Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2000 2000 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 391 Records

• 2000 (4) TMI 568 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Exemption notification - Declaration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Tribunal made the following observations ldquo Although the notification makes it necessary for the option to be given, all the details required are available on the classification declaration filed by the assessees on 15-4-1998. Therefore, it can be held that the department had received intimation atleast on 15---1998. In dealing with cases of the refund claims, the Tribunal have held that where the assessee had given an intimation of their intention to file a refund claim, such intimation should be taken for the reckoning of the period of limitation, even where the formal refund claim is filed later. rdquo 4. emsp In view of the fact that the respondents in the earlier period also had exercised the option and since in their declaration for the year 1998-99, they had indicated their option for availment of the notification, following the sentiment expressed in our cited order, we uphold the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The appeal from the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 567 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Confiscation of goods - Mis-branded goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ntal representative adopts the reasoning in the impugned order. 5. emsp There being no denial on the basis for confiscation, the confiscation is confirmed. However I note that there is no allegation, or finding that the goods have been misdeclared in terms of value described or quality. I note further the discrepancy in the manufacturer rsquo s name was with reference to the label, which was not affixed on these goods. The containers have been found by the Asstt. Drug Controller to have no label at all. The presence in the consignment of some labels, which apparently show the supplier rsquo s name in spite of manufacturer, therefore cannot lead to the conclusion that the goods were misbranded on this count. Where there is no label on the goods, it cannot be said that the goods bore misleading information on the label. 6. emsp Taking all these aspects into account, while confirming the confiscation, I reduce the fine for re-export to Rs. 1.25 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 15,000/-.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 566 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Adjudication - Jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... h Foods (P) Ltd. v. CC 1990 (45) E.L.T. 622 (T) and Northern India Woollen Mills v. CC 1991 (53) E.L.T. 81 (T) 8. emsp Having regard to the case law mentioned above and the settled legal position that proceedings for initiating adjudication and for passing adjudication orders relating to contravention of exemption Notifications, Advance Licence Schemes, Export Import Policy etc. would lie within the jurisdiction of Customs authorities having jurisdiction over the Port of import and clearnce, we accept the preliminary objection taken by the appellants about the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to adjudicate the matter in the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction alone. 9. emsp Since the appeals are allowed on the preliminary point of jurisdiction, we do not deem it necessary to go into the submissions on the merits of the various appeals urged before us. 10. emsp All the eight appeals are allowed in the above terms.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 564 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... g pendency of appeal. (b) emsp The seized goods which were confiscated be released to Shri Ghevar Chand Jain Proprietor of M/s. Sanghvi Overseas subject to payment of the redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only), penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and Customs duty thereon at the appropriate rate. (c) emsp Unconditional waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. 84,44,603/- (Rupees eighty-four lakhs forty four thousand six hundred three only) imposed on M/s. Sanghvi Overseas. (d) emsp The Indian currency of Rs. 9,93,200/- (Rupees nine lakhs ninety-three thousand two hundred only) seized from the premises of Shri Rajendra Jain be retained with the Customs Department as pre-deposit towards the penalty of Rs. 65,00,000/-(Rupees sixty-five lakhs only) imposed on Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, subject to which payment of rest of the amount shall stand waived during the course of pendency of the appeal. 9. emsp Compliance to be reported on 7-7-2000.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 527 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Blister Copper not excisable

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the exemption when the same are used captively for further manufacture of articles of Copper. The issue stands decided in favour of the appellants by the Larger Bench rsquo s decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd., 1996 (82) E.L.T. 575 (Tri.-LB) duly followed by the Tribunal in a number of subsequent decisions. Our attention has been drawn to one such decision in the case of Anup Malleable Ltd., Dhanbad and Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 140 (Tri.) 1999 (34) RLT 641 (CEGAT). As such, we find that the issue is no more open for arguments. Following the ratio of the earlier decision, we set aside the impugned order in so far as same relates to the denial of benefit of Notification No. 217/86 in respect of Copper Anodes and Cathodes used captively in the manufacture of moulds further used captively in the manufacture of articles of Copper. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 521 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund - Limitation - Double payment of duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y for export out of India, the date of entry into the factory (d) emsp in a case where a manufacturer is required to pay a sum, for a certain period, on the basis of the rate fixed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette in full discharge of his liability for the duty leviable on his production of certain goods, if after the manufacturer has made the payment on the basis of such rate for any period but before the expiry of that period such rate is reduced, the date of such reduction (e) emsp in a case where duty of excise is paid provisionally under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof (f) emsp in any other case, the date of payment of duty. rdquo The provisions of Section 11B provides that refund claim can be filed within six months from the payment of duty. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal, filed by the appellants, is rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 520 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... said TV Transmitter. TV Transmitter is classified under 85.25 as Transmission apparatus for television. Therefore, these being parts thereof, would correctly fall under 8529.00. Ld. Collector has confused the issue by holding that these are identical to audio amplifiers under 85.18 . Audio Amplifiers are a main and complete product by themselves, bought and sold as such. They have a power-pack and are not in the nature of parts. Whereas, the diagram of these products on record clearly show that they are not having any power-pack, referred to by ld. Collector. Secondly, a TV Transmitter deals with both audio and video signals whereas 85.18 deals with only audio amplifier. 8. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the clear view that there is full merit in the appeal. Therefore, we set aside the order impugned and hold that all the items under appeal before us would be correctly classifiable under 8529.00 . The appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 519 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Modvat - Opting out of Modvat scheme to avail complete exemption

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... credit, the balance shall lapse. In this case, on 31-3-97 when the appellants opted for availing complete exemption on their end-products, an amount of Rs. 1,27,383.65 was calculated to be the Modvat credit availed by them in respect of the inputs lying in stock and those contained in the finished goods lying in stock with them on this date. This was the total liability on the shoulders of the appellants which they were required to discharge since after that date the goods manufactured by them were exempted from whole of the duty. They discharged a part of this liability by extinguishing the amount of Rs. 64,737.55 lying to their credit in their RG 23A Pt. II account. Naturally the balance of Rs. 62,647/- (1,27,383.65 - 64,737.55) had to be paid in cash which they rightly did by debiting this amount in their PLA. Consequently, there is no refund due to them and their claim on this account is misconceived. There is no merit in their appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 518 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Sleepers - Broken sleepers

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ers are themselves finished goods, they cannot be treated as intermediary products under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and hence the claim for exemption under the said Notification is legally incorrect. He further pleaded that Appellant ought to have discharged duty liability on the broken sleepers under the provisions of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. emsp We have heard both sides and find that the C.I. Sleepers in respect of which due entry has been made in the RG 1, on being broken, were remelted within the factory of production and used for manufacture of the finished products. The fact of remelting and reuse of the broken sleepers has not been disputed by the Revenue. Since the impugned goods have been used for captive consumption, the same are clearly eligible for exemption envisaged under the aforementioned notification as there is no revenue loss in the ultimate analysis. 5. emsp In view of the above, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 517 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... benefit of Notification. 6. emsp The factory of the appellant was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 28-7-1992 and during the verification of the record it was found that in the GP-I under which the inputs were received by the appellant, the description of the input was mentioned as M.S. Bars. Shri Rishi Kumar, Director of the appellant Company in his statement dated 28-7-1992, recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act also admitted that they manufactured the pipes and tubes out of bars. 7. emsp We find that the Tribunal in the case of Glorious Industries v. C.C.E., Chandigarh Reported in 1999 (35) RLT 801 (CEGAT) held that when the Tubes and Pipes are made from bars these are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 202/C.E., dated 20-5-1988. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal as the appellants are manufacturing steel tubes and pipes out of bars, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 496 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reference to High Court - Modvat

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ation seeking reference of the following question of law for reference to the Hon rsquo ble Rajasthan High Court, stating that a similar issue has already been forwarded by the Western Regional Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Serene Dye Stuff Industries Ltd. reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 665 to the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court. ldquo Whether notional higher credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be taken at a later stage till indefinite period rdquo . 3. Since, an identical question has already been forwarded to the jurisdictional High Court, the following question of law is referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Rajasthan for its considered opinion ldquo Whether in the context of the provisions of Rule 57B, the Tribunal is justified in holding that higher notional credit can be taken at a subsequent stage, even beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of inputs and the original date of credit taken. rdquo

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 495 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s rdquo is to pour molten metal in steel plants. We find that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Three Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, BBSR v. Kumar Ceramics (P) Ltd., 1994 (73) E.L.T. 372. It has been held that the refractory Sleeves are properly classifiable under Chapter Heading 69.01. As Sleeves and B.P. Sets are both refractory ceramic materials used for the same purposes, the above decision would be equally applicable to B.P. Sets. As such, following the ratio of the above decision, we allow the appeal after setting aside the impugned order.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 494 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ts in respect of poly jute bags manufactured out of the poly jute fabrics (the goods in dispute in the instant appeal) by observing that the benefit could be extended only to jute bags and not to poly jute bags. The above dispute in respect of poly jute bags came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the respondents rsquo own case reported in 1999 (114) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal) 1999 (33) RLT 605 (CEGAT) extended the benefit to such bags by following the ratio of the Calcutta High Court rsquo s decision in the case of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. The ratio of the above decision squarely covers the dispute to the instant appeal of the Revenue. When the poly jute fabrics are classifiable under sub-heading 5306.29 as jute fabrics on account of predominance of jute there is no reason as to why the benefit of notification would not be available to the said fabrics. As such we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject and Revenue rsquo s appeal.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 493 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading No. 85.01 or 85.02 have to be classified there. Heading 8501.00 covers electric motors and generators. There is no dispute by the appellants that parts manufactured by them are parts of electric motors and generators which is classifiable under Heading 85.01. As such parts for use in such motors and generators would be classifiable under Heading 8503.00. In this connection we may also refer to the Tribunal decision in the case of C.C.E., Madras v. Erwarana and Sons Engg. Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 285 wherein nuts and bolts used in the assembly of oil circuit braker were classified as general parts as nuts and bolts under Erstwhile Tariff Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff. As the parts of motor generator and transformer have been specifically mentioned against Heading 85.03 and 85.04 they have to be classified under said Headings. Accordingly we do not find any merits in the appeal and reject the same.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 492 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sifiable as ldquo Ayurvedic Medicament rdquo under sub-heading 3003.30 as claimed by the appellants. 3. emsp Similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the appellants rsquo own case. There was initially a difference of opinion between the two Members and the matter was referred to Third Member. As per the majority view, the ldquo Ayurvedic Cool Banphool Oil rdquo is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 (Final Order No. A-598/Cal/99, dated 24-6-1999). 4. emsp As the issue is already settled in favour of the appellants we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellants with consequential relief to them.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 469 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Production capacity based duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ind that the appellant had requested to change the capacity of the re-rolling mill because of a change in the lsquo I rsquo factor of the formula for determination of the Annual Production Capacity. We find that the ld. Commissioner came to a figure of 7328.435 m.t. based on the parameters after the change. Ld. Commissioner, however, applied the provisions of Rule 5. We note that the provisions of Rule 5 were not applicable to the facts of the present case in-as-much as it was not a case of determination of Annual Production Capacity on the basis of existing parameters but it was a case of re-determination of the Annual Production Capacity on the basis of changed parameters and hence Rule 5 was not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, we hold that the correct production capacity of the re-rolling mill of the appellant is 7328.435 m.t. The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 462 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Classification - Appeal - Adjournment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n filament for electric lamp would be appropriately classifiable under chapter heading 81. Therefore, it appears prima facie that the appellant s case is covered by these decisions. However, it will have to be verified whether electrodes which are the subject matter of this appeal are distinguishable, for the purposes of classification, from the filament which was the subject matter of these decisions. The appellant s contention that the goods are required to undergo further processing before they are used as electrodes will also have to be examined. 7. emsp Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction that he shall hear and dispose of the appeal before him without insisting on any pre-deposit. We emphasise that the Commissioner (Appeals), in coming to this conclusion, should not feel bound by the observations that we have made above, which are in the nature of prima facie findings only.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 461 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Refund - Returned goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... same. Therefore, that decision also is not of any help to the appellants. 8. emsp In view of the clear wordings given under sub-rule IV of 173L(1), the refund amount to be given cannot exceed the duty payable on the goods which emerged after such remaking/reconditioning, etc. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly recorded his findings in the order appealed against that the assessees had not provided any evidence to show that the quantities which emerged after remaking/reconditioning/ reprocessing, etc. were different. In view of there being no evidence, he has rejected the appeals before him. Before this Tribunal also, the appellants have not submitted any evidence to show that the refund claimed by them is supported by facts which in the light of sub-rule IV of Rule 173L(1) would allow them greater refund quantum. In view of this, I do not find any legal infirmity in the orders impugned which compels me to interfere with the same. Therefore, these appeals are rejected.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 460 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... is more near to bag than to container. She has rightly concluded that there is no difference between bag and sack. 5. emsp We also find that as per interpretative rules where the description of an article or group of articles under a heading is preceded by single lsquo - lsquo , the said article or group of articles shall be taken to be a sub-classification of the article or group of articles covered by the said heading and where the description of an article or group of articles is preceded by 2 lsquo - lsquo , the said article or group of articles shall be taken to be a sub-classification of immediately preceding description of the article or group of articles which has single lsquo - lsquo . With the amendment in the budget of 1996 bags figured against the first - entry. As such the same has been correctly classified under Heading 48.19.19 by the Commissioner (Appeals). We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the Revenue s appeal.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 459 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... em. He has noted that such units even if presented separately are classifiable under Heading 84.71. He also referred to the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature from which in fact this note has been taken. 4. emsp In the appeals before us, the only contention is that the personal computer can function without these switches and they can be connected directly to several output devices. However, the appeal does not have material to show why the provisions of Note 5(b) which the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon and which, as we have noted, provided for classification of separately presented units which need not by themselves to be data processing machines, should not apply. The units contemplated in Note 5(b) may not be essential for functioning of a data processing machine, but by virtue of the provisions of that note would, notwithstanding this, be classifiable under Heading 84.71. We therefore find no reason to interfere. 5. emsp Appeals dismissed.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 20