Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 312 Records
-
1998 (5) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... appellants before passing adjudication order and these comments were relied upon by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise in the impugned order. 10. emsp In these circumstances, we hold that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the learned Additional Collector, Central Excise, Delhi did not supply the comments of the Anti-Evasion Branch in respect of the reply to the show cause notice to the appellants and no opportunity was granted to the appellants to rebut the comments made by the Anti-Evasion Branch. 11. emsp In this case, the demand relates to the period 1979-80 to 30-4-1984 and these proceedings were initiated by the Revenue by issuing a show cause notice, dated 14-2-1985. Therefore, in view of the fact that the proceedings were initiated in the year 1985 instead of remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (5) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ship breaking scrap ... ... ... ... ..... said heading and received by the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit of said notification. However, in respect of this inputs, the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit as pleaded by the ld. advocate because it is duty paid. Since however this point was not taken by the appellant before the lower authorities therefore this limited aspect of entitlement of Modvat credit of duty paid inputs falling under Heading 72.03 is to be adjudicated upon by the adjudicating authority after taking into account the evidence and facts available on record. 8. emsp In view of the foregoing, we allow the appeal partly as aforesaid and part of the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, there is no warrant for imposing any penalty or for confiscating the seized goods. Accordingly we set aside the confiscation as well as a penalty. Accordingly the redemption fine is also set aside.
-
1998 (5) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Consent order not appealable - Adjudication -Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... same time ld. Collector was also required to be more specific and he has also erred in treating the matter as merely technical in the light of subsequent change in policy as it is the law and policy in force during the relevant period which was to be kept in view and not subsequent developments which had taken place after clearance. Moreover, Sh. Bhardwaj has kept the order of Sh. Gowri Shankar in view while dealing with the matter and in particular in determining the penalty and the order of Sh. Gowri Shankar has been set aside by us, therefore, the order of Sh. Bhardwaj cannot be considered in isolation and is also required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded for de novo consideration in the light of above observations and the law. 78. emsp Order per Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) . - While agreeing with the order recorded by the learned Vice President, I wish to clarify that I do not subscribe to the strong language used in para 36 of the above order.
-
1998 (5) TMI 195 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... of the above observations, we notice that if the interpretation as contended by the Revenue in the subject reference application is adopted, it will lead to absurdity as pointed out by the Tribunal rsquo s finding in Para 11 inasmuch as the incentive notification would result in a negative excess production. Such interpretation, therefore, has to be on plain terms rejected. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merits in the subject reference application from the Revenue. Consequently, we reject the same. 8. emsp At this stage, we may also refer to a preliminary, objection raised by the ld. Advocate for the respondent that the reference application is not maintainable. We had over-ruled that objection and proceeded to hear the reference application on the ground that the said Notification 283/82-C.E., dated 27-11-1982 is not an exemption notification issued under erstwhile Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
1998 (5) TMI 194 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... Section 4 of the Act. The notice did not indicate such a basis for the proposed action. The basis was that the entire production of goods sold by the appellant to M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. Even assuming that this constitutes a relationship, the order of the Collector (Appeals) still not be sustainable. For the two parties to be held to be related to each other, it has to be shown that each of them has an interest in the business of the other directly or indirectly. The fact that the entire production of some of the goods manufactured by one was sold to the other does not constitute such an interest. The interest that subsisted was between the buyer and seller of the goods according to the buyer rsquo s specification. This is not enough to hold them to be related persons (Union of India v. Atic Industries - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 323). The prices at which the goods were sold by M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. cannot be the assessable. 3. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1998 (5) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Clandestine removal - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... 209 of Central Excise Rules. It is held that the appropriation of the amount towards the confiscation of the goods which were released, is not in accordance with law. Proper remedy for the department is to enforce the terms of the Bond by asking the assessees to produce the goods and thereafter, to enforce Bond in terms of the stipulations set out in the Bond and without having taken recourse to that remedy the amount could not be straight way appropriated. 7. emsp In the instant case the impugned order does not show that the appellant has called upon to produce the goods released in his favour on the Bond. The basis on which the amount is appropriated is not clear. So, as per the above ruling the direct appropriation of Rs. 50,000/- the cash security in the impugned order is not legal and valid. The contention of the appellant is upheld. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons indicated above, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief according to law.
-
1998 (5) TMI 192 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We agree with the learned Advocate that before the products can be taken out from the scope of the Tariff Heading 7419.91 i.e. other articles of copper - ldquo Cast Moulded, Stamped or Forged, but not further worked rdquo , the Department has to find that the products in question have gone beyond the stage of casting i.e. beyond the proof-machining stage of the casting. We observe that no such finding has been given. No enquiry has, in fact, been made despite a categorical stand taken by the appellants in their reply to show cause notice that they did not perform anything else on the cast products, except the proof-machining. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not agree with the finding of the lower authorities that the products in question are machinery parts as found by them. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1998 (5) TMI 191 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... de. The Revenue rsquo s objection that since the said products are not being directly used by the respondents in the maintenance and repair of the furnace installed in their factory, the benefit would not be available to the respondents. However, we find that the said products are used in the manufacture of refractory bricks which in turn are used for repair and maintenance of the furnace. As such, the D.B. Dolomite can be said to have been used for the repair and maintenance of the furnace installed in the respondents rsquo factory. The wordings of the Notification No. 281/86 are wide enough to take into its ambit, the goods which have been ultimately used for repair and maintenance, may be via an intermediate product. There is no condition in the said Notification, of direct use of any goods so as to earn exemption under the same. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the Department rsquo s case so as to set aside the impugned Order. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (5) TMI 190 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Design and development charges ... ... ... ... ..... ing the charges themselves as excisable goods. In any event, we are of the view that the Asstt. Commissioner in this case should have got the matter cleared by making enquiries with the Asstt. Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of the supplier of input, if he doubted the genuineness of the particulars of duty payment in the gate pass in question. The circumstances of collection of duty on design and development charges by the Asstt. Commissioner at the suppliers end is a necessary data in the circumstances of this case in view of the appellants rsquo explanation referred to above, without which the denial of Modvat will not be justified. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the juris- dictional Asstt. Commissioner to take action as indicated above, and to extend the credit to the appellants depending on the result of the enquiry with the Asstt. Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of the input supplier.
-
1998 (5) TMI 189 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Manufacture - Interpretation of statute - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... quo for the period from 5-2-1986 to 26-6-1986 and for the rubber waste and scrap for the period from 28-2-1986 to 25-6-1986. The show cause notice was issued on 16-3-1990, admittedly after a period of six months. The demand in question raised on the basis of private pass-outs which are maintained by the appellants in the ordinary course of their business. Based upon the said pass-outs, earlier demand raised by the appellants rsquo jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, has been held to be time-barred by the Tribunal vide its Order dated 27-7-1990 relied upon by the learned Advocate. Following the said judgment, we also hold that the demand was barred by limitation having been raised only after the period of six months from the relevant date. 21. emsp Resultantly, the appeal in respect of Micro Cellular Sheets is allowed on merits as also on limitation and in respect of rubber waste and scrap rsquo , is allowed on the ground of limitation. Impugned order is thus set aside.
-
1998 (5) TMI 188 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... lat emsp emsp emsp emsp Not less than 3/16 and not greater than 1 1/ emsp 3.2 ldquo Not greater than 18 Bar emsp emsp emsp emsp Ld. Consultant has also given us the Table of conversion from inches to mm called instant the effect of the Tariff Advice - Inch mm Inch mm 1/16 1.587 ensp 6 152.4 1/8 3.175 ensp 7 177.8 3/16 4.762 ensp 8 203.2 1/4 6.350 ensp 9 228.6 5/16 7.937 ensp 10 254.0 3/8 9.525 ensp 11 279.4 7/16 11.112 12 304.8 1/2 12.700 13 330.2 9/16 14.287 14 355.6 5/8 15.875 15 381.0 11/16 17.462 16 406.4 3/4 19.050 17 431.8 13/16 20.637 18 457.2 7/8 22.225 19 482.6 15/16 23.812 20 508.0 1 25.4 ensp ensp 21 533.4 2 50.8 ensp ensp 22 558.8 3 76.2 ensp ensp 23 584.8 4 101.6 ensp 24 609.6 5 127.0 ensp 25 635.0 4. emsp In view of the Tariff Advice there is no doubt about it that the product would fall under the classification of bars and not under the category of flats. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (5) TMI 187 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ... ... ... ..... ges. 4. emsp In his rejoinder, Shri T. Premkumar submits that there is no evidence on record that the goods can generally be put in the wholesale market at the factory gate without this packing. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Representative. We observe that Packing P-41 for which charges are recovered by the respondents from their customers and are proposed to be included by the Revenue, is only in respect of packing goods which are transported through Railways under the Rules and Regulations made by the Railway Authorities. Such Packing is not required for transportation under any other mode. Therefore, the inference drawn by the learned Representative for the respondents, is fairly reasonable and cannot be, as a result, disputed. Consequently, we agree with her that the packing charges for P-41 are not required to be included. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1998 (5) TMI 186 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Cess ... ... ... ... ..... tea waste in the absence of separate exemption notification. The point whether cess is leviable, at all on the tea waste in terms of the provisions of Section 25 read with definition of tea given in section 3(n) of the Tea Act, 1953 was not considered in the earlier Circular. However, the Circular of 1996, being later in point of time is binding on the department. The department cannot be heard to argue against the same as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.). The Circular being clarificatory in nature would apply to all the pending cases involving the same dispute. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merits in the department rsquo s appeals and accordingly reject the same upholding the impugned orders - remanding the matters to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of amended provisions of Section 11B.
-
1998 (5) TMI 185 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Dutiability - Intermediate goods - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the manufacture of dutiable ammonium bi-carbonate, the appellants drew the attention of the Bench to the return appearing at page 35 of the paper book wherein in remarks column, it has been written as under - ldquo captive consumption of carb-liquor in Ammonium Sulphate fertilizer production rdquo . The Collector rsquo s reasoning that as the fact of captive consumption was not mentioned in the classification list filed for carb-liquor, the same amounts to suppression, is not well founded. On the face of over-whelming evidence produced by the appellant showing knowledge on the part of the department, we hold that no suppression on mis-statement can be attributed to the appellant justifying invoking of larger period. Accordingly, the demand is held to be time barred. 12. emsp In view of our finding of demand being time bar there is no justification for penalty. The same is accordingly set aside. Appeal is allowed on the point of limitation and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1998 (5) TMI 184 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Prosecution - Complaints to Magistrate ... ... ... ... ..... rt is competent to take cognizance of the same by virtue of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the prayer for quashing cannot be allowed and the prayer is, therefore, rejected. 10. emsp In certain cases which I am disposing of by this Order, I am told that enquiry under Section 202(2) Crl. P. C. is not conducted by the Magistrate. Certain others in which offence under Section 57A is alleged to have been committed are being tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Yet another set of cases are there in which the Judicial First Class Magistrate without conducting an enquiry as provided under Section 200(2) Crl. P. C. committed them to the Court of Session. So, there will be a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate rsquo s Court/Court of Session before whom the cases were pending to dispose of the same in accordance with the directions and observations contained in the order. The Criminal Miscellaneous cases are disposed of as above.
-
1998 (5) TMI 183 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Import of old Mercedes Benz Car ... ... ... ... ..... sultant, he had no objection to this legal position. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that resort to valuation rules has been correclty upheld. 5. emsp The only issue left for consideration is whether Rule 8 has been applied systematically and objectively or in an arbitrary manner. From the plain reading of the OIO, we find that the basis is price list of a Mercedes Benz car. Though the issue is slightly doubtful, a plain reading of the sentence shows it is the price list of Mercedes Benz, presumably the manufacturer. It is not disputed that price list of some other model of some other car has been applied. It is further seen that on this price the normal depreciation of upto 46 depending on the age of vehicle has been provided. On the basis of physical examination further 14 discount has been given by Customs. Under these circumstances, we do not find anything arbitrary in this position. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the said appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (5) TMI 182 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Laps of staple fibre and cotton ... ... ... ... ..... s come into existence by the process undertaken by the appellants. Therefore, no duty liability would arise on the appellants for producing the laps of cotton fibre or laps of staple fibre out of cotton or staple fibre received by them. Reliance placed by the ld. Consultant on the various judgment mentioned (supra) is quite apt in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, reliance placed by the ld. JDR, Shri Roy on the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in Tube Investment (supra) does not have any relevance because in that case, as observed, laminations all sorts as described in the relevant tariff entry was brought into existence by punching of the electric steel sheets. Laminations were clearly dutiable under the Tariff and hence the Tribunal held so. We are, therefore, of the view, that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and we order accordingly. In other words, appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Laps of staple fibre and cotton
-
1998 (5) TMI 181 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... contention of its classification under Chapter 54. He also submits that subsequently the appellants rsquo jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities have also started classifying the plastic strips under Chapter 39. And reference to one Order-in-Original dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Adjudication). Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the reasoning in the impugned order. 4. emsp We find that the issue is covered in the appellants rsquo own case vide our order dated 19-2-1997. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, following the above order, with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (5) TMI 180 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... mended grants exemption to such goods. In this connection, answer to Question No. 40 of the Guide to Modvat issued by C.B.E.C. relevant. The intermediate excisable goods manufactured out of raw material received from the principal manufacturer under Rule 57F(2) being fully exempt from duty, under Notification No. 214/86 dated 1-3-1986, the value clearance of such goods is not to be taken into consideration in computation of aggregate value of clearance for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. The Order of the Asstt. Collector is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 3. emsp The findings are clear. The goods sent by job worker are admitted to be fully exempted under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. Therefore, clearances made by the job-worker-respondent herein under that Notification have not to be taken into that account for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. 4. emsp Consequently, we do no find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. We dismiss the same.
-
1998 (5) TMI 179 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... cords maintained by them. The reasoning of the Collector that since the appellants were availing the Modvat credit from the year 1986 onwards and as such they must have availed the Modvat credit in respect of the disputed inputs is in the nature of presumptions. Merely because the appellants were working under the Modvat scheme during the relevant period does not, ipso facto, amounts to availing of credit in respect of each and every consignment of inputs received by them. Wherever the duty paid documents are not available, the Modvat credit might not have been availed by the appellants. This fact needs verification by the department. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand with directions to the adjudicating authority to look into the statutory or any other relevant records maintained by the appellants to find out the correct factual position as regards the availment of Modvat credit. The appeal is thus disposed of by way of remand.
............
|