Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 258 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Man-made Fibres - Staple fibre ... ... ... ... ..... lear and unambiguous. It was therefore, all the more necessary to have permitted cross-examination of the Chief Chemist. It has been held in a catena of decisions that denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the department, tantamounts to violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. See 1991 (56) E.L.T. 220 (Tri.) 1991 (35) E.C.R. 186 and 1988 (38) E.L.T. 362 (Tri.) 1988 (19) E.C.R. 231 . The necessity of cross-examination is further greater in a case like this where the Chief Chemist rsquo s report forms the sole plank of the department rsquo s case. 9. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication to the Adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders after permitting the appellants to cross-examine the Chief Chemist and after extending reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1995 (8) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... are not in a position to reconcile with the statement made by the appellant during the hearing of the stay application filed earlier in the other case and the order passed thereon to the effect that there were large carried forward loss in view of the heavy losses sustained in the past. Be that it may, we are considering the latest Tentative profit and loss account for the year 1994-95 and find that the appellants rsquo liquidity position is very much sound. Thus taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to the registry. On compliance, the requirement to pre-deposit the balance amount of duty that is to say Rs. 10,49,861/ shall be deemed to have been waived and the recovery proceedings if started, shall remain stayed. To come up on 22nd November, 1995 for passing suitable order after ascertaining the compliance of the stay order so passed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... in case it was decided they are exempted, the earlier amount of duty paid by them is liable to be refunded. Collector (Appeals) holding that it was on record that they had raised the matter earlier at different levels with the Department and had filed refund claim within a month of being informed by the Superintendent of Central Excise that the duty was not leviable, allowed the appeal. 4. emsp Considered. I find from the record that they had claimed, on more than one occasion, that they were required to pay duty. It is also clear that it was the inability to confirm the correct decision in time that they were forced to pay the duty and in fact the Central Excise Officer had assured them in writing that the duty would be refunded. There was no prescribed form of refund application at the material time. Payment was clearly made under protest. In view of this, I do not see any merit in the Revenue appeal. The Revenue appeal is rejected and impugned order of Collector is upheld.
-
1995 (8) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... of Appeal or at the time of hearing of the stay application cannot be a ground to recall the Final Order passed in the instant case when the said alternative case was not argued during the hearing of the appeal on merits as it is the discretion of the appellants or his counsel to argue or not to argue a point, though, taken up in the Memorandum of Appeal as a ground of appeal. It is settled law that while exercising powers of rectifying the mistake, if any, under sub-section (2) of Section 35 C of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, we cannot reopen a case or recall our earlier order merely because the appellants want to put forth his alternative case now which was not argued during the hearing of the appeal though taken up in the Memorandum of Appeal. In case the appellants feel that they failed to argue their said alternative case the remedy lies elsewhere and certainly not before this Tribunal by filing the present application. 6.In the result, the application is rejected.
-
1995 (8) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ernational as premised on the basis urged by Sri Nariman. The reasoning of Sri Nariman does appear to be logical and attractive ex facie but it flies directly in the face of the clear holding in Bombay Tyre International and cannot, therefore, be accepted. 13. emsp Technical know-how is no doubt an expense which makes the goods conform to high standards and thus the product becomes acceptable to buyers. In a way this admittedly increases the marketability of the goods. Therefore, this fee charged for technical know-how in terms of the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s judgment will be includible in the assessable value. 14. emsp Having regard to the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants, and respectfully agreeing with the ratio of the judgments as discussed above, we hold that technical know-how fee paid to the foreign collaborator shall be includible in the assessable value. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (8) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Consfication and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... empt of the assessee to export the goods (which has, in the event, been successful) would amount to an infringement of the conditions permitting the import so as to render either the import itself vide Sec. 111(o) of the Act or the exemption from import duty or both illegal and invalid and, if so, the consequences thereof. rdquo Therefore, the plea for re-export in the circumstances of the present case is untenable and is, therefore, rejected. However, it is seen that in the Supreme Electronics case (supra) the Tribunal had granted relief in the matter of redemption fine and penalty having regard to the period since import and the nature of the goods, and, applying the same criteria in the present case, the fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh, and the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000.00. The Collector rsquo s order is modified only to this extent it is otherwise upheld. The misc. application and appeal are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (8) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to final product ... ... ... ... ..... ot dis-entitle the ingots to the benefit of Notification 66/73 and have held, as mentioned above, appropriate payment of duty should be taken to mean duty that ought to have been paid or contracted to have been paid. Since such duty in terms of exemption notification is nil these goods cleared without payment of anyduty therefore can be taken to be duty paid goods. In that view of the matter, therefore the appellants are entitled to the benefit of notification under Serial No. 4 of the Notification No. 101/66. We, therefore, following the ratio of the judgment of Hon rsquo ble High Court of Patna as above, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the lower authority. In view of what we have held above, we do not find it necessary to give our findings on the other points raised. rdquo 8. emsp We, therefore, follow the judgment of the High Court of Patna and the Tribunal rsquo s order extracted above and allow the appeal setting aside the order passed by the lower authority.
-
1995 (8) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of goods captively consumed when no comparable goods available ... ... ... ... ..... which is required to be added to the cost of production under Rule 6(b), irrespective of the fact that during an exceptional period the assessee rsquo s financial results actually showed some loss. The tribunal in that case further approved the percentage of margin of profit added by the Assistant Collector based on actual profit earned by the appellants therein during the previous year. In the present case also the Assistant Collector rsquo s decision on valuation of the captively consumed wrapper paper is based on the manufacturing cost of wrapping paper as per Chartered Accountant Certificate produced by the appellants and the manufacturing profit of the said paper as per the Balance-sheet of the Company for the year ending 30-6-1981. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order upholding the Assistant Collector rsquo s decision on valuation of wrapper paper captively consumed under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1995 (8) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Interlocutory stay order ... ... ... ... ..... above, the present appeal has become liable to be dismissed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - a course approved by the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Chand Chhotelal v. C.B.E.C. reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 679 and Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 178. More particularly earlier also the appellant was put on notice that failure to comply with the stay order may entail the dismissal of the appeal. However, undaunted by the consequence of the dismissal of the appeal the appellants have still not complied with the said stay order and, therefore, the appeal has become liable to be rejected. However, in the interest of justice we give a last and final opportunity to the appellants to deposit the amount as ordered by the said stay order by 10-9-1995, and report compliance to the Registry. In the event of non-compliance the present appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any further notice to the appellants.
-
1995 (8) TMI 135 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... for the authorities to have gone into the correctness or otherwise of the duty charged from the suppliers of the inputs. Action in this regard only lies with the authorities under whose jurisdiction the supplier rsquo s factory functions. No provision of any law has been brought to our notice under which the Modvat credit in respect of the goods which have suffered duty can be denied. In the present case, as it is, the authorities have not questioned the admissibility of the Modvat credit equivalent to the duty actually paid and the objection is only in respect of the higher notional credit of 5 taken by the appellants. We find no provision in law to say so. Modvat Scheme is a beneficial piece of legislation and unless there is something in the provision to restrict the Modvat credit, full effect to the provisions has to be given. In the above view of the matter we hold that the order of the learned lower authority is not maintainable. The appeal of the appellants is allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... on by the Collector and rebuttal of their claim that the goods are not only meant solely for use on the hair and as such, will not fall under sub-heading 3305 CETA. The Chemical Examiner also, while giving his opinion has not adverted to this aspect, which is available in the product literature of use on skin. It would have been also more appropriate, had the department confronted the appellants on this aspect with evidence as to how the goods are being marketed, especially in view of the appellants rsquo claim that it is not a preparation exlusively for use on the hair. Therefore, on the aspect of classification of the goods, as between Chapter 33 and 34, a much more detailed findings by the Collector are called for and hence, the matter on the aspect of classification is remanded to the Collector for determination of the issue de novo in accordance with law and after giving the appellants an opportunity to put forth their case. The appeal is, disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (8) TMI 133 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... respect of the same and this being covered under Rule 57F would not arise. The facility of Rule 57F has been provided for to take care of the exigencies of where the manufacturer may have to send out some of the inputs in respect of which Modvat credit has been taken without having to pay duty for the reason that Modvat credit has already been taken. The scrap generated does not fall in that category. Further a plea has been taken that the Department has issued Trade Notices for the removal of the scrap generated under Rule 57F(2). In the present case, as held in the order by the Tribunal, this Trade Notice issued on 18-5-1989 would not be available in respect of the goods pertaining to the period 20th July, 1988. In any case the executive instructions which are contrary to the specific statutory provisions cannot be taken to have force of law. In view of the above we hold that no question of law as urged arises for reference. The Reference Application is therefore dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Evidence to be seen in its entirety ... ... ... ... ..... an Alloys and steels and in the record maintained by M/s. Archana Steels. I also find from the Gate Pass No. 550 dated 10-12-1992 that the time lag between the date of issue of Gate Pass and the date of interception of the truck is not very wide, therefore, no one can say conclusively so that the goods were lifted from M/s. Bhushan Alloys and Steels on 11-12-1992 as contended by the learned JCDR. Having regard to the statements of S/Shri R.C.Jain and P.R. Bhatia as also the findings of the Assistant Collector that the detailed enquiry-cum-investigation did not bring out any discrepancy in the record or the statements of Shri R.C. Jain and Shri P.R. Bhatia. I am inclined to believe that the goods in question were covered by G.P. 1 No. 550, dated 10-12-1992. 7. emsp Having regard to the above findings, I hold that the seizure and subsequent confiscation of the goods and the truck is not legally sustainable. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the Appeals are allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit - Rectification of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... odvat credit would not apply to scrap obtained from breaking up of imported ships in India. This restriction was subject only to the condition that the duty-paying document was available. I also find that the duty-paying documents are also available. I also find that the duty-paying documents are also available which clearly indicate that the scrap was obtained by breaking up of imported ships. Having regard to this, I order the following modification in Final Order No. A/1087/94-NB as under - ldquo In place of paras 10, 11 and 12, the following shall be substituted namely, rdquo having regard to the fact that modvat credit restriction of Rs. 500 would not apply to scrap obtained from breaking up of the imported ships in India. I order that modvat credit amounting to Rs. 43,381.94 is permissible to the applicant in this case and, therefore, the same is allowed and I hold accordingly. 5. In view of the above, the ROM is allowed and the matter is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (8) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... is decision of the Tribunal will be applicable to the fact of the present case. 11. emsp The appellants also relied on the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Salem Steel Plant cited supra. In this case, the Tribunal had held that - Surface protection film being used to render the goods marketable is considered to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of high finished stainless steel tubes. The benefit of modvat credit will be available. I observe that rubber plugs are used in the tubes for making them marketable and therefore, the benefit of modvat credit shall be available to rubber plugs. 12. emsp Having regard to the above discussions and the case law cited and relied upon, I respectfully agree with the decisions and hold that the modvat credit will be available to rubber plugs used to prevent the contamination of the steel tubes. In this view of the matter, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1995 (8) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... HD pipe the scrap generated are cut into smaller bits and it is reused along with the virgin granules as per I.S. Specification subject to a maximum quantity of 10 . We have got the extruder machine with equipments for manufacture of above items. We do not manufacture rigid sheets neither we are having machines or equipments for manufacturing the same. 12. emsp The Board rsquo s Tariff Advice No. 11/82, dated 16-2-1982 as appearing at page T 46 of 1982 (9) E.L.T. relates to the ldquo bags made from lay flat tubings as such or from the sheets/films (obtained by slitting open the tube) whether subjected to printing or not, by stitching rdquo . The learned Collector had not discussed whether the bags in question were stitched, and how the goods under consideration were covered by the above description, particularly in the light of process of manufacture as given above. 13. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal.
-
1995 (8) TMI 128 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Adjudication - Show Cause Notice CUS ... ... ... ... ..... case, of course, they may investigate. But I do not see how the Customs authorities can sit in judgment over the power exercised by the office of the Controller of Imports and Exports, which office has already given an import licence. The Customs authorities in Bombay are justifying an action which is wholly unjustifiable as far as I can see on the facts of this case by having recourse to untenable arguments. rdquo 17. emsp This ruling also fully supports the stand taken by the appellants. In that view of the matter, I agree with the Learned Member (J) for remitting the case for de novo consideration. 18. The appeal papers shall be placed before the original Bench for passing the final order. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Dated 31-7-1995 Member (J) FINAL ORDER In the light of the majority view, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. Sd/- Sd/- (V.P. Gulati) (S. Kalyanam) Member (T) Vice President 4-8-1995 3-8-1995
-
1995 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit and Export of Goods ... ... ... ... ..... lso passed on for scrutiny of the learned DR who after examining the same, accept the genuineness and authenticity of the same we are inclined to think that the issue has to be remanded to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue afresh in the light of the observations above. We make it clear that the only issue that is canvassed before us regarding which we are remanding the matter is only with reference to appellants claim to avail Modvat credit in respect of export of P and P medicines to Sri Lanka which are classifiable under 3003.10 attracting 15 duty and as to whether the GP2s produced before us were admittedly referrable and relatable to the goods exported. The original authority is directed to reconsider this issue after giving opportunity to the other side as per law and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In this view, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for consideration of the matter afresh.
-
1995 (8) TMI 126 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ainst Hydrochloric acid in the declaration. In the case of caustic soda, usage is indicated as neutralisation of Sodium cyanide, which goes to indicate that it is for destroying the final product and goes with effluent treatment. It is reported that detailed process of manufacture has been filed alongwith the declaration, but no evidence in this regard is produced. All the same, going by the declaration filed and there is a scope for dispute on their eligibility for credit, we are inclined to accept the plea that there was no mala fide in giving the declaration. We therefore set aside the demand on the ground of time bar, in regard to the inputs used in the effluent treatment plant, though we hold on merits that these inputs used in the effluent treatment plant cannot be given Modvat credit. 10. emsp As regards the penalty, in view of our aforesaid findings, there is no ground for imposing penalty. It is also set aside. 11. In the result, appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1995 (8) TMI 125 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Recovery of disputed duty/credit during adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... has come to this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that the respondents may be directed not to compel the petitioner to reverse the credit availed on the commodities. 3. emsp We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar learned counsel for the revenue. After examining the facts, we are of the view that since the matter is pending for a considerable period of time before the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, he may be directed to decide the same within a month from the date a certified copy of this order served upon him. In view of this, we direct the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur to decide the matter pending before him which was initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 21-11-1994. 4. With this direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking that the petitioner shall not delay the proceedings.
............
|