|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 339 Records
-
1997 (10) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ration carried out in these coils is to give them a specific shape to fit into the motors. Insulation by itself would not amount to manufacture and nor cutting into strips of a smaller size would amount to manufacture of different commodity. The work of the appellants appear to be more in the nature of service rather than manufacture and to the extent of cutting into smaller size and cutting it in a particular shape is process specific to each motor which by itself would indicate that the impugned goods as they emerge before their placement in motors are not marketable as such. 5. emsp In the result, therefore, we are of the view that mere cutting of strip and insulating it or giving it a loop shape in order to enable it to be fitted to an electric motor during the course of a service operation would not amount to manufacture. We have gone through the various decisions cited by the appellants in the Court. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (10) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tapes manufactured from Polyester films and PVC are classifiable under Heading 85.46 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as electrical insulators. They also noted that in the Departmental appeal against this order, Hon rsquo ble Apex Court had upheld the findings of the Tribunal vide order dated 13-2-1991 reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. A28. 6. emsp In grounds of Appeal, the Revenue have contended that Collector (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Chetna Polycoats (P) Ltd. (supra) but the decision of the C.E.G.A.T. has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has since been filed with the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. As already noted the findings of the Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court and therefore the main ground on which the Revenue has sought to rely no longer exists. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in order of the Collector (Appeals) and therefore we uphold the order and reject the Revenue Appeal.
-
1997 (10) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... aw material was not furnished to them. The show cause notice shows the cost of raw material in the year 1989-90 as Rs. 54,36,951.20 and in the year 1990-91 as Rs. 30,61,296/-. There is however no indication in the show cause notice or in the order as to how this cost has been arrived. The appellants were entitled to know the details of the basis which the cost of raw material had been worked out by Department. Therefore while holding that the cost of raw material is to be included along with the job charges in the assessable value of the wires and cables cleared by the appellants to the Telecom Department, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of supplying to the appellants the basis on which the cost of raw materials received during the relevant period has been arrived at. Adjudicating authority shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in person and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
-
1997 (10) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Compressors parts - `Driving Lever with Bellows’ ... ... ... ... ..... f the Notification grants concessional rate of duty to component parts of compressors over 7.5 H.P. for use in refrigerators and air-conditioning equipment. We find that the Collector (Appeals) in Para 6 of his Order has found that the goods imported were for replacing parts of compressors and has, therefore, considered them to be spare parts of compressors. Since the Larger Bench has held that the expression ldquo Component Parts rdquo covers ldquo spare parts rdquo and since there is no further dispute that the goods are component parts of compressors over 7.5 H.P. and for use in refrigerators and air-conditioning equipment, we hold that the benefit of notification is available to the goods imported by the appellants herein. We, however, make it clear that the claim for refund will be governed by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act as it stands after its amendment in 1991. In other words, we hold that the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the appellants.
-
1997 (10) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Certified reference material ... ... ... ... ..... s used is supplied with each sample or set of samples. Steel samples are usually in the form of discs cut from round bar. Cast iron samples, which are prepared in conjunction with BCIRA, are in the form of chill cast rectangular blocks. 5. emsp While the reference materials had been prepared under laboratory conditions, it would not be said that the goods imported were in the nature of laboratory chemicals. As is clear from the extract given above, the steel samples were usually in the form of discs cut from round bar. As the Heading No. 98.02 is only restricted to laboratory chemicals as explained in Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 98, we do not consider that their classification under the said Heading No. 98.02 was appropriate. 6. emsp Thus, without going into the other aspects of the matter, we consider that the ground taken by the Revenue in the present appeal is not sustainable. 7. emsp As a result, there is no merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected
-
1997 (10) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... emained absent in spite of notice of hearing. Heard Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR. 4. emsp It was brought to our notice that issue with reference to the classification of product in question has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Foam Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 497 holding that item in question is classifiable under Heading 94.01 of the Central Excise Tariff. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we hold that item in question is classifiable under Chapter Heading 94 and, accordingly, the appeal filed by the department is hereby allowed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... s available on components, spares and accessories of the specified captial goods irrespective of their classification. 4. emsp Accordingly, it is clarified that all parts, components, accessories, which are to be used with capital goods of clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation (1) of Rule 57Q and classifiable under any Chapter heading are eligible for availment of Modvat credit. 5. emsp In this case, the clarification issued by the Board was not available to the adjudicating authority as it is issued after the passing of the order-in-original. In these circumstances, the impunged order is set aside the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commr., Central Excise, Moradabad for de novo decision taking into consideration the clarification issued by the Board after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appelllants. The respondents are at liberty to take legal as well as factual objection at the time of adjudication. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
1997 (10) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... and legal points of view to determine whether they merit to be appealed against. As a result strict compliance with the time limit as prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could not be made. rdquo 2. emsp We have heard ld. DR. 3. emsp The respondents have been served notice. On perusal of the ground for condonation of delay, we are not satisfied with the reason furnished. There is no reason for the Collectorate not to have filed the appeal in time. The reason that Tribunal has come into existence in 1982 and they required close examination and scrutiny from both factual and legal points of view for determining whether they merit to be appealed against is not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Further, the Collector has not given time chart and explained day-to-day delay in the case. 4. emsp In that view of the matter, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and as a matter, the appeal is also rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... been done after carrying out these tests. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that the goods had not yet reached RG-1 stage. Learned DR is correct in pointing out that the goods are liable to confiscation for non-accountal. The only question that remains is as to whether the quantum of redemption fine and penalty are commensurate with the value of the goods and the gravity of the offence. I find that the value of the goods is around Rs. 7 lakhs and, therefore, the quantum of RF and penalty cannot be considered to be excessive and they are quite in proportion to the value of the goods. There is no satisfactory explanation or argument for reduction of the quantum of redemption fine and penalty and since both the amounts are not disproportionate to the value of the goods, I see no reason to interfere with the quantum fixed by the authorities below. 3. emsp In the above circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 218 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscated goods - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... ere any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed the owner of such goods shall, in addition, be liable to pay duty and other charges. The logical corollary should be that if the goods are not redeemed, the liability to duty payment of duty will not arise. On confiscation the goods become the property of the Central Government. A notification issued under Section 25 of the Act cannot take precedence over the provision of this section. Duty is therefore not leviable. 3. emsp The appellant could have had recourse to various procedures whereby it could have approached the Department for writing off of duty on the goods which it did not use. There is provision for such write off in the notification itself. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why this was not done. In these circumstances, penalty was imposable. However, in view of the fact that there was no intention to evade duty or any mala fide attributed we reduce the penalty to Rs. 3,000/-. Consequential relief.
-
1997 (10) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste Heat Boiler ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants only on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the goods under consideration were boiler quality and required for boiler. We consider that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of sulphuric acid and had a boiler since 1966. The spare parts for WHB had been imported and in the B/E it had been mentioned that the goods are spare for WHB. We also find that the appellants have now produced some documents which have not been discussed by the lower authorities. 7. emsp Although the matter is very old and the import had been effected in the 1980, on the pleadings of the appellants in the interest of justice as a special case, we remand this matter to the jurisdictional Commr. Customs (Appeals) who should re-examine the matter with regard to the documents placed on record and after affording an opportunity to the appellants to make their submissions in the matter, pass speaking appealable order as per law. The appeal is thus disposed of by way of remand.
-
1997 (10) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ot state specifically that the value of P.P. Caps should be included for purpose of valuation as the agreement between purchaser and the seller has been in a consolidated sum viz. the agreement between the purchaser with seller contains the total value of the container and P.P. Caps. It is not stated specifically by the Govt. in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this argument of Shri Kumar cannot be accepted. The other argument made in the grounds of appeal is that the contract is for the supply of FINIT containers with P.P. Caps. They have maintained purchase and sales records in an elaborate way including the value of P.P. Caps. Therefore, the value of P.P. Caps should be considered for the purpose of valuation. In our view the excise duty is not for the purpose of maintaining registers. It is charged on the manufacture of goods. Therefore, the argument of department cannot be accepted. 6. emsp Appeal is, therefore, dismissed confirming the order of the Collector (Appeals).
-
1997 (10) TMI 215 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... r of Buckau Wolf. Contrary contention set forth by the Revenue is on account of improper appreciation of facts in these cases as well as in Buckau Wolf. Tribunal has clearly held that there is no difference in the ratio of Buckau Wolf and that of Balaji Fasteners. This finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged in the subject application. Result of Appeal in Buckau Wolf is being confused with its ratio 4.2 emsp In view of the foregoing there is no conflict in various judgments cited before the Tribunal on the basis of which Revenue is seeking reference of purported questions of law. Judgment now cited in the Reference Applications in the case of Ideal Printers 1990 (49) E.L.T. 559 was not cited before the Bench earlier. Any plea or consequence based on that judgment does not arise out of Tribunal rsquo s order. 4.3 emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, Reference Applications are rejected because no question of law worth referring arises out of Tribunal rsquo s Order.
-
1997 (10) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... this heading. On the other hand explanatory note under Heading 90.33 at page 1537 clearly indicate that ldquo Those identifiable as suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, appliance, instrument or apparatus, or with a number of machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus of the same heading of chapter these are classifiable, by application of Chapter Note 2(b), in the same heading as the relevant machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus. rdquo 4. emsp Further Chapter Note 3(c) occurring after Note 2 (b) itself indicates that Heading 90.33 is a residuary heading by stating that ldquo All other parts and accessories are to be classified under Heading No. 90.33. rdquo 4. emsp In view of this we are of the view that the impugned goods which are described in the classification list for use in Photocopying apparatus would be classifiable only under Heading 90.09. In view of this we set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue Appeal.
-
1997 (10) TMI 213 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Contemporaneous import ... ... ... ... ..... grade are the same. The invoices of both imports are on record on perusal of which we are satisfied that the Department is right in its stand that there is a factual error in Collector (Appeals) conclusion. The dates of indents and the dates of filing B/E are also reasonably proximate. No evidence is thereof price fluctuation within that period. In these circumstances, the enhancement by the Department of the assessable value from US 950, declared by the respondents, to a higher amount of US 1,010 as in the compared import, is in consonance with the provisions of the main Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 which is the deemed price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation in the normal course of international trade. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed, restoring the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs. The cross objection also stands disposed of.
-
1997 (10) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the transferred factory would lapse and would not be available for transfer. The department is, no doubt, to look into this aspect but the decision taken disallowing of credit only on the ground that it was not a case of shifting but of merger or amalgamation has proceeded totally on a wrong approach in the matter. The matter requires to be verified to find out what was the amount of credit lying in balance in the RG 23A account and whether that amount exceeded the credit of duty referrable to the inputs which were present as such or were in process or had been used in or in relation to the final products lying in stock all of which were available for transfer from their first factory to the other location. The case is squarely covered by Rule 57F(6) as it stood at the material time. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter afresh keeping the above observations in mind.
-
1997 (10) TMI 211 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he goods after assessement. The fine and penalty on the appellants is reasonable. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions, it is seen that the appellants have not denied the fact that the goods under confiscation were totally undeclared and found in excess which are in substantial quantity. The plea that they were not aware of the excess shipment does not sound convincing. The correspondence in this regard significantly with the supplier has taken place after the excess was detected. There was totally no indication in the shipping documents at all by the supplier about the excess nor was any previous correspondence from the supplier to the appellants indicating that they were sending the quantity which is said to have been short shipped from a previous consignment. In such a situation, the Addl. Commissioner rsquo s order is sustainable and it is upheld. The fine and penalty on the appellants are also reasonable and calls for no modification. Appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - DEEC Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... favour of this Custom House for Rs. 44,908/- as against the value of Rs. 50,867/- CIF for the goods imported. This Custom House does not have any authority to examine if any excess or less debits were made in a licence by a different Custom House. Therefore, I am not examining the correctness or otherwise of importer rsquo s contentions in this regard. The fact remains that the Release Advice submitted by the importers does not cover import for a value of Rs. 5,959/-. He had not examined the correctness or otherwise of the importers contention. He had recorded that he was not examining the correctness or otherwise of importers contention with regard to the shortfall in the licence. In this regard also we do not consider that the order was sustainable. 10. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account we do not agree with the view taken by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Kandla, in these proceedings. As a result the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (10) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Waiver of show cause notice - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... dered the rival submissions. In view of the decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned Counsel, I agree with him that it is mandatory to issue notice for confiscation or imposition of penalty and representation against it and particularly when the appellants have only given up their right to receive notice regarding duty demand. I also agree with the learned Counsel that the provisions of Section 11AC are not attracted prior to the date of enactment, in this case, in view of Paragraph 2 of the Circular dated 6-1-1997 referred to supra. However, provisions of Rule 173Q will be attracted. Following the ratio of the order cited supra by the learned Counsel, I set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to confiscation and penalty and remand the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise who is directed to decide the case de novo after issuing a proper show cause notice for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1997 (10) TMI 208 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... er Bench and it does not finally determine any issue. Moreover, one point needs consideration and mention here. The learned Counsel argued that he cannot apportion the penalty levied namely Rs. 3.00 lacs to various appeals. In our view, this argument cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the trouble is not unsurmountable. There can be a specific reference to the difficulty in apportioning penalty amount in EA-3 form at a particular column stating that they are unable to apportion the same for all the appeals and then make a suitable prayer to the Tribunal seeking directions on that. The Tribunal then will definitely pass suitable order for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty or otherwise. We therefore feel that ends of justice will be met if the applicant is directed to file separate appeals equal to the number of show cause notices along with the applications for condonation of delay. We are therefore rejecting the arguments of the ld. Counsel Shri Ragesh S. Mehta, order accordingly.
............
|
