Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 308 Records
-
1993 (9) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation
... ... ... ... ..... ehalf of the assessees are includible in the assessable value. Hence the assessee is liable to pay duty on the remaining 0.5% also. The appellants do not receive 0.5% of the value of the sales from the dealers but on the other hand they pay further 1.5% of the purchase price to the dealers for proper service and advertisement of dealer s own shop and promoting its own business. We have gone through some of the advertisements which clearly indicate that the dealer was advertising different products manufactured by different assessees including the above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the advertisement charges go to promote marketability of the appellant s products alone. We, therefore, set aside the finding that the assessees are liable to pay duty on the 0.5% of the total sales by the dealers which is used towards advertisement expenses. 4. In the result the findings on all the five headings are set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1993 (9) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference Application - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... . Collector of Customs, Delhi as per Order No. A/32/90-NRB, dated 27-12-1990 modified the order of the Additional Collector holding that the goods are confiscated but the appellants are entitled to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/-. In fact, on this issue the applicants have filed an application for rectification of mistake and the same was rejected by the Tribunal as per Miscellaneous Order No. 254/1992-NRB, dated 12-8-1992 on the ground that there is no mistake apparent from the record. On the similar issue, now the applicants have come by way of reference application to refer the matter to the High Court on the ground that question of law is involved. 6. Since the matter was duly considered with reference to the facts and following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, I am not convinced that any question of law arises in the said order to be referred to the High Court. In the view, I have taken, reference application filed by the party is hereby rejected.
-
1993 (9) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Licensing - Exemption from licensing till clearances cross 80% of the exemption limit ... ... ... ... ..... nufacturer of excisable goods to obtain a Central Excise manufacturing licence. But these provisions are subject to the relaxations under Rule 174A which empowers the Govt. to relax the licensing requirement inter alia, in respect of goods which are, for the time being, exempted from Central Excise duty either conditionally or unconditionally. Govt. issued Notification 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-1978 in exercise of the said power. This notification required the manufacturer exempted from the licensing control to undertake to apply for the licence when he reached 80 of the exemption limit. Once he has done so, he was not required to suspend his manufacturing operation till actual receipt of the licence. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant did apply for Central Excise licence before he crossed 80 of the exemption limit. 6. On this view of the matter, there is no contravention of the provisions of law and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.
-
1993 (9) TMI 214 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Penalty not imposable ... ... ... ... ..... re yet to be approved. Hence the assessments are to be deemed to be provisional, as per the Supreme Court judgment cited above. If they had paid the duty on account of department rsquo s insistence, such payment is pending finalisation of classification lists and that cannot be held against them as any deliberate violation of the Rules. On the contrary it indicates their obedience to the department rsquo s instructions. Hence I find no reason for invoking the penal provisions. The order of penalty is therefore set aside. The department is at liberty to finalise the classification lists and seek to confirm the demand for the duty already paid, if on finalisation of the classification lists, the appellant is not eligible for exemption. It is also needless to say that the finalisation of the classification lists should be done by following the principles of natural justice and also after due hearing the assessee. 6. Appeal and stay application are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (9) TMI 213 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Hearing - Adjournment of hearing ... ... ... ... ..... me replacement parts from the factory without payment of duty, whereas on appreciation of the evidences placed before me, it was held by me that those clearances relate to bought out components cleared from outside Depot and on that ground allowed the appeal. There were also evidences produced during the hearing of appeal to show that the removals were effected from the place outside the licenced premises. There is absolutely no point of law and is purely a question of appreciating the evidence. It is a matter of regret that an officer of the rank of Collector is wasting the time of all in pursuing a matter, where the demand of Rs. 215/- and a penalty of Rs. 100/- are involved, especially when there is no legal point involved in the litigation. It is better that this time is devoted to more productive efforts. With this observation, I dismiss the Reference Application. 3. I would suggest that a copy of the order may be sent to the Board, Member (Judicial) for his information.
-
1993 (9) TMI 212 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Input credit ... ... ... ... ..... rdingly grant waiver of predeposit of the disputed amount of Modvat Credit disallowed. 12. As the said amount has already been recovered by precipitate action by the department by debit to the RG 23A account, we direct the department to recredit the amount to the said account. It will be open to the Petitioners to utilise such restored credit as permissible under Rule 57F. We take note of the fact that the Honourable High Court of Orissa has directed that the Stay Petition be heard by us after they became aware that the recovery of the amount by the department is a fait accompli. Hearing the Stay Petition and allowing it without exercising the power to restore the credit recovered by the department would be an exercise in futility. Grant of stay would become meaningful only if the credit is restored as ordered by us. The Tribunal has taken such a step in the cases referred to (Steel Authority of India and J.K. Industries cases). The Appeal is posted for hearing on 16-12-1993.
-
1993 (9) TMI 211 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... y stated that he has been directed to inform the appellant that the Modvat credit could not be allowed as requested for. Inasmuch as the Assistant Collector is the competent authority for the purpose of Rule 57H it was incumbent on the part of the Assistant Collector to have passed an order and communicated the same and which alone could be taken as an appealable order. In the present case no such order under the signature of the Assistant Collector has been passed and communicated to the appellant. The communication dated 18-5-1989 and the subsequent communication dated 21-9-1989 of the Superintendent against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) cannot be taken as proper orders issued under Rule 57H. The learned lower authority has not examined the issue in proper legal perspective while taking note of the communications issued by the Superintendent. Agreeing with my learned Brother, therefore, the order has to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
-
1993 (9) TMI 210 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ndone the delay in both the cases and take up the appeals for disposal in due course. 2. In so far as the stay application 765/92 is concerned, since the amount has already been deposited, the stay application has become infructuous and is therefore dismissed. In so far as the stay application 3509/92, Shri Kapoor pleads that they have got an excellent arguable case based on the Board rsquo s circular dated 21-8-1987. However, he offered to make a deposit of Rs. 10,00,0/- as against a sum of Rs. 21,060.50 towards duty and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- vide order in original No. 14/91 dated 27-3-1991. We accept the offer and direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in cash within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order and reporting compliance within eleven weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. On making the deposit, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the balance of duty and penalty amount.
-
1993 (9) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills v. C.I.T. reported in AIR 1967 SC 455 had dealt with the powers of the Tribunal. Para No. 8 from the said judgment is reproduced below 5. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority having jurisdiction. Both the sides are at liberty to produce any fresh evidence in accordance with law if they so choose. While readjudicating the matter, the adjudicating authority shall observe principles of natural justice and shall grant personal hearing. In the result. Miscellaneous application is partly allowed in as far as it relates to the extracts from the relevant Production Register and the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Since the matter is very old we shall appreciate if the readjudication is done at the earliest possible. Before parting with this matter, we would like to observe that while remanding the matter we have not made any observation on merits anywhere.
-
1993 (9) TMI 208 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation and Redemption fine - Past practice ... ... ... ... ..... wed to redeem the goods on payment of a suitable redemption fine and order accordingly. We find from the facts placed before us the authorities have been fixing different redemption fine in different cases and no information is available to us as to the basis adopted for the varying amounts of redemption fine fixed. We are, therefore, unable in the absence of any data regarding the market value, margin of profit, etc. to fix the redemption fine ourselves and we, therefore, remand the matter for this purpose to the learned lower authority viz. the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras or any other competent adjudicating authority. The learned lower authority should allow the goods to be redeemed on payment of a suitable fine taking into account the earlier releases made and the redemption fine fixed in the earlier cases as also the condition of the goods and also the demurrage etc. that the appellants may have to pay. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (9) TMI 207 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... t admit of any such reading of Rule 57E into this. The payment of duty by the assessee is one legal event and the taking of Modvat credit at the consignee rsquo s end based on the documents issued by the manufacturers of the inputs is another legal event. If any excess duty has been paid by a manufacturer who supplied the input he would be entitled to the refund in terms of Section 11B of the Act and in case any excess credit has been taken at the buyers rsquo end based on the documents issued by the manufacturer and the lower duty found payable later by him the necessary action to recover the excess amount has to be taken at that time in terms of Rule 57E against the consignee. The Department is under the misapprehension that it is the responsibility of the supplier of the inputs to ensure the reversal of the Modvat credit. This position is not based on any provision of the Central Excise Act or Rules. In view of the above the appeals have to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1993 (9) TMI 206 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... therwise the welding may give way resulting in serious accidents. From the photocopy of the diagrammatic representation as to how carbon-di-oxide is used, which has been produced before us, we find that the use is related to the welding process which is essential to the manufacture of the wheel and, therefore, it has to be held that the carbon-di-oxide is used in relation to the manufacture of the appellants rsquo finished product covered under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. We, therefore, hold that the learned lower authorities rsquo orders denying the benefit of modvat credit in respect of carbon-di-oxide is not maintainable in law. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appellants rsquo appeal. A. No. E/380/90/MAS. 6. Inasmuch as we have allowed the appellants rsquo appeal E/393/90/MAS allowing Modvat credit in respect of cleaning and degreasing chemicals and carbon-di-oxide, this appeal of the Revenue is consequentially dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee vide the Tribunal rsquo s decision (supra) which gives detailed reasons for not classifying such rubber rolls as rubber pipes and tubes. We are respectfully in agreement with the said decision. 4. Though the said decision covers only rubber rolls, the reasoning therein is equally applicable to the classification of rubber brakes. The principle that the goods should be classified according to how these are known by the people in the trade conversant with the article is equally applicable to ldquo rubber brakes rdquo . These are not known in the trade as rubber blocks/strips or profile shape which are covered by sub-heading 4008 but are known as a distinct product which is used as component of rice and Dal Mill Machinery. Hence, the same would also be classifiable, like rubber rolls, under sub-heading 4017 (in 1986 Tariff) and under Heading No. 4016 (in 1987 Tariff) covering the residuary articles of vulcanised unhardened rubber. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1993 (9) TMI 204 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit - Caustic soda lye/flakes ... ... ... ... ..... d Modvat credit is admissible in respect of the inputs in question. We, therefore, allow the Appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellants will be entitled to consequential reliefs. 6. Before parting with the matter, we have to refer to the observation of the Collector (Appeals) in his order that washing had not been mentioned in Section 2(f) of Central Excises and Salt Act as a process incidental or ancillary to manufacture. It does not have to be specifically mentioned. It is part of such process. Surely it was not intended by the Collector (Appeals) when he made his said observation that to get modvat benefit for the chemicals used for the washing of bottles, such a process should have been specified in Section 2(f) as a manufacturing process. In that unlikely event, for obtaining a paltry benefit of modvat credit the manufacturers would have to contend with the daunting prospect of paying duty on glass bottles every time the bottles undergo the ablution process.
-
1993 (9) TMI 203 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... hat this court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition although, as urged by the learned standing counsel, the respondents are free to raise objection at the proper stage as regards territorial jurisdiction of this court. 5. Coming to I.A. No. 2682/93, an application for ad-interim writ which is supported by affidavit, Shri Neema again pointed out that the petitioner was prepared to pay Rs. 11,99,310/- by way of bank draft which preparedness is even accepted by Shri Chafekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. On payment of this amount the goods detained by the respondents are ordered to be released immediately. If there is any difference in the duty the petitioner shall also pay the same which may ultimately arise on final analysis and assessment of the duty of the goods. The security bond as provided under the Act has already been furnished by the petitioner as stated by Shri Chafekar. 6. Certified copy of this order be given to parties on payment of necessary charges.
-
1993 (9) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
classification ... ... ... ... ..... idity. On the other hand the appellants had placed two clarifications from their buyers namely M/s. India Textile Paper Tube Co. Ltd. and M/s. Fine Composition Pvt. Ltd. to show that the product is kraft paper and not board. 7. In the absence of any contrary evidence brought on record by the department the certificates produced by the appellants support their contention that this product is paper and not board. The issue was correctly dealt in the subsequent adjudication order passed by the Collector as per his order dated 25-3-1991 as it was rightly pointed out by the appellants. Taking into consideration that classification list for product in question was finally approved by the Assistant Collector granting the benefit of Notification No. 46/83 dated 1-3-1983 and in view of our foregoing conclusion, we do not find any justification to deny the benefit in terms of Notification No. 46/83. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ledge of the department. Non-submission of the classification list by the appellants after issue of the said notifications cannot be considered to be an act of wilfulness particularly when they had filed the relevant R.T. 12 alongwith Excise gate passes. R.T. 12 was also duly assessed by the concerned Range Superintendent. If there was an omission on the part of the appellants to file any classification list consequent to issue of Notification 213/86, the department was also duty-bound to point out the same to the appellants or proper assessment could be made after due observance of the procedure on R.T. 12 itself. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants cannot be laid open to the charge of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or with an intent to evade payment of duty, as set out in proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. Demand of duty is, therefore, time-barred without going into the question of merits of assessment and we hold accordingly. Hence, appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... or gives essential character would be appropriately classifiable under Heading 40.16 and not under Chapter 87. rdquo Likewise by Circular No. 27/88-CX. 3, dated 1-11-1988, they have clarified that ldquo vulcanised (other than hardened) non-cellular rubber profiles with metal inserts (when metal is inserted at the time of extrusion itself) would be appropriately classifiable under sub-heading No. 4008.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 . In these appeals admittedly metal is not used in the impugned goods, hence the classification under sub-heading 4008.29 is ruled out. 9. In all these appeals, the lower authorities had not obtained Chemical Examiner rsquo s report to determine the nature of the goods for the purpose of classification. The Bench had to direct the authorities to draw samples and obtain the Chemical Examiner rsquo s report, which has now settled the controversy in favour of appellants. Hence, all the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
-
1993 (9) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s and under sub-heading 8481.99 as parts of other valves falling under sub-heading 8481.80 when they meant for uses other than as components for refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances, for these reasons and in view of the fact that lsquo Solenoids rsquo manufactured by the appellants are part of valves and do not find direct use as parts of machines, we are of the view that their classification under sub-heading 85.48 would be ruled out. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to accept the appellant rsquo s claim that the lsquo Solenoids rsquo manufactured by them were classifiable under sub-heading 85.48. We therefore, hold that they will be classifiable as parts of solenoid valves falling under sub-heading 8481.91 if they are parts of valves for refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery and under sub-heading 8481.99 if they are parts of valves other than those covered by sub-heading 8481.10 9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ute a larger Bench for deciding on the following issues (i) Whether rules of interpretation in section notes and chapter notes meant for classification of excisable goods for levy of duty could be safe and reliable basis for interpreting the terms specified in Rule 57A for excluding them from the scope of the term lsquo inputs rsquo ? (ii) Whether in the absence of specific exclusion of lsquo parts rsquo of machines, such parts brought in for attachment to machines could be construed to have been included as inputs for purposes of Rule 57A? (iii) Whether the ratio of the decision of the East Regional Bench in the case of Straw Products could be accepted for deciding this appeal? 11. Before parting with this reference to larger Bench, we are to mention that identical issues have already been referred to the larger Bench by us (vide Order No. 447/93-WRB). While hearing these appeals, the aforesaid case of M/s. Divecha Glass Industries may also be listed before the larger Bench.
............
|