|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 538 Records
-
2000 (5) TMI 833
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner for de novo adjudication as no personal hearing was granted to the appellant, violating principles of natural justice. The appellants will be given another opportunity to represent their case before the appeal hearing. The appeal was allowed by remand and the stay petition was disposed of.
-
2000 (5) TMI 829
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow Modvat credit for dolopatch mixture used in the furnace. The Tribunal also agreed that Modvat credit can be claimed for duty paid on inputs, including packing charges. The Revenue's appeal was rejected in both instances.
-
2000 (5) TMI 825
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the decision that a revised price list filed by the appellants should be effective from the date of filing and not retrospectively approved. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the original price list, approved by the Assistant Commissioner, stood final during the relevant period.
-
2000 (5) TMI 824
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the decision to allow the redemption of confiscated Photochromatic Optical Lenses for a fine of Rs. 2,000, rejecting the Revenue's appeal to increase the redemption amount. The Tribunal found no evidence of unauthorized import and noted the respondent's explanation for transporting the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the redemption fine had already been paid and there was no justification to increase it.
-
2000 (5) TMI 822
Issues:
1. Grant of exemption under Notification No. 171/88 for waste and scrap.
2. Duty demand on clandestine removal of CTD Bars/M.S. Rounds.
3. Reduction of penalties imposed.
4. Claim of Modvat credit.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Grant of Exemption under Notification No. 171/88 for waste and scrap:
The appeal by the Revenue challenges the dropping of demands by the Commissioner regarding ferrous waste and scrap, claiming it should be deemed duty paid. The Revenue argues that since the raw materials for both ferrous waste and scrap and CTD Bars/M.S. Rounds did not suffer duty, duty should be confirmed for both. The Tribunal's final order established that the raw materials did not suffer duty, thus the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 171/88 for ferrous waste and scrap should not have been granted. Consequently, the Revenue's plea for confirming duty on ferrous waste and scrap was upheld, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for accurate duty computation.
Issue 2: Duty Demand on Clandestine Removal of CTD Bars/M.S. Rounds:
The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand on clandestine removal of CTD Bars/M.S. Rounds, which was upheld in the final order. The appellants sought a remand for duty computation, citing discrepancies in the figures used for calculation. The Tribunal remanded the matter for the correct duty liability determination, emphasizing that the appellants should be given an opportunity for a hearing. The aspect of penalty for non-payment of duty was to be considered in light of the settled KVS Scheme.
Issue 3: Reduction of Penalties Imposed:
Penalties imposed on the company and individuals were reduced in the final order. The appellants argued that the penalties had been settled under the KVS Scheme. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the settlement of penalties while re-evaluating the duty computation and penalty aspects.
Issue 4: Claim of Modvat Credit:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the claim for Modvat credit, stating that the inputs received were not duty paid, as evidenced by the department. The contentions raised by the appellants regarding duty-paid inputs and Modvat credit were not accepted.
In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was allowed concerning the confirmation of duty for ferrous waste and scrap, with a remand for duty computation and penalty reconsideration. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of accurate duty assessment and penalty considerations in line with settled schemes.
-
2000 (5) TMI 821
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta regarding the upward revision of prices for imports, stating that no penalty was imposed due to the importer's good faith and the unique circumstances of the case. The Revenue's appeal was rejected.
-
2000 (5) TMI 817
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties on appellants for not fulfilling export obligations.
2. Discrepancy regarding the diversion of imported material for home consumption.
3. Justification of separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor.
4. Validity of duty confirmation by the Commissioner.
Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the duty amount was deposited before confirmation by the Commissioner. They sought to waive the penalty imposed for not meeting export obligations due to material sent to job workers. The Commissioner found violations of Notification No. 80/95-Cus. due to unfulfilled export obligations. The job workers denied dealings with the appellants, leading to penalties. The appellant's claim of extending the export obligation period was not acknowledged. The Tribunal noted the lack of consideration for documentary evidence by the Collector.
2. The JDR countered, stating the imported material was not used for export products, supporting the Commissioner's findings of diversion for home consumption. The imposition of penalties on both appellants was deemed justified. The issue of separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor was left to the Tribunal's discretion.
3. After considering both sides, the Tribunal proceeded with the appeals after waiving the pre-deposit of penalties. It was confirmed that export obligations were not met, and the job workers denied receiving the material. The misuse of the DEEC scheme was established, leading to the rejection of M/s. Inter Trade's appeal. However, the Tribunal agreed that separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor were unwarranted, setting aside the penalty on the proprietor.
4. The appeal by M/s. Inter Trade was rejected, while the appeal by Shri Nirmal Kr. Saraswat was allowed, with consequential relief if applicable. The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation but modified the penalty imposition on the proprietor, emphasizing the settled law against separate penalties on the firm and its proprietor.
-
2000 (5) TMI 815
The appellant appealed against a duty demand of Rs. 10,991 and confiscation of seized goods. The goods were found in a Tempo different from the one listed in duty documents. Appeal dismissed, confirming duty payment and confiscation.
-
2000 (5) TMI 813
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the application regarding the classification of goods as capital goods, citing interpretations from the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court. The application was dismissed based on previous decisions and no reference to the High Court was deemed necessary.
-
2000 (5) TMI 812
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai found that the demand for credit taken from 31-10-1986 to 8-6-1990 was barred by limitation and had to be set aside. Penalty for taking wrong credit was also not justified. The penalty under Rule 226 for not entering production particulars in the register was reduced to Rs. 2,000. The Tribunal's order was modified on 14-1-1998.
-
2000 (5) TMI 808
Issues:
- Liability to pay duty on industrial waste solvents and Isopropyl Alcohol-Mother Liquor waste cleared from 1992 to 1995.
- Invocation of the extended period under Sec. 11A(1) of the Act.
- Allegation of suppression of facts and contravention of rules.
- Interpretation of the show cause notice and its implications.
- Comparison with a Supreme Court judgment regarding mis-statement and suppression of facts.
Analysis:
1. Liability to pay duty: The appeal challenged the order confirming the liability of the appellant to pay duty on industrial waste solvents and Isopropyl Alcohol-Mother Liquor waste cleared between December 1992 and June 1995.
2. Invocation of extended period: The notice to show cause invoked the extended period under the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) of the Act, alleging suppression of facts. The appellant argued that the extended period should not apply as the department was informed about the goods' manufacture and clearance, and there was no intentional suppression.
3. Allegation of suppression and contravention: The department alleged suppression of facts and contravention of rules, citing a letter from the Superintendent asking for duty payment, which the appellant reportedly refused. The appellant contended that full details of the goods were provided, and non-payment was not due to suppression.
4. Interpretation of show cause notice: The Tribunal analyzed the show cause notice, emphasizing a sentence indicating suppression of facts and clearance as the basis for invoking the extended period. The notice also mentioned contravention of rules, but the Tribunal found this was not the primary reason for invoking the extended period.
5. Comparison with Supreme Court judgment: The department relied on a Supreme Court judgment, but the Tribunal distinguished the case, noting that in the present matter, the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) was specifically invoked. The Tribunal concluded that there was no intention to invoke the extended period based on contravention of rules.
6. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the notice did not validly invoke the extended period of limitation, allowing the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of specific grounds for invoking the extended period and clarified the interpretation of the show cause notice in determining liability for duty payment.
-
2000 (5) TMI 806
Issues:
Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE, dated 28-2-1993, as amended by Notification No. 59/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 effective from 1-4-1994 for units registered with DGTD.
Analysis:
The central issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata was whether the appellants, registered with the DGTD, were entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 1/93-CE, as amended by Notification No. 59/94-C.E., effective from 1-4-1994. Prior to this amendment, the appellants were enjoying the benefits of the notification; however, the amendment introduced a restriction that the benefit would not be available to a factory registered with the DGTD. The Revenue contended that the appellants were not entitled to the small-scale exemption benefit from 1-4-1994, resulting in their clearances being chargeable to duty at 15% ad valorem. Subsequently, another Notification No. 125/94-C.E. was issued on 31-8-1994, making the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 available again to units registered with the DGTD.
The appellant's representative argued that they continued to avail the benefit of the notification in April based on news cuttings suggesting that the DGTD had ceased to exist from 1-4-1994. They contended that the subsequent notification dated 31-8-1994 should be considered clarificatory and given retrospective effect from 1-4-1994. On the other hand, the respondent's representative opposed this, stating that the news cuttings indicated a different scenario where the work of the DGTD would still be carried out by other government departments. They argued that the notification dated 31-8-1994 was a change in policy and not clarificatory, and thus, the appeal should be dismissed.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed whether the benefit of Notification No. 125/94-C.E., dated 31-8-1994, could be granted retrospectively. The Tribunal noted that this notification withdrew a condition introduced by Notification No. 59/94 from 1-4-1994, which restricted DGTD registered units from availing the benefits of Notification No. 1/93. The Tribunal concluded that this withdrawal of conditions could not be considered clarificatory and that the negative condition was introduced simultaneously with the cessation of the DGTD, implying legislative awareness. The Tribunal held that the amendment in the notification dated 31-8-1994 did not indicate retrospective applicability from 1-4-1994. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.
-
2000 (5) TMI 804
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA allowed the stay petition unconditionally as the credit was disallowed due to delay in taking Modvat credit within six months, but the Board clarified that outside premises should be considered as an extension of factory premises. The impugned order was set aside.
-
2000 (5) TMI 803
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard an appeal against the Order-in-appeal dated 12-5-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PVC Battery Separators, exported a consignment to Bangladesh but faced issues with documentation. The appellant claimed they could not furnish certain documents as they were with DGFT. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the Assistant Commissioner to examine the issue afresh and allow the party to substantiate their claim with evidence. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (5) TMI 801
Issues:
Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata dealt with the restoration of appeals that were dismissed due to non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were directed to deposit a specific amount towards penalty as a pre-condition for hearing their appeals. Despite extensions granted by the Tribunal, the appellants failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. The Tribunal considered financial hardship and merits of the case initially but emphasized the mandatory nature of pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E. The judgment highlighted that the appellants' right to pursue their appeals was subject to fulfilling the pre-deposit condition, which they failed to do, resulting in the dismissal of their appeals.
The Tribunal referenced a judgment by the Bombay High Court and distinguished it from the present case, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions. Additionally, the judgment referred to a decision by the Gujarat High Court, illustrating that appeals dismissed for non-compliance could be restored, but only if the appellants had shown compliance with the Tribunal's directions. In this case, the appellants had not made any deposits despite multiple opportunities and extensions granted by the Tribunal, leading to the rejection of their restoration applications.
Furthermore, the Tribunal cited a previous case involving similar restoration applications, where the Tribunal had rejected the appeals due to non-compliance with statutory provisions. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal reiterated the obligation on appellants to deposit duties or penalties pending appeals, failing which the appeals could be rejected. Following this legal precedent, the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Applications for restoration of appeals, emphasizing the mandatory nature of complying with pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
In conclusion, the judgment underscored the significance of adhering to statutory provisions, particularly regarding pre-deposit requirements, and highlighted the consequences of non-compliance, ultimately leading to the rejection of the restoration applications in this case.
-
2000 (5) TMI 800
Issues:
1. Claim for refund of duty paid on lost coils beyond the limitation period.
2. Appeal against rejection of refund claim by Asst. Commissioner.
3. Dispute regarding physical delivery of entire consignment to the importer.
4. Interpretation of out-turn report and certificates regarding the consignment.
5. Requirement of customs department survey for claim sanction under Section 23.
6. Equating "clearance for home consumption" with passing of clearance order.
7. Responsibility for safe custody of imported cargo by the Port Trust.
Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a claim for refund of duty paid on 11 coils lost during storage beyond the limitation period of six months. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim due to lack of evidence of loss. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found sufficient evidence supporting the claim, including certificates and expenses incurred in attempting to retrieve the coils. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, stating that the facts did not support the Asst. Commissioner's decision on limitation.
2. The key issue in the appeal was the physical delivery of the entire consignment to the importer. The Department contended that the consignment had been delivered, as per the Port Trust's out-turn report. However, the Commissioner found evidence supporting the claim of loss of 11 coils during storage. The Tribunal accepted the evidence presented, including the Port Trust's confirmation of the delivery of only 275 coils out of 286, supporting the claim of loss.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of the out-turn report and certificates regarding the consignment. The report indicated no shortage in the quantity of coils landed, but further evidence, including letters confirming the loss of coils, supported the importer's claim. The Tribunal accepted the evidence presented, concluding that the coils were lost during storage within the custody of the Port Trust.
4. The Department argued for the requirement of a customs department survey for claim sanction under Section 23. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the law does not mandate a survey for the satisfaction of loss. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 23 applies to goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, and satisfaction of loss by the Asst. Commissioner should lead to refund sanction.
5. The appeal also addressed the equating of "clearance for home consumption" with the passing of a clearance order. The Tribunal clarified that physical removal of goods for home consumption occurs after the clearance order is passed, distinguishing between the two events. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to support this interpretation, emphasizing the distinct nature of clearance for home consumption.
6. Regarding the responsibility for safe custody of imported cargo, the Department highlighted a statement in the survey issued by the Port Trust, mentioning the importer's risk and responsibility. However, the Tribunal found that the plot in question was part of the Port Trust docks, and the importer was not accountable for the risk and responsibility of storage. The Tribunal concluded that the Port Trust, as the custodian of imported cargo, was responsible for ensuring safe custody, dismissing the appeal.
-
2000 (5) TMI 799
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA allowed the appeal due to violation of natural justice as the stay order was passed without a personal hearing. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after granting a personal hearing to the appellants. The impugned order was set aside.
-
2000 (5) TMI 768
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai rejected the Revenue's application for condonation of delay of 20 days due to absence of the concerned officer, citing previous judgments where similar pleas were not accepted. The Tribunal found the reasons given for the delay insufficient and rejected the application, leading to the rejection of the appeal and stay application.
-
2000 (5) TMI 767
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding Modvat credit, stating that the Challan issued under Rules 52A and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be considered a valid document for granting credit. The Tribunal found that the Challan contained all necessary details as required under Rule 52A, making it a valid invoice for Modvat credit purposes. The appeal was allowed, and the stay petition was disposed of.
-
2000 (5) TMI 766
Issues:
- Confiscation of hospital/medical equipment under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition under Sections 28, 114A
- Time-barred show cause notice
- Jurisdictional validity of the show cause notice
- Compliance with conditions of exemption Notification No. 64/88
- Liability for confiscation and penalty
- Applicability of penalty under Section 114A and interest under Section 28AB
Confiscation under Section 111(o):
The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of imported hospital/medical equipment under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a redemption fine imposed. The appellants challenged this order, arguing that the show cause notice was time-barred as it was issued beyond the period stipulated under Section 28 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the time limit under Section 28 applied, rendering the show cause notice void and the subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction. The impugned order of confiscation and redemption fine was set aside.
Duty Demand, Interest, and Penalty Imposition:
Apart from confiscation, a duty demand, interest, and penalty were imposed under Sections 28, 114A. The appellants contended that the penalty and interest could not be sustained as the provisions were enacted after the imports took place. The Tribunal agreed, holding that the penalty under Section 114A and interest under Section 28AB were not applicable in this case due to the retrospective effect of the provisions.
Compliance with Exemption Notification No. 64/88:
The appellants had imported goods under an exemption Notification but later faced a duty demand due to non-fulfillment of conditions. The respondent argued that the obligations under the exemption Notification were continuous, and failure to comply would result in the duty becoming payable. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice was beyond the limitation period under Section 28, rendering it void and unsustainable.
Jurisdictional Validity of Show Cause Notice:
The jurisdictional validity of the show cause notice was challenged by the appellants, arguing that it was issued by the Deputy Commissioner instead of the Commissioner as required. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the show cause notice was deemed to be without jurisdiction, supporting the appellants' contention.
Liability for Confiscation and Penalty:
The Tribunal upheld the liability for confiscation under Section 111(o) and penalty under Section 112, as the conditions for duty exemption were not fulfilled. The contravention of the Act made the goods liable to confiscation, including the conditions of the exemption Notification.
Applicability of Penalty under Section 114A and Interest under Section 28AB:
Due to the retrospective nature of the penalty under Section 114A and interest under Section 28AB, enacted after the imports, the Tribunal ruled that these provisions were not applicable in this case. The penalty and interest demanded could not be sustained based on the timing of the imports and the enactment of the provisions.
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside based on the findings related to the time-barred show cause notice, jurisdictional issues, compliance with exemption conditions, and the inapplicability of certain penalties and interest.
............
|
9911796707
