|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 5208 Records
-
1997 (12) TMI 246
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that coating cotton fabrics with varnishes for use in cable manufacturing industries does not merit classification under Chapter 39 as varnishes can be based on natural polymers. The appeal from Revenue was dismissed as no evidence was provided to support the claim that all varnishes are based on synthetic polymers. (1997 (12) TMI 246 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1997 (12) TMI 245
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the respondent, who was manufacturing copper insulated winding wires and availing Modvat credit of CVD paid on copper. The Assistant Collector disallowed the deduction, but the Collector (Appeals) set aside the demands. The Tribunal found that duty should only be payable on the net price realized by the buyer after deducting the Modvat credit amount from the gross price. The appeal by the Department was dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 244
Issues:
1. Inclusion of special packing charges in the assessable value for duty calculation.
Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing rubber transmissions belting, was found to be collecting special packing charges amounting to 21% of the value of goods from buyers without producing documents to justify the necessity of such packing. A show cause notice was issued proposing the inclusion of the value of hessian cloth packing in the assessable value for duty calculation. The appellant contended that the special packing was done at the request of buyers and should not be considered abnormal. The Assistant Collector rejected the documents provided by the appellant, stating they were an afterthought and confirmed the demand. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.
The appellant's main argument relied on Supreme Court decisions in similar cases, asserting that if hessian cloth packing is used only at the request of specific buyers, its value should not be included in the assessable value for duty calculation. However, the key issue was the fact situation in this case and the evidence presented by the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that while the correct legal principles were clear, the evidence provided by the appellant was insufficient. The show cause notice assumed all goods had special packing, and the appellant's reply only vaguely denied excessive costs without specific details on clearances without hessian cloth packing. The letters from customers provided by the appellant lacked evidence of genuineness and were not supported adequately. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities were justified in not considering these letters as genuine due to lack of supporting evidence. Additionally, the Tribunal found that hessian cloth packing was not shown to be used only in specific cases at the request of buyers, leading to the decision that the cost should indeed be part of the assessable value for duty calculation.
Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decision and dismissed the appeal, affirming the inclusion of special packing charges in the assessable value for duty calculation.
-
1997 (12) TMI 243
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard a case involving the manufacture of Nitrogen Gas and disputed duty payments from April 1987 to September 1987. The respondent collected higher prices from certain customers but paid duty only on the approved value. The tribunal ruled that industrial consumers purchasing in wholesale should be regarded as wholesalers, but since there were only a few stray sales to industrial consumers, the appeal was dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 242
The stay petition was filed to waive pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 7,93,262. The appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, claimed duty benefit on cement under Notification No. 1/95, but it was rejected as cement was not covered as capital goods in the notification. The appeal was rejected, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 241
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision in favor of the assessee regarding a refund claim, stating that the excise authorities can consider a refund claim even if the approved price list is not modified. The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department. (Citation: 1997 (12) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1997 (12) TMI 240
The appeal relates to demand of duty due to lower freight charges than claimed abatement. The department alleged suppression of facts, but the Tribunal found no manipulation by the appellants. The demand was for two months only, and the longer limitation period was not applicable. The appeal was allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 239
Issues:
The judgment involves the condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals and the determination of assessable value concerning extra disc drives and freight/insurance costs in the context of a supply contract for computer systems.
Delay Condonation:
The delay in filing the supplementary appeals was condoned as per practice and procedure.
Assessable Value - Extra Disc Drives:
The lower appellate authority held that the value of extra disc drives supplied with the computer system should be considered for arriving at the assessable value. However, the Tribunal ruled that the disc drive supplied as a spare, not forming part of the computer, should be excluded from the assessable value based on the distinction between computer and software as per the Supreme Court's decision in PSI Data Systems Ltd.
Assessable Value - Freight and Insurance Costs:
Regarding the inclusion of freight and insurance costs in the assessable value, the Tribunal noted that abatement is not automatically available unless these elements were included in the sales price as per the contract terms. The matter was remanded to the original authority for reevaluation in light of relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Arguments and Rulings:
The Revenue contended that the extra disc drive should be included in the assessable value as part of the computer supply contract. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing the distinction between computer and software established by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also emphasized the need to examine contract terms for inclusion of freight and insurance costs in the assessable value, based on previous legal precedents.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of the cost of the disc drive from the assessable value and partially allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the reevaluation of freight and insurance costs inclusion based on contract terms. The judgment clarified the criteria for determining assessable value in the context of computer system supply contracts.
-
1997 (12) TMI 238
Issues:
1. Under-declaration of job charges by appellants.
2. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of property.
3. Interpretation of assessable value and duty calculation.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in Ujagar Prints case.
5. Comparison of assessable value at merchant manufacturer's gate and processor's gate.
6. Consideration of excess duty payment and trader's profit margin in assessable value.
7. Reference to Tribunal judgment in Lili Foam Industries case.
8. Verification of job charges and trader's profit inclusion in assessable value.
9. Decision on the appeal and setting aside the Collector's order.
Analysis:
The case involved the appellants processing grey fabrics received from merchant manufacturers and collecting job charges at a higher rate than declared. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty and penalty, with the allegation of under-declaration of charges and possible confiscation of property. The Collector confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty, and allowed redemption of property on payment of a fine. The appellants argued that the profit of merchant manufacturers should not be included in the assessable value at the processor's gate, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ujagar Prints case. The JDR supported the lower orders based on duty rates and value of processed fabrics. The Tribunal analyzed the declarations and found that the value assessed at the merchant manufacturer's gate was higher than at the processor's gate, leading to no short levy despite under-declaration of job charges.
The Collector's interpretation of the Ujagar Prints judgment was deemed incorrect by the Tribunal, as the Supreme Court did not mandate including trader's profit at the processor's gate. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessable value was determined at the merchant manufacturer's gate, making any under-declaration of job charges inconsequential in terms of duty liability. The Tribunal also referenced a judgment in the Lili Foam Industries case to support the appellants' argument regarding contesting the rate of duty and differential duty demands.
Regarding the inclusion of trader's profit in the assessable value, the Tribunal rejected the JDR's plea to refer the case back to verify the situation, stating that unless it was proven that goods were sold at a higher price than declared, the excess job charges over profit margin should not be included. Based on these observations, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Collector's order, indicating that there was no loss of revenue due to the under-declaration of job charges.
-
1997 (12) TMI 237
The appeal was filed against an order dismissing it as time-barred by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in Bombay. The original order was received on 10-2-1989, and the appeal was forwarded on 3-5-1989, reaching the office on 11-5-1989. The delay was due to postal delay, and it was condoned. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for disposal on merits with a personal hearing opportunity.
-
1997 (12) TMI 236
Issues: Classification of imported pump for pumping grease under Customs Tariff headings 8413.81 and 84.79
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal by the Collector of Customs, Cochin. The Collector had classified the pump imported by the respondents under sub-heading No. 8413.81 of the Customs Tariff, which the revenue contested. The revenue argued that the pump, part of a printing machinery system called Traban System, should be classified under Tariff Heading 84.79 due to its function in automatic greasing. The respondents, however, contended that the pump's function was limited to pumping grease from the reservoir to the master feeder block, not distributing it to various parts of the machine. The Collector, Customs, analyzed the technical literature and determined that the pump's function was indeed restricted to pumping grease to the master feeder block, not acting as a pump type automatic machine greaser. The Collector referred to H.S.N. notes under Chapter 84 to support the classification under sub-heading No. 8413.81. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's classification, dismissing the appeal.
In summary, the main issue revolved around the classification of the imported pump for pumping grease under the Customs Tariff headings 8413.81 and 84.79. The revenue argued for classification under Tariff Heading 84.79, citing the pump's role in an automatic greasing system, while the respondents maintained that the pump's function was limited to transferring grease to the master feeder block. The Collector, Customs, after reviewing technical literature, concluded that the pump's function aligned with sub-heading No. 8413.81, as it solely pumped grease to the master feeder block without distributing it further. The Tribunal affirmed this classification, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 235
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to confiscate goods found in the appellant's factory, which were considered excisable. The goods were not merely roughly shaped by forging and had the essential shape of finished articles. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 5,000 and the penalty to Rs. 2,500. The appeal was rejected with this modification.
-
1997 (12) TMI 234
Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Appeal denying refund claim of excess duty paid on imported safety clamps classified under different headings by Appellants and Appraiser.
Analysis:
The Appellants imported safety clamps as Excavator spares, disputing the correct classification and duty rate. They claimed refund of excess duty paid, but the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim due to insufficient evidence. The Collector (Appeals) held the goods were alloy steel hooks for lifting, not recognisable parts of an excavator. The Appellants argued the clamps were designed for E.O.T. cranes with safety features for steel plates lifting, citing technical literature. The SDR highlighted discrepancies in the description, stating the clamps were alloy steel hooks for general lifting purposes. The Tribunal examined the technical catalogue and dictionary definitions, finding no evidence supporting the Appellants' claim of clamps being specially designed for excavators. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Collector's decision, also disposing of the Department's cross objection accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 233
Issues:
Excisability and dutiability of wooden sleepers supplied to railways under Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff; Invocation of extended period of limitation; Challenge to excise duty demand; Compensation for duty demand; Correctness of duty calculation.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the excisability and dutiability of wooden sleepers supplied to railways by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni (Kerala) under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants had not obtained an excise license, leading to a demand for central excise duty of Rs. 7,01,408.20 for the period 1984-85. The Collector of Central Excise, Cochin had adjudicated the matter, imposing duty but no penalty. The issue of invoking the extended period of limitation was raised by the appellant's Advocate, contesting the grounds for such invocation.
The Tribunal noted that the appellants had admitted to manufacturing and supplying wooden sleepers to the railways, leading to the duty demand based on information provided by the appellants. The Forest Department of the Government of Kerala was involved in manufacturing the sleepers, and the appellants were directed to obtain an excise license but failed to do so. The duty liability was determined based on information supplied by the appellants, supported by documents including letters from the Divisional Forest Officer.
Regarding the challenge to the correctness of duty calculation, the Tribunal found no material to substantiate the appellant's claim. The duty liability was calculated at Rs. 7,01,408.20 for the clearance of 45,964 sleepers, with a 10% ad valorem duty rate applicable under the Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty liability was admitted by the Divisional Forest Officer and upheld the view taken by the adjudicating authority.
Additionally, the appellant sought compensation from the Railway Board for the duty demand, especially for free supplies. However, the Tribunal deemed it immaterial whether the goods were supplied free or at a cost, as long as they were excisable and dutiable. The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and rejected it, affirming the decision of the adjudicating authority based on the facts and considerations presented during the proceedings.
-
1997 (12) TMI 232
Issues: Classification of 35 mm camera system and accessories imported as part of a microscope.
In this case, the appellant, M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (GSFC), imported a Triocular Research Microscope with a Planchromatic Phase Contrast 35 mm camera system. The dispute arose regarding the classification of the 35 mm camera system and accessories. The appellants argued for classification under sub-heading No. 9011.20 as other microscopes for photomicrography, cinephotomicrography, or microprojection. However, the Department classified the microscope part under sub-heading 9011.20, the 35 mm camera system under sub-heading 9066.59, and the CCTV system under sub-heading 8528.10. The matter was initially adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Cargo Complex Sahar, Bombay, and later confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.
The appellant's representative argued that the camera and television set were integral parts of the microscope, citing the HSN explanatory note and relevant invoices. They contended that the camera was specifically designed for viewing micro-organisms through the microscope. They also relied on previous case law to support their classification argument.
On the other hand, the Respondent's representative referred to the Rules of Interpretation and Chapter notes, asserting that the camera and television set were distinct from the microscope based on the Tariff descriptions and invoices. They highlighted that the camera was not part of the microscope according to the HSN explanatory notes and detailed findings by the Appellate Authority.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the origin of the imported goods, technical specifications, and product literature. They noted that the camera and television set were not permanently incorporated into the microscope and were separately listed in the invoice with distinct origins and prices. The Tribunal referenced the Chapter notes under Chapter 90 of the Tariff and concluded that the camera and television set were to be classified separately based on their specific Tariff headings, not as integral parts of the microscope.
The Tribunal emphasized that the camera and television set were not essential components of the microscope but additional accessories used for specific purposes like documentation and group discussions in research settings. They distinguished this case from precedents involving essential components and upheld the Collector of Customs (Appeals) classification decision. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the previous ruling and rejected the appeal, affirming the classification of the 35 mm camera system and accessories separately from the microscope.
-
1997 (12) TMI 231
The Department appealed against the Collector (Appeals) order regarding adding inspection cost to assessable value of industrial valves. The appeal was dismissed as there was no challenge to the basic proposition that inspection cost should be added only if inspection is done. The decision on whether inspection is done should be made by the Assistant Commissioner.
-
1997 (12) TMI 230
The department appealed against an order by the Collector (Appeals) regarding a refund claim by M/s. Sahuwala Cylinders Ltd. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contentions and dismissed the department's appeal, stating the proceedings were irregular. The Superintendent's demand was set aside as it lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 229
Issues:
Classification of Pitch-Creosote Mixture (P.C.M.) under Tariff Headings 27.06 and 27.08, Benefit of Notifications 121/62 and 75/84, Interpretation of blending under Tariff Heading 2708.11.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the classification of Pitch-Creosote Mixture (P.C.M.) under the Tariff Headings 27.06 and 27.08. The Assistant Commissioner found that P.C.M. is only a partially distilled tar and not 100% tar. The appellants failed to provide evidence that P.C.M. and tar are known as the same product in common parlance. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner denied the benefit of Notifications 121/62 and 75/84, holding P.C.M. chargeable to basic duty plus a special excise duty.
Another issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the classification of P.C.M. under the new Tariff. The Assistant Commissioner, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), classified the product under sub-heading 2708.11 instead of 2706.00 as claimed by the appellants. This decision was consistent with the finding that P.C.M. is a partially distilled tar.
Furthermore, a group of appeals relating to subsequent periods and duty demands involved a similar classification dispute. The predecessor Assistant Commissioner determined the classification under sub-heading 2708.11, aligning with the classification in the previous appeal.
To understand the controversy, the judgment reproduced the Tariff Headings 27.06 and 27.08. It was noted that Heading 27.06 covers partially distilled tar, which corresponds to the nature of P.C.M. as established by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the product falls under Tariff sub-heading 2706.00 based on a plain reading of the Tariff.
The Respondent argued that P.C.M. should be classified under Tariff sub-heading 2708.11 due to its composition predominantly being pitch blended with Creosote Oil. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the blending under Tariff Heading 2708.11 requires the existence of pitch and another product blended together, which was not the case with P.C.M. since it resulted from partial distillation of tar.
Ultimately, the Tribunal held that P.C.M. falls under Tariff Heading 2706.00, leading to a nil rate of duty. Consequently, the question of benefiting from the disputed Notifications did not arise. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential reliefs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 228
Issues:
Extent of including advertising expenses incurred by dealers in the assessable value.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of advertising expenses incurred by dealers in the assessable value. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of tractors, marketed their products through independent dealers across the country. The appellants bore the expenses for general advertisements like press releases, radio, and television. However, the dealers also incurred promotional expenses to enhance their agency's visibility, which the appellants shared by 50%. The department contended that the entire advertising expenses should be included in the assessable value. The appellant argued that since the dealers directly benefited from the advertisements promoting their agencies, only 50% of the shared expenses should be included. They relied on a decision where it was held that advertising benefiting dealers should not be added to the assessable value.
The appellant further pointed out that the dealers' names were specifically mentioned in the advertisement materials, enhancing their goodwill and attracting more customers. They referenced another case where it was established that transactions between appellants and dealers on a principal-to-principal basis should not have the dealers' advertisement expenses added to the assessable value. The appellant also cited a Supreme Court decision to support their argument.
The department justified its action of including the dealer's advertising expenses, including expenses for gifts like key chains and ball pens, in the assessable value. However, the Tribunal carefully considered the matter and referred to the Supreme Court's observation in a previous case. The Tribunal noted that when both the assessee and the dealer benefited from shared advertising expenses, the portion benefiting the dealer should not be added to the assessable value. In this case, since both parties benefited from the advertisements, and the appellant had already included 50% of the expenses in the assessable value, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.
-
1997 (12) TMI 227
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi upheld the Collector's order in a case involving textile machinery manufacturers who collected erection and commissioning charges. The Tribunal found that the charges were not proven to be warranty charges, as the warranty was extended even when buyers did not pay such charges. The appeal was rejected. (Case citation: 1997 (12) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
............
|
9911796707
