|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 4698 Records
-
1996 (12) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... declaration had been filed, we consider that there is no ground for interference with the order already passed. The ld. Consultant have also stated that there was no malafide intention on their part and they had a genuine belief that they were not required to obtain any licence or to file any declaration. We find that they were subsequently asked to file declaration but they stated that they should not be permitted to file any declaration. The provisions regarding taking out of the licence are mandatory as they are provided in the Act itself. Any exemption has to be strictly within the framework of the applicable rules and notifications. The requirements of licence during the relevant time was the very basis for levy and collection of excise duty. In the facts and circumstances of the case we confirm the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and confirm the penalty amount of Rs. 100/- levied and imposed. The appeal is rejected. 10. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (12) TMI 199 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... reference to the date of payment of duty in respect of certain clearances and after that date if any other payment adjustments are made by the assessee with the customers, the same cannot be taken cognisance of for the purpose of Section 11B of the CEA, 1944. The scheme of Section 11B is so devised that if the duty burden has been passed on by the assessee then the buyer of the goods becomes eligible to the claim of refund. He (customer) has also to establish that duty burden has not been passed to any other person. This provision in law has been made to ensure that the refund is allowed only to the person who ultimately absorbs the duty burden. In this context it is relevant to note that duty burden is normally passed down line by the dealer as urged by the Revenue. In the above view of the matter, we therefore, hold that the appellants could not have been allowed the refund. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the Revenue and the Revenue can take necessary follow up action.
-
1996 (12) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Goods described in invoice as rejects ... ... ... ... ..... uded. In addition, I find that against Serial No. 13 all kinds of cutting etc. received as scrap have been declared as raw materials. Further I find that in their letter dated 8-11-1991 which was in the form of a clarification on Modvat, the appellants had declared, they received different sort of scrap and the cutting of various items that those covered almost all the items of Chapter 72 and that the appellants had given details of major scraps being received by them. I find that this letter was a clarificatory letter submitted by the appellants in reply to the queries raised by the ld. Supdt., Central Excise on the declaration filed. I do not see any reason not accept this as a part of the declaration. 6. emsp Looking to the facts and evidence on record and circumstances of the case I hold that Modvat credit was admissible on the inputs in dispute. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1996 (12) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Motors for Servo - A.C. Servo Motors and A.C. Servo Controls ... ... ... ... ..... were otherwise covered by the said description. It was further submitted that the goods imported were not a part of the CNC system or the components of such a system. 6. emsp We find that the Ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals) had distinguished the CNC system from the CNC version of the machine and had held that the goods imported were not part of the CNC system. We find that the Revenue has not produced any material to show that the imported motors and controls from part of the CNC system as such. To our mind simply because these motors and controls were parts of a machine which could be a conventional machine or could be a CNC controlled machine the benefit of Notification could not be denied unless there is a clear finding that they were part of the CNC system as such. 7. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account we find no ground to disturb the findings of the Ld. Collector Customs (Appeals). 8. emsp As a result the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1996 (12) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Excisable goods ... ... ... ... ..... se reported in Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 is not called for inasmuch as the goods in question was entirely different in that case and the issue involved before us. Respectfully following the decision of the apex court in the case of Quality Steel and by noting that the goods have been erected being embedded to earth, we hold that the same do not satisfy the test of being goods within Section 3 of the Act on account of their being immovable as also on account of their being non-marketable goods. As we are allowing the appeal on the first question of excisability of the goods, we do not find it necessary to go into the question of limitation. However in view of our above finding we hold that the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the appellants is not justified and the same is also being set aside. 8. emsp In view of the foregoing the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1996 (12) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Medicines ... ... ... ... ..... nst the aforesaid circumstances, appellants would be justified in requiring the assessable value to be reckoned under Section 4 of the Act and also claim deductions permitted thereunder. 4. emsp Shri Ali, JDR pointed out that the records of the case do not indicate whether the appellants are manufacturing any patent or proprietary medicines other than those covered by these two price lists and whether in regard to any such medicines they have availed the benefit of the exemption. This does not appear to have any relevance in deciding the matter in controversy, though it may be open to the Department in case appellants have availed the benefit of exemption in regard to some medicines during the relevant period, to reopen the matter and claim differential duty, since appellants do not propose to avail exemption in respect of some of their products which are the subject matter of these appeals. 5. emsp In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Thrust washers - Admittedly motor vehicle parts ... ... ... ... ..... ified parts which were classifiable under Item No. 68. We also find that thin walled bearing in the revised ISI specification has been defined as a bearing liner which has the ability to take the shape of the housing into which it is fitted for the geometrical truth of the working surface, that is, bearing bore. We find nothing on record to show that the goods in question conformed to even this revised definition in the ISI Tariff. As under Item No. 34A only thin walled bearings were classifiable and we do not find anything on record that by any standard the goods in question satisfied the criteria of thin walled bearings, we do not find any material to support the view of the Ld. Collector, Central Excise, Pune, that ldquo the thrust washers having motor vehicle application merits classification under Tariff Item 34A. rdquo In our considered view, the goods were correctly classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. 8. emsp As a result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electrical Insulation Tape ... ... ... ... ..... , prescribes that the benefit had to be availed in terms of the notifications specified in Annexure-II to the notification. The notifications listed in this Annexure pertain to goods manufactured in the Central Govt. Industries (Notification No. 56/75), State Govt. Industries (Notification No. 57/75), Village Industries (Notification No. 116/75) and those manufactured in persons (Notification No. 12/79). For correct interpretation of the notification both Annexures were required to be read together and the benefit given vide Annexure-I was required to be restricted to those factories enumerated in the various notifications listed in Annexure-II. In other words, the benefit of this notification was limited only to those goods which were manufactured in the factories enumerated in the notifications cited in Annexure-II. The interpretation made by the Collector was wrong and cannot sustain. We, therefore, set aside the Collector rsquo s order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1996 (12) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 18. emsp These orders and judgments have dealt with all the technical and relevant aspects in great detail. Therefore, we need not repeat them here. Respectfully following the ratio thereof, we hold that the appellants having declared that the product as silicon emulsion as early as 1982 (and there was nothing to show that this declaration was found incorrect by the department in any respect), the product was classifiable under T.I. 15 AA but exempted under Notification No. 101/66 (as amended). In view of this position no duty was payable and therefore, it was not necessary to go into other aspects mentioned by the Collector and no penalty was calls for. As such it was also liable to be set aside. The impugned order in so far as it relates to this product and this appellant is set aside (to this extent only) and the appeal of the petitioner is accepted with consequential relief, if any due.
-
1996 (12) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ) emsp Oxygen and acetylene gas and (v) emsp thermoceouple tips. This judgment would cover all the disputed items except mild steel tubes. 7. emsp As regards the M.S. tubes, the Collector has observed that these goods were used for carrying oxygen gas into the molten metal and were, therefore, not an input. 8. emsp Shri Madhwan refers us to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 473 (Tribunal) in which it has been held that lancing pipes which are used for passing oxygen into molten metal, becomes an input for the manufacture of steel. This judgment covers the steel tubes also. 9. emsp In the result, we find that the Collector was wrong in denying the benefit of Modvat on the disputed inputs. The citations made before us cover each of the inputs in doubt and declared the same as eligible inputs. We, therefore, set aside the three orders of the Collector, allow these appeals and direct appropriate relief.
-
1996 (12) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... merely relied upon the results of the tests of products of another factory because he has also referred and relied upon the technical literature in respect of such materials. In the circumstances, he would oppose the prayer. 21. emsp Learned Counsel reiterated his submissions and emphasised that the factory is lying closed. 22. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the matter is arguable. However, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances and noting that the factory is closed and this assertion has not been controverted or shown to be wrong, we waive the predeposit of the amounts in question, subject to the appellants depositing an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The requirement of predeposit of penalty is waived. 23. emsp In the event of failure to comply with the above direction, the appeal will be liable to be dismissed without further notice. To come up for reporting compliance on 10-3-1997.
-
1996 (12) TMI 189 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ences with the authorities to change the order. Merely stating that they were corresponding with the authorities is not sufficient enough to hold that they have satisfactorily explained the delay in question. In the case cited by the learned Counsel, as already pointed out by us, the same was decided on the facts available in that case in view of the fact that there was no service of notice. In the premises, we hold that the present application is filed without any force and the same is dismissed. At this juncture, the learned Counsel stated that duty demanded in this case is for the second time and therefore the applicants have got good case on merits. This is a fact which they can urge before the concerned authorities and the same should be taken note of in proper proceedings. It goes without saying that duty cannot be demanded twice on the same goods. With these observations, we dismiss the condonation of delay application and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Spent Bleaching ... ... ... ... ..... earth is a waste material arising in manufacture of vegetable product and it is not a good. Hence it is not liable to duty. 3. emsp Shri A.K. Madan, SDR appearing of the respondent reiterated the finding of the lower authorities. 4. emsp Heard both sides. In this case the appellants are engaged in manufacture of vegetable product and then used activated earth in the manufacture of vegetable product as a bleaching agent and after some time this activated earth loses its bleaching ability and emerges as spent earth. The respondents are demanding duty on this spent earth. The Tribunal in the case of Modi Vanaspati Mfg. Co. v. CCE (supra) held that the spent earth arising from activated earth during the manufacture of vegetable product, not being a result of manufacture under Section 2(f) is not liable to Central Excise duty. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modi Vanaspati Mfg. Co. (supra) the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 187 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Charity ... ... ... ... ..... customers and also would require to be substantiated by the practice prevailing in the trade in regard to collection of the charity amounts as such. In our view, therefore, the appellants would be eligible to the amounts not being included for assessment purposes only in the event of their establishing that the payments are voluntarily paid by the customers, if there is a practice prevailing in the trade in regard to collection of this amount from the customers and also that the payment of charity has no bearing on the sale price of the goods. We in this view of the matter hold that the matter will have to be gone into afresh in the context of the decision cited supra and our observations above. We therefore set aside the order of the learned lower authority and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after affording the appellants an opportunity of being heard in the light of the our above observations. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1996 (12) TMI 186 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat declaration ... ... ... ... ..... oaps are different in that one is a toilet soap, whereas the other is soap used to wash clothes. 3. emsp I do not see how this makes a difference as the Collector points out, both the products are covered by the same Tariff heading. The fact that the two brands of soaps may have different ingredients is not relevant as long as there is no dispute that the noodles were used in the manufacture of lifebuoy soap, credit could not be denied and there is no dispute about it. I decline to interfere. 4. emsp Appeal Dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Mineral Glass sheets ... ... ... ... ..... ded one. So far as the execution of bond is concerned we observe it is only to secure the possible loss of revenue in case the end use condition is not satisfied. The appellants as it is in the present case have paid the full duty and therefore the purpose of execution of the bond is subserved by the payment of the full duty. In the above view of the matter therefore we hold that the appellants are entitled to the consideration of the refund based on the end use certificate now produced. We in the circumstances set aside the order of the learned lower appellate authority and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration in the light of our observations above and after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The appeal is therefore allowed by remand. The issue regarding unjust enrichment is also left open for consideration in the light of the law as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and the Hon rsquo ble High Courts in the matter.
-
1996 (12) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... It was also held that since the inputs are used in moulds which are in the nature of equipment, credit of the duty paid on such inputs cannot be taken against the duty payable on the steel castings by virtue of the Explanation to Rule 57A of the Rules. 5. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions, we find that the decisions relied upon by the department are not relevant to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the Tribunal in the very respondent rsquo s case had held that Modvat credit is admissible to them as per Order Nos. A/262-265/91-NRB, dated 25-7-1991 and A/436-445/91-NRB, dated 12-8-1991 1993 (63) E.L.T. 687 (Tribunal) . In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the authorities below have followed the decisions of the Tribunal in the very party rsquo s case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals). As a result, we uphold the impugned order and accordingly appeal filed by department is hereby dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ferent entries for different types of containers from the technical material that after the cups have been filled and sealed they could be packed into cartons/trays/plastic trays etc. with the help of extra devices called cup creators which is included in the operational extracts. 14. emsp Neither Bill of Entry nor invoice description nor the submissions made before us show that the imported item was capable of top sealing of trays. 15. emsp The case law cited by the ld. Counsel does not help their cause and a plain reading of the notification show that the distinction between various containers has been kept in view. Thus, there are separate entries for machine capable of sealing trays. Therefore, by reading the notification as a whole we come to the conclusion that Entry No. 25 covers only those machine which are capable of filling and sealing and thermo-formed trays (not other types of con- tainers). Hence, the benefit of notification is not available to the imported item.
-
1996 (12) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Pile Cutting Machine ... ... ... ... ..... or (Appeals). On going through the catalogue presented by the ld. Counsel we find that the catalogue refers to this machine for shearing synthetic pile fabrics . It also indicates that Electrofinishers and shearing machines suitable for finishing carpets, foams, acrylics at high production rates. It is contended before us by the ld. Counsel that the appellants manufacture knitted fabrics and high class hosiery knitted fabrics and textiles. We are also satisfied that synthetic fabrics would also include knitted fabrics as would be evident from the literature submitted by the ld. Counsel. Socks, sweaters, etc. are common examples. In view of this therefore and the fact that the Bill of Entry has given complete description as pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics and this description has not been challenged we hold that the appellants are eligible for benefit under Notification No. 16/85-Cus., dated 1-2-1985. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (12) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Computer imported with Spectrometer ... ... ... ... ..... display was interchangeable with domestic TV (a fact towards which our attention has not been drawn by either side and does not find mention in the order) would also not make any difference. The packing list also shows the Apple IIE enhanced computer packed in a separate case but as aforesaid, that by itself was not a determining factor. 24. emsp The ld. Counsel is also correct in pointing out that the case-law cited by the ld. DR does not help the cause of the deptt. as no ratio can be drawn from it as. That order is specific for a particular importation and each case has to be decided on its own merits. 25. emsp In view of the structure and method of functioning of this type of Spectrometer it is held that the computer is an essential part of the Spectrometer and therefore, a separate licence is not required and the item has to be assessed along with the main Spectrometer under the same heading. 26. emsp The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the appeal is accepted.
............
|
