Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 258 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fore, the appeals were allowed with the direction that countervailing duty be re-assessed under Item 31(2) CET and consequential refund be given to the appellants. This ratio was followed in the appellant rsquo s own case in Order No. C/2/95-B2, dated 6-12-1994. In the light of the order, the Tribunal has also ordered for classification for the purpose of assessment under Heading 85.04 for CVD under 31(2) and the directions were given to the Revenue authorities to give consequential relief and thus the appeal had been partly allowed. 5. emsp We take note of the above orders and taking into consideration of the same and applying the ratio thereof, we hold that the assessment for classification under the Customs Act is required to be confirmed under Heading 85.04 and for CVD purpose under Heading 31(2) of Central Excise Tariff Act and that the appellants are entitled for consequential relief to the extent ordered in earlier cases. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (8) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ugh such production was not required. In the absence of such a requirement he submits that the duty demand has been wrongly confirmed and therefore prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the same. Shri Mewa Singh, Learned SDR states that the end-use certificate is required but he submits that no notice was issued calling upon the importers to produce such a certificate and further that there is no such requirement regarding production of such notice in the concerned exemption notification. 2. emsp On hearing both sides and having regard to the fact that admittedly the production of the end-use certificate is not a necessary condition in the Notification 42/90 and having further regard to the absence of notice by the Department calling upon the importers to produce any documents as may be required, we accept the contention of the Ld. Consultant for grant of their prayer and accordingly we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty amount and stay its recovery pending appeal.
-
1995 (8) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
P & P Medicine ... ... ... ... ..... xemption provided under Notification No. 161/66 could not be denied. 7. emsp Respondents have also objected to the officer authorising filing of the appeal, while the same officer as Collector(Appeals) allowed their appeal. 8. emsp We have heard Ld. D.R. and perused the records of the case. Notification No. 161/66, dated 8-10-1966 exempts medicines from so much of duty of excise as is in the excess of duty calculated on the basis of among others the value arrived at after allowing a discount of 25 on the prices specified in the Price List showing the retail prices referred to in Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979. There is no dispute about the retail price. It is not alleged that prices were not specified. Nor is there allegation that goods were not sold at the prices declared. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of Collector (Appeals). We, therefore, dismiss the Revenue Appeal and uphold the impugned order. Cross objections are disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 161 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Grease-proof paper ... ... ... ... ..... ium sheets are parts of equipments and since equipments are excluded, parts of the same should also be taken to be excluded. No legal basis has been urged for this plea and there is no warrant to read the parts into the description of excluded category of goods under Rule 57A. No rule has been cited by the Revenue in support of this plea. It is observed that Aluminium sheets are an essential requirement in the electrolysis process and these have to be replaced from time to time after they lose their utility and the waste is sold as scrap. Use of Aluminium sheets is directly in the manufacturing process and since these cannot be treated as equipment by itself, use of the same has to be taken to be in relation to the manufacture of the specified final product under Rule 57A as in the case of Titanium Metal Anodes in respect of which Modvat credit has been held to be admissible. rdquo 7. emsp In view of the above, we hold that the grease proof paper is eligible to Modvat credit.
-
1995 (8) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... of the very goods for which Modvat Credit has been taken, it does not follow that any documents evidencing payment of duty could be accepted as valid documents for the purpose of taking Modvat Credit. The Department would be put in a difficult position as they may have to go to great lengths to verify in each case to verify that the duty in fact has been paid. When the prescribed documents alone are relied upon by them for the purpose of taking Modvat Credit, the Department can be taken to have devised the procedure for verification and against any mis-use of such documents and therefore any relaxation given at any time can be taken to be only prospective. In view of the above, therefore, we hold that the Modvat Credit in respect of the subsidiary gate passes which have been further endorsed was not admissible and to that extent the learned lower authority rsquo s order is therefore not maintainable. We therefore partially allow the plea of the Department in the above terms.
-
1995 (8) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... han Lal on the Misc. application for early hearing, we find that no justifiable ground has been made out for such as early hearing as there could be no recurring effect having revenue implications since the goods currently are exempted. The application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1995 (8) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Glass ... ... ... ... ..... table must form part of the manufacture. 2. emsp He also relied on Tribunal rsquo s order Jayshree Industries v. C.C.E. - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 492 (Tribunal) held that dry battery cells fitted to clocks were essential components to make the product marketable. 3. emsp The Ld. D.R. submits that these things are put on the picture tube and could be attached and therefore MODVAT credit was not admissible. Considered. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the particular model is always sold with the toughened glass fitted on the T.V. in case of particular model and was specially designed by their R. and D. to produce a clear picture. 4. emsp Considering the nature of toughened glass in relation to the particular model and the case law relating to marketability of the product, I am satisfied, at this stage, the appellants have succeeded in making out a prima facie case in their favour. I, therefore, waive pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 28,306/- and stay the recovery till pendency of the appeal.
-
1995 (8) TMI 157 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... facts being available, as in the case of an adjudication order. 7. emsp Now coming back to the present appeals, we find the precise reason for resorting to provisional assessment has not been given excepting that they are prima facie not eligible for Notification 1/93 but eligible for some other Notification, which number is not given. It is also not specified whether the question regarding their eligibility under Notification 1/93 is under enquiry by the proper officer. It is not spelt out whether any information is wanting from the appellants in this regard. On this ground, we agree that the order of provisional assessment per se is defective. Hence, we interfere with the order of the Assistant Collector by directing him to give the precise reasons for resorting to provisional assessment, apart from carrying out the direction of the Collector (Appeals) for expeditious finalisation of provisional assessments. 8. All the above nine appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (8) TMI 156 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credity ... ... ... ... ..... s arguments and pointed out that there was no irregularity committed by the assessees when credit of input had been expunged. There was no dispute on facts and therefore, the grounds were not sustainable. He also pointed out that on 2-5-1987 when the assessees had crossed the exemption limit, there was no credit lying and hence they had paid the duty. He also pointed out that the present grounds made out in the appeal memo were not the grounds in the show cause notice. 17. I have considered these pleas and agree with the Learned Consultant. 18. emsp I also agree with the findings given by the Learned Member (J). In that view of the matter, I order for dismissal of the appeal. The appeal papers will be placed before the original Bench for passing the final order. Dated 31-7-1995 Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) FINAL ORDER In the light of the majority view, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Sd/- (V.P. Gulati) Member (T) 4-8-95 Sd/- (S. Kalyanam) Vice President 3-8-95
-
1995 (8) TMI 155 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... e smuggled ones and in this view of the matter, we confirm the confiscation of the same. 8. emsp However, it is seen that under the relevant Policy these ball bearings are allowed to be imported under REP licence and they are not subject to Actual Users condition as provided in Para 226 of the abovesaid Policy. In that view of the matter, we are of opinion that the absolute confiscation is not warranted in this case. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appellant to redeem the goods in question on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 60,000.00 (Rupees sixty thousand) only. He shall exercise this option of redemption within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Since the appellant was found to be a person concerned in the conveyance of the smuggled goods, he is also liable to be penalised under Section 112(b) of the Act and hence the penalty of Rs. 200/- imposed on him is confirmed. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above order.
-
1995 (8) TMI 154 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Remand - Non-application of mind by adjudicating authority ... ... ... ... ..... r that they had produced a machine and removed it without payment of duty. These facts should have been discussed on the evidence available on record and corresponding investigations made by the Department and not on mere presumption or assumption. The non-explanation of the appellants may be one of the factors but here as already pointed out, several pleas of the appellants were not taken note of by the adjudicating authority. In such circumstances, this is a fit case which requires to be remanded to the learned adjudicating authority to readjudicate the case by taking into consideration the several factors as mentioned in this order and he should pass a speaking order in this behalf after observing the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I with a direction to readjudicate the case in the light of the observations given in this order and by observing the principles of natural justice.
-
1995 (8) TMI 153 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Cotton yarn - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... in the process of obtaining hank yarn. If the answer is that the other forms of yarn are inevitable, they are to be ignored for giving effect to the notification exempting hank yarn. However, let me caution that this test cannot be applied, where at the intermediate stage of manufacture of a final product, it brings out production of certain intermediate goods which are distinct and different from the final product, their dutiability has to be discharged, notwithstanding the exemption of the final product. In this case, both yarn in other forms namely bobbins and cones as well as in hanks is only yarn. Hence, yarn in hank form cannot be obtained straightaway technologically without passing the stage of winding on bobbins or cones. There is a need for harmonious construction of Rules 9 and 49 and the exemption notification. Hence, the Tribunal rsquo s decision directly applicable in these circumstances, would hold good. Hence I concur with my ld. brother and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (8) TMI 152 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Set off - Paper and paper Board ... ... ... ... ..... ent of law, the rule provides transfer specifically for those cases in which accounts are maintained in RG-23 only, then a liberal interpretation does not arise at all. It was open to the assessee to have sought for refund and if such a claim is still pending, it could be considered by the lower authorities. Ld. Member (T) has also analysed the pros and cons and given a detailed reasoning for rejecting the assessee rsquo s plea, which I fully endorse and agree. Ld. DR also wondered as to how such high amounts could have been left unutilised for such a long period and for such a lapse, the department cannot be blamed. I agree with this plea. In the result, the appeals are required to be allowed. This appeal papers are to be placed before the original Bench for passing the final order. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Dated 28-7-1995 Member (J) FINAL ORDER In the light of the majority view, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Kalyanam) (V.P. Gulati) Dated 3-8-1995 Vice President Member (T)
-
1995 (8) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal disposed of by an ex parte order - Natural justice whether violated ... ... ... ... ..... impugned order that there is no request for adjournment on the record does not appear to be factually correct. It may be that the said request might not have been brought to the notice of the Collector (Appeals) while passing the impugned order after about 4 days that is to say on 29-4-1991. It may also be noted here that from the impugned order it does appear that at what point of time the case was taken over by the Collector (Appeals) on 24-4-1991. In view of this we find that the Collector (Appeals) proceeded in haste to decide the appeal on merits ex parte violating the principles of natural justice. 4. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and remand the case to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) now designated as Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh for passing a fresh order after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. 5. Consequently, both the appeals stand allowed by remand.
-
1995 (8) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... open to the Assistant Collector to reopen the issue after they were first allowed the transfer of credit. They had complied with the direction to debit the amount of credit taken by them in their RG 23A Part II account on transfer of the said amount from RG 23 Part II account. When the appellants had filed their first appeal to Collector (Appeals) in this regard that authority had, vide his order-in-appeal, dated 30-7-1987, remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo decision after issue of show cause notice and granting personal hearing. Recovery of credit wrongly availed was provided for under Rule 57-I. After amendment, the said Rule specifically covered credit taken on account of an error, omission or misconstruction on the part of an officer. The proceedings initiated in the light of the Collector (Appeal) rsquo s remand order are legally in order though, on the correctness of the decision, the matter has been remanded to the Assistant Commissioner by us.
-
1995 (8) TMI 149 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit and SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... 175/86. Under Rule 57F the inputs on which the MODVAT credit has been taken on clearance for home consumption when the unit would not be functioning under the MODVAT scheme the same could be allowed clearance on payment of duty. This we have held in a number of cases. In the case of M/s. Pinakini Beverages Ltd.in Appeal No. E/624/91 we have held so taking note of our earlier decision in the case of Collector v. Becon Weir Ltd. reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 657 and the ruling of the Larger Bench in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 835. A copy of this order is enclosed for ready reference. In the case of M/s. Beama Manufactures (P) Ltd. in Appeal No. E/445/91 the Larger Bench following the earlier decisions cited supra has taken the same view, a copy of which is also appended for ready reference. Following our earlier decisions, we hold that no case for reversal of MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock as such has been made out.
-
1995 (8) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Scope of - Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... e purposes of duty. The expression for the purposes of duty rsquo occurring in Section 4, the court held, has a wide import. The recent Supreme Court decision in MRF case (supra) is more on deduction in assessable value of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) whereas here it is on the working out the assessable value to give effect to exemption Notification 108/74. It is, therefore, found, on a consideration of the scope of Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act as it existed at the relevant time, and the judicial interpretation thereof, as well as Government of India rsquo s own understanding of the provisions of that Section with reference to the very same Notification No. 108/74, that the method adopted by the Appellate Collector in his earlier order dated 25-10-1976 is in order and needs no modification. Even otherwise, the present impugned order of Collector (Appeals), we have found is not sustainable on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 147 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Waste - Lead sub-oxide ... ... ... ... ..... m a particular supplier and this battery waste has been found on chemical test having over 72 of lead oxide. There is no plea from the appellants that the battery waste which had been received had different chemical composition and different product mix chemically or otherwise and therefore different consideration will apply to different lots. The battery waste as it is seen results from the used up batteries which have suffered chemical processes and the metal used has undergone chemical change. In the above view of the matter we find no force in the plea of the appellants. We therefore hold that the demand made against the appellants is maintainable in law. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the appellants are a small scale manufacturer, we hold that the ends of justice will be served if the penalty imposed is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh). But for the above modification the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 146 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Adjournment of hearing - Effect of earlier adjournments ... ... ... ... ..... ded and the same was sent to the learned Consultant on 31-7-1990. From the narration of the facts of the learned lower authority, it cannot be said that after that date the Consultant has sought for adjournments with a view to delay the process of adjudication. After his return from Haj on 5-9-1990 he had sought for the cross-examination of said Sh. Thankachan and the next date of hearing had to be postponed on account of the inability of Sh. Thankachan to be present on that dated 31-10-1990 was his effective date of hearing for the cross-examination of Sh. Thankachan and the learned Consultant had sought for adjournment from this date only for the reason of illness. 7. emsp In view of the above, we hold that one more adjournment could have been given to the learned Consultant before deciding the matter. 8. emsp In view of the above, I hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order had to be set aside by remand, as held by my learned Brother in his order recorded by him.
-
1995 (8) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... s case also admittedly there has been no manufacture resulting in a product with a known chemical formula. The assessee has clearly mis-declared the particulars to obtain licence in the form of L. 6. Therefore, the finding given by the Collector is not challengeable. There is no reason to differ from the same. The appellant rsquo s representative has taken an objection that confiscation and forfeiture of the security deposited under Rule 192 cannot be ordered under Rule 196. There is no substance in this plea as Rule 196 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly lays down for levying duty in respect of excisable goods obtained under Rule 192 and not duly accounted for. It also lays down that the Collector may order forfeiture of security deposited under Rule 192 and may also confiscate the excisable goods, and all the goods manufactured form such goods in store of the factory. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.
............
|