|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 202 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nd Sunday, during which time they could have filed bill of entry. Scrap was generated out of the foreign ship is admitted. It is a foreign goods. It is liable to duty, and an imported goods. Section 111(g) of Customs Act, 1962 clearly applies, on appellant. Inspite of undertaking he has unloaded the M.S. scrap and transported without filing bill of entry and clearance of custom duty. His bonafides are negatived by the say of owner of barger and captain of the ship. So there are no sufficient ground to allow the appeal in its entirety. 7. emsp But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and cent percent redemption fine, I feel the ends of justice will be met, if penalty is reduced. So I pass the following. ORDER 8. emsp For the reasons indicated above, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), by allowing the appeal in part, and confirming the impugned order regarding the rest. Consequent relief should follow.
-
1999 (1) TMI 201 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... d acquired the precious stones without any valid import documents and in violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Shri Roy, learned JDR submits that having come to the above clear finding against the respondent, yet no penalty has been imposed on him. This is a grave error on the part of the Commissioner. 7. emsp After going through the impugned order and the grounds put forth in the memo of appeal as also those urged by the learned JDR, I find though the Commissioner has observed and given a finding against the respondent, still no penalty has been imposed upon him in the operative portion of the order. This seems to be a mistake in the adjudication order. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner in so far as the same relates to the respondent and remand the matter to the Commissioner for modifying the order portion, keeping in view his findings in Para 9 of the order, which are against the respondent. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1999 (1) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Medicines - Bulk drug - Benefit of Notification No. 31/88-C.E. is available. ... ... ... ... ..... that what is also required to be seen is whether the products under dispute are bulk drugs under the meaning ascribed to it in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 is not tenable for the reasons that the show cause notices charge the appellants only with the non-production of end-use certificate and there is no charge that the products are not bulk drugs, and also for the reason that the classification lists during the relevant period have been approved under Chapter 29. Learned SDR is also unable to substantiate his contention that the products in dispute may not be covered by the definition of ( rdquo bulk drugs rdquo ) under Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. In view of the above, following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Maize Products cited supra we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. ldquo 4. emsp In view of these facts and also following the decision in the earlier order, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1999 (1) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - packing ... ... ... ... ..... s to present their case. 10. emsp As regards the secondary packing the issue had come up earlier before the Tribunal in the assessee rsquo s own case reported in 1998 (78) E.C.R. 637 (Tribunal) . The Tribunal observed that the deduction of the cost of corrugated boxes packing depended on the quality and nature of the packing and the returnable nature of the packing depends on the agreement between the parties or on account of trade practice. The Tribunal had observed that these aspects had not been considered in a proper manner. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and the observations made in that order and after giving appellants an opportunity of hearing. With regard to the present controversy also, with the similar observations we remand the matter to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. 11. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... emption under the said notification. In the light of these facts, which are not denied by the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in all the three orders passed by the Collector (Appeals). At this stage, ld. DR also pointed out that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 13th March, 1990, has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the respondents which shows that the Collector (Appeals) has admitted that the assessee was required to pay duty on the goods in accordance with the approved classification list. We do not find any force in these submissions as the Collector (Appeals) has imposed penalty on the respondents for not clearing the goods as per approved classification list irrespective of the fact that they had filed appeal against the approval. He had given clear findings in the impugned order that there is no cause to confirm the demand. We, therefore, reject all the three appeals filed by the Revenue. The cross-objection is also disposed of in these terms.
-
1999 (1) TMI 197 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ure. If the Department after scrutiny of this information was of the opinion that such a cases arose, it was for the Department to have taken immediate action at that time to issue a show cause notice raising this question. The law regarding limitation is now very clear, inasmuch as that when an assessee holds a bona fide belief that he is not manufacturing any excisable goods, and yet submits all details of the manufacturing process to the Department, then it cannot be said that he has committed any positive act, by which he has suppressed wilfully any information for the purpose of evasion of duty. 6. emsp Under these circumstances, we are clearly of the considered view that the demand also suffers from limitation barring the last few months. However, as we have already held that there is no evidence on record regarding marketability of the alleged product, therefore, the demands are not sustained and the order impugned is set aside. 7. emsp The appeal succeeds accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... rought out in the earlier stage in the statement of applicant or his wife. However there was no documentary evidence to show importation in India. 10. emsp On examination of the finding and on considering the various submissions, we find that no prima facie case has been made out by the applicant for waiver and stay. Financial hardship has been claimed. The applicant and his wife were enlarged on bail of Rs. 1 lakh each. Considering the circumstances, we direct the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each towards penalty imposed under Section 113 as also 121 and Rs. 1 lakh each towards the penalty imposed under Section 114. On these deposits being made, the pre-deposit of the remaining amount shall be waived and recovery thereof stayed. The applicant is given time upto 10 weeks from today. The applicants are permitted to deposit the sum in instalments provided the entire sum is deposited within the period stipulated. The case is posted for reporting compliance on 15-12-1998.
-
1999 (1) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... claimed by the appellants they were required to file an appeal, if they were aggrieved, within three months of such finalisation on the other hand, if the assessment was provisional (as claimed by the department) then the respondents had another chance by way of appeal against the adjudication order and raising these points before the Collector but the ld. Collector has recorded that the respondents did not dispute the classification list before him. The respondents have not been able to show that this observation is not correct. Therefore, whichever we may look at it, the respondents had missed the bus in so far as the question of classification was concerned and the only issue which survives and is left to be decided by us is applicability of the Notification No. 122/86 and as discussed above, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit thereof in respect of Rison Capsules. We, therefore accept the department (Appeals). The cross objection is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 193 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... charging the countervailing duty on the complete value of the goods by treating the same as assessable value, a deemed assessable value has been provided consisting of the three expenses as mentioned above, in terms of the said notification. The very fact that exemption has been granted in terms of the value of the article vide the said notification shows that countervailing duty is payable on the articles. As such the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below that no duty was paid on the goods but the same was paid on the cost of repair, freight and insurance is not proper. Countervailing duty is always payable on the import of the article and not on the cost of repair, freight or insurance etc. There is also no dispute that the appellants have infact paid the additional duty of Customs equivalent to the Modvat credit being claimed by them now. Accordingly I find a lot of force in the submissions of the ld. Advocate and set aside the impugned order allowing the appeal.
-
1999 (1) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Confiscation of goods and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the goods under clause (m) of Section 111. In this clause to apply there must be a difference between the value or other material particularly declared in the bill of entry (or in the case of declaration) and what is determined as a difference obviously cannot arise where no declaration made in the relevant bill of entry. The Departmental Representative rsquo s contention that there is an implicit misdeclaration in that the seller would not have supplied the goods of purity at a price lower than the price prevailing in the market is unacceptable in the face of evidence that the price was manipulated or artificial. There could be various explanations for the lower prices for example the price may have been negotiated on the basis of commercial or even extra commercial consideration. Confiscation of the goods and consequential penalty, therefore, are not justified. 4. emsp We therefore set aside confiscation and penalty with consequential relief, if any. Appeal allowed in part.
-
1999 (1) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Finality of order ... ... ... ... ..... cation No. 49/87-C.E. was granted to the resp- ondents. Therefore he upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 4. emsp Ld. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 as the Gummed and adhesive paper are not covered under the Notification . 5. emsp Heard ld. JDR and perused the appeal papers. 6. emsp The adjudicating authority simply dropped the demand in pursuance to the Order-in-Appeal dated 12-2-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) whereby the Collector (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification No. 49/87 to the respondents. This order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue. Hence the grant of benefit of exemption notification to respondents become final and in the present adjudication that order is followed. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1999 (1) TMI 190 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... ly. The fact that penalty imposed of Rs. 1 crore by itself is not the justification for early hearing. Penalty is not relevant in any case is not the criterion for the early hearing. 2. emsp We therefore dismiss the application.
-
1999 (1) TMI 189 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Exemption to goods manufactured in a workshop and used within the factory for repair of machinery therein under Notification No. 281/86-C.E.
-
1999 (1) TMI 188 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Seizure of contraband gold biscuits ... ... ... ... ..... lia passed an order that the Customs should give 48 hours notice to Dilip Lalchand Shah before his arrest. His going for anticipatory bail on 22-3-1988 itself shows his guilty mind. This being the case, I do not know how he went to his native place and got admitted in the hospital when he has filed an anticipatory bail even after going to his native place. He is fully involved in the case and he is liable to a penalty under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act rdquo . 5. emsp In my opinion, the Collector was hasty in holding that the application for anticipatory bail established Shri Dilip rsquo s guilt. I am not in a position to consider the basic evidence in the case as also the various issues raised by both sides. I therefore, set aside the orders of the Collector and remand the proceedings back to him. He shall give opportunity for the appellant to appeal before him, consider each submission and give his detailed findings.The appeals are disposed off by way of remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty/Confiscation/Redemption fine - Confiscation of goods - Demand - Confiscation of ships set aside
-
1999 (1) TMI 186 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Limitation - Return of goods for repair ... ... ... ... ..... for reasons to be recorded in writing. Since the appellants have failed to get a relaxation their refund claim has been rightly rejected rdquo . 5. emsp I cannot find any fault in that. When the intimation was given to the Inspector he could not have waited beyond 48 hours. What made him to wait for such a long time for inspection to be taken place. He could have written another letter to the Inspector calling upon to give a reply immediately. I am, therefore, of the view that when a refund is claimed the appellant ought to have taken reasonable steps as also the department. No doubt the department can argue that they have done within six months. But I am not expressing any opinion on that. Further the question of unjust enrichment may also come into the as decided by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247. However, I am not touching the question of unjust enrichment as I feel the claim of refund is barred by limitation. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cotton fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... al representative contends that first proviso to the notification operates so as to deny benefit of exemption since goods are exempt from the whole of duty of excise. It appears that Notification 121/94 was issued when textile goods came into Modvat scheme, so as to prevent work involved in paying duty and taking credit repeatedly on goods consumed within a factory. Further, it seems, prima facie with reference to Notification 217/86, that when the goods are cleared they are liable to additional duty. It is not correct to say they are non-duty paid goods fully exempt from the whole of duty. The use of the words ldquo any one or more of these process rdquo in Note 3 to Section 52 also calls into question the view of the department that each of these process is subject to duty. In any event, we find that applicant has been declared as a sick industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Taking all these into account we waive the deposit of duty and penalty.
-
1999 (1) TMI 184 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cotton fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... al representative contends that first proviso to the notification operates so as to deny benefit of exemption since goods are exempt from the whole of duty of excise. It appears that Notification 121/94 was issued when textile goods came into Modvat scheme, so as to prevent work involved in paying duty and taking credit repeatedly on goods consumed within a factory. Further, it seems, prima facie with reference to Notification 217/86, that when the goods are cleared they are liable to additional duty. It is not correct to say they are non-duty paid goods fully exempt from the whole of duty. The use of the words ldquo any one or more of these process rdquo in Note 3 to Section 52 also calls into question the view of the department that each of these process is subject to duty. In any event, we find that applicant has been declared as a sick industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Taking all these into account we waive the deposit of duty and penalty.
-
1999 (1) TMI 183 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... benefit of the duty on the final product. It is not the case of the department that the input was not declared. The input has been received in the factory has been utilised in the manufacture of declared final product. As long as these things are complied with, I do not think the department can unreasonably deny the Modvat credit. In this case, Modvat credit has been denied only on the ground that the invoices are not prescribed under 52A. The show cause notice does not mention how the contravention has taken place. The show cause notice is vague. Hence the entire proceedings initiated by both the parties are wrong in law. I therefore, set aside the same, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief.
-
1999 (1) TMI 182 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods - Past practice ... ... ... ... ..... refuse to exercise a power under the Draw-Back Rules on the ground of practice and policy decision taken by it, and that the prevailing practice or policy cannot override the statutory rights provided under the Act. Apart from this, any importer would legitimately expect that the goods imported by him would be accorded the same treatment as the goods of others including his competitors which have been cleared before as import. It is only fair and reasonable before a different treatment is meted out the importing public is made aware so that they should not enter into a commitment based on earlier practice. We also note that there is nothing in the orders to say that he has or attempted to import what is considered to be wrong pratice either by reviewing earlier orders or by issue of a notice. Even if goods are liable to confiscation, they deserve to be released on a caution. 5. emsp Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the order of confiscation. Consequential relief.
............
|
