|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 419 Records
-
1997 (8) TMI 288 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Line tester allowed for benefit of Notification No. 73/90-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... learned JDR for the department intervened to say that the department has taken a ground that the line tester in question is not a permanent feature of the telephone exchange. 5. emsp We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe prima facie the decision of the Tribunal should be applicable in respect of the line tester but since it is urged that the line tester in question is of different kind for fitment to a different configuration and the technical aspects will be required to be gone into, we are of the view, in the interest of justice, that the matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration and decision after taking into consideration the decision of the Tribunal cited supra and after examining the technical aspects involved in the case of the equipment in question vis-a-vis the telephone exchange for which it is intended. 6. emsp The appeal of the Revenue is therefore allowed by remand in view of above terms.
-
1997 (8) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... ified under these headings. The item in question in the present case has to be used as an accessory in conjunction with other equipment for the control mehanism to function. If the same is to be used with any one of the equipment falling under Heading 90.29, this by virtue of chapter notes of HSN Chapter 90, the same can be classified under Heading 90.29. However, this does not appear to be the position in the present case. As it is, according to the learned Chartered Accountant, the item is to be used with equipment falling under Heading 85.01. If that be so, then classifying the item under Heading 90.29 may not be proper. However, since this aspect has not been gone into by the lower appellate authority we hold that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned CCE(A), for de novo consideration of the matter in the light of our observations above. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1997 (8) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... cannot be equated for the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A. He has therefore pleaded for upholding the order of learned lower appellate authority. 5. emsp I have considered the pleas made by both the sides. I observe that the benefit of ramming mass had been allowed as an input because of the manner in which it was used in the furnace and its participation in the manufacturing process. The refractory bricks form a part of the structure i.e. furnace and its use cannot be taken to be that of its relation or to manufacturing of the notified products in terms of definition of input as set out under Rule 57A. The items of plant and machinery or parts thereof are excluded from the purview of the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A in terms of the definition of inputs under the said rule. 6. emsp In that view of the matter, the appellants rsquo claim for the Modvat credit in respect of bricks prior to 1-3-1994 is not sustainable in law. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 285 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... but since it was not done, we cannot allow the scope of the enquiry to be enlarged now. The learned lower authority has given illustrations about the purchase of these goods in certain quantums, but in a case where large quantum of shortages are alleged, a detailed exercise with a chart appended to the order should have been done to support the conclusions that the SMR rsquo s did not reflect the production but also certain other figures of purchase made from outside. 6. emsp We in the above view of the matter hold that for this limited purpose a fresh exercise would have to be done and we, therefore, set aside the orders of the learned lower authority and remand the matter to be adjudicated afresh. We make it clear that if the respondents are able to establish the correlation, no further enquiry would be called for and the conclusions could be reached based on this exercise. 7. emsp The cross appeals being in the nature of comments is mis-conceived in law and are dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 284 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce which will come within the purview of Section 56(1)(ii) of the Act. I am in full agreement with the decision of the Kerala High Court in Itty v. Assistant Director 1992 (58) E.L.T. 172 (Ker.) (supra). Since the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent is a judgment rendered at the admission stage without issuing notice to the either side, the said decision has no binding force as held by the decision in Abdul Malick v. Collector of Dharmapuri (1968) I M.L.J. 9) (supra). Hence, I am of the opinion that the contravention of the provisions of Section 40 of the Act is not an offence which will fall within the purview of Section 56 of the Act. 26. emsp Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I allow these criminal original petitions and quash the proceedings pending in C.C. Nos. 60 of 1996 and 61 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.-I), Egmore and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.-II), Egmore, Madras-8.
-
1997 (8) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal - Factory ... ... ... ... ..... the department having been made into an annexure to the seizure panchnama. Learned Consultant also referred us to the last paragraph in the impugned order in which reference has been made to the foot note of a statement. It is his submission that word ldquo statement rdquo should have been a register rsquo showing the attendance of the workers in the Harness Section. On perusal of the paragraph it appears that the registers before the Additional Collector did give the number of workers in the individual section. In paragraph 8 of the order a claim was made before the Additional Collector the Civil Section employed 28-30 workers. Therefore, on perusal of the entirety of the order, it appears that the adjudicating authority had based his finding not only on the submissions made before him but also on perusal of documentary evidence. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 5. emsp On these observations, we up-hold the lower order and dismiss this appeal from Revenue.
-
1997 (8) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Duty paying documents issued by Public Sector Units ... ... ... ... ..... ation can issue such the gate passes and those gate pass can be taken for the purpose of Rule 56A(3) in respect of the Modvat scheme. The Trade Notice No. 26/86 specifically states that the procedure laid down in Trade Notice No. 24 would be followed even for Modvat. It is argued by the ld. Counsel that the documents furnished by the M.S.S.I.D.C. therefore should be accepted. Shri R.K. Talajia the ld. JDR would argue contra. The appellate authority has referred to Trade Notice No. 93/89, dated 16-11-1989, where it found that only in respect of certificate issued by SAIL and TISCO in respect of inputs can be granted such a facility and not by any Public Sector Undertaking. It is therefore, felt that the argument of the ld. Counsel cannot be accepted because in this case the documents have been obtained only from M.I.D.C. a Maharashtra Government Undertakings not the above said undertaking. Hence the orders passed by the lower authorities are confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 281 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d that the yarn should be a yarn in which acrylic or modacrylic staple fibre predominates by weight. In the premises as far as the 100 acrylic yarn is concerned the same obviously is not a blend of acrylic fibre and other fibres and therefore it will not fall within the scope of sub-heading 5504.32. But the learned lower authorities have no basis to classify it under 5504.90 in view of the fact that the next entry is 5504.39. In that view of the matter the right classification is under 5504.39 and not under 5504.90 as was held in the impugned order. In this view of the matter the order of the learned lower authorities classifying the product under 5504.90 is set aside and it is hereby ordered that the same is classifiable under 5504.39. The appeal is partially in the above terms. 5. emsp The facts in the present case being similar, following the ratio of our earlier order, we hold that the goods are classifiable under Heading 5504.39. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1997 (8) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... gment of the Tribunal it has been held that in terms of para 7 of the notification the goods which were manufactured in an SSI unit and affixed with brand name of another person who himself was not eligible for such benefit would be chargeable to normal rate of duty and the value of clearance of such goods would not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the aggregate value of the clearances under that notification. Therefore, during the entire period of show cause notice the value of clearances of Aurangabad factory could not be added to the value of the clearance of Ahmednagar Factory. This being a situation the demand for differential duty does not sustain as agreed to by both the sides. 7. emsp In the light of the above analysis, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Collector in so far as it relates to the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty on the assessees. No orders are made as to the penalties imposed upon the individual Directors.
-
1997 (8) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Declaration - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... pellants were themselves otherwise entitled for the exemption, are of the view that apart from the merits of the case, the demand itself having been raised beyond the statutory period of six months is time-barred since the ingredients justifying the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A are totally absent here. We also note that the Additional Collector has not quantified the extent of short levy involved and yet has gone on to impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Penalty is a measure of gravity of offence and has to bear a direct relationship to the extent of the gravity. Penalty, therefore, without quantifying the duty could not have been levied as such. Since we have held that the demand itself raised through the show cause notice dated 30-6-1988 for the period 11-4-1986 to March, 1987 is time barred, the penalty also in these circumstances is not sustainable and is, therefore, set aside. 5. emsp In view of this we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (8) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the same being so considered in the book textile terms definition rsquo published by the Textile Terms Definition Committee of the Manchester Textile Institute. No evidence has been brought on record to show that the goods of the type used could not be considered as man-made textile material by reason of the same falling under Heading 4007. It is only in the event of the rubber strand being vulcanised rubber thread and cord it would stand excluded from the purview of Section XI. No basis has been laid to show that the rubber strands would fall under Heading 4007. The learned lower authority rsquo s order holding the rubber strand being man-made textile material has to be therefore accepted. This strand by combination of nylon vulcanised yarn were knitted into the elastic tapes and the same therefore, can be taken to be falling under Tariff Heading 6001.12. In above view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s regards the goods being rags and chindies, we are not able to agree with the revenue that the goods could be re-classified under Tariff Heading 5905.20. However, since the assessees were already paying duty under Tariff Heading 5905.90 and this point was not in dispute as stated by the Collector in the appeal before him, the learned lower authority should have stopped by holding that no further duty is demandable in view of the basis on which they had paid the duty earlier. His finding that the goods are not excisable being in the nature of trimmings is also not based on any findings as to the nature of the goods. We, therefore, hold that this finding of the learned lower authority has to be set aside. 5. emsp Therefore, while we hold that no further duty is demandable, we at the same time are of the view that since the respondents had not disputed the classification under Tariff Heading 5905.90, the same stands. 6. emsp The appeal is, therefore, decided in the above terms.
-
1997 (8) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ood in the trade are such of those which are used for prospering oil or gas and may be even for water. In this background, the appellants rsquo goods do not pass the muster of the drilling pipes as understood in the technical literature. The appellants have not been able to show that their pipes are known in the trade as drilling pipes. Their claim to the assessment as claimed by them is only for the reason that since the tube is specially designed and intended for use with the drill, it should be treated as a drilling tube. We are afraid, just because the tube is used as a part of the drill bit, could not make it a drilling tube. Drilling tube though not defined in the Tariff has to be understood as the one which is recognised so by those who are engaged in the drilling operations. The Technical Dictionary makes the position clear in this regard. 7. emsp We, therefore, are of the view that the appellant rsquo s claim is not sustainable and we, therefore, dismiss the appeals.
-
1997 (8) TMI 275 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... also stated that the camera itself is allowed free of licence and in case if the camera is imported with the present lens, it would have been cleared under OGL. So also, it is seen that Entry No. 90021100 includes a specifically objective lense camera and is allowed free of licence under OGL. Accessory means a part, sub-assembly that contributes to the efficiency or effectiveness of the equipments. But in this case, it seen that the original lens is removed and this zoom lens is introduced therein and therefore it cannot be considered as accessory which increases the efficiency. On the contrary, it is used in the nature of a part of the camera itself. But the flash in a camera filters, lens etc. can be considered as accessories. These facts were taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. In these circumstances, no ground is made out for interfering with the above said orders and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r laboratory or household uses. The other sub-heading 6908.10 specifically covers Ceramic sinks and Wash basins of porcelain or china. Therefore, the sub-heading 6908.10 is specific for the appellants rsquo products. Therefore it has to be preferred to 6907.00 and 6909.90 which are not applicable. In view of the foregoing, the order of the Assistant Collector appears to be proper and correct. Thus, the demand raised therein also is sustainable. Hence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. rdquo 5. emsp We agree with findings since sub-heading 6908.10 specifically mentions these items and this specific entry prevails over the other entries. In the premises we dismiss this appeal as it is devoid of any merits. rsquo 4. emsp Following our earlier order, we hold that the findings of the learned lower authority classifying the ceramic sinks under sub-heading 6908.10 is legal and proper no case is made out for interference with the same. 5. emsp This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 273 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Iron and steel - Mould - Exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... became unusable would be considered as goods or was chargeable to duty is not relevant so far as the notification is concerned. The notification has been issued with a view to avoid the cascading effect of the duty. The purpose of which the notification is issued is that once the inputs has suffered duty under a Tariff Items under which the final product which is manufactured out of the same also falls, there should not be two point levy. And to ensure that the proviso has been added that once the inputs are clearly recognisable as non-duty paid, the benefit of notification would not be available. We have taken similar view in another case of Shri Ram Refrigerators. 5. emsp In view of the above discussion, we find no force in the plea of the appellants and, therefore, the appeals are dismissed. 6. emsp The cross appeal filed is in the nature of comments and the same is, therefore, not maintainable as a cross appeal in law and the same is, therefore, dismissed as misconceived.
-
1997 (8) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... nt pleaded that the use of these items as explained in the appeal memorandum does not bring the items within the ambit of definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q for Modvat purposes. He has pleaded as explained above the goods or the items cannot be taken to have used as spare parts or accessories and the items MS Angles etc. is also not covered under Rule 57Q. 4. emsp I have considered that pleas made by both the sides. I observe that the Modvat credit could be allowed only if the goods in question pass the master of the definition of the capital goods under Rule 57Q. As set out in the grounds of appeal, the items in question cannot be taken to be part or accessories of any one of the items which are set out as capital goods in terms of definition of capital goods as set out under Rule 57Q. The learned lower authority has rightly held that the Modvat would not be available and the benefit of Modvat credit has been rightly denied. 5. emsp The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Change in classification of fruit pulp ... ... ... ... ..... riod 20-3-1990 to 15-5-1990 on the basis of the waiver notification. Not being satisfied with these orders, the assessee has preferred these appeals. 2. emsp The Appellate Authority was undoubtedly justified in waiving the duty for the period prior to 19-3-1990 in terms of notification issued under Section 11-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The dispute raised in these appeals relates to the period prior to 16-5-1990, the date of the earlier of the two show cause notices. 3. emsp It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Trade Advice suggesting classification under Chapter 20 was in force till 17-4-1990 and therefore, the department should be bound by the earlier Trade Advice till the date of issue of the second Trade Advice. In our opinion, this submission is correct. 4. emsp Accordingly, we hold that the demand covered by the Show Cause Notice dated 7-9-1990 is confirmed only for the period from 17-4-1990 to 15-5-1990. The appeals are allowed as indicated above.
-
1997 (8) TMI 270 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... manufacture of stranded wires out of duty-paid steel wires and therefore, this process of manufacture was not one liable to excise duty in terms of law. The only controversy, as rightly pointed out by him, before the lower authorities was whether deemed credit is permissible to the appellants or not. We further agree with him and after going through the impugned order, it is confirmed that the appellants themselves declared that the steel wires obtained by them were manufactured out of duty-paid steel billets and rods and they were cleared in terms of Notification No. 208/83. This finding of the lower authority has not been controverted by the appellants in their Appeal Memo or before us. In the face of this finding on the Tribunal rsquo s Judgment in the case of Machine Builders itself, the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit of the deemed credit because the steel wire is clearly recognisable as non-duty paid on their own admission. Hence the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (8) TMI 269 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the Revenue submits that it is apparent from the documents supplied by the appellants themselves that it is a part of the Monitor Assembly. A Monitor Assembly, he submits, being a part of the computerised machine or automatic data processing machine, would fall under sub-heading 8473.30 and part of Monitor Assembly would also fall thereunder. He, therefore, submits that on merits also, the appellants do not have any case. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned SDR. He has rightly pointed out that this Part has to be used in the monitor assembly of the phototype-setting machine. It is admittedly a part of a Monitor Assembly, as per the appellants rsquo own documents. Therefore, it rightly falls under Tariff sub-heading 8473.30 because it has to be assessed as a part of Automatic Data Processing Machine. Hence this appeal is rejected.
............
|
