Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 305 Records
-
1994 (12) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference Application - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... rred to the High Court for their opinion on any question arising from the said order, the processing of the matter should not have taken such a long time, particularly as the Reference Application including the brief facts of the case as prepared by the Collector hardly covered two pages. The questions themselves were only as follows - ldquo 1. That if the regenerated granules were cleared on nil rate of duty than the MODVAT Credit cannot be allowed on the waste which was recycled. 2. Whether the recyclable inputs can be treated as waste within the definition of Rule 57-D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The delay is seen to be due to negligence in handling the matter and not giving the matter necessary importance. We are not satisfied with the explanation given that the delay was due to reasons beyond the control of the Collector and his office. We, therefore, dismiss the application for condonation. The Reference Application itself is, therefore, dismissed as time-barred.
-
1994 (12) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Financial hardship ... ... ... ... ..... 40 lakhs, which exceeded its paid up capital of Rs. 99 lakhs and free reserves of Rs. 22.2 lakhs. For the financial years ending 31-3-1989, 31-3-1990 and 31-3-1991, it incurred cash losses of Rs. 9.40 lakhs, Rs. 158.06 lakhs and Rs. 165 lakhs respectively, and its accumulated losses had risen to about Rs. 405 lakhs. 30. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, I consider it to be a fit case where pre-deposit of the Central Excise duty demanded is waived under proviso to Section 35F of the Act, and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, I allow the miscellaneous application filed by M/s. Nirmal Steel Tubes (India) Limited. Dated 28-11-1994 Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 31. In view of the majority opinion the miscellaneous application is allowed and the pre-deposit of duty demanded is waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (T) Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President Dated 6-12-1994
-
1994 (12) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal dismissed for non-appearance ... ... ... ... ..... eir correspondence. Since they have not entered appearance even today we are dismissing the application for default in appearance. 2. Since dictating the above order we find that Shri Pradeep Jain, learned advocate is present on behalf of the applicants. He expresses regret that he could not come in time for arguing the case as he had some work in the High Court from where he has come rushing for this case. He also states that he has filed necessary papers called for from them. He requests that the appeal may be restored and date fixed for hearing when he would argue the merits of the same. He promises that he would ensure that the opportunity now given to him will be effectively utilised by him. 3. In the circumstances explained by the learned counsel, we are reversing our earlier order pronounced today in the court dismissing the application for restoration. We allow the request and restore the appeal to its original number. The appeal is now posted for hearing on 9-1-1995.
-
1994 (12) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... . representative of the deptt. He had no comments to make. We order that countervailing duty be re-assessed under Item 31(2) CET and consequential refund given to the appellants. 5. Except for the above relief in countervailing duty in six of the Appeals No. 63, 325, 326, 327, 329 and 1098/85-B2, the appeals are otherwise rejected. 4. The Tribunal in its earlier order had observed that ldquo since the cells are storage batteries, the assessment should have been under Sub-Item (2) of Item 31 of CET which attracted the lower rate of 20 - the same rate which the appellants had claimed in terms of the exemption notification. rdquo The Tribunal further had held that ldquo Countervailing duty be re-assessed under Item 31(2) of CET and consequential refund be given to the appellants. rdquo We follow the same ratio and order assessment under Heading 85.04 and for CVD 31(2). The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential relief. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Finalisation of provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are inclined to agree with the ld. D.R. that there is no incongruity between the conclusions in the individual orders and the wording of the majority order in para 34. The para is clear enough to set out the majority order holding that the demand is not hit by limitation and in that sense the demand ldquo is valid rdquo . The so-called ambiguity perceived therein by the applicants is really not there. However, to put matters beyond doubt, we are inclined to amplify para 34 of the final order of the Tribunal as follows In the final order of the Tribunal No. E/319-321/94-B1, dated 29-6-1994 in para 34 thereof, the following words are added at the end ldquo and the quantum of the demand should be re-determined as per the directions in this regard contained hereinabove after issue of show cause notice in accordance with the principles of natural justice. rdquo 4. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (12) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... find that the argument of the learned Departmental Representative that the credit is not admissible in the present case as the final products in question had not been declared seems to be in confirmity with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F. We, therefore, feel that a prima facie case has not been made out by the petitioners. Accordingly we direct them to deposit 50 of the amount now due from them as a result of the impugned order after taking into account the amounts already paid by them in the adjudication proceedings. At this stage, the learned advocate made a submission that in case they have unutilised RG 23A Part II balance they may be permitted to make the pre-deposit out of such balance. We are agreeable to grant this request subject to said balance being of undisputed MODVAT credit. If they have such credit balance, we direct them to make the payment of the full amount due from such balance within two months from today. Compliance to be reported on 9-2-1995.
-
1994 (12) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... the purpose of complying with the requirement of pre-deposit. This letter of theirs has been endorsed by the departmental officer confirming that the information has been checked with the case file and found to be correct. 2. In view of the fact that the amount in question has been deposited, the earlier order of the Bench dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit requires to be recalled. We order accordingly and restore the appeal to its original number.
-
1994 (12) TMI 163 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand and Penalty - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants can seriously weigh in adjudicating upon the penal liability but if the documents produced before the adjudicating authority could provide true disclosure on the part of the appellants, then it will not be possible for the Department to allege suppression for the purpose of invoking the extended period. For invoking the extended period some positive act of suppression or fraud should be established. Here the appellants have disclosed the facts of availment of higher rate of duty. Hence, the extended period is not available for the Department and therefore the entire demand is beyond the period of six months. Therefore the same cannot be sustained and is set aside as time barred. All the same, the appellants have behaved in a way where they have knowingly evaded the duty. Hence, they are liable for penal action and the penalty imposed on them cannot be said to be unjust or excessive. The same is therefore, confirmed. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of.
-
1994 (12) TMI 162 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... he affidavit is not correct. The petitioners have also no objection to the Department proceeding against the asset of the petitioners, if any available to recover the due in terms of the impugned order. In other words, the petitioners do not even seek a stay of the recovery of the amount under the impugned order and want only to exercise their right of appeal and for that reason would seek restoration of the stay petition to argue the same on merits and to plea for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal in the above facts and circumstances on grounds of undue hardship, financial crisis, total penury, etc. 7. We therefore, while granting waiver of duty and penalty pending appeal, make it clear that we are not granting any stay for recovery of the amount in question and further hold that it is open to the Department to proceed to recover the duty from out of the assets if any found with the petitioners than what is stated in the affidavit. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (12) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... before the Assistant Collector in these proceedings. The case law cited by the Ld. Counsel is distinguishable and does not help their cause. In the circumstances, we hold that the appellants have not succeeded in showing that the notice was time barred. 22. emsp There is of course yet another point as to whether the Assistant Collector was competent to adjudicate the matter. In this connection the appellants have not been able to show as to at which level the assessment had been initially finalised. Therefore, their contention remains unsubstantiated. 23. emsp The case of Chanvim Engg. Pvt. Ltd. 1994 (74) E.L.T. 189 cited by the Ld. Counsel is not relevant as it relates to the Central Excise cases and not the Customs cases with which we are concerned. 24. emsp The appellants have not challenged the A.C. rsquo s order on merits. 25. emsp I, therefore, agree with the conclusion of Hon rsquo ble Member (J) that the appeal is liable to be rejected. 26. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (12) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... heir buying commission. When every other importer of the goods in question had to pay 6 or 10 higher price, the lower price available to the appellants alone could not be said to be the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale. It is the character of the marketing pattern which determines as to which was the price ordinarily charged and not the fact that there were more sales at the lower price and lesser sales at the higher price, as claimed by the appellants. Since advantage given to the appellants was not given to any distributor or importer in India, it is a special price given to the appellants only and this price is not the normal price in the course of international trade. The price at which similar goods were imported by other independent importers is the normal price and accordingly, assessable value is to be determined in this case. 5. Thus, the appeal is dismissed and Cross Objections filed by the Department are also disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... while the instant goods are of more durable type for regular use. We also find the analogy cited by the Collector in his appeal of chisels and ball pens without the knives or refills remaining such chisels and ball pens is appropriate. Thus the product in question even without the tool tips will be the tools. The residual Item 68 claimed by the respondents would be applicable only if the product in question does not fall under any of the specified items of the Tariff. In the present case, the goods are more appropriately classifiable under Item 51A(iii) as originally classified by the Assistant Collector. We, therefore, agree with the contention raised in the appeal that the finding of the Collector (Appeals) classifying the product in question under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff is not correct and accordingly set aside the same and restore the order of the Assistant Collector holding the goods to be classifiable under Item 51A(iii). The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Cess on Biris ... ... ... ... ..... dental or ancillary to the completion of Biris and obtaining of Central Excise was necessary. The decision was not that such Rolled Biris were manufactured products for the purpose of duty. Hence this judgment does not support the appellants rsquo case. We find that the department had, while prescribing the prodcedure under Rule 56B for movement of Rolled Biris by the Tekedars to the premises of the principal manufacturers as has come out in the said judgment, recognised biris which had been merely rolled as semi-finished goods. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the appellants that the Biris which had not been packed and labelled before 1-1-1982 were manufactured goods already and hence not liable to cess is not tenable. We reject the same and dismiss the appeal. 4. emsp The cross objection filed by the department only contains parawise comments and does not make out any case beyond upholding of the impugned order. It is misconceived and is dismissed accordingly.
-
1994 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... d. The Collector (Appeals) has also observed that such chemically treated Fire-proof Plywood is different from Marine Plywood since its price is much more than ordinary Marine Plywood. Under these circumstances and having regard to the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that chemically treated Fire-resistant Plywood also satisfies the ISI specification in respect of Fire-proof Plywood (ISI 707-1976) we do not find any force at all in the appellants rsquo contention that chemically treated Marine Plywood having Fire-retardant property is distinguishable from Fire-proof Plywood. For the same reason the appellants rsquo alternative plea that such chemically treated Fire-resistant plywood does not lose the essential character of marine plywood and could be treated as marine plywood attracting duty 10 ad valorem has also to be rejected. 5. emsp In view of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1994 (12) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was justification for the CEGAT to classify the article “Granite Press Roll” under Import Tariff Item No. 68.01/16(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as it stood prior to its amendment on 28-2-1986, as against its classification made by the Collector (Appeals) under Import Tariff No. 84.31?
Held that:- When classification of imported article - the Granite Press Roll - ought to have been made under Tariff Item No. 84.31 of Chapter 84, as is held by us, CEGAT has gone wholly wrong in clssifying that article under Import Tariff Item No. 68.01/16(1) of the Ist Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, particularly when that article could not have been regarded as an article of stone, as such, to become an excepted item under Note 2 to Section XVI read with Note 1(a) to Chapter 84, warranting its classification under Heading in Chapter 68 and according to rules governing classification of materials or substances or their parts.
Since `Granite Press Roll’ is an imported article, which is classified by us as Tariff Item 84.31 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as it stood prior to its amendment on 28-2-1986, the import duty payable thereon is only as provided thereunder. Appeal allowed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rsquo s action of bringing to our notice the difference between the two editions of HSN. In other words, the department rsquo s case remains unsubstantiated. 22. emsp In view of the above position itself the product was classifiable under 2902.30 (and it was not necessary to go into the case law cited before us). 23. emsp As regards the notification, we find that the appellants have not included it in their prayer for relief in their appeal memorandum and they have only requested for deciding the appropriate classification under Chapter 29. 24. emsp That apart the application of a notification also depends upon the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. In the circumstances while we accept the prayer as per the appeal memorandum and allow the appeal, we may mention before parting that it will be open to the appellants to claim the benefit of notification if any available and for the authorities to consider that aspect and decide it separately at the original level.
-
1994 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... some grey area on this aspect of quantification which will be a relevant consideration in determining the amount of pre-deposit under Section 35F. Therefore, having regard to the financial position of the applicants and considering the prima facie view of the case, as set out above, we direct, in terms of Section 35F Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, that the appeal be heard on merits on condition of the applicants, herein, depositing Rs. 1,05,64,893.00 (Rupees one crore five lakh sixty four thousand eight hundred ninety three only) on or before 31-1-1995 and on such compliance, the pre-deposit of the balance of duty is dispensed with and recovery stayed pending disposal of the appeal. We also bear in mind the well-settled principle that in such matters Bank Guarantee will not serve the purpose. Matter to come up on 7-2-1995 for ascertaining compliance whereafter an earliest possible date will be fixed for hearing of the appeal subject to compliance as per the above order.
-
1994 (12) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... absence of evidence to that effect in the order passed, the demand of duty cannot be sustained only on the ground that the appellants had deposited the same and had agreed to give in writing that they would not claim refund of duty. They cannot be estopped from pursuing legal remedies open to them and they have filed these appeals in exercise of their legitimate right wherein they had inter alia claimed refund of the amounts deposited by them. We have seen from their letter the circumstances under which they had made such payments. In such circumstances, the liability of the goods to customs duty cannot be justified where the foreign origin and smuggled nature of the goods has not been established. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals. The appellants would be entitled to consequential reliefs in respect of the amounts paid by them as customs duty. The operative part of the order was announced in the court at the end of the hearing on 29-11-1994.
-
1994 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... order that M/s. Music India Ltd., Bombay as manufacturers had obtained a Central Excise licence and had paid Central Excise duty on the goods in question on the basis of the wholesale price at which they were selling the goods. In view of these facts on the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision extracted above we are of the view that the respondents could not be deemed as the manufacturers of the gramophone records in question produced by M/s. Music India Ltd. merely because the master-disc used for the production of the records was supplied by them. We, therefore, hold that there was no infirmity in the finding in the impugned order that the value of the gramophone records manufactured by M/s. Music India Ltd., Bombay could not be clubbed to the value of the cassettes manufactured and cleared by the appellants for the purpose of determining their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983. 8. In view of the foregoing the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (12) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... able to both duty and penalty and the reasons as to why they were removed without following the proper procedure were irrelevant. 17. emsp Insofar as the question of the exact rate of duty applicable was concerned once the matter was taken up for finalisation of classification, it was open to the appellants also to plead for determining the correct classification and giving the benefit of exemption notification, if any, due. 18. emsp Since, however, according to both the sides this aspect was not urged at the time of hearing before the Collector and no finding has been recorded with reference to the same but was necessary in order to arrive at the correct amount of duty liability, the impugned order is set aside and remanded for de novo consideration in accordance with law, with the observation that the appellants may be given one more opportunity to make their submissions including the aspect of the correct rate of duty and the quantum thereof. 19. It is ordered accordingly.
............
|