|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 280 Records
-
1996 (6) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Adhesive Tape ... ... ... ... ..... ing boxes, which are accepted packing materials, are eligible for availment of Modvat credit. The factual position is absolutely identical to the one here and no contrary view has been taken by any authority, the same view has to be accepted. Considering the same, the adhesive tapes are held eligible for Modvat credit and the denial of Modvat credit by the authority below is not justified and hence the appeal from M/s. Pearl Soap Company is allowed and the order is set aside. Consequential relief, if any, is to be followed. 6. emsp Appeal No. E/91/93-BOM is by the Department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the Modvat credit. The ratio of the aforesaid decision also would stand attracted in this case and the approach taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) being in confirmity with the provisions existing for availment of Modvat credit, there is no cause for disturbing the finding given. 7. emsp The appeal from the department, is therefore, rejected.
-
1996 (6) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Goods - Immovable property ... ... ... ... ..... (1) emsp The appellants activity of setting up of the turbo-generator sets at site amounts to manufacture of excisable goods answering the description under Heading 85.02 CETA on which appellants have to discharge duty liability. (2) emsp Appellants should be extended the facility of Modvat credit on inputs subject to their establishing the claim with satisfactory evidence of duty payment on the inputs and of their use in manufacture of the final product. (3) emsp Commissioner should re-determine the issue of includibility of notional interest on advances in the assessable value as directed in Para 14 above. (4) emsp Drawing and designing charges are includible in the assessable value, and so also, in the facts of the present case, erection charges. (5) emsp No case is made out to demand duty beyond six months period under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act. (6) emsp Penalty on the appellants is not justified and is set aside. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (6) TMI 208 - CEGAT, MUMBAI-II
Modvat on paper ... ... ... ... ..... ave come up for discussion and due interpretation in the meeting of Regional Advisory Committee of Bombay-III Collectorate held on 19-6-1991. Where it is reported to have been clarified that ldquo while the Modvat credit available on indigenous input was to be limited to Rs. 800/- per M.T. full credit of C.V. Duty could be availed rdquo . This clarification has come from the same Collectorate, from whom the subject Show Cause Notice was issued. 11. emsp Taking all these aspects into consideration, the approach adopted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) appears to be correct and hence no interference is called for. 12 emsp Before parting it may be observed that the plea of discriminatory treatment to domestic manufacture and the importers, may appears to be thought provoking, but as is held by the Supreme Court in Re M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas (supra) the Notification as it exists, has to be interpreted. 13. emsp In the result, the appeal from the department is rejected.
-
1996 (6) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ition in 27A is deliberate. We cannot comment on this submission in the absence of the insight of the framers of the tariff. But flexing material is solid. The cross section of this used lead wire would also be solid and thus pass the test prescribed for wires in other tariff items also. 10. emsp The appellants have also submitted that the cored wire are known as wires in the market and have justified the classification in terms of trade parlance. Although, as pointed out by the ld. JDR, the catalogue is of their own, it does have the strength to justify the appellant rsquo s case. The appellants in their catalogue given a long list of buyers who have been buying the impugned goods as wires. 11. emsp We, therefore, find that the impugned goods squarely fell within the ambit of Tariff Item No. 27A(5) and were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 187/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984. We, therefore, set aside the lower orders and allow this appeal and direct consequential relief.
-
1996 (6) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t is not to be included in the assessable value of the computer. We follow the above decision and hold that the charges referable to such items i.e. (i) and (iv) referred to above are to be included in the assessable value and charges referable to items (ii) and (iii) referred to above are not to be included in the assessable value. 4. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside to the extent it holds that part of the consultancy charges referable to installation and commissioning of equipment at site and training of customers staff in regard to hardware and software is to be included in the assessable value. Jurisdictional Commissioner will work out the differential duty actually due on the basis of this order and pass a fresh order. Since the charges referable two items cannot form part of the assessable value, we consider it fit to reduce the amount of penalty. The amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (6) TMI 205 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classificattion ... ... ... ... ..... Magnetic Buttons rsquo - in Serial No. 3 is totally redundant and then again for abundant caution, inasmuch as the controversy might have been generated by omission of that expression in the said Notification, the Authority might have amended the said Notification by another Notification No. 13-11-1992. In any case, we have to see that we interpret the law as it exists. We read the Notification No. 5/91 and find that the appellants are no doubt entitled to the benefit of the said Notification. We also find that the aforesaid view has also been taken by another Collector (Appeals) in Order No. 291/94 to 301/94 in the case of Saini International (supra) which as asserted by the learned Advocate for the appellants, was also cited by them before the lower appellate authority in the present case. We find the said authority has ignored to deal with the said plea of the appellants before him. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to them.
-
1996 (6) TMI 204 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... different classes of buyers. The applicability of law depends upon existence of some factual data and such factual data showing rationale in carving out these specified dealers as different class of buyers is nowhere to be found. 16. emsp When the Standard Motors and Non-standard Motors do not constitute different class of products and when for both the products, recognising the traders as a separate class of buyers for the purpose of Part II Price List would tantamount to recognising same class of buyers in two distinct categories which is nowhere recognised. 17. emsp Considering all these aspects, therefore, there appears no justifiable ground to interfere with the orders appealed against. Though the issue might as well be, as to whether any discount could be allowed in relation to negotiated price, but that part of the order is not appealed against and hence cannot be interfered with. 18. emsp The appeals filed therefore do not merit consideration and hence are rejected .
-
1996 (6) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Packaging material ... ... ... ... ..... ound will not be a valid one for denying Modvat, in view of the decisions cited (supra) especially in the case of India Cement and Shree Cement as well as the Ponds India decision of the Madras High Court. The packing of the yarn first in the primary packing of plastic bags thereafter in corrugated cartons shows that the packing of the yarn in such manner is incidental and ancillary to the completion of the process of manufacture of the yarn at the hands of the appellants. The Larger Bench in Ashwin Vanaspati case had noted this aspect also while considering the eligibility for packaging material for Modvat under Rule 57A. Therefore in view of the ratio of the judgments of the High Court and Tribunal cited (supra) the grounds taken by the lower authorities for denying Modvat in this case for LDPE granules used in the manufacture of plastic bags into which the yarn is packed is not sustainable. In this view of the matter impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund application dismissed on the ground that original TR-6 challan not produced ... ... ... ... ..... order of the Tribunal should have naturally led to refund of the amounts paid by the appellant. The appellant was constrained to file an application for refund which was treated as an application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and dismissed on the ground that original TR 6 challan had not been produced and ignoring the certificate of the Manager of the State Bank concerned produced by the appellant. The certificate specifically refers to payment of Rs. 25,000.00. Learned Counsel for the appellant also stated that the original challan was produced with the Department when the cancellation of the provisional bond was sought. 2. emsp In the circumstances mentioned above, there was no justification to delay refund further. The impugned orders are set aside. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner will refund the amount referred to above to the appellant within one week from the day on which the appellant executes an indemnity bond. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Inputs ... ... ... ... ..... e Modvat credit cannot be denied merely on this account. Benefit is not deniable just because permission for removing the raw material directly to the job workers was not specifically sought for. Tribunal has held that what is relevant is the substantial compliance with the provisions of law and as long as assessee has substantially complied with the law, benefit in accordance with the law cannot be denied for non-observance of a technical requirement. We find it is not alleged that goods are not duty paid or that goods are not entitled to Modvat as being not notified as inputs. There is also no allegation that goods have not been used in the manufacture of final products. considering the circumstances in totality, we are of the view that once substantial compliance with requirement of law has been shown, the benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied merely on account of procedural irregularities if at all. In view of this we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (6) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... s as bulk drug. Section 111(m) reads ldquo any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof. rdquo I find in the instant case that the goods were described as Tetra Methyl quanidine in the Bill of Entry as well as in the invoice the goods have been described as Tetra Methyl quanidine. The only dispute was whether the goods were bulk drug or not. Thus I do not see any misdeclaration of the goods. As there was no misdeclaration of the goods therefore it was a simple matter whether they were entitled to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/94. This claim cannot be treated as declaration for the purpose of Section 111(m). In this view of the matter I hold that order of confiscation and imposition of penalty is not valid in law. Accordingly order for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is set aside.
-
1996 (6) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... the benefit of Rule 57G before the original authority in this case but they had not done so before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in his discussions and submissions refers to other submissions. But he does not discuss this submission at all. 8. emsp On perusal of the order dated 28-3-1995 and the impugned rule the appellants rsquo submission that the inputs brought in from the period 1-12-1993 to 31-3-1994 were covered under the declaration made on 17-5-1994 is found to be correct. The recovery of the modvat credit legitimately taken is wrong and therefore does not sustain. 9. emsp As regards the penalty I find that the original authority has invoked Rule 173(1)(b). I have held that the appellants had taken credit legitimately. Therefore the ground for imposition of penalty is also taken away. In the result the appeal succeeds. The order of confirmation of demand of duty amounting to Rs. 55,454.27 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- are set aside.
-
1996 (6) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
RG 1 - Entry for waste ... ... ... ... ..... rea on 2nd and 3rd floor and this fact has not been disputed and the department has not been able to show that the material at this stage had already reached the RG 1 stage, but admittedly certain quantity was already in the store room (waste godown). 16. emsp In the circumstances, the ld. DR is also correct in pointing out that if such waste material was subsequently required for recovery of caprolactum in that case the RG entries should have been made before such use. At the same time I note that the item was admittedly a wholly exempted item as accepted by both the sides. Therefore, the violation cannot be considered as serious one and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- also appears to be on the higher side. In the circumstances, I reduce the fine from Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only). I also consider that in the circumstances, the penalty was not called for as penalty need not be imposed in the case of merely technical or venial breaches.
-
1996 (6) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of conveyance and penalty on Transporter ... ... ... ... ..... Though Section 115 casts onus on the owner to prove his lack of knowledge, we find that the statement given by the driver and the appellant subsequently had the effect of shifting that onus. The Collector himself has admitted that it could not be established that the appellant had any concern with the contraband goods. Show cause notice has itself not proposed any penalty. All this taking together would clearly establish the bonafides under Section 115 of the Customs Act. Apart from this, fact that penalty has not been proposed against Shri Suresh Chand would itself indicate that department was satisfied that Shri Suresh Chand had no knowledge about the nature of goods. The order regarding penalty in addition cannot be sustained in the absence of any show cause notice. In view of this, we are of the view that neither confiscation of tempo nor imposition of penalty was justified in the circumstances. 5. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (6) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods - Cane unloader ... ... ... ... ..... is not available in these cases. Accordingly, we allow these appeals. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Even in the case relied upon by the learned DR, the Tribunal has held that it has not been brought out that items involved in the case like gauges and appliances, lifting tackles, trolleys, conveyors manufactured and captively consumed by the appellants therein, were used for processing of material in the sense as to bring about change therein and so long as that was not established, it could not be held that such inputs were hit by explanation of Notification No. 217/86 for being excluded from exemption. Since in the present case, the process of manufacture of sugar is an integral and continuous process commencing from unloading cane and ending with manufacture of sugar, ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court applies squarely. Following the ratio thereof, the impugned order is upheld and appeal rejected. Cross appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d as a mounting. The definition of the term mount as appearing in Chambers English Dictionary is also as under - ldquo that upon which a thing is placed or in which it is set for fixing, strengthening, embellishing, esp. the card surrounding a picture. rdquo 8. emsp Therefore, the arms are mounted on the frame of the spectacle and the ldquo frames rdquo and ldquo mountings rdquo are both not for spectacles, goggles or the like. ldquo Frames and mountings rdquo if they are of plastic would fall under 9003.11 and if they are of metal they fall under 9003.19. The Collector has rightly noted various parts of the spectacles like hinges, screws, nose, pads, tips, bridges, etc. As has been rightly noted by the Collector, the arms are mounted on the frames and therefore, they are mountings and being of metal they are rightly classified under 9003.19 as held by the Learned Collector. 9. emsp We do not find any infirmity in the order, hence we uphold the order by rejecting this appeal.
-
1996 (6) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Lime - Slaked lime ... ... ... ... ..... f invalidity and get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as must impeccable of orders. rdquo 8. emsp Apart from this, however, the case is squarely covered by the orders of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Priti Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. (Final Order No. 725/91-C, dated 1-9-1991) which in turn relied upon the case of Laxmi Chemicals v. C.C.E., Jaipur (Final Order No. 161/91-C, dated 25-1-1991). In the case of Laxmi Chemical lsquo s order, the question that arose for determination was classification of the products, quick lime rsquo and hydrated lime rsquo under Tariff Item 2502.00 of CET. The Tribunal held that adding water to quick lime is a mere physical process and it cannot be said to be manufacture. The nature, character and use has remained same in this case and, therefore, the Tribunal held that hydrated lime is not an excisable commodity. 9. emsp In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (6) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... decision of the High Court of Bombay in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 52. The assessee in that case was purchasing duty-paid aluminium foils, backed the same with plain or printed paper for the purpose of making it suitable and serviceable for packing biscuits and sweets applying gum on one side of the foil. The High Court held that the process conducted by the assessee did not amount to manufacture and the pre-processed and post-processed articles were not distinct and, therefore, the process was undertaken only to make the foil more attractive. 7. emsp Following the decision in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. and the view expressed by one of the members in Swastik Packaging we hold that by printing Aluminium Foil, a new and distinct commercially known product did not come into existence and there was no manufacture involved. 8. In the light of what we have indicated above, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is tenable and appeals dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... and 192/82 filed before him are concerned, it is observed that he has merely remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. 25. emsp Again, the question is that of ascertainment of facts. Neither the appellants have filed any material in support of their contention that their products had remained rough castings till clearance nor the Department has shown any material in support of its contention that they had ceased to be rough castings and had acquired the features of an identifiable part(s) of machinery. In other words, the material before us is not sufficient to arrive at a specific finding and the same was apparently the difficulty before the Collector (Appeals) and therefore, he was right in remanding the matter to the A.C. for further examination of factual position more elaborately and thereafter, to arrive at a decision and consider the claims keeping in view the time bar aspect hence, we see no reason to interfere with this order. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1996 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... s a conditional notification does not make any difference is evident from the fact as Notification No. 201/79 allows set-off rsquo for the purpose of payment of duty and not otherwise. 15. emsp I further think that reference to proforma credit or Modvat is not called for as the Notification No. 201/79 is a self contained notification which lays down its own conditions and prescribes its own procedure. 16. emsp Learned DR has however rightly relied on the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Vikrant Tyres as it allows allocation of inputs as between dutiable and exempted goods with specific reference to Notification No. 201/79. The case of J.K. Synthetics and J.K. Staples - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal) 1996 (12) RLT 440 cited by the ld. Counsel is not relevant since it pertains to a different situation as rightly mentioned by my ld. Colleague. 17. emsp In view of the above position, I agree with the conclusion of my ld. Colleague that the appeal is required to be rejected.
............
|
