Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2000 2000 (3) 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 221 to 240 of 518 Records

• 2000 (3) TMI 552
  
  The Revenue appealed the order of the Commissioner of Customs classifying cutting plotters under Customs Tariff Heading 8441.10. The cutting plotters perform dual functions of designing, etching, and cutting vinyl and paper. The Tribunal agreed with the classification under Heading 8441.10 as the principal function is cutting, with printing being subsidiary. The appeal was rejected, and the cross-objection abated.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 551
  
  The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata involved classification of products as rough castings or parts of railway equipment. The Assistant Collector determined that the products were finished goods used by railways. The Tribunal upheld this decision, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in a previous case involving the same appellants. The current appeal was rejected based on the previous rulings.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 550
  
  The Revenue appealed the classification of plastic grills for air-conditioners under Heading 3926.90, based on a Trade Notice. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing a previous case where steel frames for air-conditioners were classified differently due to a Trade Notice specifying classification under a different heading. The appeal was rejected based on this precedent.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 549
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected the appeal by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra for refund of customs duty on aluminium waste and scrap due to late filing of revised price list, as prices cannot be revised with retrospective effect. The appeal was dismissed based on the Collector (Appeals) decision. (2000 (3) TMI 549 - CEGAT, New Delhi)

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 548
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata heard a case where the Revenue appealed against a decision regarding the exemption of copper winding wire under Notification No. 69/86. The respondents had manufactured winding wires from duty paid copper wire bars without availing Modvat credit, satisfying the conditions of the notification. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the respondents' position, stating that they had the option to pay duty on exempted products, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 547
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants in a case involving duty demand on Copper and Aluminium coils fabricated for transformer repair. The Tribunal held that the process of converting winding and strips into transformer coils does not attract duty liability, citing previous decisions. The duty demand of Rs. 12,40,842/- was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 546
  
  The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut filed a reference application regarding the eligibility of Modvat credit on PCB Cards within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The issue is whether PCB cards, as parts of control panels, can be considered capital goods when control panels themselves are not. The Tribunal allowed the reference application to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court for consideration.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 545
  
  The appellants claimed benefits under Notification No. 69/90-C.E. for Centrifuge and Notification No. 155/86 for baths. The lower authority denied benefits, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. Centrifuges are eligible for Notification No. 69/90 benefits. Baths without air-conditioning devices are eligible for Notification No. 155/86 benefits. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 544
  
  The judgment concerns the eligibility of imported "advanced designer/mould designer package III" for duty exemption under Notification 11/97-Cus. The Appellate Tribunal found the software used for design purposes qualifies for exemption as it operates on a machine performing data processing functions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 543
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld duty demand of Rs. 2,90,387 on plastic components of diesel engines seized from appellants. They reduced penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000 due to non-compliance with exemption notifications. The appeal was partly allowed.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 542
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in the case of M/s. Vee Gee Electronics regarding the classification of Shell Housing for audio/video cassettes. The Board's Circular clarified that such housings are classifiable under Heading No. 39.26 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal held that the correct classification for blank audio cassettes without tapes is under Heading No. 39.26.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 541
  
  The appeal by M/s. Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd. regarding the classification of Ethylene Oxide Road Tanker was rejected. The tanker was classified as bodies for motor vehicles under Heading No. 8707, not as containers under Heading No. 8609. The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Cotspun Ltd. was deemed inapplicable as the classification lists had not been approved. The tankers were considered bodies to be fitted on chassis, not containers for transport of fluids. The decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 540
  
  The appeal by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. regarding the eligibility of gauzes for a specific benefit was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous case involving M/s. Ashok Layland Ltd., where it was established that gauzes were considered appliances and not eligible for the benefit in question. The appeal was found to lack merit and was therefore dismissed.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 539
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal of the appellant regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit on M.S. Channels. The Tribunal found that the declaration filed by the appellant specifying M.S. Channels under the sub-heading 'others' was sufficient, considering the nature of their industrial unit and the supporting documents. The penalty imposed was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 520
  
  The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA involved the confiscation of ball point pens and refills worth Rs. 8,000/- CIF. The appellant's goods were seized at the Railway Station and claimed to be purchased from Hongkong. The appellant produced a baggage receipt showing clearance of goods valued at Rs. 16,000/-. The Tribunal found that the Customs Authorities had cleared the goods in accordance with the law, and as the items were non-notified, the burden to prove smuggling was on the Revenue. The judgment set aside the confiscation order and allowed the appeal.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 515
  
  The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi states that the order should have been complied with within a reasonable time. The Tribunal directed the authorities to ensure compliance of the order within two months. The Tribunal clarified that they do not have the power to order interest payment and emphasized on ensuring compliance through the Departmental representative. Compliance report was to be submitted by 25-5-2000.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 514
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution due to a notice being returned with a remark 'Factory is closed.' The appellant's request for restoration was rejected as the appellant did not update their address for correspondence. The appellant was given six weeks to comply with the order.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 513
  
  Issues:
  1. Modvat credit on Tray Castings under Rule 57Q.
  2. Modvat credit on Electrical Motor and Electrical Control Panel under Rule 57Q.
  
  Issue 1: Modvat credit on Tray Castings under Rule 57Q:
  The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh's order allowing Modvat credit on Tray Castings under tariff heading 7325.20. The original authority had denied the credit, stating that goods falling under chapter 73 were not eligible. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found Tray Castings essential for handling material during the manufacturing process, citing a Tribunal decision. The Tribunal held that the Trays were part of an Industrial Furnace, thus allowing the Modvat credit. The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the Tray Castings were integral to the manufacturing process, the specific exclusion of chapter 73 items for Modvat credit meant the credit could not be allowed based on integration alone.
  
  Issue 2: Modvat credit on Electrical Motor and Electrical Control Panel under Rule 57Q:
  In another case, the Modvat credit on Electrical Motor and Electrical Control Panel was denied to the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous decision and allowed the credit, considering these items as capital goods eligible for Modvat credit. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with this decision, noting that these items fell under the definition of capital goods as per a Larger Bench decision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, allowing the Modvat credit on Electrical Motor and Electrical Control Panel as capital goods.
  
  In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the Trays casting, overturning the lower Appellate Authority's decision. However, the appeal concerning the Electrical Motor and Electrical Control Panels was rejected, affirming the lower Appellate Authority's order allowing the Modvat credit on these items as capital goods.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 512
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai decided on a case involving misdeclaration of goods received as a gift from Dubai. The appellant's penalty was remitted entirely, fine reduced from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 5,000, and reshipment permitted without any fine.

  ---

• 2000 (3) TMI 511
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE.
  2. Allegations of clandestine removal and non-compliance with Central Excise Rules.
  3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act.
  4. Validity of statements and retractions made by the appellants.
  5. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE:
  The appellants, a registered SSI unit, were engaged in manufacturing parts of pressure cookers. The dispute centered around whether they could claim exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE for goods affixed with the "ELITE" brand name, which belonged to another party, M/s. Lallubhai Amichand Limited. The Additional Collector found that the appellants were not entitled to the exemption for goods cleared from 1-10-1987 to 23-10-1989 as they bore the "ELITE" brand name. However, the appellants argued that they only started affixing the brand name from 12-6-1989, supported by letters from M/s. Lallubhai Amichand Limited and M/s. Modern Domestic Appliances. The Tribunal found that the lower authority's interpretation of these letters was erroneous and reversed the finding, concluding that goods cleared prior to 12-6-1989 were without the brand name, thus eligible for exemption.
  
  2. Allegations of Clandestine Removal and Non-Compliance with Central Excise Rules:
  The Department alleged that the appellants engaged in the manufacture and clandestine removal of pressure cooker parts without a Central Excise license, without filing classification/price lists, and without maintaining statutory records. The Additional Collector confirmed these allegations and imposed penalties. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellants had paid the duty for the period June-October 1989 and that the Department failed to establish that goods cleared before 10-6-1989 bore the "ELITE" brand name. Consequently, the demand for duty was set aside, but the confiscation of goods for non-compliance with statutory requirements was upheld.
  
  3. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation:
  The show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, citing mis-statement and suppression of facts by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not challenge this invocation in their appeal, nor was it argued by their advocate. Therefore, this issue was not examined further.
  
  4. Validity of Statements and Retractions:
  The appellants initially admitted to affixing the "ELITE" brand name on goods from 1-10-1987, but later retracted these statements, claiming they were mistaken. The Tribunal found the retraction credible, supported by corroborating evidence, including letters from M/s. Lallubhai Amichand Limited and M/s. Modern Domestic Appliances. The Tribunal held that the retracted statements, uncorroborated by independent evidence, could not be used against the appellants.
  
  5. Confiscation of Seized Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
  The Additional Collector ordered the confiscation of 4250 "ELITE" brand safety valves and imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation due to the appellants' failure to maintain statutory records and other procedural contraventions. However, considering the circumstances, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was allowed in part. The demand for duty was set aside, but the confiscation of goods was upheld with a reduced penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and proper interpretation of documentary evidence in reaching its conclusions.

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 26