Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 241 to 260 of 6374 Records

• 2003 (12) TMI 447
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding denial of credit on capital goods (Stretch Wrapping Machine and Laxmigraf Flat Mounting Machine) amounting to Rs. 82,750/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The machines were found eligible for Modvat credit as they were used for packing finished goods and making raw material suitable for use in yarn manufacturing. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefit.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 446
  
  Issues:
  1. Allegation of not including certain costs in the assessable value of recorded cassettes.
  2. Lack of details in the notice regarding the costing of disputed factors.
  3. Commissioner confirming duty demand without providing an opportunity to explain costing.
  
  Analysis:
  Issue 1: The appellant, a cassette manufacturer, faced allegations of not including costs like Digital Audio Tape, Inlay cards, and packing material in the assessable value of recorded cassettes. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand based on the higher value arrived at by including these factors in the assessable value.
  
  Issue 2: The Commissioner's order lacked clarity on how the costing was determined, as the notice only proposed adopting the market sale price of music companies without specifying the costs of individual components. The Tribunal found the appellant's grievance valid, emphasizing the need for detailed costing information before adjudication.
  
  Issue 3: The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, highlighting the necessity for the appellant to have been given an opportunity to explain the costing of the cassettes. The Tribunal stressed the importance of providing such an opportunity before confirming duty demands based on additional factors not initially specified in the notice.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the significance of clarity and opportunity for the appellant to address the costing issues raised by the Commissioner. The lack of specific details in the notice regarding costing led to the decision to provide the appellant with a chance to explain before any duty demands are confirmed.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 445
  
  Issues:
  Whether the imported tyres for scooters can be brought without a license under the Import Policy.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai revolved around the question of whether the appellant could import tyres for scooters without a license. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the Deputy Collector's decision that these tyres were consumer goods and thus required a license for import under Paragraph 156A of the Import Policy, subject to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act.
  
  The appellant's counsel acknowledged that tyres are considered consumer goods but argued that the Public Notice 32 (PN) 92-97 allowed the import of accessories, components, parts, and spares of consumer durables without a license, subject to specified conditions. Citing a previous Tribunal decision in CC v. Maruti Udyog Ltd, it was contended that parts of motor vehicles were eligible for import by the manufacturer of such vehicles under the Public Notice.
  
  The departmental representative referred to previous Tribunal decisions in Prahlad Singh Chadha v. CC and Rajnath Motors (P) Ltd. However, the Tribunal found these references irrelevant to the current issue. In Prahlad Singh Chadha v. CC, it was held that car tyres were consumer goods, while in Rajnath Motors (P) Ltd. v. CC, certain tyres were considered consumer goods eligible for fitment to motorcars. Notably, these decisions did not address the eligibility for import under the specific public notice in question.
  
  The Tribunal distinguished the previous decisions and relied on CC v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., which directly applied the Public Notice to parts of motor vehicles. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the import of tyres for scooters was permissible under the Public Notice. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
  
  In summary, the Tribunal's decision clarified that the appellant, as a manufacturer of scooters, could import tyres without a license under the Import Policy, as per the provisions of the relevant Public Notice. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering specific public notices and previous decisions when determining the eligibility of goods for import without a license.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 444
  
  Issues:
  - Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q
  - Admissibility of Modvat credit on entire duty paid by job worker
  
  Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q:
  The appeal was against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing Modvat credit of Rs. 36,010 on capital goods to the respondents under Rule 57Q for the period May 1998. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing VP sugar and molasses, had a rotor assembly as one of their capital goods, which was undisputedly eligible under Rule 57Q for Modvat purposes. The dispute arose when the job worker repaired the machine using fresh inputs and cleared it to the appellants under Rule 52A invoice, leading to the Department challenging the Modvat credit taken by the appellants. The Department contended that Modvat credit was admissible only on the duty paid by the job worker on the new inputs used, not on the entire duty amount paid under the invoice.
  
  Admissibility of Modvat credit on entire duty paid by job worker:
  The Tribunal referred to a previous case where capital goods duty credit was allowed to a sugar manufacturer under Rule 57Q for a machine that underwent duty at the end of the job worker on the entire invoice value, including the machine price and job work charges. The Tribunal upheld the decision in that case, stating that credit of the duty paid by the job worker on the entire assessable value was available to the assessee. The Tribunal found the ratio of the previous decision applicable to the instant case, where the job worker cleared the repaired machine to the assessee on payment of duty on the total assessable value. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue, concluding that there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
  
  In summary, the judgment upheld the admissibility of Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q and affirmed that the credit of duty paid by the job worker on the entire assessable value, including machine price and job work charges, was available to the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing the applicability of a previous decision and finding no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 443
  
  Issues:
  Principles of natural justice contravention, demand of duty on textured yarn, failure to provide documents to the appellant, communication of hearing dates.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved the issue of demanding duty on textured yarn manufactured by the appellant due to alleged discrepancies in the central excise invoice. The notice issued to the appellant highlighted the discovery of two sets of invoices in their factory, showing different prices for each clearance. The appellant requested copies of certain documents, citing voluminous content, but received no response. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty without addressing the appellant's request for document supply or attendance at hearings. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of notice of hearing and non-receipt of document copies, which was dismissed without addressing these concerns.
  
  The Tribunal found that the appellant had raised a valid point regarding the contravention of natural justice principles. It was noted that some requested documents were not provided, and the communication of three hearings within two days seemed impractical. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturned the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to address the appellant's concerns regarding natural justice principles and conduct a new adjudication of the case.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of upholding natural justice principles in legal proceedings, highlighting the need for proper communication, document provision, and fair treatment of parties involved in such matters. The remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) aimed to ensure a thorough review of the case with due regard to the appellant's rights and concerns, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in similar cases.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 442
  
  Issues: Classification of mining machinery parts under tariff headings; Consideration of chapter and section notes in classification; Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
  
  In this case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the appellant, a manufacturer of mining machinery parts, classified various components under specific tariff headings. A notice was issued later proposing a different classification under Heading 84.31 as parts of loading and unloading machinery, challenging the initial classification. The Asstt. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the new classification, leading to the current appeal.
  
  The appellant argued that certain parts, like fasteners, should not be classified under Heading 84.31 but as parts of general use, citing relevant tariff notes. They contended that goods like transmission shafts should be classified under their respective headings, not solely based on being designed for a specific machine. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider these arguments, basing the classification solely on the parts' shape and size for fitting in a particular machine, without analyzing the applicable chapter and section notes.
  
  The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) decision lacking in considering crucial tariff notes and exceptions, emphasizing the need to evaluate all relevant notes before classification. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper decision in accordance with the law. The judgment highlights the importance of thorough consideration of tariff provisions and notes in the classification of goods to ensure accurate and lawful determinations.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 441
  
  Issues: Valuation of plastic parts for television sets including cost of moulds
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing plastic parts for television sets, used moulds provided free of cost by purchasers. The issue arose when the department proposed adding the cost of moulds to the value of the plastic articles.
  
  2. The Counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the cost of goods should be part of the plastic value but disputed the 10% addition. Despite multiple requests, the appellant failed to provide details of mould costs and amortization. The Assistant Commissioner rejected a cost accountant's certificate for not considering all costs and for uniformly valuing moulds at Rs. 15 lakhs, irrespective of variations in plastic types.
  
  3. The appellant sought another chance to prove the correct cost, but the Tribunal denied it, citing the prolonged delay since 1987 and the numerous opportunities already given. The Assistant Commissioner had conducted over 14 hearings from 1987 to 1991, indicating the appellant's failure to produce the necessary information.
  
  4. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's persistent failure to substantiate the mould costs adequately. The Tribunal found no justification to intervene in the order given the appellant's prolonged non-compliance and lack of new evidence presented.
  
  This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the valuation of plastic parts for television sets, the appellant's failure to provide essential cost details, and the Tribunal's decision based on the prolonged history of non-compliance.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 440
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legitimacy of the deponent's claim as managing director.
  2. Validity of the transfer of permit decision by the board of directors.
  3. Locus standi of the third respondent to object to the transfer of permit.
  4. Applicability of Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
  5. Role of legal heirs in the transfer of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legitimacy of the deponent's claim as managing director:
  The deponent, Mr. S. Rasool, claimed to have become the managing director after the death of the previous managing director, Mr. S.R. Subramaniam, on December 11, 2000. This claim was contested by the third respondent, who argued that the deponent self-styled himself as the managing director without legal authority. The Company Law Board had directed maintaining the status quo regarding the permit transfer, indicating ongoing disputes about the deponent's legitimacy as managing director.
  
  2. Validity of the transfer of permit decision by the board of directors:
  The board of directors of the petitioner company decided by majority to transfer the stage carriage permit to the second respondent due to financial crises. However, the third respondent and other directors opposed this decision, arguing that no proper resolution was passed authorizing the transfer. The court noted the dispute over the board's decision and the lack of unanimity in the decision-making process.
  
  3. Locus standi of the third respondent to object to the transfer of permit:
  The third respondent, daughter of the deceased managing director S.R. Subramaniam, claimed a right to object to the transfer of the permit. The petitioner argued that under Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, only the transferor and transferee are entitled to notice and hearing, not third parties. However, the court found that since the permit was in the company's name and not an individual's, the third respondent, as a legal heir with a potential interest in the company, had the locus standi to object.
  
  4. Applicability of Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
  Section 82(1) stipulates that a permit transfer requires the permission of the transport authority and involves an inquiry to ensure no trafficking in permits and the transferee's qualification. The court noted that while Section 82(1) typically involves only the transferor and transferee, in this case, the third respondent's objections were valid due to her legal interest in the company's assets.
  
  5. Role of legal heirs in the transfer of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act:
  The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in World Wide Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Mrs. Margaret T. Desor, which recognized the rights of legal heirs to maintain applications under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. Applying this principle, the court held that the third respondent, as a legal heir of S.R. Subramaniam, had devolved rights over the permit and could object to its transfer.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the third respondent had the locus standi to object to the permit transfer due to her legal interest as a shareholder's heir. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim injunction restraining the Regional Transport Authority from hearing the third respondent was vacated. The court emphasized the necessity of considering the third respondent's objections in the permit transfer inquiry.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 439
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Section 35E(2) regarding the authority entitled to file an appeal against an order-in-original.
  2. Clarification on the meaning of "such authority" specified in Section 35E(2) in the context of filing appeals.
  3. Analysis of the provisions of Section 35E(4) and its applicability in filing appeals against different types of orders.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of Section 35E(2) concerning the authority responsible for filing an appeal against an order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the appeal should have been filed by the Additional Commissioner instead of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner analyzed Section 35E(2) and emphasized that the Commissioner is mandated to direct the "authority passing the impugned order" to file an appeal.
  
  2. The appeal argued that the term "such authority" in Section 35E(2) should be construed as "such authority as may be specified by the Commissioner in his order." This interpretation was supported by referring to Section 35E(4), where the appeal by the "authorized officer" is mentioned alongside that by the adjudicating authority. However, the judgment clarified that the authorized officer can file appeals only if they are not against the decision of the adjudicating authority. Appeals against the adjudicating authority's order must be filed by the "adjudicating authority" itself, as correctly determined by the Commissioner (Appeals).
  
  3. The judgment dismissed the reliance on Section 35E(4) for justifying the appeal filed by the authorized officer against the order-in-original. It was emphasized that appeals against appellate orders can be filed by the authorized officer, but appeals against orders of the adjudicating authority must be filed by the "adjudicating authority" as per the provisions. Consequently, the judgment upheld the order-in-appeal, rejecting the Revenue's appeal as there was no valid reason to interfere with the decision.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues related to the interpretation of statutory provisions governing the filing of appeals against specific types of orders in the context of the Revenue's appeal in the case.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 438
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai heard a case where the appellant, a partner in a company, appealed against a penalty imposed under certain rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) refrained from passing an order on the penalty as the partner did not file a separate appeal. The appellant argued that he had jointly replied to the Show Cause Notice and filed a joint appeal/stay application with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiving the pre-deposit and set a date for the regular hearing.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 437
  
  Issues:
  1. Correctness of credit taken by the appellants.
  2. Validity of the time limit for raising demands in case of correcting clerical errors.
  
  Issue 1: Correctness of credit taken by the appellants
  
  The appellants initially took credit of Rs. 13,874.88 on the impugned goods, which was later found to be incorrect as it represented sales tax, not excise duty. The appellants claimed it was a clerical mistake and corrected it by taking supplementary credit. The concerned Superintendent directed to reverse the supplementary credit, but the order was set aside on appeal, and de novo adjudication was ordered. The original authority dropped the demand as it was not issued within six months of taking the supplementary credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the time limits under Rule 57-I and Section 11A do not apply, and the demand can be raised within six months from the date of the order-in-appeal.
  
  Issue 2: Validity of the time limit for raising demands in case of correcting clerical errors
  
  After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, it was found that the appellants corrected a clerical error by taking the correct amount of credit. The rules do not prohibit such corrections, and all assessees are required to maintain accounts correctly as per Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The judge noted that demands to reverse wrongly taken credits must adhere to the time limits prescribed under the Rules and the Act. The judge disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the time limit should not apply from the date of the appellate order, stating that there is no provision in the law for such an interpretation. Consequently, the judge found the Commissioner (Appeals) order unsustainable in law and set it aside, allowing the appeal.
  
  This judgment clarifies the importance of correctly maintaining accounts and registers, the permissibility of correcting clerical errors in credits, and the application of time limits for raising demands in such cases. It emphasizes that statutory time limits must be adhered to when reversing wrongly taken credits, and decisions should align with the provisions of the law.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 436
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding a refund claim filed within the time limit by excluding the date of duty payment. The Tribunal found the application of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 appropriate for calculating the time period under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Department's appeal was rejected.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 435
  
  Issues: Allegations of gold smuggling based on seizure of gold bars, reliance on statement of co-accused, imposition of penalty under Section 112 without sufficient evidence of knowledge or abetment.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appellant faced allegations of gold smuggling after gold bars were seized from him, purportedly made from gold ornaments purchased from a certain individual. The ornaments were claimed to be made in Dubai, leading to suspicions of smuggling. The police initiated the seizure on the belief that the ornaments were smuggled into India. The appellant was accused based on statements from the seller and another individual alleging that the ornaments were stolen from a jewelry shop in Dubai.
  
  2. Subsequently, the case was transferred to customs for adjudication. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the seized gold and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant. The appellant's defense was not represented during the proceedings, and only the ld. DR was heard on behalf of the respondent.
  
  3. Upon review of the case records, it was observed that the entire case against the appellant hinged on the statement of the co-accused seller. However, there was a lack of corroborative evidence to support the claim that the gold purchased by the appellant was indeed from the smuggled ornaments. No credible evidence was presented to establish that the gold in possession of the appellant was derived from the allegedly smuggled ornaments. The imposition of a penalty under Section 112 requires proof of knowingly abetting smuggling, which was not demonstrated in this case.
  
  4. Consequently, the appeal succeeded as it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellant knowingly engaged in smuggling activities. The order of the lower authority, which imposed the penalty and ordered confiscation, was set aside concerning the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and knowledge of the illegal nature of goods in cases involving allegations of smuggling to justify penalties and confiscations.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 434
  
  Issues:
  Import of second-hand machinery more than 10 years old without a valid license, discrepancy in the year of manufacture, confiscation of machinery, imposition of redemption fine, penalties on the company and its officers.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellants imported a second-hand pickling machine, claiming it was manufactured in 1995 based on a Chartered Engineer's Certificate. However, upon examination, it was revealed that the machinery was actually manufactured in 1985. The import of machinery more than 10 years old without a valid license was not permitted under the Import Export Policy. Consequently, the machinery was seized by the Department. The Commissioner confiscated the machinery and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 65 lakhs. Additionally, penalties were imposed on the company, General Manager, and Technical Advisor under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
  
  The appellants argued that they believed in good faith that the machinery was from 1995 and had no intention to defraud the government. They highlighted the urgency of procuring the machinery for production needs and the reliance on the Chartered Engineer's Certificate. They contended that since the Customs accepted the valuation certified by the Engineer, a lenient view should have been taken regarding the confiscation.
  
  After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the machinery was indeed manufactured in 1985, making it ineligible for import without a valid license. The confiscation was upheld, but considering the appellants were actual users in the industrial sector and the goods were not for commercial purposes, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 20 lakhs. The penalties on the company and the Technical Advisor were also reduced, and the penalty on the General Manager was set aside due to the lack of established intention to defraud.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the machinery, reduced the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the company and its Technical Advisor, and set aside the penalty on the General Manager. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, providing a balanced decision based on the circumstances and roles played by the parties involved in the importation of the restricted industrial goods.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 433
  
  Issues: Settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme; Jurisdiction of Commissioner; Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
  
  Settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme:
  The appellant argued that there was a settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, rendering the subsequent order of confiscation and penalty inappropriate. They cited relevant decisions in support of their argument. However, the J.D.R. contended that the settlement under the K.V.S.S. specifically pertained to duty demand on shortages and did not cover other aspects, such as goods found in excess. The Tribunal concurred with the J.D.R., emphasizing that the settlement was limited to duty liability on shortages and did not encompass all aspects of the case.
  
  Jurisdiction of Commissioner:
  The Tribunal acknowledged the Commissioner's jurisdiction to decide on all other aspects of the Show Cause Notice, including excesses found, as the settlement under K.V.S.S. did not constitute a comprehensive resolution covering all facets of the case. This finding reinforced the Commissioner's authority to address issues beyond the duty liability on shortages, as clarified in the order issued under the K.V.S.S.
  
  Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
  In assessing the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, the Tribunal noted the Commissioner's consideration of mitigating circumstances, particularly that the excess goods discovered were only useful to the railway authorities. Consequently, the Commissioner's leniency in imposing the redemption fine and penalty was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal concluded that the redemption fine and penalty imposed did not warrant any intervention, leading to the rejection of the appeals.
  
  This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai highlighted the key issues of settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, providing detailed insights into each aspect of the decision.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 432
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty.
  2. Dismissal of the Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of being time-barred.
  3. Consideration of delay in filing the Appeal as per the High Court's direction.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The case involved an application by M/s. Hindustan Power Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd. for the waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 74,144.94 paise.
  
  2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed by the Applicants as time-barred. The Applicant had filed a Civil Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the order-in-original confirming the demands. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn but granted liberty to file an Appeal within 10 days, with a direction that their application for condonation of delay would be considered favorably by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 13-8-2003, which was beyond the 10-day limit set by the High Court.
  
  3. The High Court's specific direction to file the Appeal within 10 days from 28-7-2003 was not adhered to by the Applicant. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to extend the time for filing the Appeal, as it was a direction from the High Court. The Tribunal concluded that the Appeal should have been filed within the specified time frame as directed by the High Court. Therefore, the dismissal of the Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred was upheld, and the Appeal was deemed to have no merit. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 431
  
  Issues: Financial hardship leading to defunct company, Modvat credit claim, Apex Court judgment applicability, waiver of pre-deposit, out of turn hearing request.
  
  The judgment dealt with the issue of financial hardship faced by the appellant, whose company had ceased production and was defunct. The appellant claimed Modvat credit, which was yet to be adjudicated by the Court. The Revenue argued that the entire amount was due based on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Venus Castings (P) Ltd. v. CCE. The Revenue contended that the appellant could not combine procedures under Rule 96ZP(3) and Section 3A(4) for determining production capacity. The consultant argued that calculating duty liability based on actual production would significantly reduce the amount owed, considering the company's closure and awaited bank loans. The appellant requested an out of turn hearing with a full waiver of the pre-deposit.
  
  The Tribunal, after careful consideration, acknowledged the financial hardship faced by the appellant and the defunct status of their company. Recognizing that the Modvat credit claim was pending adjudication, the Tribunal granted a waiver of the entire pre-deposit amount. Due to the high revenue involvement, the matter was listed for an out of turn hearing on a specified date. The Tribunal allowed the stay application, providing relief to the appellant in light of the challenging circumstances they were facing.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 430
  
  Issues:
  Import of drawings and designs, Valuation under Customs Tariff Heading, Applicability of Rule 9(1)(e) of Customs Valuation Rules.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the import of drawings and designs by M/s. Jayaswala Neco Ltd. valued at Rs. 44 lakhs under Bill of Entry No. 1194/96. The Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo, New Delhi confiscated the goods and imposed a fine of Rs. 11 lakhs with a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order classified the imported items under Customs Tariff Heading 8502.39 as part of T.G. set, Turbine, based on the Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant contended that the previous import of TG set and the import of drawings and designs were separate transactions and should not be valued together.
  
  The appellant argued that the drawings and designs were not for the turbine sets previously imported, as they were meant for post-import activities under a different contract. The contracts showed distinct consideration for the turbine sets and the drawings/designs, indicating separate transactions. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing that only payments made as a condition of sale of the imported goods are to be added to the assessable value. It was concluded that the drawings and designs were not a condition for the sale of the turbine sets, and thus Rule 9(1)(e) was not applicable.
  
  The Tribunal found that the two transactions were distinct, with separate consideration for the turbine sets and the drawings/designs. The payment for the drawings and designs was not obligatory for the sale of the imported goods, leading to the decision that the cost of drawings and designs should not be added to the cost of the TG sets. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Customs authority was directed to assess the drawings and designs separately and release them to the appellants.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 429
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of SSI exemption under tariff heading 0903.90 for tea not put up in unit containers with a brand name.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI pertains to two appeals by M/s. Nelliyalam Tea Factory and M/s. Lawson Tea Factory challenging Order-in-Appeal No. 172/2002 and 174/2002, respectively, regarding the SSI exemption for tea under tariff heading 0903.90. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the SSI exemption up to Rs. 50.00 lakhs but demanded duty for clearances exceeding this value. The appellant-assessee, represented by Consultant Shri S. Kandasamy, argued that they did not claim the SSI exemption granted by the Commissioner (Appeals). They contended that tea falling under the tariff heading with NIL rate of duty should not be considered as put up in unit containers with a brand name. The appellant relied on a judgment by the Eastern Zonal Bench and a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati, both supporting the non-liability of duty for bulk tea not in unit containers with brand names during a specific period.
  
  The Tribunal considered the arguments and cited the judgments mentioned by the appellant. They found in favor of the appellant-assessee based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati and the Eastern Zonal Bench. The Tribunal held that tea stored in tea chests or gunny bags exceeding 20 kgs and bearing the company's name/mark does not fall under the definition of tea put up in unit containers with brand names. Consequently, such tea is not liable to duty for the relevant period specified. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the appellant-assessees were not required to pay duty for the mentioned period.
  
  This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the SSI exemption for tea under a specific tariff heading, emphasizing the criteria of tea not being put up in unit containers with brand names to be eligible for the exemption. The reliance on previous judicial decisions highlights the importance of legal precedents in determining the liability of duty in excise matters. The Tribunal's adherence to established judgments underscores the consistency and predictability necessary in legal interpretations within the excise framework.

  ---

• 2003 (12) TMI 428
  
  Issues:
  1. Rejection of Cenvat credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product.
  2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
  
  Issue 1: Rejection of Cenvat Credit:
  The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the Cenvat credit of Rs. 49,26,266.00 availed by the appellants on inputs used in the manufacture of a final product cleared at nil rate of duty. The appellants did not dispute the duty confirmation as the inputs were used in the production of an exempted final product. They acknowledged the duty liability and paid it even before the show cause notice was issued. The appellants argued that the penalty imposed, equivalent to the duty amount, was unjustified due to their status as a public sector undertaking without any intention to evade duty. They also highlighted that they had accepted to pay the duty raised after six months and had correctly reflected the nil rate of duty on the final product in their RT 12 return.
  
  Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty:
  The Revenue contended that there was a contravention of the law, justifying the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appellants did not contest the duty confirmation, leading to the confirmation of the reversal of Cenvat credit amount. However, considering that the entire duty was paid before the show cause notice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 49,26,266.00 to Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the penalty reduction but rejected the appeal on other grounds, disposing of the Stay Petition as well.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the rejection of Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of an exempted final product but reduced the penalty amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants' acknowledgment of duty liability, payment before the show cause notice, and their status as a public sector undertaking influenced the Tribunal's decision to lower the penalty amount, despite upholding the rejection of Cenvat credit.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 319