|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 493 Records
-
1998 (2) TMI 218
Issues:
1. Whether tea cess is leviable on tea waste cleared for the manufacture of instant tea meant for export.
2. Whether the definition of tea under the Tea Act, 1953 includes tea waste.
3. Whether any notification under Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits clearance of tea waste without payment of cess.
4. Whether the Central Excise duty is payable on tea waste sent for the manufacture of instant tea.
Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, which held that tea cess is not leviable on tea waste. The Revenue contended that cess is applicable on tea waste cleared for instant tea production for export, as it is not exempted under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The definition of tea under the Tea Act, 1953 was emphasized, stating that it includes tea waste. The absence of a specific notification permitting clearance of tea waste without cess payment was highlighted, asserting that cess is payable on tea waste even if cleared without Central Excise Duty payment.
The Respondent's Counsel argued that the Tea Act, 1953 imposes cess only on tea, not on tea waste. Referring to the Commissioner of Central Excise's order and Ministry of Commerce instructions, it was contended that tea waste is not included in the definition of tea under the Tea Act, thus not subject to cess. The Board's instructions further supported this stance, clarifying that no cess is to be collected on tea waste as defined in the Tea Act, 1953.
The core issue was whether tea cess under the Tea Act, 1953 is applicable to tea waste. The respondents were engaged in black tea manufacturing, with waste classified under a specific Central Excise Tariff sub-heading. The exemption from Central Excise duty for denatured waste and the duty payment for waste used in instant tea production were outlined. The Commissioner concluded that tea waste is not covered in the definition of tea under the Tea Act, supported by Ministry of Commerce and Board instructions, which explicitly stated that no cess is leviable on tea waste as defined in the Tea Act, 1953.
The judgment upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It was determined that tea waste is not subject to cess under the Tea Act, 1953, based on the legislative provisions and official instructions provided by the Ministry of Commerce and the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The absence of any infirmity in the impugned orders led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
-
1998 (2) TMI 217
The stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 89,577.38 is considered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The dispute is regarding the classification of aluminium foils discs under Tariff headings 76.07 or 83.09. The Tribunal orders the applicants to pay Rs. 45,000 by 31-3-1998, with the balance amount dispensed and recovery proceedings stayed during the appeal. Compliance to be reported on 3-4-1998.
-
1998 (2) TMI 216
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the denial of Modvat credit on detergent cakes supplied with detergent powder, as the cakes were not considered inputs for the powder. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the cakes could be treated as accessories, stating that unless specifically indicated, amendments are prospective, not retrospective. The demand was reduced by an amount wrongly taken as credit, resulting in a modified quantum of demand. The appeal was rejected with this modification.
-
1998 (2) TMI 215
Issues:
Deemed credit availability for waste and scrap of iron and steel under Government order dated 7-4-1986.
Appellants' entitlement to deemed credit under the Government order.
Interpretation of Heading No. 72.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Appellants' compliance with departmental instructions regarding deemed credit.
Penal action against the appellants for contravening Central Excise Rules.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut dated 18-9-1997. The appellants, who are manufacturers of Steel Ingots, sought deemed credit for waste and scrap of iron and steel under the Government order dated 7-4-1986. Despite their belief in entitlement to the credit, the Additional Collector directed them not to take credit on 'old and used' scrap of iron and steel. The appellants argued that the waste and scrap they used fell under Heading No. 72.03 of the Tariff and should be eligible for deemed credit as per the Government's order. However, subsequent Government orders excluded waste and scrap falling under tariff Heading No. 72.03, leading the appellants to reverse the credited amount and pay back the sum, claiming they acted in good faith.
The contention arose regarding the interpretation of Heading No. 72.03, with the appellants asserting that the adjudicating authority's view was unsupported by legal basis. They argued that the deemed credit scheme was designed to address the inability of manufacturers to produce duty paying documents for inputs purchased externally. The Government's clarification letter dated 1-12-1986 emphasized that the restricted meaning of 'waste and scrap' excluding 'old and used' waste and scrap was applicable only from the subsequent order dated 29-8-1986.
The Departmental Representative highlighted that the appellants were explicitly advised against taking credit on old and used scrap, which they disregarded, leading to intentional contravention of Central Excise Rules. The issue at hand was whether deemed credit was available for waste and scrap of iron and steel under the Government order dated 7-4-1986. The order specified that certain inputs purchased from outside were not entitled to credit if they were non-duty paid or charged at nil rates. The appellants were instructed not to take deemed credit on old and used scrap, which they continued to do despite warnings.
The Additional Collector's decision was upheld, emphasizing that Heading No. 72.03 covered fresh scrap of iron and steel, not old and used material. The definition of 'waste and scrap' in Chapter 72 supported this distinction. The appellants' failure to comply with departmental instructions and their continued pursuit of deemed credit without obtaining a stay from appropriate authorities led to the rejection of their appeal. The argument of bona fide belief was deemed insufficient under the circumstances, resulting in the confirmation of the original order and the dismissal of the appeal.
-
1998 (2) TMI 214
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding assessable value of imported components. The Appellant claimed violation of natural justice as the order was passed ex parte without considering their adjournment request. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after giving the Appellant an opportunity for oral representation.
-
1998 (2) TMI 213
Issues:
1. Whether compressors fitted to refrigerator marine containers are considered ship's stores under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.
Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai centered around the classification of compressors fitted to refrigerator marine containers as ship's stores under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The Collector had previously held that these compressors were not ship stores as containers are not part of the ship. The appellant argued that since refrigeration in the container relies on electricity from the ship generators, the compressors should be considered ship stores. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the mere presence of containers on board a ship does not automatically make them part of the ship. They highlighted that marine containers are designed for multi-product transport, often being carried by other means of transportation, and cannot be considered part of trucks or trains on which they are carried. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision of electricity from the ship to the container does not change its classification as part of the ship.
The appellant also relied on a letter from the Ministry of Shipping and Transport, dated August 6, 1983, which considered marine containers as part of the ship. However, the Tribunal dismissed this assertion, noting that the letter lacked reasoning and the competence of the author to make such a statement was not established. They emphasized that unsupported assertions cannot be accepted as evidence in determining the scope of the term "ship stores" under the Import Trade Control Order.
Furthermore, the Tribunal distinguished a previous Bombay High Court judgment regarding drilling equipment as ship stores, stating that it was not relevant to the current case. They also discussed a previous Tribunal decision regarding containers supplied by shipping agencies, highlighting the distinction made between containers and packages for transport purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the decision in that case was specific to the facts presented.
In response to an alternative argument invoking Entry 12 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy, which permits import of capital goods by registered ship repairing units, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to reject the plea due to lack of evidence of registration with the Directorate General of Shipping. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Collector's decision and dismissed the appeal.
-
1998 (2) TMI 212
The dispute was about the assessable value of valves with bought-out items. The Tribunal held that the bought-out items are component parts of valves, so their value should be included. The Collector's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. A correction was made to the final order to reflect this.
-
1998 (2) TMI 211
Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether PVC profile shapes in the form of cut pieces are considered waste or an input for making 'PVC Fire Retardant'.
2. Utilization of Modvat credit on PVC profile shapes towards duty payment on PVC Fire Retardant Compound.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of cut pieces of PVC profile shapes as waste or inputs for manufacturing 'PVC Fire Retardant Compound'. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous decision where it was held that the cut pieces were waste and not eligible for Modvat credit. The Tribunal noted that the cut pieces were used in the manufacturing process of the final product, indicating they were intermediate products eligible for credit under Rule 57D(2). The Tribunal concluded that the cut pieces were indeed inputs for the Fire Retardant Compound, overturning the Commissioner's decision.
2. The appellants were availing Modvat credit on duty paid for PVC profile shapes used in manufacturing PVC doors, windows, and Fire Retardant Compound. The department contended that since the Fire Retardant Compound was made from cut pieces of PVC profiles, considered waste, the Modvat credit could not be applied towards duty payment for the compound. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the cut pieces were indeed intermediate products used in the manufacturing process of the Fire Retardant Compound. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief in accordance with the law.
This judgment clarifies the distinction between waste and intermediate products in the context of Modvat credit utilization and highlights the importance of considering the manufacturing process when determining the eligibility of inputs for duty payment purposes.
-
1998 (2) TMI 210
Issues:
- Duty demand on processed man-made fabrics
- Imposition of personal penalty
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the confirmation of duty demand and imposition of a personal penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the appellant, a processing unit dealing with man-made fabrics. The Central Excise Officers found a discrepancy in the quantity of processed fabrics on the premises, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 98,358.30 and a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The appellant explained the discrepancy as a result of intermixing of fabrics due to similar appearance and defaced lot numbers during processing. The appellant also highlighted the common industry practice of processing various fabric lots together to save resources. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the duty demand and penalty, which was further affirmed by the lower appellate authority, leading to the present appeal.
The appellate tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the evidence, including the statement of the appellant's representative. The appellant's explanation for the discrepancy was based on the blending of man-made fabrics with similar qualities, leading to intermixing of different lots during processing. The appellant raised concerns about the accuracy of the verification process that determined the quantity of excess and shortage. The appellant's counsel argued that processing units commonly batch different fabric lots together for efficiency, dyeing, and printing, and only segregate them after final processing for clearance lot-wise.
After careful consideration, the tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish the charge of clandestine removal of processed fabrics. The tribunal held that the burden of proof to establish such a charge was not met by the Department. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants as per the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of meeting the burden of proof in establishing charges and highlighted the industry practices relevant to fabric processing to justify the appellant's explanation for the discrepancy.
-
1998 (2) TMI 209
Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred refund claim.
2. Provisional assessment under Rule 9B.
3. Consideration of advance deposits as duty.
4. Procedural irregularities affecting substantive rights.
5. Validity of letters as refund claims.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Time-barred Refund Claim:
The primary issue was whether the refund claim filed by the assessee was time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the Order-in-Original, holding that the refund claim related to the period 22-2-1992 to 21-5-1992 and was filed on 17-8-1993, thus time-barred. The appellants contended that the final assessment was made in February-March 1993, and hence the claim was within six months from the final assessment. The Tribunal noted that the formal refund claim was filed on 17-8-1993, but earlier letters dated 15-9-1992 to 29-9-1992 should be considered as refund claims, thus not time-barred.
2. Provisional Assessment under Rule 9B:
The appellants argued that the deposits made under the directions of the Range Superintendent should be treated as provisional assessments under Rule 9B. The Commissioner held that the assessment could not be considered provisional as the procedure under Rule 9B was not followed. The Tribunal, however, acknowledged that the final assessment was made on the RT-12 returns for February and March 1993, and hence the claim should be within the limitation period if treated from that date.
3. Consideration of Advance Deposits as Duty:
The appellants contended that the amounts deposited were advances and not duty, invoking Section 11B(ii)(b) for calculating the six-month period from the final assessment. The Revenue argued that the deposits in the PLA were duty deposits, not advances. The Tribunal recognized that the credits made in the PLA were for duty payment for the clearance of sugar and not merely advances, but still considered the earlier letters as valid refund claims.
4. Procedural Irregularities Affecting Substantive Rights:
The appellants argued that non-following procedural requirements should not annihilate their substantive rights to claim a refund. They relied on precedents where procedural violations did not affect substantive rights. The Tribunal agreed, noting that non-following Rule 233B was a procedural violation and did not affect the substantive right to claim a refund.
5. Validity of Letters as Refund Claims:
The Tribunal had to determine whether the letters dated 15-9-1992 to 29-9-1992 could be considered as refund claims. Citing precedents, the Tribunal noted that informal communications expressing the intent to claim a refund could be treated as valid refund claims. The Tribunal concluded that these letters should be considered as refund claims, thus making the formal claim filed on 17-8-1993 a continuation of the earlier claims.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for reconsideration of the refund claim in terms of law, recognizing the earlier letters as valid refund claims and acknowledging the substantive rights of the assessee despite procedural irregularities.
-
1998 (2) TMI 208
Issues:
- Chargeability of excise duty on intermediate products
- Marketability of intermediate products
- Time-barred demand of duty
Analysis:
Chargeability of excise duty on intermediate products:
The Revenue sought to charge excise duty on four intermediate products arising during the manufacture of two bulk drugs. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, citing marketability of the intermediate products and suppression of facts by the appellants. However, the appellants argued that the products were not marketable as they were crude and required further refinement. They presented affidavits supporting the non-marketability claim. The tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of marketability and did not address this aspect adequately. As a result, the tribunal could not conclusively determine the chargeability of excise duty on the intermediate products.
Marketability of intermediate products:
The adjudicating authority contended that the high purity and batch-wise production of the intermediate products indicated marketability. However, the tribunal observed that the authority did not consider the evidence presented by the appellants regarding the non-existence of these products in the market. The tribunal emphasized the lack of findings on the evidence provided by the appellants, making it challenging to determine the marketability of the products. Ultimately, the tribunal could not establish whether the intermediate products were marketable or not due to insufficient evaluation by the adjudicating authority.
Time-barred demand of duty:
The appellants argued that the demand for excise duty was time-barred since there was ongoing correspondence with the Revenue regarding the classification of the intermediate products. They claimed that the Revenue was aware of the manufacturing process and there was no suppression of material facts. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting the extensive communication between the parties and the uncertainty in classifying the products as late as 1988. As a result, the tribunal found that the demand for duty for the relevant period was time-barred and set aside both the duty demand and the penalty imposed. The tribunal concluded that the invocation of a larger limitation period was unwarranted in this case.
-
1998 (2) TMI 207
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the Department in Appeal E/1914/91-A, setting aside the Collector (Appeals) order and restoring the Assistant Collector's decision that assessable value should include the cost of metal materials and grooving charges under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rule, 1975.
-
1998 (2) TMI 206
Issues:
1. Allegations of manufacturing items from raw materials supplied by another company.
2. Allegations of suppressing facts to evade duty payment.
3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 214/86.
4. Demand of duty for the financial year 1987-88.
5. Confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority.
6. Applicability of duty on manufactured goods.
7. Estoppel on challenging excisability.
8. Legal plea of no manufacturing activity.
9. Comparison with previous judgments on similar goods.
10. Disposal of appeal.
Analysis:
1. The show cause notice alleged that the appellant firm was manufacturing goods from raw materials supplied by another company and classified under a specific sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was further claimed that the appellant suppressed this information to avoid duty payment and was not eligible for exemption under certain notifications, leading to a proposed duty demand for a specific financial year.
2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, prompting the Revenue to appeal the decision. The appellant argued that the goods in question were not subject to duty as they did not involve manufacturing activities during the relevant period, citing precedents where similar goods were deemed not to constitute manufacturing.
3. The Revenue contended that the appellant had previously availed benefits under certain rules and headings without questioning the excisability of goods, implying that the challenge to excisability at this stage was unwarranted. Reference was made to a judgment involving the liability of goods under a specific tariff heading.
4. The Tribunal considered both arguments and emphasized that the question of excisability hinges on whether manufacturing activity occurred, irrespective of past practices or benefit availed. The appellant was not estopped from claiming the absence of manufacturing activity, especially if the duty liability previously fell on another entity.
5. Relying on a previous judgment involving similar goods, the Tribunal concluded that no manufacturing activity took place, leading to the absence of duty liability. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of based on the finding of no manufacturing activity and duty liability.
6. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of manufacturing activity, aligning with precedents and emphasizing the legal question of excisability. Other arguments raised by the appellant, such as the time bar on the demand, were not addressed due to the primary finding on manufacturing activity.
7. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing manufacturing activity to determine duty liability, regardless of past practices or benefit availed. By comparing the present case with previous judgments on similar goods, the Tribunal established the absence of manufacturing activity and, consequently, the absence of duty liability.
8. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the lack of manufacturing activity, which led to the dismissal of the duty demand. The legal plea of no manufacturing activity was upheld, resulting in the disposal of the appeal in favor of the appellant.
-
1998 (2) TMI 205
Issues:
1. Central Excise duty confirmation on alleged loss of brown sugar.
2. Reliability of chemical examiner's report.
3. Dutiability and excisability of brown sugar.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
5. Defects in the show cause notice.
6. Burden of proof on the Revenue.
7. Storage loss for brown sugar determination.
Analysis:
The appeal in this case challenges the confirmation of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 32,725 on the alleged loss of brown sugar during processing, resulting in a shortage of 385 quintals. The Commissioner upheld the duty imposition based on the negligence in storing the sugar, citing Rules 47, 148, and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants argued that the order was defective as the Assistant Commissioner's observations did not align with the show cause notice. However, the Commissioner justified the duty imposition due to the high loss percentage of 29% and negligence in storage, disregarding the absence of a secure storage place for the sugar.
Regarding the reliability of the chemical examiner's report, the appellants contested that the report was not the basis of the show cause notice, rendering the order defective. The Commissioner acknowledged this but still relied on the report to confirm the duty imposition. The appellants also argued that brown sugar, arising during the manufacture of vacuum pan sugar, is not excisable goods based on previous judgments. They emphasized the lack of a formula or determination of normal production to calculate the shortage accurately, challenging the basis of the duty imposition.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal was questioned by the Departmental Representative, claiming that loss during processing or storage does not fall under the Tribunal's purview. However, the appellants argued that the dutiability of brown sugar itself was in dispute, extending beyond mere loss during processing. The Tribunal overruled the jurisdictional objections, asserting that the issue involved determining the dutiability and excisability of brown sugar, falling under the Tribunal's jurisdiction as per the Excises and Salt Act.
The burden of proof was a crucial aspect, with the appellants asserting that the loss was due to natural causes related to the hygroscopic nature of brown sugar. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter this defense, shifting the burden of proof to them. Additionally, the storage loss for brown sugar was deemed indeterminable based on precedents where brown sugar was not classified as goods, further challenging the duty imposition.
The defects in the show cause notice were pivotal in the judgment, as the report of the chemical examiner was not initially relied upon in the notice. Despite acknowledging this defect, the Commissioner proceeded to confirm the duty based on the report, leading to the order being deemed beyond the notice's scope. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and relieving the appellants of the duty imposition.
-
1998 (2) TMI 204
Issues:
1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty on brown sugar due to alleged loss during processing.
2. Reliance on chemical examiner's report for determining loss percentage.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine dutiability and excisability of brown sugar.
4. Defects in the show cause notice and reliance on the chemical examiner's report.
5. Burden of proof on the Revenue to establish loss due to natural causes.
6. Setting aside the order based on defects in the show cause notice and reliance on the chemical examiner's report.
Analysis:
The appeal concerns the confirmation of Central Excise duty on brown sugar by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to alleged loss during processing, resulting in a shortage of sugar. The appellants contested this, arguing that the loss was primarily due to negligence in storing the sugar. They also challenged the dutiability of brown sugar itself, citing previous judgments. The learned DR defended the order, stating that the loss was calculated from the register and was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, the learned Counsel argued that the dutiability of brown sugar was in question, extending beyond just the loss during processing.
Upon careful consideration, the Judge overruled the objections on jurisdiction, emphasizing that the issue involved determining the dutiability and excisability of brown sugar, falling under the Tribunal's purview. The Judge also noted the merits in the appellants' arguments, highlighting defects in the show cause notice and the reliance on the chemical examiner's report without proper basis. The Judge emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the Revenue to establish loss due to natural causes and that the duty could not be demanded without sufficient evidence.
The Judge further pointed out that the order was defective as the report of the chemical examiner was not relied upon in the show cause notice, rendering the order beyond its scope. Despite acknowledging this defect, the Commissioner proceeded to confirm the order based on the chemical examiner's observations. Consequently, the Judge concluded that the impugned order should be set aside due to the defects in the notice and the reliance on the report, ultimately allowing the appeal against the duty imposition on brown sugar.
-
1998 (2) TMI 203
Issues:
The appeal concerns the valuation of HDPE Granules imported by the respondents, with the Revenue challenging the acceptance of the invoice value at U.S. $ 885.00 per M.T. by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejecting the enhancement to US $ 1,220.00 per M.T. by the original authority.
Valuation Dispute:
The original authority based the case against the respondents on evidence of import of identical goods of Japanese origin priced between US $ 1,225.00 to US $ 1,340.00 per M.T. However, the computer print-out of Bombay Customs House showed the price of identical goods at US $ 830.00 per M.T., which was discarded as provisional. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the lower value accepted by the Custom House for similar goods imported by other entities should not be disregarded, as it negated the Customs (Valuation) Rules. The Assistant Collector failed to provide evidence to justify the increase in declared value, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
Ruling on Appeal:
The Revenue contended that the lower appellate authority erred in relying on the price in the case of M/s. Mayur Plastics, which was under provisional assessment. However, the Tribunal noted that the issuance of a show cause notice did not confirm acceptance of the higher price. Without clear evidence that the invoice was not genuine or that clandestine considerations were involved, the transaction value should not be routinely discarded. Since no such evidence was presented by the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 202
Issues:
1. Failure to file an appeal within the specified time period after receiving a copy of the order.
2. Dispute regarding the necessity of a certified copy for filing the appeal.
3. Allegation of obstinacy on the part of the appellant in delaying the appeal process.
4. Consideration of technical objections raised by the appellant in delaying the appeal.
5. Evaluation of the advice from a former consultant in the decision-making process.
6. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant failing to file an appeal within the stipulated time period after receiving a copy of the order. The appellant received a xerox copy of the order dated 17-1-1991 from the Assistant Collector on 12th November 1994, but did not file an appeal within three months of this receipt, leading to the appeal being time-barred.
2. There was a dispute regarding the necessity of a certified copy for filing the appeal. The appellant argued that a certified copy was essential, citing Rule 216 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the Tribunal found that the copy provided by the Assistant Collector had all the characteristics of a certified copy, as it was duly signed and enclosed with a forwarding letter.
3. The respondent alleged obstinacy on the part of the appellant in delaying the appeal process. The respondent contended that the appellant had been rigid in not filing the appeal promptly, leading to a delay in the payment of over Rs. 4 lakhs. The Tribunal noted the appellant's technical objections and delays in decision-making.
4. The Tribunal considered the technical objections raised by the appellant in delaying the appeal. The appellant had raised objections regarding the lack of a certified copy and had consulted a former consultant, but the Tribunal found these objections insufficient to justify the delay in filing the appeal.
5. The appellant had sought to rely on advice from a former consultant, Shri K.N. Mukherjee, in the decision-making process. However, the Tribunal found that no written advice had been provided, and the alleged oral advice was deemed insufficient to excuse the delay in filing the appeal.
6. The appellant had filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, dismissed the Miscellaneous Application and rejected the appeal as time-barred, ultimately disposing of the Stay Petition as well.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for the delay in filing the appeal to be inadequate and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with appeal procedures in such legal matters.
-
1998 (2) TMI 201
The appeal concerned the classification of 100% polyester yarn manufactured from synthetic waste of silver under sub-heading 5504.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the classification and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,500. The appellants challenged the classification, arguing for sub-heading 5606. However, they failed to provide evidence for this claim, and since previous authorities had confirmed the classification under sub-heading 5504.29, the Tribunal upheld the decision and rejected the appeal.
-
1998 (2) TMI 200
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, held that pressmud, a residue in sugar manufacturing, is not an excisable product based on a previous decision. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order fixing the price of pressmud. (Citation: 1998 (2) TMI 200 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1998 (2) TMI 199
The Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad appealed against an Order-in-Appeal that reversed the order-in-original regarding the assessable value of goods sold by M/s. Kersons Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. to M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. The appeal was dismissed as there was no relationship proven between the two companies as alleged by the Department.
............
|
9911796707
