|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 308 Records
-
1993 (9) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... urt was not cited before the Tribunal in the orders cited above and to that extent these are per incuriam. 5. In the present case, it was not denied that the impugned goods are used only as a support for the green tyres while these are being formed. These are thus very much in the nature of the equipment used for the manufacture of the tyres which are excluded from the purview of the term ldquo input rdquo in view of the Apex Court decision (supra). It may be argued that the said decision of the Apex Court was with reference to the term ldquo raw material rdquo used in a set off Notification - but the subtle distinction drawn between utilisation in the manufacturing process and in the manufacturing apparatus would apply with equal force to the term ldquo inputs rdquo for the purpose of MODVAT scheme in view of the proviso to Rule 57A. 6. For these reasons there is no mistake in the Bench Order dated 12-2-1993 requiring modification. The present R.O.M. is, therefore, rejected.
-
1993 (9) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... passed the order based on its own previous decisions. 11. The respondent has submitted that the Supreme Court order cited by the Departmental Representative was distinguishable and the matter was arguable. But even if it was not and the Department felt that its ratio was applicable to the instant case, it was up to the DR to have brought it to the notice of the Bench and the Department rsquo s inability to do so in the circumstances noted above, could not be considered as a situation covered by Section 35C(2). 12. It is also noteworthy that the order in this case was a consent order inasmuch as the appellant had cited a previous order of the Tribunal passed in his own case on the same issue and the learned DR had agreed that it was so covered. 13. In view of the above discussion, we consider that there was no mistake apparent from the record requiring rectification in terms of Section 35C(2). 14. The application is, therefore, dismissed as already announced in the open court.
-
1993 (9) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Customs House Agent Licence ... ... ... ... ..... hand or an employee who is qualified in the examination and who is conversant with the local language is available, such applicants shall be authorised to work in the second Customs station. Beyond a point it is not necessary for us to regulate the internal functioning of the Custom House Agent rsquo s firm or company. (c) Some Collectorates have also given wrong advices to Custom House Agents holding regular licences in other Customs Station, when they sought to work in a second Customs station instead of proceeding under Reg. 10(2). They were asked to register themselves as temporary Custom House Agents and then come up for regularisation . When no irregularity is found against the appellant who has been functioning as Customs House Agent I find no reason as to why a permanent licence should be denied to him, more particularly in the context of the instructions of the Principal Collector referred to above. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... uld have produced such evidence before the lower authority but failed to do so without sufficient cause for the same and this view was affirmed again in the case of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1993 (66) E.L.T. 537 . Accordingly, we cannot countenance such a demand and if it is allowed it would create a wrong precedent. When once we have taken the view that additional evidence cannot be permitted at this stage, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Department was justified in taking freight charge as mentioned in the Bill of lading for determining the assessable value as Bill of Lading reflects normal freight charges prevailing on that date. However, as regards redemption fine levied in Appeal No. C/170/92-A, we feel some lenient view is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, redemption fine is reduced to Rs. one lakh as against two lakhs. But for this modification, these two appeals are dismissed upholding the respective impugned orders.
-
1993 (9) TMI 193 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ined to dump phosphoric acid for nothing. It is admittedly used for obtaining the required clarity of cane juice for getting quality sugar, where phosphatic content is lacking. Hence I am unable to be persuaded by the clarification given by the Board. Moreover, in the case of East End Paper Industries - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (SC) the Apex Court have held that whatever goes in for making the goods marketable is an input/component. In this case, without addition of phosphoric acid in cane juice having less phosphatic content, commercial production of sugar of quality cannot be produced and this aspect is not disputed even in the Reference Application. Hence it is an input added to the product-mix and used in relation to the manufacture of the final product namely sugar. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Reference Application and is therefore dismissed. 4. Cross Reference is in the nature of reply to the Reference Application and hence the same is also treated as disposed of.
-
1993 (9) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... is only when the change, or a series of changes take the commodity to the point where commercially it is recognised as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to have been taken place. 7. It is seen that the processing of the concentrated basic pesticidal chemicals in question carried out by the respondents through addition of inert carriers/solvents and dispersing and stabilising agents resulted only in their dilution rendering them suitable for use either directly or after addition of water and formulations retained the name of the basic chemicals. Evidently no new product having distinctive name, character and use appeared as a result of such processing. Under these circumstances on the ratio of the decisions quoted above, we hold that the processes carried out by the respondents did not constitute lsquo manufacture rsquo within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 8. In view of the above discussion we reject the appeal.
-
1993 (9) TMI 191 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... resurrected for being used for payment of duty on the final products. In other words, the amount expunged from the RG 23A Account by the appellants themselves in the earlier proceedings is accorded a red carpet treatment for being welcomed back to its fold. This will be a totally unnecessary exercise. No procedural or accounting irregularity had occurred when the petitioners reversed the credit in their RG 23A Account in the first instance towards recovery of the amount in question. The matter should rest there till the appeal itself is disposed of. In other words the operation of the impugned orders is stayed. 5. The appeal is now posted for hearing on 21-1-1994 by which time the decision on the appeal reportedly filed by the Department in the Calcutta High Court against the judgment in the Singh Alloy case may be known as also the larger Bench decision on the same issue in the AB Tools Ltd. case referred to by us in our Order granting stay of recovery of the penalty amount.
-
1993 (9) TMI 190 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... f such cartons would be liable to pay the duty if there was any short levy involved. No demand would lie against the petitioners. It is also not the case of the Department that by downward variation of the duty paid on the inputs the credit taken by the petitioners required to be correspondingly reduced under Rule 57E. This rule also has not been invoked in the matter. The demand has been confirmed under Rule 57-I only. If duty is demanded/recovered and the small scale exemption benefit under Notification No. 175/86 becomes a casuality bringing down along with it the higher notional credit under Rule 57B, the higher duty realised would correspond to the credit taken. In the circumstances, stay is fully merited as the authorities appear to have barked up the wrong tree. We, accordingly, grant waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty. The operation of the order is stayed. 4. Appeal is posted for hearing on 17-12-1993. Order announced in the Court at the end of the hearing
-
1993 (9) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the scheme envisages a direct transfer of the burden of duty along with sale of same goods which were imported to the buyer. Undoubtedly, the import duty paid on acrylic fibre may become a part of the cost of manufacture of acrylic yarn. But when acrylic yarn is sold in the market it is difficult to ascertain how much of the import duty on acrylic fibre is passed on to the buyer of the acrylic yarn and in what proportion. Nor can there be in such a case a kind of documentation required under the scheme, so that the buyer of the acrylic yarn cannot claim a refund of any part of the duty on acrylic fibre. Where there is no sale of goods which were imported and no direct transfer of burden of duty to the buyer, of the imported goods, the case falls under clause (a) or (b) of the proviso to Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. We respectfully agree with the findings of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay and allow the appeals. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside.
-
1993 (9) TMI 188 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... een conferred on the Regional Benches. However, we are unable to find any order of the President, where the Regional Bench can decide finally on the question of availability of the exemption notification. The Regional Bench cannot pass an order as to whether the exemption would be available or otherwise, unless the Regional Bench is conferred with powers to determine the question on the availability of the exemption notification. In view of the aforesaid position and also in view of the categorical assertion before us that M/s. Raj Manufacturing Co. are to be extended the benefit of the exemption Notification Nos. 89/79 and 105/80, which has been denied to them in the impugned order, we are to send these appeals back to the Special Bench, though in that process, considerable inconvenience is caused to the parties. We, therefore, direct the Registry to send these appeals back to the Registry at Delhi for placing before the President so that appropriate direction can be issued.
-
1993 (9) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... view of the fact that the claim of the revenue is not sustainable beyond a period of six months on the ground that these dhoop sticks, etc. were not handicrafts entitled to exemption, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal to modify the demand by confining it to the period of six months prior to issue of show cause notice and pass consequential orders in the appeal on the question of penalty and confiscation. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the matter is, therefore, remanded to the Tribunal with the aforesaid directions. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. On the ratio of the judgment quoted above we hold that the demand issued on 27-4-1984 for the recovery of the alleged short levy during the period 1-3-1980 to 31-3-1983 was time-barred. 7. In view of the above discussion both the questions have to be answered in favour of the appellants. For these reasons we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1993 (9) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... view of the fact that the claim of the revenue is not sustainable beyond a period of six months on the ground that these dhoop sticks, etc. were not handicrafts entitled to exemption, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal to modify the demand by confining it to the period of six months prior to issue of show cause notice and pass consequential orders in the appeal on the question of penalty and confiscation. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the matter is, therefore, remanded to the Tribunal with the aforesaid directions. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. On the ratio of the judgment quoted above we hold that the demand issued on 27-4-1984 for the recovery of the alleged short levy during the period 1-3-1980 to 31-3-1983 was time-barred. 7. In view of the above discussion both the questions have to be answered in favour of the appellants. For these reasons we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1993 (9) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Cloves on import found unfit for human consumption can be released for industrial use - Confiscation
-
1993 (9) TMI 184 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... the right to put the printing ldquo Wockhardt rdquo prominently on the labels. 4. After hearing both the sides, prima facie, the case laws cited by the learned advocate seem to be covering the issue. We find that in this case they have separate monograms with the inscription ldquo Wockhardt rdquo being used on the branded medicine manufactured by them. The colours on the labels are also found to be used by other manufacturers. The items in question are prescribed in the form of pharmacopia and are not marketed under any brand name. In the circumstances, prima facie they seem to having a case in their favour. In view of the aforesaid position, we direct the applicants to furnish a personal bond covering the duty amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order and reporting compliance within 5 weeks failing which their appeal is liable to be dismissed. On furnishing the personal bond, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the duty amount.
-
1993 (9) TMI 183 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 71 1989 (42) E.L.T. 350 (SC), it is held as follows - ldquo Unless there is something in the language of a statute indicating the need to establish the element of mens rea, it is generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. There is nothing in Section 271(1) (a) which required that mens rea must be proved before penalty can be levied under that provision. A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws . In view of the clear legal position as above, the penalty imposed in this case is justified. The quantum is also not excessive, considering the duty involved. Accordingly, we sustain the imposition of penalty. The Appeal is accordingly partially allowed insofar as the demand of duty is concerned but dismissed in respect of the penalty imposed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 182 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ng in the course of manufacture of separators, which are component parts of batteries are waste or refuse for the purpose of Rule 57D(1). The authorities below have held that they are not. It was held that defective and unserviceable components cannot be termed as waste, refuse or by-product. The decision of the Tribunal in Srichakra Tyres has been distinguished stating that the said decision related to the defective tyres/tubes which were final products. 6. There is nothing in the scheme of Rule 57D that the Waste Products should arise only at the stage when the final products emerge. In the very nature of any manufacturing operation, waste can arise at any stage including the stage of manufacture of the intermediate products. The conclusion drawn by the authorities below is devoid of merit and cannot be supported. I accordingly set aside the impugned order. The case may be disposed of by the Asstt. Collector in accordance with the provisions of Rules 57D and 57F(2) and (4).
-
1993 (9) TMI 181 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... lter the essential character of the castings would not be enough to merit classification of such castings as machinery parts under Chapters 84, 85, 86 or 87 etc. as the case may be. Hence the finding of the Asstt. Collector are not well found. 7. The Asstt. Collector has also held that the Order in Appeal No. 15/Pat/90 dated 2-3-1990 did not determine the question of eligibility of the appellant to exemption Notification No. 275/88-C.E. He, therefore, held that it was open for him to adjudicate it. As the appellants were admittedly carrying out all the processes mentioned in the proviso to Notification No. 223/88-C.E., they were eligible for this Notification. But he has erred in holding so when the appellants are qualified to avail benefit of Notification 275/88, as they are fulfilling the conditions attached thereto. 8. I see no reason to disallow 275/88-C.E. to the appellants and, accordingly, allow it. The Order of the Asstt. Collector is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... dvocate, that the refund claim which was filed within the period of six months was duly accepted by the Revenue Authorities and as such we need not go into the other details. Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561, in Para 4 had held as under ldquo The appellants rsquo contention before the authorities was that the date of assessment would be the date of payment of duty within the meaning of Clause (f) above. We agree with the learned Solicitor General that this argument is not tenable. Where an assessee maintains a personal ledger A/c, duty is paid by way of debit therein and goes to reduce the amount of deposit paid by the assessee. It is not mere adjustment entry it is an effective payment rdquo . In view of the above observations, we very respectfully follow the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, and set aside the impugned order. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 179 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty, Failure To Submit Return Of Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... law. The Dy. CIT has taken into account, while computing the delay in issuing tax deduction certificates, each and every employee and computed the delay separately. Since the appellant was required to issue 162 TDS the Dy. CIT has taken 162 separate violations. As a matter of fact, the assessee, if at all, has committed, only one default viz., not issuing the TDS certificates to its employees. There are no separate 162 defaults as worked out by the Dy. CIT. Even on this count, the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,31,70,600 cannot be justified. In view of above, we are of the view that the levy of penalty is not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the order of the revenue is cancelled. 19. With the result, the appeal is allowed. 20. Coming to the Cross Objection, it is seen that the revenue has taken this cross-objection to support the decision of the CIT(A). As the impugned order has been cancelled by us, the C.O. does not survive and hence dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 176 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Transfer Of Assets, For Benefit Of Spouse Or Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... is a partner in the said firm in his representative capacity, the share of the income of the firm allocated to him has not been brought to tax in his hands in his individual assessment. In other words, his representative capacity has been recognised and given effect to and the matter rests there. When it comes to section 64(1)(i) whose phraseology is identical with that of the old section 64(1)(ii) dealing with income of minor children , the fact that the assessee was a partner in the firm M/s Kalyan Chakravarthy Theatre in his representative capacity becomes irrelevant, with the result, the share income of his wife needs, in law, to be included in the assessee s total income in his individual assessment. This is exactly what was done by the Assessing Officer in this case. 18. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 19. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed.
............
|
