|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 547 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) within a period of 12 weeks from today, the pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty amount will be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The appellants are also directed not to dispose of the immovable assets, machinery, plants, etc., till the disposal of the appeal without the prior permission of the Tribunal. 7. emsp Thus, the appellants are directed to pre-deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) within a period of 12 weeks from today and also not to dispose of the immovable assets of the firm as directed above and to file an undertaking to that effect before the Commissioner within a period of 12 weeks from today. In case, the above sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- is not pre-deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today and the undertaking is not given then the appeal will be dismissed without further reference to the appellants. 8. emsp To come up for reporting the compliance and further orders on 4-10-2001.
-
2001 (6) TMI 546 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e as per the approved Classification List. The Id. DR has, in this connection, referred to Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 which provides that any notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act demanding duty shall be deemed to be and to always have been, for all purposes validly and effectively issued under that Section, notwithstanding any approval of the Classification List. In view of the provisions of Section 110 which has been given retrospective effect from 17th day of November, 1980, the demand for Central Excise duty can be raised for the past period irrespective of the fact that the Classification List was approved and the excisable goods were removed in accordance with such approval. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the matter on merits, we set aside the order and allow the appeal by way of remand with the direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh, after following the principles of natural justice, on merit.
-
2001 (6) TMI 545 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Order, effect of, in absence of Review - Exemption - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... Appeals) has rightly held that Assistant Commissioner would make refund provisionally and make adjustment of dues. The ld. Senior Counsel, appearing for the Revenue, has mentioned that, by moving miscellaneous Application, they have brought on record two Review Orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act reviewing both the Orders dt. 17-1-2000 and 10-2-2000 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and applications have been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside both the Orders. These subsequent actions will not make the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) wrong as both the Orders dt. 17-1-2000 and 10-2-2000 have not been set aside so far. Accordingly on this count we are of the view that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are to be upheld and Appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected without going into any other aspect. The Misc. Application also stands disposed of as main appeals have been rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 544 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... d both sides and considered the matter and find (a) The Assistant Collector, as it appears from his Order, after inspecting the invoices issued from the Palkaad factory as well as the Depot accepted that the prices are uniform and therefore found nothing wrong in allowing this Kerala State Government undertaking, the discount as it has been uniformly allowed to all their customers. (b) In Lucas India Service Ltd. 1996 (83) E.L.T. 441 the Tribunal found that lsquo price charged at factory gate from the main dealer namely price less 35 to be taken as assessable value for all goods removed i.e. even for the goods sold at 25 discount to small dealers for depots. Therefore, following this decision of the Tribunal we would find no merits in the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, to deny the benefit of 22 discounts on removals to the Depots. 3. emsp In view of our findings, the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and order of Assistant Collector restored. Appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM - Calamus Roots ... ... ... ... ..... der in toto, this appeal is filed. 3. emsp Shri Balani placed on record ETC Public Notice No. 52(PN)/92-97, dated 1-8-1994 whereby the earlier Public Notice dated 30-3-1994 was amended restricting the prohibition to plants, etc., lsquo obtained from the wild rsquo . The subject consignment was entered for export after the amendment was made. A certificate was given to the effect that the goods were cultivated and not wild. In the face of the amendment and the certificate, the belief of the Asstt. Commissioner that they were not distinguished was ill founded. The same error having been adopted by the Commissioner, the orders do not survive. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
2001 (6) TMI 541 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat on inputs - Lubricant oil/Mobile oil ... ... ... ... ..... msp I have carefully considered the submission. I notice that this matter was referred to Larger Bench of the Tribunal presided over by Hon rsquo ble President. The Larger Bench in the case of C.C.E. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. as reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 197 after due consideration of all the points including the point raised have held that Modvat credit on lubricating oils and grease used for the purpose of lubricating the machines and machineries used for manufacture of final products is essential for their working and integrally connected with manufacture. It is stated that the friction and resultant heat are also sure to cause damage to the machinery and therefore, Modvat credit is required to be extended. The aspect even pertaining to the notification have been dealt with and held that the judgment given in Pragati Paper Mills applies and is a correct order. 4. emsp In view of this Larger Bench judgment, I do not find any merit in this appeal, hence the appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 538 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Manufacture - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... the learned Advocate as regards the marketability and Drugs Law of the lsquo Blister pack Zifol-12 rsquo . (d) As regards the finding arrived at by the learned Adjudicator that Blister Packs were not being sent back to M/s. SP, the Advocate has relied upon the proceedings held against M/s. SP where the department has come to a conclusion that the same were received back in the premises of M/s. SP and further carton packed there. This essential finding has to be redetermined and conflict resolved. (e) Since vital facts have to be redetermined, along with eligibility of benefit of exemption Notification 214/86, to fix duty liability and the same has not been arrived at, we would consider a remand order in this case to be appropriate. Since we are remanding the matter for de novo adjudication, we refrain from arriving at any findings on the other issues and keep them open for both sides. 7 emsp In view of our findings, the appeals are allowed as remand for de novo adjudication.
-
2001 (6) TMI 537 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Sale in Transit ... ... ... ... ..... of B.R. Chemicals. In this case I find that neither the invoice bears their own name nor it is endorsed in their favour. The appellant themselves have admitted that invoice No. 000022, dated 27-4-1994 is not in their own name. Furthermore, it has not been placed on record even in the appeal file. Accordingly, I am inclined to disallow the credit of Rs. 21,513/- in respect of invoice No. 000022, dated 27-4-1994. rdquo 2. emsp The representative of the appellant pleads that the trader who sold the goods did not know the provisions of law that is why the mistakes have crept in the preparation of the invoice. This excuse according to me cannot be made. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Moreover amount involved is Rs. 21,513/-. In exercise of powers conferred on me under second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, I exercise my discretion in not admitting the goods, it may also be noted that this cannot be a case of repetitive in nature. Hence I dismiss the appeal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 532 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... the ground that these were not covered by the definition of capital goods contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q. 3. emsp In the decision in CCE v. Hukumchand Jute Industries Ltd. - 2000 (41) RLT 322 (T) the Tribunal has held chlorine cylinders to be capital goods under Rule 57Q, relying upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal which held that cylinders for chlorine liquefied gas and oxygen to be capital goods. 4. emsp Following the ratio of this decision we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief according to law.
-
2001 (6) TMI 529 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Valuation - SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... be continued to be added even after it has been utilised to its full capacity rsquo and following this binding precedent, we find no merits, in the appellant rsquo s plea for the non-inclusion of costs of old moulds/patterns being added to the assessable value. (b) We find that the appellant has submitted that he was availing SSI exemption, and even if the amount of patterns was included, the value will not exceed thirty lakhs in the exemption threshold. We find that there is no finding on this aspect of the case by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded for de novo consideration. 4. emsp In view of our findings, we set aside the order and remand the matter back to the original authorities to consider the eligibility under the thirty lakhs limit for SSI, if available, after adding the proportionate value as per the LB decision in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. (supra), after granting a hearing to the appellants. 5. emsp Appeal allowed on remand.
-
2001 (6) TMI 527 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Res judicata ... ... ... ... ..... again. 5. emsp As rightly submitted by ld. Advocate for the appellants the present SCN proceedings are hit by the rule of res judicata inasmuch as the question whether the refund claims could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment was conclusively settled between the parties by this Tribunal as per Final Order dated 21-12-1995. The SCN (which has ultimately led to the present appeal) was issued after the Final Order dated 21-12-1995 of the Tribunal (holding that the refund claims could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment) attained finality in terms of Section 35C(4) of the Act. The SCN did not raise any ground other than unjust enrichment either. Therefore, the SCN proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment is illegal and the same is set aside. Consequentially, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) are also set aside. The present appeal is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.
-
2001 (6) TMI 496 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of goods and conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... ts were also not found to be fake or ingenuin. The Revenue rsquo s entire case is based upon the statements of the two persons riding scooter at the time of interception. However, it is also on record that the said two persons retracted their statements subsequently when produced before C.J.M. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly concluded that in the absence of any other corroborative material on record to substantiate the statements, the same carry little evidentiary value. On the contrary, the appellants having produced the documents in respect of legal acquisition, the benefit of doubt has been rightly extended by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the appellants. I also note that the allegations of the Revenue that the foreign markings have been erased from the said silver are not supported by any technical opinion. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the views taken by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Revenue rsquo s appeals are accordingly rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 495 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Open General Licence - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... in the case of Vinod Gupta v. Collector of Customs 1988 (37) E.L.T. 44 (Cal.) I am, therefore, of the view that even if there be any doubt which the Customs Department and the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports allegedly entertain on the question whether the rapeseeds can be imported under REP Licences in view of the provisions contained in the Import Policy, such doubt has to be resolved in favour of the petitioner and the Customs authorities, therefore, cannot withhold the release of the consignments already imported. In other words if the interpretation of a fiscal enactment is open to doubt, the construction most beneficial to the subject should be adopted. As far as the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd. 1999 (107) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal) have also held in the same way. I am, therefore, of the view that impugned order was wrongly decided and it is set aside and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any according to law.
-
2001 (6) TMI 494 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Import - Misdeclaration - Valuation - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... nd Damage Sheet to be US 400 per MT. We are therefore not able to determine the value and for that purpose the matter requires to be remanded back. (d) We also find that even though the Additional Commissioner has considered the costs of detention and demurrage, no margin of profit was determined. To impose a Redemption fine, margin of profit is necessary to be determined under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order is therefore bad in law and is required to be remanded back. (e) Since the order is being remanded back, we give no finding as regards liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) and leave the other issues open to both sides. 5. emsp In view of our findings, we set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Original Authority to redetermine the value of Prime Standard Sheets, Off-cuts and damaged goods separately and thereafter decide the other issues of liability to confiscation, penalty etc. 6. emsp Appeal allowed as Remand in the above terms.
-
2001 (6) TMI 490 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Life saving drugs and medicines in Notification No. 208/81-Cus. was only a broad heading ... ... ... ... ..... ia exempts goods specified in table annexed to it falling within Chapter 29 or 30 of the tariff from duty provided that the goods are imported for manufacture of life saving drugs and medicines falling in Notification 208/81. This contention also has to be accepted. That insulin is a hormone, specified in the pharmacopoeia is not disputed hence classifiable in Heading 29.37 of the tariff, the heading for hormones, natural or reproduced by synthesis derivatives thereof, used primarily as hormones other steroids used primarily as hormones. The goods that were manufactured out of the imported insulin and exported to Sri Lanka is a mono component insulin injectable. Mono component insulin figures in Entry 84 of Part A of the schedule to Notification 208/81. The benefit of Notification 49/79 would therefore, be available to the imported goods. 12. emsp In the result therefore, the goods would not be liable to duty. 13. emsp The appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (6) TMI 489 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Accessories or parts ... ... ... ... ..... in Tariff refers both to lsquo parts rsquo as well as to lsquo accessories rsquo . In a circumstance like this when lsquo accessories rsquo have been excluded in the notification, then the plea of the DR that Notification has to be strictly construed is to be appreciated and accepted. Be that as it may, the Consultant rsquo s plea that they can establish that the item imported is essential for running the machine should also be considered and for that reason, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand the matters to the original authority for de novo consideration. The assessee shall be given full opportunity to produce evidence as well as case law to support their plea. The original authority shall examine the case with open mind and give a detailed speaking order in the light of the evidence and also in terms of the description of goods in the notification. Thus both the Revenue appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority for de novo consideration.
-
2001 (6) TMI 488 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Smuggling - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... not appeal to the reasons rather it can be safely infer that they very well knew the contents of the consignments which contained contraband goods (bearings of foreign origin). Since they failed to produce any document evidencing the legal import/acquisition of those goods by them, the goods had been rightly ordered to be confiscated absolutely by the Commissioner. 12. emsp Having been found in possession of the imported goods without lawful/legal documents, the appellants had been rightly penalised under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The amount of penalty imposed on them also cannot be said to be in any manner exorbitant keeping in view their conduct and the nature of the contraband recovered from their possession. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner in the light of the discussion made above and the same is upheld. 13. emsp Consequently, both the appeals filed by the appellants are ordered to be dismissed being without merit.
-
2001 (6) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of Goods ... ... ... ... ..... erification found that the photo copies of invoice issued by the dealers and the copies produced by the appellants are different and invoices were not signed by the alleged dealer. 7. emsp In this case the goods were confiscated and the appellants claimed the goods. The Commissioner rejected the claim and gave the option to the lawful owner of the goods to redeem the goods. The Commissioner in the impugned order in Para-20.3 and sub-paras of Para-20.3 discussed the discrepencies in the invoices produced by the appellants and the photo copies of the invoices which were recovered at the time of the search of premises of transport companies and held that both the invoices do not tally with each other. In the present appeal appellants had not produced any evidence in support of their claim and to controvert the finding of the facts given by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 464 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Copper concentrate - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ench of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yushin Ltd. - 2000(119) E.L.T. (Tribunal-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 501 becomes very relevant. In Para 13 of that order it has been held that with particular reference to the Modvat scheme it has to be shown that the revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of assessee rsquo s goods, so as to sustain the argument that the demand is time-barred. In the present case, if duty had been paid credit would have been available to the assessee himself at the units at Khetri and Ghatsila. For the above reasons we hold that the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 29-11-1996 is barred by limitation. In view of our findings on merits and limitation, we do not deem it necessary to record any finding on the plea of admissibility of benefit of Notification 217/86. 10. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals
-
2001 (6) TMI 462 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nt Collector. If the classification approval even for subsequent period is not agitated, the question of any refund claim for the past period does not arise. Though the appellants have referred to the case law on the point that for the past six months period they can always claim the refund, such plea would become admissible only if the classification list is either approved subsequently creating the basis for the refund for the past period, or the matter is under further agitation and the classification claimed by the assessee is later on upheld in appeal. This is not the case here and, therefore, the very basis of the refund claims is not there. rdquo After going through the facts on record we consider that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the ld. Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). Relevant aspect of the case are covered by the authentitative pronouncement as above. We do not find any merit in both these appeals and the same are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
............
|
