|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 269 Records
-
1994 (2) TMI 198
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Collector to file review application under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of CEGAT orders in determining appealable orders under Section 129D.
3. Proper officer for clearance of goods under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Collector to file review application under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962:
The lower appellate authority rejected the review application filed by the Department under Section 129D, citing that the order challenged pertained to clearance of goods by the Assistant Collector under Section 47, not by the proper officer. The Collector (Appeals) held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to file the application under Section 129D. However, the Appellant-Collector argued that the order under appeal was a statutory order by the lower authority under Section 47, falling within appealable orders under Section 129D. The Tribunal observed that the proper officer for clearance of goods under Section 47 is the Assistant Collector, who finalizes the assessment and clearance. The role of the Office Superintendent is merely mechanical verification. Therefore, the quasi-judicial decision for clearance of goods is that of the Assistant Collector and can be reviewed under Section 129D(2) and (4). The Tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's decision and remanded the matters for consideration on merits.
Issue 2: Applicability of CEGAT orders in determining appealable orders under Section 129D:
The Collector (Appeals) relied on a CEGAT decision in Collector of Customs v. Metro Exports Pvt. Ltd. to support the dismissal of the review application. The Appellant-Collector argued that the CEGAT decision cited was not directly applicable to the present case, as the orders under appeal were statutory orders by the lower authority under Section 47. The Tribunal noted the distinction between administrative orders and formal orders of decision under Section 129D. It referenced another CEGAT ruling in Ajay Exports case, emphasizing that orders of clearance under Section 47 amount to adjudication subject to revisional power under Section 129D. The Tribunal concluded that the lower appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal, allowing it by remand for further consideration.
Issue 3: Proper officer for clearance of goods under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal clarified the process for clearance of goods under Section 47, highlighting the role of the proper officer, in this case, the Assistant Collector. It outlined the steps involved in import clearance, from filing the Bill of Entry to assessment by the Assistant Collector and final approval for clearance. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assistant Collector's decision on clearance is quasi-judicial and subject to review under Section 129D. It distinguished the role of the Office Superintendent as limited to mechanical verification. The Tribunal's analysis reaffirmed that the Assistant Collector's order for clearance is the one subject to review under Section 129D, not the Office Superintendent's endorsement.
-
1994 (2) TMI 197
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of duty on pilfered goods.
2. Interpretation of Sections 13 and 23 of the Customs Act.
3. Custody and liability for goods in customs area.
4. Burden of proof regarding the timing of pilferage.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Refund of Duty on Pilfered Goods:
The appellants imported ball and roller bearings, and after customs clearance, found that one package was missing and others were tampered with. They sought a refund based on a survey conducted without customs officials. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim, stating pilferage occurred after the out of charge order was given, and the survey was not conducted before customs officers. The Tribunal had to decide if the appellants were entitled to a refund under these circumstances.
2. Interpretation of Sections 13 and 23 of the Customs Act:
Section 13 provides that if goods are pilfered after unloading but before clearance for home consumption or warehousing, the importer is not liable for duty. Section 23, amended in 1983, allows remission of duty on goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, excluding loss due to pilferage. The Tribunal had to interpret whether the amendments to Section 23 excluded pilferage from remission and if Section 13 still provided relief for pilfered goods after the out of charge order.
3. Custody and Liability for Goods in Customs Area:
The appellants argued that since the goods were under the custody of the International Airport Authority of India, a custodian approved by the Collector of Customs, they should not be liable for duty on goods not delivered due to pilferage. The Tribunal considered whether the custodian's responsibility extended beyond the out of charge order and if the importer should bear the risk and responsibility for goods left in the customs area post-clearance.
4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Timing of Pilferage:
The Tribunal examined if the burden was on the department to prove that pilferage occurred after the out of charge order. The appellants contended that pilferage could have occurred any time between the customs examination and the date they attempted to take delivery. The Tribunal had to determine if the lack of evidence pinpointing the exact time of pilferage should benefit the importer.
Separate Judgments:
Majority Judgment:
The majority held that the legislative intent was clear: remission of duty for pilfered goods is only applicable until the out of charge order is given. Once this order is issued, the customs department's liability ends, and the importer assumes responsibility. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the appellants were not entitled to a refund under Section 13 after the out of charge order.
Dissenting Judgment:
The dissenting member argued that the benefit of non-payment of duty should extend to the actual clearance of goods, not just the issuance of the out of charge order. The member emphasized that the importer should not be penalized for pilferage that could have occurred while the goods were still under customs custody. The dissenting opinion suggested that the claim for refund should be entertained and examined on its merits.
Final Decision:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were not granted a refund for the pilfered goods. The Tribunal concluded that the legislative amendments to Section 23 and the interpretation of Section 13 did not support the appellants' claim for remission of duty post the out of charge order.
-
1994 (2) TMI 196
Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Madras
- Stay applications for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty
Analysis:
The appellants, Shri C.N. Sukumaran and Shri V.G. Hirusah, filed appeals against the order by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, and also submitted stay applications to waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts. The main arguments presented by the appellants' advocate included a plea for limitation based on the brand name ownership and the applicability of Notification No. 140/83-CE. Additionally, they argued for a deduction of duty from the price under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, citing relevant tribunal decisions. Financial hardship was highlighted, with details of the appellant's capital and profit for the years ending 31-3-1991 and 31-3-1992. The advocate requested dispensation of duty and penalty amounts due to financial constraints.
The respondent's representative argued against the appellant's plea for limitation and deduction of duty, stating that these were previously addressed and rejected by the Collector. It was contended that the extended period of limitation could be invoked in this case, especially since Shri Sukumaran was not a party in the earlier adjudication. The respondent urged for the rejection of the stay applications based on these grounds.
After hearing both sides and examining the case details, the tribunal found that Shri Sukumaran was not a party in the previous proceedings, thus rejecting the plea of limitation. Regarding financial hardship, the tribunal reviewed the profit and loss accounts of Shri Sukumaran and considered the proposed payment amount of Rs. 60,000. Citing relevant legal precedents, including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal, the tribunal concluded that the pre-deposit amounts of duty and penalties would cause undue hardship to the appellants. Consequently, the tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and penalties, with a condition for Shri Sukumaran to deposit Rs. 60,000 within three months. The tribunal also waived the pre-deposit of the penalty amount for Shri Hirusah. The tribunal directed that during the appeal pendency, revenue authorities should not pursue recovery, with a warning that non-compliance would vacate the stay order. The stay applications were partly allowed and fully allowed for the respective appellants. The matters were scheduled for mention on 1st June 1994.
-
1994 (2) TMI 195
Issues Involved:
1. Technical delay in filing separate appeals.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Validity of import licenses for Fax machines under the Import Policy.
4. Interpretation of the term "non-OGL capital goods" in the context of the Import Policy.
5. Impact of deletion of certain conditions from import licenses.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Technical Delay in Filing Separate Appeals:
The appellants, M/s. Agro Impex, initially filed a single appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Madras. As directed by the Bench, they subsequently filed separate appeals for each Bill of Entry. The tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing these separate appeals.
2. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The appeals related to the import of Fax machines against additional licenses issued to Export Houses/Trading Houses. The adjudicating authorities confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fines and penalties:
- M/s. Agro Impex: Redemption fine of Rs. 25,00,000 and penalty of Rs. 12,00,000.
- M/s. M.B. Impex: Redemption fine of Rs. 3,84,368 and penalty of Rs. 75,000.
3. Validity of Import Licenses for Fax Machines Under the Import Policy:
The confiscation was based on the assertion that Fax machines, being office machines, are restricted for import under para 118(7) of the Import Policy. The relevant policy periods were 1988-91 and 1990-93. The tribunal noted that the licenses produced by M/s. Agro Impex and M.B. Impex had additional endorsements deleting conditions (i) to (iii) on the reverse of the licenses, which could impact the applicability of other conditions under para 215 of the Import Policy.
4. Interpretation of the Term "Non-OGL Capital Goods":
The appellants argued that Fax machines, though office machines, are capital goods and should be allowed under the flexibility provisions of para 215(4)(iii) of the Import Policy. The tribunal examined the policy and noted that para 215(4) allows the import of non-OGL capital goods, and the deletion of conditions (i) to (iii) from the licenses meant that the restrictions under para 118(7) would not apply to the appellants. The tribunal also referenced para 224(1) of the 1990-93 policy, which supports the appellants' position.
5. Impact of Deletion of Certain Conditions from Import Licenses:
The deletion of conditions (i) to (iii) from the licenses was crucial. These conditions typically subject the license to the relevant ITC policy provisions. The tribunal observed that the deletion of these conditions meant that the import of Fax machines should be governed solely by para 215 of the Import Policy, without the restrictions of para 118(7). The tribunal found no clear reason for the licensing authorities' decision to delete these conditions but concluded that the deletion allowed the import of Fax machines as non-OGL capital goods.
Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals of M/s. Agro Impex and M/s. M.B. Impex, ruling that the deletion of conditions (i) to (iii) from the licenses meant that the restrictions under para 118(7) of the Import Policy did not apply. Consequently, the import of Fax machines was valid under the flexibility provisions of para 215(4)(iii), and the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties were not maintainable in law. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
-
1994 (2) TMI 194
The appeal was against the Addl. Collector of Central Excise order-in-original No. 8/89, dated 30-5-1989. Discrepancy in closing stock between bank statement and RG 1 register. Appellant explained 484 sleepers' difference due to bank's clerical errors. Tribunal found explanation valid, set aside Collector's order.
-
1994 (2) TMI 193
The appeal was against a penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, which was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 2,000. The penalty was for storing modvat inputs outside the factory due to space constraints, even though permission was sought but not received. The appellants paid the amount demanded within 4 days of being notified.
-
1994 (2) TMI 192
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay granted stay and waiver of penalties in cases related to alleged evasion of duty of man-made fabrics. The penalties imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat were waived based on a Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills. Penalties of Rs. 1.00 lac on M/s. Arvind Silk Mills, Rs. 75,000/- on Shri Mukeshbhai A. Vakharia, and Rs. 5,000/- each on S/Shri Nikhilkumar Chauvan, Arvindbhai Kathiwala, and Bharatkumar Solanki were waived.
-
1994 (2) TMI 191
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, held that hydrated lime is not an excisable commodity for excise duty purposes. The decision was based on previous rulings and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants. (1994 (2) TMI 191 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1994 (2) TMI 190
Issues Involved:
1. Modification of the Stay Order No. C/51/93-B2, dated 10-9-1993.
2. Financial position and property ownership of the appellant.
3. Evidence provided by the Collector of Customs.
4. Appellant's rebuttal of Collector's affidavit.
5. Requirement for pre-deposit of penalty amount.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Modification of the Stay Order No. C/51/93-B2, dated 10-9-1993:
The appellant sought modification of the Stay Order No. C/51/93-B2, which directed the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and a bank guarantee of Rs. 15 lakhs. The Tribunal modified this order, requiring the appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs in cash within eight weeks and produce two sureties with immovable property for the balance, free from encumbrance, to the Collector's satisfaction. This modification was based on the appellant's financial condition and the interest of justice.
2. Financial Position and Property Ownership of the Appellant:
The appellant denied owning significant property or having substantial financial resources. He rebutted allegations of owning land and property, stating that his brother's land purchases were funded by the brother's son in America. The Tribunal noted the lack of documentary evidence linking the appellant to substantial property or wealth, despite the Collector's claims based on intelligence reports. The appellant's affidavit and supporting documents were considered credible in rebutting the Collector's allegations.
3. Evidence Provided by the Collector of Customs:
The Collector's affidavit alleged that the appellant was financially sound and owned property through circumstantial evidence and intelligence gathered by DRI, Bombay. The affidavit listed ten allegations indicating the appellant's financial soundness. However, the Tribunal found that intelligence reports alone could not substitute for concrete evidence. The Collector's claims were primarily based on suspicion rather than definitive proof.
4. Appellant's Rebuttal of Collector's Affidavit:
The appellant filed a detailed affidavit rebutting the Collector's allegations. He denied owning property, being involved in bank fraud, and having substantial personal wealth. The appellant provided documentary evidence, including a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, confirming that neither he nor his close relatives owned property in the specified areas. The Tribunal found the appellant's rebuttal convincing and noted that the allegations were based on intelligence rather than solid evidence.
5. Requirement for Pre-Deposit of Penalty Amount:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's financial condition and the lack of concrete evidence from the Collector. Given the appellant's claims of financial hardship and the documentary evidence provided, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement. The majority opinion favored unconditional stay of the penalty, aligning with the treatment given to other appellants in similar cases.
Separate Judgments:
Judicial Member's Opinion:
The Judicial Member, S.L. Peeran, proposed modifying the stay order to require a Rs. 5 lakh cash deposit and sureties with immovable property for the balance. He emphasized the appellant's lack of a strong prima facie case and the circumstantial evidence suggesting property ownership.
Technical Member's Opinion:
The Technical Member, P.C. Jain, disagreed, advocating for an unconditional stay. He highlighted the lack of prima facie evidence of the appellant's financial soundness and the effective rebuttal of the Collector's allegations. He noted that the intelligence reports could not replace concrete evidence.
Final Order:
The third member, K.S. Venkataramani, concurred with the Technical Member, leading to a majority decision. The final order waived the pre-deposit of the penalty amount and stayed the recovery until the appeal's disposal. The case was to be listed for final hearing within two weeks.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal, by majority decision, waived the pre-deposit requirement and stayed the penalty recovery, considering the appellant's financial condition and the lack of concrete evidence from the Collector. The case was scheduled for an expedited hearing.
-
1994 (2) TMI 189
Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
2. Challenge to the correctness of the impugned order on grounds of law and facts.
3. Locus standi of the appellant/petitioner to file an appeal.
4. Duty liability of the appellant/petitioner under the impugned order.
5. Applicability of penalty proceedings and the right to challenge them.
Analysis:
1. The appellants contended that the impugned order violated natural justice by not providing an opportunity to be heard. They argued that the order was issued without considering their representation to group similar cases for disposal. The Counsel highlighted that penalty proceedings should not be separate as they stem from a breach, and the quantum depends on the breach's nature. They also argued that as the goods were sold to another party before seizure, duty liability should not fall on them.
2. The Respondents argued that the appeal lacked locus standi as there was no duty or penalty imposed on the appellant under the impugned order. They stated that the order was a result of a High Court directive and that the appellant had no right to appeal as an aggrieved party. The Respondents emphasized that the appeal should be dismissed due to lack of maintainability.
3. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not specify duty liability for the appellant. The Department acknowledged that no duty was levied on the appellant under the order. The Counsel for the appellant argued that penalty could only be imposed if an offense was committed, leading to confiscation under the Customs Act. They cited relevant case laws to support their position.
4. Considering that no duty or penalty was imposed on the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not an aggrieved party eligible to file the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the stay petition, stating that the appellant could present their arguments in the pending penalty proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not prejudice the appellant, who could seek revival within three months if necessary.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras, covers the issues raised by the parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the appeal's maintainability.
-
1994 (2) TMI 188
Issues: Appeal against order-in-original denying reshipment of goods under Section 48 of the Customs Act.
Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The case involved foreign suppliers of brass scrap appealing against the denial of reshipment of goods by the Collector under Section 48 of the Customs Act. The original importer surrendered the Bill of Entry due to financial constraints, leading the suppliers to seek permission for reshipment.
2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant's advocate argued that the goods were not cleared for home consumption, making the duty payment and subsequent re-export under drawback provisions irrelevant. They contended that the Collector's reasoning for denial was flawed, as the goods were rightfully shipped to an eligible importer.
3. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent contended that the goods could only be cleared for re-shipment under a suitable fine and that the request for reshipment was made after the prescribed 45-day period under Section 48. They argued that the original importer was aware of the duty implications and financial constraints.
4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the goods were rightfully imported and the original importer's financial constraints justified the surrender of the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal disagreed with the Collector's findings and allowed the reshipment of goods by the foreign suppliers. They emphasized that the suppliers acted in good faith and should not be penalized for the importer's actions.
5. Legal Observations: The Tribunal clarified that Section 48 of the Customs Act did not apply in this case as the goods were available for reshipment before any disposal under that section. They also noted that the interest payable on duty was not a valid reason to deny reshipment to the foreign suppliers, as the responsibility for such payments lay with the original importer. The Tribunal directed the suppliers to obtain approval from the Reserve Bank of India for foreign exchange remittance within three months for reshipment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Collector's order and permitting the reshipment of goods by the foreign suppliers, subject to compliance with foreign exchange regulations within the specified timeframe.
-
1994 (2) TMI 187
Issues:
1. Leviability of penalty or its quantum in relation to transfer of MODVAT credit between manufacturing units.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS involved the issue of the leviability of penalty or its quantum concerning the transfer of MODVAT credit between two manufacturing units of the appellant. The appellant had two manufacturing units, one in Tamil Nadu and the other in West Bengal, engaged in identical manufacturing activities. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant for transferring MODVAT credit from one unit to the other in contravention of the MODVAT Scheme and Rules. The appellant argued that while there might have been a procedural irregularity in the transfer, no loss was incurred by the department, and the transfer had the consent of departmental officers. The department, on the other hand, contended that the transfer was not permissible under the law. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural irregularity but considered the leniency due to the department's awareness and non-opposition to the transfer. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000, and the appeal was dismissed.
In a separate order by another Member of the Tribunal, it was noted that the appellant had created documentation to suggest a transfer of inputs to a sister concern, although the transfer did not occur in reality. The appellant had utilized MODVAT credit for manufacturing activities intended for the sister concern, claiming that the process was revenue-neutral and did not cause any loss to the government. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's actions questionable as there was no legal provision for such transfers. The appellant's attempt to justify the transfer by informing the Central Excise authorities was deemed insufficient to legitimize the action. The Tribunal held the appellant's conduct as reprehensible but decided to reduce the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000 in the interest of justice.
These judgments highlight the Tribunal's consideration of procedural irregularities in the transfer of MODVAT credit between manufacturing units. While acknowledging the lack of legal provision for such transfers, the Tribunal balanced the penalty imposition with leniency due to the department's awareness and absence of loss to the government. The reduction of the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000 in both orders reflects the Tribunal's approach to address the irregularities while considering the overall circumstances of the case.
-
1994 (2) TMI 186
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules regarding Modvat Credit.
2. Validity of gate-pass for availing Modvat Credit.
3. Compliance with prescribed procedures under Rule 57G for Modvat Credit.
4. Endorsement of gate-pass for resale of consignment.
5. Applicability of Rule 56A to Rule 57G for availing Modvat Credit.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, regarding the allowance of Modvat Credit to the Respondents. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, which outlines the procedure for availing Modvat Credit on duty-paid inputs. The original authority denied the credit, emphasizing the need for compliance with the prescribed documents at the time of receipt in the factory. The Collector (Appeals), however, ruled in favor of the Respondents, stating that the provisions of Rule 57G had been met, and there was no doubt about the admissibility of the credit.
2. The Collector (Appeals) justified the allowance of Modvat Credit based on the submission that the gate-pass had been submitted along with the goods at the time of receipt in the factory. Despite the argument raised by the appellant-Collector regarding the invalidity of the gate-pass used by the Respondents, the Collector (Appeals) maintained that the credit was admissible as per Rule 57G. The contention revolved around whether the gate-pass, even if not in the name of the Respondents, could still be considered valid for claiming Modvat Credit.
3. The appellant-Collector contended that the Respondents had taken credit based on an invalid gate-pass, as the destination and quantity specified did not align with the actual receipt. The argument emphasized the mandatory requirement under Rule 57G for possession of prescribed documents, including a valid gate-pass, to avail Modvat Credit. The failure to comply with the prescribed procedures raised doubts about the legitimacy of the credit claimed by the Respondents.
4. The Respondents defended their position by asserting that the gate-pass had been endorsed in their favor by the manufacturer, and they had taken Modvat Credit based on the duty paid on the consignment. They argued that the endorsement by the manufacturer validated the gate-pass, reflecting the accurate destination, quantity, and duty paid. Additionally, they raised a plea of limitation in response to the allegations raised by the appellant-Collector.
5. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 57G and highlighted the significance of prescribed documents, such as the gate-pass, for claiming Modvat Credit. It emphasized the need for strict adherence to the prescribed procedures to prevent misuse and ensure the receipt of duty-paid goods in the factory. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant-Collector, concluding that the lower appellate authority had erred in allowing the appeal of the Respondents. The decision underscored the importance of following the prescribed rules and procedures for availing Modvat Credit, ultimately setting aside the Collector (Appeals) order in favor of the Departmental Appeal.
-
1994 (2) TMI 185
The appeal was against a penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the master of a vessel for the seizure of contraband goods. The Tribunal found no evidence of the master's knowledge or involvement in concealing the goods, as the search conducted prior to the seizure yielded no results. The penalty was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 184
Issues: Confiscation of gold lagadi, gold pieces, and guineas under Customs Act and Gold Control Act, imposition of personal penalties under Customs Act.
In this case, the appeals were filed against an order-in-original that involved the confiscation of 1 gold lagadi of foreign origin, six gold pieces, and 13 guineas, along with the imposition of personal penalties on the appellants under the Customs Act. The order also referred to the Gold Control Act, but that aspect was not discussed in this appeal. The search of the appellant's premises led to the discovery of the gold items, prompting show cause notices. The appellant claimed that the guineas were inherited and not smuggled, while the gold pieces were allegedly purchased from unknown individuals. After adjudication, the impugned order was passed.
Regarding the confiscation of the six gold pieces, it was found that the Customs Act did not apply as there was no evidence of smuggling. The Gold Control Act provisions could apply, but since the nature of the gold was not proven to be smuggled, the confiscation was deemed unjustifiable. The confiscation of the 10g gold lagadi was not challenged under the Customs Act, so it was upheld.
As for the 13 guineas, the appellant argued that their possession was legal under the Gold Control Act and that they were not recently brought into India. The guineas were claimed to be kept for religious purposes, and it was contended that there was no proof of them being smuggled. The appellants stated that the guineas were inherited and not new, dating back to King George VI's era. Due to lack of evidence proving them as new or smuggled, the guineas were not subject to confiscation under the Customs Act.
Regarding the personal penalties, the penalty on Smt. Sheelaben was set aside as her involvement was related to the possession of guineas, which were not confiscated. However, Shri Ketan admitted to purchasing foreign marked gold, making him liable for a penalty under the Customs Act. His penalty was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 7,500 considering the circumstances. In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the confiscation of the gold lagadi sustained, the guineas not liable for confiscation, and the penalty on Shri Ketan reduced.
-
1994 (2) TMI 183
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 57D(1) of the Central Excise Rules regarding disallowance of Modvat Credit for inputs used in the manufacture of Dry Cells that are later destroyed as defective.
Summary:
1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Union Carbide India Limited against the Collector's order disallowing Modvat Credit for inputs used in the manufacture of Dry Cells that were destroyed as defective. The Collector held that the Waste and Scrap did not arise during the manufacturing process but after the final products were made. The appellant argued that the Waste arose during testing, before the completion of manufacture, citing departmental instructions and previous tribunal decisions supporting their case.
2. The Senior Departmental Representative opposed the appeal, referring to previous tribunal decisions where Waste arising after the manufacture of final products was deemed ineligible for Modvat benefit. He argued that testing was not considered a stage of manufacture and cited cases to support his position.
3. The Tribunal considered the definition of manufacture in the Central Excises and Salt Act, departmental instructions, and previous decisions. They concluded that the Waste arising during testing before final approval constituted Waste during manufacture, making the appellant eligible for Modvat Credit. The Collector's direction was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellants consequential benefits.
-
1994 (2) TMI 182
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS in 1994 (2) TMI 182 held that Special Excise duty cannot be considered for notional credit under certain notifications. The ruling stated that Special Excise duty is not covered by exemptions and, therefore, notional credit is not available. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 181
Issues:
1. Eligibility for availment of modvat credit on certain inputs.
Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay was against the order-in-appeal regarding the eligibility of the Respondents for availing modvat credit on specific inputs. The issue revolved around the compliance with Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules by the suppliers of the input materials, who cut the aluminium coils into sheets without obtaining prior permission. The Asstt. Collector contended that the deliberate omission of obtaining permission rendered the modvat credit inadmissible, leading to a demand for duty and imposition of a penalty. However, the Collector (Appeals) held that as long as a correlation between the coils and sheets could be established at the time of dispatch, and the goods were endorsed on Gate Passes, the modvat credit should not be disallowed. The Collector (Appeals) also directed a de novo determination of the duty demand related to the alleged irregular modvat credit availed by the Respondents.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. It was noted that the Gate Passes were endorsed in the name of the Respondents, and the allegation of improper endorsement was not substantiated. The main contention was that although the Gate Passes and declarations mentioned aluminium coils, the actual receipt was in the form of aluminium sheets due to cutting by the suppliers. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as a nexus between the sheets and duty-paid coils could be established, and the goods were transferred with suitable endorsements, the procedural non-compliance of Rule 57F(2) should not bar the substantive benefit of modvat credit. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) decision to allow the modvat credit.
Regarding the duty demand related to a wrong debit in RG 23A Part II, the Tribunal observed that the full facts were not adequately reflected in the orders. It was clarified that if the demand was due to the same issue of modvat credit reversal, it was not sustainable. However, if it pertained to irregular credit and debit in the modvat account unrelated to the issue, a de novo consideration was warranted. Since there was no cross-appeal from the Respondents on this matter, the Tribunal maintained the de novo consideration ordered by the Collector (Appeals).
Lastly, concerning the penalty for violating Rule 57F(2), the Tribunal concurred with the admission of non-compliance by the Respondents and upheld the penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector as reasonable. Therefore, the appeal from the Revenue was disposed of, affirming the decisions on modvat credit eligibility, duty demand, and penalty.
-
1994 (2) TMI 180
Issues:
1. Challenge to the circular withdrawing cash compensatory support.
2. Application of principles of promissory estoppel.
3. Government's right to change policy.
Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns an appeal against a circular withdrawing cash compensatory support, affecting confirmed contracts entered into prior to the withdrawal date. The respondents argued that the government cannot challenge the circular after accepting similar judgments from other High Courts and making payments. The court agreed, stating that the government cannot discriminate against the petitioners after accepting judgments in similar cases.
2. The court detailed the facts where exporters relied on a communication offering cash assistance for exports, pricing their goods accordingly. The withdrawal of cash support led to losses for exporters who had firm contracts with buyers based on the initial scheme. The court upheld the principle of promissory estoppel, stating that the government is bound to honor the policy for all firm contracts entered into based on the initial communication.
3. The appellant challenged the judgment on three points: (i) the petitioners did not base their prices on the cash compensatory scheme, (ii) the elements of promissory estoppel were not met, and (iii) the government has the right to change its policy. The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the scheme aimed to offset losses in the international market and that the government's promise led to altered positions by the petitioners. The court also noted that the government's right to change policy should be exercised for valid reasons, not arbitrarily.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the government failed to justify the withdrawal of cash compensatory support and upheld the principles of promissory estoppel in honoring firm contracts based on the initial scheme.
-
1994 (2) TMI 179
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for removal of excisable goods without payment of appropriate duty.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57F(1)(ii) in relation to duty liability on cleared inputs.
3. Retrospective applicability of Rule (1A) amendment and its impact on duty payment.
4. Justification of penalty imposition and its relation to duty short-payment.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed on M/s. Britannia Industries Limited for removing excisable goods without paying the appropriate duty as required under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The charge was that they removed goods received for use in manufacturing biscuits without paying the duty, despite taking Modvat Credit. The issue revolved around the duty liability on such removed inputs.
2. The appellants argued that they had already discharged the duty liability at the hands of the original manufacturers and contended that the duty should not be levied at the time of removal of inputs, creating a scenario of dual manufacturers. They challenged the consistency of Rule 57F(1)(ii) with the concept of manufacture and dutiability under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The retrospective applicability of the amendment introducing Rule (1A) was also debated.
3. The Departmental Representative countered that the amendment in 1992 was not retrospective and emphasized that the duty should have been paid as per Rule 57F(1)(ii) in force at the material time. The Collector imposed a penalty justified by the duty short-payment, citing a Supreme Court judgment that did not require mens rea for penalty imposition.
4. The Tribunal rejected the arguments for retrospective effect of the amendment, upheld the duty liability under Rule 57F(1)(ii), and found the penalty imposition justified due to the duty short-payment. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 from Rs. 51,000, considering the circumstances. The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the order accordingly, while rejecting it on other grounds.
........
|
9911796707
