|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... -Q is not used in the manufacture of the final product but only for handling of material from one place to another which does not amount to use for producing or processing of finished goods. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajasthan Chemical Works case the handling of material in the course of manufacture has been held to be part of the manufacturing process and use of power for material handling work was held to constitute use of power in the manufacture of the concerned final product. On the above basis handling of material and shifting the goods in the course of manufacture of the product for which purpose the Mobile Crane is used would constitute part of manufacturing process. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants were eligible to get the benefit of Rule 57-Q in respect of the Mobile Crane used by them in their factory for handling of raw materials, semi finished goods etc. in the course of manufacture of their final products. The appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 315 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... t credit has been claimed are such that the use of which is a technical necessity for manufacture of the notified finished product and is also of a nature that these are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the notified finished product. In the case of manufacture of aerated waters, the aerated water have to be bottled in the glass bottles. These act as containers and the aerated water is marketed in those containers. The preparatory work done in respect of these containers by cleaning the same in our view is a technical requirement and without that hygienically acceptable drinks cannot emerge. Likewise, the purification of sugar syrup is also a technical necessity. Sugar syrup is used in the manufacture of aerated water and a clean sugar syrup is a pre-requisite for use in the said aerated water. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the learned lower authority has rightly allowed the benefit of the modvat credit. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... g, grilles, pipe etc. arising from the demolition of buildings useless farm machinery, obsolete, broken or damaged industrial machinery. We also take note of the fact that out of the total consignment of 36,739 kgs., the quantity of these articles is mere 2,500 kgs., only 6.8 . The fact that Customs Authorities themselves took the price of these items only as applicable to scrap would further reinforce the plea that the articles were genuine scrap not usable as such articles. Customs examination reports does not reveal that these articles are definitely usable as such as is required by the definition of scrap which excludes such articles from the category of scrap. Considering the facts and circumstances in totality, we are of the view that there is no justification for rejecting the claim of the appellants that these items which comprise only a small percentage of the total consignment were scrap. 6. emsp In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Ex parte adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... cation was in the form of reply to the show cause notice. When a communication is received and when it is alleged that it contained a reply to the show cause notice and receipt of such communication is not disputed, the basic presumption would be that the said communication contained the said reply. If it was not so, it was for the department to establish that the communication so received pertained to some another matter. The presumption in law has not been rebutted by the department and in that case it cannot be said that the appellants have not filed the reply. The reply is not considered by the authority below and hence, the orders passed cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority before whom the appellants shall submit the copy of the reply and the said adjudicating authority shall consider the same, grant a personal hearing and decide the issue according to law. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1996 (8) TMI 312 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Value of clearances - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... were declared as riot-hit units by the Karnataka Government during the Cauvery riots and in the peculiar facts and circumstances we reduce the penalty imposed on Shri Thiruvengadam to Rs. 6,000/- (six thousand). The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on M/s. Best Industries and M/s. Best Systems is reduced to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) each. At this juncture the learned Advocate made a plea that the duty amount may be allowed to be paid in instalments. He also pointed out that Rs. 75,000/- was paid in terms of the order passed in the stay petition and therefore what is required to be paid is the balance amount. We observe that the appellants can always approach the Collector in this regard and we are sure that the Collector will appreciate the difficulties of the appellants which the appellants should explain to him and the case may be considered sympathetically in the light of the evidences which may be produced before him. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Reference to a third-member - Manufacture - Motley process ... ... ... ... ..... 1. 8195 Since ld. Vice President while expressing opinion about the basic issue has yet remanded the matter for re-examination without clearly spelling out the direction with reference to which the officer has to adjudicate the case, I am of the view that the matter was required to be re-examined/remanded for de novo decision keeping in view the observations and findings of ld. Member (J). 22. 8195 In the result, the point of difference is answered as under 23. 8195 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter was required to be remanded for denovo adjudication keeping in view the observations, findings, and directions of ld. Member (J). Sd/- (Shiben K. Dhar) Member (J) FINAL ORDER 24. 8195 In view of the majority opinion, the matter is required to be remanded for de novo adjudication keeping in view the observations, findings and directions of learned Member (J). Dated 22-8-1996 New Delhi Sd/- 8195 (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Sd/- 8195 (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1996 (8) TMI 310 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants claim of bona fide belief. In such a view of the matter the contention that the demand is hit by limitation needs to be accepted and it is accordingly held that the demand being beyond six months is barred by limitation under Rule 57-I Central Excise Rules, 1944 and consequently the penalty is also set aside. The appeals are disposed of by holding that on merits the input graphite jig and fused quartzware are not eligible for Modvat credit as they fall under the excluded category of input under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and to this extent the orders of the lower authorities are upheld. The input photomask is eligible for Modvat credit and is not hit by the above said exclusion. Denial of Modvat by the lower authorities on this input is, therefore, unsustainable and it is held accordingly. For the reasons aforesaid, the demand for duty as contained in the Commissioner adjudication order is hit by limitation and the penalty is also consequently set aside.
-
1996 (8) TMI 309 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Board of Revenue functioning under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 can revise in exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction that part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is against the Revenue when the other part of this very order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessee is made subject-matter of an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal functioning under the same Act?
Held that:- We entirely concur with the view of the High Court that piecemeal scrutiny of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the dissatisfied assessee and partly by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers against other part of the same order in favour of the assessee is contra-indicated by the aforesaid relevant provisions of the Act. It must, therefore, be held that once the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner is made subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal by the assessee who is aggrieved by only a part of such order the Board of Revenue cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the remaining part of that very order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 308 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ed upon to implicate the Appellant herein without independent corroboration of the same in material particulars. We also observe that many of the facts pointed out by Mahesh Verma in the subsequent statement could also be verified by the Officers but it has not been done so. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Appellant herein cannot be found guilty merely on the basis of statement of Mahesh Verma. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order so far as the imposition of penalty on the Appellant is concerned and allow the Appeal of the Appellant herein. 5. emsp At this stage, learned Advocate points out that by virtue of the Stay Order passed by the Tribunal on 27-9-1994, the Appellant has already made a pre-deposit of Rs. 33,000/-. In view of our order of allowing the Appeal of the Appellant as above, the refund of Rs. 33,000/- to the Appellant forthwith is directed. 6. emsp The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 307 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r exclusively table fan nor exclusively carriage/cabin fan. Since the fans in dispute were specific item meriting the classification under sub-item No. 33(1)(a) or (b), therefore, for purpose of duty under this Notification, they will fall under sub-item (3)(b) or S. No. 2 sub-item (3)(b). In view of the above findings, I agree with the learned Vice President both on the classification as well as the exemption Notification No. 46/84. (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Dated 1-8-1996 The File is now sent to the Bench which referred the matter to me Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Dated 5-8-1996 FINAL ORDER 28. emsp In view of the majority opinion, for the purpose of determining the effective rate of duty, the goods would fall under S. No. 2 sub-item (3)(b) of Notification No. 46/84. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded for redetermination of duty liability accordingly. Sd/- emsp (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Sd- (S. K. Bhatnagar) Vice President Dated 8-8-1996
-
1996 (8) TMI 306 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... re the peculiar circumstance is that the product received is of the same category as is manufactured in the assessee rsquo s factory and what is being done is re-sizing the product. There is nothing in law to say that this could not be done and there is also no rule that this activity cannot allowed to be done. The provisions of rules in this regard should be so interpreted in the context of Modvat that while the purpose of grant of Modvat is advanced there is at the same time no danger to the revenue. In the present case the goods received back are notified and that the final product manufactured out of the same is also notified being the same product. There is no danger to the revenue if Modvat is allowed as the goods allowed clearance of re-sizing suffer duty. There could be no difficulty, in my view, in allowing the receipt of the goods as an input under law. I therefore hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is sustainable. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 305 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rinting paper into teleprinter rolls and teleprinter tapes is a process of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and would attract duty under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 17(2). We do not find any justification in interfering with the findings of the authority below on this point. It is thus seen that the teleprinter rolls and teleprinter tapes are definitely separate items than the printing and writing paper and are also known in the common trade parlance by the teleprinter rolls or teleprinter tapes and are sold as such. It is well known in the market as a distinguished commodity and this finding as entered in the impugned order is in accordance with law. Hence, they fall outside the purview of Notification Nos. 63/82 and 49/87, dated 28-2-1982 and 1-3-1987 respectively and the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of exemption as claimed by them. In this view of the matter, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 304 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ard the learned JDR for the Department. He has nothing specifically to put forth by way of a rejoinder. 6. emsp We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the items like felts, phosphor, bronze, stainless steel, wire cloth etc. have been used. The use of the same has to be considered as use in or in relation to the manufacture of the notified finished product under Rule 57A. In the present case the items in question are similarly used in the sense that these are used for polishing of the components i.e. in the formation of the parts in question and these are not component parts of paper machinery in the same sense as wire cloth and dandy cloth etc. We therefore hold that the ratio of the judgment cited by the learned Advocate would clearly apply to the facts and circumstances and the plea of the appellant therefore in regard to the Modvat credit has to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 303 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Appellate Tribunal - Reference to Larger Bench ... ... ... ... ..... the like used to facilitate mechanical operations, as distinguished from an appliance moved by and regulated by machinery. In our view the term tool rsquo would not cover wire as it is used. We observe the principles laid down by the Larger Bench in the case referred to supra will equally apply to the facts of this case. We therefore hold following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal and keeping in mind the instructions issued by the Board that the Modvat Credit would be available in respect of molybdenum wire as it is used we refrain the matter to the Larger Bench as the principles for grant of benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of the items which are used otherwise than apparatus, materials etc. are well laid out now in the Larger Bench decision referred to supra and any further reference to Larger Bench in this regard will only amount to duplication. In this view of the matter we therefore find no force in the plea of the Revenue and dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 302 - SUPREME COURT
Whether pillion seats for scooters, driver and passengers seats for auto-rickshaws and seats for tractors and jeeps as `latex foam sponge’ will be falling under Item 16-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Item 34-A?
Held that:- In so far as the period prior to 1-3-1982 is concerned, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in its reasoning. The seats were specifically moulded latex foam sponge for use in given vehicles. They could be used only for the purpose for which they were made, for particular scooters, auto-rickshaws, tractors and jeeps, and this functional aspect was of significance. The seats having been moulded for use as parts of these motor vehicles, the entry that more specifically applied was Tariff Item 34-A.
Subsequent to 1-3-1982, became the amended Tariff Item 16-A(1) included articles made of latex foam sponge, and that, as would appear from the record before us, was the entry that more specifically applied.
-
1996 (8) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... nd in the absence of specified period under Rule 57-I for raising the demand, and also in the absence of allegation of suppression, mis-representation, collusion or fraud, the Department was not justified in invoking the larger period. 2. emsp In view of the conflicting views of two High Courts, Tribunal is of the view that this matter is required to be referred to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly in terms of Section 35H of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the following question of law is referred to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India ldquo Whether Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules as it stood prior to amendment effected on 6-10-1988, is subject to the provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. OR Whether Rule 57A is independent of Section 11A of aforesaid and could be invoked for recovery of Modvat credit even covering the period beyond six months from the date of credit before 6-10-1988.
-
1996 (8) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import Licence - Advance Licence ... ... ... ... ..... earlier should be modified accordingly. 11. emsp In this view of the matter, the order dated 27th June, 1994 (Exhibit lsquo H rsquo ) directing the Petitioners to surrender the Original Advance Licence dated 14th September, 1993 on the face of it is illegal and it is set aside. Further, the Respondents are directed to endorse the said original Advance Licence dated 14th September, 1993 for its transferability and to revalidate it for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement on or before 26th August, 1996. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs in view of the assurance given by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that necessary endorsement would be made on or before 26th August, 1996. 12. emsp In this view of the matter, the Notice issued for contempt is also discharged. 13. emsp In view of the aforesaid order Notice of Motion No. 263 of 1995 would not survive and it stands rejected. 14. emsp Issuances of certified copy of this judgment is expedited.
-
1996 (8) TMI 299 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation of second-hand machinery ... ... ... ... ..... ith their principals or from the Korean suppliers of the machineries through their (governmental) agencies and if there was any evidence gathered to show that the price declared was not correct, they would have been fully justified in discarding this price and brought into reckoning alternative methods of valuation under the rules by applying the rules seriatum as provided for under the law. Without having brought on record any facts in regard to the element of under-valuation on the part of the appellants the authorities should not have therefore resorted to Rule 8 for valuation. We find that the burden of proof rests with the Department. In this present case we observe this burden has not been discharged. In the above view of the matter we hold that leased on the facts on record no case of under-valuation has been made out against the appellants and the appellants invoice value has to be accepted as assessable value. We therefore allow the appeals with consequential relief.
-
1996 (8) TMI 298 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty for Additional Duties - Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... he demand is raised. The figures appears to have been arrived at only on the electricity consumed during the relevant period, which for the reasons already stated earlier, cannot be accepted as the standard. 16. emsp Thus, the excess production of l 3,57,372 L. Mtrs. and 5,60,594 L. Mts. worked out for M/s. Padmanabh Silk Mills and M/s. Padmanabh Dyeing and Finishing Works, thus appear to have been worked out on the data which cannot be - considered on adequate and demand based on such inadequate data cannot be sustained and same require to be set aside. 17. emsp In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed and while setting aside the orders of confiscation and of imposition of personal penalties as also of the demand of duties in regard to alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of 13,57,372 L. Mtrs. for M/s. Padmanabh Silk Mills and of 5,60,594 L. Mts. for M/s. Padmanabh Dyeing and Finishing Works, rest of the orders are confirmed. Consequential reliefs to follow.
-
1996 (8) TMI 293 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Raw Naphtha - Demand - Differential duty - Fertilizer - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ircumstances of this case, the conditions of Notifications have been substantially complied with. 6. emsp In the result, we hold as under (a) emsp The appellants are eligible to the benefit of Notification 75/84 which provides for concessional rate of duty Rs. 5/- per KL on raw Naphtha in respect of Sl. No. 2, 3 and 4 of the table set out in Para 4 at page 4 of the order. (b) emsp The benefit of concessional rate of duty of Rs. 55/- per KL on raw Naphtha is available in respect of Sl. No. 1 of the same table. (c) emsp The appellants rsquo failure to obtain separate L-6 licence in terms of Notification 27/89 as amended has resulted in contravention of Rule 192 for which penalty is warranted however, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as set out in Para 5.3.1 and keeping in view of the Supreme Court judgment, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 4 lakhs. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
............
|
