|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 473 Records
-
2000 (1) TMI 727 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... appellant, and examined earlier support the appellant rsquo s claim for treating the said units as separate entities under the reported facts. 31. emsp Regarding the imposition of penalty, presence of mens-rea is a mandatory requirement and in the absence of which imposition of penalty is unjustified as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) and also the decision of Hon rsquo ble CEGAT in the case of Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 193 (Tri.) in which it has been clarified that penalty is not leviable in case of technical or venial breach of provisions of Act or where breach flows from bonafide belief of the offender. 32. emsp I therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals arising from the same Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. K-III, Mumbai-IV. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (1) TMI 726 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... appellant, and examined earlier support the appellant rsquo s claim for treating the said units as separate entities under the reported facts. 31. emsp Regarding the imposition of penalty, presence of mens-rea is a mandatory requirement and in the absence of which imposition of penalty is unjustified as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) and also the decision of Hon rsquo ble CEGAT in the case of Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 193 (Tri.) in which it has been clarified that penalty is not leviable in case of technical or venial breach of provisions of Act or where breach flows from bonafide belief of the offender. 32. emsp I therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals arising from the same Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. K-III, Mumbai-IV. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (1) TMI 725 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... appellant, and examined earlier support the appellant rsquo s claim for treating the said units as separate entities under the reported facts. 31. emsp Regarding the imposition of penalty, presence of mens-rea is a mandatory requirement and in the absence of which imposition of penalty is unjustified as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) and also the decision of Hon rsquo ble CEGAT in the case of Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 193 (Tri.) in which it has been clarified that penalty is not leviable in case of technical or venial breach of provisions of Act or where breach flows from bonafide belief of the offender. 32. emsp I therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals arising from the same Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. K-III, Mumbai-IV. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (1) TMI 700 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Modvat - Intention to evade duty ... ... ... ... ..... ng to penalty also shall stand decided in favour of the appellants. 23. emsp As regards Modvat credit of the countervailing duty paid on the inputs it has to be held that the denial of such credit by the lower authority is not sustainable in as much as that authority rsquo s finding of suppression etc., has already been reversed. Further, I do not see any reason for remanding the matter as proposed by the learned Vice President. 24. emsp In the light of the foregoing discussion and findings, I would concur with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Member (Judicial). The referred point of difference stands answered accordingly. Registry is directed to take appropriate action. Sd/- (P.G. Chacko) Member (J) MAJORITY ORDER In the light of the majority view, we hold that the demand for the extended period of limitation is unsustainable and that penalty is also unsustainable and accordingly set aside the same. Sd/- (V.K. Agrawal) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J)
-
2000 (1) TMI 692 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay of impugned order - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... stem has been acknowledged. With this background, it was incorrect on the part of the ld. Commissioner to rule that assembling of the component parts did not amount to manufacture. Neither side has commented on how the sales invoices are prepared. The ld. Counsel at the time of hearing showed the purchase invoice of peripherals of different sources. The respondents have used their skills for selecting configuration for particular customer as per their requirement. The assessee respondents put the component parts together and sold it as a computer system. In that case, the fact that these are supplied separately for the sake of convenience does not take away the status of computer system. 6. emsp Examined in the light of the precedent case law, the conclusion of the Commissioner that the component parts together do not constitute a computer system prima facie does not appear to be correct. Therefore, the application is allowed and the operation of the impugned order is stayed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 683 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... laid down for disciplinary proceedings in respect of a Government Officer for awarding any penalty to him as per law and in particular in terms of the constitutional guarantees extended to the Government servants. 22. emsp For the reasons discussed in detail above, we quash the impugned order passed on behalf of the first respondent in the name of the President of India dated 30-6-1999 available at Annexure A4, which was communicated with the forwarding letter, dated 13-7-1999 by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. We further declare that the applicant is eligible for all consequential benefits arising from this order and direct the respondents to grant those benefits to him including promotion, for which he was eligible for consideration at the appropriate time ignoring the effect of these disciplinary proceedings against him. These directions shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 682 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation and penalty - Smuggled nature of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ercepted by the Customs officers on 2-10-1997. I fail to understand as to how in these circumstances the ld. JDR argues that no nexus has been established between the seized goods and the goods referred in the letter by Shir Anil Kr. Jaiswal. No doubt has been expressed by the adjudicating authority as regards the various letters written by Shri Anil Kr. Jaiswal which in any case duly show receipt of the said letters by the Assistant Commissioner and also the response given by the Assistant Commissioner to the appellant. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to hold on the basis of the some circumstantial evidence that the said letters are manipulated letters and manipulated documents. As such I hold that the documentary evidence produced by the appellants tilts the case in their favour as against the circumstantial evidence pointed out by the Revenue. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow all the four appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (1) TMI 680 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Accounts - Maintenance of Accounts - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... goods, as contended impugned order observes. There is a scope for suspicion for future action of clandestine removal. The seized goods are not in packed condition with the recording entries in statutory register for removal. Not even attempt of movement of goods outside the factory is suggested in the impugned order. 1996 (84) E.L.T. 37 in the case of Pooja Forge Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi clearly applies to this case regarding imposition of penalty and order of confiscation as per para 7 of the order, which is not sustainable. In view of the above discussion and conclusion arrived at point raised is answered in the affirmative, regarding the order of confiscation of seized goods, and in negative regarding the rest. Hence, I pass the following. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed in part with consequential relief according to law, if any, and the impugned order is set aside regarding the confiscation of seized goods and confirmed regarding the rest.
-
2000 (1) TMI 679 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plastics and articles thereof ... ... ... ... ..... tter had not been fully analysed by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority. At the same time, we consider that both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority had not described as in what form the goods were presented for assessment and under what name goods were marketed. The Revenue had in the grounds of appeal stated as under - ldquo To ascertin classifiability of any product it is essential to see its marketability/trade parlance. In trade parlance, it is known as mattresses and not as plate, sheet or strip of P.U. foam. rdquo 11. emsp In the interest of justice, we consider that this matter should go back to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise for full examination of the matter in the light of our above observations. After affording an opportunity to the manufacturers, the matter should be re-decided in accordance with law. 12. emsp The appeal filed by the Revenue is thus allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 658 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ot entitled for the relief as claimed by them. The word lsquo P/L rsquo was inserted by the appellants after clearance of the goods from the factory which is admitted by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants manipulated the records. Shri Akshey Gupta, CHA of the appellants, admitted before the adjudicating authority the mistake of classification. 6. emsp The contention of the appellants is that the garments, in question, are made out of the fabric which is known as viscose fabric. At the time of adjudication, when the garments, in question, were shown to the appellants and the adjudicating authority was of the view that these were made of nylon as base fabric with embroidery of viscose, the appellants should have asked for expert opinion in support of their claim. Instead of asking for expert opinion, the CHA of the appellants admitted the mistake of classification. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal, filed by the appellants, which is rejected.
-
2000 (1) TMI 657 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... aspect does not arise out of the order in question. It was not argued before the various benches from whose order the application arise. 9. emsp It has consequently to be held that the Gujarat High Court judgment in Maheshwari Mills Ltd. case is not in conflict with the Delhi High Court judgment which has been followed by the Tribunal. In addition the fact of amendment of the 1957 Act in 1994 specifically incorporated penal provisions, and the fact that at least 4 benches of the Tribunal of different members CCE v. Sri Parmesh Silk Mills, 1996 (15) RLT 63, CCE v. Motley Industries Ltd., 1995 (6) RLT 580, CCE v. Padmanabh Silk Mills, 1997 (91) E.L.T. 143, and unreported decision in appeal No. E/139/88 in CCE v. M/s. Manila Dyeing and Printing Mills have been unable to find a conflict between the decisions of Delhi High Court, and that of the Gujarat High Court has also to be taken into account. rdquo 6. emsp The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (1) TMI 656 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... is shown that the condition of the machine, manufacturer and extent of use, condition of the machine of the two sets of the goods are identical. It would be extremely difficult to find such machines or mould, which could be compared with. The best judgment is therefore possible. We are, therefore, of the view the best way to arrive at the value would be to ascertain the cost of new moulds when they were manufactured in 1988 and derive the value by giving appropriate depreciation at the rate, which has been given. We have been assured by Mr. N.G. Nileshwar, representative of the importer that the company will make efforts so as to make such value available and pass it to the Customs Department. We however, caution that the Department should not depend only on the importer but it should make its own effort to get such value. Thereafter the matter should be decided in accordance with law by the Assistant Commissioner. 5. emsp Appeal accordingly allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (1) TMI 655 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... fore, the Commissioner (Appeals), however, had upheld the levy of penalty. The assessees have not filed any appeal against the order levying penalty but, the department has filed the instant appeal stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the provision of Rule 57G. They seek to justify the case that the CEGAT in various judgments had held that provisions of Rule 57G are mandatory. 4. emsp In my view the ground taken is not correct. It is not the case of the department or the assessee that provision of Rule 57G are mandatory or otherwise. The question involved in this case is whether time-limit will be applicable for taking the less credit which was taken earlier by the assessee. The time-limit has been prescribed from 29-6-1995. It has not been argued by the department that the said notification was of a clarificatory in nature. Hence the argument of the department cannot be accepted. 5. emsp The appeal is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 654 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Exemption - Power - Textile processing - Penalty - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... cs. According to that, there was no facility to bring textile fabrics. Jigger was not connected to boiler and dryer was very old and not in working condition. This is supported by the contents of the panchnama and also the show cause notice. Then the printed fabrics were received for rolling and the appellant did not process the confiscated fabrics. This is also established. There is no evidence to demand duty, to show that the appellant had processed fabric with the aid of power or steam, as already discussed above, and this stand is upheld. The observation of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order while imposing penalty that for the various reasons rendering the goods for confiscation the appellant is liable to penalty does not hold good. The contention of the appellant in that regard is upheld and I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief according to law.
-
2000 (1) TMI 653 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. 3. emsp The advocate for the appellant refers to Board rsquo s Circular No. 146/57/95-CX dated 12-9-1995 which provides that in such situation, as long as the invoice indicates the job worker to be the consignee in the invoice and also bore the name and address of the manufacturer, it would be valid document for taking credit. Here, job worker is not shown as consignee, but the invoice indicates the delivery of the goods to the job worker. In substance prima facie the document appears to be covered by the Board rsquo s circular. The Commissioner in his order does not refer to the Board rsquo s circular. Thus, therefore, in our view a fit case for waiver of deposit. 4. emsp Accordingly we waive deposit of duty demanded, allow the appeal and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall decide the matter according to law. We clarify that Commissioner is not bound by the prima facie observation we have made earlier in this order.
-
2000 (1) TMI 652 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - New ground ... ... ... ... ..... ravel goods classifiable under CET sub-heading 4201.90 was rejected by the lower appellate authority. 2. emsp We have heard Dr. Ravindra Babu, learned DR and Shri V.R. Kelkar, learned Consultant. 3. emsp We find that in the show cause notice, the ground for proposing classification under CET sub-heading 4201.90 is that the items are parts of travel goods while in the appeal memorandum before the Tribunal, the Department is seeking classification under Chapter Heading 42.01 on the ground that these two items are articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the hand bags which are covered under HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 42. The grounds of appeal are therefore, fresh grounds which were not raised in the show cause notices. We agree with the respondents rsquo consultant that it is not legally permissible to raise new grounds for the first time in appeal proceedings and on this short point alone, we reject the appeals of the Revenue and uphold the impugned order.
-
2000 (1) TMI 651 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... art from saying that it has a strong case on merits, does not justify this claim in the stay application. Financial hardship is pleaded on the ground that the unit has been declared as a relief undertaking under the provisions of The Bombay Reliefs Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. While a copy of the notification issued in this regard has been produced, that by itself does not impel us to conclude that a case of financial hardship has been made out. 4. emsp Accordingly, we consider it appropriate to ask the applicant to deposit Rs 5.00 lacs within a month from the receipt of this order. Upon such deposit, we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and stay its recovery.
-
2000 (1) TMI 622 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification, change in - Demand - Classification - Demand - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... igher than the rate under sub-heading 84.48 of the Tariff. Moreover, before confirming the demand, the appellants were heard in detail by affording them full opportunity and no violation of principles of natural justice also can be said to had taken place. No miscarriage of justice can be said to had occurred. Moreover, it is well that settled when justice is pitted against the technicalities of the law/rules, the former has to prevail as the ends of justice can be allowed to be defeated by sticking to the technicalities of the rules and regulations. 16. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the classification of the products of the appellants under sub-heading 84.83 of the CETA, as well as the duty demand by endorsing the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector is perfectly valid and is affirmed. Consequently there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 614 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat credit - Input ... ... ... ... ..... e final product, but indirectly in relation to the manufacture of the final product, the same would be considered as an admissible Modvatable input. Absence of judicial pronouncements on this item is no criteria for denying the benefit of the Modvat credit when the same is available under the provisions of law. Accordingly no infirmity is being found in respect of the Organo Sulphur Compounds. 6. emsp In respect of the other organic compounds it has been observed that the same has been used as viscocity reducer which reduces the viscocity from the mascuite ensuring good purging in centrifugal machines and good colour of sugar. This is also used for betterment of high quality of sugar massecuites and has to be considered as an input. The above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) stand reasonable and no infirmity is found in the same. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing discussions I uphold the impugned passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
2000 (1) TMI 612 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... i and Shri Bhima Sukhlal and their contention that this effects the outcome of the case is not well founded, as the Department has relied not only upon the statement or Shri Fulari and Shri Bhima Sukhlal but also upon the inspection report which is borne out by Shri Sukhlal. 7. emsp In the light of the circumstances set out above, we agree with the finding of the Adjudicating authority that part of the production of Bharat Chemical Works has been shown as the production of Bharat Silicate Works and that although both are apparently separate units, they are really one and the same and their production has to be clubbed for the purpose of computing clearance value for extending the benefit of SSI notification. The appellants do not dispute that if clearance of both the units are clubbed, the ceiling limit prescribed in the SSI notifications are exceeded. Hence the duty demand as well as penalty are sustainable. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.
............
|
