000 as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Easland Combines (supra), wherein it was held that the above amendment made with retrospective effect from 17-11-1980 was applicable to all pending proceedings and that the decision of the Constitution Bench of the court in Collector v. Cotspun Ltd , 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) (holding that Rainbow Industries (supra) had correctly laid down the law on the point) was no longer good law. This legal position was reiterated by the apex court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. (supra). Therefore the order of the original authority holding that, since Section 11A permits demand of short-levied duty for a period of 6 months prior to the date of issue of SCN, the demand is enforceable has to be restored and the contra decision of the Collector (Appeals) requires to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The Revenue rsquo s appeal stands allowed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court on 1-2-2005).
-
2005 (2) TMI 614
... ...
... ... ..... hereby it was specifically mentioned that there was fluctuation of price of Betel Nuts of Indonesian origin the prices are valid for 2-3 days only. 4. emsp The contention of the Revenue is that the Betel Nuts from Indonesian origin are being imported US 600 PMT, therefore, the value was rightly enhanced. 5. emsp In this case we find that the appellant made import of 112 MT of Betel Nuts (Second Grade), the contract price was US 500 PMT. The Revenue wants to enhance the same of US 600 PMT on the basis of import made by two other importers. We find that the quantity in those imports is much less than the import made by the appellant and the value declared by those importers was almost the same as declared by the appellant. However, the value was enhanced to US 600 PMT. The enhanced value cannot be made basis for enhancing the present import. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 1-2-2005)
-
2005 (2) TMI 613
Cenvat/Modvat on capital goods - Injection Moulding Machine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he impugned order as regards penalty. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold the view that any penalty on the assessee is not warranted in this case. 6. emsp In the result, we uphold the demand of duty on all goods except the electrodes cleared to customers other than M/s. UCAL from 16-3-1995. As regards such clearances of electrodes, ld. Commissioner is directed to consider the assessee rsquo s claim for the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 (as amended by Notification No. 68/95, dated 16-3-1995). On this claim, he shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further ld. Commissioner shall allow the benefit of Modvat credit on ldquo injection moulding machine rdquo to the assessee. Lastly, the penalty on the appellants is set aside. The impugned order will stand modified accordingly. 7. emsp The appeal is disposed of as above. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court).
............
|
