|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 70961 to 70980 of 80284 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.
-
1996 (2) TMI 209
... ...
... ... ..... h the manufacturer and the buyer other than the relationship created by sale of the aforesaid goods. Price is always fixed by contract, express or implied. Manufacturer may offer to sell his product at a particular price. The offer may be accepted by the purchaser. The contract is complete. Similarly, the purchaser may offer to purchase at a particular price. When the offer is accepted the contract is complete. The fact that price is determined, increased or reduced by contract does not mean that the price is influenced by contractual or other relationship of the nature contemplated in Clause (iv) of the proviso. The only relationship between the parties in this case is on account of the contract of sale of final products. There is no other relationship pleaded or proved in the case. Hence, clause (iv) to Notification is not attracted. 7. emsp In the result, we hold that the appellant is entitled to refund as claimed. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 208
Value of clearances - Computation of
... ... ... ... ..... me cannot be excluded from reckoning. The limit of Rs. 75 lakhs is on reckoning the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs on full exemption under Clause (a) and succeeding clearances of Rs. 45 lakhs under Clause (b) of the notification on partial exemption. If out of the first clearances upto Rs. 75 lakhs, any goods have been cleared on payment of duty, the same cannot be excluded from the reckoning. In the light of what we have indicated above, the view taken in the impugned orders in Appeal E. 289/90, E. 100/91 and E. 4423/94 is correct and the view taken in Appeal E. 524/91 and E. 530/9l is erroneous. 14. emsp No other contentions are urged in the appeal memoranda or in written submissions. We therefore dismiss Appeals E. 289/90, E. 100/91 and E. 4423/94. We allow Appeals E. 524/91 and E. 530/91 and set aside the impugned orders of the Additional Collector in one case and of the Collector (Appeals) in the other case and restore the order of the Assistant Collector in E. 530/91.
-
1996 (2) TMI 205
... ...
... ... ..... body of the vacuum cleaner for collection of the dust and which require to be replaced once they get filled are alone one such optional accessory item. This is a consumable item and a regular user of vacuum cleaner will have to order for more bags when he needs them. The bags supplied with the machine when the same is sold to the customer cannot be considered to be component parts. In any case, the extra numbers of such bags in excess of one supplied along with the machine duly fitted will not be its component parts. The claim that these are optional items supplied as per the requirements of the customers has not been factually controverted by the Collector. He has only held that the machine is incomplete in the form in which it is cleared from the factory which finding is not agreed to by us. The appeals succeed on merits. Hence it is not necessary to decide the alternate plea of limitation, taken by the appellants. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 204
Printing Ink Medium ... ... ... ... ..... or, color, color retention, resistance of the dried film to water, greases, fats, acids, alkalies, waxes, solvents, oils, food products, soaps, detergents, etc. This itself would indicate that medium or vehicle by itself cannot have the qualities and characteristics of the printing ink as such. Printing inks as illustrated under Note ldquo A rdquo of HSN Notes 32.15 are obtained by mixing a firmly divided pigment with a vehicle. The vehicle consists of either natural resins or synthetic polymers, dispersed in oils or dissolved in solvents and contains a small quantity of additives to impart desired functional properties. It, therefore, indicates a clear distinction between a vehicle which acts as a medium for ink and printing ink as such. 4. emsp In view of this, we rule out classification of the product in question under 32.15 and hold that the product is correctly classifiable under Heading 3909.59. 5. emsp In view of this we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1996 (2) TMI 203
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... duct is used for imparting softness and other properties in textile Heading 3809 specifically refers to finishing agents, amongst others, of a kind used amongst others in textile industry. HSN Explanatory Notes under 38.09 indicate that softening agents are preparation to modify the feel of products and these softening agents are specifically included under 38.09 by way of illustration under Note AI. The respondents themselves have admitted that the product imparts softness to textiles. In view of this, since the product is specifically covered under Chapter 38 of the Tariff its classification under Chapter 3402 is ruled out. 5. emsp In view of this the product being classifiable under Chapter 38 and not under Chapter 34 of the Tariff we hold that the product is not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 101/86, dated 17-6-1986. In view of this we allow the Revenue appeal and set aside the impugned order. 6. emsp Cross-objection would also stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 162
Modvat - Words and Phrases - Manufacture
... ... ... ... ..... 019/91 - Copper Alloy ingots used by the appellant as input were procured from the manufacturers who availed exemption. Therefore appellant is not entitled to deemed credit. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 26.In the result, (a) Appeal E. 72/88 is allowed and the order impugned in the appeal is set aside. (b) Appeal E. 384/88 is allowed and the order impugned in the appeal is set aside. (c) Appeal E. 221/89 is dismissed. (d) Appeal E. 190/90 is allowed and the order impugned in this appeal is set aside. The case is remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the observations in this order. Cross-objection is dismissed. (e) Appeal E. 252/90 is allowed and the order impugned in the appeal is set aside. The case is remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the observations in this order. (f) Appeals E.125/91, E. 130/91 and E. 208/92 are dismissed. (g) Appeal E. 4019/91 is dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 161
Modvat - Reversal of
... ... ... ... ..... t account before removal of the exempted final product and if such debit entry is permissible, credit entry for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of final exempted product will stand deleted in the account of the assessee and in such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for duty paid for the inputs utilised in the manufacture of final exempted product under Rule 57A. Hence, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods. Thus, it can be seen that there can be a reversal of the credit and consequently, the manufacturer will become eligible for exemption. The decision of the Supreme Court is relevant to the above extent. But then it is clear, as we have indicated that the appellant cannot avail Modvat credit as well as exemption. 9.We find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 160
MODVAT Credit - `Goods' - Excisable goods
... ... ... ... ..... nclude that sand mould is used in relation to the manufacture of final product, namely steel castings. It is logical to hold that chemicals or resin which are used in the sand mixture for the purpose of producing sand mould are used in relation to manufacture of final product , namely steel castings. The contrary view taken in Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise -1990 (48) E.L.T. 552 (T) and Shivaji Works Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 50 (T) is not correct. 15.In the light of what we have indicated above, it is unnecessary for us to consider the alternative contention as to whether sand mould is an intermediate product . 16.In the result the impugned orders are set aside, holding that appellants are entitled to take Modvat credit for the duty paid on chemicals or resin used in the preparation of sand mould in the process of manufacturing final product, namely steel castings and use the credit for payment of duty on the final product.
-
1996 (2) TMI 159
Recovery proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... mmence the recovery proceedings even while the stay application filed by the appellant is pending before respondent No. 2 and is not disposed of. The appellate authority cannot decline to consider the stay application and thereby permitting respondent No. 3 to proceed with the enforcement of the order of adjudication. It is, therefore, necessary to direct that the respondent No. 3 shall not proceed with the recovery in pursuance of the adjudication order as long as respondent No. 2 has not disposed of the stay application. 3. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order dated December 22, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 44869 of 1995 is set aside and the respondent No. 3 is directed not to proceed with the recovery of amount from the appellant in pursuance of the adjudication order as long as the stay application filed by the appellant is not finally disposed of by respondent No. 2. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 158
Tea - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ict was bifurcated into two districts namely, Lakimpur and Dibrugarh. Respondent-Tea Company was in the new district Dibrugarh. Since the relevant Excise Notification was not amended simultaneously with the said bifurcation, the respondent raised a contention that since Dibrugarh is not mentioned as falling in Zone 5, it falls in the residuary zone i.e., Zone 6 and hence liable to pay duty at a lower rate. 4. In similar matters we have taken the view that merely because the Central Excise Notification was not amended to include Dibrugarh district by name, simultaneously with the aforesaid bifurcation, it cannot be said that the area comprised in Dibrugarh district ceases to be in Zone 5. The zoning is areawise and the names of districts are merely descriptive. The area included in Zone 5 does not go out of that zone merely because part of that area comes to bear a new district name. 5. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The order of the High Court is set aside. 6. No. Costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 157
Valuation (Central Excise) - Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... this appeal is allowed and it is held that prior to 19th June, 1977, the value of regulators was not includible in the assessable value of fans for the purpose of computation of excise duty. 2. There shall be no order as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1989 3. The question involved here is the same as that involved in C.A. No. 479/82 but, the period being different, an appeal was filed by the appellants before the CEGAT. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 38 days which was not satisfactorily explained. Having regard to what is set out in the order under appeal and having regard also to the merits, we think it proper to set aside the order under appeal. Ordinarily, we would have remanded the matter to CEGAT for being disposed of on merits, but, having regard to the position in law stated in the judgment in C.A. No. 479/82, we think that it is proper for us to allow the appeal before CEGAT. 4. Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 156
Manufacture - Conversion of Castor Oil (Commercial) ... ... ... ... ..... erature also has been supplied. In the above circumstances, it is very difficult in certain cases of this type, to decide the matters, particularly where the dispute concerns trade usage and technical material. 11.Accordingly, the following order is passed Order . - Writ Petition is allowed. The Corporation is directed accordingly to work out the refund claim, as per particulars given in Exhibit-Q (Page 64 of the Writ Petition) and refund the amount in accordance with law as laid down hereinabove, on or before 15th April 1996. In case the Corporation fails to refund the amount in accordance with this judgment, then the Corporation is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per annum after 15th April 1996 till payment. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy of this Judgment/Order is expedited. Respondent-Corporation to act on an ordinary copy of the Judgment/Order, duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.
-
1996 (2) TMI 154
Revision by Central Government - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tatutory time limit of three months. 19.This apart, it is also contended that the revision can only be on question of law and not on questions of fact. No reasons have been given by the 1st respondent to differ from the appellate authority s view. Therefore, I set aside the order impugned in toto and remit the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration on the question of maintainability of the revision application and also on merits. The 1st respondent shall return the papers filed in the form of revision to the 3rd respondent with liberty to represent the same with an application under the Proviso to Section 35EE(2) of the Act. On receipt of such application, the 1st respondent shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections on the question of delay and then decide the matter after affording sufficient opportunity to both parties either to appear in person or through their counsel. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 153
Penalty not imposable ... ... ... ... ..... nt of mis-understanding and, therefore, can be considered bona fide. Having held so, the Tribunal the 3rd respondent herein ought not have confirmed the penalty imposed by the respondents 1 and 2. However, this court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got some restrictions in interfering with the factual findings like this. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it proper to remit this matter to the concerned authority viz., the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tuticorin Division, Turicorin and direct him to reconsider the matter on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and pass appropriate orders considering whether penalty at all is leviable in the peculiar circumstances of this case and also in the light of the clear factual findings rendered by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 152
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... 96. The earlier order passed by this court in O.P. No. 4630/1987 when the petitioner had approached at an interlocutory stage shows that the petitioner is restrained from dealing with his immovable properties by way of sale, mortgage, lease or otherwise or do anything with regard thereto which will diminish the value thereof. We do not see that the above order dated June 12, 1987 is set aside or cancelled in the meantime for all these years. Even if that be so, out of abundant caution we make it clear in a similar manner that the petitioner would be restrained from dealing with his immovable properties by way of sale, mortgage, lease or otherwise or do anything with regard thereto which will diminish their value and in addition directed not to create third party interest of any character in regard thereto pending the completion of the adjudication enquiry ordered above. Both the parties will have liberty to apply for modification of this order in restraint. Order accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 151
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... petitioner were transferred under waste and scrap without prior permission and in violation of Rule 49 of Rules framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 6.Considering the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be held to be an unreasonable order not based on judicial considerations which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7.The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. 8.After the order had been dictated, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner may be permitted a period of two months to make the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- directed by the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. If the petitioner makes the said deposit within a period of two months, the same may be accepted, and the appeal may be decided thereafter in accordance with law.
-
1996 (2) TMI 150
Duty liability - Rebate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ebate in rupees per square metre on embroidered (i) man-made fabrics (ii) cotton fabrics (iii) woollen fabrics (iv) silk fabrics and laces and is not linked with duty payable on embroidered articles (d) This aspect is also finally clarified by Trade Notice No. 46(MP), dated 20th/23rd May, 1988. 16.In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8th June, 1987, 9th October, 1987 and 19th October, 1987 (at Exhibits I , K and N respectively to the Petition) are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are restrained from taking any further action on the basis of the impugned show cause notices dated 18th January, 1988, 17th May, 1988, 10th August, 1988 and 25th August, 1988 (Exhibits C , E , G and I to the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion No. 2453 of 1988) and the said show cause notices are also hereby quashed and set aside. 17.Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. 18.Issuance of certified copy of this judgment is expedited.
-
1996 (2) TMI 149
Interpretation of statute - Notification - Refund - Bar of unjust enrichment when not applicable
-
1996 (2) TMI 148
... ...
... ... ..... We are of the view that the impugned orders classifying the Petitioner s product, namely, Decorative Laminated Paper Sheet/Board as falling under Tariff Item 15(A)(2) are incorrect. In the light of the two decisions referred to above and the test laid down therein, we are of the view that Decorative Laminated Paper Sheets/Boards used mainly for furniture would not be articles made of plastic for the purpose of being classified under Tariff Item 15(A)(2). Hence, we set aside the impugned orders at Exhibit A dated 7th May, 1986 and Exhibit G dated 29th July, 1987. 7.On the question whether the Petitioner s product viz., Decorative Laminated Paper Sheets/Boards used mainly for furniture fall under Tariff Item 17 or Tariff Item 68, we express no opinion in the facts of the present case We remand the matter back to the appellate authority for deciding the said question in accordance with law. 8.Rule is accordingly made partly absolute. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 147
... ...
... ... ..... f this Court. He states that this Committee shall look into the matter and pass an appropriate order within three months from today. 2. Upon his statement, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner craves leave to withdraw the petition. 3. Special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn accordingly.
............
|
