|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 364 Records
-
1995 (11) TMI 309
Issues:
- Dismissal of revision petition by Rajasthan State Commission as barred by time.
- Allegation of non-transfer of 100 shares by the petitioner.
- Claim of economic loss by the complainant due to non-transfer of shares.
- Failure of petitioner to respond before District Forum.
- Need for de novo investigation into the facts.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a revision petition arising from the dismissal of a complaint by the Rajasthan State Commission as time-barred. The complainant alleged non-transfer of 100 shares purchased in the open market, leading to economic losses. The petitioner failed to respond or appear before the District Forum, resulting in an ex parte proceeding where relief was granted to the complainant. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation. However, the petitioner later presented evidence that the shares were lodged for transfer by a third party. The Commission found that the petitioner should have actively participated in the proceedings before the District Forum. As a result, the case was remanded back to the District Forum for a fresh trial to allow both parties to present their versions and substantiate their claims.
This judgment highlights the importance of active participation in legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to do so. The petitioner's failure to engage in the initial proceedings led to adverse findings against them. The Commission emphasized the need for all parties to have a fair opportunity to present their cases and for thorough investigation into the facts. By setting aside the previous orders and remanding the case for a fresh trial, the Commission aimed to ensure a just and comprehensive examination of the dispute. The decision serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements in legal matters and the significance of providing parties with a chance to be heard and present their evidence effectively.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the principles of procedural fairness and the duty of parties to actively participate in legal proceedings. The Commission's decision to remand the case for a fresh trial reflects the commitment to thorough examination of facts and equitable resolution of disputes. It serves as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of non-participation in legal processes and the importance of engaging effectively to protect one's interests and rights.
-
1995 (11) TMI 308
The High Court of Bombay directed the company to provide documents related to a disputed repayment of Rs. 1.5 crore, including bank account entries, board resolutions, and annual returns. The court also requested the presence of Shri Mayur Parekh, who opened the disputed bank account. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 17-11-1995.
-
1995 (11) TMI 307
Issues Involved:
1. Petition for winding up under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Alleged failure of the company to pay the petitioner the agreed amount for shares.
3. Preliminary objections raised by the company regarding the existence of debt and compliance with the agreement.
4. Dispute resolution through arbitration as per the agreement.
5. Determination of whether the company is commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts.
6. Evaluation of the company's defense and whether the debt is bona fide disputed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Petition for Winding Up:
The petitioner, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., filed a petition under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of S.A. Builders. The petitioner claimed that the company failed to pay Rs. 1,68,52,000 for ten lakh shares of Indian Acrylics Ltd. (IAL) as agreed upon in a tripartite agreement.
2. Alleged Failure to Pay:
The petitioner alleged that the company neglected to make the payment despite reminders and a statutory notice of winding up. The petitioner argued that the company was unable to pay its admitted debts and thus liable to be wound up under the Act.
3. Preliminary Objections by the Company:
The company raised several preliminary objections:
- No debt was due from the company to the petitioner.
- The petitioner did not comply with the terms of the agreement, particularly the buy-back clause.
- The petition was filed without selling the shares to any other person as per the agreement.
- Non-joinder of necessary parties and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement.
4. Dispute Resolution through Arbitration:
The company contended that disputes arising under the agreement were referable to arbitration, and the petitioner had not taken recourse to the arbitration clause. The agreement stipulated that any question arising under it would be referred to three arbitrators, one appointed by each party and an umpire appointed by the two arbitrators.
5. Commercial Insolvency and Ability to Pay Debts:
The company denied being commercially insolvent, stating it earned a profit of more than five crores in 1994. The company argued that the petition was a pressure tactic to force it to buy the shares.
6. Evaluation of the Company's Defense:
The court considered whether the company's defense was in good faith, substantial, and likely to succeed in law. The court found that:
- The petitioner did not offer the shares for sale within the stipulated time to one of the promoters, R.K. Garg.
- No definite amount or interest payable was settled during the 90-day period.
- The petitioner did not sell the shares in the open market and claim the loss, as allowed by the agreement.
- The petitioner's claim could not be considered an admitted debt without following the agreement's terms.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the company had raised a substantial defense, and the amount claimed by the petitioner could not be considered an admitted debt. The court noted that the company was a going concern and able to pay its admitted debts. Consequently, the court refused to entertain the winding-up petition and relegated the parties to the remedy of a civil suit, given that the petitioner still held the shares in question. The company petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 266
The appellate tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the Collector (Appeals), Madras' order disallowing discounts on stock transfers to depots. The Assistant Collector disallowed the discount as it was not uniform, but the Collector (Appeals) found this decision incorrect in law. The assessable value determined under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act governs clearances to sales depots, and discounts were allowed by the Assistant Collector. The tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, dismissing the department's appeal.
-
1995 (11) TMI 258
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the department against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras. The issue was whether removal of excisable goods to consignment agents for sale could be treated as sale to such agents. The Tribunal held that the assessable value is determined with reference to the price at which the goods are sold at the factory gate to independent buyers. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order and dismissed the appeal. (Case citation: 1995 (11) TMI 258 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1995 (11) TMI 257
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods as lining material
2. Valuation of the imported goods
Classification of imported goods as lining material:
The appeal contested the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, regarding the classification of imported 100% polyester lining and inter-lining material. The Customs suspected misdeclaration based on intelligence received. The investigation revealed that the imported fabrics were being sold or offered as suitings in the trade circuit, not as lining or interlining material as declared. The Department argued that the material was unsuitable for lining due to its thickness, width, and finish, indicating it was meant for garments. However, the appellants provided a Textile Commissioner's certificate stating the difficulty in defining lining material and suggesting the imported material could still be used for lining purposes. The Additional Collector concluded that the goods were not lining material and imposed confiscation and enhancement of value. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and the Textile Commissioner's certificate, finding in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal held that the material should be considered lining material if capable of being used as such, overturning the Additional Collector's decision.
Valuation of the imported goods:
Regarding the valuation issue, the Additional Collector based the assessment on a previous import by the same appellants, with a 25% reduction for quality differences. The appellants argued that the comparison was unfair as the earlier goods were superior, and the basis for the 25% reduction was undisclosed. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting the lack of clarity in the valuation methodology and the absence of contemporaneous import data for comparison. The Tribunal found the Additional Collector's valuation lacking a firm basis and upheld the appellants' contention. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, ruling in favor of the appellants on the valuation issue as well.
-
1995 (11) TMI 242
Issues Involved:
1. Duty liability on chassis and complete motor vehicles.
2. Classification and valuation of goods.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts and misstatement.
4. Independent identity of body builders.
Summary:
Issue 1: Duty Liability on Chassis and Complete Motor Vehicles:
In Appeal E.149/94, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed demands of Rs. 2,75,31,417 for the period 1986 to 1992 on the alleged manufacture of motor vehicles. The Assistant Collector had initially held that duty on chassis should not be charged twice, and demands after 1-3-1986 were dropped. However, the Collector (A) upheld the Revenue's contention that duty should be charged on the invoice price after body building, as there was no sale of the chassis, and the duty liability was not discharged at that stage.
Issue 2: Classification and Valuation of Goods:
In Appeals E.55/95-B1 and others, the Collector confirmed demands for short levy amounting to Rs. 2,39,65,986.89 for the period April 1992 to June 1992. It was held that the chassis remained with the assessee until the complete motor vehicle was sold, and the valuation should be based on the invoice value. The plea for adjusting duty paid by the independent body builder was rejected.
Issue 3: Allegations of Suppression of Facts and Misstatement:
In Appeal E/686/93-B1, the Collector confirmed duty of Rs. 5,93,035.77 and imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh for alleged suppression of facts. The appellants argued that they had not suppressed facts and had duly informed the department about their activities. The Collector found them guilty of misstatement and confirmed the duty after deducting the duty paid on chassis.
Issue 4: Independent Identity of Body Builders:
In Appeal E/45/91-B1, the Collector confirmed excise duty of Rs. 23,17,959.24 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs. The appellants contended that body builders were independent manufacturers and had paid duty on the complete buses. The Collector rejected this plea and held that the appellants were the manufacturers of the motor vehicles. However, the Tribunal found that the body builders were indeed independent manufacturers, and the appellants were not liable to pay duty on the complete motor vehicles.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's contention was unsustainable. It held that the duty should be charged at the time of manufacture and not based on ownership or invoice value. The body builders were independent manufacturers, and the appellants were not liable to pay duty on the complete motor vehicles. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
-
1995 (11) TMI 241
Issues:
1. Inclusion of repair charges in the assessable value of compressors manufactured by the appellant.
2. Whether the repair charges were optional and not includible in the assessable value.
3. Limitation on the demand for duty prior to April 1985.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, a compressor manufacturer, changed its pricing method in February 1984, reducing prices and limiting the warranty period to one month. The department contended that the repair charges were not optional but formed part of the assessable value. The Collector upheld the demand for duty, stating that the change in warranty arrangement was a method to reduce duty liability. The appellant's argument that buyers had the option not to avail of repair charges was rejected, citing lack of unequivocal buyer categorization and simultaneous payment for goods and repairs.
2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided a list of buyers who did not avail of warranty charges, primarily wholesale dealers or O.E. buyers, constituting a small percentage of total buyers. The Tribunal reasoned that such buyers fell under Part I price lists where prices were negotiated, indicating an optional arrangement for repair charges. The burden of proving the defense baseless shifted to the department, which failed to establish that these buyers were not covered by Part I price lists.
3. Regarding limitation, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The appellant had clearly communicated the pricing changes and warranty limitations to the department, fulfilling the essential information requirement under Rule 73C. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument of contravention of law, stating that unless a specific law prohibited the arrangement, intentions could not be considered. Consequently, the demand for duty before April 1985 was deemed unsustainable based on limitation grounds.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant concerning the inclusion of repair charges in the assessable value, establishing the optional nature of the charges, and limiting the demand for duty prior to April 1985.
-
1995 (11) TMI 233
Issues: Classification of vulcanising rubber solution under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Upon reviewing the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, it is evident that the case involved eight appeals filed by the Revenue against a common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The primary issue at hand was the classification of the vulcanising rubber solution. The Collector (Appeals) had classified the item under sub-heading 3501.90 before 10-2-1987 and under 3606.00 from 10-2-1987 onwards.
During the proceedings, it was noted that the case of Elgi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise was referred to, where it was held that rubber cement used as an adhesive in retreading of tires is classifiable under Heading 35.06 from 10-2-1987 and under 35.01 before that date. The Tribunal had relied on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System to determine the classification. The Heading 35.06 covered glues and other prepared adhesives not elsewhere specified, including products suitable for use as adhesives, which aligned with the composition of the subject product containing rubber compound, solvent, sulphur, carbon black, stearic acid, zinc oxide, fillers, and accessors. It was concluded that the product was correctly classified as a glue under Chapter 35 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
Based on the precedent set by the decision in Elgi Polytex Ltd., the Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order-in-appeal and rejected the eight appeals filed by the Revenue. The respondents, M/s. Treads & Industrial Rubber Extrusions, were granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.
-
1995 (11) TMI 232
Issues:
- Whether Carbide Sludge is excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue: Whether Carbide Sludge is excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from a decision by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, which held that Carbide Sludge is not excisable goods. The Revenue contended that the respondents, who are manufacturers of Acetylene Gas, sold Calcium Carbide Sludge during the period from April 1985 to December 1987, paying Excise Duty except for three months. The Revenue argued that Carbide Sludge should be considered excisable goods based on a previous case involving Andhra Oxygen (P) Ltd. The respondents, represented by Shri K. Lakshmi Narayan, referenced a different case involving M/s. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. & Other, where it was held that Carbide Sludge is not excisable goods under the Act.
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the previous judgments in the cases of Andhra Oxygen (P) Ltd. and M/s. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. & Other. After analyzing the entire case law on the matter, the Tribunal concluded that Carbide Sludge is not excisable goods within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the emergence of Carbide Sludge during the manufacturing process of Oxygen and Acetylene Gas was inevitable and that selling the sludge did not change its classification as excisable goods. The judgment highlighted that the price charged for the sludge, even if it had some value, was not a determining factor in classifying it as excisable goods.
In light of the above analysis, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order-in-Appeal that Carbide Sludge is not excisable goods and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Any consequential relief to the respondents was to be provided according to the law, and any cross objections filed by the respondents were also disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 229
Issues involved: Appeal against orders of Commissioner of Customs regarding import of rough marble slabs under DEEC Scheme based on advance licences.
Summary:
1. The appellants, transferees of advance licences, imported raw marble slabs under DEEC Scheme. Customs authorities suspected the slabs were processed, not raw, leading to show cause notices and confirmed orders by Commissioners.
2. The impugned orders required importers to prove goods were made from material similar to that recognized for import, post-export scrutiny and transferability endorsement on licences.
3. Procedure under DEEC Scheme involves scrutiny by customs authorities post-export, audit of export book, and endorsement of transferability on licence, with no need for re-verification at import stage.
4. The main issue was the classification of imported marble slabs as raw or processed. Various experts' reports conflicted on the status of the slabs, with Commissioner relying on one report and disregarding others, leading to orders being set aside for reconsideration.
5. The Commissioner was directed to reevaluate the cases, consider calling experts for examination, and obtain a final report from a specific professor. Valuation concerns were to be addressed if appellants' contentions were not upheld.
6. Appeals allowed, with a directive for prompt disposal of cases, preferably within six months, and a provision to prevent auction of detained goods pending further proceedings.
-
1995 (11) TMI 228
Issues:
- Determination of value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act based on the brand name affixed to goods.
- Whether goods manufactured by one party but sold under another party's brand name should be assessed at the selling price of the brand owner.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the determination of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act concerning goods manufactured by one party but sold under the brand name of another party. The dispute centered around whether the goods manufactured by M/s. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. with the brand name of M/s. Bajaj Electricals, Bombay should be assessed at the price at which they are sold to customers by M/s. Bajaj Electricals. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise contended that the assessable value should be based on the price list filed by M/s. Bajaj Electricals to their customers, as M/s. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. affixed the brand name "Bajaj" as per their agreement. However, the Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that merely affixing the brand name does not make the brand owner the manufacturer as per Section 2(f) of the Act, citing a relevant decision.
The Department argued that M/s. Bajaj Electricals had outsourced the manufacturing to M/s. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd., and the goods were perceived in the market as products of M/s. Bajaj Electricals. They contended that the assessable value should consider the selling price of M/s. Bajaj Electricals to their customers. On the other hand, the respondents maintained that they manufactured the goods using their raw materials without involvement or financial support from M/s. Bajaj Electricals, emphasizing that the transaction was at arm's length. They referenced previous decisions to support their stance, highlighting that the price of M/s. Bajaj Electricals should not be the basis for determining the assessable value under Section 4.
After reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal concluded that affixing the brand name alone does not confer manufacturer status on the brand owner. Considering the specific plea by the respondents that the goods were not manufactured on behalf of M/s. Bajaj Electricals and the absence of raw material supply or financial involvement from them, the Tribunal held that the selling price of the brand owner cannot be the assessable value under Section 4. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed based on the established legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.
-
1995 (11) TMI 227
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay granted stay against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (A) in a case involving DEEC licence transfer and Modvat credit. The Tribunal found that the benefit of duty free import under the transferred licence cannot be denied, despite the violation of Condition No. (vi) of Customs Notification 204/92. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a personal bond covering the duty amount for securing the revenue.
-
1995 (11) TMI 226
Issues: Interpretation of conditions in Notifications No. 47/90 and No. 53/91-C.E.
In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA, the main issue revolved around the interpretation of conditions laid down in Notifications No. 47/90 and No. 53/91-C.E. The first condition required goods to be supplied to registered cooperative societies for the development of the handloom sector, while the second condition stipulated that payment for the goods should be made by customers against cheques drawn on their bank accounts.
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The appellant's representative pointed out that despite requesting information from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, it had not been received. However, the Tribunal noted that the statement of facts in the appeal memorandum filed by the appellant Collector provided sufficient information. The statement revealed that customers purchased bank drafts against cheques drawn on their own bank accounts when paying for goods supplied by the respondents.
The respondent's advocate argued that the Department's own appeal indicated that the second condition of the Notifications had been met since customers paid for goods from their bank accounts. Additionally, it was contended that the first condition regarding supplying goods to registered cooperative societies had also been fulfilled. The advocate emphasized that the second condition was directory and not mandatory, and even if not fully met, the respondents should still benefit from the Notifications.
In response, the appellant's representative asserted that both conditions in the Notifications had to be fulfilled for the benefits to apply, rejecting the distinction between mandatory and directory conditions.
After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the second condition had been substantially fulfilled. It was observed that customers, who were registered cooperative societies, paid for goods by purchasing bank drafts against cheques drawn on their bank accounts. This fulfillment of both conditions led the Tribunal to rule in favor of the respondents, stating that the benefit of the Notifications could not be denied to them. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the conditions in the Notifications, emphasizing that substantial compliance with the requirements sufficed for the benefit to be granted.
-
1995 (11) TMI 225
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of special excise duty on goods manufactured prior to the imposition of such duty but cleared after its imposition.
2. Interpretation of Clause 82 of the Finance Bill, 1988.
3. Relevance of the Supreme Court's decision in Wallace Flour Mills v. Collector of Central Excise.
4. Validity of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
5. Applicability of the Tribunal's previous decision in Ganesh Extrusion Artistries v. Collector of Central Excise.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Special Excise Duty on Pre-Budget Stock:
The primary issue is whether special excise duty, introduced by Clause 82 of the Finance Bill, 1988, applies to goods manufactured before 1st March 1988 but cleared on or after this date. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that such duty is not chargeable on pre-budget stock cleared post-imposition, setting aside the Assistant Collector's orders and ordering refunds.
2. Interpretation of Clause 82 of the Finance Bill, 1988:
The Revenue argued that Clause 82 imposes a special levy, requiring payment of special excise duty on goods cleared after its imposition, regardless of their manufacture date. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Wallace Flour Mills, asserting that duty can be levied and collected at the time of removal for administrative convenience.
3. Relevance of Wallace Flour Mills v. Collector of Central Excise:
The respondents contended that Wallace Flour Mills is inapplicable, as it dealt with unconditional exemption and not the imposition of a new duty. They argued that the Supreme Court's decision does not address the imposition of special excise duty on pre-budget stock, and applying Rule 9A in this context would be ultra vires Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and contrary to Entry 84, List 1, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.
4. Validity of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The Tribunal examined the principles laid down in Wallace Flour Mills, concluding that while the taxable event is the manufacture, the duty can be levied at the time of removal for administrative convenience. The liability to pay duty is postponed until removal under Rule 9A. The Tribunal found that the goods in question were not exempt from tax at manufacture, and the special excise duty introduced by Clause 82 applies upon their removal.
5. Applicability of Ganesh Extrusion Artistries v. Collector of Central Excise:
The respondents cited Ganesh Extrusion Artistries, where the Tribunal held that goods not considered manufactured before a certain date were not liable for duty. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that the goods in the present appeals were already excisable at manufacture. Therefore, the special excise duty applies upon their removal post-1st March 1988.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the goods were excisable at manufacture and the special excise duty introduced by Clause 82 of the Finance Bill, 1988, applies upon their removal. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and the orders of the Collector (Appeals) were set aside, restoring the Assistant Collector's orders.
-
1995 (11) TMI 224
Issues Involved:
1. Excisability and dutiability of Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II.
2. Limitation period for the demand.
3. Estoppel in changing the approved classification.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Excisability and Dutiability of Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II
The primary issue was whether Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II, obtained as by-products in the manufacture of caprolactum, are excisable and dutiable. The appellants argued that these by-products are hazardous, toxic, and useless, and are destroyed to prevent pollution. They contended that these products are not marketable and cited various judgments to support their claim that waste or refuse arising in the manufacturing process is not excisable. The Department, however, maintained that these by-products were goods and were marketable, as evidenced by occasional sales, and thus excisable.
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in *UOI v. Indian Aluminium Company* (1995), which held that aluminium dross and skimmings, although arising during the manufacturing process, are not marketable commodities and thus not excisable. Similarly, the Tribunal found that Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II are not marketable goods and are merely refuse or rubbish generated during the manufacturing process. Consequently, the Tribunal held that these by-products are not excisable and no duty is leviable on them.
Issue 2: Limitation Period for the Demand
The second issue was whether the demand for duty was barred by limitation. The appellants argued that the demand pertained to the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1987, while the show cause notice was issued on 2-1-1989, thus falling outside the limitation period. They contended that there was no suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement, as all relevant information had been disclosed to the Department through various correspondences.
The Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed disclosed all pertinent facts to the Department, including the production and destruction of Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II and the generation of steam. There was no evidence of wilful suppression or mis-statement. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the demand was hit by limitation and not sustainable in law.
Issue 3: Estoppel in Changing the Approved Classification
The third issue was whether there was an estoppel in changing the approved classification of the products. The appellants had classified Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II under sub-heading 2909.90 of CETA, 1985, and argued that there is no estoppel in case of classification. The Department contended that the approved classification could not be challenged.
Given the findings on the first two issues, the Tribunal deemed the question of estoppel to be of academic interest and did not comment further on this issue.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II are not excisable goods and thus no duty is leviable on them. Additionally, the demand for duty was barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 222
Issues Involved:
1. Freight
2. Handling Charges
3. C&FA Remuneration
4. Turnover Tax
5. Interest on Receivables
6. Interest on Finished Goods
7. Bank Charges
8. Special Secondary Packing
9. Quantity Discount
10. Discount for Damages
11. Durable and Returnable Packing
Detailed Analysis:
1. Freight:
The law is settled that freight does not form part of the assessable value, as established by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Tyres International and Government of India v. MRF. The Assistant Collector allowed equalized freight after 24-10-1989, and this was upheld.
2. Handling Charges:
Handling charges incurred for transporting goods from the factory to depots and up to the point of sale were argued to be adjunct to transport charges, which are excludable. However, the Supreme Court in the Bombay Tyres International and MRF cases held that handling charges incurred in maintaining and running depots should be included in the assessable value. This view was accepted, and the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector is to verify the factual situation.
3. C&FA Remuneration:
Disallowed by the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds that these expenses are part of marketing and selling organizations. The appellants did not press this issue further due to the Supreme Court's ruling in the MRF case, which held these elements includible in the assessable value.
4. Turnover Tax:
The Supreme Court in the MRF case clarified that turnover tax should be deducted from the wholesale price to arrive at the assessable value. This contention was accepted, and the deduction was allowed.
5. Interest on Receivables:
The Supreme Court in the MRF case held that interest on receivables is not includible in the assessable value as it is collected due to the time taken in making the payment by up-country wholesale buyers. This was accepted, and the deduction was allowed.
6. Interest on Finished Goods:
Similar to interest on receivables, the Supreme Court in the MRF case held that interest on finished goods is includible in the assessable value. The appellants did not press this issue further.
7. Bank Charges:
Bank charges, akin to interest on receivables, were held by the Tribunal in the Guljag Chemicals and Plastics P. Ltd. case to be post-manufacturing expenses and not includible in the assessable value. This view was accepted, and the deduction was allowed.
8. Special Secondary Packing:
Disallowed on the grounds that the packing was normal and the unit of sale was a carton. The appellants did not press this issue further due to the Supreme Court's ruling in the MRF case.
9. Quantity Discount:
The Supreme Court in the MRF case held that quantity discounts, even if not shown in the invoice, should be deducted if the scheme is known at the time of removal. The factual situation regarding the discount scheme's knowledge by buyers in advance is to be verified by the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector.
10. Discount for Damages:
The Tribunal in the Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. case followed the precedent that discounts for damages, depending on the nature and extent of damage, are admissible. The Jurisdictional Assistant Collector is to examine the factual aspect and decide on a case-by-case basis.
11. Durable and Returnable Packing:
Allowed by the Collector (Appeals) and not raised in other appeals.
Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with directions for the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector to verify the factual situations and redetermine the assessable value in light of the Supreme Court's rulings and the Tribunal's observations. The Department's appeals were also disposed of on similar terms. The same elements of cost and submissions applied to the appellant, M/s. Allied Processors, and their appeal was disposed of similarly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 221
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Software as System Software or Application Software
2. Eligibility for relief based on the classification of software
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Software as System Software or Application Software:
The Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the classification of software into System Software and Application Software. The appellants argued that out of the total amount, Rs. 14.75 lacs relates to System Software and Rs. 60.17 lacs pertains to Application Software. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the amount related to Application Software qualifies for relief.
The appellants relied on the opinion of Professor S.C. Sahasrabudhe from IIT Bombay, who categorized the software into System Software and Application Software. The opinion was based on a technical report and excluded 46 kinds of software from being classified as Application Software. The appellants also cited American decisions and the opinion of the Department of Electronics, Government of India, which supported their classification.
The Departmental Representative, however, argued that textual authorities on computer technology should be followed for classification. He contended that the classification by Dr. Sahasrabudhe was not in accordance with these textual classifications and included utility programs as Application Software, which was incorrect. The Departmental Representative also pointed out inconsistencies in the opinion of the Department of Electronics and argued for the acceptance of Dr. Bajaj's classification from the National Informatics Centre.
The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions, expert opinions, and textual authorities. It noted that Application Software typically refers to programs that perform user-oriented tasks, while System Software manages the hardware resources and includes basic services. The Tribunal found that the broad-based classification by Professor Sahasrabudhe, which included utility programs as Application Software, was not satisfactory. Dr. Bajaj's classification, which categorized most items as System Software and only a few as Application Software, was deemed more reasonable and aligned with the Government's understanding and textual classifications.
2. Eligibility for Relief Based on the Classification of Software:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants would be eligible for relief only for the items classified as Application Software by Dr. Bajaj. This classification was based on the appellants' description of each item and was found to be a reasonable basis for determining eligibility for relief. The Tribunal thus accepted Dr. Bajaj's classification and recommended it for acceptance.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after re-examining the classification of software as directed by the Supreme Court, accepted Dr. Bajaj's classification from the National Informatics Centre. The appellants are eligible for relief only for the items classified as Application Software by Dr. Bajaj. The Tribunal's findings were submitted to the Supreme Court in compliance with the direction dated 13-2-1995.
-
1995 (11) TMI 220
Issues Involved:
(a) Whether cutting, slitting, and perforation amounted to manufacture or not;
(b) Whether there was suppression or wilful misstatement so as to invoke the extended period of demand beyond six months under proviso to Section 11A(1);
(c) Whether penalty was imposable under Rule 173Q on the company and under Rule 209A on Shri R.K. Sharma, Commercial Manager.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
(a) Whether cutting, slitting, and perforation amounted to manufacture or not:
The appellants relied on the Board's Circular letter F. No. 119/1/88-CX. 3, dated 5-9-1988, which clarified that the process of slitting, cutting, and perforation of duty-paid imported jumbo rolls of films did not amount to manufacture. The Department, however, referred to Trade Notice No. 18/89 dated 16-3-1989, which reversed the earlier position, stating that these processes would amount to manufacture. The Tribunal observed that the Trade Notice issued on 16-3-1989 would be effective only from that date, and before this date, the Board's Circular dated 5-9-1988 would remain in force. Therefore, the processes of cutting, slitting, and perforation would amount to manufacture only from 16-3-1989 onwards.
(b) Whether there was suppression or wilful misstatement so as to invoke the extended period of demand beyond six months under proviso to Section 11A(1):
The Tribunal found that there was extensive correspondence between the Department and the appellants, indicating that the appellants had sought clarifications due to the change in the Department's position. The appellants had applied for and surrendered their Central Excise license, which was accepted by the Department. The Tribunal held that there was no suppression or wilful misstatement by the appellants, and all relevant facts were within the Department's knowledge. Consequently, the demand was hit by limitation, as the show cause notice was issued on 29-9-1993 for the period 28-10-1988 to 13-6-1989, which was beyond the permissible period.
(c) Whether penalty was imposable under Rule 173Q on the company and under Rule 209A on Shri R.K. Sharma, Commercial Manager:
The Tribunal noted that the Department had changed its position on whether cutting, slitting, and perforation amounted to manufacture. The appellants had surrendered their license based on the Board's Circular and thus discontinued maintaining prescribed records. The Tribunal found that the quantum of penalty imposed on the appellants was disproportionate and reduced it to Rs. 2.00 lacs. Regarding Shri R.K. Sharma, the Tribunal observed that the allegation was about withholding information, which is not one of the ingredients in Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, the imposition of penalty on Shri R.K. Sharma was not sustainable.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order, holding that the processes of cutting, slitting, and perforation amounted to manufacture only from 16-3-1989 onwards. It found no suppression or wilful misstatement by the appellants, rendering the demand time-barred. The penalty on the appellants was reduced to Rs. 2.00 lacs, and the penalty on Shri R.K. Sharma was set aside. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 216
Issues Involved:
1. Excisability of aluminium dross, pot dug out material, and furnace dug out material.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 19/88 and Modvat credit rules.
3. Time-bar on the demand for duty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Excisability of Aluminium Dross, Pot Dug Out Material, and Furnace Dug Out Material:
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium products, during which aluminium dross, pot dug out material, and furnace dug out material arise. The department issued show cause notices proposing recovery of duty and imposition of penalties, contending that these items are excisable under Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants argued that these items are not excisable goods and cited various judgments including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. A.K. Bandopadayay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swadeshi Polytex, which held that aluminium dross is not excisable.
The Adjudicating authority held that the items were excisable, categorizing them under Chapter sub-heading 2620.00 of the Tariff as residues of metal or metal compounds. He relied on the HSN Explanatory Notes and distinguished the cited judgments as they were rendered in the context of the old Tariff. The authority confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties.
Upon appeal, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., which held that aluminium dross and skimmings are not 'goods' or marketable commodities subject to excise. The Tribunal found strong merit in the appellants' contention that this ratio applies even under the new Tariff, as there is no material change in the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal concluded that aluminium dross, pot dug out material, and furnace dug out material are not excisable goods and set aside the duty demands and penalties.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 19/88 and Modvat Credit Rules:
The appellants contended that the proviso to Notification No. 19/88 is not applicable to their goods. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Indian Aluminium Co., which extended the benefit of proforma credit to aluminium contained in aluminium dross. The Tribunal noted that the scheme of Modvat is to provide credit on inputs vis-a-vis the finished excisable goods and does not contemplate use of inputs in the manufacture of waste or refuse. The Tribunal did not delve into the details of Notification No. 19/88 and Modvat rules, as it had already concluded that the disputed items were not liable to excise duty.
3. Time-bar on the Demand for Duty:
The appellants argued that the demand for the period from 25-7-1991 to 31-3-1992 was barred by limitation, as the entire demand was beyond the period of six months. They contended that the department was fully aware of the availment of Modvat by the appellants, and hence the charge of suppression could not be leveled against them. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, holding that the non-declaration of the disputed items as final products did not amount to suppression, and therefore, the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Consequently, the demand for the period in question was held to be time-barred.
Separate Judgment by S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President:
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President, concurred with the findings but provided additional observations. He noted that the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) had undergone changes and emphasized that the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, deems certain items as goods by legal fiction. He observed that ash and residues covered by Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 26 are deemed goods, but no duty is leviable due to Notification No. 19/88. He also highlighted that dross and skimming or ashes, deemed to be goods, cannot be considered as finished products, and hence their non-declaration under Rule 57A does not amount to suppression. He agreed that the demands and penalties should be set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential relief.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that aluminium dross, pot dug out material, and furnace dug out material are not excisable goods, set aside the duty demands and penalties, and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The demand for the period from 25-7-1991 to 31-3-1992 was also held to be time-barred.
............
|
9911796707
