|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 339 Records
-
1997 (10) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... he purpose of declaration, in view of the fact that they are manufactured in three varieties as seen from the technical books. On the facts of the case, it was held that there was no ambiguity by describing the goods as Propylene Glycol. 7. emsp So also, in the case reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 162, it was held that the totality of the declaration filed by the assessee is to be taken into consideration. In that particular case, there was an incomplete declaration. 8. emsp In this case, there is no declaration at all with respect to the product in question and that the plea of the appellant that during the relevant time due to pressure of work, the declaration was not filed for the final product on account of the fact that some raw materials which were used for steel ingots are to be used for this item steel casting is not convincing. 9. emsp In such circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and we set aside the same. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1997 (10) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... in the above case, as under ldquo No doubt there were four show cause notices issued to the appellant. But what is important is the number of causes of action which has arisen. Since in the present case 8 BEs are involved, 8 causes of action are also involved. Accordingly, the prayer of the appellant that one appeal is sufficient cannot be accepted and the appellant is required to file 7 more appeals. The appellant is given one more month, to file 7 more appeals, from the date of receipt of this order. rdquo 7. emsp On the analogy of the above view taken by this Bench, we are of the view that the appellants should file 48 more appeals in this case with COD applications and the same should be filed on or before 19-12-1997. If the appellants fail to file additional appeals, this appeal will be taken as one appeal, covering a particular pricelist and the appellants should make their choice as to which pricelist they intend to challenge in this appeal. 8. emsp Call on 19-12-1997
-
1997 (10) TMI 245 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... ard has been vested with the authority to notify any document in lieu of Gate Pass as proper document for Modvat purposes. Taking into consideration the ground realities of the verification that was feasible to be done regarding duty paid nature of the goods the Board relaxed the condition and allowed the Gate Pass endorsed once only as also a valid document. If large number of endorsements are allowed on the gate pass, then it might not have been possible for the department to verify by following up the movement of the consignment from place to place as to whether the very same goods which were earlier cleared on the gate pass were moved on subsequent endorsement. 6. emsp In view of above, I hold that the ratio of the decision cited by the ld. Advocate as above is not applicable to the facts of this case and is distinguishable. In this view of the matter, I hold that no interference is called for in the ld. Lower authority rsquo s order and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 244 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... ard has been vested with the authority to notify any document in lieu of Gate Pass as proper document for Modvat purposes. Taking into consideration the ground realities of the verification that was feasible to be done regarding duty paid nature of the goods the Board relaxed the condition and allowed the Gate Pass endorsed once only as also a valid document. If large number of endorsements are allowed on the gate pass, then it might not have been possible for the department to verify by following up the movement of the consignment from place to place as to whether the very same goods which were earlier cleared on the gate pass were moved on subsequent endorsement. 6. emsp In view of above, I hold that the ratio of the decision cited by the ld. Advocate as above is not applicable to the facts of this case and is distinguishable. In this view of the matter, I hold that no interference is called for in the ld. Lower authority rsquo s order and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 243 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... production of RCC poles, the ultimate cost of production will have to be higher to that extent and accordingly the assessable value and the corresponding duty thereon will have to be higher. The establishment charges 15 and contingency charges 5 should form part of the assessable value of RCC poles. 5. emsp It is seen that even in this order it has been only vaguely mentioned that some indirect expenses would be relatable to the poles which have been manufactured. While in principle we observe, the plea may be acceptable, but unless it could be established with facts and figures and which are set out in the grounds of appeal or in the narration of facts, the plea cannot be gone into. Since in the present case the required facts are not there and the respondents have not been put to notice in regard to the same, the permission cannot be given at this stage to bring on record any new facts. 4. emsp Following therefore, the ratio of our earlier decision, we dismiss the appeals.
-
1997 (10) TMI 242 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... ulty to ascertain the duty paying nature of the goods. In the present case, in our view since fresh invoice has not been issued, the respondents could not have been allowed the benefit of Modvat credit inasmuch as the unit in which the goods had been received earlier did not follow the Rule 57F(ii) procedure. It was for the respondents to ensure compliance with the requirement of law, if they wanted to avail of the benefit. It is not enough to say that the benefit given under a beneficent piece of legislation could not be denied for procedural violations. Movement of goods under valid documents is substantive requirement of law and relaxation can be permitted only if certain excise documents may get lost in transit and not in a case where there is violation of rules in clearance of the goods from where these are received. We are, therefore of the view that the respondents could not have been allowed the benefit of Modvat credit. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 241 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... that the penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the statements of the co-accused are in the nature of uncorroborated evidence. The statements of the driver and the khalasi relied upon by the adjudicating authority were to the effect, as is evident from the order-in-original, that they had heard from one Badal of Bagdogra that Shri Ranjit Ghosh, respondent herein, also was carrying on business of smuggled goods through Badal of Bagdogra. This evidence was clearly in the nature of hearsay evidence. The adjudicating authority has also referred to some earlier case made out against this very respondent herein, which, in our view, cannot be made the basis for imposition of penalty in the present proceedings. We find that the same had been rightly set aside by the first appellate authority. We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 240 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... rly concedes that the appellants product is used for book binding and is also coated with amylaceous substances. He, further, pleads that in the case of another assessee in the Hyderabad Commissionerate, the goods have been classified under Tariff Heading 52.06. It is on this own ground that he seeks reclassification of the goods. 3. emsp Heard the learned JDR for the department. 4. emsp We observe that for the purpose of classification what has to be seen is whether the nature of the goods as are sought to be assessed are covered by the description of a particular heading and, if so, then the assessment has to be done only under that heading. That, in the Hyderabad Commissionerate similar goods have been assessed under another heading would not be a reason to hold it otherwise. In the present case the goods are squarely covered by the description of the Tariff Heading and, therefore, the learned lower authority rsquo s order has to be upheld. 5. emsp The appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 239 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... submissions and perused the precedent order of the Tribunal. We find that the facts are comparable and because of this we are inclined to follow the same formula in disposing of the present appeals. We also note that the order of confiscation of the goods has not been questioned and the plea is only for relief in the matter of fine and penalty. We are of the view that considering the value of the goods and the nature of the offence the penalty does not call for any modification in these appeals. However as far as the level of redemption fine is concerned we are inclined to reduce it following the precedent order cited supra, and we accordingly dispose of the appeal by holding that the fine in lieu of confiscation in all the three cases be reduced to 100 of the assessable value in each case of the goods. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The Commissioner rsquo s order is modified to this extent. It is otherwise upheld. Consequential relief to the appellants as per law.
-
1997 (10) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Loss of duplicate invoice in transit ... ... ... ... ..... There is no dispute regarding the admissibility or otherwise to Modvat credit to inputs or receipt of the inputs in their factory. Final order No. A/143/97-NB, dated 14-3-1997 which was cited indicates that Assistant Commissioner has to exercise satisfaction in a judicious way. I am of the view that in terms of Rule 57G(2A) Assistant Commissioner ought to have examined whether or not duplicate invoices had been lost in transit. Merely delay on the part of the appellants in seeking relaxation if invoices otherwise were lost in transit cannot deprive the appellants to avail the benefit of Modvat credit. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo decision who shall take into account the evidence that may be placed before him to satisfy himself the duplicate invoices indeed have been lost. Since the matter is being remanded the Tribunal would appreciate if the matter is decided expeditiously say, within three months.
-
1997 (10) TMI 237 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d if the matter is remanded for further test by a competent laboratory for departmental test. 4. emsp We have considered the rival submissions. In Heading 28.58 which is equivalent to our tariff is 28.51 of HSN. The explanatory note to B.T.N. reads as under ldquo Distilled and Conductivity water and water of similar purity the heading covers only distilled water, are dissolved conductivity water and water of similar purity including water treated with ionic media. rdquo To test the rival contentions of the parties, it would be better if there is a laboratory test conducted by the Departmental laboratory. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the adjudicating authority to conduct the test report and after such report is obtained the copy of the same is to be given to the appellants and opportunity should be given to them to adduce any evidence as they might deem fit and decide the matter afresh accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (10) TMI 236 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... stage. Even the show cause notice did not propose such a classification and it has to be considered that this was a case of proposing to change the classification claimed by the assessee in the classification list. In such a situation, raising of a totally new ground before the Tribunal at this stage which would involve going into questions of both law and facts requiring verification is not permissible. Apart from this, as we have already noted, the classification of DCP animal feed grade under Heading 2302 has been confirmed by the Tribunal in more than one of its decisions consistently and the principles followed in these decisions by the Tribunal has been referred to in the Supreme Court decision cited before us by the ld. Counsel. In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the goods in question are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2302.00 of CETA. 6. emsp Appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 235 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ar are opened. In these circumstances we are of the view that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that this is a fit case for extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants is justified, more so when it is found that even the adjudicating authority has perused the new register and has observed that on perusal thereof it is seen that RG 1 register has been maintained from 1-4-1992. He has gone on to adjudicate the matter and penalise the appellant only for the fact that on the day of the visit of the officers the new register was not produced. This has been explained plausibly by the respondent by showing that the partner who was present on the day of the officers rsquo visit was unaware of the existence of the new register and could not produce it because the Central Excise clerk who was maintaining it was that day absent. Therefore in the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 234 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Declaration - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... 4. 11. emsp The new procedure of the invoice had been introduced recently. We also take note of the fact that the Department is otherwise not disputing the availability of the Modvat credit except on part of the appellants who have not been able to produce the duplicate copy. Nevertheless, the original copy showing all the particulars required to be incorporated in the invoice, have been produced by the appellants. In this view of the matter, we consider it to be a rectifiable defect which, if rectified by the appellants now, the Modvat credit should be allowed to them. Accordingly we give another opportunity to the appellants to rectify this defect and produce rectified documents before the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for his due consideration, who would pass the Orders accordingly. Needless to say that principles of natural justice would be observed by the Assistant Commissioner while passing the Order. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
-
1997 (10) TMI 233 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Exemption for specified end use subject to Chapter X procedure under Notification No. 276/67-C.E.
-
1997 (10) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit available for fuel ... ... ... ... ..... have been appreciated again by this bench in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. wherein the department did not grant the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Residual Fuel Oil (RFO) and Low Density Oil (LDO) used for running D.G. set to generate electricity, which were used as essential item for making Electric Arc Furnace Operational and for running of the rolling mill. In this regard the Tribunal also followed the judgment of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.) 1991 (36) ECR 465 (S.C.). In view of the law having been appreciated and clearly laid down by the Tribunal in the light of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court judgments, therefore, the Commissioner rsquo s reliance on a judgment which has been set aside, is totally unjustified. In that view of the matter respectfully following the ratio of the judgments cited, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals allowed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 231 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat credit on capital goods - Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... bench said ldquo Even in cases there is any short or excess collection of duty on the inputs, the assessees are entitled to credit as specified in the duty paying documents. rdquo It pointed out that there was provision to vary the credit taken to the duty payable found to be incorrect by resorting to Rule 57E. In this case too, if the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune was of the view that credit could not be taken for the reason that the duty was not payable, he ought to have advised the Commissioner of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over Shamvik to initiate action under law to ensure that the appropriate authority pronounced that duty was not payable, take action to refund such duty, and thereafter resort to sub-rule (4) of Rule 57R, for ordering appropriate adjustment to vary the credit. None of these steps has been taken. 9. emsp For the reasons as indicated above, we are of the view that credit was rightly taken. 10. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (10) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... e, M/s. Supra Sales Corporation was registered. The Collector (Appeals) has rejected this plea on the ground that registration of dealers was introduced w.e.f. 4-7-1994 whereas these invoices are prior to that period. It appears that he has not taken note of the wordings of the Notification 64/94, dated 7-11-1994 which clarifies that such documents could be accepted if such document was issued by registered person prior to such registration. Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. JDR concedes that this is a permissible document in terms of Notification 64/94 subject to verification. Accordingly accepting the contention of both sides on the issue of eligibility of Modvat credit, I remand the matter to the concerned Assistant Commissioner to verify the eligibility and subject to verification, he may pass suitable order. Permissibility of Modvat credit should not be denied on the ground that M/s. Supra Sales Corporation was registered subsequent to the issue of the invoice. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (10) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ter itself excludes various items like blow lamps which are tools in common and engineering parlance. The appellant rsquo s contention would be acceptable if he could show that all tools are classifiable under Chapter 82 and the present product is not. This he has not been able to do. There is no denial that paper is used as a tool in the sense that it is an instrument of manual operation used to facilitate mechanical operations. Paper is used in order to provide abrasive or polish various items and in the manner in which it is used is clearly a tool. It is a tool that falls within the excluded category in its explanation to Rule 57A being used to process of any goods on which it is used in order to remove projections etc. and to import a smooth surface. Credit has rightly been denied. 12. emsp Appeal allowed to the extent of credit taken of duty paid on emery cloth belt Collector (Appeals) order is set aside with consequential relief. His finding on emery paper is confirmed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... far as ticking by pen the expression ldquo duplicate for transporter rdquo in those invoices covering the remaining amount is concerned, he submits that he is not in a position to factually verify the invoices because he has not been furnished with the copies of relevant invoices. He, however, submits that what has been done by the applicants is not in consonance with the requirement of Rule 52A. 3. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, I find prima facie force in the contention of the learned Counsel that the use of the expression ldquo carrier copy rdquo is sufficient to indicate prima facie that these two invoices were duplicate for transporters and also that the invoices where duplicate for transporter has been marked are also valid for the purpose of taking credit. Since the applicants have made out a prima facie case for waiver, the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty amount is waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
............
|
