Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 349 Records
-
1998 (10) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Reopening of assessment - SSI Exemption - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... he demand on these two products will have to be recalculated in terms of Notification 175/86-C.E. is accepted and the adjudicating authority is directed to work out afresh the duty, if any, payable on these two products for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89. He shall also examine the submission of the appellants that in the event of it being held that duty is payable by them, they would be entitled to avail Modvat credit of Rs. 30,76,000/- of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the final products. The adjudicating authority to whom the matter is remanded shall also consider the aspect of imposition of appropriate fine and penalty. 12. emsp In the result appeal Nos. E/1071, 1072 and 1079/91-C filed by the assessees are allowed by way of remand while Revenue Appeal No. E/5865/92-C is also allowed by way of remand and Revenue Appeal No. E/5902/92-C is allowed in re Zinac-22, but rejected in respect of remaining products whose classification is disputed in this appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 218 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Carbon paste - eligible for benefit of set off under Notification No. 201/79-C.E.
... ... ... ... ..... cathodes and anodes were held to be used in the manufacture of aluminium as raw material should be granted benefit. The proposition of the Supreme Court decision clearly support the appellant rsquo s case and this Bench clearly held that the earlier judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. upholding the grant of benefit of carbon paste for the manufacture of ferro silicon as an input, is required to be upheld as the judgment rendered which finds support from the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court. Further we notice that the activated carbon used was also granted benefit in the case of Amritsar Bottling Co. (cited supra). Therefore, we have to clearly hold that the item carbon paste is entitled for the benefit of set off as an input in the manufacture of Ferro Silicon/Ferro Alloys, in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court cited above. 5. emsp In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is dutiable. We therefore, observe that the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. would be dependent upon the fact whether the final product iron and steel indeed is dutiable or not. In case it is not dutiable, that is, it is not fully exempted, then only the benefit of said notification would be available. This finding of fact is to be determined by the lower appellate authority which has not looked into the case from that angle and adjudication has to be made on that point. Accordingly, we are of the view, so far as the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. in respect of clacined dolomite falling under Chapter 2804.90 is concerned, the aspect of dutiability of the final product namely iron and steel will have to be looked into by the adjudicating authority for determining the entitlement of the notification. We remand this limited question for examination or readjudication to the concerned Commissioner of the Central Excise. The appeal is disposed of in the above lines.
-
1998 (10) TMI 216 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... of adhesive - whether water soluble or not. We are, therefore, of the view that classification under Tariff sub-heading 4811.20 of PSLS paper has been correctly made by the lower authorities being the most specific heading and sub-heading. Sub-heading 4823.11 advanced by Shri S.N. Ghosh, learned JDR, as an alternative classification need not be considered. 7.3 emsp As regards classification of thermal paper, appellant rsquo s case appears to be on a basis so under than that of the Revenue. It is a coated paper sensitive to heat. When heated, it leaves a blue colour making it suitable for graphics by the moving styles. This paper is not ordinarily used as printing and writing paper or as a graphic paper. Further test report is also not clear whether the coating is of a inorganic material and there is no other coating as stipulated in Heading No. 48.10. More appropriate sub-heading will be 4811.90. 8.1 emsp Appeal is disposed of in a above manner. Appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Damaged and rejected goods ... ... ... ... ..... o not applicable. He has also kept in view provisions of Interpretative Rules and observed that Rules 1, 2 and 3 do not cover the situation and therefore, Rule 4 applies. Hence Heading 3923.90 was more appropriate. 4. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that both sides have proceeded on wrong tracks. Once the admitted fact is that the poly bags in question were not manufactured by the appellants, but had been received from a manufacturing unit and were simply used by them for filling detergent powder and that certain bags got damaged and rejected in the process, they could not be treated as falling under Central Excise Net. In fact, the pleas, the premises and the actions of both the sides were misconceived ab initio, as there is no excise on mere use of the goods. In view of this position, there is no need to go into further details or deal with the so-called classification issue. The impugned Orders are set aside as already announced in the open court.
-
1998 (10) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... from the whole of the duty of excise leviable to nil rate of duty. This information was not supplied and hence the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Modipuram required the party to show cause as to why the duty wrongly availed should not be realised rdquo . Action to this effect was taken by him through 36 notices issued between 30-9-1981 to 5-9-1984 listed in the Order. 15. emsp We observe that if the assessee had failed to provide the required information, the Department could take permissible steps under the law by way of search or seizure and could make necessary enquiries or investigations but the proviso to Section 11A could not be invoked before finalisation of assessment as held by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponds (India) Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment, without making any observation on merits of the matter, we quash the show-cause notices issued under Section 11A as already announced in the open Court.
-
1998 (10) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... bserved therein, in the light of the Tariff-cum-General Conference of Commissioners of Central Excise (West Zone) held at Bombay on 26th and 27th March, 1991, as follows - ldquo Continuous computer stationery, whether plain or interleaved with carbon and whether plain or printed with a E/R lines name or logo of company or format of bills, order forms, gate pass etc., will be classifiable under heading 4820 and exempt under Notification No. 43/86-C.E. rdquo 4.1 emsp Learned JDR has very fairly accepted that in view of the Board rsquo s Circular he has nothing further to add. 4.2 emsp Since the issue has already been settled, inter se, between parties to their mutual satisfaction, the dispute has, therefore, ceased and we take note of this position. Even otherwise, the Board rsquo s decision is based on Tariff Conference and we do not have any reason to differ from the same. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal as already announced in the open court.
-
1998 (10) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condensor and cooling coils parts - Exempted under Notification No. 80/62-C.E.
... ... ... ... ..... e exempted. Therefore, the items in question were liable to duty only if they were parts or components of the parts specified in the notification and not otherwise. If they were parts of the airconditioning unit (separate from the parts specified in the notification) they would not be liable to duty. From the submission made by the appellant, the expert opinion filed by them during the adjudication and the findings in the adjudication order with regard to each of the items, we find that the conclusion of the adjudication authority is that the aforesaid items are parts of refrigerating unit as a whole and not parts of condensor or cooling coil as alleged in the show cause notice. The consequence of such a finding is that the aforesaid items are not dutiable. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with consequencial relief to the appellant and impugned order is set aside. As the appeal is allowed on merits, we do not go into the submissions regarding time bar. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... f March, 1993. rdquo 5. emsp On reading of the paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86 along with proviso as amended from time to time, it is apparent that the benefit of clause (b) of the first proviso to para 4 was not available to the units during the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 by virtue of amendment made by Notification No. 55/92. The benefit of clause (b) was restored by Notification No. 67/92, dated 22-5-1992 only with effect from 22-5-1992 and not for the period prior to that date. In view of the specific mention in the notification, there is no reason to give retrospective effect to the amendment caused by Notification No. 67/92. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in extending the benefit of Notification No. 67/92 for the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 and accordingly both the appeals of Revenue are allowed. The cross objection filed by M/s. Khanna Petrochem Industries is also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (10) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... accidents. Tyres carry treadwear indicators to help you decide when they should be replaced, retreaded or discarded. Remove tyres for replacement or retreading, preferably when the remaining pattern (skid) depth in any part of the tyre tread reaches 08 mm. for Scooter and Motor Cycle tyres (and) 16 mm. for passing a Car, LCV and Truck/Bus Tyres. rdquo It is, thus, apparent that the tyre after use when the tyre tread reaches a particular level are retreaded for reuse and the appellants have imported the used tyres. As the used tyres imported by the appellants were bus tyres, these are classifiable urder sub-heading 4011.50 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as the sub-heading at the relevant time was applicable to Pneumatic tyres, of rubber ldquo of a kind used on other motor vehicle (for example buses, lorries and station wagons). rdquo In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... e Appellants themselves has held as under ldquo We find that the appellants have their own testing facilities and after the manufacture of the goods, the same are being tested by them which gives the product its marketability. If their customers want to carry out further inspection of the goods before taking delivery, those expenses do not give the character of marketability to the product as the goods have already reached the stage of marketability. We also observe that the Bench which decided the case in Bhagyanagar Pipe Industries (Final Order No. 1865/97-A, dated 22-1-1997) did not consider the Appellate Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of General Engg. Works 1996 (81) E.L.T. 569 and Shri Pipes Ltd. 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 which squarely cover the issue involved. rdquo 4. emsp Following the decisions, we hold that the inspection charges paid by the Indian Railway for inspection of the goods are not to be included in the assessable value. Accordingly we allow the appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of pre-deposit pursuant to order of Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... cess of the liability arising out of the show cause notices. Therefore, we agree with the applicants that the amount of Rs. 1,52,95,000/- is surplus and is in excess of what is due from it under the Tribunal rsquo s Order under Section 35F as a pre-condition for hearing of Appeals No. E/2171/85-A and E/2172/85-A. The applicants are, therefore, entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,52,95,000/-. The contention of the learned DR that the question of refund does not arise because the applicants have paid only the exact amount as directed as pre-deposit by the tribunal vide its Stay Order No. 26 and 27/86-A, dated 8-1-1986 and that the question of refund would arise only if they had paid any amount in excess of the amount directed to be pre-deposited, is not tenable in view of the clear and unequivocal language of the Supreme Court Order, dated 20-2-1997. We accordingly allow the application and direct grant of refund of the above mentioned amount to the applicants herein.
-
1998 (10) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... d for the manufacture of a Delux Model Car. The decision in Lipi Data case relied upon by the Revenue, Tribunal allowed Modvat credit in respect of the ribbon which was fitted in the computer printer and the Modvat credit was disallowed only in respect of additional quantity of ribbon cleared with the computer printer which is not so in the case of present one. In the case of C.C.E. v. Banmore Electricals P. Ltd. - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 367 relied upon by the respondents, Tribunal allowed Modvat credit in respect of locks, padlocks provided with transformers for safeguarding the lubricant oil holding that once transformers are designed in such a way as to use padlocks and locks then it becomes integral part of the Transformers and can be termed as an input if it is so commercially supplied in all cases. 4. emsp We, therefore, find in (sic) infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1998 (10) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... y been given. After having wrongfully reversed credit in the set-off register, denying the refund to the respondents only on this technical point raised by the Revenue would amount to a wrong doer having an advantage of its wrong act. If the Revenue had not forced the respondents to reverse the credit in the set-off register, as stated earlier, the respondents would have utilised that credit for duty payable on clearances of PSF for home consumption. The objection taken by the Revenue, therefore, in its appeal is merely a procedural objection particularly when they themselves admit that the respondents could avail of a drawback procedure. The appellants, could also avail of the procedure for rebate or excise duty under Rules 12 and 12A of Central Excise Rule, 1944. It is well-settled proposition that a substantive benefit could not be denied for a procedural lapse. 7. emsp In view of the forgoing, we do not find any substance in Revenue rsquo s appeal and we dismiss the same.
-
1998 (10) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... upreme Court in the case of PSI Data System (supra). Further we notice that the West Zonal Bench in the case of Rolta India Ltd. vide Order Nos. 3395 to 98/97/WZB, dated 18-8-1997 held that value of peripherals cannot be added to the value of computer and the Bench in this regard noted the judgment in the case of Kishore Pumps Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that value of bought out electric motors supplied along with PD pumps cannot be added to the assessable value. Likewise the Bench also noted the judgment in the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut (supra) wherein it was held that value of optional accessories not fitted to or supplied along with vacuum cleaner, is not includible in the assessable value of vacuum cleaner. These judgments clearly show that the issue in the present case is directly answered by these judgments. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is required to be set aside by allowing the appeals. Thus, the appeals are allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... regard to this factual position as brought out by the learned Advocate for the appellants, we find that the view taken by the authorities below are hyper-technical. When there is evidence to show that the goods cleared did not correspond to the description of lsquo Flats rsquo , the authorities below should have gone by the specifications and description given in GP 1s and not by the Declaration or Classification Lists. As the point of time for filing Declaration and the Classification Lists precedes actual production and clearance of the goods, the assessment is to be made on the basis of GP 1s or the other relevant documents since for deciding the nature of the goods GP 1s would be the more appropriate documents than Declarations/Classification Lists. 6. emsp In the above view of the matter we allow the appeal. The appellants will be entitled to the consequential reliefs claimed in their appeal. However, refund of any amount will be subject to the law of unjust enrichment.
-
1998 (10) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... upplied. If this was so, the Collector should have given such reason in the order but the same is not forthcoming. Further he should have given proper reason for rejecting the cross-examination of the other two employees. We agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue that cross-examination is not a must in each and every adjudication proceedings. Nevertheless the Adjudicating Authority should give reason for such rejection. Since such reason is not forthcoming in the impugned order, the order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice as it was rightly argued on behalf of the appellants. In the view, we have taken, the matter will have to go back for re-consideration. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner to readjudicate the matter in accordance with law and to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the appellants. 6. emsp Thus, these two appeals are allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Smuggling of ginger of Chinese origin ... ... ... ... ..... d on record by either side. The appellants had in fact made a grievance of the fact that the said documents were not furnished to them. We also observe that the SCN also does not in the directions part, specifically call upon the present appellants by name (the phrase used in ldquo and others rdquo ) to show cause against imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, though it is no doubt true that the present Appellants have been shown as one of the noticees. Further, even though the Commissioner has in the impugned order stated that there was ldquo overwhelming evidence on record rdquo we find that the evidence referred to in the order, lacks evidentiary value for being untested and one-sided. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside for the reason of the charges against the appellants remaining unsubstantiated. 9. emsp As a result, we allow the present Appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants in this Appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the partly skimmed milk powder since it is the same thing as skimmed milk powder according to the Revenue. 3. emsp We have heard the ld. JDR. We are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue. The position is now well settled by the Apex Court judgment reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 402 (S.C.) by which Union of India rsquo s appeal against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Food Speciality case has been dismissed. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. 4. emsp Before we part with this product, we must record that the ld. JDR rsquo s submissions, that in the present case the respondents have conceded the classification of partly skimmed milk powder to be put in unit container under Tariff sub-heading 0404.13. Admission of this sub-heading itself by the respondents does not create estopple against them. Issue in our view is fully settled. Therefore, this plea taken by the ld. JDR does not effect the impugned order. Hence the dismissal of the appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are to be interpreted in accordance with the established practice on trade understanding. Accordingly forgings which have been subjected to process upto and including the stage of proof machining whereby, the word only smoothened and made ready for final machining to shape them into machine parts were to be regarded as pieces roughly shaped under the old Tariff Item 25 and also under Heading 72.08 with effect from 28-2-1986. We find that Tribunal has been consistently taking this view holding that upto the stage of proof machining and if machining is required to be done such items continue to be castings and such casting articles are to be classified under Heading 72.08. In view of the consistent view of the Tribunal and as per the Circulars issued by the Board including one referred to above, we hold that item in question is classifiable under Heading 72.08 as claimed by the assessee. Thus, this appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
............
|