Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 474 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 387 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... on of limitation, it is on record that the Additional Collector had issued a show cause notice on 26-4-1988 classifying Dhanumon rsquo as a plant growth regulator and, therefore, well within the limits of 5 years period under the proviso to Section 11 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Additional Collector dated 21-2-1990 and reject the present appeal. 8. emsp We also take into account the Tribunal rsquo s order dated 11-12-1995 in E/Misc./1342/95-C vide Misc. Order No.194/95-C in which the question of imposing penalty was considered. In that order, the Tribunal had referred to the case of M/s. Padmini Products wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained in view of the findings that the demand of duty was hit by limitation. Since in the instant case, there is no finding that there is suppression of fact or wilful misstatement, we do not interefere with the order of penalty imposed by the lower authorities.
-
1996 (7) TMI 386 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Gross Profit ... ... ... ... ..... ne the amount receivable by the manufacturer. It is impossible to conceive of a situation where such expenditure is not taken into account for the purpose of working out loss and profit of a concern. It is not that profit or loss is not related to this expenditure. Instead, it is the total expenditure including the type of expenditure that has been disallowed which would determine the extent of loss or profit of an organisation. Such profit and loss cannot be worked out merely by confining oneself to expenditure on actual manufacture but a comprehensive view of the matter has to be taken to arrive at gross notional profit. 5. emsp In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of Collector (Appeals) to the extent that profit shown in the accounts of the respondents company certified by their auditors have to be taken into account to arrive at gross profit. 6. emsp In this view of the matter, therefore, we reject the Revenue Appeal and upheld the impugned order.
-
1996 (7) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... f four months. 3. emsp On behalf of the Department it is contended that the statement in the import documents about the country of origin may not be correct but this was never challenged in the show cause notice and never dealt with in the impugned order. We therefore take it that the countries of origin were different though the brand name was the same. That the brand name was same does not necessarily lead to the inference that the manufacturer was the same. It may be that the manufacturer had factories in two countries or there may be an arrangement regarding brand name. Place of shipment was also different, in one case Singapore and the other Japan. Added to this is the difference in the time element. Having regard to these circumstances, we are of opinion that the lower authorities were in error in relying on the proforma invoice of Japanese goods in dealing with the valuation of goods of Singapore origin. 4. emsp The impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 384 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import of Controller Cards with Winchester Disc Drive ... ... ... ... ..... has been included in the value of the Winchester Disc Drive. In support of its contention the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd v. The State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J159) (S.C.) AIR 1970 SC 253 (SC) is cited. 3. emsp We are not able to agree that the Department of Electronics has certified the import of controller cards, in the absence of material to show that the Department of Electronics was told by the appellant while applying for the certificate that controller cards would also be imported. Mere inclusion of the price by itself would not support the appellant rsquo s contention. The judgment cited by the appellant relates to imposition of penalty and is irrelevant to the facts of the present case, where penalty has not been imposed. Goods are therefore liable to confiscation. However, taking into account the fact that the appellant was an actual user, we reduce the fine from Rs. 43,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand only).
-
1996 (7) TMI 383 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Re-classification ... ... ... ... ..... are raw materials for carbon film resistor i.e. Tin-plated caps 1.63 and not epoxy lacquer. It will appear that there was a patent error in holding goods imported as tin-plated caps. Collector (Appeals) seems to have confined his attention only to Tin-plated caps. It was contended before us that in addition to Tin-plated caps they had also imported lacquers. It is therefore obvious that no findings have been recorded on the contents of the other consignment imported i.e. lacquer. We therefore set aside this part of the impugned order which does not contain any findings in regard to lacquer and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for redetermination as to the eligibility of lacquer to concession. Since ld. Consultant submits before us that affidavit regarding end-use certificate was detached from the appeal papers they are at liberty to furnish such additional evidence as they may consider necessary in support of their case. Appeal is disposed of these terms.
-
1996 (7) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Steel/Silicon crucibles ... ... ... ... ..... ch decision in Union Carbide case (supra). Since such data is not before us, it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to consider the issue afresh in regard to the eligibility or otherwise of crucibles to be considered as an input under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules for modvat purposes, in accordance with law after obtaining the necessary particulars from the appellants and in the light of the ratio of the Larger Bench decision (supra). An opportunity of hearing may also be given to the appellants in the matter. 8. emsp The appeals are disposed of by holding that fibre glass filter mesh will not fall under excluded category of inputs under Explanation to Rule 57A, and that question of eligibility of steel/silicon crucibles should be redetermined by the Assistant Commissioner in the light of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India and Ors. (supra) for which purpose this aspect of the matter is remanded to that authority.
-
1996 (7) TMI 381 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Wire and Felt ... ... ... ... ..... ami Paper Mills Ltd. 1992 (61) E.L.T. 489 (Tribunal) ERB, and Collector of Central Excise v. Bihar Caustic and Chemicals Ltd. 1994 (72) E.L.T. 739 (T) ERB are correctly decided. He submitted that since the issue has already been considered by the Larger Bench, the appeal may be allowed following the ratio of the aforesaid decision. 6. emsp Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned Departmental Representative fairly concedes that this issue has already been considered by the Larger Bench as it was rightly pointed out by the other side. 7. emsp In the facts and circumstances and following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., referred to above, I hold that items i.e. wire and felt are not excluded by virtue of exclusion clause (i) of the explanation to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and, accordingly, these inputs are eligible for Modvat credit. 8. emsp In the result, I set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, these two appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 380 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... nes or equipments in paper making. They are in our view analogous to lubricants which are used for maintaining machines in working order and without their use the machines may not operate at optimum efficiency but such materials have not been allowed as input as they are used in relation to the machines and we are of the view that the status of these materials are more appropriately as those used in relation only to the felts which cannot be brought into the scope of the term input viewed in its wider scope as laid down in the Larger Bench decision. Therefore the lower authorities were right in denying the Modvat on these inputs. In the result the appeal is disposed off holding in the light of the ratio of the Larger Bench decision that the inputs in this case as per table above would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A Central Excise Rules except for the two inputs namely wetnol and lissapol listed at S. Nos. 12 and 13. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
-
1996 (7) TMI 379 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Modvat - Utilisation ... ... ... ... ..... of the trade notice. In Para 15 of the order the Collector held that since the noticees had been maintaining their own accounts, no fault could be found with reference to the availment of Modvat credit not withstanding the technical flaw in not reflecting daily entries in the RG-23A Part I. The Claim the appellants have correctly made is that the trade notice waived making of daily entries of inputs issued for the manufacture. On perusal of the Original Order it is clear that the Collector was satisfied that the assessees had written records as required in terms of trade notice. Therefore, his action of penalising the appellant on the ground that the RG 23A Part I register was not written properly does not seem to be well founded. No other grounds for sustaining imposition of the penalty have been brought out in his order. Therefore his order imposing a high penalty does not sustain. In the result the order of the imposition of penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 378 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... the principle governing the controversy as explained by the Supreme Court in MRF Ltd. case 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433. The statutory authority should have examined whether it was necessary to use the wooden crates for packing for wholesale trade at the factory gate in the sense in which this principle has been explained by the Supreme Court. The necessary data for proper consideration also has not been mentioned in the orders of the lower authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there were earlier decisions between the parties taking a view in his favour, but those decisions were given the pre MRF case era. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration. 3. emsp The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the respondent to make submissions and also produce such documents as are desired. The appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 377 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Words and Phrases - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... ll liable to pay duty whether the assessee who is appellant in the present case or the export unit who received the goods. We observe that the appellants supplied the goods based on a certificate issued by the central excise authorities after they were satisfied that the recipient unit was eligible to the benefit of notification. Once the goods have been cleared from his factory the appellants, in fairness, they cannot be held to be liable to pay duty for those goods unless the appellant had under taken the liability to pay duty in case these goods were not used for the purpose for which the certificate was issued. The question of liability of the appellant will have to be examined in this case. We, while holding that the goods are not eligible to the benefit of exemption, direct that the learned lower authority should examine as to whether the liability should accrue on the appellants or the recipient unit and demand accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (7) TMI 376 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Fibre glass reinforced plastic - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rity has proceeded to confirm the demand for the period 1988-89 which was made by issue of show cause notice dated 29-3-1990 and he has not entered any finding as to how the longer period of limitation could be invoked. He has pleaded that for that reason, the order of demand of duty is not proper. 5. emsp Heard the learned DR. 6. emsp We observe that the lower authority has not entered any finding in regard to the plea of the appellants against invoking the longer period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the CESA, 1944. For this reason, the lower authority rsquo s order is not a proper order and we set aside the same and remand the matter to the learned lower authority for de novo consideration for this limited purpose for consideration whether in the facts and circumstances, the longer period of limitation would be invokable, after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal is thus allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
1996 (7) TMI 375 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Packaging Machine ... ... ... ... ..... d also never be the intention, as rightly pointed out by the appellants rsquo learned Advocate that the Government would have insisted for import as an accessory, if it is not needed by an actual user on account of his peculiar product range and thus allowed, the foreign exchange to go waste. I find considerable force in the aforesaid plea of the appellant rsquo s ld. Counsel. This plea is further fortified by the subsequent amendment No. 125/86, dated 17th February, 1986 by Notification No. 65/89-Cus., dated 1st March, 1989, allowing concessional rate of duty when FFS machine is imported either with vacuumising accessory or inert gas flushing accessory or with both the accessories. 6. emsp Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s order in case of Consolidated Petrotech Industries v. C.C. (supra) we hold that the impugned goods are entitled to exemption under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 125/86 as amended. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (7) TMI 374 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Negotiated price ... ... ... ... ..... mports ought to be considered. Here however, the department having themselves not pleaded for assessment at the price allegedly paid by Zenith Ltd., have made a tacit admission of the said price as not the correct International price, and for what is discussed earlier, even otherwise, on factual appreciation, the said price does not reflect the correct price, and hence, on factual position, the ratio of the said decisions cannot stand attracted. 32. emsp Thus viewing the evidence in context of the provisions contained in Section 14(1), there is no convincing evidence as to contemporaneous import at the higher value, and whatever evidence that is adduced does not provide adequate data. 33. emsp Viewing from that angle also, there appears no ground to interfere with the negotiated price, and to order for any enhancement in value of goods imported, and thus also, the order does not call for any interference. 34. emsp In the result, the appeal from the department stands rejected.
-
1996 (7) TMI 373 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... seeks for personal hearing, that cannot be denied. Right of hearing is a statutory right given to them. Even if prima facie it appears that the issue was covered by some decision, that could have been confronted and explanation, therefore, could have been obtained. This has not been done and instead the claim of the appellants is rejected as time bar by the Collector. The appellants raised the specific demand for hearing vide their letter dated 13-4-1988. Thus, it appears that the principles of natural justice as also the statutory provisions for granting personal hearing, have not been complied with by the Commissioner (Appeals), and hence, the order passed ex parte is set aside, and matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai for granting personal hearing, and decide their appeals according to law. The Commissioner (Appeals) may make efforts to dispose of matter within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1996 (7) TMI 372 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... n an expert or taken the opinion of the Drugs Controller and not having done that and for that reason the order of the learned lower authority is not sustainable in law. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made before us. The formulation in question is that of rifampicin and isoniazid and the benefit in respect of the same is available only if it does not contain any therapeutic agent. The additives allowed in the formulations are in the nature of those which do not have therapeutic value but are only inert or are agents as specified. By the reason of addition of pyrazinamide the character of the formulation will not be covered under Notification No. 141/89, as urged by the learned DR. This formulation also for the reasons urged by the learned DR would not also be covered under the other notifications. We are of the view that the learned lower authority was in error in having allowed the benefit of the notifications and in this view, we allow the appeal of the revenue.
-
1996 (7) TMI 371 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... arrying the description ldquo cartons, boxes, containers and cases rdquo . These are required to be assessed under Tariff Heading 4819.90. In this view, so far as the classification is concerned, the order is sustainable. 5. emsp The other plea of the appellant is that the classification list was filed from time to time earlier for assessing the goods under 4819.19 and subsequently the departmental authorities chose to revise the classification. The plea is that any subsequent change in the classification should have a prospective application. We observe that the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the case of M/s. Ballarpur Inds. Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 499 (S.C.) has held that demand could be raised for the past period of six months. Following the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s decision, we hold that the learned lower authority was right in holding that the demand is barred by limitation. In this view, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 370 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Crank Shaft Forgings - Countervailing Duty ... ... ... ... ..... f Item 26AA(ia) and when they are fully finished and polished and ready for use in the motor vehicle, they will become classifiable under Tariff Item 68. I observe that this is a very rule laid down by the Apex Court insofar as the classification of forged articles under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) and Tariff Item 68 is concerned. More or less similar ratio has been followed in the cases cited and relied upon by the appellants. Therefore, it will be reasonable in the circumstances to agree with the views expressed by the learned Member (Judicial). Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Dated 15-10-1996 Final Order In view of the majority opinion the item is classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) under the Old Tariff for the purposes of countervailing duty. The appeals are therefore allowed in terms of the observations of Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) with consequential relief, if any due. Sd/- Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) (S.K. Bhatnagar) Member (J) Vice President Dated 17-10-1996 Dated 17-10-1996
-
1996 (7) TMI 368 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - OGL - Valuation - Redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... faction of licence hence this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 38. emsp In the case of Shah Tools and Bearing Co. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 815, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the assessee working on the basis of practice in view of the bonafide belief of the importer. The Tribunal held that penalty is not imposable in the circumstances of the case. We notice that this judgment is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 39. emsp In the case of Pragati Press v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 620, the case dealt with valuation of second-hand machinery. In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the fine and penalty was not imposable in view of the importers rsquo bona fide. This judgment is also clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 40. emsp In the circumstances, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (7) TMI 367 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... art I, but the credit is taken by entry in RG 23A Part II only on 2-8-1994, whereas, the Notification No. 16/94 provided for taking the credit only upto 30-6-1994. The ld. Consultant has pleaded that Rule 57G does not authorise the Government to specify the dates and that entitled them only to specify the documents. The issue is debatable and hence all the 3 appeals are admitted. 3. emsp Considering the arguable issue involved, stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit is granted in relation to the duty demanded as well as the penalty amounts.
............
|