|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 282 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 114
Issues:
1. Allegation of suppression to evade licensing control and duty payment.
2. Application of Rule 9(2) and Section 11A in the case.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 75/67 and Notification No. 113/80.
4. Impact of prior departmental knowledge on the suppression allegation.
5. Limitation period for invoking demand under Rule 9(2).
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to assessees engaged in manufacturing M.S. wires from duty paid Wire Rods, previously exempted from duty under Notification No. 75/67 which was later rescinded by Notification No. 113/80. A show cause notice alleged duty evasion of Rs. 7,12,967.64 due to suppression of manufacturing facts to evade licensing control. The Collector confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the assessees.
The appellant's counsel argued that the department was aware of the manufacturing activity for years, citing a memorandum from 1974. The counsel contended that the show cause notice issued nearly three years after the relevant period was time-barred. The department claimed suppression due to the assessees' failure to apply for a license post-Notification No. 113/80, despite knowledge of the duty payment requirement. The appellant relied on a Ministry directive for leniency and a Supreme Court judgment equating wire rods and wires as the same commodity.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and analyzed Rule 9(2), which requires establishing suppression for duty evasion. It noted the department's long-standing awareness of the assessees' activities and previous decisions exempting them from licensing requirements. The Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred due to the department's knowledge and lack of suppression by the assessees. As a result, the order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted, bypassing the need to determine if drawing M.S. wires from wire rods constituted manufacturing.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on the limitation period for invoking demands under Rule 9(2) in cases of alleged suppression to evade duty payment and licensing control. It emphasized the significance of prior departmental knowledge in assessing suppression allegations and highlighted the impact of such knowledge on the timeliness of demands. The interpretation of relevant notifications and the obligation of assessees to comply with duty payment requirements were central to the analysis, ultimately leading to the appeal's success based on the limitation period grounds.
-
1997 (6) TMI 113
The appeal involved the classification of 'air washers' manufactured by the assessee. The goods were initially classified under Heading 84.15 but were argued to be classified under Heading 84.79 as air coolers. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, reclassified the goods under Heading 84.79, and directed consequential relief.
-
1997 (6) TMI 112
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the acceptability of Modvat credit for invoices issued by a sole selling agent in April 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the invoices, but the Tribunal found precedents supporting the validity of such invoices for credit. As a result, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty demanded and stayed its recovery.
-
1997 (6) TMI 111
Issues: Classification of imported calender rolls under CTH 8439.20 or CTH 8420
In this case, the appellants imported calender rolls for paper making machinery and claimed classification under CTH 8439.20, arguing that they are parts of paper making machinery. The department rejected this claim, asserting that calendering machines are covered under CTH 8420. The appellants contended that the calender rolls are specific components designed for paper making machinery and function as a distinct section of the machinery, citing the Dictionary of Paper and Pulp of Paper Technology.
The tribunal considered the nature of the imported goods, which were rolls in the calendering section of the machine. Reference was made to the Dictionary of Paper, which described the calender section as part of the Fourdrinier Machine for paper making, emphasizing the purpose of calender stacks in finishing the paper. The tribunal acknowledged that the impugned goods could be part of the Fourdrinier Machine for paper making but deliberated on whether they should be treated as parts of the paper making machine or assessed separately as parts of a calendering or rolling machine.
The tribunal noted that while the goods function as parts of the calendering section of the paper making machine, classification as parts of the principal machine would only be warranted if Rule 2(a) of Section XVI did not apply. Since calendering machines are specifically covered under CTH 8420, the calender rolls were deemed to be classifiable under this item. The tribunal also highlighted that the HSN Notes under 8439 specifically excluded calender rolls as parts, indicating that they should be classified under 8420.
Additionally, the tribunal referenced a previous order in the case of M/s. Sirsapur Mills v. C.C., Madras, where the classification of swimming rolls and accessories of calender stock of paper was considered. Based on the arguments presented and the legal provisions, the tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the department's decision to classify the calender rolls under CTH 8420, rejecting the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 110
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of a manufacturer of vegetable products regarding the rebate claimed under Notification 115/86. The Tribunal held that the rebate element was not to be included in the assessable value. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify if the products contained the required percentage of cotton seed oil for the rebate. The appeal was allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 109
Issues: Classification of steel castings under different tariff headings
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the classification of steel castings manufactured by the appellants. The dispute arose when the introduction of CET 1985 led to a show cause notice questioning the classification of the castings under Heading 8607.00 instead of the heading 7307.00 suggested by the assessee. The Assistant Collector confirmed the classification under Heading 8607.00, leading to the present appeal. The main contention was whether the steel castings should be classified under Chapter 73 or Chapter 86.
Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the previous judgments in similar cases to determine the appropriate classification for steel castings. They referred to the judgment by the Patna High Court in Tata Yodogwa Limited v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, where it was held that steel castings, after undergoing processes like cleaning and polishing, continued to fall under the same item and were not liable to duty under a different tariff item. Similarly, in the case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, the Tribunal held a similar view, emphasizing that the essential character of the goods should dictate the classification.
The Tribunal also considered the argument based on Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation of the tariff, which allows for classification under a particular heading even if the article is incomplete or unfinished. However, the Tribunal, relying on the judgment in Shivaji Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, emphasized that the essential character of the goods should prevail over any rule of interpretation. They highlighted that attempting to change the classification based on essential character would create clashes within different headings and disrupt their harmony.
Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the burden of proof lay with the department to establish that the goods had transformed into identifiable parts falling under Chapter 86. Since the department failed to provide conclusive evidence of such transformation, the Tribunal held that the goods were correctly classifiable under Chapter 73. Following the precedent and the reasoning presented, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower orders, and directed consequential relief if warranted.
In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of tariff classification, emphasizing the importance of the essential character of goods in determining their classification under the appropriate tariff heading. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, ensuring a thorough analysis of the issue at hand.
-
1997 (6) TMI 108
The appeal addressed whether late submission of D-3 intimation required payment of duty again for damaged vehicles cleared for export. The identifying particulars of the vehicles, such as Chassis No. and Engine No., were furnished during earlier clearances and were easily identifiable. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that since the vehicles were clearly identifiable and the purpose of the intimation was met, the demand for duty again was unjustified and set aside. However, a penalty was upheld due to irregularity.
-
1997 (6) TMI 107
Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to the concessional rate of duty for the imported items under specific notifications.
2. Whether the imported goods, namely rechargeable battery and halogen lamps, qualify for the benefit under a particular notification.
Analysis:
The appellants, importers of medical equipment, imported Pocket Autoscope, Rechargeable battery, and Halogen Lamps, seeking concessional duty rates. The appellant contended that the Pocket Autoscope falls under the category of 'Fibre optic endoscope and accessories' as per a specific entry in the notification. The Managing Director of the Appellant Company argued that the item is covered by the relevant notification and should be granted the benefit thereof. On the other hand, the representatives of the appellant company admitted that they were traders, not manufacturers, and claimed that the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps were spare parts and accessories of opthalmoscope, thus eligible for the benefit under a different notification.
The Department denied the benefit to the appellants and assessed duty at the normal rate. The lower authorities supported this denial based on the interpretation that the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps did not qualify for the benefit under the relevant notification. The Department argued that the imported goods could only be eligible for the notification benefit if they were necessary for the manufacture of goods specified under Sl. No. 1-39, which the appellants were not engaged in as they were traders, not manufacturers.
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal held that the Pocket Autoscope indeed qualified for the concessional duty rate under the specific notification mentioned. However, regarding the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps, the Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that these items were spare parts and accessories but clarified that the benefit under the notification could only be availed if they were required for the manufacture of goods specified under Sl. No. 1-39, which was not the case for the appellants who were traders, not manufacturers.
Consequently, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, granting the benefit of the notification for the Pocket Autoscope while denying the same for the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the possibility of consequential relief for the Appellant as per the law.
-
1997 (6) TMI 106
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Customs Act.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, the issue at hand was the condonation of a delay of 17 days in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period of 3 months under the Customs Act. The appellant sought condonation, citing a misunderstanding by a new case worker regarding the timeline for filing the appeal. The Tribunal requested case records to substantiate the claim and inquired about the supervision and hierarchy for monitoring appeal filings. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a valid reason to condone any delay and questioned the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal noted that a letter within the limitation period was sent by the Assistant Commissioner to ascertain the acceptance of the Order-in-Appeal, but no further details were provided regarding the decision-making process for filing the appeal. The appellant's representative mentioned a misunderstanding by the dealing Assistant as the reason for the delay but could not confirm if any action was taken against the Assistant or elaborate on the monitoring process for appeal filings. The absence of the respondents was also highlighted during the proceedings.
Ultimately, the Tribunal emphasized that while the delay may seem minimal, condonation requires a valid and acceptable reason, which was lacking in this case. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation insufficient, noting the absence of evidence supporting the misunderstanding by the dealing Assistant and the failure of supervisory levels to ensure timely appeal filing. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the plea for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred under the Customs Act.
-
1997 (6) TMI 105
Issues:
1. Interpretation of value to be debited to the import licence.
2. Validity of debiting the licence value for enhanced assessable value.
3. Nature of the offence in importing goods exceeding the licence value.
4. Consideration of advance licence under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants importing aniline oil against their advance licence with a duty exemption entitlement certificate. The Customs House found the value balance in the licence insufficient for the imported goods. The appellants argued that the shortfall was due to the Customs House loading the assessable value of a previous consignment of bon acid against the same licence, resulting in the present shortfall. The Dy. Collector rejected this defence, leading to the present appeal challenging the order to pay duty on goods exceeding the licence value.
2. The Sr. Manager reiterated the defence, citing a Customs Advisory Committee meeting where it was stated that debiting the licence should only occur in cases of fraud or illegal compensation to foreign suppliers. The Department argued that the appellants should have raised the issue earlier. The Tribunal referred to a Bombay High Court judgment emphasizing the distinction between valuation for customs duty assessment and the cif value to be debited to the licence. The Court highlighted the Customs officers' duty to safeguard revenue and accurately debit the licence value based on actual cif price.
3. The Tribunal considered the nature of the offence in importing goods exceeding the licence value under an advance licence with a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate. Such licences are issued based on estimated input requirements for export goods, subject to export obligations and value addition. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' defence, noting that the previous loading of value for bon acid had led to the current shortfall in the licence balance. The Tribunal also referenced the Chairman's remarks from the Customs Advisory Committee meeting, supporting the appellants' position.
4. Given the circumstances and the appellants being actual users engaged in export production, the Tribunal deemed it unjust to penalize them for the Customs House's previous actions. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, allowed the appeal, granting the appellants consequential relief. The decision was based on the procedural aspects of issuing the licence, the Bombay High Court's interpretation of debiting licence value, and the specific conditions of the advance licence under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate.
-
1997 (6) TMI 104
Issues:
1. Duty demand on staple fibre not exported
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 191B
3. Justification of penalty amount
4. Applicability of Rule 209 for penalty imposition
Analysis:
Issue 1: Duty demand on staple fibre not exported
The appellants procured staple fibre for conversion into yarn for export under Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules. The Department alleged that the yarn manufactured from the staple fibre was not exported, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand on the staple fibre and imposition of penalty. The Collector confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 14,62,657.70 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 Lakh, prompting the appellants to file an appeal against this decision.
Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 191B
The appellant's advocate argued that the duty amount had already been paid before the show cause notice was issued. He contended that the penalty imposition was the only point of contention. The advocate highlighted that Rule 191B allows for procurement of inputs without duty payment for export-oriented finished products. The advocate emphasized that the breach of the notification conditions by diverting goods from export to domestic consumption without Collector's permission led to the duty realization on the input used. He argued that the maximum penalty under Rule 191B(6) should be Rs. 2,000, and requested a reduction in the penalty amount to comply with this rule.
Issue 3: Justification of penalty amount
The JDR for the respondent Commissioner argued that the duty amount of Rs. 14,62,657.70 was not paid at the time of goods removal, constituting a general violation rather than a simple Rule 191B violation. The JDR justified the penalty imposition under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and defended the quantum of the penalty.
Issue 4: Applicability of Rule 209 for penalty imposition
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that Rule 191B(6) allows for penalty imposition and confiscation of goods, but since the goods were not available for confiscation in this case, a penalty higher than Rs. 2,000 should not have been imposed. The Tribunal observed that the Order-in-Original lacked a specific finding on this aspect. Therefore, considering the specificity of Rule 191B(6), the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 2,000, in line with the rule's provisions.
In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 2,000, as per the provisions of Rule 191B(6), and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 103
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming rejection of benefit of Notification No. 120/75 by Assistant Collector.
- Dispute over sale of parts of textile machinery to a sole buyer at allegedly low prices.
- Allegation of relationship between manufacturer and sole buyer influencing prices.
- Application of clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) of Notification No. 120/75.
- Interpretation of "relationship" under clause (iv) of the notification.
- Defects in the impugned orders and absence of specific allegations in the show cause notice.
- Need for fresh consideration due to infirmities in the impugned order.
Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the rejection of the appellant's claim for the benefit of Notification No. 120/75 by the Assistant Collector, upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The dispute centered around the sale of textile machinery parts to a sole buyer at discounted prices, with allegations of a relationship influencing pricing.
2. The appellant contended that despite selling all goods to one buyer, the transactions were genuine sales at normal prices. The Assistant Collector, however, found that the prices charged were reduced significantly for the sole buyer, indicating an attempt to evade excise duty.
3. The impugned orders raised issues not present in the show cause notice, such as the creation of a dummy buyer or absence of discounts. The interpretation of clauses (iii) and (iv) of the notification was crucial, with a focus on whether the prices were the sole consideration for sale and if any commercial relationship affected pricing.
4. The lower authorities failed to properly analyze the scope of clause (iv) regarding relationships between parties. The Collector (Appeals) invoked clause (v) without proper basis, leading to defects in the order and necessitating a fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority.
5. Due to the deficiencies in the impugned order and the failure to address key aspects of the notification, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing for the appellant.
6. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, highlighting the importance of a thorough examination of the relevant clauses of the notification and the necessity for proper allegations in the show cause notice to ensure a fair adjudication process.
-
1997 (6) TMI 102
Issues:
- Whether the activity of purchasing duty paid snuff, mixing, and selling it in bulk and smaller packages amounts to manufacture on which duty is payable.
- Whether the appellants' argument that a 500 gms. pack of snuff cannot be considered a retail pack is valid.
- Whether the activity of blending various snuff to make them marketable qualifies as "any other treatment" under Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 24.
- Whether the penalty imposed on the appellants should be upheld or reduced based on the circumstances.
Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in purchasing duty paid snuff, mixing it, and selling it in bulk and smaller packages without paying duty. A show cause notice alleged that this activity amounted to manufacture of snuff on which duty was payable. The Additional Collector confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 33,615/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on the appellants, leading to the present appeal against this order.
2. The appellants argued that a 500 gms. pack of snuff cannot be considered a retail pack, as consumers typically buy snuff in smaller quantities. However, the Revenue contended that the size of containers in the retail market varies, and consumers may purchase larger quantities. The Revenue also referred to Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 24, which states that any treatment to render products marketable amounts to manufacture.
3. The Tribunal considered Chapter Note 2, which specifies that repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or any treatment to make products marketable qualifies as manufacture. While consumers usually buy snuff in small quantities, the activity of blending various snuff types to make them marketable falls under the definition of manufacture. The Tribunal held that the appellants' activity of mixing and selling snuff did amount to manufacture, making the resultant products liable for duty.
4. Regarding the penalty imposed, the appellants claimed they had no intention to evade duty and believed their activity did not amount to manufacture. They cited a Supreme Court judgment in support of waiving the penalty. The Revenue argued that the appellants violated the law, justifying the penalty. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- based on the totality of the situation.
5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand on the appellants for their manufacturing activity of mixing and selling snuff, considering it as manufacture under Chapter Note 2. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- due to the appellants' belief and the circumstances of the case.
-
1997 (6) TMI 101
The appeal was from a Customs order classifying carbon neck bushes under Tariff Heading No. 6815.10. The appellants claimed benefit under Notification No. 69/87 but were rejected due to exclusion of goods under Chapter 68. The appeal was rejected based on the exclusion of goods falling under Chapter 68 from the notification.
-
1997 (6) TMI 100
Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption Notification 226/77 regarding duty concession for drill cloth.
2. Applicability of limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
3. Calculation and justification of the demanded duty amount.
Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The case involved a composite textile mill manufacturing drill cloth eligible for a 50% duty concession under Notification 226/77. The dispute arose when the Commissioner initiated proceedings against the appellants, alleging non-conformity with the Textile Commissioner Notification of 1968, questioning the eligibility for the concessional rate. The Tribunal's decision supported the appellants' claim that their 4-harness drill was covered by the notification. The Commissioner confirmed a demand for drills other than grey, bleached, or dyed, while dropping the demand for the mentioned types. The crux of the issue was the interpretation of the notification and whether the appellants' drill cloth qualified for the duty concession.
Applicability of Limitation Period:
The appellants argued that the demand confirmed by the Commissioner was time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act since the notice was issued in 1981 for the period between 1978 and 1979. They relied on a Commissioner (Appeals) decision stating that grey, bleached, or dyed drill cloth was exempt regardless of meeting the controlled drill description. The appellants contended that the demand beyond the six-month period from the show cause notice issuance was improper. However, the Tribunal noted that in cases of provisional assessment, the limitation runs from the finalization of assessment, not from the issuance of the notice. Thus, the limitation argument was rejected, emphasizing the need for clarity on the calculation of the demanded duty amount.
Calculation and Justification of Demanded Duty Amount:
The Tribunal scrutinized the show cause notice, revealing that the demand was based on non-conformity with the Textile Commissioner Notification 1968 and the failure to pay the differential duty after final assessment. The notice invoked Rule 9B, Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. While rejecting the limitation argument, the Tribunal sought clarification on how the duty amount for drills not covered by the Textile Commissioner Order definition was determined. The appellants were entitled to a breakdown of the calculation to understand the basis of the demanded duty. The Tribunal directed the department to provide necessary clarifications to ensure transparency and understanding of the duty calculation process for the appellants.
-
1997 (6) TMI 99
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of a footwear manufacturer regarding the deduction of trade discount. The lower authorities had restricted the discount to 5%, but the Tribunal found that the varying discounts offered were justified based on different classes of buyers and transportation costs. The Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal. (Case Citation: 1997 (6) TMI 99 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1997 (6) TMI 98
Issues: Classification of plastic moulded C.O. cassettes without magnetic tape under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand pertains to the classification of plastic moulded C.O. cassettes without magnetic tape under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant, M/s. Hariram Govindram, sought classification of these cassettes under sub-heading 3922.90 of the Tariff, while a show cause notice alleged classification under Heading No. 85.48. The Asstt. Collector initially approved the classification under Heading No. 39 to 90, but the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed this decision.
The appellant's representative argued that subsequent orders by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and a previous Tribunal decision supported the classification under Heading No. 39.26 for similar products. The Revenue reiterated the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)' points.
The Tribunal analyzed the matter and acknowledged that the plastic moulded cassettes fell under Heading Nos. 39.01 to 39.14, as they were made exclusively from plastic material without any media. The Board's order of 29-7-1994 and the Tribunal's decision in another case supported the classification under Heading No. 39.26 for similar plastic products.
The Tribunal further discussed the Chapter Note XI under Chapter 39 and the residuary nature of Heading No. 85.48 for goods not covered elsewhere. It was determined that the plastic moulded cassettes did not qualify as media for sound recording but were more akin to a housing, leading to the conclusion that the initial classification under sub-heading 3922.90 was correct.
After considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal set aside the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)' order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
-
1997 (6) TMI 97
Issues:
1. Wrong availment of deemed Modvat credit on aluminium alloy ingots.
2. Whether the suppliers' actions amount to manufacture.
3. Justification for denial of deemed Modvat credit.
4. Validity of penalty imposed on the appellants.
Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of electric fans, were accused of wrongly availing deemed Modvat credit on aluminium alloy ingots. The department alleged that the suppliers of the ingots had not paid duty, making the materials non-duty paid and ineligible for deemed credit under Rule 57G(2). The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty on the appellants, leading to the present appeal.
2. The appellants argued that the suppliers were processors and their actions did not amount to manufacture. They relied on a Tribunal decision stating that the department must investigate if goods cleared under a conditional exemption have met the conditions before denying deemed credit. The appellants cited Notification No. 180/88, similar to the one in the Tribunal decision, to support their case for remand.
3. The Departmental Representative contended that sufficient evidence showed the ingots had not suffered duty, justifying the denial of deemed Modvat credit without further investigation. The show cause notice indicated that the ingots were exempted from Central Excise duties, based on the suppliers' endorsements on the delivery challans.
4. The tribunal found merit in the Departmental Representative's argument, as the endorsements on the challans indicated the ingots had not incurred duty. Therefore, the denial of deemed credit was upheld. However, considering the contradictory Tribunal decisions on the matter, the penalty imposed on the appellants was deemed unjustified and set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 96
The Revenue appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras regarding the classification of gaskets under CTH 7326.90 or 8484.10. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the benefit of assessment under 8484.10 based on the evidence provided by the appellants. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals), rejecting the Revenue appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 95
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants who used liquid Nitrogen captively for freezing semen, ruling that the gas was consumed within the factory of production as per the relevant notification. The Collector's demand for duty payment was set aside. (1997 (6) TMI 95 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
............
|
9911796707
