|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 310 Records
-
1995 (7) TMI 228 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... nal higher credit at a later date, is within a reasonable period or not? It is not the question of law. 6. emsp As regards the ground of the Collector that it involves a question of interpretation of Rule 57B, I do not agree to this contention. Rule 57B merely empowers the Central Government to allow the notional higher credit provided it is so mentioned in any exemption notification. The said Rule does not prohibit at all the taking of notional higher credit. Therefore, the question of interpretation of Rule 57B does not arise in this case at all. The only question is the reasonableness of the time-limit within which the differential notional higher credit has been taken in this case. That controversy, I feel, gets settled in view of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s Judgment in the case of Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals supra. Therefore, there is no question of law, in my view, arising out of the Tribunal rsquo s Order. The Reference Application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1995 (7) TMI 227 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Acetic anhydride stored as raw material for manufacture of bulk drugs ... ... ... ... ..... no dispute from both the sides that all the 3 appellants are under the central excise control and were receiving acetic anhydride as raw material for the manufacture of bulk drugs and they are bonafide users of specified items. The notified item is not for export. No such allegation is made even in the impugned orders. In the circumstances, when there is a scope for possible construction as pleaded by the ld. advocate and the appellants are actual users of the notified item and are under excise control, no deliberate or want on disobedience of the law can be alleged. I, therefore, remit the penalty in all the 3 cases of the appellants. As regards the redemption fine imposed ranging from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 25,000/-, I reduce the redemption fine uniformily to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) in all the cases, taking the view that the offence is purely technical in nature and does not call for a deterrent fine. 5. emsp All the 3 appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (7) TMI 226 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ffidavit filed. In such a situation we are inclined to hold that the reasons mentioned for condonation of delay is neither proper nor sufficent and in the facts and cirumstances of the case, the application is dismissed and consequently the stay petition and the appeal is also dismissed. 5. emsp Assent per V.P. Gulati, Member (T) . - I observe that the affidavit filed by the learned Counsel is very guardedly worded as the learned Counsel says that his client had entrusted the entire file to him for examining the scope for filing an appeal. It is not as if the applicant had given instructions to his Counsel for filing the appeal. Therefore, the applicant should have pursued the matter further with the Counsel if he was interested in filing the appeal. I observe that in this case the appellant/applicant was not vigilant enough in filing the appeal in time. The law helps the diligent and not the negligent. In view of the above, the question of condoning the delay does not arise.
-
1995 (7) TMI 225 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... e in relation to evasion of excise duty by the supplier so as to attract penal consequences, and at any rate the proceedings being penal in nature the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. 4. emsp Heard Shri Murugandi, the learned DR. 5. emsp I have gone through the records and considered the submissions made before me. The charge is one of the commitment of offence in terms of Rule 209A of the Rules and in the entire records I do not find anything to connect either directly or remotely the appellant as one privy to the commission of any offence committed by the supplier in relation to evasion of excise duty. As rightly contended, the proceedings being penal in nature, in the absence of any evidence against the appellants, I am inclined to think that levy of penalty on the appellants is not called for. In this view by extending the appellants the benefit of doubt and in the facts and circumstances of the case I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (7) TMI 224 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty - Seizure of gold - ... ... ... ... ..... he place of proof in the absence of any evidence, I am left with no other alternative except to give the appellant the benefit of doubt. In this view of the matter I give him the benefit of doubt arising in the facts and circumstances of the case and set aside the penalty levied on him. I further find that while hearing the stay petition on 6-8-1992, the Bench observed as under ldquo We have gone through the records. Excepting the retracted statement of Mohd. Arif, we do not find any other evidence to connect the petitioner with the gold in question. Moreover, petitioner Mohd. Mahmood has given an exculpatory statement denying even acquaintenance of the said Arif or any connection with him in any manner at any time. We also do not find any material relating to investigation about the connection between the said Arif and petitioner Mohd. Mahmood or about the place where the gold is alleged to have been procured at Bombay rdquo . 6. emsp In the result the appeal stands allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 223 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ts received after filing the declaration and before obtaining the dated acknowledgement. In this interpretation of this rule, it is held that Modvat credit cannot be allowed in respect of inputs lying in stock as such or in the finished product as the date of filing the declaration rdquo . 4. emsp The Tribunal passed the order taking into consideration the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum before the Tribunal and which were reiterated in the arguments before the Tribunal when the impugned order was passed. The question decided by the Tribunal is whether in terms of Rule 57H the inputs lying in stock and also contained in the finished product are eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit. The question in the context of Notification No. 20 (N.T.), dated 5-5-1989 as now urged was neither argued nor considered by the Tribunal. Hence, question of law as urged does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal meriting reference. The reference application is therefore, dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Waste and scrap - Demand - Modvat credit - Time limit
... ... ... ... ..... of law. (iv) Since the goods have already been cleared, therefore, for determining the duty liability for the past six months from the dates of the show cause notices, the documentary evidence will have to be taken, in respect of each consignment cleared. The appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority, in terms of the majority findings. Sd/- Sd/- (P.K. Kapoor) S.L. Peeran) Member (T) Member (J) Dated 12-10-1994 29. emsp I am inclined to follow the same order as passed in Bajaj Auto Ltd rsquo s case and hence, case is to be remanded for that purpose. I agree with my Learned Brother that no penalty and fine is imposable in this case. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Dated 22-5-1995 FINAL ORDER In view of the majority decision the demand of duty is confirmed but the penalty and fine are set aside. The order of the Collector is modified to the above emsp 2. extent. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Lajja Ram) (S.L. Peeran) (S.K. Bhatnagar) Member (T) Member (J) Vice President Dated 31-7-1995
-
1995 (7) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to goods on the basis of country of origin - `Clearance’ and `Removal’ - Distinction between
-
1995 (7) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... to present themselves for personal hearing after being made known about the rejection of their prayer. In this case the Collector has also not given a detailed finding on the allegation of mis-declaration and suppression and he has also not given any reasons for imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rupees One Crore only). It is, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo consideration. We have also gone through the citations referred by them. We are satisfied that there is a failure of principles of natural justice in the present case and the ratio of the citations relied by the ld. Advocate apply to the facts of the present case. The appellant should file the reply to the show cause notice expeditiously. The ld. Collector should consider the prayer of the appellant for cross-examining the witnesses and after granting them full and fair opportunity should decide the case as per law.
-
1995 (7) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... circumstances of the present case and also taken into account the judgments rendered by the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has held that the clearances cannot be clubbed in the absence of financial flowback. As we have noticed that the Revenue has made specific allegation of financial flowback and has also relied on evidence on record, it is but proper that a reappreciation of evidence is undertaken to enable the appellants to disprove the allegation, based on available evidence alone. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned orders is required to be set aside in so far as the demand have been confirmed and we direct the Learned Collector to readjudicate the case de novo on the directions given by us. We direct that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellants should be retained till final adjudication of the case in order to safeguard the Revenue rsquo s interest, as we find prima facie evidence against the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, allowed by remand.
-
1995 (7) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Mutuality of interest ... ... ... ... ..... period. The Gujarat High Court has held in Apex Electornics Pvt. Ltd. 1992 (61) E.L.T. 413 that the extended period cannot be invoked by alleging suppression of fact which was not required by law to be disclosed. Applying the ratio of this decision to a case of clubbing, this Tribunal has held in Unique Resin Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda 1995 (75) E.L.T. 861 that failure to disclose details about the financing of the units would not attract the extended period, there being no provision under which the source of finance was required to be declared. That would be the position here too. There is no provision requiring the assessee to declare its share holders or the other factors on the basis of which the Collector has come to this finding of facts. The extended period therefore, would not be applicable. The demand for duty therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside and consequently the penalty imposed is also set aside and both the appeals are allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 212 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Customs House Agent Licence ... ... ... ... ..... he Tribunal, are those which could make the provisions fully effective but have simultaneously observed that such inherent powers are limited. Applying the said ratio here, when the Regulations themselves do not invest any discretion in the Collector to order forfeiture of any part of the security deposit, in exercise of his powers under Regulation 21(1) of the Regulations, exercise of any inherent powers de hors the provisions may not be contemplated. 16. emsp Even otherwise, considering the contravention as also the security deposit amount, as also the admitted position that in another proceedings their licence is suspended vide Regulation 21(1) for a specified period (and it is reported that the said order with minor modification as to the period of suspension is even sustained by the Tribunal), there does not appear any justifiable ground to exercise even the inherent powers, even if they are available, to reduce the amount. 17. emsp In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1995 (7) TMI 211 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Customs House Agent Licence ... ... ... ... ..... he Tribunal, are those which could make the provisions fully effective but have simultaneously observed that such inherent powers are limited. Applying the said ratio here, when the Regulations themselves do not invest any discretion in the Collector to order forfeiture of any part of the security deposit, in exercise of his powers under Regulation 21(1) of the Regulations, exercise of any inherent powers de hors the provisions may not be contemplated. 16. emsp Even otherwise, considering the contravention as also the security deposit amount, as also the admitted position that in another proceedings their licence is suspended vide Regulation 21(1) for a specified period (and it is reported that the said order with minor modification as to the period of suspension is even sustained by the Tribunal), there does not appear any justifiable ground to exercise even the inherent powers, even if they are available, to reduce the amount. 17. emsp In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1995 (7) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Money credit Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... Coimbatore in A. No. E/395/91/MAS, decided on 6-6-1995 on reference to the 3rd Member however has held that filing of a declaration after issue of Notification 45/89 would not come in the way of the appellant in that case for availing of the benefit of Notification inasmuch as they had filed a declaration earlier when Notification 27/87 was in vogue. The ruling in that case is contrary to the view taken by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court cited supra. In view of the ruling of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court we hold that the decision in the case of Sri Krishna Vanaspathi Products case cited supra is not good law. Following, with respect, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court we hold that the benefit of the money credit scheme in terms of Rule 57K read with Notification 45/89 cannot be allowed. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the Revenue. 5. emsp The cross objection is in the nature of comments and the same is therefore dismissed as misconceived in law.
-
1995 (7) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stock verification ... ... ... ... ..... cryptic observation as reproduced above (page 3). We take note of the fact that there is no specific allegation of any removal of any goods or any quantum of goods without payment of duty on any particular occasion to any particular person. The authority should have resorted to physical verification of the packing done in the boxes to ascertain about the veracity of the appellants claim. The authority should have also checked the production records maintained by the appellants internally before arriving at the conclusions. Not having done that the order of the learned lower authority cannot be considered as a proper order. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned lower authority and remand the matter for de novo consideration and decision in the light of our observations above after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is open to the appellants to make all legal pleas available as per law before the said authority for consideration.
-
1995 (7) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ssifiable under sub-heading 3706.00 CETA. 4. emsp As regards the product photographic mounts, these are manufactured out of grey boards of 30 x 25 and 30 x 40 (approx). White paper/cream paper is pasted on it on both sides and these boards are cleared after cutting, and embossing designes thereon and after printing on Toddler Machine. Clearly, the processes employed especially cutting to size, embossing, and printing take the product beyond the category of converted paper simpliciter and they become recognisable as photo mounts whose dictionary meaning is ldquo a thick/ stiff paper which provides a margin for a picture or photograph fixed on it rdquo . Even, according to the appellants in commercial parlance also these are known as photo mounts rsquo . The product hence has correctly been classified as an article of paper under sub-heading 4818.90 CETA, 1985. In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is rejected.
-
1995 (7) TMI 207 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... r the appellants rsquo claim will fall within the purview of proviso to amended Section 11B for the purpose of consideration of unjust enrichment. It is observed that the retail price was fixed statutorily and this price can be taken to have been fixed after taking into consideration the rate of duty of 10 applicable to the goods. The appllants, however, chose to pay a higher rate of duty on the assessable value arrived at based on the statutorily fixed retail price. The excess duty paid, therefore in view of the price fixed by the Government would have come out of the appellants profit element. The element of duty recovered from the consumer by the appellants in view of the price fixed could be only 10 . The excess duty paid in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to have been recovered from the consumer. In view of the above, I agree with the learned Brother that the appellants rsquo refund in any case does not fall within the purview of unjust enrichment.
-
1995 (7) TMI 206 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - OGL - Past practice ... ... ... ... ..... dvocate does not help them in this case, viewed in the context of the description given in Sr. No. 44 Appendix 2B. 3. emsp However, I allow the appeal on the other ground. Even the Collector admits that there is a practice of allowing such filter cloth under OGL. The adjudication is reported to have been done on the basis of a clarification obtained from CCI and E and the contents of the clarification were not made known to the public either in the form of a Trade Notice or circular. Even C.C.I. and E has not issued any public notice. The appellants, being Actual User, going by the past practice, have opened the Letter of credit much before the clarification was given by the J.C.C.I. and E. The CCI and E rsquo s clarification is dated 4-10-1989, whereas the L/C has been opened on 18-7-1989. In the circumstances on consideration of justice and equity, the consignment could have been allowed on a warning. In this view of the matter, I allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1995 (7) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Transitional provisions ... ... ... ... ..... g of the Rule. He therefore, submits that no question of law arises for reference to the High Court and pleads for rejection of the Reference application. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is nothing in Rule 57H to warrant allowing of credit only on inputs which are available for verification, as the Rule clearly provides that credit can be allowed on inputs used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared from the factory on or after 1-3-1987. We have also noted in the final order that the DR rsquo s objection to the extension of the benefit on the ground that the satisfaction of the condition in para (ii) thereof has not been established by the assessees, cannot be sustained as it is not a charge levelled against them at any stage prior to the appeal. Accordingly, we hold that no question of law arises for reference. The Reference application is hereby rejected.
-
1995 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Hearing - Proxy counsel ... ... ... ... ..... there has been a genuine bona fide error. 3. emsp The Ld. D.R. submits that in the circumstances explained, the appellants should not be made to suffer for the fault, however, inadvertent, of the Ld. Proxy Advocate and therefore does not oppose the prayer. 4. emsp Considered. It was expected that the Ld. Proxy Advocate would have conveyed the date fixed for hearing to the Ld. Advocate in time. Considering, however, that the appellants should not suffer because of the error committed in conveying the date of hearing, I agree to the restoration. The appeal is therefore restored. It be listed now on 14th July, 1995 as requested. No notice.
............
|
