|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 363 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 351 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... 70) E.L.T. 75. Therefore, he submits that the issue being directly covered, the appeal is required to be allowed. 3. emsp Heard learned DR Sri S. Sudarsan, who submits that the item cannot be treated as capital goods as for the reasoning given by the authorities below. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of these submissions and on a perusal of the citations referred to, I am of the considered opinion that the issue is fully covered and the appeal is required to be allowed. In the case of Mansurpur Sugar Mills (supra), parts of cane unloader were treated as capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q, as they were essential for the purpose of lifting the sugarcane and such expeditious removal of sugarcane for processing was considered as process integral and continuance for the purpose of manufacture of sugar. The present item also falls withing that ambit and in the same reasoning. Therefore, applying the said ratio, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 350 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... t had been put to the required use. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with this view point. As rightly contended by the appellants, exact correlation of the quantities of input and output in respect of manufacture of the subject goods is a technological impossibility. We find that during the relevant period, the appellants have put in the pipeline a quantity of 181141 MT of TMBP coils for manufacture of Electrolytic tinplates during the course of which a quantity of 108.644 MT of scrap was generated. In our view, the entire quantity of input should be considered to have been used in the manufacture of Electrolytic tinplates irrespective of generation of scrap in such process. We are convinced that the appellants have fulfilled the condition laid down in the ad hoc exemption order and as such the order impugned deserves to be set aside. We have no hesitation in doing so. Ordered accordingly. 6. emsp In fine, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside.
-
2000 (6) TMI 349 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal by Department - Authorisation - Remand order ... ... ... ... ..... jurisdictional AC, the action by the Range Superintendent to do the same is not as per law. The net result of this is that the directions contained in the Misc. order noted above requiring the ld. Commissioner to inform us whether the assessment has been finalised by the Asstt. Commissioner, and if so, the details thereof, has not been properly complied by the Commissionerate. There is no mention in the report filed by Revenue about the nature of action, if any, taken by the jurisdictional AC. This despite sufficient extension of time having been granted to Revenue. 5. emsp Therefore, in view of these non-compliance of the Misc. order of this Tribunal, as also in view of the fact that no original authorisation signed in ink prior to filing of the appeal exists on record and has not been supplied in terms of the said Misc. order, we have no other option but to dismiss the appeals as well as stay applications as not maintainable in terms of Section 35B(2). Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 348 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 92-97 dated 17-10-95 where the populated PCBs are appearing at Sl. No. 27. He, therefore, argues that the order impugned is correct in law. 4. emsp We have heard both the sides and we have also perused the entry at Sl. No. 27 of Appendix XXXV of the Handbook of Procedures, 1992-97 (Vol. I). On a careful consideration, we find that both the impugned goods merit to be classified as populated PCBs and as such fell under CTA heading 84.71 as parts of machine. In view thereof, importation of these goods require Special Import Licence which the appellant failed to produce before the Customs. 5. emsp In view of the above, we are convinced that there is no ground to interfere with the order impugned. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and penalty from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (6) TMI 347 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Annual capacity of production - Remand - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit
... ... ... ... ..... pect to the following effect (a) emsp that the dimension of the galleries (buffer zones) is not to be included in the dimension of the hot air chamber of the Stenter. (b) emsp that explanation to this effect inserted by the Govt. of India by ldquo Notification No. 14/20-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2000 is to be applied with retrospective effect. 11. emsp In view of the points noted above, it has acquired finality in these two decisions extracted above, we are of the considered view that there is no need to remand the matter back for re-consideration by the lower authority thereby only increasing his work. Therefore, applying the ratio of our decisions noted above, we are of the considered opinion that since these galleries are not to be included in the dimension of the Hot Air Chamber of the Stenter, therefore irrespective of the period of dispute, the orders impugned need to be set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any as per law. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 346 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... in 72.10/72.16 to be more in keeping with the said offcuts so removed by the appellants. Following these observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court I allowed the appeals. At the time of hearing the appellants have claimed classification under 72.10/72.16. This classification of the endcuts/offcuts is allowed. rdquo 3. emsp The Revenue in their ground of appeal have only challenged that the said endcuttings and corner cuttings are not classified as waste and scrap under heading 7204. We find that there is no dispute about the goods not being covered by the said heading inasmuch as the appellants are also not pressing for classification of the product under the said heading. The Commissioner (Appeals) as is evident from the above referred para, has followed the Hon ble Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in classifying the products in question. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
-
2000 (6) TMI 345 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... uineness of the invoice price of the foreign supplier, it was open to the Revenue to recalculate the price by adopting backward calculation method and by adopting starting point as the value of the complete ball pen with refill in retail market. It is also a known factor that plastic ball point pens are available in the market in different ranges depending upon their quality. No evidence has been produced by the Revenue to discover that their invoice price of manufacturer rsquo s agent was not correct, which the appellants have also substantiated to be correct by producing manufacturer s certificate. As such we hold that in the absence of any proof to doubt the genuineness of the invoice price, the Revenue was not justified in enhancing the assessable value of the goods. For the same reason confiscation of the goods with redemption fine and imposition of penalty was not justified. Accordingly, we allow appeals with consequential relief to the appellant(s) on the above points.
-
2000 (6) TMI 344 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the issue is covered in favour of the respondents by the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Swastika Knitting and Spinning Mills - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 30 (Tribunal). It has been observed in para 4 of the said judgment that note 2 (A) clearly says that a mixture of two or more textile materials are to be classified as if containing wholly of that one textile material which pre-dominates in weight over any other single textile material. This note clearly refers to single textile material indicating that while considering a mixture of textile material each textile material has to be considered singly and not by clubbing two or more. As such we do not find any warrant in the Revenue s contention that the weight of Polyester, which is a non-cellulosic origin and that of Viscose which is a cellulosic origin should be taken together for the purposes of deciding the dominance aspect. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the Revenue s appeal and reject the same.
-
2000 (6) TMI 343 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... on that basis Modvat credit on capital goods has been granted. However, in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted about the ground plan dated 9-6-1995 approved by the Central Excise Superintendent showing that mines are outside the factory premises. I do not have any original records before me to verify the same, therefore, the fact is required to be re-considered by the original authority. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the original authority to re-consider the aspect of the location of mines and the use of the dumpers and in case the dumpers are used within the factory premises, the Modvat credit is required to be extended in terms of the judgment of India Cements (supra) and the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Vikas Industrial Gas (supra). 5. emsp Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority. The appellants are required to be heard in the matter and a detailed order be passed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 342 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... tches and shaft couplings (including universal joints) rdquo . It is seen that the spacers for piercing mill roll assembly, spacer and block and cover for sprocket shafts do not find mention in this sub-heading. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise has taken a view that these parts were solely and principally manufactured for the metal rolling mills and they were not parts of general use. This finding of fact has not been contradicted and no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to justify any interference in this factual position. 9. emsp In the show cause notice, demand of Rs. 11,073.20 was imposed out of which the assessee after admitting their liability with regards to the product sprockets and already paid Rs. 766.75. 10. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interefere with the view already taken by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 341 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Import against SIL - Import Policy - Interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... n on the classification of the goods with respect to the test report of the Custom House Laboratory. The order impugned is also silent on why the said report has been brushed aside. The respondents have also not produced any legal submissions or evidence to the contrary before me. They have merely stressed that they are a SSI unit and that these loop fasteners are used in baby nappies. On careful consideration of the ITC HSN noted above, I find that the end-use is irrelevant under this Policy. Once it is held that the goods are knitted of man-made fabrics, then the said HS makes its import restricted. The criteria of whether it is imported by SSI unit or otherwise can at best be a mitigating circumstances while adjudicating the quantum of fine, but the Import Policy Law is applicable to all kinds of importers. 5. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, I find that the Order-in-Appeal impugned is not legal and proper and the same is set aside and the Revenue appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... in the process or those directly and actually needed for turning out or the creation of the goods. A question of law thus arises as to whether distribution transformer was covered by the definition of the capital goods given in Explanation to Rule 57Q before its amendment by Notification No. 11/95. Accordingly I allow the reference application filed by the Revenue with modification as Electronic Control Panel Board was not one of the product in respect of which capital goods credit was allowed by the Tribunal vide Order under reference. I, therefore, refer the following question of law to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for consideration. ldquo Whether the distribution transformer was capital goods during the period July-August, 1994 in terms of the meaning assigned to the term Capital Goods in Rule 57Q during the relevant period and whether the credit of duty of excise paid on it was allowable under aforesaid Rule 57Q during above mentioned period. rdquo
-
2000 (6) TMI 339 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Display hangers - Packing material ... ... ... ... ..... of the plastic sheet has a deep cut so that the product could be displayed properly, therefore it is clear that this product is only in the nature of a display hanger or a display pack made out of plastic and printed. As against this the only grounds made in the Revenue appeal is that the article is used for packing and conveyance material. In view of the fact that it does not offer closure of the leather article from all the sides, it is not possible to hold that it is a packing material. On the other hand in view of the detailed description examined above, it is clear that the item qualifies as a hanger or a printed bag made of plastic and printed. Therefore, Sl. No. 68 of the said Notification would apply in this case and hence I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned which compels me to interfere with the same. The Revenue appeal is therefore, rejected and the order in appeal allowing exemption and the consequential relief thereto is upheld. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 338 - CEGAT, DELHI
Stay and waiver of pre-deposit - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... into existence. Finally, he mentioned that there are two separate headings provided in Chapter 48 for Jumbo Rolls (48.03) and for smaller packs (28.18) which shows that these are two different products. 5. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issues whether the process undertaken by the applicant company amounts to manufacture and whether they were marketing their products under the brand name/trade name of another person are highly arguable matters and these can be considered only at the time of hearing the appeal. However, we are of the view that the applicants have made out a prima facie strong case about non-invokability of extended period of limitation. Considering this aspect clubbed with financial hardship we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty imposed on both the applicants and stay the recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal. The appeals will come up for regular hearing in due course.
-
2000 (6) TMI 337 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nd as such the product cannot be classified under heading 85.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. This view is strengthened by the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Shakun Products (supra). In that case the insulating wires were cut in different sizes, according to specification and then fitted with connector such as terminal lugs and the appellants therein contended that the goods were manufactured as per drawing and specification of LML Ltd. and they cannot be used for any other purposes except for scooters and sought classification under heading 87.14 as parts of scooter. The Tribunal held them classifiable under heading 85.44 of the Tariff. Accordingly, we do not interfere with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that the impugned product is classifiable under heading 85.44. However, the matter is remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner for examining the availability of exemption under notification No. 175/86 to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2000 (6) TMI 336 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ct of such inputs. Shri Roy reiterates the reasoning of the adjudicating authority that the mode of transport i.e. by hand carts, does not appear to be possible to carry tonnes of raw materials from Howrah to Bagi which covers a distance about 50 kms, with the route covering area through which hand carts/pull carts, traffic is prohibited. As regards the limitation, Shri Roy reiterates the reasoning in the order impugned. 4. emsp I have heard ld. Consultant and the ld. JDR. I find that both on merits as well as limitation, the case is arguable. It is observed that out of the total demand of Rs. 7,35,192/-, the first applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The balance duty amount of Rs. 35,192/- only remains to be paid by them. Since the amount of Rs. 7,00, 000/- is still with the Department, the interest of revenue is safe. Hence, pre-deposit of the balance duty amount of Rs. 35,192/- and the entire penalty amounts is waived during the pendency of appeals.
-
2000 (6) TMI 335 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Life saving equipment - HaeInterpretation of Exemption Notificationmodialysers - ... ... ... ... ..... fore, when the very basic mandatory provision spelt out in the notification by the Legislative Authority is violated, there is no question of any liberal interpretation . 10. emsp Another decision of the Tribunal relied upon by ld. Consultant in the case of Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. (supra) dealt with the notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1987 and therein it was held that the word lsquo and rsquo is to be read as lsquo or rsquo . In the present notification, there is no need to read any word lsquo and rsquo as or because the notification itself provides that the exemption is available to spare parts and accessories falling either under chapter 90 ldquo or rdquo under chapter 98. Therefore, this case-law cited also stands distinguished. 11. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal and that the exemptions claimed have been rightly denied by lower authorities. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 333 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ded to the original authority for de novo consideration. Appellants shall produce the necessary documents as displayed before the Tribunal for reconsideration at the time of de novo proceedings. 10. emsp As regards claim of Modvat credit on M.S. beams, the contention of the appellants that it has a very important function during the process of manufacture and it passes hot rounds through roller, has not been brought to the notice of the original authorities. This aspect requires verification and reconsideration. Hence, this issue is remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. The original authority shall grant an opportunity of hearing to appellants to establish that they are entitled for benefit of labour charges for Rs. 11,887/- shown in concerned invoices and also establish that M.S. beams are used in the course of manufacture and Modvat credit requires to be granted for the same. Ordered accordingly. 11. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (6) TMI 332 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court - Maintainability of ... ... ... ... ..... CE, Calcutta - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 153 the decision is to the same effect. In another decision, the Tribunal (SRB) in the case of HPC v. CCE where under the similar circumstances, the Tribunal refused to entertain the Reference application. The last but not the least, the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal consisting of 5 Members in the case of CCE v. Lal Chand Anand and Ors. - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 530 the ld. 5 Members had held that a reference lies to the High Court only against orders finally passed by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, clear from the ratio of the judgments and the provisions of Sec. 35C and Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, no reference application has to be filed against interim order. It is surprising that the Commissioner has filed the Reference application for consideration of the Tribunal without even considering the provisions of the Act. Hence, it is dismissed. 5. emsp Copy of the order is directed to be sent to the Chairman, CBEC for his consideration.
-
2000 (6) TMI 331 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... idering the financial hardship of the assessee, Hon ble Supreme Court, waived the pre-deposit of the duty amount. In the present case the Balance Sheet filed by the applicants shows that they had an income from sales during the year 1998-99 of Rs. 11,61,75,125.64. Therefore taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the financial hardship of the applicants, we find prima facie it is not a fit case of total waiver of the duty and penalty. M/s. Garg Forgings and Castings Limited is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs and Shri Narsi Das Garg proprietor of M/s. Garg Trading Company to which the most of the sales were made is directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs within a period of 8 weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amounts, the deposits of remaining amounts of duty and penalties on the applicants are waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. To come up for reporting compliance on 17-8-2000.
............
|
