|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 202
Issues:
1. Confiscation of scrap and barge under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Liability of different parties involved in the case.
3. Application of Sections 111(g), 30, 32 to 36 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Consideration of manifest filing requirements and penalties.
5. Justification for penalty reduction.
Issue 1: Confiscation of scrap and barge under Customs Act, 1962
The case involved the confiscation of seized scrap and barge under the Customs Act, 1962. The Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai had initially passed an order-in-original confiscating the scrap and barge with redemption fines and penalties imposed on the appellant, captain of the ship, and steamer agents. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai upheld the confiscation of the scrap under Section 111(g) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was foreign origin goods liable to duty and not declared in the manifest as required by law. However, the confiscation under Sections 111(d) and (f) was not confirmed on appeal. The captain of the ship and steamer agents were found to have contravened specific sections of the Customs Act, leading to penalties. The owner of the barge was exonerated due to lack of evidence.
Issue 2: Liability of different parties involved in the case
Various individuals involved in the case, including the appellant, the captain of the ship, steamer agents, and the owner of the barge, were found to have different levels of liability under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the importer should not be concerned with certain sections of the Act related to filing manifests, placing the responsibility on the master of the ship, steamer agents, or owners. The judgment clarified that the responsibility for filing import manifests lies with the person in charge of the conveyance carrying imported goods, not the importer. The appellant's case was negatived based on evidence and circumstances surrounding the importation and clearance of the scrap.
Issue 3: Application of Sections 111(g), 30, 32 to 36 of the Customs Act, 1962
The judgment extensively analyzed the application of Sections 111(g), 30, and 32 to 36 of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to the case. It was determined that the seized scrap was liable for confiscation under Section 111(g) due to being foreign origin goods not declared in the manifest as required by law. The appellant's failure to file a bill of entry for customs clearance was a crucial factor in the decision, as the scrap was generated from a foreign ship and considered imported goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with customs regulations and the consequences of failing to do so.
Issue 4: Consideration of manifest filing requirements and penalties
The judgment considered the manifest filing requirements under the Customs Act, 1962 and the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. It was emphasized that the appellant's failure to file the necessary documents for customs clearance, despite being aware of the liability for confiscation, led to the decision to uphold the confiscation of the scrap. The appellant's arguments regarding the confiscation were refuted based on the evidence presented, including statements from involved parties and the circumstances surrounding the importation and clearance process.
Issue 5: Justification for penalty reduction
While the appeal was largely dismissed, a reduction in the penalty imposed on the appellant was granted to meet the ends of justice. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 was reduced to Rs. 20,000 based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment acknowledged the need for a partial allowance of the appeal while confirming the impugned order regarding the rest. The decision aimed to balance the enforcement of customs regulations with considerations of fairness and justice in the penalty imposition.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the legal reasoning applied, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai.
-
1999 (1) TMI 201
Issues:
- Imposition of personal penalties by the Commissioner of Customs
- Confiscation of precious stones and passenger bus under the Customs Act, 1962
- Allegations of smuggling and illegal possession of precious stones
- Lack of penalty imposition on the respondent
Imposition of Personal Penalties:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Shillong, who had confiscated precious stones and imposed personal penalties on various individuals involved in the case. The Commissioner held that certain individuals were engaged in smuggling precious stones into India for illegal disposal in the market. Penalties ranging from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 were imposed on different individuals under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the owner of the bus and another individual were found not to be involved in the smuggling activities. The Revenue argued that despite clear findings against one of the respondents, no penalty was imposed on him, which they considered a serious error. The appellate tribunal noted the discrepancy and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to modify the order and impose penalties on the respondent based on the findings against him.
Confiscation of Precious Stones and Passenger Bus:
The case involved the confiscation of precious stones, a passenger bus, and other items under the Customs Act, 1962. The officers of Customs found uncut precious stones concealed in a bus, leading to further investigations and searches at various locations. The Commissioner ordered the absolute confiscation of the seized precious stones under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The passenger bus was also confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Act, with provisional release upon furnishing a security deposit and executing a bond. The adjudication order detailed the involvement of various individuals in the smuggling activities and the subsequent penalties imposed on them.
Allegations of Smuggling and Illegal Possession of Precious Stones:
The investigation revealed a chain of events involving different individuals in the smuggling and illegal possession of precious stones. Statements from individuals involved in transporting and concealing the stones led to searches at multiple locations, resulting in the recovery of contraband. The Commissioner found that certain individuals were complicit in smuggling activities and illegally acquiring precious stones without proper documentation. The adjudication order detailed the findings against each individual involved and the penalties imposed based on their roles in the illegal activities.
Lack of Penalty Imposition on the Respondent:
Despite clear findings against one of the respondents regarding his involvement in acquiring precious stones illegally, the Commissioner did not impose a penalty on him in the operative part of the order. The appellate tribunal identified this as an error in the adjudication order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for modification. The tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the findings against the respondent and impose penalties accordingly, ensuring consistency with the established facts of the case.
-
1999 (1) TMI 200
The appeal by M/s. Camphor & Allied Products Ltd. questioned the availability of benefits under Notification No. 31/88 without an end-use certificate. The Tribunal found that the notification does not require an end-use certificate, as established in previous cases. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Collector's decision.
-
1999 (1) TMI 199
Issues:
Determining assessable value of medicines manufactured by the appellant, deductions claimed by the assessee, admissibility of cash and quantity discounts, abatement of selling and distribution expenses, abatement of cost of packing, eligibility of deduction for interest on inventories and receivables, deductibility of commission to C&F Agents, nature of service charges to C&F Agents, deduction of secondary packing cost.
Analysis:
1. Assessable Value Determination:
The appeal concerns the determination of the assessable value of medicines manufactured by the appellant. The Asstt. Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed some deductions while disallowing others claimed by the assessee.
2. Interest on Inventories and Receivables:
The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Govt. of India v. MRF Ltd. clarified that interest on inventories was not deductible, but interest on receivables was an allowable deduction. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming the eligibility of deduction for interest on receivables.
3. Commission to C&F Agents:
The Supreme Court precedent in Coromandal Ltd. v. U.O.I. established that commission paid to selling agents, including C&F Agents, was not deductible from the assessable value. The Tribunal concurred with this ruling.
4. Service Charges to C&F Agents:
The nature of service charges to C&F Agents was unclear in the orders passed by the lower authorities. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner for reevaluation after providing the appellants with an opportunity to present their case.
5. Secondary Packing Deduction:
Regarding secondary packing costs, the Tribunal emphasized that the deductibility depended on the quality, nature, and returnable nature of the packing as per agreements or trade practices. The issue was remanded to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest on inventories, approved the deduction for interest on receivables, and rejected the deduction of commission to C&F Agents from the assessable value. The unclear nature of service charges led to a remand for further examination. Similarly, the issue of secondary packing costs was remanded for proper consideration based on the quality and nature of the packing. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 198
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case involving Notification No. 175/86, ruled in favor of the appellants, SSI units, allowing them the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal found that the loan licensees were eligible for the exemption under the notification, and rejected all three appeals filed by the Revenue. The penalty imposed on the respondents was for not clearing goods as per the approved classification list, not for the eligibility for the notification.
-
1999 (1) TMI 197
Issues:
1. Whether the product "Upset Forge" is an excisable product liable to duty under Heading 84.09.
2. Whether the demand is time-barred due to suppression of facts.
3. Whether the product is known as goods in the market and excisable.
4. Whether excise duty can be levied twice on the same item.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original regarding the classification of "Upset Forge" as an excisable product. The appellant argued that the product did not result in any marketable goods, shifting the burden of proof to the Department. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address whether the product was known in the market, a crucial aspect. Lack of evidence on marketability led to setting aside the order.
2. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as detailed technical information was provided to the Department years before the show-cause notice. The Tribunal agreed that the demand, except for the last few months, was time-barred due to the absence of willful suppression of facts for duty evasion.
3. The issue of marketability was crucial, with the appellant asserting that the product was not marketable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department failed to provide evidence on marketability, a key factor in determining excisability. The exhaustive technical information provided by the appellant supported the belief that no excisable goods were manufactured.
4. The appellant argued against double taxation on the final product if the "Upset Forge" was classified under Heading 8409.00. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal highlighted that excise duty cannot be levied twice on the same item. Misapplication of Interpretative Rules was noted, emphasizing the need to avoid double taxation.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order due to lack of evidence on marketability, time-barred demands, and the need to prevent double taxation. The appeal succeeded based on these grounds.
-
1999 (1) TMI 196
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Sections 112A and 114(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.
2. Request for waiver of pre-deposit condition of penalties and stay of recovery for the main appeal.
3. Allegations of physical torture leading to retracted statements by the applicant and his wife.
4. Dispute over the importation and declaration of currency and gold by the appellant.
5. Examination of evidence and submissions for waiver and stay based on financial hardship.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the imposition of penalties on the appellant under Sections 112A and 114(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, an Iranian national, sought waiver of the pre-deposit condition of these penalties and a stay on their recovery for the main appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the penalties were unwarranted due to innocent technical lapses in declaring currency upon arrival in India. The appellant claimed that the confiscation of currency and imposition of penalties were not justified.
2. The defense contended that the statements given by the appellant and his wife were made under physical torture by Customs officers, leading to their retraction later. The defense highlighted discrepancies in the statements and presented evidence to challenge the allegations, including the lack of evidential value in the retracted statements. Reference was made to the Tribunal's previous findings to support the defense's arguments against the penalties imposed.
3. The Revenue argued that the recovery of incriminating evidence, such as a receipt for gold purchase and an elastic band for concealing gold bars, supported the charges against the appellant. The Revenue maintained that the penalties were lenient considering the value of the contraband and the failure to declare currency under Section 113 of the Act.
4. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It noted the retracted statements of the appellant and the corroborating evidence found, such as the receipt for gold purchase and the recovery of incriminating items. The Tribunal also examined the discrepancies in the statements and evidence, ultimately directing the appellant to make specified payments towards the penalties imposed to waive the remaining amount and stay its recovery.
5. The judgment concluded by addressing the financial hardship claimed by the appellant and his wife, directing them to make specified payments within a stipulated period to proceed with the appeal. The Tribunal allowed for installment payments with a deadline for full deposit, emphasizing the importance of compliance and setting a future date for reporting on the payments made.
-
1999 (1) TMI 194
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 122/86 regarding exemption of medicaments.
2. Whether specific ingredients in the capsules qualify for the exemption.
3. Time bar issue in relation to the classification of the product.
Interpretation of Notification No. 122/86:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute over the interpretation of Notification No. 122/86 concerning the exemption of medicaments. The central issue revolved around whether the capsules in question, namely Diarnil tablets, Rison capsules, and Sorogyl DF tablets, were entitled to the benefit of the notification. The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the benefit for Rison Capsules but denied it for the other two products. The department contended that the specific ingredients in the capsules did not match those listed in the annexure to the notification, which outlined ingredients eligible for exemption. The Collector (Appeals) had granted the benefit based on the pharmaceutical necessity of the ingredients, as supported by a certificate and technical literature. However, the Tribunal found that since none of the specified permissible ingredients were present in the capsules, the appellants were not entitled to the notification's benefit.
Qualification for Exemption:
The Tribunal carefully analyzed the wording of Notification No. 122/86, which granted exemption to medicaments containing specified ingredients listed in the annexure. It noted that while the notification allowed for pharmaceutical necessities not listed in the annexure under certain conditions, this provision only applied if the main clause regarding specified ingredients was satisfied. As none of the specified ingredients were found in the capsules under consideration, the Tribunal upheld the department's contention that the capsules did not qualify for the exemption provided in the notification. The Tribunal refrained from delving into the Collector's observations on pharmaceutical necessity due to the absence of relevant material.
Time Bar Issue:
Regarding the time bar issue related to the classification of the product, the Tribunal observed an interesting situation. It noted that if the assessment was final, the appellants should have filed an appeal within three months of finalization. On the other hand, if the assessment was provisional, the respondents had the opportunity to appeal against the adjudication order. However, the Tribunal found that the respondents had not disputed the classification list before the Collector, leading to a conclusion that they had missed the opportunity to raise classification issues. Consequently, the Tribunal focused solely on the applicability of Notification No. 122/86 and ruled in favor of the department, denying the benefit of the notification to the appellants for Rison Capsules. The cross objection was also disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 193
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on additional duty paid for re-imported repaired machine.
Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, a company, importing a bottle sprinting machine in 1983, sending it to Thailand for repair in 1994, and re-importing it in 1995, claiming exemption under Notification No. 204/76. The appellant paid basic Customs duty and additional Customs duty based on the assessable value computed as per the notification. However, the Superintendent issued a show cause notice proposing to deny Modvat credit on the additional duty paid, which was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
The appellant argued that countervailing duty was paid on the re-imported machine, and the assessable value was determined by the notification, not just on repair charges. They contended that since duty was paid on the article itself, they were entitled to Modvat credit as duty paid on capital goods. On the other hand, the Respondent supported the lower authorities' reasoning, stating that no duty was paid on the value of the capital goods, and Modvat credit was not admissible.
The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that the appellant had indeed paid countervailing duty on the re-imported item. The notification provided an exemption based on the value of the re-imported goods, including repair costs, insurance, and freight charges. The Tribunal clarified that countervailing duty is payable on the imported article itself, not just on repair or associated charges. Since the appellant had paid the additional duty of Customs, equivalent to the Modvat credit claimed, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions and set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that countervailing duty is payable on the imported article, and the assessable value determined by the notification includes various expenses, not limited to repair charges. The appellant was deemed entitled to Modvat credit as duty paid on capital goods, leading to the reversal of the denial of Modvat credit on the additional duty paid for the re-imported repaired machine.
-
1999 (1) TMI 192
Issues:
The judgment involves the issues of determining the value of imported goods based on metal content, confiscation of goods under Section 111, and imposition of penalty.
Value Determination:
The Collector enhanced the value of the goods based on London Metal Exchange (LME) prices and purity difference. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's determination, stating that the purity of the metal is the same as the metal content. The value was determined by considering the purity of the goods in LME and the metal content of the imported goods.
Confiscation under Section 111:
The goods imported were tin ash/dross, with the metal content not mentioned in the bill of entry. The Tribunal found no basis for confiscation under Section 111 as there was no declaration of metal content. The argument of implicit misdeclaration was rejected, citing possible reasons for lower prices such as commercial considerations. Confiscation and penalty were deemed unjustified.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty, providing consequential relief. The appeal was allowed in part, ruling in favor of the appellant.
-
1999 (1) TMI 191
The Revenue filed an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay regarding the classification of "Gummed paper in Jumbo rolls" under Chapter sub-heading 4817.10. The Collector (Appeals) classified the goods under sub-heading 4811 and allowed exemption for payment of duty under Notification No. 49/87. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the benefit of exemption granted to the respondents became final after the Collector (Appeals) order was not challenged.
-
1999 (1) TMI 190
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the application stating that the penalty imposed of Rs. 1 crore is not a justification for early hearing. The duty involved in the case is approximately Rs. 63 lakhs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 189
Issues:
Classification of goods for exemption under Notification No. 281/86 based on manufacturing location - Workshop vs. Factory distinction.
Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in iron and steel product manufacturing, claimed Notification No. 281/86 benefit on ramming mass and burnt dolomite used for lining furnaces. The department denied the benefit, arguing these items were factory-manufactured. The appellants contended these goods were workshop-manufactured within the factory, thus eligible for exemption. They cited relevant tribunal decisions supporting their stance.
The JDR for the respondent contended workshop and factory have distinct meanings, asserting ramming mass and burnt dolomite were factory-made, rendering the notification inapplicable. He suggested the appellants might be selling parts of these goods to third parties while seeking exemption. He disagreed with the tribunal's interpretation in a previous case equating workshop with factory.
After reviewing submissions and evidence, the tribunal noted the use of ramming mass and burnt dolomite for furnace lining within the factory was undisputed. Citing the Notification, the tribunal emphasized exemption for goods made in a workshop for machinery repair within the factory. Referring to past decisions, it held that the manufacturing area within the factory could be considered a workshop. As the goods were used for furnace repair, meeting the notification's intent, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them the exemption.
The tribunal's decision clarified that the location of manufacturing, whether workshop or factory, was not decisive as long as the goods were used for machinery repair within the factory premises. The ruling emphasized the purpose of the Notification and the technical aspects of furnace lining, concluding that the appellants qualified for the exemption under Notification No. 281/86. The appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants as per the law. Additionally, the Stay Petition No. SP-119/93 was also disposed of in the same judgment.
-
1999 (1) TMI 188
Issues: Identification of the accused based on photographs, validity of medical certificate, implications of anticipatory bail application on guilt
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, the issue revolves around the identification of the accused based on photographs, the validity of a medical certificate, and the implications of an anticipatory bail application on guilt. The case involves the seizure of gold biscuits from an individual, leading to investigations and subsequent penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
The appellant's representative argued that the accused was not in Bombay during the event and had two surnames, Shah and Porwal. The medical certificate supporting the alibi was contested, but the appellant's age matched the one in the certificate. However, the hospital staff denied the accused being the person treated there. The defense also highlighted discrepancies in the telephone numbers provided by the witness and disassociated the accused from the person referred to in the witness's statement.
The respondent contended that the witness's retraction was not on record and cited a Supreme Court judgment to support the case. The defense emphasized the importance of accurate identification, questioning the source and authenticity of the photographs presented during the investigation. The defense also referenced another Supreme Court case to strengthen their argument.
The Tribunal found the identification issue crucial and criticized the Collector for hastily linking the anticipatory bail application to guilt without thorough examination of evidence. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's orders, remanding the proceedings for a detailed review, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case and for the Collector to provide comprehensive findings. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of by way of remand, highlighting the importance of a meticulous analysis of evidence and issues raised by both parties.
-
1999 (1) TMI 187
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods and vessels by the Commissioner under Section 112.
2. Transhipment of goods from one vessel to another outside the limits of Kandla port.
3. Omission to declare cargo at Sikka port meant for Jebel Ali.
4. Shortage found in quantities discharged at Kandla port.
5. Imposition of penalties on agents and their employees without specific reasons.
Analysis:
1. The Commissioner imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of goods and vessels under Section 112. The penalties ranged from Rs. 20.00 lacs to Rs. 35.00 lacs on different appellants, with options for redemption by payment of fines. Confiscation was ordered for goods carried on vessels with options for redemption. The judgment addressed the validity and proportionality of these penalties and confiscations.
2. The case involved transhipment of goods from one vessel to another outside the limits of Kandla port. The Commissioner held the transfer unauthorized, leading to liability under Section 111 for confiscation. However, the judgment analyzed the circumstances of the transhipment, including the good faith of the appellants, the permissions sought and granted, and the technical nature of the contravention.
3. The omission to declare cargo at Sikka port meant for Jebel Ali was considered a contravention of Section 111. The judgment examined the intent behind the omission, the subsequent discharge at Jebel Ali, and the evidence provided in the form of a landing certificate from Jebel Ali Port authorities to determine the leniency required in this case.
4. A shortage in quantities discharged at Kandla port was termed as transhipment loss by the Commissioner. The judgment highlighted that duties had already been demanded and paid on these quantities before the notice was issued, questioning the sustainability of the Commissioner's order in this regard.
5. Penalties imposed on agents and their employees without specific reasons were scrutinized. The judgment found a lack of justification for these penalties, especially when penalties had already been imposed on the masters. The issue of imposing penalties on ship owners in addition to masters was also addressed, leading to modifications in the penalties imposed on the appellants.
In conclusion, the judgment modified the Commissioner's order regarding redemption fines, confiscation of goods, and penalties imposed on various parties involved. It emphasized the technical nature of the contraventions, the absence of mala fide intentions, and the need for greater care in handling such situations. The appeals were allowed in part, with consequential relief granted.
-
1999 (1) TMI 186
Issues:
- Appeal against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs rejecting a refund claim for heating elements under Chapter Heading 8516.00.
- Interpretation of Rule 173L(3) regarding the timeline for processing and refund claims for returned goods.
- Consideration of the requirement for goods verification by the jurisdictional Inspector before processing.
- Examination of the appellant's contention for refund eligibility based on timely intimation and processing of returned goods.
- Analysis of the Collector (Appeals) decision on the necessity of rendering an account within six months for refund eligibility.
Issue 1:
The appeal was filed against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs rejecting a refund claim for heating elements under Chapter Heading 8516.00. The appellants had filed an appeal after the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim. The key contention was the timeliness of the refund claim as per Rule 173L(3).
Issue 2:
The interpretation of Rule 173L(3) was central to the case, focusing on the timeline for processing and refund claims for returned goods. The Collector (Appeals) emphasized that the appellants must complete the processes and render an account to the Collector within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. The provision did not mandate that processing could only occur after goods verification by the department.
Issue 3:
The appellant argued for refund eligibility based on timely intimation and processing of the returned goods. They contended that they had received the goods for repair within one year of the first duty payment, filed D3 intimation promptly, and kept the goods segregated for verification by the jurisdictional Inspector before reprocessing.
Issue 4:
The Collector (Appeals) decision highlighted the necessity of rendering an account within six months for refund eligibility. The order emphasized that the appellants should have approached the Principal Collector for an extension of the period as per Rule 173L(4) if needed. Failure to do so resulted in the rejection of the refund claim, as the provisions were deemed clear without ambiguity.
Issue 5:
The final judgment dismissed the appeal, supporting the Collector (Appeals) decision. It noted that the appellant should have taken reasonable steps for refund processing within the stipulated timeline. The judgment also hinted at the potential consideration of unjust enrichment but ultimately concluded that the refund claim was barred by limitation, thus upholding the rejection decision based on the timeliness of the claim.
-
1999 (1) TMI 185
The appeal was against duty and penalty arising from 9 notices. Duty of Rs. 1.68 crores confirmed in the earliest notice and total penalty imposed. Applicant engaged in processing cotton fabrics, exempt from basic duty but liable under Additional Duties of Excise Act. Department argued exemption not applicable due to first proviso to Notification 121/94. Tribunal waived deposit of duty and penalty considering applicant's status as a sick industry.
-
1999 (1) TMI 184
The appeal was against duty and penalty arising from 9 notices, treated as appeal against duty of Rs. 1.68 crores and total penalty. Applicant engaged in processing cotton fabrics, contended duty was paid upon clearance and processed goods are exempt if captively consumed. Department argued against exemption, citing Notification 121/94 and 217/86. Tribunal waived deposit of duty and penalty due to applicant being declared a sick industry.
-
1999 (1) TMI 183
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting Modvat credit. The denial of Modvat credit based on procedural irregularity was deemed unreasonable as the input was declared and used in the final product. The tribunal found the show cause notice vague and set aside the proceedings.
-
1999 (1) TMI 182
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the order of confiscation of imported newsprint, citing a consistent practice at the Custom House of releasing such goods unless importers are notified otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of informing importers of any changes in practice before taking action against them.
............
|
9911796707
