Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 241 to 260 of 493 Records

• 1998 (2) TMI 258
  
  Issues: Confiscation of truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem, lack of penalty imposition, driver's knowledge about contraband goods, identification of consignor, reasonableness of redemption fine.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The case involved the interception of a truck carrying waste paper bundles, beneath which contraband goods were concealed. The goods included torches, emergency lights, pencils, silk yarn, motors, and chemicals, valued at Rs. 14,39,350. A show cause notice was issued leading to the absolute confiscation of the goods and the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, with an option to redeem the truck on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000. No penalty was imposed on the appellant.
  
  2. The appellant's advocate argued that the driver, employed by the appellant, was unaware of the contraband goods loaded by another individual named Moti. The advocate highlighted that the driver's statements did not admit knowledge of the contraband goods. The advocate contended that the confiscation of the truck was unjustified, as neither the appellant nor the driver had knowledge of the contraband goods. The appellant could not afford the high security demanded for the provisional release of the truck.
  
  3. The respondent's representative argued that the recovery of contraband goods from the truck was undeniable. It was presumed that the driver, being in charge of the truck during loading, should have exercised due diligence. Even if the appellant's knowledge was not established, the driver's awareness of the goods was evident. The respondent supported the confiscation of the truck and deemed the redemption fine reasonable compared to the value of the contraband goods.
  
  4. The judge agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that the driver's lack of care in identifying the consignor and the failure to respond to the show cause notice were detrimental to the appellant's case. The judge upheld the confiscation of the truck, stating that the burden of proving reasonable precautions during loading fell on the appellant. However, considering the prolonged custody of the truck and the appellant's lack of knowledge regarding the driver's actions, the judge reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 15,000. The appeal was rejected except for the modification in the quantum of the redemption fine.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 257
  
  Issues:
  1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
  2. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E.
  3. Demand of excise duty and Modvat benefit
  4. Allegations of suppression and intent to evade excise duty
  5. Imposition of penalty and extended period under Section 11A
  
  Classification of Goods:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of furniture parts made from rigid polyurethane foam under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant argued that the parts should be classified under sub-heading No. 9403.00 for "Other Furniture and parts thereof" and not under sub-heading No. 3926.10 as contended by the respondent. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the classification under sub-heading No. 3926.10 based on the facts presented and dropped the dispute regarding classification under Chapter 39.
  
  Applicability of Exemption Notification:
  The appellant claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, for their small-scale industrial unit. They argued that their products made from rigid polyurethane foam were eligible for full exemption under this notification. However, the tribunal confirmed that the exemption was not applicable to the goods in question, as they were classified under sub-heading No. 3926.10 and not covered by the said notification.
  
  Demand of Excise Duty and Modvat Benefit:
  The dispute also involved the demand of excise duty on the manufactured articles made from rigid polyurethane foam. The tribunal upheld the duty liability on these articles and directed consideration of Modvat benefit, if applicable, despite minor procedural lapses. The appellant's plea for Modvat benefit was taken into account, and the redemption fine was reduced while the penalty was set aside based on the totality of facts and circumstances.
  
  Allegations of Suppression and Intent to Evade Duty:
  The respondent alleged that the appellant suppressed the fact of manufacture and clearance of goods to evade payment of excise duty. The tribunal found that the extended time limit of five years under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, applied in this case due to the suppression of facts. However, the tribunal considered the appellant's bona fide belief in the classification of their products and reduced the penalty imposed.
  
  Imposition of Penalty and Extended Period under Section 11A:
  The tribunal addressed the issue of penalty imposed on the appellant in addition to the demand for excise duty. It noted that the penalty was too harsh and unjustified, especially when the classification of the goods was still in dispute. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine and set aside the penalty based on the circumstances of the case and the appellant's request for Modvat benefit consideration.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 256
  
  The appeal was filed against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) regarding the import of sulphated fish oil and sulphated neatsfoot oil. The goods were found to be freely importable by the Council for Leather Export and exempted from duty by the Customs Department. The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and restored the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, allowing the appeal.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 255
  
  Issues:
  Departmental Appeal against Order of Collector (Appeals) allowing benefit of Notification No. 43/88-C.E. to assessee for using Phosphorous Trichloride as intermediate product for pesticides manufacturing.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Issue of Notification Interpretation:
  The Department argued that the Collector (Appeals) wrongly allowed the assessee's appeal for availing benefits under Notification No. 43/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. The Department contended that the Notification exempted goods specified in the Annexure for items under Chapters 28, 29, or 72 of CETA, 1985, to be used in manufacturing pesticides falling under Chapter 38. The Department emphasized that since the assessee was not manufacturing goods under Chapter 38, they were not entitled to full exemption under the said Notification.
  
  2. Interpretation of Technical Processes:
  The Tribunal referred to a previous order concerning the same party, where it was established that the assessee used Phosphorous Trichloride in the manufacture of Tri-Methyl Phosphite, an intermediate product for pesticides under Chapter 38. The Tribunal noted the technical process involved in manufacturing pesticides and intermediate products, emphasizing that the conversion of white/yellow phosphorous into intermediates before the final product emerged should not be a ground for denying benefits under the Notification. The Tribunal highlighted that all intermediate and final products were claimed to be pesticides falling under Chapter 38. Therefore, the benefit could not be denied solely based on the technical process involved.
  
  3. Application of Precedent and Dismissal of Appeal:
  Based on the similarity of facts with the previous order and the established use of Phosphorous Trichloride in manufacturing Tri-Methyl Phosphite for pesticides falling under Chapter 38, the Tribunal dismissed the Departmental Appeal. The Tribunal followed the precedent set in the previous order and concluded that the benefit under the Notification should not be denied to the assessee.
  
  This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the interpretation of the Notification, technical processes involved in manufacturing, and the application of precedent in dismissing the Departmental Appeal.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 254
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi granted a stay application filed by the appellants related to a dispute over availing Modvat credit for manufacturing HDPE/PP fabrics and sacks. The appellants claimed exemption on clearances within the prescribed limit under Notification 1/93. The Tribunal found the appellants had a strong case and stayed the recovery of the disputed amount during the appeal.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 253
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of C.E. Rules, 1944.
  2. Validity of Modvat credit availed on input 'Caprolactum'.
  3. Compliance with registration requirements under Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  4. Verification of documents and details in invoices for grant of Modvat credit.
  5. Dispute regarding availability of Modvat credit based on furnished invoices.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice for disallowance and recovery of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,55,02,000 under Rule 57-I of C.E. Rules, 1944. The notice alleged wrongful utilization of Modvat credit on 'Caprolactum' based on invoices from unregistered suppliers. The appellants contested the claim, arguing that their suppliers were registered under Rule 57GG prior to the specified date, citing a Tribunal judgment and Notification No. 64/94. Despite the appellants' defense, the Commissioner disallowed the claim and imposed a penalty of Rs. 35 lakhs.
  
  2. Following a stay application and subsequent directions by the Bench, the Revenue was instructed to verify the documents submitted by the appellants. The appellants claimed compliance with all requirements and submitted detailed reports highlighting the validity of the invoices and the duty-paying nature of the inputs. The appellants emphasized that the issue was confined to the correctness of the details in the invoices and asserted that Modvat credit should not be denied if all details were in accordance with the law.
  
  3. The Counsel for the appellants argued that there was no dispute regarding Modvat credit granted before July 1994 and after October 1994, as the dealers were registered within the stipulated timeline. The Counsel contended that the verification of invoice details was crucial, and any discrepancies would disentitle the appellants from the Modvat credit. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the arguments and the verification process, claiming that the furnishing of mandatory details in the invoices was essential for Modvat credit eligibility.
  
  4. Upon considering the submissions, the Bench acknowledged the significance of Caprolactum as an input for Modvat credit. The key issue revolved around whether Modvat credit could be extended based on the furnished invoices. The Counsel highlighted that the dealers were registered within the specified period, addressing the initial objection raised by the department. The Bench noted that the verification of inputs had not been completed but emphasized that the invoices contained all necessary details as per the law. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a detailed order after granting a hearing to the appellants and verifying the submitted documents. As a result, the appeal was allowed by remand, overturning the impugned order.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 252
  
  Issues:
  - Appropriation of Bank Guarantee
  - Duty demand for clearances beyond entitlement under Notification No. 175/86
  - Penalty imposition
  - Confiscation of seized goods
  - Allegations of clandestine removal
  - Burden of proof on the Department
  
  Appropriation of Bank Guarantee:
  The appeal challenged the order-in-original directing the appropriation of Rs. 14,000 of a Bank Guarantee against the provisional release of seized rubber belting rolls. The Collector confirmed a duty demand for clearances beyond entitlement under Notification No. 175/86 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000.
  
  Duty Demand and Confiscation:
  The appellants, engaged in rubber belting manufacture, faced duty demand for clearances exceeding entitlement under Notification No. 175/86. The Collector found no evidence of accounting for seized goods, leading to their liability for confiscation under Rule 173Q. Despite lack of proof on raw material receipt and use, the duty demand of Rs. 1,32,983.26 was confirmed.
  
  Allegations of Clandestine Removal:
  The appellant argued against presumptions of raw material use and clandestine removal. They contested the Collector's reliance on a Project Report for calculating clearances, highlighting fluctuations in fabric prices and lack of evidence on chemical purchases. The Collector's conclusions were criticized for being based on assumptions and presumptions, rendering the duty demand unsustainable.
  
  Burden of Proof:
  The appellant emphasized the burden of proof on the Department, citing legal precedents. The Department's failure to substantiate allegations of clandestine removal and raw material use supported the appellant's position. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of concrete evidence and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order.
  
  This comprehensive analysis highlights the issues of Bank Guarantee appropriation, duty demand exceeding entitlement, confiscation of seized goods, allegations of clandestine removal, and the burden of proof on the Department. The judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence in establishing liability and the application of legal precedents in determining the outcome of the appeal.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 251
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi allowed the appellant to raise a new contention regarding the consideration of actual audited figures even when they are more than provisional figures. The lower authority had directed to consider actual figures only when they are less than provisional figures. The appellant was directed to raise this contention. (Case: 1998 (2) TMI 251 - CEGAT, New Delhi)

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 250
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA dismissed the Revenue's appeal for enhancing penalty against a wound-up company as the penalty liability had accrued after the assets were taken over by the lessee, who was not responsible for prelease liabilities. The penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- can be pursued for recovery from the Official Liquidator.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 249
  
  The judgment concerns whether the price of electric motors and V-Belt or Geared Motors should be included in the value of Rotary Feeders and Bag Filters. The respondent firm argued that these accessories are not integral parts and should not be included. The Revenue contended that the bought-out items are integral and must be included. The tribunal found that the bought-out items are not integral parts based on the Commissioner's finding and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 248
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai in 1998 (2) TMI 248 allowed the application for dispensing with a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,05,631/- demanded by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs. The issue was about the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 101/66-C.E. for emulsifiers produced from organic surface active agents. The Tribunal's decision favored the applicants, so the pre-deposit was dispensed with and a stay was granted.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 247
  
  Issues:
  Classification of Printed Polyethylene Film under Heading 49.01 or 3920.32.
  Interpretation of Section Note 2 to Section VII for classification.
  Relevance of previous tribunal judgments on similar classification disputes.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the classification of Printed Polyethylene Film under Heading 49.01 or 3920.32. The Department contended that Section Note 2 was crucial in determining the appropriate classification. The Assistant Collector had approved the classification under Heading 49.01, leading to the Department's appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order rejecting their appeal.
  
  The Departmental Representative argued that Section Note 2 to Section VII was significant in deciding whether the item should be classified under Chapter 39 or Chapter 49. The Department's position was that the classification should be under Heading 3920.32, not Chapter 49. The Collector had acknowledged that if a plastic film undergoes printing, it does not amount to further manufacture as both plain and printed plastic films fall under the same heading/sub-heading of Chapter 39. However, the Collector's order ended with the rejection of the Department's appeal, prompting the Department to file this appeal.
  
  The Tribunal noted the importance of Section Note 2 in determining the classification under Chapter 39 or Chapter 49. It was observed that the Collector had accepted the Department's argument regarding classification under Chapter 39 but erroneously rejected the appeal in the final line of the order. The Tribunal suggested that a corrigendum should have been requested once the Department's substantive plea was accepted. Additionally, it was highlighted that the respondents did not appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding classification under Chapter 49.
  
  The Tribunal emphasized the need for harmony between the actual findings in the order and the concluding statements. It was suggested that the word "rejected" in the final line of the order may have been a result of a drafting or typographical error. The Tribunal acknowledged the relevance of previous tribunal judgments on similar classification disputes but emphasized the specific circumstances of the present case. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, indicating the need for a suitable amendment or modification to the final line of the order for consistency with the substantive findings.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 246
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 for exemption eligibility based on brand name ownership.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The appeal filed by M/s. Raj Laxmi Enterprises challenges the Order-in-Original dated 27-8-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. The main issue raised is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. The appellants manufacture metal labels with monograms bearing the brand name of Ravi. The Additional Collector denied the benefit, citing that the brand name owner is not eligible for exemption, referring to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Jay Engineering. The appellant's counsel argued that the Supreme Court decision in Jay Engineering was in a different context and not applicable to the present case. The counsel highlighted a circular issued by the Board clarifying that names printed on metal labels are not brand names by themselves and as long as these labels are not affixed on goods where the name/logo serves as a brand name, the exemption should apply.
  
  The respondent countered the appellant's arguments by invoking the Supreme Court decision in Jay Engineering to justify the denial of the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. However, the Tribunal examined the matter and found that the Supreme Court's decision in Jay Engineering was in a different context related to finished products and claiming set off under a different notification. The Tribunal emphasized the clarity of the Board's circular, which stated that metal labels bearing brand names are not considered brand names themselves unless affixed to goods where they serve as brand names. The Tribunal also noted that the circulars issued by the Board are binding on the department, citing a Supreme Court decision in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for denying the benefit under Notification No. 175/86 if the appellants were otherwise eligible. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Cross Objections were disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 245
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta in the case of 'Gajraj Lympo' held that the demand of duty was rightly issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, and the lower appellate authority's decision to set it aside was incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with enforcement of the demand stayed pending the appeal at Delhi CEGAT.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 244
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1990 allowing two appeals filed by the assessee.
  2. Inclusion of testing and erection charges in the assessable value of the excisable product.
  3. Demand for duty on the element of testing and erection charges.
  4. Interpretation of fitment charges or erection charges in relation to the cooling tower.
  5. Testing charges related to the supplied items and their inclusion in the value of Fan Blades.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal allowing two appeals filed by the assessee against Orders passed by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector had approved four price lists and confirmed a demand for a specific period based on the approval Order. The respondent had contracts for supplying FRP Fan Blades and Hub-Assembly for cooling towers, excluding testing and erection charges. The Department proposed including these charges in the assessable value, leading to a demand for duty. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposals, but the Orders were set aside by the Collector (Appeals).
  
  Regarding the fitment charges or erection charges, it was established that the cooling tower is immovable property, and the respondent supplied Fan Blades and purchased Hub-Assembly for fitting in the tower. As the respondent did not manufacture the cooling tower or the Hub-Assemblies, the question of paying duty on fitment or erection charges did not arise. The charges were for fitting the items inside the cooling tower, which was immovable property, and thus duty payment was not applicable.
  
  The issue of testing charges was also addressed, with the Collector of Central Excise not providing crucial documents like the show cause notice or contract. The testing charges were related to demonstrating the usefulness of the Blades to buyers and were conducted at the buyers' premises. The testing was done to showcase the savings in electricity costs by using the Blades. The testing charges were not for performance testing before or after removal but to satisfy buyers about specific aspects. As the testing was done at the buyer's option and not part of the manufacturing process, these charges could not be included in the value of the Fan Blades.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Orders and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Collector (Appeals) in setting aside the proposals to include testing and erection charges in the assessable value of the excisable product.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 243
  
  Issues:
  Setting aside of Modvat credit recovery and redemption fine, imposition of penalty, maintainability of appeal, ground of appeal disclosure, limitation period calculation, reliance on precedent, verification in appeal filing, duty demand timing, confiscation and redemption reliance.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. The Revenue appealed against the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, seeking to set aside the recovery of Modvat credit and redemption fine while upholding the penalty imposed. The Commissioner relied on a non-final judgment and held the show cause notice (SCN) as time-barred from the date of goods entry in RG 23A Part I.
  
  2. The Appellant's representative argued that the reliance on a non-final judgment by the Collector (Appeals) was incorrect, and the limitation period should start from the date of credit in RG 23A Part I. The Respondent's consultant raised a preliminary objection on appeal maintainability due to lack of disclosed grounds and verification in the appeal filing.
  
  3. The consultant highlighted the absence of annexed grounds in the Commissioner's order authorizing the appeal filing and the lack of prescribed verification in the appeal filing format. He further argued on the merit of the case, stating the duty demand was time-barred under Rule 57-I, with the SCN issued beyond the limitation period.
  
  4. The Judge found merit in the preliminary objections raised by the consultant, noting the absence of annexed grounds in the Commissioner's order and the lack of prescribed verification in the appeal filing. Referring to a precedent, the Judge clarified that the limitation calculation should start from the date of credit, not the utilization for duty payment or RT 12 Return submission, supporting the Respondent's position.
  
  5. Consequently, the Judge upheld the objections raised by the Respondents, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal solely based on the limitation ground. The Revenue appeal was rejected, and the Respondents' Cross Objection was disposed of accordingly.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper calculation of the limitation period for duty demand, the maintainability of the appeal, and the necessity of disclosing grounds and verification in appeal filings. The reliance on precedents and the correct interpretation of rules played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the case, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 242
  
  The dispute involved the inclusion of the value of Starters in Industrial Fans. Appellant referred to a previous order where it was held that the fan is complete without the starter, so the value of the starter cannot be included. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 241
  
  Issues:
  1. Duty payment on differential price escalation in a manufacturing contract.
  2. Dispute over the assessable value due to the escalation clause and debit note.
  3. Time-barred show cause notice for duty demand.
  
  Issue 1: Duty payment on differential price escalation in a manufacturing contract:
  The case involved an appellant, an undertaking of the Himachal Pradesh Government, engaged in manufacturing pre-stressed concrete poles for the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under a contract. The appellant paid duty based on the price in the contract but issued a debit note for the increased price of raw materials due to an escalation clause. A show cause notice was issued alleging deliberate concealment and duty evasion. The appellant argued that duty was paid only after realizing the differential price, known to the Department, and there was no intent to evade duty. The Addl. Collector upheld the demand, leading to the manufacturer's appeal.
  
  Issue 2: Dispute over the assessable value due to the escalation clause and debit note:
  The contract included an escalation clause for raw material price increases, leading to the issuance of a debit note by the appellant. The buyer did not accept or pay the increased amount. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted that raising a debit note might indicate the amount as part of the price unless objected to by the buyer. As the appellant did not claim buyer objection or error in the note, the amount covered by the note should be part of the assessable value. Non-payment by the buyer does not exclude the unpaid amount from the assessable value, making it the duty of the manufacturer to pay duty and recover unpaid amounts.
  
  Issue 3: Time-barred show cause notice for duty demand:
  The appellant argued the show cause notice was time-barred for the period in question, citing communications to the jurisdictional Superintendent regarding the escalation clause and non-payment by buyers. However, the appellant did not specifically deny the concealment or issue of the debit note at the relevant time. Following a precedent, the Tribunal held that in cases with price variation clauses, prices agreed upon are provisional, and limitation provisions do not apply. Thus, the show cause notice was deemed not time-barred, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
  
  Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the duty demand based on the escalation clause and the assessable value, while ruling the show cause notice as not time-barred.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 240
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of Notification No. 231/85 and subsequent amendment by Notification No. 42/89 regarding concessional rate of duty for Tyres, Tubes, and Flaps of motor vehicles. Applicability of the conditions of the notification, including the value of clearance. Relevance of Notification No. 48/89 for small scale industries. Prospective nature of Notification No. 42/89 and the retrospective application by the Collector (Appeals). Definition of "clearance" in Central Excise law and its implications on the calculation of aggregate value.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the Department challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) related to the benefit claimed under Notification No. 231/85 for Tyres, Tubes, and Flaps. The Department contended that the respondents did not satisfy the conditions of the notification, especially regarding the value of clearance, and argued that the amendment by Notification No. 42/89 should only apply prospectively from its issuance date (1-3-1989). The Collector (Appeals) had granted the benefit of the amendment even for the period before 1-3-1989, which the Department opposed.
  
  The Counsel for the respondents argued that even before the amendment, the benefit could be extended based on the exclusion of the value of exempted goods like cycle tyres and tubes. They also contended that Notification No. 48/89, applicable to small scale industries, was not relevant to the current case. The Tribunal noted that the language of the notification was crucial, with specific conditions needing fulfillment. The notification required consideration of all excisable goods, whether dutiable or exempted, for calculating the aggregate value, as it referred to other exemption notifications explicitly.
  
  Regarding the prospective nature of Notification No. 42/89, the Tribunal upheld the Department's argument that the explanation added by the amendment was only applicable prospectively from 1-3-1989. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that the retrospective application by the Collector (Appeals) was incorrect. The Tribunal clarified the term "clearance" in Central Excise law, stating that it refers to the removal of goods from approved premises, irrespective of whether the goods were dutiable or exempted. The order of the Collector (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal by the Department was accepted.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 239
  
  Issues: Classification of goods under sub-heading 2404.50 or 2404.60 of the Central Excise Tariff.
  
  In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the correct classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The appeals involved the Revenue, M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd., and M/s. Khetu Ram Bishamber Dass, with cross-objections filed by the latter. The main contention was whether the goods should be classified under sub-heading 2404.50 or the newly inserted sub-heading 2404.60, which covered preparations containing snuffs of tobacco. The jurisdictional Collector initially agreed with the classification under 2404.60, but show cause notices were later issued for short payment of duty, claiming the correct classification was under 2404.50.
  
  The representatives for M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. argued that post the Tariff change on 1-4-1989, their product fell under sub-heading 2404.60 due to the addition of menthol. They cited Tribunal decisions in similar cases to support their classification. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that even with the addition of menthol, the goods remained snuffs and the differential duty under 2404.50 was appropriate. The issue of whether the process of repacking and labeling constituted manufacture was crucial in determining the correct classification.
  
  The Tribunal noted the changes in the Tariff and the addition of sub-heading 2404.60 specifically for preparations containing snuffs of tobacco. Manufacturers argued that their product, post-adding menthol, fell under this new sub-heading. Reference was made to Tribunal decisions in cases involving similar processes, where the majority held that the new product constituted manufacture and was appropriately classified under sub-heading 2404.60. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the process of manufacture in such cases to determine the correct classification.
  
  It was highlighted that the Tribunal's decisions were crucial in these matters, as no contradictory decision was presented. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders-in-appeal and remanded the matters to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, for re-examination in light of the Tribunal's decisions. The manufacturers were to be given an opportunity to present their case, and appealable speaking orders were to be passed as per law. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were remanded for further review and decision in accordance with the Tribunal's rulings.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 25