|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 489 Records
-
2006 (10) TMI 299 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication and criminal prosecution - Acquittal by criminal court - Investigation - Non-cooperation - Smuggling - Foreign marked gold biscuits and currency
-
2006 (10) TMI 298 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Spent solvents - Excisability of ... ... ... ... ..... 58) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). (ii) emsp CCE, Patna v. Indian Tube Co. Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.). 4. emsp The learned JDR reiterated the departmental view. 5. emsp On a careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner (A) has analysed the issue in depth and has found that the goods in question did not have the purity for classification under Chapter 29, as the solvent had lost its purity due to its repeated use. The finding given by the Commissioner (A) is just and proper in the light of several judgments rendered by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The ratio of this judgment was applied by this Bench in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (supra) in an identical situation. This ratio of the judgment clearly applies to the facts of the present case. The Commissioner was justified in setting aside the demands. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (10) TMI 297 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Rejection thereof without personal hearing - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... er has clearly violated the principles of natural justice by not giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant against the rejection of the refund claim which was made on the basis of the appellant rsquo s succeeding before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the appellant rsquo s claim to the cash discount at the rate of 4.953 . The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) did not take into consideration even this aspect. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside, and matter will have to be remanded to the original authority, for a fresh consideration of and a decision on the refund claim of the appellant in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 8. emsp This appeal is, accordingly, allowed with a direction to the original authority to expeditiously consider and decide the refund claim of the appellant afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 17-10-2006)
-
2006 (10) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Payment of duty - Delay in payment ... ... ... ... ..... 3A) would get attracted. In view of these amended provisions, once the outstanding amount has been paid, thereafter the payment of duty on daily basis need not be paid. Since the payment was made on 3-6-2006, therefore the order of the lower authority in forfeiting the facility for two months is not governed by the amended provisions of sub-rule (3A). Thus, for these reasons, I set aside the order of the lower authority and the appellants would be entitled to pay the duty on monthly basis. rdquo 3. emsp It can be noticed that the Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the amendments made to sub-rule (3A) of the Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since, the amended provisions squarely apply in the case before me, I do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the revenue against the impugned order. 4. emsp Accordingly, the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 295 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Returned goods, credit of duty paid thereon ... ... ... ... ..... 57G(1) is mandatory in view of the expression ldquo shall file a declaration rdquo occurring therein. Under sub-rule (9) of Rule 57G, it was provided that where a manufacturer was, for sufficient reasons, not in a position to make a declaration under sub-rule (1) and made the declaration subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (10) and for reasons to be recorded in writing, condone the delay in filing of such declaration and allow the manufacturer to take credit of the duty already paid on the inputs. Admittedly, no such application for condonation of delay was made by the appellant, as recorded in the impugned order. 6. emsp It is obvious that the appellant was not entitled to take Modvat credit in violation of the provisions of Rule 57G(1). The impugned demand and penalty have, therefore, rightly been confirmed under the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 17-10-2006)
-
2006 (10) TMI 294 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and penalty - Manufacture/Assembly of computers ... ... ... ... ..... adjudicating authority that they have purchased the computers from various suppliers and handed over the invoices regarding the purchase of computers. The computers were purchased in the year 1992 to Oct. 95 whereas the enquiry was conducted in the year 1997. The appellant also produced the bank certificate showing that drafts were prepared from their account in the name of above mentioned supplier of computers. One supplier i.e. M/s. Broadway Computers which was found at the given address has specifically written to the Supdt. of Central Excise that they had supplied computers to the appellant and the computers were assembled at their place and they were not paying any Central Excise Duty. Further we find that at the appellant rsquo s premises, there was nothing found which shows that they were engaged in assembling of computers. In these circumstances, we find that demand and penalties are not sustainable and set aside. Appeals are allowed. Order dictated in the open Court.
-
2006 (10) TMI 293 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Maintainability of - High Seas Sales ... ... ... ... ..... elopers, subsequently they stated that the sale agreement has been cancelled. Since the Bill of Entry was filed in the name of M/s. Nu-lite Business Machines, the Customs has to go by the instructions of M/s. Nu-lite Business Machines. The dispute between M/s. Nu-lite Business Machines and M/s. Shoreline Infrastructure Developers regarding non adherence of terms of agreement between the two and the ownership is of a civil nature which cannot be looked into by the Commissioner, nor is the Tribunal empowered to settle a civil dispute regarding ownership of the goods. I therefore hold that no appeal against such an order is maintainable in the Tribunal, as the dispute is of civil nature and no provisions of Customs Act, 1962 or any other allied Acts are attracted or in dispute in the present case. The appellant may approach the appropriate forum for settling the ownership dispute. 10. emsp The appeal is accordingly dismissed as non maintainable. (Pronounced in Court on 24-10-06)
-
2006 (10) TMI 292 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... light of the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Limited v. CCE and C, Vadodara, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 201 holding that the term lsquo suitable for use rsquo in the context of motor spirits, means that the products must be actually, practically and commercially fit for the use described and there must be elements of more than a casual, incidental, exceptional or possible use and that the use must be substantial, we find, prima facie, force in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the material on record in the form of report of IOC Technical Officer is, prima facie, not sufficient to conclude that the second criterion for classification as special boiling point spirit/motor spirit can be said to have been satisfied. We, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty on the company and the pre-deposit of penalty by the Managing Director and stay recovery thereof pending these appeals. (Dictated in the Court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 291 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... ore specific and there is no need to go to residuary heading 21.08. Since it is a classification dispute involving interpretation of Statute, no penalty is imposable on the appellants. In the case of CCE, Indore v. Syncom Formulation (I) Ltd. 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1228 (Tri.-Del) the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal has held that penalty is not imposable when there is dispute in classification matters in as lsquo much the difference of opinion may be genuine. Therefore, I pass the following order. ORDER I set aside the Order-in-Original No. 21/2003, dated 30-5-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nellore by allowing the appeal filed by the appellants. rdquo We have carefully considered the matter and perused the impugned order. We find that the order is legal and proper. There is no ground to take a different view on the view expressed in the MTR Food Products case. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 290 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture - Inkjet refill kit ... ... ... ... ..... viz. paste or liquid and the syringe, are put. The items are packed and sold as Inkjet Refill Kit under the brand ldquo Abee Fill rdquo . Repacking is in syringes which facilitates the dispensation of the ink at the point of use. The Inkjet Refill Kit is a distinct marketable commodity different from the ink and syringe in name, character and use and, therefore, satisfies the test of manufacture. The classification of the product under CET sub-heading 3215.90 has not been challenged by the Revenue. The appellants do not claim that the product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 96.12 as their case is that the process carried out by them does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, no finding is required to be recorded by us on the classification of the product. 4. emsp In view of our finding that the process carried out by the appellants amounts to manufacture, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal. (Pronounced in Court on 12-10-06)
-
2006 (10) TMI 289 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... ismissed. 3. emsp After hearing both sides and perusal of the record I find that when the Tribunal has exercised his discretion under the above provision and dismissed the appeal as well as stay petition itself at the admission stage, no power has been given to the Tribunal to review its discretion once exercised. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that question of law is involved in the case as submitted by the Director of the appellant company I do not consider the application for restoration of appeal as maintainable. Moreover, the above provision also do not speak for taking into consideration any such important question of law to be taken into consideration where the amount of duty and penalty involved does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, to restore an appeal on the ground of involvement of important question of law may be extraneous to the above provisions. I, therefore, dismiss the application for restoration of appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2006 (10) TMI 288 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Excisabily - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... has also taken note of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Union Carbide 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) etc. A circular to the same effect was issued subsequently also by the Board vide Circular No. 464/30/99-CX, dated 30-6-99. Binders/resin/glues are specifically developed by the industry only for captive consumption. 4. emsp The present appeal seeks to overcome the circular by contending that a circular issued in the context of glue used in cigarette industry cannot have application in regard to glue produced for use in paper industry. This reasoning cannot find acceptance. The issue is not as to in which industry it is used. The issue is whether the glue in question is a marketable item. There is no material is suggest that the glue in the present case is different and had shelf life which made it marketable. Therefore, the appeals have no merit. In the result, both the appeals fail and are rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 12-10-06)
-
2006 (10) TMI 287 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ontell (I) Ltd. 2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P and H) 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P and H) , as the appellants herein found to be not received the goods that, it amounts to clandestine removal without payment of duty, as such the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the instant case. Therefore, applicability of the aforesaid ratio is doubtful at this stage, since there is no finding about the receipt of goods from their job worker. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite felt expedient to remand the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to consider all the documentary evidence on record and that may be produced in the de novo proceedings. Accordingly matter is remanded back, Adjudicating authority after hearing both parties and considering the documentary evidence on record or other evidence as may sought to be produced and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in remand in above terms. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 286 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... by the Commissioners which prods the ldquo interest rdquo of Revenue favouring an assessee could be interpreted as a ldquo security threat rdquo in meeting the ends of justice. In our humble opinion, forming such an extreme view, adversorial to the very interest of justice system could be a much greater threat in securing justice as justice is sought not only by the Revenue but also by the tax-payers who come to this forum. We are, therefore, not impressed with this contention, as, in our opinion, following the course of law, framed under the Constitution, cannot be treated as a hurdle in the process of justice, unless strong reasons are made out. 6. emsp As no prima facie case has been made out in its favour, the application filed by the Revenue merits no consideration. The appeal filed by the Revenue will come up in its course for ldquo securing the ends of justice rdquo . 7. emsp The application filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 285 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Rectification of mistake application - Maintainability of ... ... ... ... ..... rthermore, the second ROM application is also not sustainable in terms of the Larger Bench judgment and cited judgment of the Tribunal. The present plea raised in the Misc. application was not raised in the first ROM application. Hence the second ROM application is also not sustainable and the same is rejected. 5. emsp In the case of C.C., Mangalore v. Sanjeev Singh Chadda, the appeal was allowed by the Final Order No. 1035/2005, dated 1-7-2005. Being aggrieved with this order, the Revenue moved a ROM application which was rejected by the Misc. Order No. 194/2006 dated 30-1-2006. The present ROM application is against the facts which are identical in the above ROM application. This ROM application is not maintainable in the light of the reason given above. Hence the present ROM application is rejected. Further, the Revenue has also filed an appeal before the High Court. In these circumstances, the ROM application is not sustainable. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 284 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Valuation - Additional consideration ... ... ... ... ..... ourable pricing of the appellant rsquo s product viz. filter rods. rdquo But the appellants rsquo contention is that this amount is not paid in relation to the sale of the goods. Further, the sale price has not changed on account of the payment of advance by M/s. VST. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals), by observing that VST would have got a favourable pricing has not given any factual information to support his findings. Cases cannot be decided on the basis of hypothetical points. Revenue has not given any evidence that the selling price or the transaction value has been influenced on account of the amount received from M/s. VST towards 50 of the cost of the Carding machine. In these circumstances, we cannot hold that this amount represents an additional consideration. Hence, the impugned OIA has no merits. We set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (10) TMI 283 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... eading, namely, CETA sub-heading 3003.20 therefore, they have made a prima facie case for waiver on merits. That they did not challenge the earlier adjudication order of March, 1999 by which the product was held to fall for classification under 3003.10 prima facie does not operate against the applicants for the reason that there was no demand of duty in that adjudication order requiring the applicants to appeal against it. As to the arguments on limitation we find that prima facie the demand is partly barred by limitation as the show cause notice of January, 2001 covers the period from December, 1999 to February, 2000 and there is no allegation of suppression or misdeclaration or misstatement of facts in the show cause notice issued to the appellants in the present case. Therefore, prima facie, a case on the limitation has also been made out. We therefore waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 282 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refrigeration compressors/gas ... ... ... ... ..... llowing order. ORDER The assessee, M/s. Haripriya Marine Food Exports is permitted to avail the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 19/99-CE, dated 1-4-99 for the purpose of bringing goods falling under Tariff Heading 8414.30, 8414.99 or 84.18 for industrial purpose. rdquo It is seen that no appeal has been filed against the above order. Hence the above order has become final. The impugned orders deal with the same issue. The Department cannot take a contradictory stand. If the Revenue had appealed against the earlier order dated 25-5-99 in the appellate fora, they could take a different stand now. Hence we are in agreement with the appellants that the issue has become final and the Revenue cannot agitate now and deny the exemption Notification. The case laws relied on by the appellants are appropriate. Hence we allow the appeals with consequential relief if any. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in the open court on completion of hearing)
-
2006 (10) TMI 281 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Reimbursement of expenses ... ... ... ... ..... f appellant rsquo s sales. The appellant made those payments initially and was reimbursed through credit notes. Thus, there is no cost incurred by the appellant nor can they be related to promotion of appellant rsquo s sales. The order has been passed relying on the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. as reported at 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.). That judgment ruled that costs incurred by a manufacturer towards promoting his product would form par of assessable value. The judgment had no application in the case of cost incurred by a third party. That too, not connected to appellants rsquo sales. Therefore, that judgment has no application to the facts of this case. 7. emsp In view of what is stated above, the findings are not sustainable. So too the duty demand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2006 (10) TMI 280 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Entitled to benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... ks are integral part of microprocessor. He also holds that the cooling fans and heat sinks are fully integrated with the micro processor and packed as one composite unit. Both micro processor as well as cooling fan have been classified by the original authority under the tariff heading 84733010 of the CTA. In these circumstances, the Revenue rsquo s contention that the benefit of the notification is not available is not tenable for the reason that as per the S. No. 261A of the table to the notification, micro processor of computers other than mother boards, floppy disc drive, hard disc drive and CD-ROM drive falling there under chapter heading 84.71 or 84.73 of the CTA are eligible for exemption, and the goods in question are parts of micro processor for computers other than mother boards. We, therefore, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly extended the benefit of the notification and accordingly upheld the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
............
|
