|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 435 Records
-
1997 (11) TMI 244
The appeal is against the Additional Collector's order dropping the duty demand for Modvat credit taken and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000. The appellant received washers as inputs, took duty credit, and later cleared them for home consumption after paying duty. The department objected, but the demand for duty was dropped. The penalty imposed based on a Trade Notice was set aside as the notice did not have statutory force. Appeal allowed in part.
-
1997 (11) TMI 243
Issues:
The judgment involves the challenge to Order-in-Original No. 604, dated 27-12-1988 passed by the Director General of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise), New Delhi, regarding the evasion of Central Excise Duty by a manufacturer of Motor Cycles.
PDI Charge Issue:
The appellant was alleged to have evaded duty by not including a PDI charge of Rs. 25.00 per unit in the assessable value. The charge was collected from customers through dealers for pre-delivery inspection. The Tribunal held that the PDI charge cannot be included in the assessable value as it is an activity carried out by dealers after title passes to them, not having a direct nexus with the manufacturer or marketability.
Advertisement Expenses Issue:
The controversy also involved the manufacturer collecting advertisement expenses and cost of publicity materials from dealers. The Tribunal noted that the manufacturer spent about Rs. 82 lakhs on advertisement, recovering about Rs. 17 lakhs from dealers. Citing a Supreme Court case, it was held that the share of advertisement expenses borne by dealers should not be added to the assessable value as the campaign benefitted both the dealers and the manufacturer equally.
Publicity Materials Issue:
Additionally, the appellant supplied publicity materials to dealers and recovered the cost from them. The Tribunal determined that the cost of these materials should not be considered as additional consideration received by the manufacturer for the Motor Cycles sold to dealers. Therefore, it was concluded that such cost should not be included in the assessable value.
In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the findings related to the PDI charge, advertisement expenses, and publicity materials issues.
-
1997 (11) TMI 242
Issues:
1. Confiscation of tea shipment due to non-conformity with declared specifications.
2. Allegation of violation of Customs Act against the exporters.
3. Argument of exporters being victims of fraud by the supplier.
4. Imposition of penalty on exporters for the non-conforming shipment.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Confiscation of tea shipment due to non-conformity
The judgment revolves around the confiscation of a tea shipment by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, due to non-conformity with declared specifications. The Customs examination revealed that the tea consisted more of powdered stems and less of leafy matter, not meeting P.F.A. specifications. The Tea Board recommended against export, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation under Customs Act provisions.
Issue 2: Allegation of violation of Customs Act
The exporters argued that they were not at fault as they had sourced the tea from a supplier who provided inferior quality. They claimed innocence and placed responsibility on the supplier for cheating them. Despite personal hearings, the Collector upheld the confiscation order, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
Issue 3: Argument of exporters being victims of fraud
The exporters contended that they acted in good faith, entrusting the export job to the supplier. They emphasized their lack of mens rea and asserted they were victims of circumstances. Citing various legal precedents, they argued against the imposition of penalties due to their alleged innocence in the supplier's fraud.
Issue 4: Imposition of penalty on exporters
The Tribunal, after careful consideration, rejected the exporters' arguments. It differentiated the case from cited legal precedents, emphasizing the non-conformity with food standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Tribunal held that exporters cannot evade liability for exporting non-conforming goods, emphasizing their duty to ensure specified quality. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the penalty and confiscation, rejecting the appeal.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the exporters' responsibility to ensure conformity with specified standards, rejecting their plea of innocence based on being misled by the supplier. The case highlights the stringent enforcement of quality standards in exports under relevant legal provisions, leading to the rejection of the appeal against the confiscation and penalty imposed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 241
Issues:
1. Whether a refund claim can be granted without finalization of classification dispute and following proper procedure under Section 35 of the Act.
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal received a Reference Application from the department regarding the question of law arising from Final Order No. 522/97-D in Appeal No. E/4419/89-D. The department argued that the refund claim cannot be granted without finalization of the classification dispute and without following the proper procedure under Section 35 of the Act. The department highlighted that the Supreme Court's decision in a previous case is not applicable in this context and that the assessee did not challenge the decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Section 35 of the Act.
It was noted that both the department and the assessee have the right to challenge classification issues, either through a notice under Section 11A or by filing a refund under Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal opined that the matter at hand did not raise a significant point of law warranting referral to the High Court. Additionally, it was clarified that under Section 35G of the Act, a reference lies only concerning matters not related to the determination of questions regarding the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes. Since the rate of duty was a key aspect in this case, the Tribunal rejected the department's reference application.
In a concurring opinion, another Member of the Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with how the Collector had initiated the reference. It was emphasized that the Collector should not assess the propriety, legality, or correctness of the Tribunal's order. The Member highlighted the appropriate procedures for challenging Tribunal orders and the criteria for making references to the High Court under Section 35G. It was suggested that senior officers, including Collectors, should have a better understanding of the provisions of the Act and exercise discretion when making applications under Section 35G.
-
1997 (11) TMI 240
The Revenue filed a Reference application regarding the eligibility of grinding media for Modvat credit in relation to the manufacture of cement. The Tribunal held that the grinding media is eligible for Modvat credit as it is used in activities related to manufacturing. The Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, stating that the issue is a question of fact and not a question of law to be referred to the High Court.
-
1997 (11) TMI 239
The appellants, manufacturers of P & P Medicines, were denied exemption on clinical samples due to packaging similarities with commercial products. The Tribunal upheld the decision, citing a previous case where identical packaging led to denial of exemption. The appeal was rejected.
-
1997 (11) TMI 238
The appeal challenged Order-in-Original No. 58-D/90 dated 9-1-1991 regarding duty on bought-out items supplied with tractors. The Tribunal held that the items in question were optional accessories, not component parts of tractors, and thus their value should not be included in the assessable value of tractors. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
1997 (11) TMI 237
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification 174/89 for Central Excise duty exemption eligibility based on previous year's clearances.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the interpretation and application of Notification 174/89 in the context of Central Excise duty exemption eligibility based on the value of clearances in the previous year. The case stemmed from an order-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad in favor of M/s. Arvind Detergents (P) Ltd., granting them the benefit of Notification 175/86 for clearances during April and May 1989. The Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, filed the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, challenging this decision.
The crux of the matter revolved around the impact of the amending Notification 174/89, issued on 1-9-1989, which allowed the exclusion of the value of clearances of goods manufactured with another person's brand name from the aggregate value of clearances for determining eligibility under Notification 175/86. The department contended that this amendment should have only prospective effect and could not apply to clearances in April and May 1989. However, the Additional Collector had applied the amendment retroactively, leading to the eligibility of M/s. Arvind Detergents (P) Ltd. for duty-free clearance during the said months.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant records, upheld the decision of the Additional Collector. It reasoned that the amending notification, by altering the value of clearances in the previous year, would impact the eligibility for exemption in the relevant year. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of the amendment should extend to clearances made in the financial year in question, such as those in April and May 1989. The Tribunal distinguished previous decisions, emphasizing the retrospective nature of the amendment and its relevance to determining exemption eligibility based on the previous year's clearances.
In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Additional Collector, holding that the amendment to Notification 175/86 through Notification 174/89 had retrospective effect and applied to clearances in the relevant year, thereby entitling M/s. Arvind Detergents (P) Ltd. to duty-free clearance for April and May 1989.
-
1997 (11) TMI 236
Issues Involved:
1. Does roughening of aluminium sheets on one side amount to manufacture?
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Does roughening of aluminium sheets on one side amount to manufacture?
Background:
The Revenue appeals were directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25th Nov., 1988, of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The central question was whether the process of roughening aluminium sheets on one side constitutes "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Collector (Appeals) Decision:
The Collector (Appeals) allowed the Revenue appeal, concluding that the roughened aluminium sheets, used in the manufacture of lithographic plates, acquire a distinct character and use different from plain aluminium sheets. He stated, "these sheets are used in the manufacture of lithographic plates... It is known as Lithographic plates in the trade."
Appellants' Argument:
The appellants contended that they are not manufacturing lithographic plates but merely roughening one side of aluminium sheets. They argued that this process does not change the essential character of the aluminium sheets, and cited a previous order by the Assistant Collector dated 30-12-1985, which detailed the processes subsequent to roughening and concluded that roughened aluminium sheets do not become lithographic plates. They also referenced Tribunal's Order No. 325/87-B-I, which held that intensive polishing of zinc sheets/plates does not amount to manufacture.
Department's Argument:
The department reiterated that aluminium sheets roughened on one side assume a character different from plain aluminium sheets, implying a transformation significant enough to be considered manufacture.
Tribunal's Observations:
The Tribunal examined the Collector (Appeals)'s observations, noting an inconsistency. On one hand, the Collector admitted that roughened aluminium sheets are used in making lithographic plates, yet on the other, he claimed they acquire a distinct character upon roughening. The Tribunal pointed out that at the stage when these goods leave the manufacturer's premises, they are not lithographic plates but are used to make lithographic plates subsequently.
Assistant Collector's Order:
The Assistant Collector's order dated 30th December, 1985, was pivotal. It described in detail the processes and expert opinions, concluding that roughening one side of aluminium sheets does not transform them into lithographic plates. The Chemical Examiner's report and opinions from various experts consistently indicated that roughened aluminium sheets remain distinct from lithographic plates and require further processing to become usable as lithographic plates.
Expert Opinions:
Several experts, including Shri R. Subbu, Shri S.B. Jadhav, and Professor Dr. S.P. Potnis, provided detailed opinions reinforcing that roughened aluminium sheets cannot be directly used as lithographic plates without additional processes like coating with photosensitive materials, exposure to light, and chemical treatments.
Market Enquiries:
Discreet enquiries with printers and the printing industry confirmed that roughened aluminium sheets are not marketable as lithographic plates without further processing. Units like M/s. Shantadurga Printers and M/s. Western Printers & Publishers outlined the necessary steps to convert roughened sheets into lithographic plates.
Legal Precedent:
The Tribunal referenced the definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which implies a transformation resulting in a new and distinct article. The Tribunal found that mere roughening of aluminium sheets does not meet this criterion.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the roughening of aluminium sheets on one side does not amount to manufacture. The order of the Collector (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the detailed reasoning and evidence provided by the Assistant Collector, expert opinions, and market enquiries.
-
1997 (11) TMI 235
Issues:
1. Classification of sacks made of HDPE woven fabrics.
2. Consideration of non-declaration of intermediate products in the classification list as suppression of facts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue in the case pertains to the classification of sacks made of HDPE woven fabrics. The appellants claimed that the sacks should be classified under Heading 48, while the Department argued for classification under 59.09. The appellants relied on a ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and contended that the Tribunal had consistently remanded similar matters to decide the classification issue. The appellants also highlighted that the emergence of intermediate products was indicated in the previous classification list, which was duly approved by the department. They argued that since there was no change in the description and the product was not dutiable as it was captively consumed, the non-inclusion of the intermediate product in the current classification list should not be considered suppression of facts.
2. The second issue revolved around whether the non-declaration of intermediate products in the classification list could be deemed as suppression of facts justifying the invocation of a larger period for assessment. The Revenue argued that the larger period was justified due to the absence of mention of intermediate products in the relevant classification list. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument. The Tribunal noted that the previous classification lists did indicate the emergence of intermediate products, which had been approved by the department. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal held that the failure to declare the intermediate product in the subsequent classification list did not amount to an intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the department was not justified in invoking the larger period for assessment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the concerned authority to calculate any demand for the specific period of six months and decided to remand the matter on merit for that period only. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants based on the above analysis and findings.
-
1997 (11) TMI 234
Issues:
1. Denial of exemption from duty on PVC articles under Notification 68/71.
2. Claim for refund of duty paid on PVC tapes captively consumed.
3. Interpretation of the nature of goods as PVC sheets or tapes for exemption eligibility under Notification 68/71.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal arose from the denial of duty exemption on PVC articles manufactured by the appellants under Notification 68/71. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the denial, stating that the benefit was only available to tapes, not sheets. The appellants argued that they had claimed exemption for PVC tapes, not sheets, and cited past judgments supporting their position. The department did not appeal the order-in-appeal that favored the appellants, leading to its finality.
Issue 2: The appellants sought a refund of duty paid on PVC tapes consumed captively from June 1972 to February 1982. The refund claim was rejected due to retrospective amendments in Central Excise Rules, allowing duty on captive consumption. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the notification, stating the appellants manufactured sheets, not tapes, covered by the notification.
Issue 3: The tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process to determine the nature of goods as sheets or tapes for exemption eligibility. The compound of PVC lumps and stripping was processed into tapes with specific dimensions for cable manufacture. The tribunal concluded that the material above 2 feet width constituted PVC sheets, not tapes eligible for exemption. The tribunal rejected the appellants' reliance on a previous order-in-appeal, noting it lacked findings on the nature of goods and exemption eligibility.
In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Notification 68/71, as the goods manufactured were deemed PVC sheets, not tapes covered by the notification. The retrospective amendments in Central Excise Rules allowed duty on captive consumption, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The tribunal emphasized the importance of accurately determining the nature of goods for exemption eligibility, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the lower authorities' decisions.
-
1997 (11) TMI 233
Issues:
Classification of castings as parts of motor vehicles under Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff.
Detailed Analysis:
The appeal concerns the classification of castings as motor vehicle parts under Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant's counsel argued that the castings manufactured at the Sholinghur unit were only castings until further processes at the Padi unit, where they were fitted onto the cylinder assembly. The counsel emphasized that the lower authority did not examine the nature of processes at Sholinghur or whether a new product emerged. The appellant cited a previous favorable decision in a similar matter. The counsel contended that market inquiries were necessary to establish the emergence of a new product. Additionally, evidence was presented to show the goods were not recognizable as motor vehicle parts or marketable goods.
The respondent's representative argued that the lower authority correctly considered the appellant's past activities as the basis for classifying the goods as motor vehicle parts under Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules.
Upon considering both arguments, the Tribunal noted the crucial issue of whether the processes at the Sholinghur unit transformed the castings into excisable goods with a new character and use as motor vehicle parts. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish through factual examination or market inquiries whether a semi-finished product meeting the description of motor vehicle parts emerged due to the processes at Sholinghur. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision outlining the criteria for determining the essential characteristics of a finished product under Interpretative Rule 2(a.
The Tribunal referred to a case involving forgings where the authorities failed to examine the drawings and specifications necessary for the finished product. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order, emphasizing the importance of examining the nature of the product and required operations before considering it a finished product. The Tribunal also mentioned a similar issue addressed by the Madras High Court in a different case.
Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the lower authority had not adequately examined the facts, leading to an improper order. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the adjudicating authority to review the drawings, specifications, expert opinions, and evidence related to the processes at both the Sholinghur and Padi units. The appellants were to be given an opportunity to be heard during the reconsideration process.
-
1997 (11) TMI 232
Issues:
Demand of duty on Lead Oxide for captive consumption, Bar of limitation for duty demand, Marketability of Lead Oxide, Classification of goods, Excisability of goods, Penalty imposition.
Analysis:
1. Demand of duty on Lead Oxide for captive consumption:
The appeal concerned the demand of duty on Lead Oxide produced by the appellants for captive consumption. The appellants argued that the Lead Oxide they manufactured was specifically tailored for their stationary batteries production and was not intended for sale in the market. They contended that the Lead Oxide was of a variety usable only by them and had a short shelf life of 3 weeks. The department claimed that surplus Lead Oxide was sold, indicating marketability. The Tribunal noted that the Lead Oxide was a chemically well-defined item and capable of being sold due to its specific characteristics, despite not being actively marketed. The Tribunal held that the duty demand was valid, as the Lead Oxide was a distinct commodity technically, suitable for end-use, and excisable.
2. Bar of limitation for duty demand:
The appellants argued that the duty demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the 6-month limit from the date the department acquired knowledge about the captive consumption. The department contended that the appellants had prior knowledge of the excisability of the goods and should have paid duty accordingly. The Tribunal held that the appellants' prior filing of a price list indicated their awareness of the marketability of the goods, even if sales did not materialize. Therefore, the duty demand was not barred by limitation.
3. Marketability of Lead Oxide:
The department argued that the Lead Oxide, despite being captively consumed, was marketable due to its specific characteristics and structural formation. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the Lead Oxide's stability and suitability for end-use in batteries rendered it marketable, regardless of actual sales.
4. Classification of goods and Excisability:
The appellants had classified the Lead Oxide based on a trade notice, but the department contended that excisability was the key issue, irrespective of classification. The Tribunal held that once goods were found to be excisable, duty was applicable, and the appellants failed to provide a valid reason for not paying duty on captively consumed Lead Oxide.
5. Penalty imposition:
The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and imposed a reduced penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellants, considering their conduct in withholding information on production and clearances for captive consumption, indicating an intention to evade duty payment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the department, upholding the duty demand on Lead Oxide for captive consumption and imposing a penalty on the appellants.
-
1997 (11) TMI 231
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of a manufacturer of electronic balances for evasion of duty by not including the cost of wind draft shields and stamping charges in the assessable value of the balances. The Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty and penalty imposed by the Additional Collector. The appellant's argument that the wind draft shield was an optional accessory was rejected as it was deemed necessary for maintaining the sensitivity of the balance. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 230
Issues:
Importation of interfaces for DOT Matrix Printers, interpretation of import license, applicability of exemption notification, classification of interfaces as accessories or separate entities, redemption fine, levy of penalty.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves four appeals concerning the importation of interfaces for DOT Matrix Printers. The original authority denied benefits under Notification No. 282/84, stating that interfaces were not covered by the import license for DOT Matrix Printers.
2. The Advocate for the appellant argued that the interfaces were essential for the printers' configuration, as they were technically required to link the printers to the CPU. The appellant contended that the denial of benefits was unjustified, as the interfaces were integral to the printers' functionality.
3. On the contrary, the department's representative argued that the interfaces were optional equipment, not specified in the DOT Matrix Printers' catalog. He emphasized that the printers could function independently without the interfaces, indicating they were not essential components.
4. The appellant further argued that the interfaces were necessary for the printers to function in parallel or series mode, highlighting their importance in the printers' operation.
5. The Tribunal analyzed the catalog specifications and concluded that the interfaces were listed as optional items, not integral parts of the DOT Matrix Printers. Despite facilitating specific functions, the interfaces were not deemed essential components by the manufacturer, making them separate entities.
6. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authority's classification of interfaces as accessories, emphasizing that the import license specifically covered DOT Matrix Printers, not accessories. Therefore, the denial of benefits under the exemption notification was upheld, as interfaces were not considered part of the printers.
7. Regarding the redemption fine, the Tribunal reduced the fines in two specific cases based on the circumstances, showing leniency towards the appellants. Additionally, the Tribunal deemed the penalty levy unwarranted in the given circumstances and overturned it.
8. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the appellants, except for the modifications mentioned, and allowed the revenue's appeals, affirming the decision on the classification and benefits related to the importation of interfaces for DOT Matrix Printers.
-
1997 (11) TMI 229
Issues: Classification and dutiability of skimmed milk powder, floor or chambers sweepings; Correct classification under Central Excise Tariff; Grounds for appeal including limitation and duty exemption.
In the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the classification and dutiability of skimmed milk powder, floor, or chambers sweepings. The Addl. Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh had classified the floor sweepings as skimmed milk powder under sub-heading 0401.13 of the Central Excise Tariff, demanding duty and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties and examined the nature of the product and its classification under the Tariff.
The Tribunal noted that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of skimmed milk powder, where sweepings were collected and sold for purposes other than human consumption, such as cattle feed. It emphasized that skimmed milk powder, as a dairy product, must meet specific requirements for human consumption under the Food Adulteration Act. The classification under Heading No. 4.01 of the Tariff was crucial, with sub-headings delineating various products based on their intended use and preparation process.
Regarding the classification under sub-heading 40.13 for skimmed milk powder not specially prepared for infants, the Tribunal disagreed with the Addl. Collector's classification of floor sweepings as standard skimmed milk powder. It highlighted the distinction between sweepings and the specific requirements for skimmed milk powder intended for general use, indicating an incorrect classification by the Adjudicating Authority.
The appeal also raised concerns about the limitation for duty demand, with the appellant citing a clarification from the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise exempting floor sweepings from duty under the old Tariff. The Tribunal examined the grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation due to alleged suppression of facts but found no justification for such extension. Considering the nature of the product and the applicable Tariff provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Addl. Collector's classification was erroneous, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Addl. Collector's decision, emphasizing the incorrect classification of floor sweepings as skimmed milk powder and rejecting the grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, M/s. Ludhiana District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.
-
1997 (11) TMI 228
Issues: Excisability and dutiability of glass waste under Central Excise Tariff, classification under Heading No. 7014, applicability of Supreme Court decisions, limitation period for show cause notices.
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the excisability and dutiability of glass waste, specifically classified under sub-heading 7014.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant, represented by Shri S.V. Arya, argued that the glass waste should not be considered excisable as it was not explicitly mentioned in the tariff. The appellant cited the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Indian Aluminium Industries Ltd. and Balaji Enterprises to support their stance. Additionally, the appellant challenged the order-in-appeal on the grounds of limitation. On the respondent's side, Shri R.S. Sangia represented the Revenue during the proceedings.
The Tribunal carefully analyzed the matter, considering the various decisions referenced by both parties. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Dunlop India Limited and several other judicial precedents. The appellant's argument that glass waste was not excisable and dutiable was supported by references to legal judgments, including the Supreme Court decision in the case of Balaji Enterprises v. C.C.E., Madras. The Tribunal noted the need for a detailed examination of the process involved in dealing with glass fibre/wool waste and its marketability based on the specific characteristics of the goods.
Regarding the distinction between sale and marketability raised by the appellants, the Tribunal expressed inability to appreciate the argument, emphasizing that goods being sold at different prices did not negate their marketability. The appellants provided invoices showing the sale of continuous fibre wastes and glass wool wastes to different customers, indicating potential utility not fully understood by the appellants themselves. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of limitation, confirming that the show cause notices issued were within the normal limitation period, covering the relevant time frames.
Given the complexity of the excisability and dutiability issue and the reliance on various legal decisions by both parties, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to delve deeper into the matter during the final hearing. The appellants did not raise financial hardship as a defense. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated timeframe, with the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining duty amount and a stay on recovery pending the disposal of the appeals. The case was scheduled for reporting compliance and further orders on a specified date in the future.
-
1997 (11) TMI 227
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 56/78 regarding concessional rate of duty for air-conditioners.
2. Liability for payment of differential duty between manufacturer and user.
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal filed by the Department against an order by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The case involved the respondents, manufacturers of Refrigeration and Air-conditioning appliances, who supplied air-conditioners to U.P.S.E.B. at a concessional rate under Notification No. 56/78. The Assistant Collector observed that U.P.S.E.B. was not entitled to the concessional rate as per the notification. The respondents argued that they were not liable for any differential duty as the duty was paid based on CT-2 certificates issued by the competent authority. The Collector (Appeals) examined whether U.P.S.E.B. was entitled to the concessional rate and who was liable for the differential duty. The Collector (Appeals) agreed that the Microwave Telecommunication sub-station was eligible for the concessional rate but did not address the issue of liability for differential duty.
The main contention was whether the Microwave Station qualified as a factory under the notification. The Tribunal noted that the specified categories eligible for concessional rate did not include Microwave Stations. The Collector (Appeals) erred in considering the Microwave Station as an extension of a factory. The Tribunal highlighted that the substantive aspect of non-use and liability to pay duty was outlined in the notification itself. The liability to discharge duty rested on the receiver of the goods under Chapter X procedure. The Tribunal held that since U.P.S.E.B. was not eligible and did not use the air conditioners for the intended purpose, the order needed to be set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the respondents followed the prescribed procedure under Chapter X for availing the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the establishment where the air-conditioners were installed must be one of those specified in the notification. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector's observations regarding the unique nature of power stations and electricity, qualifying them as factories under the notification. The Room Air Conditioners installed in the Microwave Stations fell under specified establishments, and the prescribed procedure was followed. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, affirming the Collector's decision.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision regarding the eligibility of U.P.S.E.B. for the concessional rate under Notification No. 56/78. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the specified categories in the notification and the liability for duty payment as outlined in the notification itself. The Department's appeal was dismissed, and the Collector's decision was upheld.
-
1997 (11) TMI 226
Issues:
Demand of duty for cleared garments under the 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) scheme without payment of duty; Allegations of short levy of duty; Allegations of suppression of facts by the appellants; Jurisdictional authority for clearance of goods; Validity of demand beyond the prescribed period; Levy of penalty.
Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the demand of duty for 2,417 garments cleared without payment of duty under the 100% EOU scheme from the appellants' premises to the domestic tariff area. The appellants had sought permission from the Assistant Collector of Customs for clearance of defective garments, one lot with imported raw materials and the other with indigenous raw materials. The permission was granted, specifying duty payment for imported raw material content and duty-free clearance for garments manufactured from indigenous materials.
Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued under the Customs Act, alleging short levy of duty, followed by another notice invoking the longer period of limitation under the Central Excise Act. The appellants contended that they had acted in accordance with the permission granted by the authorities and had no obligation to approach the Excise authorities separately for duty payment. They argued that the duty required for clearance to the Domestic Tariff Area was as per the proviso to Section 3, and they had complied with the directions given by the authorities.
The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence of suppression of facts by the appellants, as they had followed the instructions of the jurisdictional authority in clearing the goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had acted in good faith and there was no indication that they had any mala fide intent to evade duty payment. It was highlighted that the appellants were not directed to approach any other authority for clearance, and they had acted as per the directions provided.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty related to the cleared garments, as the allegation of suppression was not proven. However, regarding the duty for wastes, the appellants agreed to pay the amount, and the Tribunal confirmed the demand for this item. The Tribunal also decided to set aside the levy of penalty in the given circumstances.
In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, with the demand of duty for the cleared garments being set aside due to lack of evidence of suppression, while the demand for wastes was confirmed. The penalty was also set aside based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
1997 (11) TMI 225
Issues Involved:
1. Excisability of Demineralized (DM) Water.
2. Duty demand on unaccounted loss of DM water captively consumed.
3. Applicability of extended period of limitation.
I. Excisability of DM Water:
The appellants' process of demineralization involves treating river water to remove calcium and magnesium salts using an ion exchange process. The appellants argued that this process is merely purification and does not constitute "manufacture" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as DM water is not a new product with different characteristics from the original river water.
The tribunal disagreed, stating that the process of demineralization changes the character and use of the water, making it suitable for generating steam, which river water cannot do. Thus, DM water qualifies as a new commercial commodity with distinct name, character, and use, satisfying the definition of "manufacture." Consequently, DM water is excisable and falls under Heading 2851.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
II. Duty Demand on Unaccounted Loss of DM Water Captively Consumed:
The appellants did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the unaccounted loss of DM water within their plant. They claimed a possible 5% variation due to measurement errors but failed to substantiate this with evidence. The tribunal held that without proof of captive consumption of the unaccounted DM water, the benefit of exemption is not applicable. Therefore, the duty demand on the unaccounted loss was confirmed.
III. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:
The tribunal noted that the appellants were obligated to file a new classification list under Rule 173B(4) of the Central Excise Rules following the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which they failed to do. This non-filing, coupled with the appellants' actions, indicated an intent to evade duty. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked, and the duty demand was not time-barred.
Separate Judgments:
Order by Vice President:
The Vice President disagreed with the majority opinion, arguing that the process of demineralization is akin to water softening, which does not result in a product comparable to distilled or conductivity water. He emphasized that natural water, even after treatment, remains non-excisable unless it transforms into a distinct commercial commodity. He cited the absence of evidence showing that DM water achieved similar purity to distilled water and argued that the process did not amount to "manufacture." Consequently, the Vice President held that DM water is not excisable and the demand was time-barred due to the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty.
Order by Third Member:
The Third Member agreed with the Vice President, stating that the removal of impurities does not change the essential properties of water. He cited various judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of vegetable oil, where the removal of impurities did not constitute "manufacture." He concluded that DM water is not a new product and is not excisable. Additionally, he held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts by the appellants.
Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was accepted, confirming that DM water is not excisable, and the demands were time-barred.
............
|
9911796707
