|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Steel crucibles and filter cloth ... ... ... ... ..... nd after giving the appellants opportunity to explain the manner of use of the crucibles and with reference to technical write up/textual authority on the subject. 7. emsp Having regard to the above decision of the Tribunal, we agree with the observations and held that in absence of detail regarding their manner and their use its eligibility for Modvat credit will have to be redetermined by the adjudicating authority by applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Rama Krishna Steel Industries v. CCE reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 575 (Tribunal) 1996 (13) RLT 162. 8. emsp In the result the appeal is disposed of by holding that fibre glass filter mesh are held to be eligible for the purpose of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In respect of steel crucibles and filter cloth, the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise in terms set out above for determination of their eligibility in accordance with the law.
-
1997 (1) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... had maintained all their records. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that it cannot be said that there was any wilful suppression on the part of the appellant and no mala fide can be attributed to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of this case which we have already narrated above. 8. emsp In the premises, we are of the view that since the demand is not contested on merits for a period within six months, we confirm the duty with respect to the period which is within a period of six months from the date of receipt of Show Cause Notice. But the duty beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of Show Cause Notice is barred by limitation and the demand of the same in terms of the impugned order is hereby set aside. In the facts and circumstances, we have already come to the conclusion that there are no mala fide on the part of the appellant. We set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. The appeal is allowed partially in the above terms.
-
1997 (1) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... furnace but they cannot be treated as machines or machinery, etc., which are used for producing or processing any goods so as to be covered by the definition of capital goods. Regarding electric wires and cables, there is no explanation forthcoming as to which are the machines of which these items are components or accessories. The definition of capital goods was expanded w.e.f. 16-3-1995 so as to include all goods falling under Heading Nos. 84.02, 84.05, 84.06, 84.11, 84.12, 84.16, 84.17, 84.19, 84.21, 84.23, 84.25 to 84.28, 84.80, 85.05, 85.35, 90.11, 90.12, 90.13, 90.16, 90.17 and 90.24 to 90.31. However, I concerned with the period prior to the amendment of Rule 57Q viz. for the period prior to 16-3-1995. From the above, I agree with the contention of the Revenue that the question of law as framed in the reference application arises for reference to the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court for decision by the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court. The reference application is allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... nserted clause 2 ldquo this Notification rdquo shall be in force upto and inclusive of 30-6-1986. The date 30-6-1984 by repeated amendments was extended finally upto 30-6-1986. The dispute in the appeals is about the exact connotation of the words ldquo this Notification rdquo . 4. emsp We have already indicated that Notification 34/83 was amended by incorporation clause (2) in the Notification by Notification No. 191/83 and clause 2 referred to the life of ldquo this Notification rdquo . ldquo This Notification rdquo can only refer Notification 34/83 in which clause 2 was incorporated and not Notification 191/83. The contention that what ceased to be in force after 30-6-1986 was only Notification 191/83 and not Notification 34/83 is unsustainable. 5. emsp We, therefore, agree with the lower authorities that the benefit of Notification was not available after 30-6-1986. 6. emsp We find no ground to interfere for the reasons indicated above and accordingly dismiss the appeals.
-
1997 (1) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... able for use principally with the machines. Alternatively it was argued if their original contention is not acceptable it falls under Customs Tariff Heading 84.59(2) as it has a function i.e. mechanical appliance designed for the production of commodity. 4. emsp Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed that they stated that their factory in which they have Indian manufactured machine for slitting metallic polyester film. The machine slits the film with the help of cutters which are importee because Indian cutters are not good and smooth. We observe that they have not produced any imported invoice, or any other evidence to correlate the goods imported with the literature of the machine. Accordingly, he reject the appeal as unsubstantiated. No such technical literature of the machine has been placed even before us. In these circumstances we do not find any infirmity in impugned order. Accordingly we uphold the impugned order and the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 514.90. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) in his order had observed that the goods in question were identifiable parts of electric furnance. He had noted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant before him that the induction coils had been imported for replacing worn out coils of 250 KVA induction melting furnance. The Revenue in the appeal had not placed any material on record to justify interference in the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In fact in the brief history of the case it has been mentioned that the goods in question were specifically covered under Heading No. 8504.50 but in the prayer, no such mention of Heading No. 8504.50 has been made. 5. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals). As a result the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The Cross- objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (1) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Special Excise Duty ... ... ... ... ..... etween levy and exemption once the duty was levied by virtue of Section 37, the exemption from payment granted under Rule 8(1) did not affect the character of levy or eface the imposition of the levy, which still remained in force only no amount or lesser amount becomes payable and liable to be collected depending upon the extent of exemption. Therefore, even in a case where it was wholly exempted the goods remained excisable. Hence, for the purpose of collection of duty, the date of clearance would be the relevant date for the purpose of determining the liability in terms of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment and to that extent, it is not the tribunal rsquo s orders but the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra) which is required to be taken into account. Hence, applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, we hold that the duty was payable on the goods cleared by the appellant and confirm the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1997 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Refund of ... ... ... ... ..... 85/87, dated 1-3-1987 which inter alia provided that refund of credit of specified duty allowed in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are cleared for export under bond may be allowed subject to safeguards, conditions and limitations set out in the appendix to this notification. We find that the facts in this case are that the goods in fact were exported and the manufacturer of the goods was not in a position to utilise the credit of duty allowed under Rule 57A against goods exported during the quarter to which claim relates. We find that the refund claim was also preferred within time. We also observe that admitted position is that the goods exported were manufactured by the respondents that Rule 57F(3) is applicable to the respondents that even Notification 85/87 has been complied with and therefore we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. In the result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (1) TMI 186 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... pellants price agreed between themselves and their buyers was influenced by the testing to be done at the customer rsquo s premises. It has also not shown by evidence that test done was in lieu of the testing which was required to be done at the appellant rsquo s premises. We have number of cases held that any testing which is done at the behest of the customers cannot be taken into reckoning for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value unless it could be shown that the testing done was in lieu of the testing to be done for the purpose of the manufacturer of the goods in the appellant rsquo s factory and for rendering them marketable. Inasmuch as, it has not been shown by the authorities that this was so, we hold that the addition in this regard cannot be made for arriving at the assessable value. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order in this regard is not sustainable. The appeal is therefore allowed in the above terms.
-
1997 (1) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... igorous by which he may be denied the benefit of the Modvat credit. The verification contemplated therefore has to be such that would facilitate a cross check between the goods in respect of which Modvat credit is claimed and the document under which the same have been received. One such method could be the physical verification of the goods which may be lying in stock or which may be in process. Therefore, to say that physical verification is not contemplated would not be correct. The authorities below felt that verification with reference to the physical stock was necessary for forming a satisfaction for the eligibility of the appellants to the Modvat credit. This satisfaction we observe is based on a rational criteria. The authorities reliance for physical verification cannot be taken to be in any way irrational for the purpose contemplated under Rule 57H. We, therefore, hold that in this background no question of law as urged arises. The reference application is rejected.
-
1997 (1) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Hearing - Adjourment ... ... ... ... ..... hearing which was granted and the Collector (Appeals) should have granted an adjournment. 3. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, Shri G.D. Sharma, the learned JDR appearing for the Revenue has no objection for remand. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Since it was first adjournment sought for by the party and that too they have sent a telegram well in time, the same should have been considered by the Collector (Appeals) in granting an adjournment. But the Collector (Appeals) has rejected the adjournment and proceeded to pass the ex parte order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellants. The appellants also should co-operate with the Collector (Appeals) for speedy disposal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1997 (1) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... had declared hot rolled steel strips of width less than 600 mm and falling under sub-heading 7211.59. 2. emsp We have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant and Shri Jangir Singh, learned DR. 3. emsp We find that there is no dispute regarding the duty paid character of the inputs. Further, the inputs are hot rolled steel strips and the difference lies only in their width viz. the appellants had availed modvat credit on hot rolled steel strips of a width different from the one declared. It has been laid down in a series of decisions of the Tribunal that modvat credit cannot be disallowed on the ground of minor variation in either description or sub-headings of the relevant Chapter. The difference in width of the strips in question leading to a difference in sub-headings of Chapter 72, according to us is not sufficient to disentitle the appellants to the benefit of modvat credit which is eligible to them. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (1) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Distemper - Dry Distemper ... ... ... ... ..... if the percentage of such binding agent does not exceed four per cent by weight and according to the departmental Chemical Examiner rsquo s report itself the percentage of glue in the appellants product is less than four per cent by weight. 19. emsp It is true as pointed out by the Ld. DR and the authorities below that this glue is not mentioned in the schedule annexed to the notification, but the notification is required to be read as a whole and the clause 1 of the proviso would become redundant if the interpretation of the department is accepted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the present case the department has not succeeded in showing that the conditions prescribed in the notification have not been met with. On the other hand the appellants have been able to show that the conditions have been duly satisfied. We therefore accept the appeal. This also disposes of the Cross Objection, which is more in the nature of reiteration of the department rsquo s view point.
-
1997 (1) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s clearly worded under Section that he must come to the conclusion that the order passed by the authorities below is not legal or proper and then direct the concerned officer authorised by him in his behalf to file an appeal to the Tribunal. 5. emsp We are not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Departmental representative that Collector has come to the conclusion for filing of appeal on going through the detailed notes placed before him. There is no word even approved as can be seen from the note-sheet order. The mere word ldquo Appeal rdquo do not indicate that he has come to the conclusion that order passed by the authorities below is not legal and proper and made up his mind to file an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. emsp In view of this infirmity, we concur with the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that authorisation is not in accordance with Section 129(A)(2) of the Customs Act and a view taken appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 2,995/- shown against the heading Sundry Debtors. They have also a stock in trade in hand valued at Rs. 31,57,867.75. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we order on the applicant to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) on or before 27-2-1997 and reporting compliance on 28-2-1997 the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty demanded from the appellants M/s. Diamond Thread Mills and the entire penalty levied shall stand dispensed with and the recovery of the same waived pending appeal. In regard to the other three appellants, we order that the appellants should pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each on or before 27th Feb. 1997 and report compliance by 28th Feb. 1997 subject to which the pre-deposit of balance amount of penalty levied on the appellants shall stand dispensed with and the recovery of the same stayed pending appeal. The matter will be called on for reporting compliance on 28-2-1997.
-
1997 (1) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification List - Cosmetic - Preparation for use on hair ... ... ... ... ..... e case. M-37 is not a hair oil. It is only a concentrate which can be mixed with oil for making perfumed hair oil. It cannot therefore, be classified as perfumed hair oil under 3305.10. It is more appropriately classifiable under 3305.90 having regard to the fact that it is a ldquo preparation for use on hair rdquo under 33.05. Though it cannot be classified as a perfumed hair oil under 3305.10 as it is in the form of a concentrate before it is mixed in oil, it can still come under the residuary category of ldquo other rdquo under 3305.90 as it does not lose its use as a preparation for use on hair. 10. emsp In the above view of the matter, we hold that the appellants rsquo product M-37 is correctly classifiable under 3305.90 and not under 3305.10. We modify the impugned order to the said extent. The appeal would stand dismissed for all other purposes. 11. emsp The Assistant Commissioner shall revise the duty in the light of the modified classification in accordance with law.
-
1997 (1) TMI 178 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... s, the appeal itself is taken up together for disposal with the consent of both the sides. As observed above, the delay has occurred because of the learned advocate. He has made out a case for condonation of delay by reason of major surgery undergone by his wife. The evidence produced supports the plea of bona fides on the part of the learned advocate who has also filed an affidavit in this regard. The learned lower authority has sympathised with the learned advocate for his unfortunate circumstances. In this background, therefore, I hold the delay should have been condoned. Ordered accordingly. Since the delay has been condoned, the matter will be required to be decided on merits. The appeal is therefore remanded to the learned lower appellate authority for deciding the issue on merits after considering the question of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The appeal is therefore allowed by remand.
-
1997 (1) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... -Cus., dated 19-3-1987. We consider that these Chapter Notes will not make the Tachometers classifiable under Heading No. 98.06 as part of the machineries classifiable under various Chapter as indicated in the Tariff Entry. 6. emsp The Chapter 90 covers various instruments and apparatus and Heading No. 90.29 covers revolution counters, production counters, taxi meters, mileo meters, pedo meters and the like speed indicators and tachometers others than those of Heading No. 90.15 stroboscopes. Sub-heading No. 9029.20 specifically covesrs Tachometers. 7. emsp The Collector (Appeals) had held that Tachometers had various application and the same are rightly classifiable under sub-heading No. 9029.20. After carefully considering the nature of the product in question and after studying relevant Tariff Entries, we find no infirmity in the views taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). 8. emsp As a result, both these appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (1) TMI 176 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Money credit - Vanaspati ... ... ... ... ..... e Court rsquo s decisions in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Tata Oil Mills Ltd. reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 287 (S.C.) l989 (22) ECR 161 (SC), lay down that ldquo a Iiquid state is not an essential characteristic of vegetable oil. rdquo 15. emsp Keeping in view the above and keeping in view the object and purpose of the Notification which is undoubtedly to encouraged the utilisation of Sal Seed Oil/Fat in the process of manufacture of vegetable product in preference to various other counts of edible oils and keeping in view that fats and oils are synonymous to each other in the fats and oils rsquo technology, I hold that too narrow an interpretation to the Notification No. 45/89 is not called for. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed as already announced in the open Court on 3-1-1997 and the impugned Order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1997 (1) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Interest - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... td. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 529 (Tribunal) was per incurium inasmuch as the decision of the High Court of Karnataka was not placed before the Bench and Bench had no occasion to consider the same. We are of opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in Bata India Ltd. strengthens the decision of the High Court of Karnataka and militates against the two decisions of the High Court of Bombay. Hence we find no reason to interfere with the reduction of Rs. 22,72,457.00 from the amount of refund. 11. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned orders to the extent they (a) deny interest from 1-4-1982 till 14-6-1982 and (b) deny any refund on account of excise duty paid in respect of goods covered by erstwhile T.Is. 14 and 65. The claim of appellant in regard to (b) shall be reconsidered and decided by the jurisdictional authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The jurisdictional authority shall pay the interest as aforesaid. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
............
|
