|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 228 Records
-
1994 (8) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Implementation of appellate order ... ... ... ... ..... this attitude of the respondent. During the course of arguments, we had enquired from Shri R. Santhanam that the Assistant Collector in his letter dated 19th April, 1994, has mentioned that Revenue authorities are not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, whether a stay has been granted by the Supreme Court and whether the appeal has been admitted or not. To Bench rsquo s query, Shri R. Santhanam stated that to his information, no stay has been granted by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and the appeal has not been admitted by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we order that the Revenue authorities should implement the order viz. give consequential effect to the order within three weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, for information. In the result, miscellaneous application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... it was held that filing of declaration before the Supdt. is to be considered as filing the declaration before the Asstt. Collector. The position would not change merely because in that case the matter had been discussed with Asstt. Collector since declaration actually in fact was filed with the Supdt. The purpose of declaration in fact was to enable the Department to verify the Modvat. In case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner - reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (SC), Hon rsquo ble Apex Court made a distinction between the procedural condition of the technical nature and the substantive condition and held that non-observance of former was condonable while that of the latter was not condonable. 6. emsp Considering that declaration in fact was filed and substantive benefit cannot be denied merely on account of technicality, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Since the appeal is allowed I am not going into the aspect of time bar.
-
1994 (8) TMI 112 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Exports ... ... ... ... ..... ng to drawback was already examined by the Asstt. Collector in pursuance of de novo proceedings and that was not a issue before the Collector (Appeals) since the only ground the Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claim was that export had been done not by the manufacturers but through merchant exporters. We find no warrant for reading into Rule 57F(3) something that is not there. As had been held by Supreme Court in case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. etc. v. CCE, reported at 1993 (66) E.L.T. 37 (SC) 1993 (47) ECR 14 (SC), ldquo there is neither intendment nor equity in a taxing statute. Nothing is implied. Neither can we insert anything nor can we delete but it should be interpreted and construed as per the words the legislature has chosen to employ in the Act or Rules. There is no room for assumption or presumptions. rdquo 8. emsp We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the appeal of Revenue. We accordingly uphold the Order and reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1994 (8) TMI 111 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... enches and under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to the rulings of - (1)Collector of C. Ex. v. SAIL of 1990 (47) E.L.T. 389 (2)Collector of C. Ex. v. SAIL Rourkela Steel Plant of 1990 (47) E.L.T. 394 (3)Durga Magnets Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. of 1993 (64) E.L.T. 342 (4)Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. of 1990 (50) E.L.T. 312. 5. emsp In the present case, there is no dispute about the identity of the input, its eligibility to modvat credit and the fact that the appellant had used it as an input for the manufacture of their final product and had filed a declaration. 6. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the ratio of the above rulings, Rule 57E would be applicable and in this view the mere fact that the input was received by the appellant under Chapter X procedure and covered under GP 2 could not make any difference. Impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... pable of lending itself to two sub-classifications viz. films not metallised and films metallised. The Tribunal therefore held that the film which had discharged duty at the unmetallised stage would not attract further duty. In our view, this can also not be of any assistance to the respondents since as observed by us earlier, bare G. I. Steel wires are classifiable under sub-heading 7217.90 and after conversion into PVC coated Insulated Steel Wires, they become commercially different products falling under sub-heading 8544.00. 13. In view of the above discussion, we hold that conversion by the respondents of G. I. Steel Wires falling under sub-heading 7217.90 into PVC coated insulated wires falling under sub-heading 8544.00 amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and on such conversion the product was chargeable to Central Excise Duty. 14. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1994 (8) TMI 109 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ereunder. On a consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are of the view that the matter is contentious and there is no case for Tribunal exercising its inherent power on a prima facie view of this case to stay the operation of the impugned order. The application, therefore, from the Collector for this purpose is rejected. The respondents herein have also filed a Misc. application for early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the goods have not been cleared and have been lying in the docks for over 2 years. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to grant prayer for early hearing for which the learned Departmental Representative has no objection. The appeal is accordingly posted for hearing on 28-11-1994.
-
1994 (8) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and the same is reproduced as under - ldquo 3(ii) - rdquo relevant date means (a) emsp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash - (b) emsp in a case where duty of excise is provisionally assessed under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof ldquo 7. emsp In view of the above provision it is clear that cause of action under Section 11A would arise only from the date of adjustment of duty and not earlier and no show cause notice could be issued before finalisation of assessment. This issue was well considered in the cases cited above and following aforesaid decisions we set aside demand in the appeals where show cause notice issued before finalisation of assessment and further we hold that demand is not sustainable where demand has been raised without show cause notice. 8. emsp Thus, all these appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Cross Objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 107 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s. 7.31 These are alternative methods. Since the refund amount of Rs. 9.28 is retained/already recovered, it is to be considered as additional consideration and dealt with in accordance with Rule 5 of Valuation Rules. It is therefore to be considered as cum-duty-price. Therefore the additional duty on this amount would be Rs. 9.29 x 27 100 27 Rs. 1.97 The amount of refund would therefore be reduced by this additional duty of Rs. 1.97 The net refund would be Rs. 9.28 - Rs. 1.97 Rs. 7.31 These are alternative methods. The department wants to adopt the second method after the first method has already been adopted. Hence the demand is incorrect. 5. emsp From the above calculation, it is seen that in the case of Cum duty price and in a situation where the manufacturers bear the excise duty, the above position will obtain, and in such a situation, adding the refund granted to the manufacturer to the assessable value will not arise. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 106 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction of Special Bench vis-a-vis Regional Bench ... ... ... ... ..... . could not in any case retain the excess amount of duty as well as demand the interest. 17. emsp It was also his submission that there is yet another legal aspect involved. The notice has been issued in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act for demanding interest whereas this Section provides only for demanding duty short-levied or not levied and does not concern itself with interest. 18. The Tribunal, however, could for the purpose of waiver of pre-deposit consider the cases of demand of interest also in terms of amended Section 129E. 19. emsp Ld. D.R. reiterated department rsquo s view point as contained in the impugned order. 20. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the Ld. Counsel rsquo s arguments have a lot of force. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, prima facie case appears to be in the appellants rsquo favour. We, therefore waive the pre-deposit of amount in question and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal.
-
1994 (8) TMI 105 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the ratio of the decision of the Calcutta High Court, therefore, we hold that Anmol Trading Corporation decision is not binding on us as the Hon rsquo ble Calcutta High Court had already decided and settled the issue on the question of acceptance of ISI specifications. Digvijay Cement and Vageshwar Pozollona Works are clearly distinguishable as facts in the two cases are different. 49. emsp On consideration of the detailed findings on various issues agitated before us we hold that the product manufactured by the assessees was White Cement that there was no specified entry for White Cement and was therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 23(2) before 28-2-1986 and under Tariff Item 2502.90 from 28-2-1986. 50. emsp In view of the above findings the order of the Collector (Appeals) in the case of J.K. White Cement is set aside and the appeal allowed. Whereas in the case of Indian Rayon the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) is upheld and appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (8) TMI 104 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of 34 days’ delay ... ... ... ... ..... iling an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing an appeal in time, sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation period expired, it was not possible to file the appeal within the time. Waiting for the other party to file the appeal is certainly not an event which could have prevented them to file the appeal. No event or circumstance, as held by Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, arising after expiration of limitation period would constitute sufficient cause. On the other hand, we find that the matter was pursued in a routine way, indicating the lack of urgency, after the expiration of limitation period. 10. emsp We, therefore, hold that applicants have not succeeded in establishing sufficient cause to merit condonation of delay. We, therefore, dismiss the application for condonation of delay and, in consequence dismiss the appeal also, without going into merit, as time barred.
-
1994 (8) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of operation of Collector’s order ... ... ... ... ..... uo s order. The Hon rsquo ble High Court, it is understood, is in seisin of the issue and has not passed any direction on the request for endorsing DEEC Book for permission to avail of the export benefit and the High Court is also informed of the appeal having been filed by the Department before this Tribunal. In such a situation, the ground taken by the applicant Collector in the stay application is not well-founded. The appeal itself is yet to be disposed of by the Tribunal on merits. The impugned order of the Collector contains detailed reasoning for the conclusions arrived at by the Collector in that order resulting in the dropping of the charges. The reasoning, prima facie, cannot be termed as arbitrary and the validity of the conclusions can only be tested when the appeal is heard on merits. In such a situation, the Tribunal will be slow in exercising its inherent power for staying the operation of the Collector rsquo s order. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Copy of Deputy Chief Chemist’s report not furnished to assessee ... ... ... ... ..... nd and therefore, such an order is not sustainable in view of the rulling rendered by the Tribunal in the case of U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 455. This plea of the appellants has got a force. The order has been passed ex parte and it does not appear on records that the copy of the Dy. Chief Chemist rsquo s report had been furnished to the appellants. As can be seen from the order, the ld. Collector has relied upon the report and has upheld the classification resorted to by the lower authorities. Therefore, the order suffers from non-application of mind. It is also noticed that the product under Chapter 29 has to be classified as per the detailed chapter notes. In that view of the matter, the plea taken by the appellants for remand of the matter is well sustained. Therefore, we remand this case to Collector (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. The appellants should be heard before passing final order. Thus, the appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1994 (8) TMI 101 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related persons ... ... ... ... ..... son Machies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that the excise authorities are not barred from taking a view different than in the approved classification and demand can be raised subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. On time barring issue, we are of the view that the visit of the officer to assessee rsquo s factory or situation of the office in premises of M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. does not mean that the activity of both the companies was within the knowledge of the Department and taking into consideration of suppression of facts as it was enlightened by the Departmental Representative with reference to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the Department was justified in invoking the larger period. As regards penalty, since we are remanding the matter for re-determination of the value, penalty aspect may also be re-considered depending upon the outcome of the re-determination of the value. Thus, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (8) TMI 100 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Abatement of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ent of receipt over the rubber stamp of Assistant Collector E rsquo Group. In this context, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kasturi and Sons v. Collector of Customs - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 161 regarding the scope of Section 22 of Customs Act, 1962 where damage to goods is claimed is relevant and it will be necessary, therefore, in this case for the Customs House to look into the appellant rsquo s claim afresh in the light of the ratio of the decision. Thirdly the appellants have also submitted that on the appellants taking up the matter, the foreign supplier has given a price rebate. They have submitted the correspondence in this regard. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector (Refunds), Bombay Custom House to consider the appellants rsquo claim afresh in the light of the above decision and pass orders de novo within a reasonable time in accordance with law and after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.
-
1994 (8) TMI 99 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Mis-statement ... ... ... ... ..... without other element rsquo and decided the appeal with the consent of both the sides after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit. Hence this application. 5. We have heard Shri V.C. Bhartiya, learned DR and Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate. The Tribunal has held that no mis-statement or suppression is involved accepting the contention of the learned Counsel that the declaration filed in 1990 has been accepted by the department and the same input was being used by the same process for the same product. Therefore, no question of law arises on the question of mis-statement and suppression. Further the grievance of the department that the appeal was decided before the time limit for filing cross-objection had expired, does not give rise to a question of law as the matter was taken up for final hearing only after obtaining the consent of Departmental Representative. Accordingly, no case for reference to the High Court has been made out. The Application is therefore, rejected.
-
1994 (8) TMI 98 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... pective effect it would not be of any assistance to the appellants on account of the separate entry reading Ether derivatives of Ethylene Glycol against Serial No. 38 of Notification No. 39/90 remaining unchanged. 9. emsp In support of their case the appellants have cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jain Engineering Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 in which it was held that Notification No. 281/76 which mentioned internal combustion piston engines and parts thereof was also applicable to parts even though Heading 84.06 of the Custom Tariff indicated in the Notification in respect of the goods covered by it did not mention parts. In our view this judgment is distinguishable on facts since in the present case the question to be decided is as to which one of the two competing entries in the relevant notification is more specific in respect of the goods in question. 10. In view of the above discussion the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (8) TMI 97 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... grievance that only the gist of the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist was given to the appellants and not the copy of the report was made before us we also made an attempt to obtain the same and asked the Department to produce the said report and gave repeated time to the Revenue for this purpose. The authorities made the effort to trace out the said report but failed to trace it out, since that report is an old one and pertains to the period prior to 1-3-1982 and, therefore, they placed the copy of the test report available in the Range Sample Register on our record. The copy of the which was given to the appellants also. 12. emsp In view of the above, we uphold the impugned Orders and hold that the subject product Morarfloc is classifiable under T.I. 15A and the case law cited at the Bar is not applicable to the present case as it relates to the description of the goods given in the earlier T.I. 15A, as it stood prior to 1-3-1982. 13. In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (8) TMI 96 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural Justice - Violation of at appellate stage ... ... ... ... ..... llant an opportunity to have its say on gate passes, its order has to be held as being in violation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside on this score. Therefore, the order No. KVV/516/92-BRD of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which relies entirely upon the finding arrived at in the orders of the Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad would also have to be set aside. The issue in the other proceedings before the Collector (Appeals) is identical and involves examination of the gate passes and job orders to determine whether what was cleared was complete machinery or parts thereof. That order, therefore, would also be set aside. 6. emsp The issue will have to be decided after examination of gate passes and such other documents as either side may wish to produce and after giving a suitable opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice to the appellants. 7. In the result, therefore, the appeals are allowed be way of remand.
-
1994 (8) TMI 95 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... f Chemist has not vitiated the decision in the case. We also observe that in the instant case it is not only the examination report but the marking on the cones of Yarn, non-mention of the amount of duty separately in the bills/invoices, the receipt of orders for polyester/viscose Yarn and non-mention of NCSW/V in the Bills/Invoices issued to the customers, all these cumulatively show that the Yarn contained Polyester Fibre and not Non-Cellulosic Synthetic Waste. After carefully examining all facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the Yarn in the instant case was classifiable under the then Tariff Item 18-III(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. Having regard to this finding the demand for duty is confirmed. As the misdeclaration is proved, therefore imposition of penalty is sustainable. As the quantum of penalty appears to be reasonable, no modification therein is called for. 10. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
............
|
