|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 387 Records
-
1999 (5) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ve and software are separately classifiable. As we have noted above, when the software was installed on the hard disk drive, it becomes the part of the hard disk drive. Hence the appellants now cannot plead that both should be classified separately. The appellants relied upon the decision of the hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decision in the case of PSI Data Systems Ltd. (supra). In that case, the assessees were manufacturing computers and they were clearing software along with computers and the revenue wants to include the value of software in the assessable value of the computer. In these circumstances, the hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that for the purpose of excise duty, the value of software is not be included in the value of computer. Hence, the ratio of the decision of the hon rsquo ble Supreme Court is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 11. emsp In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1999 (5) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is left that they should be classifiable under Tariff Heading 85.16 despite the fact that they might have been given some special shape or design so as to be usable for high temperature purposes in specific furnances, as mentioned by the respondents. It is very clear as mentioned in the Explanatory Notes that all types of heating resistors irrespective of the classification of the apparatus or equipment are to be classified under Tariff Heading 85.16. Therefore, the various certificates produced by the respondents and produced before the lower authorities do not help the respondents herein. It is an admitted fact that the Central Excise Tariff is based on HSN and therefore, HSN Explanatory Notes are of high persuasive value, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Woodcraft Products Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order is not correct. It is, therefore, set aside and we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (5) TMI 284 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Dutiability - Demand - Limitation - Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... the other appeals, we notice that most of the items are covered in terms of the judgment in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. We also notice that in the case of Globe Hi-Fabs Ltd. department had dropped the earlier proceedings. In the case of Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd, the Tribunal by its own Final Order No. 740 to 742/99 dated 8-4-1999 has already held that those items involved herein are not goods and allowed the appeal. The point pertaining to appellant being not the manufacturer but it is the independent contractors holding SSI certificates were manufactures, is a point well taken and requires to be upheld. 13. emsp In that view of the matter, in all the parties appeals in question, we are of the considered opinion that the demands are not sustainable in the light of the judgement of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors., and hence the parties appeals are allowed with consequential relief and department rsquo s appeals are rejected.
-
1999 (5) TMI 283 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... lication, the employee Shri Om Prakash Sharma was taking care of Excise matters and there is no affidavit from him to show as to why he did not take steps to file the appeal. It is also the submission of the Counsel that another Director was the child rsquo s mother. It is not explained by her as to why she did not take care of the child who left the matter to the Director. There is no explanation from these persons as to why they did not file the appeal in time, but they are taking shelter under the alleged illness of their son. The certificate issued by the Doctor do not show that he was seriously ill and admitted in the hospital, but the certificate only show that he has been prescribed with certain medicine, therefore, no explanation is forthcoming and the laches and negligence is patent on the record. In that view of the matter, the explanation given is not accepted and both the COD applications are rejected and as a consequence, both the appeals are also stand rejected.
-
1999 (5) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tape - Film labels ... ... ... ... ..... ave gone through the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the Assistant Collector in his adjudicating order had referred to the Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology Vol. 6 according to which lsquo tape rsquo is a term used for relatively narrow films i.e. from 1/16th to 4 inches in width. Following the definition given in Encyclopedia, the Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the impugned product is a tape. Collector (Appeals) has also confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector observing that there is no indication as to what constitute a tape as distinct from a film. Even in the appeal before us the Revenue has merely referred to Note 15 to Chapter 39 of the Tariff without controverting the findings of the Assistant Collector on the basis of Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology. The claim of the department that the impugned product is not a tape has not been substantiated. We accordingly, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 273 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ceded that prior to the amendment to the Notification No. 14/96, dated 23-7-1996 Modvat credit was permissible in terms of Rule 57Q to Electric Generating sets of output exceeding 75 KVA falling under Heading 8502.00. In view of the amended provision, Modvat credit is permissible even to the item falling under Heading 8502.00 and the capacity as such is not inserted in the amended provision. 4. emsp There is none present on behalf of the party. They have sent a communication requesting that the case may be decided on merits. 5. emsp On consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and taking into consideration the amended provision and in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Synthetics referred to above, I am of the view that if the item falls under Heading 8502.00 the item is eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ntention of the appellants in this appeal is that the goods in question are Plug in Saver/Charger (battery charger) and they are allowed under Para-22 of the Import and Export of EXIM Policy 1992-97. The contention of the applicants is that the consumer goods are those which directly satisfy the human needs and the battery chargers cannot be said to be a consumer goods as these are used for charging the cellular phone. 4. emsp Perused the appeal papers and considered the submissions made by the learned JDR. The appellants declared the goods in the Bill of Entry as electricity-battery charger, whereas on examination the goods were found to be charger for cellular phone. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order held that the goods in question cannot be treated to be conventional battery chargers. Nothing contrary to the finding in the impugned order was produced by the appellants. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... er classification after giving full opportunity to the respondents rdquo . Against this order the present appeal has been filed. 2. emsp Shri R.J. Parikh submits that persuant to this order the Assistant Collector classified this products under Heading 38.23 which classification was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) and dispute is presently before the Tribunal. 3. emsp In these circumstances we find that the present appeal need not be considered. The orders of the Collector extracted above are directions to the Assistant Collector for examination. It is not that he has directed the Assistant Collector to classify the goods under the heading which seemed appropriate to him but that he ordered the entire issue to be gone into. If the Assistant Collector had failed to comply with these directions, and if in the subsequent proceedings that defect was not remedied then the issue could be agitated before the Tribunal. But at this stage this appeal does not survive and is dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 266 - BANGALORE HIGH COURT
Writ Petition - Admission of ... ... ... ... ..... In this case, ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable. It was the application of mind at that stage. The order dated 31-12-1998 clearly shows that the question of maintainability of the writ petitions was left upon. In these circumstances, it could not be said that there was applicability of mind even at preliminary hearing of the matter in respect of the maintainability of the writ petition. Though in the first line of the order it is mentioned that the parties were heard, but that appears to be only for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to file the declaration and about the maintainability of the writ petition. In these circumstances, assuming that this Court has no practice of admitting the writ petition as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be said that the issue of notice in accordance with the clarification would entitle the petitioner for the benefit of rule nisi. Petition having no force is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related persons ... ... ... ... ..... ad to the conclusion that the two of them are so associated as to have interest in the business of each other. In order to be regarded as a related person both the ingredients have to be satisfied, viz., the two have to be associated with each other. Interest in the business of each other would not mean a mere business connection between the two persons. This interest has essentially to be financial or managerial interest. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid cases the department was not justified in treating the price at which CEAT sells the items should be taken as basis in determining the assessable value at the hands of the assessee. Since the assessee succeeds on the main issue, we do not feel it necessary to go into other issues raised by both the sides. In the view we have taken, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (5) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... to existence in the aforesaid process of manufacture. He therefore, submits that applying the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prabhat Sound Studios (supra), Appeal of Revenue deserves to be dismissed. 6. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both sides. We observe that the lower Appellate Authority has delivered a very detailed order considering the various literature on the subject matter i.e., chocolate making. 7. emsp We agree with the findings of the lower Appellate Authority that no new product has come into existence in the process of manufacture of the Respondent, after plain chocolate in block form has duty paid. We also agree with the submissions made by the Respondents that the ratio of Apex Court judgment in the Prabhat Sound Studios fully applies in this case inasmuch as the Tariff entries in the present case and as was available in the case before the Apex Court are pari materia. Hence,we dismiss the Appeal of Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... beyond doubt. He also drew our attention to Section note 6 of Section XVI of the C.E.T.A. in this connection. Ld. D.R. also drew attention to the Tribunal Judgment in Bharat Berg Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad 1995 (78) E.L.T. 98 (T) wherein Tribunal had held that earlier stay order has no precedent value for correct enunciation of law. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Having regard to the fact that the process involved is the same and the facts also are not generally in this dispute, following the ratio of S.R.B. order referred to above, we are inclined to grant full waiver of predeposit of the duty amounts as well as the penalties and interest demanded by the impugned orders. The points raised by the ld. DR appear to be matters of detail and arguable. This can be gone into in detail only at the time of hearing of the matter on merits. Unconditional stay is accordingly granted in all the four appeals and the stay petitions allowed in the above terms.
-
1999 (5) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Demand - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... sidered opinion that a decision on merits of the case is independent of decision or an order of recovery of certain sums of money on the affected party. Therefore, we find that the order-in-appeal has clearly erred in linking the two together and needs to be set aside. We, in a view of the aforesaid analysis, set aside the order-in-appeal impugned and remand the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concerned for de novo consideration of the merits of the case as contained in the gounds of appeal on record by the Revenue. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass a speaking order after hearing both sides on merits of the case even if there is no notice under Section 11A in existence. It need not be repeated that such an order by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall not demand any sums to be recovered from the respondents as that issue would obviously not be before him in this remand proceedings. The appeal is accordingly, allowed by way of remand with the aforesaid directions.
-
1999 (5) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... case as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 315 (Tribunal). In that case it was held that the amount of additional consideration flowing back to the appellants has to be added to the wholesale price and assessable value worked back after allowing admissible deductions. It cannot be added to the assessable value already determined dehors the additional consideration. It was also submitted by the counsel that the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court, since the appeal filed by the Department has been dismissed in Civil Appeal No. 9286-90/95 on March 1, 1996. Further, the review petition has also been dismissed on August 1, 1996. 3. emsp Heard Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR. 4. Since the issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal and the view was upheld by the Apex Court, following the same, we accept the contention of the appellant and accordingly the appellant succeeds on this issue. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (5) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... eaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures imported into India on or after the 20th day of March, 1990, was Rs. 600/-. In support of his contention, he cites and relies upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Ludhiana Steels Limited F.O. Nos. 65 to 70/99-B1, dated 22-1-1999 holding that the materials received by them were obtained by breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structure imported into India were entitled to the credit at the rate of Rs. 600/- PMT and that the provisions of Notification No. 177/86 are not attracted. He submits that their case is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ludhiana Steels Limited and prays that the appeal may be rejected. 5. emsp On careful considerations of the submissions made by both sides, perusal of the Notification Nos. 177/86 and 62/90 and the case law cited and relied upon on the subject, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. The appeals are, therefore rejected.
-
1999 (5) TMI 259 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rise to metabolic disturbances. Their administration is to treat these disturbances and to prevent them and hence vitamin B Complex Tablets satisfy the criteria of therapeutic or prophylactic use. Thus the product in question merits classification under tariff sub-heading 3003.20 as claimed by the appellants. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal allowed. 8. emsp On a careful consideration of the above findings, we notice that the Tribunal has dealt with the same issue pertaining to similar ingredients which has vitamins as well as active ingredients having therapeutic effect and to be considered as medicament. The findings in the case of Micronova Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. as extracted above are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Respectfully applying the ratio of the said decision, we do not find any merit in the appeals and hence the same are rejected by confirming the orders passed by the original authority and the appellate authority.
-
1999 (5) TMI 258 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ied by M/s. Jupiter Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd., appellants herein, should have been proved by tracing it by particular evidence and shown that these goods had not suffered duty. There has also to be justification for imposing penalty which has not been discussed and indicated in the order and hence penalty on the trader is also required to be set aside and remanded for de novo consideration. 25. emsp In overall facts and circumstances of the case, we notice that the order of the Commissioner suffers from various flaws and it is not in keeping with the law of clandestine removal. In that view of the matter, while granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amounts, we also set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo consideration, who shall grant hearing to the appellants and also consider the prayer for cross examination of relevant witnesses, and thereafter shall pass a speaking, considered detailed order in the matter.
-
1999 (5) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Wool - Greasy raw wool - Countervailing duty - Interpretation of exemption - Greasy raw wool ... ... ... ... ..... ings of the lower appellate authority. He hightlights the position that if the benefit is not given the anomalous situation pointed out in the impugned order will arise. The process of construction should not lead to an anomalous situation. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the findings of the lower appellate authority. It is a well reasoned order taking into account all relevant facts his process of his interpretation also avoids the anomalous position which would otherwise be created, if C.V. duty is not charged on scoured wool but is charged on raw and greasy wool. As regards the ground of pollution taken by the concerned Collector this could be checked by fumigation of wool concerned and not by imposing a differential rate of duty on it. Pollution is not lessened by charging differential or higher duty. Ground urged by Revenue lacks substance. 5. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, we reject the appeal of Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hat Kumar submitted that in the case of the appellant also the term lsquo discount is a misnomer and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in MRF Ltd. case, this discount is not permissible for deduction. 4. emsp In reply, Shri P.K. Mittal, learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the Bombay Soap Factory case was rendered after considering the MRF judgment. Therefore, the observations of the Supreme Court in the MRF Ltd. case are not of any avail to the Revenue. 5. emsp We have perused the records of the case and have considered the rival submissions. We find that the deductions claimed by the appellants remain specifically held as available to the appellants in the various judgments cited by Shri P.K. Mittal and no ground has been made out by the Revenue for distinguishing the facts relating to the impugned order from the facts considered in those judgments. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with the consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (5) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... take note of the argument made before the court that the grievance that the Assistant Collector had passed an Ex-parte order was made before the Commissioner (Appeals), who had not discussed the same in his order. Shri Sasidharan informs us that the Commissioner (Appeals) has heard them but is yet to pronounce his judgement. 8. emsp In this situation where the order of the Assistant Commissioner which is the key for the present Commissioner to proceed with the adjudication is embroiled in such legal controvercy, we would think that the present Commissioner may not think it prudent to continue with the adjudication. However at this stage, we do not make any orders as to stay of proceedings before the Commissioner. 9. emsp The hearing in these three appeals is adjourned. Both sides are free to make a mention, as soon as the findings made by the South Regional Bench are available. The Bench can thereafter give the earliest possible dates for hearing. This order be given Dustee.
............
|
