|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 553 Records
-
1999 (9) TMI 904 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Modvat availed on manufacture for export - Benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. denied
-
1999 (9) TMI 903 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court - Refund claim - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e Apex Court rsquo s decision in the case of Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 in deciding the subject Appeal No. E(SB)-4078/95 was legal or proper? 4. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from the concerned Commissioner which were reiterated by the ld. SDR in the course of his arguments in support of his Reference Application. We have also considered the submissions of the ld. Advocate Shri S.N.S. Mohapatra for the respondents herein. We observe facts and circumstances of the case are more less identical to the facts and circumstances of the Samrat International rsquo s case. Consequently the reliance placed by the Tribunal on that judgment of the Apex Court is correct and no question of law arises. The issue is already settled by the Apex Court and therefore there is no need of any reference in respect of any question to a High Court. Hence the Reference Application filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1999 (9) TMI 902 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Copper ingots - Exemption under Notification No. 174/84-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... be deemed to have been cleared on appropriate duty and are to be considered to have paid duty. Therefore, the condition impugned by the adjudicating authority in the impugned Order is fully satisfied. 2.2 emsp As regards the demand of duty of copper bars and rods from the appellants, we observe that the said demand of duty cannot be made against the appellants herein. There is no finding that the job worker was acting under the supervision, direction and control of the appellants herein and that the said job worker was merely dummy of the appellant firm. However, in the absence of any such allegation, job worker is required to pay duty as a manufacturer of the said copper bars and rods. This position is also well-settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints. Therefore, the demand of duty on copper bars and rods against the appellants is not sustainable. Hence the impugned Order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1999 (9) TMI 901 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... e appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). He has not accepted the reason given by the appellant and held that there was gross negligence in not filing the appeal in time. 4. emsp Heard the learned Counsel. He submits that since the delay is only marginal, the same may be condoned as the reasons given were genuine and not as an afterthought. 5. emsp The learned DR opposes the condonation of delay and submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal. 6. emsp On consideration of the submissions made, we notice that the delay is only marginal. In view of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court judgment directing to take lenient view where the delay is marginal see Collector, Anantanag v. Mst. Katiji - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) , the delay of seven days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned and the matter remanded to him to take up the matter and dispose of the same on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
-
1999 (9) TMI 900 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and Penalty - Bulk drugs ... ... ... ... ..... ification unworkable since the Notification by itself did not contain any definition of bulk drugs. A fresh notification No. 7/95 which amended Notification 6/94 so as to delete Sl. No. 6, was issued on 9-2-95 and this shows that even though Sl. No. 6 existed in Notification No. 6/94, it had become non-est pursuant to repeal of DPCO 1987. For the purpose of restoring the exemption, a new Notification No. 8/95 dated 9-2-95 was issued. This makes it amply clear that between 6-1-95 and 8-2-95, no exemption was available to the bulk drugs in dispute and that the appellants were required to pay higher rate of duty as applicable. Thus, the demand is sustainable and we confirm the same. However, there was sufficient scope for doubt on the part of the appellants, as seen from the facts set out above, and therefore, we of the view that penalty is not justified and we set aside the same. In the result, we uphold the duty demand but set aside the penalty. The appeals are partly allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 899 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... has applied the principles of unjust enrichment in transferring the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to their buyers. However, I find that the present refund claim is the refund of the amount paid as pre- deposit for maintaining the appeal, this was not paid towards duty, but only a deposit. The principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable on anything which is not duty. Moreover, the refund was earlier sanctioned by the lower authority and adjusted against the demand, when the entire demand has been set aside by the Tribunal, there is no logic to retain the amount adjusted against such demand. The principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable in this case and the appellants are entitled for cash refund of the disputed amount. 6. emsp In view of the above findings, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1999 (9) TMI 898 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Limitation - Extended period ... ... ... ... ..... it cannot be alleged, after due clearance, that these were not included in the Bill of Entry. Therefore, I hold that charge of Section 111(l) in respect of all items listed above is not substantiated and fails rdquo . This finding of the Commissioner categorically go to show that there was no misdeclaration or fraud or misrepresentation on the side of the appellant. All the goods imported were duly declared and were entered in the bill of entry. They were got verified and cleared by competent officers of the department on realising the duty. In these circumstances, the action initiated against the petitioner was clearly barred by limitation. On this sole ground, the order impugned has to be set aside. We do so. Since the appellants succeed on the issue of limitation, we do not consider it necessary to go into the other contentions raised by the ld. Counsel representing the appellant. 5. emsp Appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside with consequential relief, if any.
-
1999 (9) TMI 897 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal ... ... ... ... ..... suspicious these accounts are, (and they certainly are to some extent), this alone is insufficient to conclude that the appellant manufacture biris, and that too in the number specified in the notice. The matter might have been taken a different turn had proper investigations been done. As things stand, in our view, it is not prudent to rely only on the register as to establish that the appellant manufactured and cleared biris. It is settled law that clandestine removal of excisable goods justifying demand of duty must be established by sufficient evidence see K. Harinath Gupta v. Collector - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 980 . The degree of evidence laid down by the Courts for this purpose has not, in our view, been fulfilled by the entries in the register and at the very least, the benefit of the considerable doubt must go to the appellant. In view of this finding, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the arguments of limitation. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (9) TMI 896 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Cement plant - Mini cement plant, annual capacity under Notification No. 24/91-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... d on 29-7-1997 is in lieu of the one issued on 23-8-1992 and therefore, it is for the period covered by the earlier certificate. Hence, the facts of this case are pari materia with the facts of the case considered in Shyam Oil Cake (P) Ltd. cited supra. We also find that the aforesaid findings are supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lyphin Chemicals (supra), wherein the reference to the Drugs Controller was held to be meaning of the Office of the Drugs Controller and if the same principle is applied to the subject Notification, then the Notification would require a certificate from the Office of the Director of Industries and it is nobody rsquo s case that the Joint Director of Industries was not working in the Office of the Director of Industries. 6. emsp Therefore, respectively applying the ratio of both these decisions to support our own conclusion, the order impugned is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
1999 (9) TMI 891 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company – Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... ly any merit. If the foreign state is required to file written statement and to contest the said suit and only at the stage of final disposal, a verdict is given whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, such foreign State is entitled to the protection of section 86 of the Code, the very object and purpose of section 86 shall be frustrated. The bar of section 86 can be taken at the earliest opportunity and the court concerned is expected to examine the same. The said decision has no application in the present case. In Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. M.V. Kapitan Kud, 1996 AIR 1996 SC 516, the apex court was not concerned with the question involved herein. We are, therefore, of the view that no prima facie case has been established to arrest the ship in question. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is aside. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. M.H.S. Ansari J. mdash I agree.
-
1999 (9) TMI 890 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... meant for the benefit of all creditors, and is to be granted only when the financial condition of the company and other factors justify winding up. The creditors are under the misconception in seeking a winding up as a substitute for normal action in the civil court for recovery of moneys due to them. Assertions for payments of interest at the rate at which they claim to be paid is largely the basis of such a misconception. Wherever there is dispute which can be regarded as bona fide and wherever the company has demonstrated its ability to pay, there is no reason at all to hold that such a company is unable to pay its dues on the only ground that interest as claimed is not paid. Leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to other civil remedies for recovery of interest, if any, that may be due in its perception, the petition is closed. Witness, the honourable Thiru Konakuppakattil Gopinathan Balakrishnan, the Chief Justice at Madras aforesaid, this September 17, 1999.
-
1999 (9) TMI 887 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion ... ... ... ... ..... customer of the bank, the money becomes the money of the customer, and it is not open to the bank in such circumstances without obtaining the consent of the customer to reverse the entry of credit made in his account and in effect, pay back the money to the person who had deposited it, even though it might have been depo-sited by mistake. 12. Therefore, when a deposit made by a third party by mistake in the account of a customer in a bank cannot be touched by the bank by way of reverse entry without consent of the account holder, then equally without consent of the account holder, the entries of credit made in the account of the holder by the bank for payment of interest cannot be reversed at all by the bank. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court have to be confirmed. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, with costs, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.
-
1999 (9) TMI 886 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dishonour of cheque ... ... ... ... ..... notice sent by the company, of which the accused is the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the company. Considering these circumstances, the mere absence of an averment in the complaint that the petitioner-accused was in charge of and was responsible to the company does not justify the quashing of the proceedings in these cases inasmuch as the petitioner-accused has been shown to be the Managing Director of the company. 9. In the result, these petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. However, I may add that the observations made in this order are specifically for the purpose of disposing of these petitions and they shall not be treated as findings on the questions of fact involved. It is for the trial court to come to its own conclusions on the basis of evidence placed before it as to whether the petitioner-accused was really in charge of and was responsible to the company, notwithstanding his description as Managing Director.
-
1999 (9) TMI 879 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ssed by the then Collector of Central Excise, Patna and thereby confirm the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,20,334.00 (Rupees four lacs, twenty thousand three hundred and thirty four only) against M/s. New India Sugar Mills, Hassanpur, Distt. Samastipur under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. rdquo 6.1. emsp The earlier Order dated 3-10-1994 was set aside by the Tribunal vide its Order No. A-125/CAL/97 dated 7-2-1997 and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner. The effect of setting aside of the earlier Order of the Commissioner was that the same ceased to exist and had become defunct. Further, the Commissioner was not sitting in appeal over the earlier Order passed by the then Commissioner and cannot uphold the same which, in any case, had become non-existent. As such, I find that the application filed by the applicants deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. I order accordingly.
-
1999 (9) TMI 878 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Shell sand - Manufacture - Marketability - Demand - Limitation - Valuation - Cost of production - Modvat/Cenvat - Penalty - Precedent - Judicial precedent - Manufacture
-
1999 (9) TMI 877 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty is the condition in which the goods are removed from the factory of manufacture and not the condition in which goods were sold. The decision in favour of allowing the appeal in the present case by accepting the appellants rsquo plea that the goods must be assessed at the discounted price for reels (the condition in which goods were removed) and not the sale price of sheets (the condition in which the goods were sold) follows the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal. I am in agreement with this view as such a view is in conformity with the language of Section 4 of the Act, and also follows the law laid down by this Tribunal in the previous decisions. Therefore, in my view, the appeal is required to be allowed. 17. emsp The file may be placed before the Division Bench for passing the majority order. Sd/-(C.N.B. Nair)Member (T) 18. emsp By majority view, the appeal is allowed. Sd/-(G.A. Brahma Deva)Member (J) Sd/-(Lajja Ram)Member (T)
-
1999 (9) TMI 876 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... final price for import of the goods. Hence, no reliance can be placed on such quotations. rdquo In the present case, transaction value has not been shown to be not acceptable for valuation of the imported goods on account of any valid reasons. The price list of the Singapore dealer (relied upon by the adjudicating authority) does not constitute a reliable basis for the valuation of the goods. The judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of Satellite Engineering, relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in that case, the transaction was held to be influenced by other considerations also. 6. emsp In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the enhancement of the assessable value, the confiscation of the goods and the penalty imposed were not justified. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order of adjudication is set aside in its entirety. The appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief.
-
1999 (9) TMI 875 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ention of the applicant is correct. Having regard to this view, we hold that a mistake has crept in the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order No. E/1728/98-B1 1999 (105) E.L.T. 325 (Tribunal) . Therefore, in para 4 of this Final Order of the Tribunal, the portion reading as ldquo We have perused the Tariff Heading 84.37. We find that the description against this heading is for milling machines etc. Parts are not specifically covered by this heading. Therefore, we have to look to some other entry where parts are covered. We note that parts are specifically covered in the residuary entry under Heading 84.85. Thus, we find that the goods in dispute will be correctly classifiable under Heading 84.85. rdquo is recalled and in its place the words reading as ldquo Having regard to Note 2(b) of Section XVI, the goods shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.37. rdquo shall be substituted. 5. emsp No other amendment is necessary. 6. emsp In view of the above findings, the ROM is allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 874 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Words and Phrases - “Whether or not” - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... , that the expression ldquo whether or not rdquo involved in the case of Prabhat Sound Studios had not arisen in the case of Laminated Packings (P) Limited and, secondly, the process involved in the present appeals is factually so different from the one involved in the case of Laminated Packings (P) Limited that no useful analogy is possible between the two. We also observe that the other decisions cited by the learned SDR also do not improve the Revenue rsquo s case any further. For the reasons aforesaid, the process of putting inked ribbon in spools/cassettes/cartridges, undertaken by M/s. Magna Ink Limited would not amount to lsquo manufacture rsquo within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and consequently the products resulting therefrom would not attract Central Excise duty. The impugned order are therefore, not sustainable. Hence our order dated 26-7-1999 allowing the assesses rsquo appeals and rejecting the Revenue rsquo s appeal as inconsequential.
-
1999 (9) TMI 873 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... for condonation of delay and consequently appeals as barred by limitation. With regard to other 8 appeals, it directed production of the original power of attorney empowering the signatory to those appeals to file on behalf of the eight appellants. 4. emsp The position, therefore, would be that the applications filed by the nine appellants referred to in paragraph 2 (i) to (ix) are unnecessary, since their appeals have not been dismissed. 5. emsp The ground in the other applications is that the advocate of the applicant Mr. Durve had been told by some of the member that next adjournment will be communicated in writing. If an order has been dictated in Court dismissing the appeal, there is no question of communicating the next date in writing. The cause list also indicated this position. It appears that there is some misunderstanding, since some of the matters had been adjourned. There is, therefore, no ground to restore these appeals. 6. emsp Eight applications are dismissed.
............
|
