|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 284 Records
-
1991 (8) TMI 197 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit - Withdrawal of - Recovery ... ... ... ... ..... f utilisation of the credit was otherwise than set out under Rule 57F. There is no specific provision under MODVAT Rules providing for recovery of MODVAT Credit whereby if in respect of any particular commodity credit allowed is utilised under Rule 57F and facility of MODVAT is withdrawn and the inputs received earlier to the date of withdrawal of the MODVAT facility are still lying unutilised. There is no one-to-one correlation also provided for in respect of the inputs used and the finished product manufactured out of the same for the purpose of utilisation of MODVAT Credit. It is not the case of the Revenue that input credit taken was not utilised for the specified finished product at the relevant time. In view of the above we hold that the credit has been correctly taken and utilised by the Respondents as held by the learned lower appellate authority and therefore, the Respondents cannot be called upon to reverse the same. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... onal Formulary of India - are notified for purpose of the Tariff Item. In view of this the department rsquo s stand that the 1966 or the 1979 edition would not be applicable to the relevant period is not sustainable and has to be rejected. On a consideration, therefore of the totality of the evidence on record and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of the discussions above, it has to be held that the Department has not shown by evidence that Cisplatin Injection is a patent or proprietary medicine manufactured by the appellants and since it is found subsequently included in the United States Pharmacopoeia XXII 1990, the product Cisplatin Injection will not be classifiable under 14E CET as P or P medicine but will be classifiable under Item 68 and since it is shown to be of a Pharmacopoeial Standard and used in the treatment of Cancer, it will also eligible for rsquo exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 195 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offence by Company ... ... ... ... ..... ecution will have to be sustained. The first petitioner is the company itself, while the fourth petitioner is not only the Chairman, but also the person in charge of the conduct of the business of the first petitioner at Bombay, where the manufacturing unit is situated. As far as the fifth petitioner is concerned, he is the person in charge of the day-to-day conduct of the business at Madras. Of course, it will be open for these petitioners to contend, before the trial Magistrate, that the offence alleged had not been established and further the proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act will attract their case. At this stage, I do not find any scope to interfere, as far as petitioners 1, 4 and 5 are concerned. 7. This petition is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No. 5367 of 1989, pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in so far as it concerns, petitioners 2 and 3, and by allowing it to be cntinued, in respect of the other petitioners.
-
1991 (8) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption not effected by wrong approval of classification list ... ... ... ... ..... ppeal memorandum) as follows - 1983-84 Rs. 5.72 lakhs 1984-85 Rs. 8.50 lakhs 1985-86 Rs. 10.52 lakhs Therefore, it has to be held that the appellants herein were availing of the exemption under Notification 77/85 during the preceding financial year 1985-86 and hence it was rightly given the exemption under Notification 175/86, for the financial year 1986-87. 4.1 Consequently, the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 cannot be denied to the appellants for the three classification lists, namely 1, 2 and 3/87 in question in this appeal. Hence we allow this appeal. 5. Before parting with this matter we observe that the citation relied upon by the learned Jt. C.D.R. 1990 (48) E.L.T. 40 (Tribunal) is not at all relevant. The controversy in that case related to the scope of the word lsquo or rsquo occurring in proviso (a) to para 4 of the Notification 175/86, it did not have any bearing on the scope of proviso (b) to para 4 of the notification as in this case.
-
1991 (8) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... racted by expeller method. 7. Regarding limitation, the learned Counsel raises this issue for the first time before us. According to him the demands raised in the two show cause notices No. 1186/84 dated 26-7-1984 for the period 1-1-1984 to 30-6-1984 and No. 992/85 dated 15-5-1985 No. 995/85 dated 16-5-1985 for the period 1-7-1984 to 31-3-1985 (which are the subject-matter of E/1889/88-C) are barred by limitation for part of the period of demand. We observe that as there are no findings on this aspect by the lower authorities, the matter has to be remanded for the purpose of a decision regarding limitation. We accordingly set aside the demands raised in these two show cause notices and confirmed by the lower authorities and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for fresh adjudication on the time-bar issue. The Assistant Collector shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessees before passing any order. 8. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (8) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-export of goods when permissible ... ... ... ... ..... owever, it has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case and merely because the import is considered as unauthorised, confiscation and imposition of fine is not an unavoidable exigency. The Collector himself was satisfied about the bona fide of the appellants as it was purely mistake on the part of the exporter in supplying the wrong goods which would clearly show that there was no intention on the part of the appellants in violating the provisions of the Customs Act and Import and Export (Control) Act. Therefore, considering the guidelines laid down in the decisions cited by the appellants rsquo counsel and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that it is not necessary to order confiscation and imposition of redemption fine. Accordingly, we set aside the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and the appellants are permitted to re-export the goods in question as prayed. 9. Thus, this appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 191 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... Section 23 specifically excluding loss as a result of pilferage. The judgment of the Honourable Delhi High Court in Sialkot Industrial Corporation v. Union of India upholds the applicability of Section 23 for pilferage cases also, which decision had been followed by the West Regional Bench in the cases reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 425 and 1984 (18) E.L.T. 358, and which had, apparently, not been taken note of by the South Regional Bench in the case reported in 1985 (28) E.L.T. 249. As the case is held by us to be covered by Section 23(1), the contention of Shri Biswas that the order for clearance had been granted by the Customs Authorities for the package in question loses its thrust. The timing of pilferage viz. that it should have been after landing but before order for clearance is given is relevant only for Section 13 and not for Section 23. In this view of the matter, the refund is admissible. I accordingly agree with the order of my learned brother and allow the appeal.
-
1991 (8) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... le trade to a person other than a lsquo related person rsquo . The said Rules were not before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court while making the observations relied upon by the Revenue. 15.3 In the instant case it is not disputed that a payment of Rs. 5100/- is being made by the appellants to their authorised representatives for the various services rendered by them. The net realisation, therefore, made by the appellants in respect of a vehicle sold in retail to a customer is the retail price minus Rs. 5100/-. There is no allegation, nor there is a finding that any flow back out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5100/- is being received by the appellants. This deduction of Rs. 5100/- for the services rendered by the authorised representatives cannot be considered unreasonable in view of the material brought on record by the appellants and referred to in para 10 of the learned sister rsquo s order in respect of comparable vehicles manufactured by other manufacturers in the country.
-
1991 (8) TMI 189 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... him has been countered with the stand that there was proper authority and that there is no prescribed form of such authority. The tourist had come to them for export of tourist material in the past and nothing irregular had taken place. In good faith, they handled this work. The tourist had signed the required declaration and he had accepted the same as correct and signed the Shipping Bill as his agent. This is the normal course of business they follow and he had no reason to suspect anything irregular. He had no clue about the false description in the Shipping Bill, as it turned out later on. We accept his plea, giving him the benefit of doubt and allow his appeal. The order is set aside as far as he is concerned. 14. For the same reason, we accept the pleadings on behalf of the appellants M/s. Jeena and Co. also, giving them the benefit of doubt. Their appeal is allowed and the order imposing penalty on them is set aside. They would be entitled to the consequential reliefs.
-
1991 (8) TMI 188 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR (APPEALS), PUNE
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ds which had been cleared from the factory should be received back and this condition has been satisfied since the appellant has given a D-3 intimation to the department and who had even verified the same with the gate passes. Due to long storage in the godown it is obvious that there would have been some deterioration of the goods and once rejected, the appellant has no choice but to conduct the various operations so as to make them marketable. The words used in this Rule are ldquo remade, refined, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar processes in the factory rdquo , the last phrase covers all types of such situations and should not be interpreted very narrowly. The kind of processes done by the appellant are covered by this phrase. Moreover, the appellant has maintained separate accounts and records to show that the goods had been segregated before carrying out the operations. In view of the above the appeal is admitted with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1991 (8) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ry to the customer companies via godown of the assessee at Bombay. We do not think that the movement of the goods in the aforesaid manner would in any way effect the contract price of the goods sold by the assessee to the customer companies. Section 4 of the Act does not concern itself with the movement of the goods nor does it place any restriction as to how the goods should move from the assessee/manufacturer to the customer. It would of course have to be shown by the assessee that the goods have been sold to the customer with whom the contract prices have been entered into in case the department questions the applicability of the said price list. This appears to have been amply done by the assessee in this case and is not in question here. On the same reasoning the other three judgments relied upon by the learned DR would also not be applicable. 6. In view of our discussion above, we allow the three appeals filed by the assessee and we dismiss the appeal of the department.
-
1991 (8) TMI 186 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS (
Exemption to SSI units - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... clearances of specified goods which are made in terms of Paras 1(a) and 1(b) of the said Notification are to be taken into consideration i.e. only those clearances which have been given the benefit of full exemption or concessional rate in terms of Paras 1(a) and 1(b) of Notification 175/86. Goods which are manufactured in a SSI Unit and affixed with brand name of another person who himself is not eligible to SSI exemption are chargeable to normal rate of duty vide Para 7 of the Notification as such goods are not entitled for SSI exemption. Such goods are, therefore, to be treated as goods cleared not in terms of Para 1(a) and 1(b) of the Notification. Hence, the value of such goods need not be taken into consideration for purpose of computing the aggregate value of first clearances of Rs. 15 Lakhs, 75 Lakhs as the case may be. In view of the above, the order of the Assistant Collector, C. Ex., Nasik-I Division, dated 15-1-1991 is hereby set aside and the appeal is admitted.
-
1991 (8) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Nylon yarn and polyamide filament yarn not nylon tyre yarn ... ... ... ... ..... e have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. We observe that in both the cases the Assistant Collector has accepted that the goods are nylon yarn but has denied the benefit of the Classification under Serial No. (8) of the Table annexed to Notification 38/78-Cus. on the reasoning that the same goods are imported for the manufacture of tyres and because both V-belts and tyres are made of the same material, classification as nylon tyre yarn would be appropriate. We have seen that the Tribunal has not accepted this reasoning because of the versatility of the yarn in its detailed order. Thus, respectfully following the decision cited before us, we allow both the appeals with consequential refund. 7. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned SDR that because an appeal has been filed against the decision of the Tribunal, it should not be followed. In the absence of any order of stay, there is no point in keeping these appeals pending.
-
1991 (8) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... umn (4) of the said Schedule. (2) The duties of excise referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of the goods specified therein shall be in addition to the duties of excise chargeable on such goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or any other law for the time being in force. (emphasis supplied) (3) The provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to levy and collection of the Additional duties as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of the duties on the goods specified in sub-section (1). 8. Thus, it will be seen that in sub-section (2) it has been specifically provided that the additional duty is in addition to the excise duty. This being so, there is no substance in the plea taken by the appellant which is also rejected. The appeal therefore, fails on both the counts and is rejected.
-
1991 (8) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ch the respondents had submitted to the Assistant Collector, in which it is specifically mentioned that this Castable Refractory is a blended mixture of carefully sized/fused silica aggregate with a high purity binder. The literature also indicates that these goods are shipped in 100 lbs. sacks, which would indicate that they were imported in powder/granule form. 4. We have carefully considered the appeal, the written submissions of the respondents and the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative at the hearing. We observe that the learned Departmental Representative rsquo s claim is duly supported by the description of the goods in the invoice and in the supplier rsquo s literature, a photocopy of which was also submitted at the hearing. Since the imported goods were not refractory bricks, their classification under Heading No. 69.01/02 ordered by Collector (Appeals) was clearly in error. We, therefore, set aside the order and allow the Department rsquo s appeal.
-
1991 (8) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... observed as follows - ldquo The Act charges duty on manufacture of goods. The word rdquo manufacture implies a change but every change in the raw material is not manufacture. There must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. The duty is levied on goods. As the Act does not define goods, the legislature must be taken to have used that word in its ordinary dictionary meaning. The dictionary meaning is that to become goods it must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold and is known to the market. That it would be such an article which would attract the Act was brought out in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. 1963 Supp. (1) S.C.R 586 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199). 3. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the product manufactured by the appellants, namely, crimping tools fall under Item 51A(i), CET. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation cost of wooden cases when excludible ... ... ... ... ..... r observation that since the department has not brought any material on record that it has gone in appeal against the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 129/91-A, dated 19-2-1991. Weldkrafl (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore , it should be assumed that department has accepted the finding reached by the Tribunal in the said decision and therefore, that finding is also applicable in this case. Firstly, the learned SDR is not in a position to say whether an appeal has been filed against a particular order of the Tribunal or not. Secondly, the finding that the cost of a particular packing is not includible in the case of an assessee, should also be made applicable in the case of another assessee manufacturing the same commodity, cannot be accepted as a matter of principle in the absence of any clear provisions of law in that respect. It will depend upon the trade practice of each manufacturer which in turn may be further dependent on the quality of the goods, on the extent of his reputation etc.
-
1991 (8) TMI 180 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... epartment and they have woken up to the issue only in 1990, by issuing a show cause notice on 8-3-1990. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the allegation of suppression of any material factor is not discernible. All the particulars required for determining the eligibility for exemption have been furnished in the classification list as per the position prevalent at that time. If the department is having a refund claim, before them, it was open to them to allow the exemption provisionally subject to the observance of Rule 9B, till the refund claim is decided. It was also open to them to go into the question of eligibility of exemption at least at the time, when the refund was sanctioned. Hence we are of the view that the appeal has to be allowed on the ground of time-bar. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Additional Collector. 8. Since the appeal itself is decided, the stay application does not survive for consideration. The same is also treated as disposed of.
-
1991 (8) TMI 179 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... r 214/86. But we do not find how this plea helps the respondents rsquo case. The plea of the Revenue is that MODVAT credit taken on tissue paper is not available by virtue of its having been converted into wax paper, we hold that this plea of the Revenue has force and we, therefore, hold that the appeal of the Revenue has to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. E/501/90/MAS. 6. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Indo Swing Ltd. against the order of the learned Collector (Appeals) dated 27-6-1990 upholding the learned original authority rsquo s order that tissue paper was not an input of the final product (razor blades) and the availment of credit on tissue paper was illegal. 7. Since we have already allowed the Department rsquo s Appeal No. E/188/90 above accepting the plea of the Department that MODVAT credit taken on tissue paper was not available by virtue of its having been converted into wax paper, the present appeal by M/s. Indo Swing Ltd. is dismissed for the same reasons.
-
1991 (8) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Warehoused goods - Dutiability of warehoused goods ... ... ... ... ..... note that deposit of the goods in the warehouse is done without payment of duty and not without assessment of duty. Distinction between assessment and payment or collection of duty is by now very well settled. Assessment is a stage prior to payment or collection. Therefore, in view of this discussion, we do not agree with the appellants on the first issue. 3.1 As regards the second issue regarding the reduction in price, we agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority for reducing the price and the reduction in the instant case could not be treated either as a trade discount or as a quantity discount. The reliance placed by the department on accepting the quotations of the indenter/sole selling agent of the supplier for the purpose of arriving at the finding of undervaluation is correct in law and on fact. The reliance placed by the learned DR on 1990 (48) E.L.T. 421 Wax and Wax Products is quite apt. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned order.
............
|
