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 39281 to 39295 of 54127 Records

    1999 (1) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., INDORE Versus DEWAS TECHNO PRODUCTS (P) LTD.

    Classification ......

    ........... t the approved classification list. We find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of CCE, Madras v. Tube Investment of India Ltd., 1994 (71) E.L.T. 291 (T), wherein the Tribunal had observed that the sections not further worked out by assessee after cold-forming were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7216.20 of the tariff and M/s. Unitech Metals Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal had observed that the angles, shapes and sections cold formed for use in structures, if not prepared for use in these structures by further working, were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7216.20 and not under Heading No. 7308 of the Central Excise Tariff. 6. emsp As the matter is already covered and the case has been decided on the basis of the facts on record, we do not find any material to disturb the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

    1999 (1) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    HINDUSTAN PACKAGING CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., VADODARA

    Classification - Demand ......

    ........... s. 23. emsp The 11C Notification (41/90) referred to in the paper book is also of no help as it covers a period subsequent to the period in dispute before us (Collector having already extended the benefit due for the period March, 1986 to June, 1987). 24. emsp At the same time, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as described at length by the learned Counsel and taken note of by my learned colleague it appears that the appellants had reasons to entertain a belief that their product was laminated paper and not merely coated paper and, in any case, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. 25. emsp Since the Department has not been able to establish the mala fides beyond doubt, only normal period of time was available to the Department. As the show cause notice was issued on 11-10-1989 for the period November, 1985 to 4-6-1987, the entire demand was time barred. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Sd./- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President

    1999 (1) TMI 312 - CEGAT, MADRAS

    AMBAL MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE

    Natural justice - Adjudication order - Evidence - Remand - Confiscation ......

    ........... .20 on the DHCR yarn cleared as DHPR during the period 5-3-1987 to 24-4-1987 is required to be remanded for de novo consideration for the reasons already indicated above. 14. emsp As regards the combined penalty imposed, the same is required to be re-determined along with the readjudication. The Collector has imposed a combined penalty without bifurcating the penalty for the attempt made in clearing 16,633 kgs of 31s SF DHCR yarn as plain yarn. Therefore, this aspect is left open for re-adjudication. Thus except for the order of confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of redemption fine, the rest of the matter is remanded for de novo consideration. 15. emsp The Collector shall decide the case in the light of the observations made above. As the matter pertains to the seizure made in 1987, the Collector shall take up this matter expeditiously and decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The appellants shall also cooperate.

    1999 (1) TMI 311 - CEGAT, MADRAS

    ZENITH CONTROL & SYSTEMS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE

    Demand - Limitation - Classification of goods ......

    ........... facts and hence larger period is invokable. It is also seen that the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay, passed a detailed stay order vide No. 250/94 dated 29-1-1992 on this aspect. By a Majority Order, the Tribunal also expressed the view that there was no suppression in the matter and in this regard, the Bench noted the judgment of Tribunal rendered in the case of M/s. Filtronics Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 457 and that of C.C.E. v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.). This view expressed by the Majority, in the present matter at the time of hearing the stay, the stay order is required to be confirmed and there is no need to take a different view than already expressed at the time of passing the stay order. 6. emsp In that view of the matter, it is held that the demands are barred by time and as such penalty imposed is not sustainable. 7. emsp The appellant succeeds in this appeal and hence the appeal is allowed.

    1999 (1) TMI 310 - CEGAT, MADRAS

    ZENITH CONTROL & SYSTEMS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE

    Demand - Limitation - Classification of goods ......

    ........... facts and hence larger period is invokable. It is also seen that the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay, passed a detailed stay order vide No. 250/94 dated 29-1-1992 on this aspect. By a Majority Order, the Tribunal also expressed the view that there was no suppression in the matter and in this regard, the Bench noted the judgment of Tribunal rendered in the case of M/s. Filtronics Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 457 and that of C.C.E. v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.). This view expressed by the Majority, in the present matter at the time of hearing the stay, the stay order is required to be confirmed and there is no need to take a different view than already expressed at the time of passing the stay order. 6. emsp In that view of the matter, it is held that the demands are barred by time and as such penalty imposed is not sustainable. 7. emsp The appellant succeeds in this appeal and hence the appeal is allowed.

    1999 (1) TMI 295 - CEGAT, MADRAS

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-I Versus NIZAM SUGARS LIMITED

    Valuation ......

    ........... at be so, then the compilation of the said South Indian Sugar Mills Association is nothing but a price enquiry of various sugar mills in that region in the State of Andhra Pradesh. We have no doubt about the authenticity or the genuineness of the price reported therein as the said association is a neutral body. In fact the work which would have been done by the department, showing the price, is readily available as neutral evidence on record in this behalf. 8. emsp Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings, we do not find any infirmity in the Order-in Appeal impugned before us in accepting the price of Rs. 500/- per MT which very closely approximates the average price of Rs. 567.83 and is equivalent to the price of two public sector units of about Rs. 500/- per MT i.e. units at Hindupur and Metpally. 9. emsp In view of this, we find no merit in the revenue appeals which compel us to interfere with the Order-in-appeal impugned and the said appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

    1999 (1) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA Versus RAPICUT CARBIDES LTD.

    Classification ......

    ........... d T.C. Flats are specifically covered by Chapter sub-heading 8209.00. Therefore, they will be classifiable under this sub-heading and hold accordingly. 13. emsp Insofar as wear parts blanks Jute eyelets and wear parts blanks for Jute Industry are concerned, we note that these are items meant for jute industry and used for jute machinery. Since there is a specific provision for parts of jute machinery under Chapter Heading 8448.00, therefore, they will be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8448.00. 14. emsp Insofar as cylpebs are concerned, they are solid round cylinders, they are used to ground metal powder they are used in ball mills. Since they are not steel balls and they are neither articles of Tungsten. Admittedly, they are made of tungsten carbide, therefore, they will be appropriately classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8482.00 and we hold accordingly. 15. emsp The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

    1999 (1) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI Versus DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD.

    Classification ......

    ........... 13. 2. emsp We have heard Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR and perused the records since none appears for the respondents inspite of notice. 3. emsp Tariff Heading 84.24 covers mechanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders ..... There is no dispute that the item is a complete trailer fire pump mounted with on a chassis and fitted with an engine. Hence, it is not just a pump for liquids, but a complete mechanical appliance for projecting jets of water. Therefore, we agree with the learned DR that Heading 84.24 would be appropriate as compared to Heading 84.13 and hence set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals of the Revenue.

    1999 (1) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus SIFA SANPRA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

    Classification ......

    ........... he complete system if it meets all the following conditions Under this, the conditions are given. rdquo 7. emsp A lot of emphasis was placed by the Revenue on this note to show that the item was not hit by the exclusion clause 5(b). We note that the product in dispute does not process data, but only records certain data which is not further analysed, but can be retrieved for preparing reports. It does not have a system for producing reports on the basis of this data. After such reports are entered, it has to be connected with a personal computer. Tariff description under Heading 91.06 is more appropriate in the instant case. We note that this fact has been gone into in detail in the Appeal Order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 8. emsp After scrutiny of the relevant technical literature and the Tariff entries, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the Appeal is rejected.

    1999 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    DELTA RUBBER & PLASTIC PRODUCTS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

    Classification ......

    ........... ile Cutting Machine of different sizes. 5. emsp Granulating Machines of different sizes. 6. emsp Peeling Machines of different sizes. 7. emsp Boring Machines of different sizes. This fact is clearly brought out in the impugned order. The lower appellate authority relying on HSN Note available at page 1314 under Tariff Heading 84.79 and Note 7 to Chapter 84 has classified the machines under Tariff Heading 84.77. On the other hand the appellants are claiming the Classification of the said machines under Tariff Heading 84.79. 3. emsp We have gone through the appeal memo. We have also gone through the impugned order. We observe that the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad is a well reasoned order and has taken into account all the relevant materials for arriving at the Classification under Tariff Heading 84.77. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the appeal of the appellants herein. Hence we dismiss the same.

    1999 (1) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    THERELEK ENGINEERS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BANGALORE

    Classification ......

    ........... sions of the learned DR. We have also perused the evidence on record and also the technical literature and the description of the goods under two Chapter Headings. We note that in the case before us, the goods are cleared in the form of coils without ceramic support. To become a heating element, according to the technical literature, they are to be supported with ceramic support. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the goods in question are not cleared supported by ceramic support. Therefore, they are only in the form of heat resistors. Having regard to the fact that heat resistors are specifically mentioned in the description under Chapter Heading 85.16 as also to the fact that the HSN Explanatory Notes specifically say that heat resistors shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.16, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order. In the circumstances, we hold that the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.16 of CETA, 1985. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.

    1999 (1) TMI 257 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA

    EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-II

    Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ......

    ........... and penalty. However, in terms of the proviso to the said section, jurisdiction has been given to the Appellate Tribunal to dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of Revenue. We also note that the Hon rsquo ble High Court rsquo s directions also enjoins upon us a duty to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. It is only for deciding the quantum of payment that the matter has been sent back to the Tribunal by the High Court. Accordingly we direct the appellants to give a bank guarantee of entire amount of duty of Rs. 4,78,80,531/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. Subject to above, the penalty amount is dispensed with and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 11. emsp As the Revenue involved in the instant case is on the higher side, we fix the main appeal also on 6-4-1999, subject to ascertainment of compliance with the directions as contained above.

    1999 (1) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus LUDHIANA STEELS LTD.

    Modvat ......

    ........... from breaking up of ships/boats/other floating structures imported into India. We also find that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in a number of cases, one among them being in the case of Oswal Alloys v. C.C.E. - Final Order No. A/1076-1080/94-NRB and in the case of Upper India Steels v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 590. These orders have been followed in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. M/s. B.P. Alloys P. Ltd. and M/s. G.S. Auto International Ltd. - Final Order No. A/1540-1541/95-NB dated 20-12-1995. Following the ratio of the above orders and holding that the respondents have substantiated their claim that the materials received by them were obtained by breaking up of ships/boats and other floating structures imported into India, we hold that they were entitled to avail of credit Rs. 600/- PMT and that the provisions of Notification 177/86 are not attracted in the instant cases. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.

    1999 (1) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MUMBAI

    COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE Versus SAHYADRI DYESTUFFS & CHEMICALS

    Modvat - Naphthalene - Set off of duty ......

    ........... odvat cannot be claimed in the case. They also raise the question of exemption Notification 432/86. 4. emsp I have heard both sides and it is found that the matter is not res integra. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 105 that once it is accepted that, by application of Notification 432/86 duty is exempted on beta naphthol to the extent of duty payable on the naphthalene used in its manufacture and, in fact paid, is the duty payable according to tariff less than duty payable on the naphthalene used in the manufacture, while alone would be available as credit, and any amount of credit taken would not be credit of duty paid and is inadmissible. In the said decision the question was decided in favour of the department. Hence, following the said case, I allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order. The memorandum of cross objection is only way of reply and it is also disposed of. 5. emsp Appeal allowed.

    1999 (1) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    GENERAL ENGG. WORKS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., JAIPUR

    Lead ash ......

    ........... and since it is a product which comes into existence in the process of manufacture and since it is marketable, it is goods for the purpose of levy of duty. He reiterates the findings of the authorities below. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the lead ash is generated in the process of galvanisation of iron and steel wires. The admitted position is that it is collected from the surface and corners of the bath. Thus the process of manufacture and its coming on the surface and corners shows that it is in the form of froth or dross or skimmings. Since it is in the form of waste even if it is sold in the market, it does not make itself goods for levy of Central Excise duty as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Limited cited above. Following the ratio of this judgment, we hold that the lead ash is not goods for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. 5. emsp In view of the above findings, the appeal is allowed.

   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new




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