|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 538 Records
-
2000 (5) TMI 765
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata involved a dispute over the classification of plate shearings for duty purposes. The appellants claimed it as waste and scrap, while the Revenue argued it was flat roll products. The Commissioner imposed a penalty for alleged intentional evasion, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, citing approval of classification lists and RT-12 returns as evidence. The Tribunal set aside the demand as barred by limitation, following a Supreme Court decision.
-
2000 (5) TMI 764
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order confiscating Indian currency and LDPE seized from their premises. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the currency to unauthorized goods removal, dropping proceedings against the appellants. The redemption fine of Rs. 70,000 was deemed unjustified. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (5) TMI 763
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata imposed penalties on several appellants as follows: Shri Pramod Kr. Jain - Rs. 2,00,000/-, Md. Jahangir - Rs. 1,00,000/-, Shri Purushottam Poddar - Rs. 1,00,000/-, Shri Vinod Kumar - Rs. 1,00,000/-, Md. Manjoor Ahmed - Rs. 25,000/-, Shri Navneet Kumar - Rs. 25,000/-, Shri Pramod Kumar - Rs. 10,000/-, Shri Manoj Kumar - Rs. 10,000/-. The Commissioner of Customs, Patna confiscated goods worth Rs. 14,91,600/- without offering the option to redeem them. Stay petitions were allowed as the Commissioner failed to provide the option to redeem the confiscated goods.
-
2000 (5) TMI 762
The appeal involved the imposition of a penalty on the appellant for transferring an advance license to import goods, which were cleared without duty payment. The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under Section 114A was unjust as the appellant was not liable to pay duty or interest. The penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 761
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal by S/Shri K. Narasimhan and K.K. Banerjee, Advocates, for the Appellants, dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 80,40,952.00 and penalty amount of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna. The Tribunal found that the appellants satisfied the conditions of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 and had a strong prima facie case in their favor. The revenue was debarred from recovering the amount during the appeal's pendency.
-
2000 (5) TMI 758
Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation for goods manufactured by appellants and another manufacturer.
2. Denial of SSI exemption due to common premises and machinery lease.
3. Contention of separate units treated independently.
4. Allegation of clandestine removal and suppression.
5. Clubbing clearances and imposition of penalty.
6. Separate clearances for M/s. FFPL and appellants.
7. Legality of impugned order and notice to M/s. FFPL.
8. Suppression of facts and invocation of larger period.
9. Approval of RT-12 returns and separate Registration certificates.
10. Commissioner's treatment of M/s. FFPL as hired labour.
11. Relationship between appellants and M/s. FFPL.
12. Justification for setting aside the impugned order.
Analysis:
The appeal concerns the confirmation of duty demand for goods manufactured by the appellants and another manufacturer, FFPL, due to common premises and machinery lease, denying the SSI exemption. The appellants argue for treating both units independently, emphasizing separate RT-12 returns and registration certificates. They assert that FFPL's manufacturing was not as hired labor but on a principle-to-principle basis, supported by detailed contracts. The Commissioner accepted separate manufacture by FFPL but clubbed clearances based on the hired labor premise, leading to duty demands and penalty imposition under Rule 173Q.
The appellants highlight evidence like approved RT-12 returns and layout plans, showing separate premises for both units. They argue against suppression, suggesting denial of notification benefits without confirming FFPL's clearances on them. The Department's view is that FFPL, treated as hired labor, doesn't need separate notice, considering the appellants as sole manufacturers. The Commissioner's findings support this stance, invoking a larger period due to alleged suppression.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal notes separate registration certificates and approved RT-12 returns for both units, indicating independent manufacturing. The contract between the appellants and FFPL reveals a principle-to-principle relationship, not hired labor. The absence of notice to FFPL renders the impugned order unsustainable, with no suppression evident. Separate registration certificates and shared machinery knowledge further support the appellants' position. The Tribunal sets aside the impugned order on both merit and limitation grounds, emphasizing the justified need for notice to FFPL and lack of suppression in the case.
-
2000 (5) TMI 757
Issues Involved:
1. Excisability of molten iron
2. Eligibility of pig iron for exemption under Notification 281/87-C.E.
3. Liability of uncoated non-alloy steel plates under Notification 217/86
Excisability of Molten Iron:
The Tribunal, following a previous decision and a Supreme Court confirmation, ruled that molten iron, maintained at a high temperature for further use, is not in a marketable condition and hence not excisable. The Tribunal relied on the case of TISCO v. Commr. of Central Excise and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
Eligibility of Pig Iron for Exemption:
The Tribunal, based on a previous decision in the respondent's own case, held that pig iron used captively in manufacturing machinery parts for repairs and maintenance, qualifies for exemption under Notification 281/86. Despite the creation of intermediate castings and forgings, the pig iron was deemed eligible for the exemption.
Liability of Uncoated Non-Alloy Steel Plates:
In a previous case, the Tribunal had denied the benefit of exemption under Notification 217/86 for uncoated non-alloy steel plates used in manufacturing splashed plates. However, the respondent argued that splashed plates were essentially steel plates cut to size and used in a specific manner. The respondent presented new facts and referred to a relevant circular, which were not considered earlier. The Tribunal found these new facts relevant and decided to remand the issue to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision based on the additional information provided.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals concerning the first and second issues but remanded the third issue to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (5) TMI 755
Issues:
Refund claim of Central Excise duty rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) - Compliance with Rule 173-L of Central Excise Rules - Entitlement to refund for paying duty twice on same goods.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal confirming the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 67,620 by M/s. Imperial Auto Industries. The appellants cleared fuel injection tube assembly, paid duty, but later received the goods back as rejected, claiming refund for paying duty twice. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim.
The appellants argued they paid duty twice on the same goods and relied on the case of Perfact Industrial Corp. v. CCE. However, the Tribunal found the ground of the appellants to be misconceived. Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rule outlines the procedure for claiming refund of duty paid twice. The rule mandates maintaining detailed accounts of refunded goods, the process after return to the factory, and providing requisite details to the Collector within six months, which the appellants failed to comply with.
The appellants did not store the goods separately, failed to furnish details to the Collector within the specified period, and lacked evidence of the process carried out on the goods. Discrepancies in the description and dispatch date of reprocessed goods further weakened their case. The Commissioner (Appeals) provided detailed reasons for disallowing the refund claim, finding no merit in the appeal based on the facts and circumstances presented. The Tribunal concluded that the law cited by the appellants was not applicable to their case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decision rejecting the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of complying with Rule 173-L for claiming duty refund on goods paid twice. The appellants' failure to meet the procedural requirements and discrepancies in their submissions led to the dismissal of their appeal.
-
2000 (5) TMI 754
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant, who paid duty under protest without confirmation of demand or adjudication, entitling them to a refund. The refund claim was accepted based on the letter indicating protest payment and absence of show cause notice or adjudication. The appeal was allowed in accordance with Section 11B and the Supreme Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries case.
-
2000 (5) TMI 751
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata, dismissed the appeal of the appellants for refund of Rs. 23,280 due to unjust enrichment. The appellants failed to provide evidence to show non-payment of Central Excise duty by their buyer, leading to the rejection of their appeal. The onus to prove duty burden not passed on to the customer lies with the assessee.
-
2000 (5) TMI 750
The appellate tribunal set aside the order confiscating 45 bags of betel nut and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant. The tribunal found that the betel nut was a non-notified item, placing the burden of proof on the department to show it was smuggled and of foreign origin. The tribunal concluded that the department failed to provide satisfactory evidence, so the appeal was allowed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 749
Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty demand against the appellant M/s. Bowreah Cotton Mills and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Failure to fulfill export obligations leading to the violation of exemption Notification No. 204/92-CUS.
3. Contention regarding inability to fulfill export obligation due to seizure and subsequent confiscation of raw silk.
4. Dispute over the value of goods seized and the failure to utilize remaining raw materials for export obligations.
5. Lack of application for extension of the period to fulfill export obligations, indicating non-compliance and male fides.
6. Direction for the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set period while dispensing with the balance amount of duty.
7. Penalties imposed on various individuals associated with M/s. Bowreah Cotton Mills under section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the confirmation of duty demand against M/s. Bowreah Cotton Mills and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The duty was confirmed due to the failure of M/s. Bowreah Cotton Mills to fulfill export obligations after importing raw materials under an exemption notification. The duty amount was substantial, leading to penalties imposed on the appellants as per Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The core issue revolves around the failure of M/s. Bowreah Cotton Mills to meet export obligations, resulting in a violation of exemption Notification No. 204/92-CUS. The duty-free import of raw materials valued at Rs. 7,42,33,349/- was not followed by the export of resultant products within the specified period. This non-compliance led to the confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta.
3. The appellant contended that the inability to fulfill export obligations was due to the seizure and subsequent confiscation of raw silk by the Commissioner of Customs on grounds of illegal import. However, the Tribunal's earlier order setting aside the confiscation did not absolve the appellants of their export obligations, as the entire imported raw material value was significantly higher than the goods covered by the earlier proceedings.
4. The dispute over the value of seized goods and the failure to utilize remaining raw materials for export obligations raised questions about the appellants' intentions and compliance with legal obligations. The failure to seek an extension of the export obligation period despite the Tribunal's decision reflected negatively on the appellants' conduct and indicated a lack of genuine effort to fulfill their obligations.
5. The judgment highlighted the lack of a prima facie case in favor of the appellants due to their admitted non-compliance with export obligations. As a result, the appellants were directed to deposit a specified amount within a set period to cover part of the duty demand. The balance amount of duty was dispensed with, pending the appeal process to ensure the appellants' compliance with the order.
6. Regarding penalties imposed on various individuals associated with M/s. Bowreah Cotton Mills, the judgment noted an omnibus finding by the Commissioner without discussing the separate roles of each individual. Following a stay order for one noticee, the stay petitions of other applicants concerning penalties were allowed, pending further proceedings to ascertain compliance by M/s. Bowreah Cotton Mills.
-
2000 (5) TMI 745
Issues:
Stay petitions to dispense with penalties imposed on various persons arising from the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.
Analysis:
The stay petitions were consolidated as they stemmed from the identical impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs, focusing on dispensing with penalties imposed on several individuals. The penalties ranged from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 10,00,000. The advocates argued that goods worth over Rs. 1 crore were confiscated, along with trucks, emphasizing the right to redeem them based on the Hargovind Das K. Joshi v. Collector of Customs case. They contended that the confiscated goods were importable under OGL and should have been allowed redemption upon payment of fines, warranting a waiver of penalties and appeal hearings.
The additional applicants, including company proprietors, truck owners, and employees, asserted their innocence in the illegal importation of ball bearings. In contrast, the JDR argued that all involved individuals meticulously planned the illegal importation, justifying the absolute confiscation of goods due to the gravity of the offense. Following deliberation, it was deemed that penalties could be waived as the confiscated goods, including the trucks, were not redeemable, leading to the approval of stay petitions for the transporting company and related individuals. For other applicants with no specific involvement attributed to them, their stay petitions were unconditionally granted.
Consequently, all stay petitions were allowed due to the absolute confiscation of goods and trucks. Given the confiscation, the appeals were prioritized for an expedited hearing on July 19, 2000, recognizing the significant impact of the case on the involved parties and the need for a prompt resolution.
-
2000 (5) TMI 743
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata condoned the delay in filing a supplementary appeal by the Managing Director of M/s. J.K.S. Fibre Glass Pvt. Ltd. after considering the submissions made by the Advocate.
-
2000 (5) TMI 742
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai heard a case where duty was demanded on yarn doubled or dyed in a factory. The applicant was absent, so the tribunal proceeded to decide the case based on the appeal and the departmental representative's input. The applicant argued duty was not payable on captively consumed yarn, but no exemption authority was provided. Despite no prima facie case, the tribunal waived the deposit of duty and penalty due to the applicant being declared a sick industry in the 1998-99 balance sheet. Recovery was not stayed, allowing the department to pursue it as per the law.
-
2000 (5) TMI 741
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved Modvat credit of Rs. 13,249.89 for lubricants and greases used in machinery manufacturing of sugar. The appeal was allowed based on a previous decision, granting the appellant relief.
-
2000 (5) TMI 740
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata considered a stay petition regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit. The appellants argued that the credit was disallowed due to discrepancies in truck numbers on invoices and challans, but they had proof of receipt of inputs. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, stating that there was no suppression and dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
-
2000 (5) TMI 739
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai considered the classification of rolls for metal rolling mills under sub-heading 10 of Heading 84.55. The Commissioner (Appeals) classified them under sub-heading 90, but the tribunal disagreed, stating that rolls are part of metal rolling mills. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that excluding rolls from the main heading would be impermissible.
-
2000 (5) TMI 738
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the decision to disallow Modvat credit and penalty imposed on the respondents. The Tribunal found that the assessees had taken credit based on the invoices issued by the depot, but there was no evidence of incorrect duty calculation by the dealer or depot. The matter was remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner to determine the reasons for the duty payment difference. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
-
2000 (5) TMI 736
The case involved a dispute about special discount and quantity incentive deduction from the assessable value of paper. The special discount claimed was lawful and applicable to specific buyers for old stock. The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal as the discounts were based on commercial considerations and not influencing prices. The decision was in favor of the appellants.
............
|
9911796707
