|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 459 Records
-
2000 (2) TMI 674 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Approved classification list ... ... ... ... ..... the goods were held to be correctly classifiable under 2901.90 of the schedule and that goods are not entitled for the benefit of notification No. 30/89. 2. emsp The respondents, a public sector undertaking, is not aggrieved with the reclassification adopted by the department and also rejection of the benefit of the notification. They are contesting the Revenue appeal seeking demands for six months prior to issue of show cause notice. 3. emsp Heard ld. DR Shri Sudarsan and Shri G. Sriram, Dy. Manager (Finance) for respondent. 4. emsp On careful consideration of grounds of Revenue appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the view expressed by Commissioner (Appeals) that demands cannot be confirmed retrospectively for six months in case of approved classification list has since been upheld by the Apex Court judgment rendered in CCE v. Cotspun Ltd as in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the said ratio, the Revenue appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (2) TMI 666 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Spent earth is not liable to duty - Judicial discipline ... ... ... ... ..... y. Further it was observed that appeals involving question of excisability of spent earth shall now be posted by the Registry before the concerned Bench for final disposal. 4. emsp Shri K. Srivastava appearing for the Revenue submitted that he has raised some basic points during the course of hearing the matter before the Larger Bench but the same has not been considered as can be seen from the order passed by the Larger Bench and requires to be reconsidered. The plea taken by the D.R. cannot be looked into by the Bench at this stage since Division Bench is not empowered to review the order of the Larger Bench and on the other hand, we are bound by the decision of the Larger Bench, as per judicial discipline. 5. emsp Since the issue involved herein has already been considered and concluded by the Larger Bench, following the same, we hold that lsquo spent earth rsquo is not excisable being not manufactured product. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (2) TMI 657 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Textile finishing agent - Penalty - Demand - Limitation - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... partment about the correct classification of the products, I am of the view that benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee and not to the department. In the facts and circumstances, particularly, in view of the clarification issued by the department on 14-6-1990, I am of the view that demand should be restricted to 6 months and demand if any beyond the 6 months from the date of show cause notice was barred by time. Accordingly, the view expressed by the Member (Judicial) is concurred with. Case file is returned to the original bench to pass an appropriate order. Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (J) Dated 28-1-2000 MAJORITY OPINION In the light of the majority opinion, demand for the period from 11th January 1990 to 31st October 1990 is confirmed, demand for the priod from 1-3-1986 to 10-1-1990 is set aside as barred by limitation and the penalty is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (V.K. Agarwal) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Dated 3-2-2000
-
2000 (2) TMI 648 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... to some of the deductions claimed, therefore the ratio of the same would clearly apply to this appeal also. Accordingly, we set aside the order-in-original impugned and remand the matter to Commissioner of Central Excise for de novo consideration in terms of the directions given already in our Final Order No. 60-71/2000, dated 6-1-2000 2000 (126) E.L.T. 763 (T) , a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-I to this order for consideration by the ld. Commissioner in these de novo proceedings. The learned Commissioner shall, no doubt, hear the appellants during these proceedings and then proceed to pass a speaking order taking into consideration the directions contained in the said final order dated 6-1-2000. 7. emsp Since the matter lay on a short compass, we have considered the appeal itself as per above orders after granting waiver and stay in the matter. 8. emsp The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in the above terms and stay application is also disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (2) TMI 647 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods - Attempt to export illegally - Redemption fine - Ownership ... ... ... ... ..... ized under the provisions of the Customs Act and therefore, they will be governed only by Customs Act. If the appellants have any dispute, they can file suits against the railways in the appropriate forum if they are so advised. 11A. emsp We have also heard and considered the submissions of the ld. DR. 12. emsp Having regard to the above discussions and findings, we hold that the goods are liable to confiscation and have rightly been confiscated. We also hold that Shri Srikrishna has not been able to establish his title to the goods and therefore, no redemption fine has been proposed rightly. Insofar as imposition of penalty is concerned, we note that penalties are liable to be imposed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty on Shri Krishna is reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs and penalties on the remaining 12 applicants are reduced to Rs. 10,000 each. But for the above modifications, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (2) TMI 646 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ties under which the returns are to be filed, we could not go into this aspect. We however observe that the delayed issue of the show cause notice which is for imposition of penalty alone would not support the ground of limitation. The last point of Shri Patil was that for the invoices which are incomplete where the duty involved is about Rs. 16 lakhs the quantum of penalty is excessive. We find this point to have merit. We find that in spite of the prima facie merits in this application, the issue of the responsibility cast on the registered dealers has to be brought out and discussed, since any lacuna at this place would give rise to litigation down the line resulting in loss of due benefit to the end users. With this point in mind, we direct the applicants to deposit a token sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. The deposit is to be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and compliance to be reported on 15th March, 2000.
-
2000 (2) TMI 645 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of currency ... ... ... ... ..... unted for or may have been acquired by some unlawful means. However that alone is not sufficient to conclude that it must be the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. Decisions of the Tribunal have gone so far to say that for contravention of Section 121 of the Act be established, it must be shown that there was a sale of smuggled goods, by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were of smuggled origin, and the identity of the seller, buyer and quality of goods sold would be established. C. Ramachandra v. C.C.E. - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 277 . The facts in this case fall far short of establishing that any one of these four ingredients existed. Thus, whatever the nature of the currency, (and that is certainly in question) it has not been established that it is liable to confiscation under Section 121 of the Act. Therefore its confiscation, and penalty imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
2000 (2) TMI 621 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Departmental clarification ... ... ... ... ..... y so paid. It is reasonable to hold that the circular dated 4-1-1991 reversing this position could not have come to the note of the assessee prior to February, 1991. The Nagpur trade notice communicating this view is dated 11-2-1991. Apart from this the Board in its circular in December, 1991 has said that past cases should not be reopened signifying that the contents of the circular of January, 1991 will only apply prospectively. The attempt in the appeal to dismiss the contents of that circular by saying that it is an altogether different matter is obviously unsuccessful. The respondent to this appeal has only taken credit on the duty paid by the manufacturer on the goods in pursuance of the Board rsquo s circular. If, on a later examination the Board says that the earlier instructions were wrong that should not operate so as to frustrate the action of the assessee taken in pursuance of the earlier circular. 5. emsp Therefore, I see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 620 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Remand - De novo consideration when to be ordered - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... d and fresh test reports, which are annexed in the appeal memo. It is contended by the respondents that the same are fresh material which has been placed and the same had not been furnished to them. In view of this submission, we are of the opinion that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the matter is required to be remanded back to the original authority for de novo consideration. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo consideration with a direction that all the materials relied upon by the Revenue should be furnished to the respondents and the aspect has to be viewed afresh in the light of the contentions raised by the respondents and the materials placed now in their support by the Revenue with regard to Chemical Engineer Report, Literature and Explanatory Notes to HSN should also be considered by the Assistant Commissioner in de novo consideration. 5. emsp Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (2) TMI 619 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Production capacity based duty - Annual capacity of production - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 1999 (34) RLT 323 (CEGAT) where in identical circumstances on the ground of denial of natural justice, the Tribunal had remanded the proceedings back to the adjudicating Commissioner. We decide this batch of appeals on the same lines but in addition would direct the respective Commissioners to firstly consult technical experts on the issue whether galleries are parts of stenters and also whether rollers/cylindrical dryers which are machines based on principles other than on which stenters are established could be taken to be lsquo any other equipment rsquo referred to in the Explanation. They shall also associate the assessees and permit them to place on record technical opinion and extracts from texts in support of their claim. After giving such opportunities the respective Commissioners shall proceed to determine the annual capacity, very clearly giving their reasons. 13. emsp These appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (2) TMI 617 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e has also submitted that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal has just rendered a decision having strong bearing on the present case in favour of the Revenue and has therefore prayed for an adjournment of the hearing to enable him to produce a copy of the order of the Larger Bench. I am not impressed with this prayer for adjournment inasmuch as the question before me is simply as to whether the Indian Oil Corporation rsquo s invoices, which were yellow instead of pink in colour and were without the preprinted words ldquo Duplicate for Modvat rdquo , could have been accepted as valid documents for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit. The above question stands squarely covered in favour of the respondents by a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 1999 (106) E.L.T. 145 (T) . 5. emsp In view of the above said findings and observations, I do not see any merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and accordingly reject the same.
-
2000 (2) TMI 616 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Brand Name - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tation are invokable. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned D.R. It is not disputed by the Revenue that it was informed by the Appellants that ldquo wasp rdquo brand name belonging to a trader was used in respect of ejecto pump. The Appellants have clearly mentioned in the classification list. The use of ldquo wasp rdquo brand name in respect of other pumps. The Department cannot allege suppression of facts only on the ground that use of brand name in respect of sewage effluent pump was not intimated to them. The Department has been informed of the ownership of the brand name lsquo wasp rsquo and the same was clearly mentioned in classification lists as well as gate passes and sale invoices filed with the Department along with RT 12 Returns. In view of these facts, there was no suppression warranting the invocation of extended period of limitation for demanding duty. Accordingly we allow both the appeals holding demand of excise duty being time-barred.
-
2000 (2) TMI 592 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Refund - Bar of unjust enrichment - Rectification of Mistake - Appellate order - Direction for compliance
-
2000 (2) TMI 591 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... l Shri Harbans Singh to contend that there is no one to one co-relation between the inputs and final products in the entire Modvat scheme and having regard to the language of Rule 57F (4), credit on inputs used in the manufacture of one final product can be utilised towards payment of duty while clearing waste arising in the course of manufacture of another final product. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the Reference application. I have considered the rival submissions. There is no doubt that the question as framed by the Revenue is a question of law and it has not been the subject matter of any authoritative pronouncement by a High Court. It is a question which requires a decision by a jurisdictional High Court and I, therefore, allow the application for reference and forward the question as framed by the Revenue for reference to the Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The application is hereby allowed. The statement of case is drawn up herewith.
-
2000 (2) TMI 590 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tion hydrated ferric oxide from a solution of iron salts, dehydrating and reducing with hydrogen. (c) Occurs in nature as the mineral magnetite. ldquo According to Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. Chapter 73 ldquo Covers a certain number of specific articles in Headings 73.01 to 73.24, and in headings 73.25 and 73.26 a group of articles not specified or included in chapter 82 or 83 and not falling in other Chapters of Nomenclature, of iron (including cast iron as defined in Note 1 to this Chapter) or steel. rdquo It is not the case of the respondents that the impugned product is an article of iron or steel. A perusal of Heading 73.02 makes it apparent that for being classified in the heading, the other material specialized for jointing or fixing rails has to be of iron or steel. Accordingly the impugned product is not classifiable under Heading 73.08. It is classifiable under Heading 38.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appeal of the Revenue is thus allowed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 589 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Parts of machinery ... ... ... ... ..... by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Patna. The factual position as regards the goods in question being parts or not has to be appreciated. From the detailed use and function of the items given by the appellants and not rebutted by the Department, it is seen that the items in question are not of the type as performing any independent and self-contained function. It is also a fact that the said parts get damage during their use and need frequent replacement. I also find force in the submissions of the ld. advocate that the Department has sought to deny, the Modvat credit by treating the said goods as parts of machines or machineries. As such, they cannot go back on their own claim as the parts are admittedly entitled to Modvat credit not being hit by the Exclusion Clause of Rule 57A as held by Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal. I hold that the said items are entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (2) TMI 588 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... . We find that the requirement of Notification 149/95 was that the exemption under this Notification shall be available on the goods imported into India against an Advance licence applied for and issued on or after 19-9-95. Thus, the requirement of Notification No. 149/95 was complied with by the appellants in-as-much as they were issued the advance licence on 23-8-96. Since the appellants had complied with the requirement of Notification No. 149/95, they were not required to pay countervailing duty on the imported goods against their Advance licence in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and since this duty was incorrectly paid by them by mistake, therefore, they were entitled to the refund thereof. We do not see any other condition of this Notification being violated. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the refund of countervailing duty. This, however, will be paid in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (2) TMI 586 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... . We find that the requirement of Notification 149/95 was that the exemption under this Notification shall be available on the goods imported into India against an Advance licence applied for and issued on or after 19-9-95. Thus, the requirement of Notification No. 149/95 was complied with by the appellants in-as-much as they were issued the advance licence on 23-8-96. Since the appellants had complied with the requirement of Notification No. 149/95, they were not required to pay countervailing duty on the imported goods against their Advance licence in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and since this duty was incorrectly paid by them by mistake, therefore, they were entitled to the refund thereof. We do not see any other condition of this Notification being violated. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the refund of countervailing duty. This, however, will be paid in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (2) TMI 585 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ship-breaking - Rate of duty, additional Customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... by the concerned importers prior to 2-9-1978 when the earlier Notification dated 2-8-1976 was holding the field. The latter Notification cannot be said to be merely clarificatory Notification nor can it have any retrospective effect. It is a fresh Notification laying down fresh condition deleting the earlier condition No. 2 about the colour specification. Hence this submission is of no avail to the learned counsel for the appellants. rdquo 13. emsp In the present case the Notification No. 173/88-C.E. issued on 13-5-1988 was amended on 25-7-1991 by Notification No. 82/91. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in the arguments of the appellant that Notification No. 82/91-C.E. is clarificatory in nature. As the appellants are not fulfilling the condition laid down under Notification No. 93/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 and 173/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988, we find no force in the appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
-
2000 (2) TMI 551 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Clandestine manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... for the demand in the notice. The figures taken as basis in the earlier period, as have been indicated, have not been shown to be the figures of production or packing. The fact that the latter figures show the packing and production separately gives weighments to the applicant rsquo s arguments that figures of production mentioned in these reports are different from the figures packed. 8. emsp It has therefore on balance to be held that the department has not produced sufficient material to successfully establish beyond the reasonable doubt that the figures of production entered in the RG1 register are incorrect. The demand for duty on this score cannot be confirmed. Consequently the penalty imposed on this score of Rs. 75 lakhs has also to be set aside. As also the confiscation ordered on this score of plant and machinery with redemption fine has to be set aside. The appeal is therefore allowed to that extent. The earlier original order of the Tribunal modified accordingly.
............
|
