Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 62021 to 62040 of 80281 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:- Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2000 (4) TMI 403
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... of Bharat Commerce and Industries 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J527) held that it was not permissible to do so if levy and assessment of goods under one particular tariff item is held to be illegal, the department cannot refuse to refund the amount on the ground that duty could have been levied under some other heading. rdquo We find that this further plea has been added by the Revenue that in case Modvat credit has been taken and duty on the final products has been paid out of Modvat credit then whether still the refund will be admissible. We find that the question of law arises inasmuch as the duty paid on plastic components was taken as Modvat credit and duty on the final product was paid out of duty taken as credit on plastic components. 6. emsp Insofar as the unjust enrichment in respect of inputs captively consumed is concerned, the issue has already been decided by the apex court and, therefore no reference is now required. In this view of the matter, reference is partly allowed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 401
Registration/Licensing - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ed 9-1-1992 reveals that the appellants had given the process undertaken by them right from the stage of purchase of the old pipes and tubes. We, further, observe that the Range Suptd. had visited their premises and studied the process undertaken by the appellants and therefore, the question of misleading the department does not arise. Finally, the department accepted the surrender of registration certificate of the appellants and before accepting such surrender the department should have examined all the aspects of the process undertaken by the appellants to see whether any excise duty was chargeable or leviable or not. We, therefore, hold that the entire demand is time-barred and the appellants succeeds on the question of time-limit itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellants on the aspect of time-limit alone without going into the question, whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to drawing or redrawing.
-
2000 (4) TMI 400
Import - Export obligation - DEEC Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... cation No. 49-CE/94 dated 22-9-1994 by appellants No. (2) and (3). That being so, the duty demand raised and penalty proposed against them and appellant No. (1) through the show cause notices for the periods in question was wholly unjusticiable and not sustainable under the law and as such could not be legally confirmed by the adjudicating authority. In this connection, reference may also be made to the law laid down in Synthetic Chemical v. CCE, Allahabad, 1997 (93) E.L.T. 92, Shriji Chemicals v. CCE, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 375, CCE, Mumbai v. Bhoruka Textiles, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 615, Brindavan Chemicals and Minerals (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 623 and Formica India Division v. CCE, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) referred by the counsel. 18. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, all the appeals of the appellants are accepted and the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside with consequential relief, if any, permissible to the appellants under the law.
-
2000 (4) TMI 399
Modvat - Utilisation of input credit ... ... ... ... ..... d that the matter is no longer res integra. In view of the above noted decisions, the law with respect to the interpretation of the words ldquo similar rdquo as it then existed in Rule 57F(3) is now well settled. The words ldquo similar rdquo cannot be restricted to mean ldquo same rdquo or ldquo identical rdquo . Instead, when a wider meaning is given to the words ldquo similar rdquo it will encompass the goods broadly falling within the same class or category. When we apply this principle to the facts of the present case, we find that since Calcined Alumina is a product emerging at a stage prior to the process of manufacture of Aluminium, therefore the products are falling within the same broad class or category. On careful consideration we are therefore of the view that ratio of the aforesaid decisions would clearly apply to the facts of this case also. Respectfully applying the same we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal with consequential relief as per law.
-
2000 (4) TMI 396
Motor vehicle - Fabrication of body on the duty paid chassis - Manufactur ... ... ... ... ..... that fabrication of bodies on chassis would amount to manufacture of motor vehicle falling under Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05, as the case may be. As a different view has been held by the Tribunal, we place these matters before the Hon ble President of the Appellate Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench for resolving the following issue - (i) Whether in view of Note 3 to Chapter 87 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, the activity of body building or fabrication or mounting of structures or equipment on the chassis shall amount to manufacture of a motor vehicle falling under heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff. (ii) Whether the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders - 1997(94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) has been taken away by inserting Note 3 to Chapter 87 of the Tariff and the activity of building body on chassis shall amount to manufacture of motor vehicle falling under heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff.
-
2000 (4) TMI 395
Valuation of inputs - Natural justice - Order non-speaking ... ... ... ... ..... 1990 (45) E.L.T. 579. Learned DR has not placed before us any ruling which takes a different view on the issue. The principle stated therein has not been followed by the learned adjudicating authority in passing the orders impugned in these appeals. So the valuation issues in both the appeals, have to go back. In the first case arising out of show cause notice dated 3-11-1993, the adjudicating authority must consider the explanation of the manufacturer regarding the variation found at the time of stock taking. 7. emsp The orders impugned in the first appeal are set aside and the matter remitted back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue in the light of the observations made earlier. In the second case, the adjudicating authority is directed to requantify the duty liability of the manufacturer on the facts found by him in the light of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 579. 8. emsp Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (4) TMI 394
Provisional assessment - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... sional for the purpose of availability of Notification. It they had not executed the bond which they were directed to execute with security, the benefit of their failure cannot be extended to them. Another peal of applying wrong rate of duty on behalf of M/s. Prestige Wire was raised at the time of hearing. We agree with the learned D.R. that as this plea was never raised earlier before either of the lower authority, the same cannot be raised now. We, therefore, upheld the demand of duty of excise. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- form Rs. 15,000/- in respect of M/s. Diamond Wire Industries from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 2500/- in respect of M/s. Prestige Wire Insdustries and from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2000/- in respect of M/s. Chawla Wire Products. In respect of M/s. Sapna Wire Industries we do not find that the penalty is on higher side and we upheld the same. 4. emsp All the Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
-
2000 (4) TMI 368
Reference to High Court - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rence of following question of law to the Gujarat High Court Whether the man-made fabrics which are excisable goods on which additional duty of excise is payable in terms of Section 3(2) of Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, shall also attract penal provisions of confiscation and penalty as is the case with all other excisable goods finding mention in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4. emsp The registry to draw up statement of facts of the case and refer to the Gujarat High Court. The registry may ensure, while forwarding the case, that the registry of the High Court is informed of the earlier matter already referred to so that similar matters can be listed and heard together.
-
2000 (4) TMI 367
Reference to High Court - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... lore unit. The Bench allowed the prayer and directed recredit. Penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 4. emsp None appears for the respondents when the case was called hence I heard the learned DR and disposed of the application. I find that no plea was raised during the final hearing of the appeal, that permission to re-credit would result in refund for which the Competent authority is the Assistant Commissioner and not the Tribunal. In fact, the learned DR fairly left the matter to be decided by the Bench. Therefore, the question as framed do not arise out of the final order of the Tribunal. However, question of unjust enrichment which has been referred to in the Reference Application, does not arise in the present case where one unit has been allowed re-credit of amount taken as credit by the other unit of the same manufacturer. Since the questions as framed do not arise out of the Tribunal s order, I hold that the Reference application merits rejection and order accordingly.
-
2000 (4) TMI 366
Precedent - Adjudication - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... ts of the present case. It may be that the issue involved in that case may be analogous to the issue involved in the present case. Where facts are different but issues are analogous, there must be a careful effort on the part of the quasi-judicial authority to consider the facts of the case and apply the ratio of the decision in the light of the facts of the case. Such an attempt was, obviously, not made by the lower appellate authority. Non-application of mind is, therefore, apparent on the face of the record. In this view of the matter, this Tribunal has to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by way of remand directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the matter afresh and pass a speaking order in terms of this order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party.
-
2000 (4) TMI 365
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... of Laxmi Packing Pvt. Ltd. He submits that the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 1689/97, dated 8-7-1997 and in another case reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 333 (Tribunal) (Laxmi Packing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise) held that activity of printing cork of tipping based paper does not amount to manufacture. He, therefore, submits that the stay applications be allowed. 4. emsp Heard ld. S.D.R. 5. emsp In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that the process of printing and slitting on cork tipping based paper amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after following the earlier decision held that such activity would not amount to manufacture. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, prima facie, we find balance of convenience in favour of the appellants. Therefore, the stay applications are allowed unconditionally. Registry is directed to list the appeals for hearing dated 18-7-2000. No notice.
-
2000 (4) TMI 363
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... n on merits thereof the matter has already been remanded above to the Ld. Commissioner, therefore for consideration on merits, this part of the matter also is to be remanded to the Commissioner. As far as the question of applicability of the extended period is concerned in this case, the same reason as indicated above apply in this case and the extended period would not be applicable. 17. emsp In view of the aforesaid analyses and findings, the order impugned is set aside including the imposition of penalties. Instead, the matter is remanded for de novo consideration by the Ld. Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of the above noted directions for deciding the classification of Pre-pegs on merits as well as for computing the amount of duty which may be demandable for a period of 6 months. The Ld. Commissioner shall give opportunity of hearing and then shall proceed to issue a speaking order in the matter. The appeals are allowed by way of remand accordingly.
-
2000 (4) TMI 361
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ntext that the Hon ble Surpeme Court held that exemption covers only that type of yarn which has been specified by name in the Notification. In the instant case blended cotton yarn admittedly is classified as cotton yarn under heading 52.06. Same is considered to be cotton yarn because of Section Note. As such factually the present case is different than the Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills case. 5. emsp Nothing has been pleaded on financial hardship by the appellants. 6. emsp We have considered the submissions of both sides. We note that though the earlier order was placed before the Commissioner at the time of filing their written submission during personal hearing the same has not been taken into consideration by the Commissioner. No comments have been made by the adjudicating authority and nothing is available on record. However we find that prima facie the case is covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal in their own case. As such we allow stay petition unconditionally.
-
2000 (4) TMI 339
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 5 as the case may be) . 11. emsp We do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has also been followed by the Commissioner in the impugned order 20/97 dated 17-3-97. We, therefore, hold that the goods in question are classifiable under heading 85.16 of the Central Excise Tariff. It has not been controverted by the appellants that the appellants had not given the description of their product in C.L. which was mentioned in their sale documents. Correct description of the goods which was only known to them was suppressed from the department and as such larger period of limitation as provided under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is attracted in the present matter. Accordingly, the demand of duty of excise is confirmed. For the similar reasons the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on M/s. Escorts Ltd under the impugned order No. 20/97 dated 17-3-97 is also upheld. 12. emsp All the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
-
2000 (4) TMI 337
Nozzle and Nozzle holders not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 75/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... of Notification No. 217/85 for the components and parts used in nozzle and nozzle holders by their supplementary C.L. No. 2/89 dated 20-8-1989 and the Collector had denied the exemption to parts which go into the manufacture of nozzle and nozzle holders. It was contended by M/s. MICO in that case that they were not claiming the benefit for nozzle and nozzle holders but were claiming the benefit for its component parts, as nozzle and nozzle holders were already exempt under Notification Nos. 112/89 and 216/87. They have not brought any material on record to show that the benefit of Notification No. 217/85 was extended by the Tribunal in that case to ldquo Nozzles rdquo and ldquo Nozzle Holders rdquo and not to only parts thereof. In view of this we hold that exemption under Notification No. 217/85 is not available to nozzles and nozzle holders separately as these are excluded from the purview of Notification specifically. Accordingly the appeal filed by M/s. MICO is rejected.
-
2000 (4) TMI 336
SSI Exemption - Benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E ... ... ... ... ..... notification 55/92, which identifies only one group of persons as not being eligible hereafter for the benefit of notification. This position is clear from paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order, which deals with the merits of the issue. This paragraph did not refer to the amendment brought about by notification 55/92, but only proceeds on the view that an assessee s clearances whose value exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs during the preceding financial year or was likely to be exceeded during the year in question shall not be entitled to the benefit or the notification. As against this decision, the Tribunal in its decision in CCE v. Bharat Automobiles - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 387 has considered in some details the effect of the amendment brought about by notification 55/92. We, with respect therefore, would prefer to follow this decision which has considered the only aspect in preference to the decision of the Delhi bench. 9. emsp Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeals.
-
2000 (4) TMI 335
Adjudication - Fresh adjudication on remand ... ... ... ... ..... nd on the part of the Company and how intentionally they wanted to evade payment of Central Excise duty..... 9.3 emsp We find that there was no scope for mis-understanding and mis-interpretation of the Tribunal s decision vide which the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise, in terms of the findings given in that Order. As the finding about the imposition of penalty had already been given by the Tribunal and the personal penalty was set aside by the Tribunal itself, it was not within powers and authority of the Commissioner to impose the penalty again. Accordingly, we set aside the imposition of personal penalty on the appellants. 9.4 emsp As regards the duty which falls within the period of six months from the date of issuance of the show cause notice, as the point is not pressed by the appellants, we are not expressing our opinion on the same. The duty is to be re-calculated accordingly by the authorities below. Appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
-
2000 (4) TMI 334
Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... Appeals) has allowed the respondents appeal lsquo with consequential relief rsquo . There is neither any prayer by the Revenue for staying the operation of the above Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), nor the same has been stayed by the Tribunal. As such, whatever consequential relief is being followed from the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents are entitled to the same. 4. emsp We also find that the Revenue is disputing the question whether the disputed goods involved are, in fact, Tea Waste or not. In this view, we accept Shri J.M. Kenedy s suggestion to take the appeal on out-of-turn basis. Accordingly, we fix the appeal on 11-5-2000. Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (4) TMI 333
SSI Exemption - Classification - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... w cause notice. We also find that the order vitiates the principles of natural justice as the only reason on which it had upheld the clubbing of clearances of the two units and those which are not proposed by the show cause notice at all and to this extent, it has gone beyond the show-cause notice. 10. emsp In view of the aforesaid findings, the Order-in-Original is set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration of the entire matter. He is directed to take into consideration the well established case laws on this issue of clubbing and the findings already arrived at above. He is also directed to re-consider the question of classification left unanswered. No doubt, he shall provide effective opportunity of hearing to the appellants in these de novo proceedings. Since the matter is ten years old, it is desirable that the de novo proceedings be finalised expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
2000 (4) TMI 332
Clandestine removal - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... rejects . No evidence has been adduced in the show cause notice to dis-prove the respondents claim that these goods were rejects . It is common in the trade to sell second quality/reject goods at much lower prices. Therefore, the Commissioner could not be faulted for dropping the demand on this score also. With regard to the slips recovered, it is observed that no positive proof of any kind in support of the allegation that they related to unaccounted sale of the goods produced and cleared by the respondents had been offered in the show cause notice. Therefore, the proceedings could not be concluded against the assessee based on them. 5. emsp In the light of the discussions above, we hold that the Revenue has failed to establish that the order impugned in these appeals is illegal or improper. The Commissioner had applied his mind to all the relevant facts and had come to a reasoned conclusion. We find no reason to interfere with the order. The appeals fail and are dismissed.
............
|