|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 391 Records
-
2000 (4) TMI 664 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ate. 3. emsp We find that it is not a case where the rate of duty has undergone a change. The goods were received on payment of duty and were removed on reversal of the Modvat credit. It appears that there was a mistake in extending the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. in the hands of the manufacturers of the brake linings. We do not consider that that would come in the way of the present respondents to clear the goods on reversal of the credit which they have taken. Although, there is deeming friction under Rule 57-F, but it is only in so far as the rate of duty is concerned. The benefit of the exemption notification, already extended to the manufacturers, is not an issue for our consideration. 4. emsp Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the observations of the appellate authority, we find no material has been placed before us to disturb his findings. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (4) TMI 637 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
High Courts’ directions - EXIM - Re-Export Bond ... ... ... ... ..... e direction of the High Court as was rightly pointed out by the appellant rsquo s counsel. As per the directions of the High Court, he was to consider the Exhibit P-19 revision made by the first petitioner before the High Court in extending Exhibit P-5 series bonds for further periods. Further he was directed to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law after offering an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before the High Court and the respondents. Since the Commissioner has not considered the revision in extending the time, the order is bad in law as it was rightly argued on behalf of the party. In the facts and circumstance, we are remanding the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh in the light of the directions given by the High Court and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Stay also disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (4) TMI 629 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron and Steel products - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... oices, and in the absence of any material on record to show that the inputs were other than waste and scrap, we agree with the Revenue that the benefit of Notification 208/83 is not available to the respondents since the inputs used by them do not fall under the description of inputs in Col. 2 of Sl. No. 2 of the Table appended to the Notification. We also hold that the extended period of limitation is available to the Department since, although the respondents filed a classification list, in which they claimed the benefit of the Notification, they nowhere disclosed that they are manufacturing final products out of waste and scrap falling under Chapter Heading 72.03, and this has resulted in suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. 5. emsp We, therefore, confirm the duty demand. We also impose a penalty of Rs. 5000/- for contravention of the relevant Central Excise Rules. 6. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 628 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... dated 23-7-1999 and in respect of orders passed on or after 1-7-1999, the reference application shall lie only with the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the respondent herein prayed that the reference application may be dismissed as it was not maintainable. The appellants have nothing more to add. 3. emsp We have heard the contention of both the sides. We have also perused the Section. We find that reference application on Tribunal rsquo s Final Order passed on or after 1-7-1999 lies with the jurisdictional High Court. In the circumstances we find that reference application No. 326/99-NB in Appeal No. 1510/99-NB is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 627 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... to the factories. As such the manufacturer should have either opted for small scale exemption or Modvat credit scheme. This having not been done the duty was raised against them and confirmed by the authorities below. 2. emsp Shri K.P. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and have referred to a number of earlier decisions of the Tribunal. Shri J.M. Kennedy, learned JDR has reiterated the Department rsquo s point of view. 3. emsp After going through the impugned order and the relied upon decision we find that appellants have a prima facie case in their favour. Accordingly, we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and stay recovery during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2000 (4) TMI 626 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of Clearances ... ... ... ... ..... and the case to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for ascertaining the factual position regarding packing of CTD bars manufactured on job work for TISCO. If as a result of verification, it is found that there are some clearances of CTD bars manufactured for TISCO without lsquo TISCON rsquo label, then the value of such clearances shall be taken into account for computing the aggregate value of clearances of the appellants. If any duty is found to be payable, then we agree with the learned Counsel that demand of differential duty has to be worked out after aggregating the total value of clearances invoice-wise in chronological manner and that duty already paid by the appellants at full rate has to be adjusted in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. vide final order No. 130/98-C, dated 27-2-98. 11. emsp In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals allowed by way of remand in the above terms.
-
2000 (4) TMI 625 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e respondents imported prime material in the guise of waste and scrap. We, therefore, hold that the goods in dispute are prime solder alloy assessable under Heading 7803.00 of the CTA, 1975, and hold that the goods are liable to confiscation. We, however, permit redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs, since we accept that the correct cif value of the goods is Rs. 28,91,760.20 which has been worked out as the valuation of the goods on the basis of the Invoice dated 15-7-1993 of M/s. Falcon Metals Ltd. to which insurance charges 1.125 of the cif price have been added (as seen from para 4(iv) of the impugned order. We uphold the charge of deliberate misdeclaration of the description and value of the goods and hence accept the contention of the Revenue that penal action is warranted against the importers, and hence impose a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the respondents. 7. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2000 (4) TMI 624 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Manufacture - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... n the case of U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd (supra). 19. emsp In so far as appeal E/2809/91C arising from OIA No. 147/91 dt 18-6-1991 is concerned, we notice that the issue is different and does not pertain to cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of cinematographic films, X-ray films, Graphic/Art films but pertained to manufacture of pancakes from jumbo rolls of Audio magnetic tapes. This issue is no longer res integra as it has been considered in detail by the Tribunal in the case of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd. by a majority order. We also find that this decision was again followed by the Tribunal in the case of Electronics Mechanicals Industries (supra). Therefore, the law in this regard is now well settled and the prayer of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for reference to the Larger Bench is liable for rejection. Therefore, we do find any merit in this appeal and applying the ratio of above noted decisions, we reject this appeal. 20. emsp The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
-
2000 (4) TMI 623 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Benefit of Notification No. 27/89-C.E. is available ... ... ... ... ..... in presence of catalyst. We have also perused Trade Notice and the different adjudication orders wherein duty has been confirmed Rs. 55/- per KL on raw Naptha consumed in the manufacture of Ammonia and Nitric Acid sold to outside parties. In view of the above, while we hold that separate applications for L-6 licence are required for independent Notifications, as per Rule 192, we agree with the appellants that the benefit of Notification 27/89 as amended by Notification 102/90 is available, considering that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the conditions of Notifications have been substantially complied with. rdquo 3. emsp As the issue involved in the present appeal is exactly the same and is already settled in favour of the appellants in their own case, we do not find any sufficient reason to take a different view. As such, following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (4) TMI 622 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty - Smuggling and transportation of goods - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... t of Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, there is no other independent evidence to corroborate the statement of the co-accused. It is an accepted legal proposition which has been accepted by the Apex Court in various judgments that the statement of co-accused, when not corroborated by any independent evidence, cannot be taken as a Gospel Truth. Therefore, reliance on the statement of the co-accused without corroboration is unacceptable in law. The reliance of Revenue on the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Naresh J. Sukhawani is of no avail inasmuch as the statement of the co-accused in that case inculpates himself as well as the petitioner. In the instant case, the co-accused shifted the entire guilt on the appellants. In view thereof, the personal penalties imposed on the appellants are not warranted. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the personal penalties are required to be set aside. Accordingly, I do so. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
2000 (4) TMI 621 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the relevant order No. 100/98, dated 14-9-1998 but was able to place on record Misc. Order No. 2/99/A/98-A, dated 4-1-1999 (A. No. E/590/98-A and E/592/98-A) wherein a reference had been made to this order of the Board and pre-deposit had been waived for the same appellants. 4. emsp We have heard Shri Choubey, DR who submits that the assessees did not co-operate with the department. 5. emsp We have considered the submissions made. We find that the orders made by us in our order dated 4-2-2000 would apply here. It was necessary for the Commissioner to serve notice on the appellant before passing the final orders dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the stay orders. His act of denying the opportunities is unsustainable. We set aside the same and remit the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the sick condition of the assessees, he is directed to hear their appeals on merits without insisting on pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 618 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Smuggling - Burden of proof ... ... ... ... ..... upra, held that if the Court believer that the confession was voluntary and believes it to be true, then there is no legal bar on the Court for ordering conviction. Each case would require to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances in which the confession came to be made and whether or not it was voluntary and true. 10. emsp We also agree with the Commissioner that the Department has not proved that Rs. 10 lakhs seized from the premises on 19-8-97 were the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. The burden is cast upon the Department to prove that the Indian currency was sale proceeds of smuggled gold which has not been discharged by it. The penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs imposed on Vikram K. Jain is not on higher side and is upheld. However, taking into consideration the fact that Phoolchand was only assisting his brother Vikram K. Jain, we reduce the penalty imposed on him from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh only. 11. emsp All the four appeals are disposed of in these terms.
-
2000 (4) TMI 617 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... d be retained. 5. emsp On consideration of the submissions, and on perusal of the order, I notice that both the authorities have accepted the plea of bona fide belief of the appellants and the original authority has held that the error on the part of the appellants was genuine, but for the detection of the excess quantity by the Customs House, two units would have cleared. This position has not been controverted and the appellants have also stated that the error has crept in due to mistake on the part of the Customs House agent. However, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the appellant rsquo s plea is required to be accepted for granting reduction in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. Accordingly, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and the penalty to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) in view of the plea of genuineness accepted by the authorities below. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (4) TMI 614 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... an option for not availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, which they had chosen inasmuch as they opted another Notification No. 5/94 which provided concessional rate of duty on the Cement. Having done this, no doubt it was open to the appellants to shift their choice in favour of the Notification No. 1/93, when the earlier Notification was withdrawn, but the same could be done only with respect to the balance clearances which were short of the full exemption of Rs. 30.00 lakh. As the appellants have already cleared the goods worth Rs. 21,41,962.00 by availing the concessional rate of duty during the period from 1-4-1994 to 13-5-1995, they were entitled to the full exemption of Rs. 30.00 lakh arrived at by taking into account these clearances and thereafter, the concessional rate of duty for the remaining clearances up to Rs. 75.00 lakh. In this view of the matter, we find that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (4) TMI 613 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... hicle is not in dispute. The only question that is required to be decided is whether the vehicle which is not in the physical possession of the Customs Authorities can be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In this regard there are clear instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi to the effect that in such a situation the only course left to the adjudicator is to enforce the terms of the bond and not to order confiscation. Evidently, the lower authority has not followed these instructions of the Board. Therefore, the case is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in respect of the above limited points. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order only for this limited purpose. No doubt, the adjudicating authority will give reasonable opportunity to the appellant to put forth his pleas and decide the matter by observing the principles of natural justice. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (4) TMI 574 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... assessee is claiming deduction of the same from the wholesale cash price. If the buyers pay the price of the goods immediately on sale of the same, no interest would be involved. No separate policy has been shown by the assessee as to what would be the interest charged by them in case of delayed payments. It is this interest, which is charged by the assessee from its buyers, when the payments are not made in time, which has been held as not includible in the assessable value. As there is nothing on record to show that this interest was charged by the assessee from their customers separately on the delayed payments, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in allowing the respondents rsquo appeal on this count. As such, we restore the order of the Assistant Collector on the issue of deduction of interest on receivables. As a result, Revenue rsquo s appeal is rejected on the point of profit margin addition and allowed on the deduction of interest on receivables.
-
2000 (4) TMI 573 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Discrimination ... ... ... ... ..... r, as in those cases the importers had conceded the violations. With regard to the contention regarding sale of Polypropylene, it is observed that the importer was an actual user. The goods were also being cleared on payment of duty. The Revenue, therefore, cannot have a grievance against the Collector rsquo s order permitting such clearance. As regards the evidence with regard to the consignment of paper, it is observed that the same evidence has been stated entirely in a contrary way in the impugned order and in the appeal of the Revenue. The Revenue rsquo s objections can be attributed only to misunderstanding of the facts. Sale of processed goods was not prohibited under the Passbook Scheme. Therefore, the Collector could not be faulted for holding in favour of the importer. 4. emsp In the light of what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that the Revenue has failed to make out a case for setting aside the order of the Collector. The appeal fails and is rejected.
-
2000 (4) TMI 572 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... to be kept in view as could be reflected from the trade understanding supported by the literature of the appellant regarding the product. When it is specifically mentioned in the literature that their charts are not the products of printing industry, the applicability of Chapter Heading 4901 does not arise. 25. emsp So under these circumstances I agree with the findings of the learned Judicial Member upholding the orders impugned therein, and I answer the point raised in the Bench order that the appeals are required to be rejected. 26. emsp The registry to send the files with the orders to the Hon rsquo ble President, CEGAT, New Delhi for necessary action. Sd/- (J.N. Srinivasa Murthy) Member (J) MAJORITY ORDER 27. emsp We hold that the instrument charts manufactured by the appellants herein fall for classification under CET-Sub-heading 4823.90 and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals. Sd/- (V.K. Agarwal) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J)
-
2000 (4) TMI 571 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... e judgment in the case of CCE, Madras v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 530 the Tribunal observed that the department rsquo s contention that stock transfers should be reassessed on the basis of eventual sales ex-depots could not be accepted when the normal price to a wholesale dealer at a factory gate was applicable. In the second citation (Final Order No. 1027/98-A, dated 4-8-1998, Appeal No. E/1886/92-A) the Tribunal held that where the stock transfer was made at 14 discount and even where only approved discount was passed on to the buyers in ex-depot sales, there was no ground for denial of the higher discount at the factory gate for the depot transferred. 4. emsp We find merits on these citations. The assessees have made a strong prima facie case. On limitations also we find merits in their arguments. We therefore grant unconditional waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty and direct that their recovery be stayed during the currency of these proceedings.
-
2000 (4) TMI 569 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Returned finished products used as inputs ... ... ... ... ..... credit in the instant case is not in consonance with the basic objective of the Modvat scheme, which is to avoid the cascading effect of the input taxation on the value of the final product. This being the one of re-imbursing the duty element in respect of returned materials for subjecting it to reprocess. It was the intention of the respondents to avoid double taxation, they could have taken recourse to the relevant rules for averting such double payment. The Modvat channel cannot be utilised for this purpose rdquo . 2. emsp I have gone through the same. Facts disclosed and the finding given by the Collector (Appeals) are absolutely logical and correct. The same have not been controverted in the grounds of appeal by any cogent evidence by the appellants. It has been rightly held by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that the two decisions of the Tribunal have been rightly distinguished. I do not think the impugned order can be assailed. Hence the appeal stands dismissed.
............
|
