|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 390 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Excisability - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... above we need not go into the aspect of marketability. 7. emsp The second observation made was that the Calcutta High Court judgment was in the context of the old tariff. We find that the extract made above deals with the basic issue of manufacture and the effect thereof is not reduced merely by the changes in the structure of the tariff. 8. emsp The Calcutta High Court Judgment has been followed in a number of cases by the Tribunal. The identical case is that reported in 1996 (13) RLT 745 (CEGAT-A) . In that case the assessees were manufacturers of lsquo Electric Bulb rsquo , the Tribunal made a distinction between the manufacturers of glass and manufacturers of bulb. In paragraph 4 the Tribunal held in terms that the activity of breaking of glass bulbs did not result in a new product emerging. 9. emsp We thus find that in the light of the judgment given by the Calcutta High Court the impugned order does not survive. This appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (6) TMI 388 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Drawback ... ... ... ... ..... f penalty under the provisions of Customs Act as cited in the order of the Commissioner of Customs. As regards the reliance placed on the decision in the TELCO case, it may be stated that in that decision the penalty was waived, as the act of the appellants was considered bona fide on the facts submitted before the Tribunal and in the second case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., the duty involved was only of Rs. 3,264/- and on this ground, the penalty of Rs. 500/- was not considered to be liable to be imposed. In the case under consideration the appellants availed an amount of Rs. 1,66,723/- as drawback on misrepresentation of facts and though the amount received unauthorisedly has been paid back, but on this fact alone it cannot be argued that no penalty is liable to be imposed when there is clear provision for imposition of penalty under the cited Section of the Customs Act. In view of these facts, therefore, I find no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 385 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... debatable. The applicant questions the finding of the Commissioner that the goods are dhurries. The test report, however, clearly indicates the presence of the cotton to the extent of 28 to 30 and the goods cannot be prima facie considered to be polypropylene. We are told by the counsel for the applicant that the goods are still pending in the docks, as the redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs has not been deposited. In the light of this and the facts involved, we direct deposit of Rs. 1 lakh within a month from the receipt of this order upon which we waive deposit of the remaining penalty. 3. emsp Compliance on 29th June, 2001.
-
2001 (6) TMI 383 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital Goods ... ... ... ... ..... tems in question. 2. emsp The Revenues grievance is that instead of allowing the Credit on White Heat C Special under the provisions of Rule 57Q, the same should have been allowed as input under the provisions of Rule 57A. However, I find that in any case Modvat credit of duty paid on said input is available to the respondents. Similarly the unmachined castings are being used by the respondents in the Kiln Discharge and without these castings, Kiln Discharge is not operational at high temperature. Both the authorities below have rightly held that the said castings to be eligible for the purpose of availability of Modvat credit. As such no merits are found in the Revenues Appeal. The same is accordingly rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 360 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Import ... ... ... ... ..... e, I consider that it is not a fit case for making reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court at Jaipur. From the records, no question of law is borne out. It is seen that the Tribunal in their Final Order dated 22-3-1996 have followed, the orders in the case of Collector of Customs, Jaipur v. Indian Watchparts Manufacturers and Others as per Final Order No. A/1102-1112/93-NRB, dated 31-12-1993. Subsequently, the Revenue appears to have filed an ROM which was disposed of by the Misc. Order dated 8-11-1996 against which the present Reference Application has been filed. After perusal of both the orders of the Tribunal, it is seen that all the aspects of the issue involved have been duly considered in these orders and the same are detailed, reasoned and speaking orders. The question arising out of the Export and Import Policy cannot be termed as question of law. 3. emsp In these circumstances, I do not find any merits in the Reference Application and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Conveyer belt system - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... 99 (31) RLT 5, hence this appeal. 2. emsp We heard Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR and Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate and note that very same issue regarding excisability and dutiability of conveyer system fabricated by the same assessee at different factory of M/s. DCL Polyster Ltd. has been decided by the Tribunal as reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 644 (Tribunal) 2001 (43) RLT 733. It has been held that conveyer system attains its identity as conveyer system after operation required to make it workable took place and before that it was essentially assembling parts, thereafter remaining stages were incomplete system, Tribunal held that it cannot be transported as complete conveyer system to another place but it has to be dismantled into parts of such conveyer system. Therefore, system is immovable property. Appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. Ld. DR is unable to distinguish the above decision, Following the ratio thereof we upheld impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 358 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat - Glass bottles and crates used for packaging/containing aerated water ... ... ... ... ..... . Calcutta I and II v. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd. reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 655 (Tri.). In all the three judgments rendered by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that glass bottles used for packaging/containing aerated water are eligible for Modvat credit if value of packaging is included in value of aerated water, even though on pro rata basis, depending upon the average life of the bottles/crates. It has also been held that glass bottles although durable and returnable. Modvat credit is admissible if cost thereof is included by the assessee in the assessable value of aerated waters and the cost has to be arrived at on pro rata basis for a single use depending on number of possible uses. 4. emsp Considered the arguments from both the sides and respectfully following the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal mentioned supra, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by C.C.E., Chennai and the appeal is therefore rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 357 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ry is available. We find that the technical literature and the write-up given by the respondent rsquo s support the plea that lubricating oil unit is totally dependent upon the gear box and both function simultaneously and both the items i.e. Gear Box and Lubricating Oil units are not independent units as correctly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). We also find that in accordance with Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI the classification of an item should be on the basis of the function of the main machine and the residuary heading cannot be adopted when specific entry is available for classification. The technical literature and the write-up clearly discloses that both the units are interdependent and function simultaneously and not independently. In this view of the matter, in view of the technical literature and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is in accordance with the Section note, we do not find any merit in the Revenue appeal and the appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 356 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... resh grounds now taken up as an after-thought. The examination report is on the basis of on the spot inspection and after examining the goods in as-it-were condition. The report clearly indicates that the item is not waste and scrap but they were Aluminium in rectangular frames. Therefore, both the authorities have rightly held that there was mis-declaration and the item is required to be re-classified and short levy to be recovered. In this case, the short levy as well as penalty are very meagre and there is no infirmity in the order passed by both the authorities. They have rightly concluded that for the purpose of import of Aluminium frames, they are required to get a licence and it does not fall under OGL list. This aspect has not been touched by the appellants and we find that the grounds taken by them both in the appeal as well as in the written submission has no merits and deserves to be rejected. As a result, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 355 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nalty under Section 173Q of the Rules. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 Lakhs by order dated 27-6-2000 this order was appealed against and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order allowed the respondents appeal following the Larger Bench decision cited supra. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 3. emsp It is not disputed that there is only one MRP mentioned on the container/packs meant for a particular region. Therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in which it has been held that if a container or packet carried one retail price only, it is to be assessed on the basis of that price and it is only when there is more than one MRP on the same container/packet that the maximum of MRP has to be taken for assessment as per Explanation 2 to Section 4A of the Act. The Larger Bench decision applies on all fours to the present case and hence following the same we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 354 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... provided in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is invokable as they had suppressed the MRP on the sale invoices and had cleared the goods at a lower assessable value. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. On a query from the Bench, the ld. Sr. Counsel informed that the labels of the revised MRPs were affixed over the pre-printed MRPs on the carton. The Revenue has not rebutted this submission before us. The ld. Sr. Counsel has made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty inasmuch as their submissions about affixing of lables of the revised MRPs remains uncontroverted and regarding seizure of 68 pcs. from the godown premises of M/s. Maharaja Appliances, it has been contended by the applicants that these pieces were lying with them from the earlier supplies. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of entire amount of duty and penalty and stay the recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 353 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Telephone Exchange - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... lsquo Statement of Facts rsquo to the SCN issued. Nor is there any finding by the Commissioner when he is relying on the Chairman rsquo s clarification on lsquo RAX upto 512 port rsquo model as to how it overrules the specific certificate of the Dy. Director General for the goods in question. Therefore, we can not find any deliberate intent to evade payment of duty, to call for the invoking of a demand for the period 16-7-1992 to 28-2-1994, by the Show Cause Notice dated 12-1-1995 on the ground of mistake made as determined in this case. The demands are barred by limitation. There has to be unassailable material on record to come to a positive finding that a State Government Undertaking intends to evade duty when it supplies goods to Department of Government of India, as in this case. (e) When we find, no demand could be made being barred by limitation, we can not find a case or cause for penalty as arrived at. 3. emsp In view of the findings, the appeal is therefore allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 352 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... t are not furnished before us we are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to go back to the original authority for de novo consideration. The original authority shall take into consideration the various pleas raised by the appellants regarding the items did not arise as a result of manufacture and no new product came into existence and that the item is not classifiable under the said tariff heading. The original authority shall permit both sides to produce evidence and it shall appreciate the same in the light of the latest judgments after granting a personal hearing to the appellants. The appellants, plea that equal amount of penalty under Section 173Q is not imposable should also be considered. Their plea that they held bona fide belief and that larger period is not invokable should also be required to be examined by the original authority, while deciding the case in de novo proceedings. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority.
-
2001 (6) TMI 351 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... inst the applicants/appellants by rejecting the Modvat credit availed by them during the period from August, 1993 to November, 1993 on the basis of subsidiary gate pass issued by the proper officer. The ground for denial of the Modvat credit is that application for issuance of subsidiary gate pass was not made 24 hours in advance of removal of goods. However, it is seen that in any case, the Issuing Authority had issued the subsidiary gate pass instead of the application having not been made 24 hours in advance of removal of goods. As such, the factum of not filing of an application before 24 hours cannot be made the basis subsequently for denying the benefit of Modvat credit especially when the subsidiary gate passes have been issued by the proper Central Excise Officers. Accordingly, I hold that the applicants have a good prima-facie case in their favour so as to allow the Stay Petition unconditionally. I order accordingly. The main appeal is fixed for hearing on 23-7-2001.
-
2001 (6) TMI 350 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... er to restore the appeal, but the manner in which that power should be exercised. There was no application, subsequent to the stay order, for modification or extension of time. It is clear that the appellant chose to deposit the amount when it find convenient to do so, 11 years after the stay order. There is not the slightest attempt to explain the delay of more than a decade. To permit restoration in such a case would in effect amount to an admission that the orders of the Tribunal has no meaning or sanctity can be complied with or flouted with at the option of the appellant. There is thus no question of restoring of this appeal 3. emsp Application dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 349 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ound that the same has been availed on double tension and single tension string without declaring the same. As explained by the appellants, the declaration was made by them describing each and every part of the double tension and single tension string. Even the challans under which the goods have been received by them give the details of the parts of double or single tension string. I have seen the challan of the supplier which describes the goods as - (i) Double Tension String consisting of hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip (ii) Single Tension String consisting of hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip hellip There is no denial of the fact that the parts which together make up the string, have been duly declared by the appellants. In this view of the matter, the denial of Credit was not justified. 5. emsp Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
2001 (6) TMI 348 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... duty are new and indentifiable goods which were produced as a result of the processes undertaken by the assessees and also whether these are marketable. The Supreme Court has also referred to its earlier two decisions in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) and Union of India and Anr. v. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. Anr. etc. 1997 (91) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) 1997 (19) RLT 475 (S.C.) . We observe that all the impugned order in the present appeals were passed in 1992 and both lower authorities did not have the advantage of considering these matters in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Moti Laminates (supra), Delhi Cloth and General Mills (supra) and Man Structurals (supra). We, therefore, remand all these matters to the adjudicating authority with the directions to decide these matters afresh in the light of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Man Structurals (supra).
-
2001 (6) TMI 347 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Valuation - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n, the High Court had ruled that Revenue did not consider whether the claim was a long standing practice and if such discounts or commission if they were known at the time prior to removal of the goods and held, the deduction should be allowed. They remitted the matter back to the Assistant Collector to re-examine the issue in proper perspective. (c) In the present case, therefore, the matter would need to be re-examined in the proper perspective to redetermine the cases and the amounts of commission that could be denied and value be determine the duty in light of the above. We also find that that is no finding, how there is contravention of Rule 9(1) arrived at, when appellant has prepared the invoices the clearance documents and how the demand is being made under Rule 9(2). Findings on the same are required to be arrived at, before any penal liability could be considered. 5. emsp In view of our findings, we set the appeal and remand the matter back for de novo adjudication.
-
2001 (6) TMI 346 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ium Co. v. CCE as reported in 2001 (4) ECL 78 wherein in a similar matter, the matter has been remanded for de novo consideration to re-examine it in the light of the various judgments and facts of the case. In the present case also appellants are contending in their appeal memo that it is not in the form of structurals but it becomes part and parcel of the machinery. This aspect is a question of fact whether they are parts of machinery or are structurals which is required to be proved by sufficient evidence to be placed by the appellants. I notice that the Commissioner has already remanded the case for de novo on other items. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this matter also requires to be remanded so that appellant gets an opportunity to establish that they are not structurals but becomes part and parcel of machineries. Hence the impugned order is set aside in so far as this item is concerned and the matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration.
-
2001 (6) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... same the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not beyond the scope of appeal. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the submissions of the learned DR that merely because the bobbins are used by the customers of the Appellants in the manufacture of motor cycle they do not become parts of motor cycle. Bobbins are used as a support and it is clearly specified in the Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. that bobbins are classifiable under Heading 39.23. There is nothing on record brought by the Appellants to show that the bobbins made by them are parts of motor vehicles and accordingly Note 2(p) to Chapter 39 will have no application. We also do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Consultant that they were not put to notice as the dispute was from the beginning whether the bobbins are classifiable as articles of plastics or as parts of motor cycle. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal which is rejected.
............
|
