New User / Register | Annual Subscription | SMS Option | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
Tax Management India .com
             
TMI - Tax Management India. Com

Central Excise Case Laws

 

Filter -


 
Showing 33561 to 33575 of 54090 Records

    2001 (3) TMI 504 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    SURYA RUBBERS (GUJ.) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA

    Appeal to the Commissioner ......

    ........... in Heading 40.06 of the Tariff that are entitled to the exemption, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to comply with his order requiring deposit of the entire duty. 2. emsp The same Commissioner in his earlier Order Nos. 163-165/BDR/99, dated 19-7-1999 has extended the benefit of the notification to the same goods manufactured by the appellant. In these circumstances, his dismissal of the appeal for failure to deposit the entire duty was wrong. 3. emsp Accordingly, we set aside the order, allow the appeal. Commissioner shall decide the appeal before him on merits in accordance with law without insisting on any deposit.

    2001 (3) TMI 502 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD Versus VIP INDUSTRIES LTD.

    Aluminium and steel frames ......

    ........... ppeal, and used by it in the manufacture of travel goods are not marketable and hence not liable to duty. 2. emsp While the department rsquo s appeal questions this finding on the ground that although the goods are not marketed, they are capable of being marketed, it does not cite any evidence in support. We, therefore, do not find any ground for interference. 3. emsp Appeal dismissed.

    2001 (3) TMI 501 - CEGAT, BANGALORE

    KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COCHIN

    Manufacture - Valuation ......

    ........... hifted to the General Stores and kept there. They are, therefore, identifiable movable goods, meeting the description of the new different heading in the tariff than the heading of the new material from which they are fabricated. Hence, manufacture does take place and if manufacture take place they are dutiable as held by the lower authority. The new classification were not challenged below the lower authority nor before us. (d) We would, however, find that the duty demands will have to be limited only on Street Light Fittings, Panel Boards and C.T. Meter Boxes and for that purpose, the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority to redetermine the duty. While so redetermining the duty, the valuation of the products should be redetermined, keeping in mind the Modvat credit available, if any, and the Supreme Court decision on the subject as held in Dai Ichi Karkaria - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). 3. emsp In view of our findings, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.

    2001 (3) TMI 499 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III Versus SANGHI ORGANISATION

    Provisional assessment - Proper officer ......

    ........... fficer to exercise the powers under Rule 9B(1) should be an officer of the rank of an Assistant Collector. On this basis, Learned Consultant has prayed for rejecting these appeals. 3. emsp It is fairly conceded by the learned DR that the provisional assessment of Central Excise duty is governed by the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9B. If that be the case, the proper officer to make provisional assessment under the said provisions is an officer of Central Excise of not below the rank of Assistant Collector as per the notification cited. The provisional assessment in the instant case was admittedly made by the Superintendent and that assessment was set aside by the lower appellate authority on the ground that Superintendent had no jurisdiction to do so and that the proper officer to do so was the Assistant Collector. There is nothing wrong with this decision of the learned Collector (Appeals). The appeals filed by the Revenue are bereft of merits and the same are rejected.

    2001 (3) TMI 498 - CEGAT, BANGALORE

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Versus JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.

    Valuation ......

    ........... only in few cases and not in all cases. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions and find, that the interest on delayed payments, cannot be added to the Assessable value to be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on credit sales made at the factory gate, from the date of delivery of the goods till the realisation of price thereof. This was laid down by the decision of the G.O.I. v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd (supra). Following the same we would set aside this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct that no additions on account of interest on delayed payments could be made to the assessable value, if the same are credit sales. We clarify that the directions of the Supreme Court in Para 66 of G.O.I. v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., valuation is to be followed and assessable value determined in terms of this Order of Supreme Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) order requires to be modified to this effect. 5. emsp Appeal disposed of in the above terms.

    2001 (3) TMI 495 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    CHENAB TEXTILE MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

    Modvat ......

    ........... nts viz. GRs and the toll tax receipts which the appellants have reasonably explained to the departmental authorities that they cannot do, is not reasonable. They have produced a certificate from the transporter M/s. Transport Corporation of India to the effect that the impugned goods have duly been transported by them. There is no reason assigned by the Assistant Commissioner in his order as to why the evidence produced by the party is not acceptable to him. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the lower authorities cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the original authority to arrive at his satisfaction in terms of the concerned provisions with rules with regard to the admissibility of the Modvat credit by giving cogent reason in a de novo order. The party shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final view in the matter. 7. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by remand in the above terms.

    2001 (3) TMI 494 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    GAMMON INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VII

    Classification ......

    ........... decision in Moosa Haji Patrawala v. CCE. The question of referring that decision for reconsideration does not now arise in the light of the concession of the counsel regarding classification. However, the fact that a bench of the Tribunal has held the shafts to be classifiable, not as transmission shafts under heading 84.83 but as parts of fans, lends credence to the claim that the manufacturer could legitimately believe that these goods were parts of fans. The fact that the appellant had specifically described this as shafts for industrial fans independently supports its claim on limitation. From this description, the departmental officers would have known that the shafts were intended to transmit power to the fans, and hence were transmission shafts. These facts impel us to conclude that the assessee had no intention to evade duty. There was hence no scope for invoking the extended period. The demand is barred by limitation. 4. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.

    2001 (3) TMI 493 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    BAJAJ INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

    Production capacity based duty - Annual capacity of production ......

    ........... ld). The institute also renders consultancy services to the re-rolling and steel-melting units, foundries etc. Having regard to this position, ld. Commissioner availed the services of experts from the NISST. The authority or expertise of those experts is not contested before me, nor have the appellants any claim that their Chartered Engineers are better experts. The NISST experts certified that the furnaces were of the pusher type. That certificate was accepted by the Commissioner and he passed orders on that basis. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the orders. I have noted that the question now raised by ld. Counsel with reference to the speed of the rolling mills was not raised by the parties before the Commissioner at any stage before. Further there has not been any attempt on the part of the appellants to bring out any infirmity in the above certificate by examining the experts. 5. emsp For the reasons noted above, these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

    2001 (3) TMI 492 - CEGAT, BANGALORE

    KIRLOSKAR BATTERIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE

    Rubber - Compounded rubber - Excisability - Marketability ......

    ........... or is therefore not upheld. The finding of the Adjudicator that lsquo irregular shaped compounded rubber sheets rsquo are not intermediates, as such and parts of stationary battery is not upheld. The downward integration, cannot be limited to only the penultimate part i.e. hardened sheet/containers, but would also apply to the prior stage and would cover unvulcanised rubber. We therefore, find no reason in the order to sustain exigibility, and even if held exigible, the disallowing of benefit of Notification No. 71/68. Therefore, demands as determined cannot be sustained. (e) emsp When demands cannot be sustained, for captive consumption or otherwise, the lsquo irregular compounded rubber sheets rsquo are found to be exempt on reversal of credit, we find no violation of Rule 9 as read with Rule 49 and therefore any liability to arise for penalty under Rule 173Q(1). Penalty is thus not sustainable. 6. emsp In view of our findings, the order is set aside, the appeal is allowed.

    2001 (3) TMI 489 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    ARBINDO LIQUORS LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR

    Order - Appellate order ......

    ........... occurred in the ld. Commissioner rsquo s mind leading him to pass this judgment. But as an appellate authority it was expected that the deliberations, which led him to uphold the lower order, should have been set out on paper. His order narrates only what the Assistant Commissioner said and not what the assessee said. Such an order does not give any insight to the further appellate authority as to the correctness of the findings. It is for this reason that the principles of natural justice require that any order made in adjudication or in appeal, should be a ldquo speaking rdquo order. Unless an officer ldquo speaks rdquo , the assessees before him and the appellate authorities above him would not be able to ldquo hear rdquo his mind. On this count I find that this order is defective. The appeal is allowed. The order is set aside. The proceedings are remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals). He shall allow the assessees to appeal before him and if they desire to have their

    2001 (3) TMI 488 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    INOX INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

    Modvat - Transfer of credit ......

    ........... therein. In such a situation the manufacturer who had secured the credit is required to approach the Commissioner for permission to transfer such credit. The Commissioner would examine the records to ensure that the credit was correctly taken. He might also check the arithmetical accuracy. In the case of capital goods credit he may cause verification of the existence and the installation of the machinery. The verification is to ensure that no unwarranted credit is being taken when the ownership is changed or factory is relocated. The situation in the present appeal is different. The manufacturer continues to be the same. There is neither change in the ownership nor in the site of factory. All that happened was the merger of the registration certificate and not of the units. 8. emsp In this situation we find that the sub-rule does not come into play at all. The proceedings instituted under this belief therefore do not survive. This appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

    2001 (3) TMI 485 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M

    IN RE: SAGAR PLASTICS

    Settlement of cases ......

    ........... entertained by them even if proceedings for the prosecution for any offence under the Central Excise Act (with reference to this case) have been instituted before the date of receipt of the application under Section 32E. 11. emsp In the above view of the matter the Commission finds it a suitable case and, therefore, allows the application to be proceeded with under Section 32F(1). The Applicant shall pay the admitted duty liability of Rs. 14,95,834/- within 30 days of receipt of this order as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 32F of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Applicant has requested for payment of duty in instalments. The Commission has considered this and allow the applicant to pay Rs. 4,98,610/- within 30 days of receipt of this order and the balance amount in two equal instalments at the interval of one month. 12. emsp Attention of all concerned is drawn to sub-section (2) of Section 32-I of Central Excise Act, 1944. All concerned are informed accordingly.

    2001 (3) TMI 481 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    INTERVALVE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. & CUS., PUNE

    SSI exemption - Brand Name ......

    ........... ar indication existed of an agreement between the present appellants and their manufacturers. Before approving the classification lists the Assistant Collector could have asked for the agreement to ascertain whether the brand name used by the assessees belonged to their collaborators or not. 11. emsp We also observe that for some time as shown by the interim orders (of South Regional Bench) of the Tribunal 1993 (65) E.L.T. 119 and 1995 (80) E.L.T. 735 there existed an impression or opinion that the benefit of notification 175/86 was available where a manufacturer was using a trade mark of a foreign manufacturer. On this ground also it cannot be held that in putting the brand name at the material time the assessees had contravened the provisions of that notification. 12. emsp Thus, on the twin grounds of limitation and also lack of substantiation of the allegations made in the show cause notice, the two appeals succeed and are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, is ordered.

    2001 (3) TMI 480 - CEGAT, CHENNAI

    RANK INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GUNTUR

    HSD Oil and Barrel of Lube procured by Appellants ......

    ........... e 100 EOU engaged in aqua culture from the ambit of this Notification. Similarly, Notification No. 10/95 does not restrict or prescribe a condition that this Notification would be applicable to the appellants, who will not be availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. Therefore, we cannot agree with the findings of the Commissioner. The impugned order is therefore, required to be set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, as we are of the considered opinion that these judgments cited above are applicable and the issue being covered, benefit of Notification No. 10/95 cannot be forced on 100 EOU aqua culture farms during the relevant period. Ordered accordingly rdquo . 4. emsp On a perusal of the above ruling of this bench, we are of the considered opinion that the same applies to the facts of the present case also as the issue is identical. In that view of the matter, applying the ratio of the above noted judgment, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.

    2001 (3) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III Versus MACHINO PLASTICS LTD.

    Modvat on capital goods ......

    ........... ext of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules wherein it has been held that the expression ldquo used for producing or processing of any goods for the manufacture of the final products rdquo occurring in the first leg of clause 1(a) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q is not synonymous with the expression ldquo used for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final products rdquo occurring in the second leg of the clause, and that the expression ldquo used for producing or processing rdquo is not limited to the ingredients or commodities used in the process or those directly and actually needed for turning out, or creation of goods. In view of the fact that material handling equipment has been held in the earlier decisions of the Tribunal to be used for producing or processing of goods and hence eligible to capital goods credit, they cannot be considered to be inputs for the purpose of Notification 217/86. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the Revenue.

   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new




© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.