|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... ass and therefore we waive the pre-deposit and stay the recovery and proceed to consider the main appeals themselves. 7. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that the Order-in-Original impugned is suffering from various infirmities noted above. There is also no evidence in the form of original Bill of Entry in the records called for from the Custom House. Therefore, it is not possible for this Tribunal to take a final decision on the question who should be, if at all necessary, liable for the duty confirmed in the order impugned. Under these circumstances, we get aside the impugned Order-in-Original and remand the matter for de novo consideration to the original authority. While deciding the matter de novo, the learned original authority shall consider all the pleas raised in their behalf by the appellants and any other persons concerned and decide the matter through a speaking order, after hearing them. 8. emsp The appeals are allowed accordingly by way of remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 290 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Import - Confiscation - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... duced further evidence regarding the market prices. We are of the view that the market price is to be properly determined by the authority before determining the fine and penalty. This question is, therefore, required to be determined by the adjudicating authority at his level after disclosing the evidence of market price available in the hands of the Revenue authorities to the appellants and the appellants should also be at liberty to rebut it with his own evidence. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the adjudicating authority to determine the correct market price and thereafter determine the proper fine and penalty in this case. 5.2 emsp Appeal is thus allowed by remand after we set aside the impugned order. 5.3 emsp At this stage, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the goods are lying in customs custody since 1997. We, therefore, direct the adjudicating authority to decide this case within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1999 (1) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d T.C. Flats are specifically covered by Chapter sub-heading 8209.00. Therefore, they will be classifiable under this sub-heading and hold accordingly. 13. emsp Insofar as wear parts blanks Jute eyelets and wear parts blanks for Jute Industry are concerned, we note that these are items meant for jute industry and used for jute machinery. Since there is a specific provision for parts of jute machinery under Chapter Heading 8448.00, therefore, they will be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8448.00. 14. emsp Insofar as cylpebs are concerned, they are solid round cylinders, they are used to ground metal powder they are used in ball mills. Since they are not steel balls and they are neither articles of Tungsten. Admittedly, they are made of tungsten carbide, therefore, they will be appropriately classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8482.00 and we hold accordingly. 15. emsp The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 13. 2. emsp We have heard Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR and perused the records since none appears for the respondents inspite of notice. 3. emsp Tariff Heading 84.24 covers mechanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders ..... There is no dispute that the item is a complete trailer fire pump mounted with on a chassis and fitted with an engine. Hence, it is not just a pump for liquids, but a complete mechanical appliance for projecting jets of water. Therefore, we agree with the learned DR that Heading 84.24 would be appropriate as compared to Heading 84.13 and hence set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals of the Revenue.
-
1999 (1) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he complete system if it meets all the following conditions Under this, the conditions are given. rdquo 7. emsp A lot of emphasis was placed by the Revenue on this note to show that the item was not hit by the exclusion clause 5(b). We note that the product in dispute does not process data, but only records certain data which is not further analysed, but can be retrieved for preparing reports. It does not have a system for producing reports on the basis of this data. After such reports are entered, it has to be connected with a personal computer. Tariff description under Heading 91.06 is more appropriate in the instant case. We note that this fact has been gone into in detail in the Appeal Order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 8. emsp After scrutiny of the relevant technical literature and the Tariff entries, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the Appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (1) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Computer software in the form of characters and books - Classification - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... seems to us is clear ground for refund. It is therefore not the Collector or the Assistant Collector to say that the refund claim was not elaborate enough. The copy of the refund claim attached to the appeal shows that some documents such as bill of entry were attached to the claim there continues to be a regular practice of the Custom House for asking the claimant of refund to produce documents in support of the claim if have not been produced. 4. emsp Assistant Collector s order rejecting the claim is only on the ground it was not substantial is incorrect cannot be upheld, and is set aside and matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner who shall dispose of the refund claim if necessary after giving the appellant producing the documents and any documents if the Assistant Commissioner may wish to be sought. Considering the passage of 8 years from first filling of the appeal we hope that the refund claim will be disposed of within two months from the receipt of this order.
-
1999 (1) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import policy - Pearl Headed Pins ... ... ... ... ..... or a number of years are covered by trimming and embellishments then the phrase lsquo trimming and embellishments rsquo as appears from above would cover these also, obviously there is no reason not to cover pearl headed pins in the new policy which is policy for imports for liberalised regime. Group IV has also given comments as under - In the policy AM 92-97, the questioned commodity covers under the para 156 lsquo A rsquo consumer goods, however, the item is covered at Sl. No. 3, lsquo All types of trimming and embellishments, fasteners, buttons etc for garments made up knitwear plastic/leather goods rsquo shall be freely importable although may be regarded as consumer goods. rdquo The above observation has been extracted in extenso which completely answers the various arguments made by the departmental representative. The comments of the Group extract in para 7 of the order clearly speaks against the argument of the ld. DR. The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ile Cutting Machine of different sizes. 5. emsp Granulating Machines of different sizes. 6. emsp Peeling Machines of different sizes. 7. emsp Boring Machines of different sizes. This fact is clearly brought out in the impugned order. The lower appellate authority relying on HSN Note available at page 1314 under Tariff Heading 84.79 and Note 7 to Chapter 84 has classified the machines under Tariff Heading 84.77. On the other hand the appellants are claiming the Classification of the said machines under Tariff Heading 84.79. 3. emsp We have gone through the appeal memo. We have also gone through the impugned order. We observe that the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad is a well reasoned order and has taken into account all the relevant materials for arriving at the Classification under Tariff Heading 84.77. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the appeal of the appellants herein. Hence we dismiss the same.
-
1999 (1) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rint out rdquo merely because it has been displayed on internet. Similarly, the baggage price relied on in the show cause notice has no evidentiary value for import of goods in the course of international trade. Further, as is rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, these prices are merely the assertion of the customs authorities in the show cause notice without any documentary evidence in support of that assertion. 5.1 emsp As against the unreliability of evidence produced by the Revenue, the Revenue authorities has not commented upon the manufacturer rsquo s price list given by the appellants as duly certified by them. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. 5.2 emsp In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the adjudicating authority has totally misdirected itself to discard the value declared by the appellants. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with resultant relief to the appellants. Operative part of the order already pronounced.
-
1999 (1) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... sions of the learned DR. We have also perused the evidence on record and also the technical literature and the description of the goods under two Chapter Headings. We note that in the case before us, the goods are cleared in the form of coils without ceramic support. To become a heating element, according to the technical literature, they are to be supported with ceramic support. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the goods in question are not cleared supported by ceramic support. Therefore, they are only in the form of heat resistors. Having regard to the fact that heat resistors are specifically mentioned in the description under Chapter Heading 85.16 as also to the fact that the HSN Explanatory Notes specifically say that heat resistors shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.16, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order. In the circumstances, we hold that the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.16 of CETA, 1985. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1999 (1) TMI 257 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... and penalty. However, in terms of the proviso to the said section, jurisdiction has been given to the Appellate Tribunal to dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of Revenue. We also note that the Hon rsquo ble High Court rsquo s directions also enjoins upon us a duty to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. It is only for deciding the quantum of payment that the matter has been sent back to the Tribunal by the High Court. Accordingly we direct the appellants to give a bank guarantee of entire amount of duty of Rs. 4,78,80,531/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. Subject to above, the penalty amount is dispensed with and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 11. emsp As the Revenue involved in the instant case is on the higher side, we fix the main appeal also on 6-4-1999, subject to ascertainment of compliance with the directions as contained above.
-
1999 (1) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... from breaking up of ships/boats/other floating structures imported into India. We also find that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in a number of cases, one among them being in the case of Oswal Alloys v. C.C.E. - Final Order No. A/1076-1080/94-NRB and in the case of Upper India Steels v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 590. These orders have been followed in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. M/s. B.P. Alloys P. Ltd. and M/s. G.S. Auto International Ltd. - Final Order No. A/1540-1541/95-NB dated 20-12-1995. Following the ratio of the above orders and holding that the respondents have substantiated their claim that the materials received by them were obtained by breaking up of ships/boats and other floating structures imported into India, we hold that they were entitled to avail of credit Rs. 600/- PMT and that the provisions of Notification 177/86 are not attracted in the instant cases. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.
-
1999 (1) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Naphthalene - Set off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... odvat cannot be claimed in the case. They also raise the question of exemption Notification 432/86. 4. emsp I have heard both sides and it is found that the matter is not res integra. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 105 that once it is accepted that, by application of Notification 432/86 duty is exempted on beta naphthol to the extent of duty payable on the naphthalene used in its manufacture and, in fact paid, is the duty payable according to tariff less than duty payable on the naphthalene used in the manufacture, while alone would be available as credit, and any amount of credit taken would not be credit of duty paid and is inadmissible. In the said decision the question was decided in favour of the department. Hence, following the said case, I allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order. The memorandum of cross objection is only way of reply and it is also disposed of. 5. emsp Appeal allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and since it is a product which comes into existence in the process of manufacture and since it is marketable, it is goods for the purpose of levy of duty. He reiterates the findings of the authorities below. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the lead ash is generated in the process of galvanisation of iron and steel wires. The admitted position is that it is collected from the surface and corners of the bath. Thus the process of manufacture and its coming on the surface and corners shows that it is in the form of froth or dross or skimmings. Since it is in the form of waste even if it is sold in the market, it does not make itself goods for levy of Central Excise duty as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Limited cited above. Following the ratio of this judgment, we hold that the lead ash is not goods for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. 5. emsp In view of the above findings, the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Medicines - Brand name/Trade mark ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd., we are of the view that the medicines in question are not patent or proprietary medicines. As the Appeal is allowed on merit, we are not considering the question of time limit. Assent per S.K. Bhatnagar, President . - 8.I agree entirely with the above order as proposed by the learned Member (T), Hon rsquo ble Shri V.K. Agrawal and would only like to emphasise that the point which has struck the most this time is the fact that the medicine is not a special preparation made by the manufacturer or in other words it is not such a preparation of which he could claim proprietary rights (and there is no indication of any mark or symbol, monogram, etc. which would even otherwise indicate such a relationship with the product). I would also like to add before parting that perhaps this aspect was missed in a couple of cases decided earlier but now that it has been forcefully brought home. I am required to take note of it and record my agreement with the proposed order accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the matter is no longer res integra and the ratio of the said final order needs to be applied in this case also. 4. emsp I have perused the above noted final order wherein it is held that the matter was to be re-examined de novo by the Original authority and the refund claim of the assessee could be limited only to the percentage loss on the average, over the past one year during the manufacturing process. The average loss so computed would be deducted out of the refund claim. 5. emsp I find that since the aforesaid Final Order has already examined in great length the issue under consideration, particularly so in the respondent rsquo s own case, the matter is no longer res integra. Therefore applying the ratio of the said Final Order, I find that the Order-in-Appeal impugned needs to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Original authority for de novo consideration in terms of para 6 of the said Final order noted above. The appeal succeeds by way of remand accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... mately packed have been held as eligible for Modvat credit. I also find that a similar view has been taken in the case of Parle Biscuits Ltd., as reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 603 (T) wherein packaging materials like Poster, Gum tapes and Self adhesive tape has also been held eligible for Modvat credit. I further find that in fact in this case the issue is still more to the advantage of the respondents in as much as that the plywood is actually not used to manufacture any boxes but is used as a stand to mount the rolls on which the polyester films are wrapped as final products. These rolls have to be stacked vertically and the horizontal stand made out of these plywood sheets are necessary for the completion of the final product. Therefore taking into consideration all the submissions made and this fact of actual use of the plywood, I find that there is no infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal which compels me to interfere with the same. The Revenue Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... t that the purchase orders were available on record. (c) emsp There is no application of these facts also with respect to the invocation of the Larger Period, particularly in view of the case law of Incersoll Rand cited by the learned Advocate now for the reason that it is a decision which were available much later. 10. emsp We, therefore, feel that the entire matter needs a much closer scrutiny and verification at the original level as the Tribunal is not in a position to spend so much time to go through each of these documents which runs into hundreds. Therefore, we set aside the Order-in-Original impugned and remand the matter to the original authority for a de novo re-examination of the entire issue. The learned Commissioner is directed to also consider all the above infirmities noted as also the case laws which shall be cited before him in these proceedings, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. 11. emsp The appeal succeeds by way of remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 249 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Set off - Demand after repeal of statute - Recovery - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... Paragraph 3 of the Appendix to the notification does not prescribe any procedure for adjustment of the duty by the manufacturer not taken the credit input consequent upon any variation in the duty. The practice seems to be for the department to issue a notice. We must concede the departmental representative rsquo s point that the department rsquo s right to recover the credit taken consequent upon the revision of the manufacture of the input existed through- out the transaction right from the moment when the assessee took credit. However, this right existed in its inchiate form. It did not crystallise or accrue to the department till such time as the refund was granted to Barmalt India Ltd. By the time this was done, the notification itself had ceased to exist, having been rescinded. The department thus could not exercise its right under notification which was no longer in existence. In this understanding of the matter we see no reason to interfere. 10. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 248 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... the two is not on a principle to principle basis. In view of these facts, we find that a similar issue had already been considered by this very Tribunal in their Final Order No.1660 to 1664/98 dated 21-8-1998 in the case of M/s. TNEB. Gist of these decisions are to the above effect. 5. emsp We, therefore, find that we have to respectfully apply the ratio of the above decision in this case also. Applying the same, we find that the order needs to be set aside to the following extent - (a) emsp The appellants, M/s. The India Cements Limited are not to be held as manufacturers of these three items noted above and therefore there is no duty liability accruing on them in this respect. (b) emsp As there is no manufacture by them, there is no question of imposition of any penalty for their failure to follow the Central Excise procedures, and hence the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the impugned order also needs to be set aside. The appeal is therefore allowed to the above extent.
............
|
