|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 467 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 343 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification - Dutiability - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... entioned in Tariff Heading 28.51 as the proper classification. Heading 28.04 submits the learned Advocate relates to specific non-metal gases. The product manufactured by the appellant is not a specific gas as is borne out from the aforesaid composition. He, therefore, submits that 28.04 is not at all a proper Heading. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Advocate for the assessee. Removal of a small element, namely carbon dioxide from compressed air, as pointed out by the learned Advocate does not change the essential character of the air, i.e. normal air which is compressed by the assessee and given the name lsquo zero air rsquo . We hold the classification of lsquo zero air rsquo under Tariff Heading 28.51 and set aside the order of the lower authority to that extent. In other words, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. emsp Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
1997 (9) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machinery - “Components” covers spare parts also - Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 156/86-Cus.,
-
1997 (9) TMI 338 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... eu of damage caused to goods during transit depending on the nature and extent of the damage was allowable deduction. 4. emsp Shri K. Srivastava, SDR pointed out that in the case of Tungbhadra Industries the Tribunal remanded the case for verification of the nature and quantum of discount for damage caused to goods in transit and requested that similar direction may be given in this case. We do not think we can agree with the submission. If the Department desired any verification that could have been made either before the issue of show cause notice or the show cause notice could have required the appellant to establish this with reference to each consignment that was not done. It may not be possible at this distance of time to adduce evidence regarding each consignment cleared in 1986-87. We, therefore, hold that the deduction claimed in respect of discount on damages should be allowed. 5. For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (9) TMI 337 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... l remains to be examined whether the goods would fall under Chapter 85 i.e. parts of accumulators or would also fall under Heading 78.08. There is no discussion by the Collector in the impugned order regarding the elimination of the said two classifications viz. Heading 78.08 or Chapter 85. In the absence of any discussion by the adjudicating authority regarding elimination of these two classifications, classification under Heading 78.05 per se cannot be finally upheld. We are, therefore, of the view that the matter is fit for remand and the two alternative classifications viz. Heading 78.08 and Heading 85.07 under Chapter 85 are also required to be discussed by the adjudicating authority and eliminated before he decides on the classification under Heading 78.05. Consequently, after setting aside the impugned order, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the case de novo in the light of the aforesaid directions. 2.2 emsp Appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1997 (9) TMI 333 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... f the view that the goods obtained by the appellant under the relevant invoices are clearly covered by the declaration given by them vide their forwarding letter dated 13th August, 1992. It cannot be held, as held by the lower authorities that the aforesaid goods are not covered by their declaration under the said letter dated 13th August, 1992. Merely because sub-heading 7375.90 mentioned in the declaration for the inputs has not been mentioned or along with that sub-heading or Chapter, other Chapters have also been mentioned do not make any difference for the purpose of availment of the benefit so long as the description of the inputs actually obtained fall within the description of the inputs declared by them in their declaration under Rule 57G. This condition is definitely satisfied by the appellants in the present case in respect of the goods actually received by them. Hence, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1997 (9) TMI 332 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... the facilities of biological testing for evaluation of germicidal properties of disinfectant fluid was not available in the laboratory. We are of the opinion that the matters are fit for remand. Consequently, we remand the matters to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna inasmuch as it is not merely a question of classification which is involved but also a question of demand for a period longer than six months. In adjudicating the case in de novo proceedings, the Commissioner will be at liberty to seek opinion from Chemical Examiner or Chief Chemist, or any other expert which he may like on the basis of the records available with him and on the baisis of contemporary material supplied by the appellants. Appeals are, therefore, allowed by remand with direction to readjudicate in the above terms. Needless to say that the de novo proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
-
1997 (9) TMI 329 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... s in our view is not in accordance with the directions contained in the remand order, for all the abovesaid reasons. It is also seen that in para 10 of the order passed by the Tribunal a specific mention was made that the plea of limitation also should be dealt with by the adjudicating officer. No such finding is given in the de novo adjudication order. Therefore, the adjudicating officer has not carried out the directions given by the Tribunal in the remand order. 9. emsp In view of this, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly we set aside the same and remand the case back to the adjudicating officer for de novo adjudication of the same in the light of our observations and to deal with each point as stated above and then give a reasoned finding in this regard, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. It is needless to say that the appellants can rely on fresh evidences as per the earlier order of the Tribunal.
-
1997 (9) TMI 327 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Endorsed invoices ... ... ... ... ..... to the gate passes would be applicable to the invoices also till 30-6-1994. Inasmuch as prior to 1-4-1994, the gate passes which had been endorsed once were acceptable in terms of Notification 21/94 the invoices which were also therefore endorsed once could be likewise accepted. Here, the event taking of the Modvat credit was prior to 30-6-1994. Furthermore we find in the present case, the seller of the goods i.e. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd., had got the goods manufactured on job work basis from M/s. Terene Fibres Ltd., and had sent the goods in the original packing to the respondents and there is no averments to the contrary that this was not so. In this background, we hold that subject to the verification that in respect of the goods only one set of invoice was issued by M/s. Terene Fibres Ltd and M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., the respondents would be entitled to the Modvat credit. 6. emsp We, therefore, in view of our above observation, dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1997 (9) TMI 326 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Model number is same as that in the invoice. Therefore, the write-up given by the appellants before the authorities below is correlatable to the goods. The said write-up indicates that the flow meter is a turbine type and that this flow meter is turbine-type has been explained, according to the learned Advocate, in the technical literature of L.F. Adams referred to above. Nevertheless, we observe that the technical literature now produced by the appellants in the shape of technical write-up by L.F. Adams as mentioned above was not before the lower authorities. This is a new evidence and therefore, requires to be gone into by the authorities below, to come to a decision whether the goods under import would be classifiable under Tariff Item 90.28(4), as contended by the appellants. Consequently, we are of the view that the matter is fit for remand and we order accordingly. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand for de novo adjudication in the light of the aforesaid directions.
-
1997 (9) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... agistrate at Silvassa who has filed an Affidavit to that effect. The Respondents are registered dealer and also a sales depot for their own manufactures by the factory at Hyderabad. They are maintaining the prescribed modvat register in form RG-23D. The invoice issued by respondents are modvatable invoices and valid duty paying document. In such a situation, it will be a very reasonable interpretation, as has been given by the Commissioner (Appeals), to allow them the facility to take credit on the original invoice, after proper scrutiny by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Such an interpretation is called for as the Modvat credit facility is a beneficial legislation and its object of input duty relief to the manufacturers should not be defeated by highly technical and extremely strict interpretation of the wording of the rules governing Modvat. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (9) TMI 324 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... eturn in March 1987, has endorsed on the remarks of the RT 12 return proves that the data in the gate passes and RT 12 return was supplied to show the correct position that the duty payable is 12 and not 15 . By this time, it was too late to issue a notice for recovery of duty without invoking the extended period. The Collector held that thinking that the reference to the extended period was made with a view to overcoming this difficulty. Whatever be the reasons, the fact remains that the assessee had brought to the notice of the Department the fact that it paid duty at 12 and had not made any statement which could amount to defraud, wilful mis-statement or suppressed information. The factors cited by the Collector do not support the contention that the appellant had not paid duty on account of these factors, contained in the proviso to Section 11A. 6. emsp Appeal therefore succeeds on the question of limination is allowed. The penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside.
-
1997 (9) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... of reversal of Modvat credit on the wastage cleared as waste is fully covered by the provisions of Rule 57D(1) and hence the question of reversal does not arise. 14. emsp We also hold that granules obtained after recycling of the plastic waste which are used for further manufacture of BOPP films did not warrant reversal of Modvat credit in as much as they are used for further manufacture of BOPP films. 15. emsp The only point that remains, therefore, is reversal of the Modvat credit on the input contained in the recycled granules and cleared under Notification No. 53/88. We hold that these granules are not waste and are not covered by provisions of Rule 57D(1). Therefore, duty taken as credit on inputs contained in these granules obtained after recycling of plastic waste, which are cleared under Notification No. 53/88, shall have to be reversed. 16. emsp The impugned orders are, therefore, modified to the extent stated above and the seven appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 322 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Glassware ... ... ... ... ..... contention of Mr. Doiphode. In that case the product was a huge structure when compared to the product in the instant case which is very small. As regards this we find a decision against the assessee in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 238 where the Tribunal had held that in respect of erection of turbine and alteration at site, even though such items were heavy, they were fixed with platform, the Tribunal held that it was not embedded on earth and held against the assessee. So we cannot come to any prima facie view in respect of the argument made by both sides. Taking into account the totality of circumstances and financial hardship, we feel that ends of justice would be met if we order payment of Rs. 25 lakhs by the appellant within two months from today and if necessary, by instalments. On payment of same, there shall be waiver of payment of remaining sum demanded and order stay of recovery thereof. 4. emsp Compliance on 3rd November, 1997.
-
1997 (9) TMI 321 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Deemed credit - Demand - Limitation - Penalty not imposed ... ... ... ... ..... e 57-I cannot be invoked on the facts of this case. In this context it is relevant to note that in the impugned order the Commissioner himself has observed, ldquo since this is a case of difference of opinion by the assessee, I do not propose any penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 . 9. emsp In the result, the appeal is disposed of holding that inputs aluminium alloy ingots received from alloyers GEFL is clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and deemed credit thereon has rightly been denied. 10. emsp Regarding supplies from SRT, department to make enquiries to show inputs have been cleared after fulfilling the condition for exemption under Notification No. 180/88, and the case is remanded for the purpose. 11. emsp Duty demand to be recalculated after reducing the amount in show cause notice dated 21-8-1990 due to double inclusion of deemed credit. 12. emsp Duty demand is restricted to normal period of six months under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
-
1997 (9) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Registered dealer ... ... ... ... ..... r (Appeals) to grant the benefit. In terms of this definition a person who buys or sales excisable goods for manufacturing shall be treated as wholesale dealer. A manufacturer has issued a certificate certifying that M/s. M.G. Associates is one of their wholesale buyers. The word ldquo buyer rdquo does not suggest that they are not wholesale dealer, therefore, a restricted meaning to the term wholesaler buyer rsquo cannot be imposed as contended by the Revenue in this appeal. The term wholesale buyer rsquo as stated in the manufacturer rsquo s certificate has been correctly understood by the Commissioner (Appeals), to mean wholesale dealer rsquo in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the Bench does not see any infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, the grant of Modvat credit on the said invoices by the Commissioner is in order and there is no illegality. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal, hence the same is rejected.
-
1997 (9) TMI 319 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... it is connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more other units (ii) emsp it is specifically designed as part of such a system it must, in particular, unless it is a power supply unit, be able to accept or deliver data in a form (code or signals) which can be used by the system . Such units presented separately are also to be classified in Heading No. 84.71. Heading No. 84.71 does not cover machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function. Such machines are classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings. 5. emsp In the light of the above, we find no infirmity in the reasoning of the lower appellate authority, taking into consideration the technical opinion which has been recorded in Para 4. 6. emsp We, in the circumstances, hold that there is no merits in the plea of the appellant and dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (9) TMI 318 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... od incorporated and out of that only certain range of goods were to be considered as capital goods for Modvat purposes. By issue of Notification 14/96 so far as the generating sets are concerned, what happened was that instead of the limited range of products of Heading 85.02 initially falling under Rule 57Q all the generating sets falling under this heading became eligible for Modvat credit. In this background Notification 14/96 could not be taken to be clarificatory in nature, so far as the question of availability of Modvat credit in respect of generating sets is concerned. The decision of the Tribunal cited supra therefore is distinguishable in the facts of this case. When the definition under Rule 57Q at the relevant time did not cover generating sets of 75 KVA and less, the question of allowing Modvat credit for generating sets of 25 KVA rating does not arise. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Revenue rsquo s appeal has to be allowed and we order accordingly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 317 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation of car ... ... ... ... ..... . If the affidavit is found to be contrary to the facts it has to be stated that it is a false affidavit and there is a misdeclaration under the Customs Act, 1962 and when the misdeclaration is found by the authorities, the confiscation of the car under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is in order. However, there is an extenuating circumstance in this case in view of the fact that there is an order in favour of the appellant relaxing the condition of the said public notice. This relaxation was given by the competent authority after hearing the appellant. In this circumstances, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances involved in this case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be served if the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 1.25 lacs (Rupees One lakh and twenty five thousand) and the penalty to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand) and we order accordingly. But for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... equested the case to be decided on merits. 2. emsp I have heard ld. DR. On a perusal of the grounds of appeal, I notice that the appellants had not produced the said gate pass under which the Modvat had been taken. They have not produced proof of duty paying nature of the inputs. They have also not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim that the inputs had suffered duty and that Modvat had been rightly taken by them. There is no supporting documents. A certificate issued by Supdt. of Customs and Central Excise indicates that the goods cleared by M/s. Arihant Ship Breakers has suffered duty. However, this document has not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has expressed doubt about its genuineness. The appellants have not explained their case. The appellant rsquo s case has not been substantiated and they have not availed the personal hearing granted to them. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as unsubstantiated under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
-
1997 (9) TMI 315 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... te that these are composite type of tool having abrasive layer over the steel form. According to explanatory notes Heading 82.07 includes tools with a base metal working part fitted or covered with abrasive material provided these tools have cutting teeth, flutes, grooves etc. which retain their identity and function even after the application of abrasive. The sample of the subject goods produced indicates that it is made of base metal with grooves rsquo coated with abrasive material i.e. diamond. Hence the impugned goods are not classifiable under Heading 68.04 but under Heading 82.07 only. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions as well as the appeal grounds. We have also perused the finding of the learned Collector (Appeals). Since the Collector (Appeals) finding is based on the catalogue as well as the explanatory notes to HSN, we agree with the reasonings in the impugned order and no grounds are made out to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
............
|
