|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... y covered by decision cited supra by learned Advocate, therefore the stay application is dismissed as infructuous as we are already going to consider the main appeal itself. 5. emsp Considering the main Appeal we find that the matter is no longer res integra inasmuch as the larger Bench of the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide of India (supra) has already extensively considered this matter and the products in the instant appeal are similar to those considered in that judgments namely felts and bronze wire mesh. We also find that later the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal in the case of Amrit Paper (supra) has applied the aforesaid decision of Union Carbide also and have come to a similar conclusion for similar products. We are therefore to respectfully apply the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this case and find that there is no merit in the Revenue appeal which compels us to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal impugned. The Revenue appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... e submissions by learned Advocate that the value of these should be excluded from the value of clearances of these appellants during the period in dispute needs to be looked into in detail by the original authority. The Tribunal is not in a position to re-compute the value of these clearances in the absence of any records. 7. emsp We, therefore, find that the Orders-in-Original impugned are liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority for such recomputation. The Orders-in-Original impugned are, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner who shall recompute the value of clearances under the SSI Exemption Notification claimed by the appellants after excluding the value of cross arms which we have held to be non-excisable . After such computation, the learned Commissioner shall pass a speaking order in this respect after hearing the appellants. The appeals succeed by way of remand with the above directions.
-
1999 (1) TMI 230 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fically mentioned in the Notification. We also take note that copper moulds were considered as parts of the continuous casting machines in the above-referred case of Star Steels Ltd. and exemptions granted in terms of Serial No. 37 of the Notification No. 112/87-Cus. which is identically worded to Serial No. 35 of Notification No. 23/91 in dispute in the present case. From the technical data produced on record and the manufacturing process as explained in the memo of appeal, it becomes clear that the Chill Mould is an essential part of the Centrifugal Casting Machine, as the same has been specifically designed according to the specifications and designs of the machine. Accordingly, following Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Star Steels Ltd., we hold that the Chill Moulds would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 23/91, irrespective of their classification under any of the rival headings. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned Order.
-
1999 (1) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Nickel waste ... ... ... ... ..... ks that the nickel waste will be an excisable commodity for the purpose of levy of duty. The main item is nickel and articles thereof. Since the nickel waste is nothing but nickel which is recovered from the waste, therefore, the item nickel has been elaborated to include nickel waste. There is no indication that the nickel waste arising in the process of manufacture of articles thereof is not included by the heading. But the plain meaning of this entry is that the waste and scrap of nickel is nothing but nickel and cannot be stretched to mean that the waste arising in the process of manufacture of articles, is not covered or is not nickel simply because they have been mentioned after the bracket. Since the waste and scrap of nickel is covered by the entry, therefore, the waste and scrap arising in the process of manufacture of articles of nickel is covered by this entry. We hold accordingly. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (1) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... it under a different tariff entry. 2. emsp The learned Counsel makes a very attractive argument that as long as the input has been declared and it is declared only under Rule 57G and it has been used in the manufacture of final product as indicated in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. Prima facie the argument is acceptable. I feel the ends of justice would be met if I direct the appellants to freeze the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- or pay cash of the said amount within one month from today. On such action being taken, there shall be waiver of remaining sum of money demanded and stay the recovery thereof. 3. emsp Compliance on 29-1-1999.
-
1999 (1) TMI 227 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Paper book ... ... ... ... ..... er cannot be decided on merits without all the documents being perused viz., classification list, technical literature and other documents which should have been perused by the authorities below. 4. emsp On a careful consideration, we notice that necessary documents which are required for determining the classification of the product and the claim for trade discount cannot be done in the absence of the classification list, technical literature and other necessary documents. The party has not appeared despite notice having been sent on several occasion. 5. emsp As such the appeal is dismissed under Rule 11(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules for non-production of necessary documents to decide the matter.
-
1999 (1) TMI 222 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... g 8430. It was contended that track link assembly is not treated as transmission chain for the purpose of classification and since crawler chain which is a track link assembly is, therefore, not a transmission chain but a part of excavator classifiable under Heading 8431 read with Heading 8430. We have examined this contention of the importer in detail. We note that Chain Sprocket is specifically mentioned in Chapter sub-heading 8483.40, therefore, looking to some other entries for the same becomes irrelevant, Only in case of doubt, we have to look elsewhere when there is no specific description of the goods. In the instant case, since there is a specific entry in the Tariff itself, there is no need of going elsewhere for classifying the product. 10.7 emsp In view of the above findings and discussions, we hold that Chain Sprocket imported by M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., will be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8483.40. The two appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
1999 (1) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 27.10 is more appropriate for classification of the product. We note that though sub-heading 9022.90 was not considered in great detail by the Tribunal in the case of Asia Engg. Co., however, this was mentioned in the order of this Tribunal in the case of Asia Engg. Co. The Tribunal in that case had the benefit of opinion of DGTD and after examining the facts of the case, technical literature and DGTD opinion, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the product was classifiable under chapter sub-heading 9027.80. After examining the various contentions raised before us including the contention of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Asia Engg. Co., we do not see any reason to disagree with the contention of the importer. Having regard to this judgment, the technical literature on the subject and HSN explanatory notes, we hold that the product merits classification under Chapter sub-heading 9027.10. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification
... ... ... ... ..... show cause notices is not relevant so far as the question of classification is concerned. A classification is a question of law on the basis of available facts. Therefore, the authorities below were not unjustified in resorting to classification under TH 87.14 even if they had not proposed it in the show cause notices. Demands of duty, however, as already held, are not sustainable in respect of scooter seat in view of the Board rsquo s Tariff advice dated 23-10-1990 being applicable only from the date of its issue. 5.3 emsp In short, (1) on the question of classification in the three appeals, namely E/3450/91-D, E/2793 and 2794/92-D bus seats of cellular rubber are to be classified under TH 40.08 and the scooter seats are to be classified under TH 87.14. (2) Demands of duty involving the other three appeals, namely, E/4593-4595/92-D are set aside. These three appeals are thus allowed so far as the demands of duty are concerned. 6. emsp Appeals disposed of in the above manner.
-
1999 (1) TMI 219 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay Order - Modification of ... ... ... ... ..... applicant rsquo s case is on a better footing, since the brand name is owned by it, known by the appellant company. 3. emsp We do not think it appropriate to go into the later question, which had already been raised before the order was passed permitted the question and no doubt considered by it. However, High Court orders were passed much after Tribunal rsquo s order was passed, applying the quantum decided by the High Court, we reduce the amount to be deposited to Rs. 15.00 lacs. This is to be deposited within two months upon such deposit, we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty only. Stay its recovery. 4. emsp Compliance on 2-2-1999.
-
1999 (1) TMI 218 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... quires every split consignment to be covered by individual invoice to be issued under Rule 57GG ibid. 4. emsp After considering the submissions made from both sides, I find that the Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants only on the technical and procedural aspect. The Department is not denying the fact that the inputs have been received by the appellants under the cover of duty paying documents. Their objection is that instead of receiving all the inputs in one go, the two different consignments with a time-gap of about 15 days, have been received in the same month itself. This, according to the various judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate, is not sufficient ground for denying the Modvat credit. The ratio of all these decisions is that some minor procedural irregularities should not deprive the assessee from availing the credit. Accordingly, following the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1999 (1) TMI 217 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Classification - Valve actuators ... ... ... ... ..... he catalogue and the literature along with classification lists. It also observed that it was not understandable as to what other details were required to be furnished by the appellants and in any case, the appellants could have been asked to furnish any more information needed by the Department in case the authorities entertained any doubt. The Tribunal observed that not having done so, prima facie, the Tribunal found that the authorities did not entertain any doubt in their mind in regard to the description of the product furnished by the party and in the facts and circumstances the Tribunal held that there was no suppression of information on the part of the appellants and it is only because of the authority rsquo s own ignorance that suppression of facts had been attributed. We confirm these findings by the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay application. In this view of the matter, the appellants succeed and the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t ldquo they manufactured and cleared excisable goods rdquo without having applied for the Central Excise licence, without observing the formalities required under the Central Excise law and without payment of Central Excise duty rdquo . The above grounds are available to the Department even when the demand is raised within the normal period of limitation of six months and the extra ingredient viz. allegation of suppression/wilful misstatement, etc., which is necessary for the purpose of invoking the extended period, is absent in the show cause notice. Therefore, the time limit of 5 years cannot be invoked against the appellants for the demand of duty hence, we set aside the same. As a consequence thereof, the personal penalty is also set aside since the Department has not been able to sustain the duty demand for the extended period. 4. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 215 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... tax v. Basanta Kumar Agarwalla and Another reported in 1983 (140) ITR 418, quoted by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Shanthala Ductile and Grey Iron Foundary (P) Ltd. reported in 1998 (29) RLT 591 (CEGAT), ldquo that the object of a reference is to get a decision from the High Court on a problematic or debatable questions and not on a dubious and simple point of law, although somehow the determination is somewhere linked up with a provision of law and the Tribunal is obliged to refer only that question of law which calls for investigation, examination, debate or when it is a dubious problem. rdquo As the Tribunal has consistently held that minor variation in the description or sub-heading of the declared input, are not a result in denial of Modvat credit and a question on this point has already been rejected to be referred to the High Court, we respectfully following the said Orders, reject the present applications of the Revenue also.
-
1999 (1) TMI 208 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ed also does not have any link with the goods in question and their eligibility to benefit of Notification No. 311/86. 5. emsp We have heard the submissions made from both the sides. We find that the documents now submitted have been contended to be of the manufacturer of the equipment imported since these documents are material to examine the eligibility of the benefit of Notification No. 311/86 and since these documents were not before the lower authorities we consider it fit case for remand. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) to examine the documents especially to find out whether the goods imported are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 311/86 or not and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving the appellants an opportunity for being heard and substantiating their contention for eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 311/86. Appeal is therefore allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 207 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of declarations which is a legal requirement. He did not ask for any exemption from filing the same. It is further argued by the ld. JDR that in the said letter it does not say anything about Rule 57G(1) which mentions of the finished products as well as the inputs. Therefore, he argues that the entire order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is wrong in law. 4. emsp I have considered the submissions made by the ld. JDR and perused the records. Rule 57G(1) is a Salutory provision making filing of the declaration as a mandatory requirement. It is not an empty formality. I am of the view that the door step for entering into the arena of the Modvat regime is filing of the declaration under Rule 57G(1). If a person fails to do so he could not avail of the benefit of the provision of Modvat. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the Single Member rendered in the case of P.G. Conductors v. C.C.E. 1996 (81) E.L.T. 336 . 5. emsp Appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (1) TMI 206 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Iron and steel - Wires and bars of non-alloy steel ... ... ... ... ..... .T. for the above sub-heading. When the discrepancy came to the notice of the Government, a notification was issued exempting the goods in excess of duty on Rs. 1000.00 per M.T. He, further, submits that for the period from 14-5-1992 to 25-6-92, the Central Government had issued notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the duty in excess of duty on Rs. 1,000.00 per M.T. had been exempted under that notification under Section 11C and Notification No. 21/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 5-8-1996. 3. emsp Shri S.N. Ghosh, learned JDR agrees with the factual aspect of the matter. 4. emsp In view of the above, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and as a result, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... preme Court rsquo s judgment. However, having regard to the fact that the applicants are small units whose monthly clearance is very low and having regard to the plea of the applicants that since the input for manufacture of zari i.e. polyester film was admittedly duty paid, they would, therefore, be entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs, we direct pre-deposit of the following amounts by the applicants M/s Jai Jagdamba and Co. Rs. 25,000/- M/s. Apex Metallic Yarn Industries Rs. 60,000/- M/s. Rama and Co. Rs. 30,000/- M/s. Pansari Metallic Yarn Ind. Rs. 35,000/- The amounts are required to be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance duty shall stand dispensed with and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in automatic rejection of the appeals without prior notice. 5. emsp To come up for reporting compliance on 30-3-1999.
-
1999 (1) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... al to the contention of the appellants before us that the factory was under lock out during the period when the order was served and that it was received by the Watchman appointed by the appellant. The watchman is not an authorised person to receive the adjudication order. The appellant submitted that when they had visited the factory in November, 1996, the watchman handed over the copy of the adjudication order and they filed an appeal after that. In these circumstances, we are of the view that lower appellate authority ought to have condoned the delay which was within the period condonable by him and should have considered the merits of the matter. In the absence of decision on merits, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. He shall pass an order after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant after being heard in person. 5. emsp The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 203 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Goods imported invoiced as stock-lots ... ... ... ... ..... es. 5. emsp I have considered the arguments made by both sides. The goods imported were base paper for coating, waxing and impregnating. It is admitted by both sides that invoice stated it as stock lots. It has been found by the Collector (Appeals) that stock lots means outdated design/out dated model, left-over/unsold goods. Normally in trade parlance these are disposal goods. The word ldquo disposal goods rdquo has not been defined. The Policy definitely states that disposal goods will not be new goods. The Policy makers are aware of the case of this type. A new goods has been treated as if by a legal fiction the stock lots as well. The findings made by the Collector (Appeals) in paragraph 7 of the Order to my mind cannot be faulted with. Shri Singhi in a persuasive manner pleads reduction of the fine. Taking note of the actual user I reduce the fine to Rs. 80,000/- from Rs. one lakh. With this modification appeal is disposed of. For statistical purpose appeal is dismissed.
............
|
