|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 379 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e channel and spring played complementory role and it could not be said that as which of them gave the set its essential character. 29. emsp After going through the respective orders proposed by the ld. Member (J) and ld. Member (T), and in the light of the discussion above, I agree with the order proposed by the ld. Member (J) that the spring and channel sets for air compressors imported by the appellants were to be classified under sub-heading No. 8414.90 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. . Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T) MAJORITY ORDER In the light of the majority opinion, we hold that the spring and channel set for air compressors imported by the appellants herein fall for classification under sub-heading 8414.90 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants in accordance with law. emsp Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J)
-
1998 (12) TMI 355 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s otherwise provided, the expressions lsquo plates rsquo , lsquo sheets rsquo and lsquo strips rsquo apply only to plates, sheets and strip and to blocks of regular geometric shape, uncut or simply cut to rectangular (including square) shape, whether or not having the character of articles and whether or not printed or otherwise surface-worked, but not otherwise cut to shape or further worked. rdquo This amendment was effective only from 31-5-1990 which did not cover the present proceedings. 24. emsp Keeping in view the process of manufacture adopted by the respondents and the Chapter Notes as in force during the relevant time, I agree with the view of the learned Member (J) that the goods in question were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 4016.99 of the Tariff. Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, all the three appeals filed by the Department are allowed. Sd/- (A.C.C. Unni) Member (Judicial) Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1998 (12) TMI 346 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
... ...
... ... ..... h, 1995. This means that such credit is available only in respect of inputs which have been received and used on or after 16th March, 1995 and it does not permit the utilisation of such credit if the inputs have been received prior to 16-3-1995. In the instant case they had utilised the credit of Rs. 15,374/- in respect of Polyester Staple fibre received prior to 16-3-1995 and therefore, the same is not covered under the above provisions. The appellant had therefore, wrongly availed the credit of duty. Similarly the sub-rule 4(A) is not applicable to the appellant as it applied only to the manufacturers of tractors, motor vehicles and not to any other manufacturers. 5. emsp Regarding receipt of 413 kgs., of Polyester staple fibre, the appellant has explained their position and I agree with the submissions made by the appellant in this regard. 6. emsp In view of the above, the appeal is partially allowed and the order passed by the lower authority modified to the above extent.
-
1998 (12) TMI 345 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE - REVIS
Foreign Travel Tax - Delayed payment - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... s were to make the payment together with interest on the amount of tax not so paid for the period for which such tax has been delayed that penalty of not less than one fifth but which may extend three times of the amount of tax not so paid within the prescribed time limit also becomes payable after due observance of the principles of natural justice by way of issue of show cause notice and upon adjudication. 6. emsp In view of the above discussions imposition of penalty under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 cannot be assailed. Rule 10A of the FTT Rules, 1979 brought into force w.e.f. 1-9-1994 specifically provides for imposition of penalties for delayed submission of the FTT returns which shall not be less than Rupees two thousand but which may extend to Rupees twenty thousand. Hence, imposition of penalties of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 17,000/- also cannot be assailed. 7. emsp In the result, the revision applications devoid of merits are rejected. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Material handling equipment - Exemption - Manufacturer - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... much after the period for which the demand has been raised and even of a later date than the date of issue of show cause notice. 38. emsp On careful consideration of various observations made in the proposed order as also the case law on the subject, I agree with the findings of the ld. Member (T) that the appellants have not succeeded in proving the ingredients of bona fide belief to entitle them to the benefit of limitation. I also agree with the findings of ld. Member (T) that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs would meet ends of justice. Reference is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Dated 14-12-1998 MAJORITY ORDER 39. emsp In the light of the majority opinion, the duty demand is confirmed but the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- (J.H. Joglekar) (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (T) Member (J) Dated 18-12-1998 Dated 22-12-1998
-
1998 (12) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er on the night of 15th September, 1991. The order itself indicates that Damjibhai Patel of Rajkot claimed ownership of the jeep and in his statement has said that the appellant was the driver and that he (Patil) had sent him with the jeep to Porbandhar at 1 p.m. on 16th September, 1991 to pick up labourers required by him, he being a government contractor. He does not appear to have been asked, and in any case does not say anything about where the jeep was on the night of 15th September, 1991. 4. emsp There is thus absolutely no evidence to connect the jeep with any silver that might have been landed. The fact that the appellant did not reply to the notice or appear for the hearing may perhaps aiose some suspicion, although his failure to do so may be capable of alternative explanation. It is however entirely insufficient to impose a penalty on him under Section 112 of the Act. 5. emsp We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order imposing a penalty on the appellant.
-
1998 (12) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty for goods used for special industrial purposes ... ... ... ... ..... after the goods had been received and utilized and that in any case the assessee was entitled to know of the reason and that proper show cause notice should have been issued before asking them to pay a sum of Rs. 5,13,797/-. He has also referred to the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Arti Paints and Chemicals Industries, Bombay v. CCE Bombay, 1984 (15) E.L.T. 206 (T) wherein the Tribunal had observed that the demand for short recovery could not be made under rule 196 if permission has been given by mistake under Rule 192 of the Rules. 5. emsp After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that the procedure adopted by the lower authorities for cancelling the CT-2 certificates retrospectively and demanding duty in respect of the goods already received was not proper. Without going into the other aspects of this case, on this ground alone we consider that the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit. The same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 316 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... 2) E.L.T. 51 that amount lapses. There is no dispute of the departmental claim that the contravening duty on Naphthalene is not available as contended by the appellant immediately on the instructions of the department credits are reversed. The quantity involved of Naphthalene is only 127 M.T. The appellant has shown his bonafide in acting to the instructions of department, immediately and reversed the credit. Admittedly, the credit were not availed by the appellant and they were lying in balance. The department was aware of the transactions of the appellant as RT-12 returns filed by the appellant were assessed. So under these circumstances, as contended by the appellant, no demand survives now, and this is not a case of imposition of penalty. As contended by the appellant this is not such a serious case to confiscate the land, building, plant and machinery. So the contention of the appellant is upheld, and the appeal is allowed, with the consequential relief according to law.
-
1998 (12) TMI 315 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... als) he stated that he would utilise it as and when the raw material is obtained. But, however, no material has been placed before me as to when the raw material was obtained and when the final product was made. If that were to be so, the respective RT 12 Returns ought to have been filed before me, they have not been filed before me. Therefore, the respondent has failed in his submissions. 10. emsp As far as the granting of credit on the basis of Custom House copy is concerned, I think the department rsquo s contention is not correct. As long as the input have come and utilised in the manufacture of the final product, the ultimate object of executing the fact of taxation should be avoided in terms of Modvat credit. Hence, the contention of the department is rejected on the whole. 11. emsp The appeal of the department viz., Modvat credit on ERM cleaner and TVR 425 is accepted. Modvat credit on Weighing machine is rejected. 12. emsp The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 314 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ng the case and therefore the Commissioner had to resort to the ex parte decision on the basis of reply to the show cause notice. He has considered all the pleas made by the appellants in their reply to the show cause notice and he has come to a definite conclusion based on chemical examiner rsquo s reports that the goods are not velvet as declared, but are polyester based nylon fabric. Therefore a licence is required. The confiscation has been made correctly. Hence the stay petition be dismissed. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We are of the view that the goods are of commercial character. Absolute confiscation is not warrantable in our prima facie view. We are therefore of the view that the goods themselves act as a security for the penalty now imposed by the Collector because the goods are admittedly valued at over Rs. 27 lakhs. Consequently we accept the stay petition and waive the penalty for the purpose of hearing the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 313 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... epancy in the description of the goods in the invoices and the declaration. 4. emsp I have considered the submissions made from both sides and fully agree with the contention of the ld. Consultant. I have seen the invoice, classification list of the manufacturer of the inputs and the certificate produced by them. From reading and comparison of the same with the declaration, it becomes evident that lsquo Fourdrinier Wire Cloth Open Ended rsquo is nothing but lsquo Phosphor Bronze Wire Cloth rsquo . As such, I do not find any discrepancy in the description of the items in the invoice and the one made by the appellants in the declaration. Accordingly, I allow the stay petition unconditionally. 5. emsp The only issue involved in the appeal is as regards the discrepancy in the description of the inputs and nothing more is to be argued from either side, I allow the appeal itself by setting aside the impugned order. Appeal as well as stay petition are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 300 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e buyer the benefit of any price decline at actual time of shipment. If, within the time frame of the contract for supply of goods, as a result of the conditions of the contract, the supply of the goods, their price is lowered as a result of subsequent happening of events, it cannot be said that this is a special price due extraneous to consideration other than commercial. The price was therefore a normal price. The ratio of the Supreme Court in Bharat Industries v. Additional Commissioner - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 will apply. The fact that the appellant had own imported goods also center at a higher price is by itself insufficient to justify enhancement of value, if as a result of other factors there has been a fall in supply after the goods in the contract relied upon were shipped. Here again we must conclude that there is insufficient basis to justify enhancement of the value declared. 7. emsp These appeals are also allowed and impugned orders set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (12) TMI 299 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... , ought to have been further followed up to find out whether on the material day of 21-12-1990, the presence of the appellants at the unit is probablised or not. This has not been done in this case by satisfactory evidence. Therefore the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the case of Kanam Foam Industries (Supra) will get attracted, and, in determining the liability to penalty the conduct of the appellant is also a relevant factor. On this aspect also the fact remains that they had led officers for a detention of the stock after verification, which is relevant, and also their further conduct in paying up the duty demand when the irregularity was detected also goes in their favour. Therefore in the totality of the circumstances as noted above, it is not established that this is a deliberate case of evasion of duty by the appellants, and in this view of the matter, the penalty on them is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The appellants will be entitled to consequential relief.
-
1998 (12) TMI 292 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... im in regard to availment of the benefit or not . The further finding of the Tribunal has been that the manufacturer sending the material to the job worker has also complied with the procedure for such sending out and receiving back of the material under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules and that the fact that the job worker has cleared it on payment of duty will not make any difference in law to the user manufacturer. These findings were given following the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Facit Asea v. Commissioner - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 347 and it was further noted that this decision of the Tribunal has been referred to with the approval of the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application 72222/91. Therefore, when the precedent decision of the Tribunal which has been followed has found acceptance by the High Court, the question of making reference again to that High Court will not arise. The Reference Application, is therefore, rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 290 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Modvat on capital goods - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... it. In the case of Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., 1997 (89) E.L.T. 793 (Tri.) the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal has held that credit should not be denied merely for declaration filed after the receipt of the goods. 4. emsp As regards imposition of penalty there was no mala fide involved and hence imposition of penalty was not justified. The penalty imposed is, therefore, set aside. Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., (1978 E.L.T. J 159) has held that no penalty should be imposed for technical or venial breach of legal provisions or where the breach flows from the bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Similarly, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Akbar Badruddin Jiwani 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) has held that requisite mens rea has to be established before imposing any penalty. 5. emsp In view of the above, I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the lower authority.
-
1998 (12) TMI 289 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ing description would have used the works as ldquo embroidered fabrics rdquo rather than the word ldquo embroidery rdquo alone. Thus in my opinion the Note 8 is to be applied only in those cases where the goods are described in the heading description of the Chapter 58 as fabrics and accordingly the same would not apply to the embroidery of Heading 58.05. 7. emsp The instructions of the Ministry relied upon by the respondent assessee and the detailed reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order reproduced above has sufficient force to rebut the appeal filed by the Department. In fact the department has not produced any evidence or indicated any ground for holding that the impugned order is bad in law. The impugned order is consistent with the decision of the Government and also the decision given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. emsp In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... Chemical Technology of Calcutta University. In the present appeal, the report of the Chief Chemist CRCL forms the basis for the Commissioner rsquo s conclusion that the product is a separately chemically defined compound under Chapter 28. Hence it is all the more necessary for the Commissioner to afford the appellants the opportunity of cross-examining the Chief Chemist, and Dr. Chattopadhyaya. In the light of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority who shall extend to the appellants the opportunity of cross-examination of the Chief Chemist upon his report and Dr. Chattopadhyaya on his report dated 23-4-1992, and to adduce evidence in support of their contention that the product is a sludge falling for classification under Heading 26.20. It is also open to the assessees to urge the plea of time bar, which plea has been raised before us. He shall, thereafter, pass fresh orders. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1998 (12) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... er the seized good can be considered to be smuggled gold. As regards the 4th gold biscuit he does not have much today because it carries the foreign marking and it has also been found to be of purity of 99.9 value. Value of this 4th gold biscuit will be around Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of valuation made by the authorities themselves As regards his plea of conscious possession there is no doubt that it has been recovered from his premises but I also note that it has nowhere been held that the delivery was made to him personally. In the circumstances, I find sufficient force in the plea of the learned Advocate that the gold could not be said to have been put in conscious possession of the appellant. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no penalty at all is warranted on the appellant. Hence, I set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the appellant. Nothing stated in the order will effect the confiscation of the gold biscuits.
-
1998 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cement - Benefit of Notification No. 23/89-C.E. amended by Notification No. 123/89-C.E. not available.
-
1998 (12) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of Pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ed the submissions of both sides. We find that the issue involved about the classification of Calcined Pyrophyllite is an arguable matter and it has to be examined in detail at the time of regular hearing whether Rule 4 of the Interpretation Rule is applicable or not. As the ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has made a mention to deposit the entire amount of the duty confirmed by the Commissioner subject to giving him the certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, we direct the applicant to deposit the entire amount of the duty on or before 31st January, 1999. On compliance being made with these directions, the amount of penalty is not required to be pre-deposited and we stay the recovery of amount of penalty. In case the amount of duty is deposited, the Revenue is directed to issue the certificate of payment of duty under Rule 57E in respect of supplies made to Associated Cement Company. The matter to come up for reporting compliance on 5-2-1999.
............
|
