|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 440 Records
-
1999 (10) TMI 531
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for being involved in a case where contraband goods were found in a truck he was traveling in. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 considering the circumstances.
-
1999 (10) TMI 508
Issues:
- Imposition of penalty for non-entry of alleged excess goods in RG 1 Register
- Applicability of Notification No.79/82 regarding processed fabrics
- Violation of statutory requirements under Rules 53 and 226
- Imposition of penalty on the manufacturer and the manager
- Consideration of written submissions in defense of the penalty imposed
Imposition of Penalty for Non-Entry of Alleged Excess Goods in RG 1 Register:
The appellant argued that since the goods found in excess were still in the factory and had not reached the state of removal, confiscation was not applicable. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, observed that the imposition of penalty should be based on whether the alleged excess goods were entered in the RG 1 Register. The appellant cited Notification No.79/82, stating that for processed fabrics, RG1 stage is reached only after folding and measurement. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the appellant contended that non-maintenance of records was not established, and penalty was set aside in a similar case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.
Applicability of Notification No.79/82 Regarding Processed Fabrics:
The appellant highlighted that the RG 1 entries for processed fabrics are required only after folding and measurement, as per Notification No.79/82. The appellant presented a trade notice indicating the stage for MM Fabrics to be when fabrics are processed and duly folded but before packing. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not dispute the applicability of the notification to the disputed items. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant that non-maintenance of records under Rules 53 and 226 was not established in the present case, leading to the reversal of the penalty imposed.
Violation of Statutory Requirements Under Rules 53 and 226:
The Commissioner found that the appellants violated statutory requirements under Rules 53 and 226 by not entering production in the RG 1 Register at the appropriate stage. The Assistant Commissioner had imposed penalties on both the manufacturer and the manager under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant notifications, concluded that the charge of non-maintenance of records was not applicable, and therefore, the penalty imposed could not be sustained.
Imposition of Penalty on the Manufacturer and the Manager:
The Order-in-Original revealed that penalties were imposed on both the manufacturer and the manager. Despite the rejection of the manufacturer's appeal and subsequent filings, the penalty on the manager (the present appellant) was also being contested. The Tribunal, after thorough examination of the submissions and relevant notifications, determined that the penalty imposed on the appellant could not be justified, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the penalty amounting to Rs.10,000.
This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key arguments, legal interpretations, and findings that led to the reversal of the penalty imposed on the appellant.
-
1999 (10) TMI 507
Issues:
Manufacture of Bata brand shoes without aid of power, exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 49/86, demand of duty, imposition of penalty, machinery operated with the aid of power found installed, unaccounted shoes, certificates from M/s. Bata India Ltd. and Central Footwear Training Centre, evidence of manual manufacturing.
Analysis:
The case involved the issue of manufacturing Bata brand shoes without the aid of power and the subsequent exemption from duty under a specific notification. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) initially held that the appellants were exempted from duty as they were manufacturing shoes without power. However, the Revenue filed appeals against this decision, leading to a joint hearing of two appeals related to different periods on the same issue.
Upon visiting the factory premises, Central Excise Officers discovered the production of Bata Brand Footwear by the appellants. They found electrically operated machinery and unaccounted shoes. The officers issued show-cause notices proposing the recovery of Central Excise Duty and penal action. The appellants argued that the machinery found was not used for manufacturing Bata brand shoes, supported by certificates from M/s. Bata India Ltd. and the Central Footwear Training Centre, stating the shoes were handmade without power.
The Revenue contended that the machinery operated with power was present, justifying the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Dy. Commissioner. However, the Proprietor of the respondent firm maintained that the shoes were manually manufactured without power, with evidence from certificates and lack of proof from the Department showing power usage in production.
After considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal noted the appellant's explanation for keeping machinery unused due to reduced demand. Certificates from M/s. Bata India Ltd. and the Central Footwear Training Centre supported the manual manufacturing claim. The Department failed to provide evidence contradicting these certificates or showing power usage during the visit. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the appeals and confirming the exemption from duty for manual manufacturing of Bata brand shoes without power.
-
1999 (10) TMI 506
Issues involved: The appeal concerns whether a turbine generating set assembled at the site is subject to excise duty and if the demand is within the time limit specified under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises Act.
Excisability of the product: The appellant, M/s. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., relied on a previous Tribunal decision and Supreme Court appeal regarding the excisability of the product. They argued that the demand for duty, except for a six-month period, is time-barred under Section 11A(1) due to the issuance of a show cause notice in 1996. The appellant contended that the Department cannot invoke a longer period for demand when it was not available initially. They also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 for the period within six months, citing the exemption for Capital goods under Rule 57-Q.
Department's arguments: The Department argued that there was no confusion post a 1990 circular, and the observations in a previous Tribunal order were not applicable. They claimed that the larger period of limitation is applicable as the appellants did not provide a classification list or price list for the goods. The Department also raised concerns about the usage of capital goods under Notification No. 67/95.
Tribunal decision: The Tribunal noted that the Department was aware of the assembly and erection of turbine generating sets by the appellants, thus suppression of facts could not be alleged. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. They agreed with the appellant that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 applied as the generating sets were used within the factory of production. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order.
-
1999 (10) TMI 505
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Department regarding the determination of value for goods captively consumed. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that the quality of yarn should be the same when comparing values, and since there was no evidence of similarity between the yarn manufactured by the assessee and Abohar Mills, the comparison was not justified.
-
1999 (10) TMI 504
Issues:
1. Valuation of imported vehicle for customs duty assessment.
2. Confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.
Issue 1: Valuation of imported vehicle for customs duty assessment
The case involved an appeal regarding the valuation of a Mitsubishi Pajero car imported by the appellant. The appellant contested the customs authorities' valuation, which was based on a different vehicle imported by another individual at a different time. The appellant provided evidence, including an invoice and certificates from Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, to support the declared value of the vehicle. The adjudicating authority fixed the value of the vehicle higher than the declared value, considering discounts, depreciation, insurance, and freight. However, the appellate tribunal held that the price shown in the invoice was the correct value of the imported vehicle. The tribunal emphasized that the value declared in the invoice should be accepted for duty calculation and that there was no misdeclaration warranting confiscation or personal penalty.
Issue 2: Confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962
The Commissioner of Customs found that the imported car was not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue challenged this finding in an appeal. However, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that since the correct value of the vehicle was declared in the invoice, there was no misdeclaration justifying confiscation under the specified sections of the Act. As a result, the tribunal ruled that confiscation was not warranted in this case.
Issue 3: Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act
The adjudicating authority did not impose a personal penalty on the importer under Section 112 of the Act, considering the valuation and confiscation aspects. The Revenue challenged this decision in an appeal. The tribunal, after determining the correct value of the imported vehicle based on the invoice, concluded that there was no misdeclaration that would trigger the imposition of a personal penalty. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that since Section 111(m) was not applicable due to the correct valuation, the question of imposing a personal penalty did not arise.
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to assess the duty on the imported Mitsubishi Pajero based on the value declared in the invoice, granting the importer legitimate depreciation. The tribunal emphasized the importance of accepting the declared value in the invoice for duty calculation and rejected the need for confiscation or personal penalty due to the absence of misdeclaration.
-
1999 (10) TMI 503
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order without considering submissions and without providing an opportunity for hearing.
In this case, the applicants were engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics under a compounded levy scheme. The dispute arose when the Commissioner of Central Excise determined the annual capacity of production by including the length of an unusable part (gallery) of a machine, despite the applicants' contention that the gallery did not impact the manufacturing process. The Commissioner's decision was made without considering the submissions of the applicants and without providing them with a hearing. The applicants challenged this decision, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the applicants' argument, noting that the impugned order was passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal allowed the stay application unconditionally and proceeded to dispose of the appeal based on the established violation.
The learned Chartered Accountant representing the applicants argued that the impugned order failed to consider the written submissions regarding the gallery's irrelevance to the manufacturing process and that the applicants were not given an opportunity to explain their stance on the measurements for determining the annual production capacity. Citing a previous final order by the Tribunal in a similar case, the Chartered Accountant contended that the impugned order was akin to an ex parte order and should be set aside. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing the need to uphold principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh consideration in compliance with the law and principles of natural justice. The Commissioner was directed to consider the written submissions, provide a personal hearing to the applicants, and issue a speaking order promptly.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative decision-making processes. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of providing parties with a fair opportunity to present their case and be heard before decisions are made, ensuring procedural fairness and upholding the rule of law in such matters.
-
1999 (10) TMI 502
Issues:
1. Whether the value of HDPE woven fabrics should be included in the computation of the duty-free clearance limit under Notification No. 1/93.
2. Applicability of exemptions under Notification No. 214/86 for job work.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of the value of HDPE woven fabrics in the duty-free clearance limit of Rs. 30 Lakhs under Notification No. 1/93. The Commissioner (A) had held that the value of the fabrics should be included in the clearance limit, leading to a demand for duty. The appellants contended that the fabrics were sent for job work and received back for further processing, thus not requiring duty payment. The Addl. Commissioner upheld the duty demand, which was further confirmed by the Commissioner (A). However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, invoked Explanation II of Notification No. 1/93, stating that if goods were exempted under Notification No. 214/86, their value need not be added for computing the clearance limit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand.
2. The second issue revolved around the applicability of exemptions under Notification No. 214/86 for job work. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were sent for job work and received back, meeting the conditions of the notification. The notification required an undertaking and evidence of use in final products, which were fulfilled in this case. The Tribunal found that since the goods were exempted under Notification No. 214/86, the value of the HDPE fabrics did not need to be included in the calculation of the clearance limit under Notification No. 1/93. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the provisions of the notifications and granted consequential relief as per the law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the application of the notifications regarding duty-free clearance limits and exemptions for job work, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants by allowing the appeal and setting aside the duty demand.
-
1999 (10) TMI 471
Issues Involved:
1. Import Valuation and Alleged Under-Valuation
2. Relevance of Manufacturer's Price
3. Amendment of Letter of Credit
4. Quantity Discount and Bulk Imports
5. Validity of Confiscation and Redemption Fine
6. Application of Unjust Enrichment Principle
Detailed Analysis:
1. Import Valuation and Alleged Under-Valuation:
The core issue revolves around the alleged under-valuation of Borax Penta Hydrate Neobor imported by the appellants. The Department contended that the declared transaction value was lower than the manufacturer's price, suggesting an under-valuation. The appellants argued that the transaction value was correct and supported by the invoices and Letter of Credit.
2. Relevance of Manufacturer's Price:
The Department argued that the manufacturer's price should be considered for valuation, which was $275 per MT FOB Los Angeles, USA. This price was evidenced by invoices raised on Samaha Trading Corporation, London. The Department insisted on adding freight and insurance costs ($57.48) to this price, making the correct value $332.48 CIF Madras. The appellants countered that no contemporaneous imports at this value were shown by the Department, and the transaction value declared should be accepted.
3. Amendment of Letter of Credit:
The Letter of Credit initially issued by M/s. Borax India Ltd. was amended after the shipment. The Department questioned the genuineness of this amendment. However, the appellants cited case law to argue that the Letter of Credit is independent of the civil contract and that such amendments do not affect the transaction value.
4. Quantity Discount and Bulk Imports:
The appellants negotiated a bulk import deal, increasing the quantity from 2000 MTs to 5000 MTs, which led to a price reduction. The Department contested the validity of this discount, arguing that it was not a single importer's consignment. The appellants cited several judgments, including the Apex Court's decision in Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, to support the legality of quantity discounts in bulk imports.
5. Validity of Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The Department imposed redemption fines on the appellants despite the goods not being available for confiscation. The appellants argued that such fines were wrongly levied, especially since the goods were cleared out of Customs charge. They further contended that confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act does not apply to finished products made from imported goods.
6. Application of Unjust Enrichment Principle:
The appellants paid all differential duties, penalties, and fines under protest and sought relief from unjust enrichment, arguing that the goods were used for captive consumption, not for trading. The Tribunal referenced case law to support the appellants' position that captively consumed goods are not subject to unjust enrichment principles.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Department failed to establish the alleged under-valuation. The declared transaction value was accepted as correct, considering the lack of evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher value and the legality of quantity discounts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, and ruled out penalties and fines due to the absence of under-valuation.
-
1999 (10) TMI 470
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of duty drawback claims.
2. Classification of exported goods.
3. Adequacy of evidence submitted by the appellant.
4. Examination and certification by Central Excise authorities.
5. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
6. Validity of post-export investigations.
7. Adjudicating authority's reasoning and conclusions.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Rejection of Duty Drawback Claims:
The appellant's duty drawback claims for exported Cast Alloy Permanent Magnets in unmagnetised condition were rejected by the Adjudicating authority. The authority held that the exporter could not submit conclusive evidence to satisfy the raw material aspect, the manufacturing process, and the distinctive quality of the goods. Consequently, the authority classified the goods under a different drawback schedule, resulting in a lower refund rate.
2. Classification of Exported Goods:
The appellant contended that the exported goods were Cast Alloy Permanent Magnets in unmagnetised form, as certified by the Central Excise authorities. However, the Adjudicating authority classified the goods under a different sub-heading, arguing that the test certificates provided did not conclusively identify the goods as claimed. The appellant argued that the onus of proving the incorrect classification was on the Department, not on them.
3. Adequacy of Evidence Submitted by the Appellant:
The appellant submitted various documents, including test certificates and endorsements from the Central Excise authorities, to support their claim. The Adjudicating authority found these documents insufficient, noting that the test certificates did not specifically certify the goods as Cast Alloy Permanent Magnets in unmagnetised form. The appellant argued that the documents provided were adequate and that the Department failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
4. Examination and Certification by Central Excise Authorities:
The appellant highlighted that the goods were examined and certified by the Central Excise authorities before export, and the Customs authorities allowed the shipment. This certification should have been considered conclusive evidence of the goods' description and classification. The Adjudicating authority's refusal to accept this certification was deemed unjustified by the appellant.
5. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the Adjudicating authority violated principles of natural justice by not considering the evidence submitted and by not providing a fair opportunity to contest the reclassification of the goods. The authority's decision was seen as arbitrary and lacking proper reasoning.
6. Validity of Post-Export Investigations:
The appellant contended that post-export investigations and inquiries conducted by the Department were illegal and unjustified. These investigations should have been carried out before or at the time of export when the goods were available for examination. The appellant argued that the Department's failure to conduct timely investigations could not be used as a basis for denying the drawback claims.
7. Adjudicating Authority's Reasoning and Conclusions:
The Adjudicating authority's reasoning was criticized for being immature and contradictory to the facts on record. The appellant pointed out that the authority's conclusions were based on incorrect assumptions, such as the factory's closure, which was refuted by evidence of ongoing production. The authority's failure to discharge its duties and reliance on personal knowledge instead of expert opinion were also highlighted.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The appellant's drawback claims were reinstated based on the evidence provided, including certifications by the Central Excise authorities. The judgment emphasized the need for the Department to provide concrete evidence when challenging the description and classification of exported goods. The appellant was granted the drawback amount applicable to Cast Alloy Permanent Magnets in unmagnetised condition, as per the relevant invoices and certifications.
-
1999 (10) TMI 469
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Tribunal found no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation as there was no evidence of suppression or mis-statement by the assessee. The appeal was rejected, and the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was upheld.
-
1999 (10) TMI 453
The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the classification of imported goods (Rovimix AD3 500/100) under CETA, citing a precedent judgment. The Commissioner failed to follow the precedent judgment, leading to the order being set aside and the appeal being allowed.
-
1999 (10) TMI 446
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai considered whether waste from destructive testing of inputs used in manufacturing final products qualifies for credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the waste from testing is part of the manufacturing process and should be considered waste in the course of manufacture. The question was referred to the High Court for further clarification.
-
1999 (10) TMI 445
Issues:
Duty liability on HDPE/PP tapes used in weaving fabrics without payment of central excise duty, calculation of duty liability based on weight of woven fabrics, wastages in the manufacturing process, time-barred demand, suppression of facts by the appellants, reliance on previous tribunal decisions, duty liability based on private records, imposition of penalty.
Analysis:
The appeal concerned the duty liability of M/s. Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd. regarding HDPE/PP tapes used in weaving fabrics without paying central excise duty. The appellants calculated duty based on the weight of woven fabrics, not paying excise duty at the spindle stage but on utilization in weaving. The Revenue contended that any wastage of tapes at the weaving stage should not be exempt, demanding duty on the full quantity transferred to the weaving section. The Collector confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,06,864.21 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000.
The appellants argued that wastage occurred before weaving and the demand was time-barred. They faced difficulties in calculating duty at the spindle stage due to continuous processing. The Revenue asserted that duty liability was at the tape stage, emphasizing proper duty discharge for wastages in weaving. They claimed the appellants did not disclose deduction of wastage at the weaving stage and justified invoking the extended period of limitation.
The Tribunal found excise duty payable at the tape stage, with duty calculated after weaving. The spindle stage wastages were not considered, and only loom stage wastage was addressed. Previous tribunal decisions were cited, supporting the Revenue's position. The adjudicating authority noted the appellants' suppression of facts and upheld the duty demand based on the appellants' records.
The duty demand of Rs. 1,06,864.21 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 were upheld. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments.
-
1999 (10) TMI 439
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under incorrect Customs Tariff Heading.
2. Allegations of misdeclaration and suppression of facts by the importers.
3. Contention regarding the legality of reviewing post-clearances under Section 47 of the Customs Act.
4. Invocation of extended period of limitation for fraudulent activities.
Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported master batches but declared them as PP Dyed Chips under the incorrect CTH 3902.10 instead of 32.02/32.06. Despite contesting the classification, previous proceedings had already confirmed the correct classification. The Tribunal held that the appellants cannot dispute the earlier decision and are bound by it, precluding them from avoiding liability.
Misdeclaration and Suppression of Facts:
Evidence revealed deliberate misclassification and suppression of facts by the appellants to evade Customs duty. Documents showed intentional misrepresentation of goods as PP Dyed Chips instead of master batches. Previous findings in identical proceedings supported the conclusion of fraud and misrepresentation by the appellants.
Legality of Reviewing Post-Clearances:
The appellants argued that post-clearances under Section 47 could not be reviewed. However, the Tribunal found this contention legally untenable. The appellants' earlier clearances were reexamined due to detection of misdescription and suppression of material facts, justifying the review under the extended period of limitation.
Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
Extended period of limitation was invoked against the appellants for fraud and suppression of facts. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing evidence of deliberate misrepresentation and fraud in the importation process. The appellants were estopped from denying fraudulent activities based on earlier findings, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments due to established misdeclaration, suppression of facts, and fraudulent activities in the importation of goods. The decision upheld the imposition of differential duty and penalties based on the evidence presented.
-
1999 (10) TMI 438
The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad. M/s. Versatile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. argued that their processes on fabrics are temporary and not dutiable. The Tribunal agreed, citing previous decisions, and allowed the appeal.
-
1999 (10) TMI 437
The appellate tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal regarding Modvat credit for release paper used in manufacturing PVC coated fabrics and vinyl floor coverings, citing previous rulings that deemed the release paper eligible for credit as an input. The appeal was dismissed, and cross objections were also disposed of accordingly. The decision was announced on 18-10-1999.
-
1999 (10) TMI 436
The appellants imported "Nomex Aramid Paper" claiming classification under Heading 85.46 for Electrical Insulators. The Assistant Commissioner classified the goods under Chapter 39, but the Commissioner (Appeal) traced the history of classification and observed that the goods should be classified under Heading 85.46. The Tribunal held that the contested goods merit classification under Heading 85.46 based on previous judgments, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
-
1999 (10) TMI 435
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that the process of electroplating of duty paid M.S. wire does not amount to manufacture. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1989.
-
1999 (10) TMI 434
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant, a sub-division of UP State Electricity Board, stating that they are entitled to SSI exemption under Notification 175/86 as their clearance value fell below the ceiling limit. The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty, allowing the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
