Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (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 486 Records

• 2003 (4) TMI 491 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Reversal of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the Tribunal but reference filed before the Hon rsquo ble High Court also stands dismissed. As such, the very basis for the start of the proceedings against the respondent is no more available to the Revenue. In an identical situation, the Tribunal has taken note of the situation in the above referred decision of M/s. Super Inducto Steels Pvt. Ltd. and has held that inasmuch as the appeals of the dealer have been allowed and the respondents being only beneficiaries of the said invoices, their benefit cannot be upset. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. has been given in a different set of facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the fact whether the inputs were received along with the invoices or not is depended upon the evidences present in each and every case. 12. emsp Inasmuch as the issue is settled in favour of the respondents by the above referred decisions, we do not any merits in the Revenue rsquo s Appeal and reject the same.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 490 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  EXIM - Licence - Blacklisting - Natural justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... isposed of with the following direction The petitioners shall make appropriate representation against the Advice Memo, dated 23rd March, 2001. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have now disclosed the allegations against the petitioners which relate to exporting 14 consignments from ICD-TKD declaring the goods as Calcium Stearate although exporting Calcium Carbonate and claiming the benefit under Sl. No. 362 of Produce Group Chemicals of the DEBP. The respondents shall however provide the petitioners, within one week, investigation report in respect thereof so that the petitioners know the details of such investigation. Within two weeks thereafter, the petitioners would submit their representation and may also ask for personal hearing. The competent authority shall consider the representation and give the petitioners personal hearing, if desired, and decide the representation of the petitioners within four weeks thereafter. 33. emsp There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 489 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
  

  Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... suits for recovery of money . Accordingly, it was held that the arbitration proceedings pending under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act cannot be treated as suits for recovery of money and therefore, would not be covered by sub-section (1) of section 22 of the SICA. 6. In view of the ratio of the decisions in Kailash Nath Agarwal (supra) and Lloyd Insulations ( supra), in the instant case, where the appellant invoked the arbitration clause by appointing sole Arbitrator cannot be scuttled in the absence of any bar to proceed with arbitration. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, we make it clear that in the event of Arbitrator passing an award, it is open for the writ petitioner to move BIFR for appropriate relief under sub-section (3) of section 22 of the SICA. 7. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 488 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Name of Company - Rectification of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t have upon taking into consideration irrelevant factors and/or refusing to take into consideration the relevant factors. (p. 562). 14. Thus this judgment, if at all, would go against the petitioner. 15. Insofar as the case of Kilburn Electricals Ltd. (supra) decided by the Madras High Court is concerned, that was a case where the court was concerned with the use of name of Kilburn when the existing company, namely, Kilburn had allowed the respondents to use the name Kilburn for Kilburn Electricals Ltd. but instead of that company some more companies were incorporated. In these circumstances, the question arose as to whether without any NOC other companies could be incorporated using the name Kilburn. It was decided that without no objection certificates the companies could not be incorporated. That is not the position in the instant case. 16. In view of the facts noted above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 487 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Confiscation and penalty - Clandestine removal of goods - Demand - Cenvat/Modvat - Penalty and interest

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 486 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . emsp The first grievance made in the appeal memorandum is that the impugned order is not a speaking order. I do not find any substance in this plea. The reliance on Collector of C. Ex. v. Srichakra Tyres Ltd. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 314 (Tribunal) is misplaced since that case is related to classification of product. For the same reason the Collector of Central Excise v. Mysore Polymers and Rubber Products (P) Ltd. 1990 (48) E.L.T. 294 (Tribunal) is not relevant for that decision to apply the product intended to be generated as a good product should have become a waste product. 4 emsp The distinguishing feature in the present appeal is that the goods did not come into existence as waste or by-product during the manufacture but that due to constrain of another act and otherwise perfectly good product was destroyed. The provisions of Rule 57D are not sufficient nor they are maintained to cover this situation 5. emsp The impugned orders sustains and is upheld, the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . v. CCE 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1012 (Tribunal) 2002 (53) RLT 1052 In the first of the above two cases, a Two Member Bench of this Tribunal set aside a demand of excise duty on the ground that no show cause notice had been issued by the Department under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, to demand it. This decision cannot be applied to the instant case inasmuch as no demand of excise duty simpliciter is involved in this case and there is very much a show cause notice in the present case. 7. emsp In the second case aforecited, it was held by a learned Single Member of this Tribunal that a letter issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise asking the assessee to reverse Modvat credit was not a show cause notice and that the credit was not to be denied without a proper show cause notice. Again, this decision is also inapplicable inasmuch as in the instant case, there is a show cause notice proposing denial of Modvat credit. In the result, the appeal is rejected.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 484 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Modvat/Cenvat - Inputs

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... essable value has to be worked out by Section 4 of the Act, and its decision has been accepted by the C.B.E. and C. as seen from the Circular No. 321/37/97-CX, dated 30-6-97. 5. emsp In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that the tariff value is fixed having regard to the wholesale price for the product and it is therefore incorrect to say that the price of the input is not included in the tariff value. This finding is in consonance with the language of Section 3, sub-section (2) which provides for fixing levy of tariff value, and the finding has not been challenged with reference to any material to establish that the value of the packaging material was not taken into account while levying the tariff rate on the final product manufactured by the respondents. 6. emsp In the light of the above discussion, I hold that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly I uphold the same and reject these appeals.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 483 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Valuation - Scaives - Diamond polishing tool

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under - ldquo It is only when lsquo the rsquo transaction value is rejected, then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding subsequently through Rules 5 to 8 - Conversely, if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. rdquo and following this position of the law, the present determination of value, as arrived cannot be upheld, especially when the LMJ-1 and LMJ-3 are not established to be the same goods. (d) When Valuation under Rule 4(1) as applicable, is determined, then there is no case to enhance the values and or determine any additional duty. There is also no cause for any penalty. 9. emsp In view of our above findings this appeal is to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 482 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  SSI Exemption, Brand Name/Trade Name

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nd will not make a branded goods. This view has been expressed by the Tribunal in all the judgments referred to by the consultant noted supra. All these citations clearly apply to the facts of the case. The appellants are not affixing trade name or brand name and the company name of the buyers was fixed which does not dis-entitle the appellant from claiming the benefit of the notification. The Apex Court judgment cited by ld. DR is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the said case, the brand name and trade name was being affixed. The said brand name and trade name was owned by non-manufacturer which dis-entitle appellant from claiming benefit of notification. In the present case the appellant had not affixed any trade name or brand name. The name of the company of the trader was being affixed which was not trade name or brand name. Therefore respectfully following the ratio of the judgment cited by consultant, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 481 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Settlement application - Demand, penalty, fine and interest

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d interest 10 shall be calculated by the applicant from the date on which the duty became payable till the date duty is paid. After doing such calculation of interest, the applicant shall get confirmation from the Revenue and pay the said amount of interest also within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case, there is any delay in paying the interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be paid thereafter alongwith the interest 10 on the interest remaining unpaid after the said 30 days. 3. emsp Prosecution The Bench grants immunity to all the applicants and co-applicants from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 19. emsp The above immunities are granted in terms of the provisions of Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 20. emsp This order of settlement shall be void if it is later on found that the same has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts. 21. emsp All concerned are informed accordingly.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 480 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  SSI Exemption - Brand name - Valuation - Penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e not eligible for the benefit of the SSI exemption notification as the excisable goods manufactured by them bear the brand name of another person. However, we agree with the learned Advocate that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) sale price has to be treated as cum-duty price. Accordingly demand of duty has to be re-calculated by the adjudicating authority by taking sale price as cum-duty price and allowing deduction of excise duty and the duty so determined will be payable by the Appellants. As the excisable goods bearing the brand name have been removed from the factory without payment of duty, penalty is imposable on the Appellants. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the interest of justice will be satisfied if the Appellants are directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. We, therefore, order accordingly. 5. emsp The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 479 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Customs House Agent Licence - Renewal/Grant of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e of the opinion that it is a fit case where at least temporary renewal/grant of the Licence deserves to be allowed to the appellants so that they are able to earn their livelihood, till the adjudication of the show cause notice dated 3-12-99 alleging misconduct against them, especially when there is nothing on the record to indicate that the adjudication of that show cause notice is near completion and the adjudicating authority is likely to submit the report shortly. 7. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and he is directed to issue temporary/provisional working CHA Licence to the appellants till the final adjudication of the show cause notice dated 3-12-99. However, the appellants will furnish an undertaking before the Commissioner that they will discharge their obligations during that period as for the Regulation 14 of the CHALR. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants stands disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 478 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Settlement of case - Customs - Interest liability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e applicant shall pay the same along with interest 18 per cent. per annum if the same is paid after 30 days from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment of such extra amount. 19. emsp Fine and Penalty The Commission finds that the applicants have cooperated in the proceedings before the Commission and have made a full and true disclosure. In this view of the matter, the Commission grants immunity from fine and penalty to the applicants. 20. emsp Prosecution All the applicants are given immunity from prosecution under Customs Act, 1962 and the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 21. emsp The Bank Guarantee is ordered to be released to the applicants after the interest amount is paid by the applicant. 22. emsp The above immunities are granted to the applicants under Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962. 23. emsp This order of settlement shall be void if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 477 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty - Modvat credit wrongly availed

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r Rule 173Q apart from the offending goods which are liable for confiscation the present concerned with that shall be liable to penalty up to the amount specified in the Rule. It is difficult to accept the argument of the Appellants that levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary. Accordingly, we hold that penalty is imposable on the Appellants. However, we observe that the fact of Appellants filing RT 12 returns along with invoice or bill of entry on the basis of Modvat credit had been taken by them, has not been disputed by the Revenue. This fact coupled with the fact that entire amount has been reversed by them immediately after being pointed out by the audit party. Penalty equal to the amount of Modvat credit disallowed is not warranted in the present matter. In our view, nominal amount of penalty will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, reduce the amount of penalty to Rs. 2 lakhs only. The appeal is thus partly allowed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 476 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Import - Advance licence - Cancellation of - Demand and confiscation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion as the importer was an actual user. We do not see the relevance of that decision to the case before us. The Tribunal in its decision in Kunal International v. CC - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 132 declined to follow Sampat Raj Dugar on the ground that the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment was not concerned with case of fraud. This is in fact not correct, going by the Bombay High Court rsquo s judgment in K. Uttamlal (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 527, which was not noticed by the Bench which passed the order, that even if a fraud is established, the principle that would apply is laid down in East India Commercial Corporation, that a licence obtained by fraud or forgery is void ab initio. The same view has been taken by that court in its judgment in Bansilal Jesasingh v. UOI - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 52. 8. emsp It has therefore to be held that the goods were validly imported in terms of the licence that was issued. 9. emsp The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 475 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sued by the Central Government under Rule 57G (that rule having been amended in 1994 substituting the Central Government in place of the Board specifying documents other than bill of entry etc.) refers in that serial No. 8 of the table to a circular which lists the documents on which credit can be taken, citing the original circular dated 10-4-1986 of the Board. 5. emsp We do not think it proper to ignore the whole series of orders of the Board relating to taking of credit on the basis of the letter of 1989. That letter clearly is in the nature of an operation and ignores the earlier instructions of the Board. Its value, if any, is also nullified by the subsequent circular in 1994. It is not in dispute that Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. is an integrated steel plant. The certificates issued by it therefore would be treated on the same basis as certificate issued by SAIL and TISCO. They were therefore valid for taking credit. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 474 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Demand - Valuation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... at the appellant had, prior to 1995, sold the goods at a price far lower than the price at which it sold the goods under consideration. That by itself could not entitle it to apply this price for clearances in future. 5. emsp It would not be incorrect to say that tariff values are fixed in the case of goods which are subject to frequent fluctuation in price in order to reduce difficulties in assessment and collection of tax. While a tariff value may have some relevance to the prevailing price of goods, it does not establish the benchmark for assessment for all times to come. The tariff value that was notified in March, 1995 of Rs. 98/- was done away in June, 1995. It obviously cannot have any relevance to the market situation a year later. The department does not allege that the price at which the appellant cleared the goods was not the one and lower price. There is therefore no case made out by the department. 6. emsp The appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 473 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  SSI Exemption - Value of clearances

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hs. Such provision of heading-wise separate maximum limit was not there in Notification No. 1/93-C.E. None of the cited decisions dealt with includibility, or otherwise, of any waste and scrap either. We are, therefore, of the view that the cited decisions cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. 8. emsp These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with a direction to the original authority to re-determine the duty liability of the respondents after segregating the clearances of the waste and scrap generated in the process of manufacture of specified goods cleared under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. (as amended) and excluding the same from computation of the aggregate value limit of Rs. 30 lakhs for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE (as amended) in respect of the specified goods cleared thereunder. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being personally heard on the limited aspect of re-quantification.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 472 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Manufacture

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mmissioner of Central Excise held that the appellants were undertaking the process of bending, cutting, punching holes, bolting, welding, etc., on MS rounds, channels, angles and plates to fabricate columns, trusses, beams, etc. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Wainganga Sahakari S. Karkhana Ltd. (supra), after relying the earlier decision, held that fabrication of trusses, beams and columns, does not come under the ambit of definition of manufacture. Revenue filed appeal and the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal reported as 2002 (142) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) 2002 (50) RLT 125. 6. emsp In a similar situation, in the case of Pawar Construction Co. (supra), the Tribunal took the same view and the appeal against this decision was also dismissed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. We find that the above decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court are applicable on the facts of the present case, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 25