|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 632 Records
-
2006 (1) TMI 533 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Rubber - Natural rubber - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... lar No. 75/98, dated 8-10-98. 2. emsp We have heard both sides in the matter. We find that the issue is totally covered against the appellant in terms of Larger Bench judgment rendered by the Tribunal headed by Hon rsquo ble President in the case of M/s. TTK-LIG Ltd., M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. and M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. CC, Chennai 2006 (193) E.L.T. 169 (Tri. - LB) 2005 -TIOL-1330-CESTAT-DEL-LB Learned Counsel files a copy of the order and fairly concedes that the issue has been decided against them in terms of the cited Larger Bench judgment. However, he submits that appellants are preferring to file an appeal before the Apex Court. Learned DR seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 3. emsp On a careful consideration, we notice that the Larger Bench in terms of Section 2 of the Rubber Act 1947 has held that Cess is leviable on imported rubber also. In view of this position, there is no merit in both the appeals and the same are rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2006 (1) TMI 532 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Cenvat/Modvat - Settlement Commission - Immunities ... ... ... ... ..... 30 days from the issue of this order. (iii) Immunity from interest, penalty and prosecution is granted under the provisions of both the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules framed thereof to M/s. O.P. Steels Ltd. (iv) In view of the immunities granted to the main applicant, immunity from penalty proposed in the SCN and prosecution under Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944 respectively are also granted to the co-applicants Shri Rajesh Gupta, and Shri Ashok Bohra. 19. emsp The aforesaid settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts. The immunity/immunities is/are granted under Section 127H(1) of the Customs Act 1962 and in terms of Section 32K(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Attention of the applicant is also drawn to the provisions of sub section 2 and 3 of Section 127H ibid and to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32K ibid in this regard.
-
2006 (1) TMI 531 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refund claim - Limitation - Payment under protest ... ... ... ... ..... ix months? rdquo 2. emsp The Hon rsquo ble High Court took up the three questions referred to the Tribunal and has passed the Final Order No. WA No. 1535/05 dated 8-9-2005 answering the questions. The matter has now been placed before the Bench for passing the Final Order in terms of Section 35K of the CE Act. The Hon rsquo ble High Court in Para 6 of their order has clearly held that the appellant had paid the duty under protest and have answered the reference holding that letter dated 12-7-1991 satisfy the procedural requirement laid down under Rule 233B of the CE Rules, therefore, has directed the Tribunal to pass consequential orders. The Reference Application has been allowed by the High Court. In view of the Reference Application have been allowed by the Hon rsquo ble High Court, the refund claim of the assessee is not hit by time-bar and limitation and their claim is required to be allowed by the authorities. Ordered accordingly. (Pronounced in open Court on 31-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 530 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Illegal import alleged ... ... ... ... ..... upon the said investigation report the appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the respondent. 7. emsp It is indeed, the judicious nature of the appellate authority, that has shed more light in this case. He had taken unto himself to do further investigation and wrote to the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, which has proved beyond doubt that the respondent was in licit possession of Seized gold. The report of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, is very categorical in vindicating the plea of the respondent about the licit possession of the Seized Gold. To my mind the respondent has discharged the burden of legal possession of the Gold by producing valid purchase document. In view of the Circumstances above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the correct conclusion in his order-in-appeal. The said order-in-appeal dated 21-9-2004, deserves to be upheld, I do so, and does not require any interference. The department rsquo s appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in open Court)
-
2006 (1) TMI 529 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Value of clearances, Computation ... ... ... ... ..... ed, therefore, in this regard we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The value of the clearance in respect of traded items is to be reduced from the total value of the clearance for the purpose of demanding duty. In respect of job work goods, the appellant produced copy of bills which shows that they had only repaired the existing furniture, therefore, charges for the repair are also to be excluded from the total clearance for the purpose of demanding duty. The appellant also entitled for the benefit of cum-duty price, in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant. In these circumstances, we remand the matter to adjudicating authority to re-calculate the duty as discussed above. The penalty is also set aside and the adjudicating authority will decide the quantum of penalty afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 30-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 528 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... r the Central Excise Tariff, 1944 (sic). 3. emsp The issue whether cold rolling of stainless steel by process of hardening stainless steel is basically based on facts. In the present case before us, no material appears which could lead to indicate that the process undertaken resulted in hardening of end-product. Moreover, we find that the issue of whether cold rolling of stainless steel sheets results in hardening stainless steel sheet, stand settled vide the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Strips v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 265 and Lalti Engg., Order No. A/1858/WZB/ 2005/C-III, dated 25-11-2005. In this view of the matter, we would consider that prima facie, the applicants have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to call for full waiver thereof and stay of recovery of the amounts, pending final decisions in these appeals. 4. emsp Stay applications are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2006 (1) TMI 527 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... , 1944 (1 of 1944), shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared for home consumption or for export 7. emsp It can be seen that the said sub rule lapsed the Modvat credit lying in balance in respect of non-alloy steel falling under specific chapter heading nos. These headings nos. given in the said sub rule exclude the products of alloy steel for which the appellant availed the credit lying in balance in his records. 8. emsp Further I find from records that the appellant has utilized the credit of the duty paid on inputs which were specifically utilized for the manufacture of alloy steel ingots only and they have not availed the credit of the duty paid on inputs used for non-alloy steel ingots. 9. emsp In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above the impugned order-in-appeal is liable to set aside. I set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the appeal. (Operative part pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2006 (1) TMI 526 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Procured from various suppliers ... ... ... ... ..... itions. Result of investigation conducted at one particular supplier showing that the inputs have been cleared by him without payment of duty cannot be made applicable to all the suppliers. 4. emsp After hearing ld. DR, we fully agree with the above submissions of the ld. Advocate. A list of the suppliers has been produced before us which shows that the inputs were procured from various manufacturer. The authorities have referred to only statement of one particular supplier and based on the same has denied the benefit in respect of other inputs also. It is for the Revenue to show that the inputs which was received by the appellants were non-duty paid. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for conducting verification at the supplier rsquo s end and based on the outcome of the same, he may decide the issue afresh. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. SP also gets disposed of. (Pronounced in the open Court.)
-
2006 (1) TMI 525 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Invocation of ... ... ... ... ..... othing till the period of time lapsed. In terms of section 11A of the Act and from the perusal of the Show Cause Notice, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner has not invoked the larger period at all. There is no allegation of suppression, mis-statement, fraud, etc. to invoke larger period. The normal period is one year for recovery of the amount from the date on which the vehicles were removed from the Embassy i.e. on 27-3-2003. The department had been informed about the removal on 24-3-2003. Therefore, the Show Cause Notice has been issued beyond the date of one year i.e. on 5-4-2004 is clearly barred by time. 5. emsp As the issue is centred only on this ground, the stay application and appeal are taken up together for disposal. There is no other point required for consideration. In view of our finding, the stay application and appeal are allowed solely on the ground of time bar and in the light of all the judgments cited supra. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2006 (1) TMI 524 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... y them. Ld. Advocate submits that the fact that these parts came into existence while fabricated wagons cannot be held to be suppressed from the Revenue as they are well known facts and the Revenue should be in knowledge of the same inasmuch as no wagons, can come into existence without the above parts. Further the Commissioner has nowhere alleged or found that non-filing of declaration was with an intent to evade duty, in which circumstances, longer period of limitation will not apply. 5. emsp We fully agree with the above contention of the ld. Consultant. It cannot be said that the Revenue was not aware of the above parts coming into existence during the course of manufacture of railway wagons. There is nothing to suggest that non-filing of declaration was on account of any mala fide. As such, we are of the prima-facie view that the demand in question is barred by limitation. We accordingly allow the Stay Petition unconditionally. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2006 (1) TMI 523 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Order beyond show cause notice not sustainable - Refund claim - Departmental clarification - Binding nature
-
2006 (1) TMI 522 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Smuggled goods - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... anufacturing facility and the certificate issued by the District Industrial Officer was also found to be bogus. The watch parts were recovered from the shop and residential premises of Madan Lal Girdhar and Madan Lal Girdhar in his statement admitted that these foreign imported watch parts for sale and they had already sold 2,000 pieces out of the present consignment. In respect of valuation, we find that verification was conducted from M/s. HMT Ltd., the manufacturer of watches, that value of the imported modules is Rs. 30 per piece. The Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order also considered two imports made by other importers at Jaipur at the higher price of the same goods. In these circumstances, as the appellant produced no evidence that they are actual users of the imported watch parts and also in respect of goods price. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 16-1-06)
-
2006 (1) TMI 521 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Misutilisation/diversion thereof ... ... ... ... ..... the specification prescribed by the Electricity Department. These poles are manufactured in the open yards. We are in agreement with the appellants that the very process of manufacture in the open yards results in wastage due to exposure to wind, rain and water. Actually, there is no evidence that the input material has been diverted. Moreover, even in the process of manufacture of the RCC/PCC Poles, some wastages of steel occur when the poles are cut to required length. These factors have not been taken into account by the lower authority. The show cause notice also does not clearly indicate the norms adopted by the Department. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no evidence against the appellants with regard to the misutilization of the inputs on which Modvat credit has been availed. Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in the open Court on completion of hearing on 10-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 520 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Production capacity based duty - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... (T.) 2005 (69) RLT 228 (CESTAT-Del.) has clearly laid down that no liability can be fastened on the appellant because of the inaction of Revenue, especially when the assessee has informed about the change in production capacity and for re-determination of duty based on such changed capacity permissible under Rule. We accept the prayer for remand of the matter and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner has to reconsider the assessee rsquo s submission in the light of the documents produced and also to take into consideration the cited judgment and pass a fresh order by observing the principles of natural justice. In case, if it is established by the assessee that one furnace had been dismantled, even before the coming into existence of the said Rules, then they are eligible for benefit as per law. The matter shall be decided de novo within four months from the receipt of his order. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (1) TMI 519 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Losses of sugar ... ... ... ... ..... msp It was argued for the appellants that when the Brown Sugar is issued for re-processing, standard sugar and molasses are obtained and both have been cleared on payment of duty. There is no charge against them for non-accountal or illicit clearance of standard sugar and molasses obtained after re-processing. 5. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions made by the appellants, I find that when BIS sugar is issued for re-processing, it resulted in re-processed standard sugar and molasses, which have been duly accounted for by the appellants. There is no charge of any illicit removal of standard sugar and molasses. In these circumstances, following the decisions of this Tribunal in their own case as decided in Final Order No. A/1629/2005-IV(SM), dated 5-8-2005, I find merit in the appeals filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeals are allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court on 9-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 518 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat - Exempted goods ... ... ... ... ..... cise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. emsp We have heard both sides. The credit has been denied on the ground that the products on which duty was paid and credit taken were not excisable and therefore question of taking Cenvat credit did not arise. We note that admittedly the Revenue has not controverted the stand throughout that they had paid duty on the goods and therefore there was nothing wrong in their availing Cenvat credit of duty actually paid. The applicants made out a strong prima facie case in their favour in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Stumpp Scheule and Somappa Ltd. and Anr v. CCE, Bangalore - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1085 (Tribunal) 2005 (69) RLT 786 (CESTAT -Ban), wherein the Tribunal has held that credit availed on the goods cannot be denied when duty was levied and collected on such goods. Following the ratio of the above order, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalties and stay recovery thereof pending these appeals. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2006 (1) TMI 517 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... of transient heater in which sugar mascuite is prepared as per requirement of temperature to run the Centrifugal machine to make sugar. Since there are accessories of the Centrifugal machine, these are eligible for Modvat credit. (7) Transformer of 37.5 K.V.A. The Commissioner (appeals) has given finding that the assessee has not submitted any detail role use of this transformers. I find that it is also not indicated whether this transformer is used within the plant or outside the plant. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly denied the credit on this item. 11. emsp In view of the above, the credit is allowed on Automatic Voltage regular, CI Plumer Block, H.R. Coil, and 32/AMP 121 and credit is denied on HRP Coil, Shape and Section and Transformer of 37.5 K.V.A. 12. emsp The appeal of the Revenue against the impugned order is rejected and the appeal of the assessee against the impugned order is partly allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court.)
-
2006 (1) TMI 516 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Cenvat/Modvat - Reversal of credit ... ... ... ... ..... to conclude that the appellant have wrongly utilized the Cenvat credit with an intention to convert the same into cash by collecting the same from their customers. It is not the case that the excess duty was paid by cash and the same was collected from the customers to apply Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, rdquo It is also found that the duty short paid on account of following the earlier rule is Rs. 3,976/-. The net effect is the appellant has paid more duty than necessary. In our view, it is not incumbent on us to go into the motives of the appellants and fasten the duty liability for paying more duty than necessary even though it was by way of Cenvat Credit and not through PLA. In our view, even though there is an infraction of the rule as excess duty has been paid, the demand would not survive. Hence, we set aside the impugned order with consequential relief. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in the open court on completion of hearing on 4-1-2006)
-
2006 (1) TMI 515 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Order - Commissioner (Appeals) order ... ... ... ... ..... als) had taken charge of that office. 2. emsp The learned SDR prays for remand of the matter. 3. emsp On a careful consideration, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have passed the order after she has become functus officio inasmuch as that she has already been transferred from her office. The order is not legal and proper and hence the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) in-charge to hear the appellant afresh and pass a detailed, considered order in terms of law. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (1) TMI 514 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... was no prohibition against import of load cells at the material time. Hence Section 111(d) also was inapplicable to the goods in question. The goods were not liable for confiscation at all. Consequently, there was no reason for imposing any penalty on the importer. This case of the appellant, reiterated by the learned Counsel, is also supported by the following decisions of the Tribunal (a) CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi v. Sewa Ram and Bros. reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 344 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Baburam Premchand v. CC (Imports), Chennai reported in 2004 (61) RLT 557 (CESTAT), Chennai. In the case of Sewa Ram (supra), a penalty imposed on the importer was set aside by this Tribunal, having found that the importer had abandoned the goods without filing Bill of Entry. This precedent was followed in the case of Baburam Premchand (supra) also. 3. emsp In the light of the findings noted above, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
............
|
