|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 2911 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 200
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims | Interpretation of amended provisions of Section 11B of Central Excises & Salt Act | Disposal of appeals by Collector (Appeals) directing to file refund claims before Assistant Collectors | Stay Petitions rendered infructuous | Cross-objections filed by respondents | Applicability of unjust enrichment principle | Need for remand to Collector (Appeals) for deciding appeals on merits | Lack of response from one respondent
Analysis:
The judgment involves three appeals arising from a batch of appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, challenging a combined Order-in-Appeal dated 26-11-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The Assistant Collectors had rejected refund claims, leading the aggrieved parties (now respondents) to file appeals before the Collector (Appeals), who directed them to file refund claims as per the amended provisions of Section 11B. The Appellant Collector filed separate appeals for each case disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) due to common issues. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were disposed of at first glance, rendering three Stay Petitions infructuous, which were subsequently dismissed.
Out of the three appeals, respondents M/s. Jyoti Oil Company, M/s. Kalinga Cement Ltd., and M/s. Lakshmi Narayan Motor Engineering Works were involved. While M/s. Jyoti Oil Company and M/s. Kalinga Cement Ltd. responded to the proceedings, M/s. Lakshmi Narayan Motor Engineering Works did not. The Collector (Appeals) had set aside the Assistant Collectors' orders, directing them to re-examine the refund claims in light of the amended Section 11B. The judgment discussed the implications of the amended provisions of Section 11B and the requirement to establish that the duty sought to be refunded was not passed on to buyers.
The legal representatives for the parties presented arguments regarding the application of the amended Section 11B, the need for remand to the Collector (Appeals) for a decision on merits, and the potential impact on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal agreed with the analysis presented by the Senior Departmental Representative, emphasizing that the amended provisions of Section 11B would only be relevant if the claims were found acceptable. The judgment highlighted the importance of examining the claims on their merits and the necessity of following the prescribed procedure under the amended provisions only if the claims were admissible.
The judgment addressed the cross-objections filed by respondents and the need for remand to the Collector (Appeals) for a decision on merits. It differentiated between the requirements of the amended Section 11B and the need to consider unjust enrichment, emphasizing that the application of the amended provisions would depend on the admissibility of the claims. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing the Collector (Appeals) to decide on the appeals based on their merits and in accordance with the law. The order was passed concerning the three appeals and related cross-objections, setting aside the impugned order with reference to the concerned respondents only, with further examination pending for other parties in subsequent appeals.
-
1992 (10) TMI 199
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to duty refund under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
2. Timing and necessity of producing the essentiality certificate.
3. Applicability of procedural requirements under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
4. Relevance of prior case law and judgments.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Duty Refund under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
The appellants imported medical equipment and paid the duty amounting to Rs. 68,30,310/-. They subsequently sought a refund under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., claiming the benefit based on an essentiality certificate from the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), West Bengal. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the basis that the essentiality certificate was not produced at the time of clearance, nor was the duty paid under protest. The appellants appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), who upheld the rejection, emphasizing the necessity to produce the essentiality certificate at the time of clearance.
2. Timing and Necessity of Producing the Essentiality Certificate
The appellants argued that they had initiated the process to obtain the essentiality certificate before the importation of the goods. They submitted a letter to the Collector on 20th December 1988, indicating their intention to claim the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. and had applied for the essentiality certificate accordingly. The essentiality certificate was received on 22nd February 1989, after the goods had been cleared. They contended that the procedural delay in obtaining the certificate should not disqualify them from the benefit of the notification.
3. Applicability of Procedural Requirements under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., particularly the conditions specified in paragraph 4 and its provisos. It was noted that proviso (a) applied to existing hospitals, while provisos (b) to (d) applied to hospitals yet to start functioning. The appellants argued that their case fell under proviso (b), as the hospital was inaugurated after the clearance of the equipment. The Tribunal agreed that the appellants had complied with the procedural requirements by setting the process in motion before the goods' arrival and informing the Customs authorities of their intention to claim the benefit.
4. Relevance of Prior Case Law and Judgments
The appellants cited several judgments to support their claim:
- HMT v. Collector of Customs (1990 (46) E.L.T. 434): The Tribunal held that the certificate could be produced after importation if the process had been initiated before.
- Birla Institute of Technology v. Collector of Customs (1991 (56) E.L.T. 753): The Tribunal ruled that the benefit of the notification should not be denied due to procedural delays in obtaining the necessary certificates.
- Auto Tractors Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1989 (39) E.L.T. 494 (SC)): The Supreme Court held that the production of certificates at the time of clearance was sufficient for claiming benefits under a notification, even if claimed subsequently.
- L.M. VEN Moppes Diamond Tools India Ltd. v. Government of India (1981 (8) E.L.T. 165 (Mad.)): The Madras High Court ruled that non-production of an end-use certificate at the time of filing a refund application did not disqualify the claimant from the benefit of the notification.
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' failure to produce the essentiality certificate at the time of clearance was a forgivable procedural lapse and not an insurmountable obstacle. The substantive benefit of the notification should not be denied due to procedural delays beyond the appellants' control.
Judgment:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants, stating that the overall trend of judgments indicated that non-production of the essentiality certificate at the time of clearance was a forgivable failure. The appellants had set in motion the process for obtaining the necessary certificate before the arrival of the goods and had informed the Customs authorities of their intention to claim the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Therefore, the duty refund claim was valid, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 198
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of gullies/patlies of copper/brass.
2. Eligibility for exemption under various notifications.
3. Applicability of the extended period of limitation.
4. Imposition of penalties.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Gullies/Patlies of Copper/Brass:
The appellants challenged the reclassification of gullies/patlies of copper/brass under Heading 7403.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department proposed reclassification under TI 26A(1) of the C.E.T. as it existed prior to 28-2-1986 and thereafter under sub-heading 7401.00 or 7403.21 of the CETA, 1985. The adjudicating authority upheld the reclassification, noting that the appellants had not contested the proposal on the grounds of excisability. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with this finding and held that gullies/patlies fall for classification under Heading 7403.21 CETA, 1985 subsequent to 1-3-1988.
2. Eligibility for Exemption under Various Notifications:
The appellants contended that they were eligible for exemption under Notification Nos. 174/84, 149/86, 98/88, and 178/88 as amended by 68/89. The department argued that the conditions for exemption were not met because the inputs (waste and scrap of copper/brass) were exempt from duty. The tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Patna High Court's decision in Tata Yodogawa Ltd. v. Union of India and the Tribunal's decisions in Arun Auto Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. CCE and Auto Piston Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CCE, which interpreted the term "leviable" to include goods exempted from duty. The tribunal concluded that gullies/patlies and sheets/circles of copper/brass are eligible for exemption under the mentioned notifications.
3. Applicability of the Extended Period of Limitation:
The adjudicating authority invoked the extended period of limitation due to non-disclosure and non-accountal of production and clearance of gullies/patlies. The tribunal, however, found that the appellants had maintained relevant records and filed returns, indicating captive consumption of waste and scrap for making gullies/patlies. Consequently, the tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable and that the demands were barred by limitation.
4. Imposition of Penalties:
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on the appellant firms and their partners. Given the tribunal's findings on the issues of classification, eligibility for exemption, and limitation, it set aside the penalties imposed in all four appeals.
Conclusion:
1. Gullies/patlies of copper/brass are to be classified under Heading 7403.21 of CETA, 1985 for the period 1-3-1988 onwards.
2. Gullies/patlies and sheets/circles of copper/brass are eligible for exemption under the specified notifications.
3. The demands are barred by limitation.
4. The penalties imposed in all four appeals are set aside.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (10) TMI 197
Issues:
Under-invoicing of imported goods, acceptance of contract price for assessment, relevance of invoice price for assessment under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Original concerning the importation of 11600 pieces of goods by the appellants. The customs authorities alleged under-invoicing based on invoices showing lower prices for similar goods imported at different times and proposed a duty recovery. The appellants contested this, arguing that the contract price should be accepted as genuine, citing a judgment from the Calcutta High Court. The Department, however, contended that the value for assessment under Section 14 is the prevailing price at the time of importation, not necessarily the contract price. The Department relied on Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, which deems the value to be the price at which similar goods are sold at the time and place of importation in international trade.
The main contention revolved around whether the Department was obligated to accept the contract price when assessing the imported goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellants imported significantly more pieces than those covered by the invoices used by the Department to propose an enhanced value. The Tribunal found that the prices in the invoices cited by the Department were not comparable due to the substantial difference in quantities imported. As there was no evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices, the Tribunal directed the Department to accept the invoice price and assess the goods under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Order of the Additional Collector.
In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the quantity of goods imported and the relevance of contemporaneous prices in determining the appropriate value for assessment under the Customs Act. The judgment clarified that while the contract price is significant, the prevailing price at the time of importation is crucial for assessment purposes, especially when there is no evidence of higher-priced contemporary imports.
-
1992 (10) TMI 196
Issues Involved:
1. Demand for duty on Lanolin Anhydrous.
2. Allegations of fraudulent suppression and misstatement.
3. Eligibility for exemption under various notifications.
4. Non-filing of Classification Lists.
5. End use of Lanolin Anhydrous.
6. Validity of retrospective demand beyond six months.
7. Reopening of Classification Lists.
8. Imposition of penalty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Demand for Duty on Lanolin Anhydrous:
The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, demanded a duty of Rs. 2,47,868.04 on Lanolin Anhydrous manufactured and removed without payment of duty during the period 1-11-1982 to 31-8-1985. The appellants did not correctly declare the goods in the Classification List and did not submit any Classification List during the material period. This led to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Allegations of Fraudulent Suppression and Misstatement:
The show cause notice alleged that the appellants:
(a) Fraudulently suppressed material facts regarding the nature, character, and composition of the goods in their Classification Lists.
(b) Wilfully mis-stated the goods as non-excisable.
(c) Did not file requisite Classification Lists for specific periods with intent to avoid proper classification and duty determination.
(d) Did not submit requisite Price Lists.
(e) Supplied goods to M/s. Himani Ltd., which used them as a medium base in the manufacture of 'Himani Boroplus,' not as drug intermediates or bulk drugs, thus not entitled to exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E.
3. Eligibility for Exemption under Various Notifications:
The appellants claimed that Lanolin Anhydrous conformed to the specifications of the Indian Pharmacopoeia (I.P.-1966) and was a pharmacopoeial preparation, thus a drug. They argued that the change in exemption notification by Notification 197/82, dated 22-6-1982, did not affect their eligibility for exemption. However, the Collector found that the appellants did not make a full declaration in their Classification Lists and availed of exemptions to which they were not entitled.
4. Non-filing of Classification Lists:
The appellants did not file any Classification Lists between March 1979 and March 1983, despite changes in exemption notifications. The Collector concluded that this was done with the intent to avoid determination of duty liability. The Tribunal noted that Rule 173B(4) required filing a fresh Classification List if there was a change in the rate of duty or exemption notification.
5. End Use of Lanolin Anhydrous:
The appellants contended that 'end use' was not a condition for availing exemption granted to bulk drugs. However, the Collector's finding, based on test reports and evidence, was that Lanolin Anhydrous was used as a medium base in pharmaceutical preparations and not as drug intermediates or bulk drugs. The Tribunal agreed that after the insertion of the Explanation in Notification 104/82, it was necessary to ascertain that the bulk drug was actually used as such or as an ingredient in any formulation.
6. Validity of Retrospective Demand Beyond Six Months:
The appellants argued that the demand beyond six months was invalid in the absence of wilful suppression of facts. They cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd., which held that once an approval is accorded, it cannot be recalled under Rule 173-B. However, the Tribunal found that the facts of the present case involved wilful mis-statement and suppression, making the demand valid.
7. Reopening of Classification Lists:
The Tribunal noted that reopening of Classification Lists by invoking Section 11A was permissible, especially in cases involving wilful mis-statement and suppression of material facts. The Karnataka High Court's decision in Gurupriya Tele Auto (P) Ltd. supported this view, stating that Section 11A empowered reopening of an assessment, including the approval of Classification Lists.
8. Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the Collector, concluding that the appellants had not made a full declaration of the goods and had availed of exemptions to which they were not entitled. The appeal was rejected, subject to recalculation of the amount of duty for the period January 1983 to August 1983, as the assessments for this period were finalized before the issue of the demand notice.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the demand for duty and penalty imposed by the Collector, directing recalculation of duty for the specified period. The appeal was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of filing accurate Classification Lists and the validity of reopening assessments under Section 11A in cases of wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts.
-
1992 (10) TMI 195
The appeal was against an ex parte order by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The appellant claimed they did not receive a show cause notice or a personal hearing. The Tribunal set aside the order, remanding the matter to provide the appellant with a copy of the notice, a chance to respond, and a personal hearing. The appellant was also allowed to inspect relevant records. The Tribunal criticized the Collector for not responding to requests for records. The order was pronounced on 9-10-1992.
-
1992 (10) TMI 194
Issues:
Admissibility of Modvat Credit for Printing Ink used in manufacturing Plastic Films.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Issue of Modvat Credit Eligibility:
The appeals filed by M/s. Multilayer Composites Pvt. Ltd. revolve around the admissibility of Modvat Credit for Printing Ink used in the production of Plastic Films. The first appeal challenges the Additional Collector's decision disallowing a credit of Rs. 38,301.92 taken between July 1989 to May 1990. The second appeal contests the Collector's Order-in-Appeal that set aside the Assistant Collector's grant of Modvat benefit for Printing Ink. The core question is whether Printing Ink qualifies as an eligible input under Rule 57A for Modvat benefit.
2. Appellant's Argument:
Shri K.K. Banerjee, representing the appellants, argued that Printing Ink used in manufacturing Printed Plastic Films constitutes an eligible input for Modvat benefit. He cited a Tribunal decision in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, where Printing Ink was considered an input for packaging material. Banerjee asserted that since Printed Plastic Films serve as packaging material for customers, they should be eligible for Modvat Credit based on the Parle judgment.
3. Department's Response:
On the other hand, Shri S. Dutt Majumder, the Senior Departmental Representative, contended that Printing Ink is not an eligible input for Modvat benefit as the printing process occurs post-manufacturing of Plastic Films. He referenced previous decisions where materials used after completion of manufacturing were denied Modvat benefit. Additionally, he argued that the Bombay-I Collectorate Trade Notice, relied upon by the appellants, was inapplicable as it pertained to labels/stickers, not Printing Ink for Plastic Films.
4. Rejoinder and Final Decision:
In response, Banerjee reiterated that Printed Plastic Films fall under the relevant Tariff Heading, including both printed and non-printed films. He emphasized that Printing Ink forms an integral part of the Printed Plastic Film and should be considered an input for Modvat Credit. The Tribunal, in its analysis, agreed with Banerjee's submissions, stating that Printing Ink is essential in the manufacturing process of Printed Plastic Films. The Tribunal highlighted that the cost of Printing Ink is included in the final product's price and is present on the film itself. Relying on a previous decision regarding Printing Ink eligibility, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and overturned the earlier orders disallowing Modvat Credit for Printing Ink.
This detailed analysis outlines the legal arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the ultimate decision regarding the admissibility of Modvat Credit for Printing Ink used in manufacturing Plastic Films.
-
1992 (10) TMI 193
Issues:
1. Denial of MODVAT credit due to non-compliance with Notification 214/86 and Notification 351/86.
2. Dispute over the status of the job worker under Notification 214/86.
3. Procedural formalities and compliance under the MODVAT scheme.
4. Requirement of verification and records maintenance for MODVAT credit eligibility.
5. Interpretation of MODVAT scheme as a beneficial legislation to mitigate duty cascading effect.
6. Remand for de novo consideration by the original authority.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the denial of MODVAT credit amounting to Rs. 4,49,599.54 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, citing non-compliance with Notification 214/86 and Notification 351/86. The appellant contended that they operated under the MODVAT scheme, sending aluminium ingots to a job worker temporarily. Despite the job worker paying duty on the rolled product, the appellant argued they should not be disqualified from MODVAT credit solely based on procedural lapses.
2. The dispute arose regarding the job worker's status under Notification 214/86, which requires goods to be manufactured by the job worker and returned without duty payment to the raw material supplier. The appellant's failure to adhere to the provisions of Notification 214/86 was highlighted by the Departmental Representative, emphasizing the absence of specific permission under Rule 57F(2) for the appellant.
3. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's bona fide intentions in sending the ingots to the job worker and complying with intimation requirements. Emphasizing the necessity of adherence to procedural formalities under the MODVAT scheme, the Tribunal underscored the importance of ensuring the proper utilization of inputs for intermediate goods manufacture without diversion or non-compliance with waste disposal regulations.
4. Stressing the need for verification through contemporaneous records between the appellant and the job worker, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of confirming whether the ingots were used for manufacturing rods and if the rods were returned to the appellant's factory. The Tribunal suggested that compliance with Rule 57A and other regulatory requirements should be the focus rather than mere procedural errors.
5. Viewing the MODVAT scheme as a beneficial legislation aimed at reducing duty cascading effects, the Tribunal opined that procedural infractions should not automatically disqualify an assessee from MODVAT benefits if the intended use of inputs is demonstrated, and other regulatory obligations are met. The Tribunal emphasized a balanced approach in assessing compliance under the MODVAT scheme.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the original authority, directing a review based on the observations made. The Tribunal clarified that the job worker's lack of MODVAT credit utilization and the appellant's non-claim of credit for received goods should be considered during the reassessment process to determine the eligibility for MODVAT credit in accordance with the scheme's objectives.
-
1992 (10) TMI 192
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption from duty under Notification 103/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989.
2. Definition and scope of "newspaper establishment" under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
3. Ownership and registration requirements for availing exemption.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to exemption from duty under Notification 103/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989:
The appellants contested the denial of exemption from duty on Graphic Art Films under Notification 103/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989, arguing that they were the proprietors of the Patna edition of the newspaper 'AJ' and thus qualified as a "newspaper establishment" registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India. They provided additional evidence to support their claim, which was allowed by the Tribunal. However, the respondents argued that the appellants were only printers and publishers and not a "newspaper establishment" as per the exemption notification. The Tribunal concluded that the exemption was not applicable as the appellants did not fulfill the ownership requirement stipulated by the notification.
2. Definition and scope of "newspaper establishment" under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867:
The appellants argued that as printers and publishers of the newspaper, they should be considered part of the "newspaper establishment" under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. They cited various sections of the Act to support their claim that the printer and publisher are integral to the registration process. However, the Tribunal noted that the Act primarily registers the newspaper, not the establishment, and the term "newspaper establishment" in the exemption notification implied a group of activities including ownership, editorial, printing, and publication functions. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants, being separate from the newspaper's ownership, did not constitute a "newspaper establishment" for the purposes of the exemption.
3. Ownership and registration requirements for availing exemption:
The appellants claimed that the ownership of the Patna edition of 'AJ' had been transferred to them and that they were managing it on behalf of the owner. They argued that this should qualify them for the exemption. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification required the newspaper establishment to be registered with the Registrar of Newspapers and to be owned by the same entity. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not the owners of the newspaper establishment and thus did not meet the criteria for exemption. The Tribunal also highlighted that the expenditure on the newspaper's editorial staff was not borne by the appellants, further indicating their limited role.
Separate Judgment by S.L. Peeran:
S.L. Peeran dissented, arguing that the notification's conditions were met as the appellants were in possession of the newspaper title and were registered as printers and publishers. He emphasized that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, did not require ownership for registration and that the notification aimed to benefit the "newspaper industry" without specifying ownership. Peeran concluded that the appellants should be granted the exemption, as they fulfilled the notification's requirements.
Conclusion:
The majority view rejected the appeal, concluding that the appellants did not qualify as a "newspaper establishment" under the exemption notification due to the lack of ownership and the limited scope of their role. The cross-objections filed by the respondents were also disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 191
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Lack of specification of duty amount in orders, Multiplicity of appeal proceedings, Time limit for filing appeals
In this case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA, the appeal by M/s. Saraogi Paper Mills Ltd. was against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta. The Collector held that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the quantification of duty communicated by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was as per the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. The Collector dismissed the appeal on this basis. The Tribunal observed that the Collector's order was correct, as he lacked jurisdiction over the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. However, the Tribunal had already allowed an appeal by the appellants against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, and remanded the matter for a de novo decision on the duty amount due. Therefore, the present appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal also noted the practice of adjudicating officers not specifying the duty amount in their orders, leading to multiple appeal proceedings. They emphasized the importance of specifying the duty amount in adjudication orders to avoid disputes. The Tribunal highlighted that the time limit for filing appeals would depend on the date of receipt of the adjudication order and the communication specifying the duty amount. Appeals against the quantification of duty should be permitted, and a complete adjudication order mentioning the duty amount is crucial for clarity and to avoid jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal concluded the hearing by announcing the order in open court. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of clear adjudication orders, the jurisdictional limitations of adjudicating officers, and the need to avoid unnecessary appeal proceedings through proper specification of duty amounts in orders.
-
1992 (10) TMI 190
The stay applications were granted, and the appeals were remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh consideration of duty payment evidence on materials. The appellants were given a new opportunity to submit necessary documents. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh orders.
-
1992 (10) TMI 189
The appeal was against the rejection of MODVAT credit for paper bags used as packing material for cement. The tribunal upheld the rejection, stating that paper bags are not considered an input in the manufacture of cement.
-
1992 (10) TMI 188
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assembly, erection, and commissioning of the "Evaporator J" plant amounts to the manufacture of excisable goods.
2. Whether the demand for duty is barred by limitation.
Summary:
Issue 1: Manufacture of Excisable Goods
The primary issue was whether the assembly, erection, and commissioning of the "Evaporator J" plant at the appellants' site amounted to the manufacture of excisable goods under TI 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The plant, essential for drying liquid sodium sulfate into a marketable powder form, was constructed over six months and permanently embedded in the ground. The appellants argued that the plant was immovable property and not "goods" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They cited several Tribunal decisions supporting the view that site-erected structures do not constitute excisable goods. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the plant did not exist as goods before installation and was permanently attached to the ground, thus not fitting the definition of "goods."
Issue 2: Limitation of Duty Demand
The appellants contended that the demand for duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 29-3-1985 for construction completed in January 1984, without alleging suppression or mis-declaration. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the Department was aware of the plant's construction and had not raised the issue of duty earlier. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, which requires something more than mere inaction to invoke the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the demand was deemed time-barred.
Conclusion:
1. The assembly, erection, and commissioning of the "Evaporator J" plant do not amount to the manufacture of excisable goods.
2. The demand for duty is barred by limitation.
3. The penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is set aside.
The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, and the cross-objection abated.
-
1992 (10) TMI 187
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Enhancement of value of jackets.
4. Appeal against the Order of Additional Collector.
5. Re-shipment request for old Zipper Jackets.
6. Return of sale proceeds to the appellant.
Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from the Additional Collector's Order confiscating imported goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposing a redemption fine and penalty while enhancing the value of jackets from the original assessment. The Collector increased the total value of the consignment based on discrepancies found during examination.
2. The appellant, a manufacturer of shoddy yarn, imported woollen and synthetic rags under the Import Policy. A Show Cause Notice was issued regarding the condition of the imported goods, leading to the impugned Order by the Collector. The appeal challenged this decision.
3. Despite the goods being sold in public auction, the appellant sought re-shipment of 10 bales of old Zipper Jackets, which was denied by the Collector. The Tribunal found the refusal unjustified and directed the Department to return the sale proceeds to the appellant due to the unavailability of the goods.
4. Regarding the 28 bales of Zipper Jackets cut into two pieces, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment to establish that the import was valid under the Open General License. It was concluded that there was no violation of Import Policy or Customs Act, leading to the setting aside of the Collector's Order and the direction to grant consequential relief.
5. As the goods were not accessible for providing relief, the Tribunal ordered the Department to return the sale proceeds from the auction of the 28 bales. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant based on the findings and directions given by the Tribunal.
-
1992 (10) TMI 186
Issues:
- Dispute over set off of duty on specific chemicals due to tariff classification change
- Eligibility for duty exemption post-tariff amendment
- Interpretation of Notification No. 201/79 regarding duty exemption on inputs
- Impact of reclassification of goods on exemption eligibility
- Comparison between MODVAT credit and Notification No. 201/79 provisions
- Application of Supreme Court decisions on duty liability
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved two appeals concerning the set off of duty on chemicals following a tariff classification change. The central issue was the eligibility for duty exemption post-amendment when the chemicals were used in manufacturing after the tariff change. The appellants argued that since the inputs were classified under a different item before the amendment, they should still be entitled to the exemption. They relied on previous court decisions to support their claim.
The Tribunal noted that the exemption from duty was contingent on using goods falling under a specific item, as outlined in Notification No. 201/79. Despite the inputs being received before the tariff change, they were used post-amendment when they were no longer classified under the relevant item. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption criteria were not met when the inputs were used after the reclassification, leading to the denial of the exemption.
The Tribunal distinguished the scope of MODVAT credit from the provisions of Notification No. 201/79, highlighting that the latter was limited to set off of duty on specific inputs. Once the classification of the inputs changed, the set off was no longer applicable, regardless of when the duty credit was taken. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the condition of use for availing the set off, making the appellants ineligible post-reclassification.
The Tribunal also considered Supreme Court decisions on duty liability in cases where goods were manufactured during an exemption period but removed later. However, in the present appeals, the finished goods' manufacture occurred after the inputs were reclassified, rendering the duty set off inapplicable post-amendment. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments, leading to the rejection of both appeals.
-
1992 (10) TMI 185
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, negligence in filing appeal, legal advice, sufficiency of cause for delay, interpretation of Limitation Act provisions.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed by M/s. Atco Industries Ltd. against an order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. The main issue was the delay of one month and four days in filing the appeal. The appellant's advocate argued for the condonation of delay, citing wrong legal advice and reliance on postal authorities for the delay. The respondent contended that there was negligence on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal within the stipulated period. The Tribunal considered both arguments and examined the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal had to be filed within three months from the date of receipt of the order as per the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was received in the Registry after the deadline, resulting in the delay. The appellant's counsel relied on various legal precedents to support the plea for condonation of delay, emphasizing that wrong legal advice should be considered a sufficient cause. However, the Tribunal found that the plea of wrong legal advice was not acceptable as there was no affidavit from the advocate confirming such advice. The Tribunal referred to legal pronouncements by the Supreme Court regarding the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in condoning delay.
In its analysis, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of proving a sufficient cause for delay and the discretionary power vested in the Court. The Tribunal referred to previous Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the need for diligence and bona fides in seeking condonation of delay. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal and rejected the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the stay application and appeal were also dismissed without delving into the merits of the case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, despite the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. The Tribunal's analysis focused on legal precedents and the interpretation of the Limitation Act provisions in determining the outcome of the case.
-
1992 (10) TMI 184
Issues Involved:
1. Evasion of Customs Duty
2. Admissibility and Credibility of Statements
3. Valuation of Imported Goods
4. Imposition of Penalties
5. Involvement and Liability of Clearing Agents
Detailed Analysis:
1. Evasion of Customs Duty:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence raided the premises of Panam Maintenance Office and Panam Cargo Office at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 20-8-1987, and recovered incriminating documents. These included original shipping orders/invoices and fabricated invoices showing lesser value, along with other relevant documents such as Bills of Entry. Statements from key individuals admitted their knowledge and collusion in the wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, undervaluation, and evasion of Customs duty from 1982 onwards. The total duty evaded by Panam Airways during this period was calculated to be Rs. 29,61,527/-. Panam Airways paid this amount on 9-9-1987 without prejudice to its rights.
2. Admissibility and Credibility of Statements:
The statements of Mr. Wiessmenn, Director (India) Panam Airways, and other involved parties were crucial. Mr. Wiessmenn admitted the evasion of duty and the practice of submitting fabricated invoices. His statements were corroborated by other evidence, including the documents seized and the statements of other individuals involved. The adjudicating authority found these statements credible and used them as a basis for the judgment.
3. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellants argued that the shipping orders were internal documents and the prices mentioned were notional amounts for budgetary purposes. They contended that the valuation should be determined under Section 14(b) of the Customs Act read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963, specifically Rule 8, providing for best judgment valuation. However, the adjudicating authority found that the prices mentioned in the shipping orders were accurate and upheld the order relating to the adjustment of duty.
4. Imposition of Penalties:
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 112(a)(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, on various appellants. The penalties were initially set at high amounts but were later reduced by the appellate tribunal. The penalties were reduced as follows:
- Panam Airways: Reduced from Rs. 75 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs
- Mr. Wiessmenn: Reduced from Rs. 5.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs
- Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehgal: Reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakhs
- Airport Handling Services: Reduced from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs
- Mr. Ranganathan: Reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000
- Mr. Ramesh Chander: Reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,000
5. Involvement and Liability of Clearing Agents:
The involvement of M/s. Airport Handling Services and its employees was scrutinized. The statements and evidence indicated that they were complicit in the undervaluation of goods and evasion of duty. The adjudicating authority found that the clearing agents had knowledge of and participated in the fabrication of invoices. The penalties imposed on the clearing agents were also reduced by the appellate tribunal but were upheld in principle due to their involvement in the malpractice.
Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order with modifications, specifically reducing the penalties imposed on the appellants. The tribunal found sufficient evidence of duty evasion and involvement of the appellants in the malpractice. The judgment emphasized the credibility of the statements and the proper valuation of imported goods, leading to the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The appeals were rejected subject to the modifications in penalties.
-
1992 (10) TMI 183
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Self Copy Paper under Tariff Headings.
2. Eligibility of Self Copy Paper for Exemption under Notification No. 44/86.
3. Interpretation of Exclusion Proviso in Notification No. 44/86.
4. Validity of Demand and Show Cause Notices.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Self Copy Paper under Tariff Headings:
The appellants manufacture Self Copy Paper, which is classified under Tariff Headings 4809.20 and 4816.00 depending on the width and manner of packing. The Assistant Collector initially approved this classification, stating that Self Copy Paper is distinct from carbon paper or other copying papers. However, the Collector (Appeals) later held that Self Copy Paper is a sub-classification of other copying and transfer papers, thus falling under the broader category described in the main heading.
2. Eligibility of Self Copy Paper for Exemption under Notification No. 44/86:
Notification No. 44/86 provides a concessional rate of duty for various kinds of paper but excludes certain varieties, including "Carbon and other copying papers." The Assistant Collector initially granted the exemption to Self Copy Paper, but the Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that Self Copy Paper falls under the excluded category of other copying papers. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the notification's proviso used a broader term, covering the entire gamut of copying or transfer papers, including Self Copy Paper.
3. Interpretation of Exclusion Proviso in Notification No. 44/86:
The appellants argued that the exclusion in the notification should apply only to carbon and other copying papers, not specifically to Self Copy Paper. They cited previous orders by the Collector (Appeals) in favor of other manufacturers, which held that Self Copy Paper is not covered by the exclusion. However, the Tribunal noted that the proviso to the notification does not follow the tariff sub-headings but goes by a broad description of goods. The Supreme Court's observation in Rohit Pulp And Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise was referenced, emphasizing that the exclusion should be interpreted based on the description of the paper and its copying function.
4. Validity of Demand and Show Cause Notices:
The Department issued a show cause notice to the appellants, questioning their eligibility for the exemption. The Assistant Collector, in a subsequent order, confirmed the demand for duty. The appellants argued that the modified show cause notice issued on 4-1-1990 materially changed the basis of the original notice. However, the Tribunal found that the modification was merely a corrigendum and did not alter the main thrust of the notice, which was the denial of exemption under Notification No. 44/86. Therefore, the demand raised was valid.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune, denying the exemption to Self Copy Paper under Notification No. 44/86. The appeals by the appellants were dismissed, and the Department's appeal against the order in favor of M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. was allowed. The Tribunal concluded that Self Copy Paper falls under the excluded category of other copying papers, and the exemption is not applicable.
-
1992 (10) TMI 182
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 46/83-C.E. to exports to Nepal.
2. Interpretation of the term "for home consumption" in Notification No. 46/83-C.E.
3. Relevance of past practices and other notifications in interpreting Notification No. 46/83-C.E.
4. Validity of the lower authority's decision on duty and cess.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 46/83-C.E. to Exports to Nepal:
The primary issue is whether the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 46/83-C.E. applies to Kraft Paper exported to Nepal. The appellant's factory had paid duty at the concessional rate for exports to Nepal, which the Central Excise Officers found contrary to the provisions of Notification No. 46/83-C.E. The officers believed that clearances for export to Nepal were liable to duty under S. No. 10 of Notification 44/83-C.E., leading to a short payment of Rs. 1,80,488.10 in duty and Rs. 288.78 in cess.
2. Interpretation of the Term "for Home Consumption" in Notification No. 46/83-C.E.:
The appellant argued that the term "for home consumption" in Notification No. 46/83-C.E. was an inadvertent error and should not exclude exports to Nepal from the concessional rate of duty. They pointed out that the term did not appear in the predecessor Notification No. 128/77 or the successor Notification No. 25/84. They argued that the notification aimed to provide concessional rates to small paper mills based on annual clearances, irrespective of whether the paper was for home consumption or export.
However, the Tribunal held that the language of the notification was clear and unambiguous. The term "for home consumption" explicitly excluded exports to Nepal from the concessional rate. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not within its purview to alter the clear wording of a statute, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hemraj Goverdhan Dass.
3. Relevance of Past Practices and Other Notifications:
The appellant referenced practices in the Calcutta-I Collectorate, where exports to Nepal were treated as home consumption under different notifications (85/85 and 77/85). They argued that this practice should extend to Notification No. 46/83-C.E. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that practices in one Collectorate do not establish an all-India practice and that the context of the notifications differed.
The appellant also cited the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Bombay v. G.K. Auto Industries, where the term "clearances" in a different notification was interpreted to include exports. The Tribunal found this case inapplicable as it involved a different notification (176/77) and a different context.
4. Validity of the Lower Authority's Decision on Duty and Cess:
The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, which confirmed the amounts of excise duty and cess but did not impose any penalty on the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authority's interpretation that Notification No. 46/83-C.E. applied only to clearances for home consumption and not to exports to Nepal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming that the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 46/83-C.E. does not extend to exports to Nepal. The language of the notification was deemed clear, and the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding inadvertent errors or past practices. The decision of the lower authority was upheld in its entirety.
-
1992 (10) TMI 181
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessable value of the goods sold by the appellants to M/s. Voltas under a marketing agreement should be based on the price at which M/s. Voltas sell to their dealers.
2. Whether M/s. Voltas are considered "related persons" to the appellants under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessable Value and Marketing Agreement:
The primary issue was whether the assessable value of goods sold by the appellants to M/s. Voltas should be based on the price at which M/s. Voltas sold the goods to their dealers. The appellants, M/s. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., engaged in manufacturing food products, sold their goods through M/s. Voltas under a distributorship agreement. The authorities issued a show cause notice proposing to approve the price list under Part IV, treating M/s. Voltas as related persons of the appellants. The appellants argued that the agreement was a simple distributorship agreement, and the sale was on a principal-to-principal basis, referring to various judgments to support their stance. The department contended that the clauses of the agreement indicated an indirect interest, making the agreement not purely on a principal-to-principal basis.
2. Definition and Determination of "Related Persons":
The core issue was whether M/s. Voltas could be considered "related persons" under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The definition includes persons who have a direct or indirect interest in each other's business. The appellants cited the Supreme Court judgment in the Atic Industries case, arguing that mere shareholding does not establish mutual interest. The department argued that the restrictive clauses in the agreement created an indirect interest, thereby making M/s. Voltas related persons.
Analysis of Clauses and Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal examined the agreement clauses and relevant judicial precedents. The agreement appointed M/s. Voltas as exclusive marketers, allowing them to set resale prices and undertake marketing responsibilities. The appellants argued that these clauses did not detract from the principal-to-principal nature of the agreement. The department cited several cases to argue that the restrictive clauses indicated mutual interest. However, the Tribunal found that the agreement's clauses did not establish mutual interest, as M/s. Voltas were free to sell at their discretion, and the appellants had no control over the resale prices.
Majority Opinion:
The majority opinion, delivered by the third member, concluded that the facts of the case were similar to those in the Atic Industries case. The agreement between the appellants and M/s. Voltas was on a principal-to-principal basis, and the restrictive clauses were standard commercial terms. The appellants did not have an interest in the business of M/s. Voltas, and vice versa. Therefore, M/s. Voltas could not be considered related persons under Section 4(4)(c).
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissenting opinion argued that the appellants had an interest in the business of M/s. Voltas due to the exclusive marketing arrangement and the sale of goods under the appellants' brand name. This mutual interest made the two companies related persons.
Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the Collector was set aside. The assessable value should not be based on the price at which M/s. Voltas sold the goods to their dealers, and M/s. Voltas were not considered related persons to the appellants.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the agreement between the appellants and M/s. Voltas was on a principal-to-principal basis, and M/s. Voltas were not related persons under Section 4(4)(c). The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.
............
|
9911796707
