Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 267 Records
-
1994 (1) TMI 170 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... note that the finding in the said order of the Tribunal in Para 4 does not flow from the wording of Section 22 of Central Act 1 of 1986. We further note that even in the impugned order the Tribunal has taken note of the sick nature of the unit and also the financial position and further found that the company is a working unit and ldquo have recovered over Rs. 2 crores which were outstanding rdquo . We also take note of the fact that the plea made on behalf of the petitioner offering to pre-deposit Rs. 5 lakhs has also been taken note of and referred to in Para 4 of the impugned order dated 20-8-1993. Therefore, we are not able to accept the plea of the learned counsel for modification of the order. However, in the facts and circumstances we grant further extension of time by 6 months to the petitioner to make the pre-deposit in terms of the Tribunal rsquo s order and report compliance by 29th July, 1994. The matter will be called on 29th July, 1994 for reporting compliance.
-
1994 (1) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... it to be made in instalments, but strangely no amounts have been deposited towards instalments, even to the extent of the offer made. Hence we find that the attitude of the applicant in complying with the order leaves much to be desired. However, taking into account the fact that he is a salaried employee of the Insurance Co. earning a monthly salary and considering the total net assets, we are inclined to reduce the quantum of deposit to Rs. one lakh. This amount should be deposited within a period of 10 weeks from the date of communication of this order and reporting compliance within 11 weeks failing which his appeal is liable to be dismissed. The applicant is also at liberty to make the deposit in instalments, but the total amount of Rs. one lakh should be cleared within the aforesaid stipulated period. On making this deposit, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of penalty amount. The applicant is also informed that no further indulgence can be shown by this Bench.
-
1994 (1) TMI 168 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the legal consequences of a certain provision..... rdquo ldquo ....mere failure or negligence on the part of the producer or manufacturer either not to take out a licence in case where there was scope for doubt as to whether licence was required to be taken out or where there was scope for doubt whether goods were dutiable or not, would not attract Section 11A of the Act.... rdquo Therefore, in the light of the evidence available on record, particularly in the context of the letter of the appellants disclosing all the relevant details with reference to manufacture of the goods in question to the Department and seeking clarification and also bona fide entertaining a doubt with reference to the dutiability of the goods in question and in the absence of any response from the Department, the charge of suppression against the appellant cannot be levelled and in this view of the matter the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, as per law.
-
1994 (1) TMI 167 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... The appellate authority in dealing with this new plea has given the following finding in the impugned order ldquo The ground No. (iii) claiming that during the March, 1986 appellants were not entitled to clear the goods at 12 adv. only by virtue of Notification 213/86 dt. 25-3-1986, is a new ground which was not raised before the adjudication officers. Hence this was not allowed and, therefore, is not being discussed. rdquo Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, we feel that in law a finding will have to be given after hearing the party on a question of law with reference to applicability of notification raised in the grounds of appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Collector (Appeals) for consideration of the issue in regard to the applicability of Notification No. 213/86, dated 25-3-1986 cited supra to the appellants rsquo case after hearing the appellants and in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 166 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... e of discretion, without any justifiable cause therefor, does call for an interference from the Appellate Authority, particularly when non-exercise, is not in confirmity with the legislative intention. 7. emsp Even otherwise, here, after the expiry of the time limit initially fixed, the appellants were served with a notice from the jurisdicational Superintendent, to make the payment forthwith, and pursuance thereto, the payment is made within a period of around five days thereafter. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Re Mangaldas (supra), the period is deemed to have been extended. 8. emsp In the result, the order passed by the authority below cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. The appellants have paid the redemption fine and opted to exercise the option. The goods therefore, stand reinvested to the appellants. The dept. shall release the goods to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1994 (1) TMI 165 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... appellants have to be treated as undeclared. The Modvat Scheme provides for taking of credit after acknowledgement of the declaration and the Department is free to deny the credit subsequently if it is found that the declaration is not correct or that the credit was availed wrongly. Since the responsibility of making a correct and proper declaration is on the assessees it cannot be pleaded that simply because credit was taken after filing the Declaration there is no irregularity in availing the credit. In view of the foregoing the orders of the Assistant Collector confirming the demand of credit irregularity availed are proper and correct . 6. emsp It would be seen that both the findings are mutually at variance with each other apparently not reconcilable. We, are therefore of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and remanded to the Collector (Appeals) in the light of the above facts for reconsideration of the issue in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit - Adjustment in Modvat credit due to subsequent variation in duty payment on inputs
-
1994 (1) TMI 163 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... . It has also been urged that the appeal by the main company, M/s. Nihon Electronics Ltd. has been duly filed in time. It has also been heard and waiver of pre-deposit has also been ordered. In these facts and circumstances, he submits that there being no negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the appeal, the delay should be condoned. 2. emsp The ld. SDR, Shri K.M. Mondal, on the other hand, opposes the application. He submits that a common order for 2 companies, admittedly sister concerns, has been issued and an appeal has been filed by M/s. Nihon Electronics Ltd. in time. There was no reason, submits the ld. SDR, for not filing the present appeal by the applicants in time. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. In the facts and circumstances set out as above, we are inclined to agree with the ld. advocate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Hence, we allow the COD application and condone the delay.
-
1994 (1) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... the demands so long in absence of any stay order under a certain motive anticipating a favourable decision of the Tribunal on the issue and in order to take advantage of a refund claim. In such a situation, it has been urged, the date of payment against the pending demands should not be treated as the relevant date. This contention is plainly untenable. Even if the respondent had delayed the payment of the demand for whatever reason, the relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act would be only the date of such payment of such additional duty demanded and not the dates of clearances of the goods and the dates of payment of duty at the time of such clearances. The refund is in respect of such subsequent payments only and not of the originally paid amounts. Accordingly, the refund claim was not barred by limitation in the present case. 12. The Appeal is dismissed. The Respondents would be entitled to the benefit of refund arising from the impugned order.
-
1994 (1) TMI 161 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... 10-5-1990 citing several authoritative and appropriate decisions. They stated that they had paid the duty under protest by debit to their RG-23A, part-II account. They followed it up with a letter dated 6-8-1990 to the Assistant Collector giving the grounds in support of their contention that Modvat Credit is admissible for Thermex rsquo used by them in the manufacturing process. It was only in June 1991 that a show cause notice was issued to them, which was properly replied to. The case was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector rejecting their contentions. This was the only legal proceeding and it was not by way of appeal against the Superintendent rsquo s peremptory demand. The observations of the Collector (Appeals) in this regard are totally untenable. The order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, viz. the recrediting of the amount debited by them in their RG-23 Account in response to the Superintendent rsquo s letter of demand dated 4-5-1990.
-
1994 (1) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... the applicant rsquo s Counsel was under renovation, the file was misplaced and was not traceable rdquo . When the renovation activity started and ended is not known. It is also not known as to whether other files were also misplaced or this was the only file said to have been misplaced. There is no supporting evidence either from the side of the appellants or from the office of the Counsel. Mere purchase of the draft of fees could hardly be a ground by itself for condonation of delay more particularly when ample time after the purchase of the said draft was available. Taking all these facts and circumstances as stated above we are of the opinion that the appellants have failed to prove that there was sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal in time. Consequently the application is rejected. In the result, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred and in view of this no order is required to be passed on the stay application. (Dictated and pronounced in Open Court)
-
1994 (1) TMI 159 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference to High Court - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... in issue raised. Hence we do not propose the question on this point. 7. With the consent from both the sides, we propose the only question for consideration by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Gujarat as below ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in denying the MODVAT benefit in respect of duty paid on Molywire used for coiling tungsten wire to form filament, holding it as a mechanical appliance and hence hit by explanation to Rule 57A, taking into account its usage, as a mandrel for coiling tungsten wire and whether for purposes of interpreting the items figuring in the exclusion clause of Explanation to Rule 57A, it is legally permissible to go into the usage of items claimed as inputs for benefit under Rule 57A, as has been done by the Tribunal? rdquo 8. The registry may draw up the statement of facts as above and send the papers to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Gujarat for favour of deciding as the point of reference as above.
-
1994 (1) TMI 158 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... wer authorities for payment of above-said amount with respect to the quantity of 13.189 M.T. of Zinc, is not in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal is partially allowed by holding that Credit taken by the appellants with respect to 13.189 M.T. of Zinc purchased from M/s. Capso Engineers is legally allowable to them. The demand of duty in this regard is set aside. However, the credit of duty taken on Zinc Thimbles to the extent of 0.007 M.T. 0.1382 M.T. as mentioned in the show cause notice is not allowable to the appellants which fact is not disputed by the appellants also. Hence the total demand of duty on this count as well on 6.0078 M.T. of Zinc ingots to the extent of Rs. 22,150.80 is legally correct and we confirm the same. The appellants had already deposited this amount in terms of our Stay Order No. S-440/Cal/1993 dated 18-8-1993. The rest of the amount of demand against the appellants is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed partially in the above terms.
-
1994 (1) TMI 157 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... records. He was also made aware of the shipment of the goods without complyinng with the Customs formalities by the said Shri Natarajan. We observe that the Managing Partner of the company even at that stage did not feel it necessary to inform the authorities immediately about the wrong being done but kept quiet about it. His explanation that he had to be away with customer and could not immediately inform the Customs authorities about the wrong doing cannot be accepted. It was only at a later point of time, when the Customs authorities started probing the matter he came forward to inform the authorities about what had transpired. In the above view of the matter we hold that the appellant company has been rightly held to be liable to penalty and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- levied cannot be considered to be excessive in the facts and circumstance of the case and we, therefore, uphold the order of the learned lower authority in this regard. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Hermetically Sealed Compressors - Parts thereof ... ... ... ... ..... namely Saga Windel Engineers (P) Ltd. in Order No. 159/88-B1, dated 5-4-1988 cited before us. Therefore, it follows that the Tribunal had taken notice of the unreported judgment and had held that parts of parts could go into the main item i.e. power driven pumps and thus granted the benefit of the exemption. In the present case the rotors and stators having been specifically designed and solely and principally used as parts of hermetically sealed compressors, the reasoning adopted by the Department requires to be confirmed. 12. emsp As regards the confirmation of duty, the appellants have stated that they have not properly calculated the same and therefore, it requires to be reconsidered. We have considered the plea and the ld. SDR has not opposed their prayer. Therefore, we direct the authorities to grant hearing to the appellants on the duty calculation and arrive at the correct duty to be confirmed in the present case. The appeals are, thus disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (1) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Sales and related person ... ... ... ... ..... manner, the quantum needs to be reviewed and re-fixed by the proper adjudicating authority. 39. emsp As a result, the appeal filed by Peico is allowed. For re-calculation of the amount of differential Central Excise duty evaded and recoverable from Dugar, and for the quantum of penalty imposed on Dugar, the matter is remanded back to the competent adjudicating authority. 40. emsp Within a month of the receipt of this order, Dugar will submit necessary details with supporting documents of the deductions which they consider permissible as per law, and as pleaded in Ground AA rsquo of their appeal before us, to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority, and thereafter the adjudicating authority will proceed to re-determine the differential Central Excise duty payable by Dugar including penalty, if any, to be imposed, and pass an appealable speaking order after observing the principles of natural justice. 41.The appeals and the Cross Objections are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (1) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Deferment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... of the same or other tariff item. 21. emsp It is not denied that the entire ldquo yarn rdquo (excisable goods) issued for the manufacture of ldquo tyre cord rdquo (other commodity) was non-duty paid and the duty was required to be paid thereon prior to removal of such ldquo yarn rdquo for the manufacture of ldquo tyre cord rdquo . This was thus only a case of deferment of duty as held by Hon rsquo ble Vice President. As there is no dispute that no duty has been paid on the resultant waste during conversion of ldquo yarn rdquo into ldquo tyre cord rdquo such duty is rightly required to be paid. As this quantity was never declared the longer period is rightly attracted. I therefore agree with the Hon rsquo ble Vice President that the department rsquo s appeal is required to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. FINAL ORDER 22.In view of the majority opinion, the emsp Department rsquo s appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Judicial Member Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1994 (1) TMI 153 - SUPREME COURT
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... d Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench. The Writ Petition before the High Court deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The interest of the respondents will be adequately protected, if we direct the statutory adjudication to be completed within 45 days from 1st February, 1994. The first date of hearing before the statutory authority shall be 1st February, 1994, and the respondents shall appear before the authority without further notice. The authority shall call the matter on that date for further proceedings in the matter. The claim of the respondents to entitlement to redeem the goods by payment of fine in lieu of confiscation may be considered by the authority at the appropriate stage and in accordance with law. If the goods are so returned to the respondents, then respondents may become entitled to export them. Against the adjudication the respondents shall, of course, be entited to pursue their statutory appeals etc. 5. The special leave petition is disposed of.
-
1994 (1) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n that it is a motor vehicle and that it is principally designed to transport persons. In fact, the lsquo Caution rsquo in their invoices for the sale of go-karts is ldquo 1. Use on private property only 2. Illegal to ply on public roads. rdquo Therefore, even if the goods are designed for plying on private roads for transport of persons, they will be covered by Heading 87.03 CETA. In such a context and having regard to the wording of the tariff heading, it may not be necessary to invoke the definition of the term lsquo Motor Vehicle rsquo from the M.V Act for construing the tariff heading. In the result, the go-karts have been correctly held to be classifiable under Heading 87.03 CETA lsquo 85. The order proposed bv Hon rsquo ble Member (Technical) is, therefore, concurred with. Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) Dated 27-1-1994 Member (T) FINAL ORDER 15.In view of the majority opinion, the appeal is dismissed. Dated 27-1-1994 Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Member (T) Sd/- (S.L.Peeran) Member (J)
-
1994 (1) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) System ... ... ... ... ..... ponents were brought together at site, fitted and assembled together to work as one machine. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rebutted the contention that as a part of machine was liable to duty, the whole end-product should not be dutiable as separate excise goods. 19. By including the value of the component - battery - while assessing the assessable value of the UPS system, it is not the battery as such which is being charged to duty, but the UPS system of which the battery is an essential component. It will make no difference to the levy on the final product as to whether component is entitled to exemption or not. In fact, there are many such exemption notifications in the Central Excise Tariff which provide exemption to specified parts/components, subject to the condition that the finished products in which they are used, are dutiable, refer exemptions relating to original equipment (OE) . 20. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby rejected, and the impugned order is confirmed.
............
|