Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 366 Records
-
1997 (5) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Central Excise. As for raising the demand for the period 1980-81 to 24-1-1986, the extended period of limitation had been invoked, we consider that the notice was not proper. 5. emsp We do not agree with the contention of the learned DR that as the Deputy Collector of Central Excise was a part of the Office of the Collector of Central Excise, the notice signed by the Deputy Collector should be taken as that issued by the Collector. The learned Advocate had referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 442, this decision has been relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Gomati Industries v. C.C.E., Indore, referred to above. 6. emsp Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, we consider that the show cause notice issued in this case was not proper. On this short point alone, without going further into the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 257 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of duty - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... nstallition cease to be goods as they become immovable property. The issue before the Patna High Court was whether the cranes were goods or not, on the contention that, being immovable property, after installation, they were not goods. The Court did not have it before it the question of inclusion of erection and commissioning charges. This discussion would also apply to the question of limitation. If the applicant, going by a subsisting Tribunal rsquo s decision, had not intimated the department of the charges incurred by it on account of erection, is arguable whether it had suppressed any fact. 6. emsp We are satisfied that the applicant has a very strong prima facie case on merits and waive deposit of duty, penalty and interest and stay their recovery. 8. emsp Advocate for the applicant also requests for early hearing on the ground that the issue is recurring and that it is settled by various decisions. The appeals may be listed for hearing in the second half of July, 1997.
-
1997 (5) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Deemed credit - Accountal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... here is no contravention of the Rules or of the Act in so far as the deemed Modvat credit is concerned to evade payment of duty. Therefore the demand beyond six months is not sustainable. In the instant case, we find that on limitation issue, the demand is partly within six months. 22. emsp Now on the question of imposition of penalty and quantum thereof, we have already held that the deemed Modvat credit is admissible to the appellants, therefore on that count no penalty was imposable to the appellants. 23. emsp In the case of 456 electric fans, we have already upheld the order of demand of duty and in respect of 867.875 kgs. copper winding wires, we have upheld the order of confiscation thereof. In the circumstances, we reduce the quantum of penalty to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 15 lac and set aside the order of the imposing penalty of Rs. 35,000/- in the other case. 24. emsp The impugned orders are modified to the extent stated above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (5) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... Rule 9(3) it has been stated that the additions to the price actually paid or payable shall be made under this rule on the basis of objective and quantifiable data. Thereafter under Rule 9(4) there is a refrain namely, no addition shall be made to the price actually paid or payable in determining the value of the imported goods except as provided for in this rule. We observe this refrain in Rule 9(4) is very significant. Due regard has to be given to it while seeking additions to the price actually paid. There is no discussion in the order of the learned lower authority in this context. We therefore in the circumstances hold that the issue will have to be examined in depth afresh in the light of our discussions above after affording the respondents an opportunity of hearing and taking into consideration the relevant evidences and the documents including the contracts entered into by the respondents with the IOC. The appeals are therefore allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
1997 (5) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Evidence - Confessional statement - Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... te on the case law referred to above is not appropriate inasmuch as the statements in all those cases were found to be involuntary and having been given under duress on the basis of other evidence on record and not on the sole basis of retraction of the same. I also do not find any force in the appellant arguments that if the other two noticees, Manohar Lal Mehta and Sampat Kumar Singhal has been exonerated by the authorities below, the appellant should also have been exonerated being on the same platform. This is not correct. The other two persons have not been penalised as there was not sufficient material against them. Whereas in the appellant rsquo s case the evidence is not only in the shape of the statement of the co-accused but his own detailed statement is also there which corroborates the details given by the other accused in material particulars. In view of my discussions above, I do not find any force in the appellant rsquo s appeal and accordingly reject the same.
-
1997 (5) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... er machines or appliance. (B) emsp Mechanical devices which cannot perform their function unless they are mounted on another machine or appliance, or are incorporated in a more complex entity, provided that this function (i) emsp is distinct from that which is performed by the machine or appliance whereon they are to be mounted, or by the entity wherein they are to be incorporated, and (ii) emsp does not play an integral and inseparable part in the operation of such machines, appliance or entity. 8. emsp Looking at the manner in which the machine functions, there can be no manner of doubt that machine is one with functions not covered more specifically under any other heading in the Tariff and therefore in the circumstance more appropriate classification of impugned goods even without taking recourse to the Rule 3(c) of the Rules of Interpretation, would be 8479.89. In the result, for the reasons mentioned therein before, we reject the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
1997 (5) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - REP Licence ... ... ... ... ..... instruments other than mentioned in Appendix 8. This explains the apparent contradiction between these provisions and the entry in Appendix 175. It would surely not have been the intention of the licensing authority to take away by a single entry the provisions of much of Chapter III. It will, therefore, have to be considered that the words ldquo not specified elsewhere rdquo would not include instruments the import of which these specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Policy. This would explain the clarification given by the licensing authority to the appellant permitting import of M.F.T. meters in terms of the Policy. No doubt this is an instrument different from that imported. However, it is an indication of the interpretation by the licensing authority of the Policy. This would also explain the previous importation, of such goods. In any event the importer is entitled to the benefit of the considerable doubt that exists. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (5) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste and scrap - Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... n the other hand our attention was drawn to the examination report of the goods. From the examination report recorded on the reverse of the relevant Bill of Entry we find that on physical examination the goods have been found to be crushed scrap. The Department has not placed any evidence on record either to prove that waste and scrap are synonymous or the scrap imported by the appellants was actually not a scrap but waste. In the absence of any positive evidence placed on record by the respondents we do not see any reason to hold that the scrap imported by the appellants was not scrap but waste. 8. emsp Since import of scrap under sub-para (1) of para 27 of the Hand Book of Procedures is permitted without a licence, we hold that no licence was required for import of acrylic plastic scrap. 9. emsp In view of the above findings, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (5) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Show cause notice - Drawback ... ... ... ... ..... issue the appellant has not been able to get evidence of value till now, no useful purpose will be served in sending the matter back. 5. emsp The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Malleables and Forging P. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector mdash 1992 (62) E.L.T. 7 relied upon the appellant has to be distinguished. In that case, writ petitioner had imported a X-Ray Machine, which was found to have some defective components. The components were exported to the supplier of the machine who sent the petitioner replacement of the defective components. In this background the Court held that, since the components sent on replacement had been levied to duty, drawback was payable on the goods exported and the value of such goods could be the value of the goods imported as replacement. In the present case there is no question of any replacement and hence the question of equating the value of the exported goods with that of the replacement does not arise. 6. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... his position. The department did not have a case that the items manufactured in the factory were only some parts of individual machines or equipment covered by the contract and these parts only were removed from the factory on payment of duty on such parts and the individual machines and equipment came into existence at the site by putting together manufactured parts and bought-out parts. That being, in any view of the case, the machines and items manufactured in the factory and allegedly removed in CKD condition and allegedly reassembled at the site will not be liable to duty again. The Collector gave up the case that by erection using manufactured and bought-out items, new movable and marketable goods came into existence. Hence, the decision that duty is payable on bought-out items or on the value of the entire contract less charges for erection and commissioning is not tenable. 19. emsp For the reasons indicated above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 248 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Consumer goods ... ... ... ... ..... re shows its use for case sealing which is a book binding process. 5. emsp From the above material on record, and when the respondents are actually the users of the goods, it will be reasonable to conclude that the goods imported are types of glue which are in the nature of raw material for the production of printed books, and will be covered by the meaning of the term ldquo raw material rdquo given at Para 7(34) of Import Policy 1992-97 quoted above which includes within its ambit even materials which have actually been previously manufactured. For the same reason the imported goods cannot be held to be consumer goods directly satisfying human needs. It is not ready to use on mere heating. The operating temperature is relatively high at 60oc to 70oc in the case of Case Lok 901. The application of the glue is with the help of machines as noted above. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (5) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... s and its tariff specification, the appellants have described the input as Aluminium Alloy Wire Rod rsquo classifiable under Tariff description 7404.10. Though the Department contended that AAAC is the final product, we find that an alloy conductor of aluminium can be described as aluminium alloy conductor and perhaps the description as all aluminium alloy conductor is not the appropriate description of the goods. When we read it alongwith the description of the inputs, we find that the input described in this item is Aluminium Alloy Wire Rod. Needless to say that an all aluminium conductor cannot be manufactured out of Aluminium Alloy Wire Rod. Hence the input Aluminium Alloy Wire Rod is an input for aluminium alloy conductor. We have also seen the cases cited and relied upon by both the sides. We find that the declaration covers the input as well as the final product. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal. Consequential relief shall be admissible to the appellant.
-
1997 (5) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ope of S. No. 6 of Notification 493/86 held that brass ash is a residuary item and therefore concessional treatment under Notification 493/86 is not available to the appellants. The point now made by the ld. Advocate about distinction between copper and brass was not considered in that order presumably because the appellants were not present during hearing and this point does not appear to have been, therefore, pressed into service. 6. emsp The relevant part of Heading 26.20 at the material time read as under ldquo Ash and residue other than the product from the manufacture of iron and steel containing metal or metallic compound rdquo . 6.2 emsp S. No. 6 of Notification 493/86, dated 22-12-1986 is for the sake of clarity reproduced below ldquo 6. emsp 26.20 Others other than ash and residue of copper (including dross) and crude Potassium Salts . 7. emsp Following the ratio of order in case of Sunshine Metals and Alloys Ltd., we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1997 (5) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s plea for classification of goods under Chapter Heading 68.01/16(2) of CTA, 1975. The Revenue is aggrieved with this. It was contended by the ld. DR that the matter has already been decided by the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of Granite (India) v. Collector of Customs and C. Ex. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 536 (T) , in the case of C.C. v. Manjushree Minerals Ltd. 1993 (64) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal) and in the case of M/s Paharia Marbles Industries Final Order No. C/349/97-B2, dated 18-2-1997 reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 645 (Tribunal). 2. emsp We have heard the ld. Representative of the importer rsquo s company. On careful consideration and perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal cited above, we notice that the issue has already been decided in favour of the Revenue. The Tribunal has held that the impugned goods are required to be classified under Chapter Heading 82.01/04 of CTA, 1975. In view of these citations, we set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
1997 (5) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rigid (PU) foam - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... lton Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II and M/s. Eagle Flask (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, in Para 2 of their decision. Following their earlier decisions, the Tribunal had held that in situ process of forming polyurethane foam by interaction between polyols and isocyanates with the cavity of articles like water jug etc. did not amount to manufacture. 3. emsp The Counsel for the respondents have also referred that the end situ foam could not be marketed and was not marketable. We find that there are a number of decisions of the Apex Court that if the goods could not be marketed and were not marketable, then they would not come within the purview of excisability. 4. emsp As the matter is already covered by the Tribunal rsquo s decision, aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view already taken by learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in both these matters and as a result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
-
1997 (5) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ollowed the due procedure of obtaining subsidiary gate-passes in respect of the above quantity received by them. 2. emsp I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that there is no dispute as regards the correlation of the inputs received by the appellants in two part consignments of 2 MTs. and 7 MTs. being covered by the gate-pass in question. In the circumstances, there only remains a procedural lapse. I also take note of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad in his subsequent Order-in-Appeal No. 205-CE/MRT/96, dated 24-5-1996 as also the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dehradun vide his Order-in-Original dated 13-5-1997 have dropped the proceedings against the appellants in cases of similar nature. No penalties have been imposed by the Assistant Collector while dropping the proposal for disallowance of Modvat credit. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
1997 (5) TMI 242 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... er licence. In such cases issue of oral notice would not prejudicially its opportunity for the passenger, importer or exporter to his case as he would already have understood the charges and would result in delay, difficulty and expenses in the form of demurrage to the importer, exporter or passenger. These circumstances did not exist in the case of the appellant before me. It was not in my view prudent to accept the waiver of written notice. The Additional Collector when he adjudicated the case was not an investigating officer but an adjudicating authority who was expected to act impartially and not serve to the interest of the department. 6. emsp In the facts of this case, it has to be held that the appellant was not sufficient opportunity to make effective representation. 7. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Commissioner shall adjudicate the matter afresh according to law after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity to represent this case and to be heard.
-
1997 (5) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Reversal of credit ... ... ... ... ..... ara 3 of communication dated 21-2-1990 which is reproduced earlier. We find that Rule 57-I is specific as it talks of service of a Show Cause Notice and further provides that after giving an opportunity to the assessee to take a decision. In the instant case, therefore, rdquo a point of law arises in so far as communication dated 21-2-1990 and 27-12-1990 are concerned. Whether the communication dated 21-2-1990 and 27-12-1990 asking appellants to reverse the credit is a notice to show cause as contemplated in Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Examining the second point alleged to be a point of law by the applicant, we find that that is only a point of fact and not of law. In the circumstances, we hold that the point of law as formulated above may be referred to the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court, Registry is directed to formulate the statement of facts for forwarding to the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court. The reference application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (5) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... to be included in the assessable value of the main product. 9. emsp It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that functionally the drill and drifter are separate entities that the purpose of Drill is to drill holes, while the purpose of Drifter is not to drill holes but to enable the drifter to drill holes. What has been indicated by the appellant in this behalf may be broadly correct, but we have indicated our reasons for holding that drifter has to be regarded as an integral part of the drill. There is no indication of optionality about this particular part in the broader sense of the expression optional rsquo . There is an option in the limited sense, namely, option of having a drill with drifter or drill with rotary head. There is no case propounded by the appellant of any instance of sale of drill without either drifter or rotary head. No other contention is urged before us. 10. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we decline to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (5) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... msp In the ROM application, among other decisions, reference has been made to the Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench decision in the case of Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 575 (Tribunal) 1996 (63) ECR 193 (Tribunal). In that Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal had observed that the sand mould was incapable of being marketed, has no marketability and was not marketable goods or excisable goods (para 10). It was held that chemicals or resins which were used in the sand mixture for the purpose of producing sand mould are used in relation to the manufacture of steel castings. The Tribunal held that the contrary view taken in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (50) E.L.T. 50 (Tribunal) was not correct. 3. emsp In view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, the ROM application is allowed. The Order No. A/755/96-B, dated 12-3-1996 is recalled and the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
............
|