|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 623 Records
-
2001 (7) TMI 1161
Issues Involved:
1. Whether respondents 1 and 2 (SEBI) failed to act in accordance with the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations.
2. Whether the public offers by respondents 3 and 4 violated the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations.
3. Whether the disclosures in the letters of offer were adequate and in compliance with the Takeover Regulations.
4. Whether the timing and procedural requirements under Regulation 22 were mandatory or directory.
5. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing SEBI to investigate the offers and prevent the acquisitions.
Detailed Analysis:
1. SEBI's Compliance with the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations:
The petitioners alleged that SEBI failed in its duties to protect investors and regulate the market as required under the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations. SEBI countered this by stating that the petitioners did not approach SEBI with a complaint before invoking the court's jurisdiction. SEBI ensured that adequate disclosures were made in the public announcements and letters of offer. SEBI's actions were in line with ensuring compliance with the regulations, and it had directed necessary disclosures about ongoing investigations and other relevant information.
2. Alleged Violations in Public Offers by Respondents 3 and 4:
The petitioners claimed that the public offers by respondents 3 and 4 were misleading and violated the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations. They pointed out that the offers did not disclose the true intentions and potential impacts on VST's management and assets. Respondent 3, controlled by the Damanis, was under investigation for market manipulations, and respondent 4's offer was alleged to be indirectly increasing BAT's stake in VST, which was not permitted directly. Both respondents denied these allegations, stating that all necessary disclosures were made as per SEBI's directions.
3. Adequacy of Disclosures in Letters of Offer:
The petitioners argued that the letters of offer did not adequately disclose the identity of the acquirers, their intentions, and the potential impact on VST. SEBI and the respondents countered that all necessary disclosures were made, including ongoing investigations and the financial arrangements for the offers. The court found that the disclosures were sufficient and in compliance with the regulations, and there was no substantial evidence provided by the petitioners to prove otherwise.
4. Timing and Procedural Requirements under Regulation 22:
The petitioners contended that the timing requirements under Regulation 22 were mandatory and not adhered to, thus invalidating the offers. The respondents and SEBI argued that these requirements were directory, not mandatory, and delays were due to SEBI's review process. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that the regulations did not specify consequences for non-compliance with the timing requirements, making them directory. The court emphasized that the purpose of these regulations was to ensure timely information to shareholders, not to invalidate offers due to procedural delays.
5. Entitlement to a Writ of Mandamus:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing SEBI to investigate the offers and prevent the acquisitions. The court held that for a mandamus to be issued, the petitioners needed to demonstrate a clear violation of statutory regulations and substantial prejudice to the shareholders. The petitioners failed to provide new facts or substantial evidence beyond what was already disclosed in the letters of offer. The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners' actions amounted to forum hunting.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that SEBI and the respondents complied with the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations. The disclosures in the letters of offer were adequate, and the timing requirements under Regulation 22 were directory, not mandatory. The petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or violation of statutory regulations, and therefore, were not entitled to a writ of mandamus. The court did not extend the time for the offers as the interim stay did not affect the opening or closing of the offers.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1160
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to demand notices for employer's provident fund contributions.
2. Applicability of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) over the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
3. Legality of attachment of bank accounts.
4. Judicial interpretations and precedents related to statutory dues recovery from sick companies.
5. Procedural aspects and remedies available under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Challenge to Demand Notices:
The petitioner challenged the demand notices issued by the respondent authorities, which called for payment of Rs. 65,56,417 as employer's contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner argued that the company is a sick company under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), and thus, proceedings for recovery should be stayed under Section 22(1) of the SICA.
2. Applicability of Section 22(1) of SICA:
The petitioner contended that Section 22(1) of the SICA, which stays proceedings for execution or distress against the properties of a sick industrial company, should prevail over the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner cited several judgments, including Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. S.I.I.C. of Maharashtra and Damodaran (M.V.) v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to support their argument that statutory dues recovery should be stayed under Section 22(1).
3. Legality of Attachment of Bank Accounts:
The petitioner argued that the attachment of their bank account was wrongful and that the respondent did not consider their representation or the fact that they had already paid the employees' contribution. The respondent, however, maintained that the attachment was legal under Section 8B(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
4. Judicial Interpretations and Precedents:
The petitioner relied on various judicial interpretations to argue that Section 22(1) of the SICA imposes a restriction on the recovery of statutory dues, including judgments in Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., Industrial Finance Corpn. of India v. Maharashtra Steels Ltd., and Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa. The respondent countered with judgments such as Palliwolf Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Vikram Poddar v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, arguing that statutory liabilities, including provident fund dues, cannot be indefinitely withheld.
5. Procedural Aspects and Remedies:
The respondent argued that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and thus, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court noted that the petitioner had not taken steps to challenge the demand notice through the appropriate statutory channels.
Judgment Analysis:
The court concluded that the petitioner had no right to take shelter under Section 22 of the SICA for statutory liabilities under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was noted that the amendment to the Employees' Provident Funds Act in 1988 took into account the existence of the SICA, and thus, the SICA could not be said to prevail over the Provident Funds Act. The court emphasized that statutory dues must be paid, and Section 22(1) of the SICA cannot be interpreted to allow the petitioner to avoid their statutory obligations. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1137
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected three appeals filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal allowing Modvat credit for items like castings of iron-pan, spares for hoist, rounds, and roller bearing assembly. The Tribunal upheld the decision citing precedents and found no merit in the Revenue's appeals.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1135
Issues:
Waiver of deposit of duty and penalties, determination of assessable value based on price declared to the bank, correction of errors in the order by the Commissioner.
Waiver of Deposit of Duty and Penalties:
The judgment involves applications for the waiver of deposit of duty, penalty, and fine amounting to approximately Rs. 1.84 crores on the manufacturer and Rs. 18.4 lakhs under section 209A on the director of the manufacturer. Additionally, a corrigendum application to rectify the order of the Commissioner has been allowed. The duty is demanded on consignments of textured polyester yarn cleared by the manufacturer, where the department alleges that the price declared to the bank did not include duty. The manufacturer contends that the price declared to the bank was inclusive of duty, supported by the Commissioner's acceptance of this fact in her order. The Commissioner's subsequent corrigendum sought to change the assessable value by stating that the price was exclusive of duty, leading to skepticism by the Tribunal regarding the nature of these changes. The Tribunal, based on the evidence and inconsistencies, decides not to proceed solely on the original order but considers the corrigendum, thereby waiving the deposit of duty, penalty, and fine pending further assessment.
Determination of Assessable Value Based on Price Declared to the Bank:
The dispute revolves around the assessable value of consignments based on the price declared to the bank by the manufacturer. The Commissioner initially accepted that the price declared to the bank was cum-duty price, indicating that duty was included in the declared value. However, a subsequent corrigendum issued by the Commissioner sought to change this interpretation to state that the price was exclusive of duty. The Tribunal scrutinizes this change, highlighting inconsistencies and the likelihood that these alterations were not typographical errors but deliberate. The Tribunal opines that the prices declared to the bank should be considered as cum-duty prices, and duty should be deducted to determine the assessable value. This decision impacts the differential duty payable and the potential entitlement to a refund by the manufacturer.
Correction of Errors in the Order by the Commissioner:
The Tribunal questions the validity of the corrigendum issued by the Commissioner, suggesting that it alters the fundamental basis of the order and, therefore, may be considered a nullity in law. The Tribunal expresses skepticism regarding the nature of the changes made in the corrigendum, indicating that they were not mere clerical errors but intentional modifications. The Tribunal emphasizes that the corrigendum changes the entire basis for the assessment, thereby necessitating a reevaluation of the assessable value based on the prices declared to the bank. Consequently, the Tribunal waives the deposit of duty, penalty, and fine pending a reassessment considering the prices as cum-duty prices, potentially leading to a differential duty payment or refund for the manufacturer.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1120
Whether the sales tax authorities can raise demands on the assessee on the basis of reassessment orders when the original assessment orders for the same assessment years and for the same turnover have been held to be valid?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The contention on behalf of the appellant, however, is that as a result of the review petition filed by the State being allowed by this Court the original assessment orders stand restored and revived finds force as a consequence of the revival and restoration of the original orders of assessment, the authorities cannot base their demand on the orders of reassessment. The reassessment orders may have been valid when made but on restoration and revival of the original orders of assessment, in the circumstances as aforesaid, the State can recover tax calculated on the basis only of the original orders of assessment and is precluded from raising any demand of tax based upon the reassessment orders. The respondents cannot now rely upon the orders of reassessment.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1112
The appeal involved a dispute over the credit of duty paid on steel ingots manufactured from ferrous scrap. The appellant argued that the duty paid by the manufacturer should be fully credited. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order, and remanded the matter for decision without requiring any deposit.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1111
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the application for modification of a stay order. The applicant's arguments regarding the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act and being a sick industrial undertaking were not accepted. The application was dismissed, and non-compliance would result in the appeal being dismissed without further notice.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1110
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai considered whether material handling equipment used captively in the manufacture of excisable goods is eligible for exemption under Notification 217/86. The Tribunal found that the equipment falls under the exclusion clause (1) of the explanation, denying the exemption. The decision in favor of the Commissioner (Appeals) was overturned, and the appeal by the department was allowed, setting aside the earlier order.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1109
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty and imposition of penalty.
2. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of tin plates without duty payment.
3. Discrepancies in accounting for processed tin plates, tin scrap, and tin solder.
4. Exemption limit for small scale units and the applicability in this case.
5. Evidence of purchase of raw materials and lack of proper accountal in statutory records.
6. Decision on remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty and penalty. The Revenue contended that the demand was not solely based on shortages of tin solder but also included shortages of other materials. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the shortage of tin solder was explained by the respondents as being kept at the Manager's residence, and this alone could not prove clandestine production. However, the Revenue argued that the presence of processed tin plates, tin scrap, and unaccounted raw materials in the factory raised suspicions. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to evaluate all evidence comprehensively.
2. The case involved allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of tin plates without duty payment. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, citing insufficient evidence to prove clandestine activities beyond the shortage of tin solder. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the accounting of processed tin plates, tin scrap, and tin solder, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of all evidence to establish the veracity of the allegations.
3. The discrepancies in the accounting of processed tin plates, tin scrap, and tin solder were crucial to the case. While the respondents explained the shortage of tin solder by stating it was kept at the Manager's residence, the Revenue highlighted other unexplained shortages and the accumulation of materials in the factory. The Tribunal noted the lack of proper accountal in statutory records and emphasized the importance of considering all evidence, including the purchase of raw materials, to determine the validity of the allegations.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) had mentioned the exemption limit for small scale units, suggesting that the clearance of tin containers fell within this limit. The Tribunal acknowledged this point but stressed the need to assess the entire evidence comprehensively before reaching a final decision on the applicability of the exemption in this case.
5. The case involved evidence of the purchase of raw materials, including tin sheets, plates, and scrap, from various sources. However, the lack of proper accounting for these materials in the statutory records raised suspicions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of addressing these discrepancies and evaluating all evidence to establish the facts regarding the alleged clandestine activities.
6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of all evidence on record to arrive at a well-founded conclusion regarding the alleged clandestine activities and duty evasion. The decision underscored the importance of thoroughly evaluating all aspects of the case before making a final determination.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1108
Issues:
Appeal against cancellation of Private Bonded Warehouse licence and penalty imposition under Sections 58 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the cancellation of the appellants' Private Bonded Warehouse licence and the imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The licence was issued for the storage of consumable articles without duty payment for subsequent duty-free supply to diplomats and privileged persons. A search conducted at the Chairman-cum-Managing Director's office and residence revealed foreign goods without lawful acquisition evidence, leading to seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation and penalty imposition. The licence was suspended due to violations, and another show cause notice was issued for licence cancellation and penalty imposition under Section 117.
The Commissioner, after hearing the appellants, cancelled the licence and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Section 117. Despite multiple adjournments at the appellants' counsel's request, no representation was made during the appeal hearing. The show cause notice was served on the appellants, and penalties were imposed on them and other individuals in a related case. The Tribunal upheld the penalties but reduced the amounts. The Tribunal's decision was binding, indicating the appellants' guilt under the Customs Act sections, justifying the licence cancellation and penalty imposition.
The appellants argued that the licence could not be cancelled without a one-month notice and that the goods seizure case was not finalized. However, the Tribunal's order confirmed the Commissioner's decision and reduced penalties, rendering these arguments legally unsustainable. The impugned order of the Commissioner was upheld as legally sound, with no illegality or infirmity found. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the licence cancellation and penalty imposition.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1107
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant, Smt. Archana Wadhwa, represented by Shri B.J. Mookherjee. The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed for issuing an invoice without pre-authentication, citing the two-year delay in penalty proceedings as unreasonable for a procedural irregularity that is curable. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1106
Issues:
1. Waiver of deposit of duty and penalty in three applications.
2. Classification of goods as parts of structures under specific tariff headings.
3. Bar on limitation for demand of duty.
4. Imposition of penalty on a related party for aiding in evasion of duty.
5. Prima facie case for waiver of deposit of penalty for a related party.
6. Prima facie case for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty based on limitation grounds.
7. Identification of goods as parts of ventilation and lighting systems.
8. Financial hardship plea and offer for partial deposit.
Waiver of Deposit of Duty and Penalty:
The judgment addresses three applications seeking waiver of deposit of duty and penalty. The duty amounts and penalties involved in each application are detailed. The arguments presented by both sides are considered, and a decision is made based on the merits of each case.
Classification of Goods:
The case involves the classification of goods manufactured by the applicant under specific tariff headings related to parts of structures made of aluminum or steel. The contention is whether the goods cleared by the applicant can be identified as parts of structures or if they only emerge as immovable property after assembly.
Limitation on Demand of Duty:
An issue raised concerns the limitation on the demand of duty, with the applicant arguing that the demand in question is barred by limitation. The timeline of events, including notifications and communications with the department, is examined to determine the applicability of the limitation period.
Imposition of Penalty on Related Party:
Penalties have been imposed on a related party for allegedly aiding in the evasion of duty. The judgment evaluates the grounds for imposing penalties and considers whether the related party had knowledge or intent to evade duty.
Prima Facie Case for Waiver - Related Party:
A prima facie case is found for waiving the deposit of penalty imposed on a related party. The judgment highlights the lack of evidence supporting the imposition of penalties on the related party and the absence of collusion in duty evasion.
Identification of Goods:
The judgment delves into the identification of goods as parts of ventilation and lighting systems. It analyzes the manufacturing process and assembly of the goods to determine if they can be classified as identifiable parts of specific systems.
Financial Hardship Plea:
The applicant pleads financial hardship, citing incurred losses in a specific financial year. The judgment considers the financial circumstances of the applicant and accepts an offer for partial deposit based on the presented financial data.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the various issues involved and the detailed examination conducted by the tribunal in reaching its decisions.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1105
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of Customs duty on spares imported by M/s. Chiramith and diverted.
2. Confiscation of 29 machines used for the domestic market.
3. Confiscation of raw materials seized at M/s. TIPL.
4. Alleged illegal export of spares to Switzerland.
5. Alleged diversion of raw materials to domestic market.
6. Penalties imposed under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
7. Appropriation of Rs. 15 lakhs paid as duty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Demand of Customs Duty on Spares:
The Commissioner found that M/s. Chiramith systematically diverted warehouse goods and used imported spares for domestic units M/s. TIPL and M/s. Chirag. However, the Tribunal noted contradictions in the findings, particularly that M/s. TIPL was incorporated only in April 1996 and commenced production in April 1997, making the alleged diversion prior to this period impossible. The Tribunal concluded that the findings were based on self-contradicting grounds and lacked substantive valid evidence. Therefore, the demand for duty and interest on the spares was set aside.
2. Confiscation of 29 Machines:
The Commissioner confiscated 29 machines under Section 111(o) for their impermissible use for domestic market production. However, the Tribunal found that the statements of Shri B. Ramachandra and Shri S.R. Damle did not corroborate the extensive use of all machines for domestic production. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner's findings were contradictory and lacked corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no specific restriction or ban on using EOU capital goods for DTA job work. The confiscation order was set aside due to non-compliance with Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, and lack of evidence.
3. Confiscation of Raw Materials Seized at M/s. TIPL:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of raw materials seized at M/s. TIPL, alleging systematic diversion. However, the Tribunal found contradictions in the Commissioner's findings and noted that the raw materials were sent to M/s. TIPL for subcontracting to meet export commitments. The Tribunal also found that the Commissioner's reliance on an overturned order by the Addl. DGFT was misplaced. The confiscation order was set aside due to non-application of mind and lack of evidence.
4. Alleged Illegal Export of Spares to Switzerland:
The Commissioner found that M/s. Chiramith illegally exported screws to Switzerland to avoid foreign exchange regulations. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's findings were based solely on statements without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found no material to support the alleged illegal export and concluded that the penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, were uncalled for and not upheld.
5. Alleged Diversion of Raw Materials to Domestic Market:
The Commissioner found that M/s. Chiramith diverted raw materials to M/s. TIPL and M/s. Chirag for domestic market production. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's findings were based on assumptions and lacked valid evidence. The Tribunal noted that the high percentage of scrap generated during production was supported by a certified report from the Regional Engineering College, Suratkal. The findings of diversion were set aside due to lack of technical verification and evidence.
6. Penalties Imposed under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal found that no case of penalty under Section 114 was established as there was no evidence of illegal export or diversion of goods. The penalties imposed under Sections 112 and 114 were set aside due to lack of evidence and improper determination of penalty amounts.
7. Appropriation of Rs. 15 Lakhs Paid as Duty:
The Tribunal found that the payment of Rs. 15 lakhs was not voluntary and was made under duress during investigations. The Tribunal ordered the refund of the amount, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries, which deemed such payments as made under protest.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, finding that the proceedings were based on assumptions, lacked corroborative evidence, and were contradictory. The demands for duty, confiscations, and penalties were all set aside, and the refund of Rs. 15 lakhs was ordered. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1103
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata confirmed a duty amount of Rs. 1,78,850 against the appellants for not debiting Modvat credit as per Rule 57CC. The penalty of Rs. 2,000 was imposed but later set aside due to lack of awareness about the rule. The appeal was disposed of with the duty confirmed and penalty waived.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1101
Issues:
1. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves the imposition of a personal penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, found with foreign currencies in his registered baggage at the airport, challenged the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant did not contest the confiscation of the currencies but disputed the personal penalty. The appellant claimed that the baggage did not belong to him and was registered under his ticket as a favor to another passenger with excess luggage. However, the appellant failed to provide details of this passenger or establish a connection, leading to the rejection of his claim by the adjudicating authority. The appellant's statement admitting ownership of the bag and explaining the smuggling method was considered valid as it was not retracted promptly, and no objections were raised during the initial legal proceedings.
The appellant further contended that the claim tag was not produced by him. The Commissioner observed that the claim tag was attached to the air-ticket, as evidenced by the search list and joint inspection report. The appellant's failure to provide evidence supporting his claim regarding the claim tag's absence weakened his argument. The request for cross-examination of seizing officers and airline staff was denied by the adjudicating authority, citing precedents and the lack of dispute regarding the baggage's registration against the appellant's ticket. The judgment emphasized that cross-examination is not a mandatory requirement for departmental adjudication, especially when crucial facts are not in dispute. The denial of cross-examination was upheld as it was deemed unnecessary due to the lack of contradiction regarding the baggage registration.
Ultimately, the appellate tribunal, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, ruling that the appellant's appeal lacked merit. The tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the ownership of the baggage and the absence of the claim tag, affirming the imposition of the personal penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiated claims and evidence in challenging penalties and the limited scope of cross-examination in cases where essential facts are undisputed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1097
Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods for Customs duty purposes.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Custom (Appeals) order upholding the Additional Commissioner's decision to value the imported goods at US $425 per kg CIF, instead of the declared value of US $278 per kg. The appellants imported 'Ketoconazole USP XXII' from English suppliers, Olympia Chemicals Ltd., London, which they sold at US $278 CIF. The Department contended that the goods were imported at US $425 per kg CIF. The appellants argued that they had received offers at lower rates from other suppliers, indicating the transaction value was genuine. The Additional Commissioner rejected the appellants' contentions, leading to the appeal.
The appellants contended that both lower authorities erred in rejecting the transaction value without proving the existence of extra commercial considerations. They cited comparable prices from other transactions, which the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address. The appellants also argued that the goods' origin and nature differed from the comparable goods, making the loading of value unjustified. The Department supported the lower authorities' reasoning and referred to specific sections of the Order-in-Original.
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the transaction was between a London seller and an Indian buyer for goods manufactured in Spain, sold at US $278 per kg CIF Bombay. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the quantity and origin of comparable goods cited by the appellants. Additionally, the invoice used to load the value had been rejected in a previous case by the Commissioner (Appeals). Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, the Tribunal emphasized that transaction value should be accepted unless specific grounds under Customs Valuation Rules are met. As the show cause notice lacked such grounds, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief as per the law.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1096
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original by the Collector of Central Excise regarding duty on a solvent extraction plant fabricated in the factory. The demand for duty was found to be time-barred as the appellants had disclosed all relevant information about the plant fabrication, and no suppression could be alleged. The appeal was allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1095
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, upheld the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)' decision to allow Modvat credit for various items. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal as the items were found to be used in the lining of furnace and not covered by the definition of capital goods. The appeal was dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1094
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the order that confirmed duty and imposed penalty on the appellant for setting up a paint shop. The appellant contended that they were entitled to exemption under Notification 67/95 for capital goods used within the factory of production. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported the appellant's claim, leading to the appeal being allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1093
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the application for stay of operation of its order disposing of the appeal and dismissing the reference application. There is no provision for appeal against the order dismissing the reference application. The department can apply to the High Court under Section 130(3) of the Act. The Tribunal has the power to stay its order pending the High Court's decision, but as no such application was filed, the application for stay was dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
