|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 464 Records
-
1999 (11) TMI 667
Issues:
1. Whether the respondents collected Central Excise Duty from buyers without paying it to the Central Excise Department.
2. Applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued to the respondents.
Analysis:
1. The respondents were involved in manufacturing branded hand-made biris exempted from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 111/83. The Department alleged that the respondents collected Central Excise Duty from buyers without remitting it to the authorities. The Commissioner of Central Excise accepted the respondents' explanation that the duty amount shown on invoices was paid on unbranded biris, not collected from buyers. Consequently, the Commissioner dropped the show-cause notice proceedings. The Revenue appealed against this decision, contending that the duty was indeed collected. The respondents, in their cross objections, argued that Section 11D was inapplicable to their case.
2. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the grounds of appeal and cross objections. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner's order was unsustainable, while the respondents claimed the show cause notice was without jurisdiction due to the lack of machinery for recovery under Section 11D. Citing the Madras High Court case of Eternit Everest Ltd., the respondents argued that such demands were unenforceable without proper provisions. The Tribunal also considered decisions in other cases supporting this view. It held that the show cause notice was unauthorized and unsustainable in law, as there was no machinery provision for assessment or adjudication under Section 11D. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision to drop proceedings was upheld, emphasizing the need to assess the notice's maintainability, as raised in the cross objections.
3. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objections, affirming that the show cause notice was invalid and the Commissioner's decision to drop proceedings was correct. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the legality of such notices and upheld the respondents' position regarding the inapplicability of Section 11D in their case.
-
1999 (11) TMI 664
Issues:
1. Seizure of contraband silk yarn from premises.
2. Legal importation evidence absence.
3. Ownership and custodian liability.
4. Penalty imposition on appellants.
5. Evidence evaluation and penalty reduction.
Seizure of Contraband Silk Yarn:
The case involved the seizure of 31 gunny bags containing Chinese Silk yarn from the premises of an individual named Sh. Ratan Kumar Singh. The silk yarn, weighing 930 kgs and valued at Rs. 14,88,000/-, was found without any documentary evidence of legal importation, leading to the reasonable belief that it was liable to confiscation.
Legal Importation Evidence Absence:
Sh. Ratan Kumar Singh claimed to have rented the premises to another individual, Ajay Yadav, and produced a rent receipt and a notarized agreement later. However, discrepancies arose as Ajay Yadav was untraceable, and the agreement was produced after the search, raising doubts about its authenticity and timing. The lack of concrete evidence linking the appellants to the seized silk yarn was highlighted.
Ownership and Custodian Liability:
The debate centered on whether Sh. Ratan Kumar Singh, as the owner of the premises, could be considered the custodian or owner of the contraband silk yarn due to the unavailability of the supposed renter, Ajay Yadav. The authorities imposed a penalty on the appellants based on their alleged involvement in storing the contraband goods.
Penalty Imposition on Appellants:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty on the three appellants, prompting a legal challenge. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no substantial evidence implicating the appellants in connection with the seized silk yarn, emphasizing the lack of neighbor statements or direct involvement proof.
Evidence Evaluation and Penalty Reduction:
Upon evaluating the evidence and circumstances, the Tribunal acknowledged the delayed production of the agreement and the absence of clarity regarding the premises' custody during the seizure. While upholding the penalty imposition, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 25,000/- each for the appellants, considering the overall evidence and situation.
In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by affirming the penalty imposition but reducing the penalty amount for each appellant based on the totality of evidence and circumstances presented during the case.
-
1999 (11) TMI 641
Issues: Classification of Electric Steam Iron under Customs Tariff
Analysis:
1. Common Issue of Classification: Two appeals were filed by different entities against orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in New Delhi regarding the classification of Electric Steam Iron. The classification under sub-heading No. 8451.30 and 8516.40 was disputed, leading to the joint hearing and disposal of both appeals together.
2. Appellant's Argument: The appellants contended that the Electric Steam Irons should be classified under sub-heading No. 8451.30 based on product literature, pricing, and industrial use characteristics. They challenged the assessment order passed by Customs, emphasizing differences from a previous case.
3. Revenue's Submission: The Revenue argued that the goods did not fall under Chapter Heading No. 84 based on product descriptions in the invoice and catalogue. They supported the classification under Heading No. 8516.40, referencing Tribunal decisions and HSN Notes.
4. Classification Examination - M/s. Em Ess Enterprises: The Electric Steam Iron "Osaka" Model was described as a boiler type electric steam iron for industrial use, leading to a detailed analysis of the product specifications and dimensions.
5. Classification Examination - Jay Cee Enterprises: The Hashima Steam Iron was identified as an industrial steam iron with specific dimensions and a small water tank, prompting further evaluation of its classification.
6. Tariff Classification Criteria: The scope of Heading No. 84.51 for machinery used for ironing and pressing in the textile industry was deliberated, emphasizing the need for mechanical features and clear textile treatment intent for classification.
7. HSN Nomenclature Reference: The judgment highlighted the importance of resolving tariff classification disputes based on the nomenclature in the HSN, unless the Central Excise Tariff Act indicates a different intention, citing a Supreme Court decision for clarity.
8. Electric Smoothing Irons Classification: The discussion focused on the classification under Heading No. 85.16 for electric smoothing irons, covering various electrical equipment beyond domestic use, as per Explanatory Notes and HSN guidelines.
9. Industrial Use Consideration: The argument that Heading No. 85.16 encompassed goods for industrial purposes, not limited to domestic use, was supported by references to specific apparatus included in the Heading and exclusion of domestic appliances.
10. Tribunal Precedent: Previous Tribunal decisions were referenced to support the classification of ironing machines and presses under sub-heading No. 8451.30 for textile industry use, contrasting with the classification of electric smoothing irons under Heading No. 85.16.
11. Exemption Benefit Evaluation: The applicability of Notification No. 16/85-Cus. for concessional customs duty rate under Chapter 84 was assessed, concluding that goods classified under Chapter 85 were ineligible for the exemption, leading to the rejection of both appeals based on the detailed analysis and classification considerations.
-
1999 (11) TMI 633
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the eligibility of cylindrical grinder and P.D. pumps for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Tribunal found that both items are essential for the manufacturing process of steel wires, qualifying as capital goods with a direct nexus to the manufacturing activity. The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in challenging the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
-
1999 (11) TMI 632
Issues:
1. Allegation of collecting duty at lower rates than tariff rates.
2. Interpretation of exemption notification as an incentive scheme.
3. Correct assessable value determination.
4. Application of Rule 10 and Section 11D.
5. Upholding of the order-in-appeal.
Allegation of Collecting Duty at Lower Rates:
The appeal contested the order-in-appeal upholding the order-in-original that accused the appellant of collecting duty at lower rates than the tariff rates for Mill Board manufactured by them. The appellant argued that the exemption under Notification No. 70/76-C.E. was an incentive scheme for smaller manufacturers, allowing them to retain the excess amount collected. Conversely, the Department contended that the exemption did not authorize manufacturers to pocket the difference, asserting that the excess amount collected constituted extra consideration forming part of the correct assessable value.
Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The Department maintained that the exemption notification merely granted lower duty rates based on specified slab quantities without permitting manufacturers to retain the difference between the mentioned duty rate and the tariff rates. The appellant argued that enforcing the demand upheld would amount to charging duty on duty, emphasizing the nature of the exemption as an incentive scheme. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the notification to determine the correct interpretation regarding the entitlement of manufacturers to the excess amount collected.
Correct Assessable Value Determination:
The Tribunal examined whether the declared assessable value by the manufacturer was accurate or if an enhanced value, reflecting the additional consideration received, should be considered. It was established that the manufacturer received an enhanced value beyond the declared assessable value due to the difference between the duty debited to the Government at lower rates and the higher duty collected from buyers at tariff rates. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order-in-original's decision to add this additional consideration to the assessable value for duty computation.
Application of Rule 10 and Section 11D:
The Tribunal determined that the duties short-recovered during the period in question were demandable under Rule 10, as Section 11D provisions were not invoked at that time. It was noted that the first show cause notice was partially time-barred, as it was issued beyond one year from the relevant period. The Tribunal carefully considered the application of Rule 10 and Section 11D in relation to the demands raised and the time limitations involved.
Upholding of the Order-in-Appeal:
After thorough analysis of the submissions and case records, the Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the order-in-original and, consequently, upheld the order-in-appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the correctness of the decisions made regarding the assessable value determination, application of relevant rules, and interpretation of the exemption notification.
-
1999 (11) TMI 631
The case involved classification of road milk tank barrel under Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue as the matter was already settled by the Supreme Court in a similar case. Cross objections were also disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 630
The appellate tribunal in New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the eligibility of cement for the benefit of Notification No. 5/94. The benefit was denied initially due to availing benefits under Notification 1/93. Following a previous case precedent, the tribunal held that the benefit of Notification No. 5/94 is available from the date of receipt of the revised classification list, which was 26-9-1994. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 629
The appellate tribunal considered whether Motor Circuit Breakers imported by the Appellant are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 153/92-Customs. The tribunal found that the imported goods could be used in electrical circuits below 400 volts, not meeting the criteria for the notification. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 628
The appeal was about whether stainless steel tubes are eligible for a specific notification. The Tribunal rejected the appeal by the Revenue, stating that stainless steel is considered steel and is eligible for the notification unless specifically excluded.
-
1999 (11) TMI 626
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal granting a refund of central excise duty to M/s. Dynamic Engg. Works. The tribunal ruled that the benefit of Notification No. 64/86 was not applicable as the required procedure under chapter X of the Central Excise Tariff was not followed by the respondents. The appeal was allowed based on the decision in Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. case, stating that procedural requirements for conditional exemption must be met for refund sanction.
-
1999 (11) TMI 624
Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-original dated 6-4-1992 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise.
- Duty demanded on goods intercepted in a truck under Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988.
- Penalty imposed on appellants for not meeting duty payment requirements.
- Allegation that goods were produced from non-duty paid inputs.
- Burden of proof on revenue to show non-duty payment of goods.
- Reliance on previous judgments regarding burden of proof in similar cases.
Analysis:
The appellants filed an appeal against the order-in-original dated 6-4-1992 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, which demanded duty on goods intercepted in a truck loaded with M.S. Flats/Bars under Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988. The revenue alleged that the bars were not entitled to the benefit of the notification as they were produced from non-duty paid inputs, leading to the imposition of penalties on the appellants.
During the proceedings, the appellants contended that they purchased the specified inputs from the open market, which were presumed to be duty-paid unless proven otherwise. The appellants consistently maintained that the inputs were duty-paid, and there was no evidence presented by the revenue to the contrary. The appellants argued that the burden of proof regarding non-duty payment of goods rested on the revenue, citing precedents such as the case of CCE v. Decent Dyeing Co. and Phoenix Metals & Alloys (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., which emphasized the revenue's responsibility to prove non-duty payment.
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the statement of Shri K.T.S. Chauhan did not admit that the goods were manufactured from non-duty paid M.S. ingots, as claimed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. As the appellants purchased inputs from the open market, the onus was on the revenue to demonstrate that the inputs were non-duty paid, which they failed to do. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of the revenue proving non-duty payment of goods when imposing duties and penalties, emphasizing the burden of proof on the revenue in such cases. The decision underscored the necessity for concrete evidence to support allegations of non-duty payment, as failure to meet this burden could result in the reversal of orders and appeals being allowed in favor of the appellants.
-
1999 (11) TMI 623
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. M.Cus.106/96 concerning import of Lady's Electrical Shaver from Taiwan.
- Misdeclaration of value and import without a valid import license.
- Reduction of assessable value and penalty, but not interfering with the redemption fine.
- Validity of enhancing the assessable value based on quotations.
- Comparison with earlier imports at different prices.
- Consideration of redemption fine and penalty for unauthorised import.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal regarding the import of 5000 pieces of Lady's Electrical Shaver from Taiwan, declaring a value of US$ 0.60 per piece. The order upheld the confiscation for misdeclaration and import without a valid license, but reduced the assessable value to US$ 2.07 per set and the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 40,000, without altering the redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000.
2. The advocate for the appellant argued against enhancing the assessable value based on a quotation obtained by the department, citing previous cases where declared transaction value was accepted without evidence of fraud. The advocate did not press the issue of a valid import license, leaving it to the discretion of the Bench.
3. The appellant's advocate pointed out a similar import in Calcutta at lower prices, questioning the validity of enhancing the assessable value. The Department argued that the quotation was from the same manufacturer as the foreign supplier, and there was no evidence of sub-standard goods or stock-lot items.
4. The Tribunal found that the department's reliance on quotations alone was insufficient to discard the declared transaction value, especially without evidence of contemporaneous imports at those prices. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessable value should not be enhanced based solely on quotations.
5. As the advocate did not press the issue of an unauthorized import due to the absence of a valid license, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the order regarding confiscation and penalty. However, the redemption fine and penalty needed to be re-evaluated separately for unauthorised import and misdeclaration of value, as the latter was set aside.
6. Considering the pending clearance of the consignment for over 3 years and the heavy demurrage, the Tribunal instructed the original authority to recompute the redemption fine and penalty, taking into account the circumstances and to expedite the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for remand based on the above terms.
-
1999 (11) TMI 585
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of M/s. Rajdhani Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. regarding small scale exemption benefit under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal as the brand names were validly transferred to the assessee under a deed. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 584
Issues:
Duty demand confirmation, Modvat credit availed, Penalty imposition, Permission under Rule 57F(2) and Notification 214/86-C.E., Job worker status determination, Procedural lapses, Non-compliance of Rule 57F(2), Modvat credit eligibility, Clearance of by-product, Use of other inputs, Declaration under Rule 57G, Contravention of Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Duty Demand Confirmation and Penalty Imposition:
The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 50,77,918 against the appellants for wrongly availing Modvat credit in November 1991 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 52 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The duty demand was based on various grounds, including the lack of permission under Rule 57F(2) and Notification 214/86-C.E., direct supply of inputs to job workers, non-issuance of authenticated challans, and alleged misstatements by the appellants.
2. Permission under Rule 57F(2) and Notification 214/86-C.E.:
The appellants had applied for permission to remove inputs under Rule 57F(2) and/or Notification 214/86-C.E. The permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner on 11-10-1991, allowing the direct supply of inputs to the job worker, M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. The Tribunal held that the procedural non-compliance of Rule 57F(2) cannot negate the substantive benefit of Modvat credit, citing precedents where similar lapses did not bar credit eligibility.
3. Job Worker Status Determination:
The central issue revolved around whether M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. were considered job workers of the appellants or independent manufacturers. The Department argued that M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. were not job workers based on a letter they submitted. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had followed the required procedures, including obtaining permission and declarations, to treat M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. as job workers.
4. Modvat Credit Eligibility and Compliance:
The Tribunal determined that the appellants had not contravened any provisions of the Rules regarding the availment of Modvat credit. The appellants had filed a declaration under Rule 57G, indicating the use of PP chips as inputs and final products. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-declaration of certain inputs did not affect the appellants' eligibility for credit, especially when the inputs were clearly intended for conversion into PP chips by the job worker.
5. Clearance of By-Product and Use of Other Inputs:
The clearance of the by-product, Methanol, by M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. on payment of duty was found to be in accordance with the rules. Additionally, the use of catalysts and packing materials by the job worker was not prohibited under Rule 57F. The Tribunal highlighted that M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. did not avail any credit, and the appellants were the sole beneficiaries of the Modvat credit.
6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty, allowing the appeal on the merits of the issue. The judgment emphasized the compliance of the appellants with the relevant rules and procedures, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants regarding the availment of Modvat credit.
This detailed analysis highlights the key legal aspects and findings of the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, providing a comprehensive overview of the issues addressed and the Tribunal's decision in the case.
-
1999 (11) TMI 583
The appeal involved whether installation and commissioning charges should be included in the assessable value of packing and wrapping machinery. The appellant argued for inclusion based on a Supreme Court decision, but the respondent contended that these charges are post-manufacturing activities and should not be included. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that such charges are for services offered after manufacturing and should not be included in the assessable value.
-
1999 (11) TMI 582
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Motor Vibrator with Actuator.
2. Classification of Sealing Water System.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Motor Vibrator with Actuator
The primary issue in this case was whether the Motor Vibrator with Actuator should be classified under Chapter 84.39 as "machinery for making pulp of fibrous Cellulosic material" or under Chapter 84.79 as "machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter."
Collector (Appeals) Findings:
The Collector (Appeals) found that the Motor Vibrator with Actuator is an integral part of the Defibrator. It was noted that the Motor Vibrator ensures the continuous feed of wood chips into the screw feeder, which is essential for the smooth functioning of the Defibrator. The Collector (Appeals) held that the Motor Vibrator does not have an individual function and is designed to operate in conjunction with the Defibrator, thus it should not be classified under the residuary heading 84.79.
Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue argued that the Motor Vibrator with Actuator has an individual function distinct from the Defibrator. They referred to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HSN) Explanatory Notes, which classify Vibrator Motors as machinery of general use under Chapter 84.79. They contended that the Motor Vibrator's role to ensure the wood chips flow at a predetermined rate indicates it does not play an integral part in the operation of the Defibrator.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that according to the HSN Classification, a Vibrator Motor falls under Chapter 84.79. The Supreme Court's ruling in Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. emphasized resolving tariff classification disputes with reference to HSN unless an express different intention is indicated by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not consider the HSN Notes, which classify the Vibrator Motor under 84.79. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue's appeal regarding the classification of the Motor Vibrator and set aside the Collector (Appeals)'s order, restoring the original classification under Chapter 84.79.
2. Classification of Sealing Water System
The second issue was whether the Sealing Water System should be classified as an integral part of the Defibrator or as machinery of general use under Chapter 84.79.
Collector (Appeals) Findings:
The Collector (Appeals) found that the Sealing Water System is attached to the packing box to maintain the temperature within the permissible range during the pulp manufacturing process. This function is crucial as high temperatures are generated, and maintaining the temperature is essential for production. Therefore, the Sealing Water System was deemed an integral part of the Defibrator and should be assessed as such.
Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue contended that the Sealing Water System has an individual function distinct from the Defibrator. They argued that it works as an accessory to the main machine and should be classified under Chapter 84.79 as machinery of general use.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the Sealing Water System is a functional requirement for the machinery and an integral part of the Defibrator. This finding was not in conflict with the HSN Notes to Section XVI, Chapter 84.79. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this part of the order and upheld the classification of the Sealing Water System as part of the Defibrator.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's appeal regarding the classification of the Motor Vibrator with Actuator under Chapter 84.79 and restored the original order confirming the short levy on this item. However, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s classification of the Sealing Water System as an integral part of the Defibrator. The Assistant Collector was directed to furnish the amount of duty payable on account of the revised classification, and the respondent was instructed to make the payment of the differential amount upon receipt of the communication indicating the actual amount payable.
-
1999 (11) TMI 581
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand on M/s. Shiv Shankar Manufacturing Co. for EOT Crane clearance.
2. Confirmation of demand on M/s. Shiv Shankar Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. for EOT Crane clearance and SSI exemption denial.
Issue 1: Confirmation of demand on M/s. Shiv Shankar Manufacturing Co.
The officers found that M/s. Shiv Shankar Manufacturing Co. cleared an EOT Crane in March 1989, which was actually manufactured by M/s. Shiv Shankar Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. However, evidence showed that the machinery available with M/s. Shiv Shankar Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. was insufficient for crane manufacturing. Both firms were located in the same premises, and the quotation for the crane was in the name of M/s. Shiv Shankar Manufacturing Co. The appellant failed to provide evidence of the inputs purchased for crane manufacturing. The tribunal found no fault in the order confirming the demand of Rs. 27,562.75 on M/s. Shiv Shankar Manufacturing Co.
Issue 2: Confirmation of demand on M/s. Shiv Shankar Engineering Co. (P) Ltd.
A demand of Rs. 2,96,371.58 was confirmed on M/s. Shiv Shankar Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. for clearing EOT Cranes and claiming SSI exemptions without proper registration. The appellant argued that their factory at Village Jandiali, Ludhiana, was registered as an SSI unit, supported by a provisional certificate. However, the provisional SSI certificate incorrectly mentioned the factory location as G.T. Road, Ludhiana, not Village Jandiali. The permanent registration certificate correctly stated the factory location as Village Jandiali. The tribunal noted the lack of evidence showing efforts to correct the provisional certificate. As the factory was not registered as an SSI unit during the relevant period, the demand confirmation was upheld. The appeals by the appellants were rejected based on these findings.
-
1999 (11) TMI 580
Issues:
Stay applications and connected appeals arising from Orders-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Customs; Compliance with High Court's order regarding bank guarantee and personal bond; Classification of imported goods as "Tinplate Seconds" or "Tinplate Waste"; Confiscation of goods under Customs Act; Imposition of redemption fine; Non-compliance of High Court order by certain parties.
Analysis:
The Tribunal consolidated 19 stay applications and connected appeals based on a common issue from Orders-in-Original by the Additional Collector of Customs. Initially dismissed, the appellants later filed Miscellaneous applications for recall of the order, which was granted, and the matter was listed for fresh hearing. The High Court had directed appellants to furnish bank guarantee for 30% of the redemption fine and execute a personal bond for the remaining 70%, with goods to be released upon compliance.
Out of the 19 appellants, only 8 complied with the High Court's order. The appellants had imported Tinplate waste under ITC Policy but authorities classified it as seconds quality. The Additional Collector held the goods liable for confiscation under Customs Act sections and imposed redemption fines. The appellants argued against the classification and requested a reduction in redemption fines due to being actual users without intent to evade duty.
The Department defended the procedure, citing evidence supporting the classification and justifying the redemption fines. They argued that the Additional Collector's decision was based on valid evidence and lenient considering penalties. For the 11 non-compliant parties, the Department sought dismissal of appeals and stay applications.
After careful consideration, the Tribunal dismissed appeals for non-compliance by 11 parties and proceeded with the 8 compliant parties. The Tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's decision based on technical literature and ISI specifications, reducing redemption fines for the 8 parties. The judgment modified the redemption fines for the 8 parties and dismissed appeals for non-compliance by the other 11 parties.
In conclusion, the appeals and stay applications were disposed of accordingly, with the judgment detailing the modifications to redemption fines for the 8 compliant parties and the dismissal of appeals for non-compliance by the remaining 11 parties.
-
1999 (11) TMI 548
Issues:
1. Whether cutting, stitching, and cording of cotton fabrics to produce bedsheets and pillow covers amount to manufacture under Central Excise Law.
2. Classification of bed sheets under old and new Central Excise Tariffs.
3. Allegation of clandestine removal of bed sheets due to non-payment of duty.
4. Applicability of duty on bed sheets before and after 1-3-1986.
5. Duplication of time period for duty confirmation.
6. Quantification of duty and penalty imposition.
Issue 1:
The Collector held that activities like cutting, stitching, and cording of cotton fabrics to create bedsheets and pillow covers constitute manufacturing under Central Excise Law, confirming a demand and imposing a penalty on the appellants. However, the Tribunal analyzed the classification of bed sheets under the old and new Central Excise Tariffs to determine the liability for duty.
Issue 2:
The appellants argued that bed sheets were classified differently before and after 1-3-1986, with a change in the classification of cotton fabrics and bed sheets under distinct chapter sub-headings. The Tribunal noted that bed sheets were chargeable to duty under a separate heading post-1-3-1986, leading to a different duty liability for the period in question.
Issue 3:
The Department alleged clandestine removal of bed sheets due to non-payment of duty, emphasizing the duty liability on the manufactured products. The Tribunal considered the duty payment status of the cotton fabrics used in making the bed sheets and found no evidence of non-payment, thereby impacting the duty demand on the bed sheets.
Issue 4:
Before 1-3-1986, bed sheets were considered part of cotton fabrics under the Central Excise Tariff, leading to no additional duty if the fabrics were already duty paid. However, post-1-3-1986, bed sheets were classified separately, necessitating duty payment as a distinct item. The Tribunal clarified the duty liability based on the period-specific classification and duty requirements.
Issue 5:
The Tribunal identified a duplication of time period for duty confirmation, as one order had already determined duty from 1-4-1986 to 13-12-1986. Consequently, the duty liability was limited to the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986, requiring a remand to the Commissioner for quantification of duty for that specific timeframe.
Issue 6:
Considering the findings and circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. 5,000. The appeal was disposed of with a directive for duty quantification for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986, emphasizing the duty liability based on the revised classification of bed sheets under the Central Excise Tariff.
-
1999 (11) TMI 547
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi rejected the appeals where the appellants were found liable to pay duty on boxes and pallets manufactured from rejected axel beams as they were considered excisable goods. The appellants' argument that the goods were not marketable and were manufactured by job workers was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The appeals were rejected.
............
|
9911796707
