|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 473 Records
-
2000 (1) TMI 611 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... or whose order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the demand was also raised for the period from 1-4-94. The appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing No. E/231/96-C which was disposed of vide Final Order No. 408/97-C by setting aside the order on classification and remanding the matter to the lower authorities for re-verification on the classification and applicability of exemption Notification. In these circumstances, when all facts were known to the Department, it cannot be alleged that the appellants had suppressed or misdeclared any material facts with intention to wrongly avail the benefit of exemption from duty resulting in evasion of payment of duty. 4. emsp In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted in the present case. 5. emsp In the result, we set aside the demand as time barred and also set aside the penalty and allow the appeal on the ground of limitation.
-
2000 (1) TMI 610 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... onsideration of these submissions and documents, we find that in any case, the appellants have already sold 70 of the goods imported in the market as on 31-3-98. The latest position is not known on record. We also find that therefore the quantum of margin of profit of the company has no nexus with margin of profit to be calculated on the goods imported. As against this, there is no further evidence before us which compels us to consider any further reduction of the redemption fine. The question of release order being issued after the show cause notice etc., must have already been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) at the first appellate stage which also led to a substantial reduction of the redemption fine to the extent of about 70 . In view of the fact that no further material evidence regarding market price and therefore the margin of profit etc. is on record before us, we do not find any grounds to upset the order-in-appeal impugned. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 609 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ble in law. I also observe that in Escorts JCB v. C.C.E. New Delhi (supra), the Tribunal has taken the view that the limit fixed under Section 11AC was the maximum limit and it was not mandatory that in all cases the maximum amount should be imposed as penalty and the authority concerned has the discretion to impose a lesser penalty. In Mukha Mal Gokal Chand v. C.C.E. (supra), the Tribunal had also held that a show cause notice is not an empty formality. Before the penalty is imposed, the assessee had a right to be informed of the grounds on which the penalty is proposed and thereafter the assessee had to be given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing against the proposed imposition of penalty. 7. emsp Having regard to the case law referred to above, I am of the view that the impugned order suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice and will not sustain. Accordingly the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (1) TMI 608 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... . These glass neck tubes removed were for the broken glass necks when the process of manufacture on the shells attached with tubes were undertaken to manufacture picture tubes. 7. emsp The ld. Counsel had submitted that in any case the appellants were eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit and there could be no ground for them to evade payment of duty at their Bhiwadi Unit. He has also submitted that the glass neck tubes had no other use than in the manufacture of picture tubes and there could be no outside sale of these tubes. 8. emsp Taking into account the submissions of both the sides and the facts and circumstances of the case while confirming that part of the order, which relates to the demand of duty, we reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Subject to this reduction in the amount of penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), the appeal is otherwise rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 577 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of goods used for concealing smuggled goods - Penalty - Loading of smuggled goods
-
2000 (1) TMI 576 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... ental Representative and was given a copy, indicates that the letters of hearing were sent to the factory address of the appellant in August, September, October and December, 1998. The letter does not indicate when the appeal itself was served. In the light of the fact that the appellant before us had sold its factory at Ankhi village in January, 1998. The contention that neither the application nor the notice of hearing had been served, therefore, has to accepted. The fact that Commissioner (Appeals) did not know the change in address of the appellant is irrelevant. The appellant has no duty to inform the Commissioner (Appeals) of the change in address. It did not know that an application was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). The order was therefore, passed in contravention of principles of natural justice. 3. emsp Accordingly, we allow the appeal set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the application before him in accordance with law.
-
2000 (1) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT
Prosecution - Delegation of power ... ... ... ... ..... t is difficult to accept the submission. The power of granting consent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in our view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate. 6. emsp The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. AIR 1969 SC 483 is also of some relevance. This Court said that where, by virtue of a notification under Section 20 of the Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers under Section 29 to a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate was not competent to requisition property under Section 29 simply because he had been invested with all powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2). 7. emsp The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 562 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication and re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... that the Commissioner was wrong in making the above order. 6. emsp We find this statement to be corrected. The earlier order having ceased to exist, it was mandatory for the Commissioner to have made an order specifying the duties being confirmed and/or penalties being imposed. The manner in which he has framed his conclusion, cannot become an order in adjudication. On this technical point alone the order is liable to be set aside. 7. emsp We do so, allow these appeals and remit the proceedings once again back to the ld. Commissioner. He shall invite the assessees to state their case before him. In his deliberations he will limit himself to the directions made by the Tribunal in the earlier order in deciding the issue before him. From the proceedings, we find that the ld. Counsel for the appellants also did not make any attempt to show that the forgings were received from the market. He ought to do so in the de novo proceedings. 7. emsp The appeals are allowed in these terms.
-
2000 (1) TMI 549 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... for machines or for mechanical appliances. As cutting blades were specifically mentioned in Heading No. 82.08, we agree with the Revenue that these three type of blades were not classifiable under Heading No. 82.02 which covered hand saws and blades for saws of all kinds. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, has referred to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes wherein it has been explained that blades for saws of all kinds were for hand saws and for machines. As the cutting blades which are in dispute were not usable with the saws, we consider that their classification under Heading No. 82.02 was not appropriate. After taking into account the product description and the description in the Tariff, we agree with the Revenue that these three types of blades were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 82.08 of the Tariff. The impugned Order-in-Appeal is modified to this extent. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 548 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Remand - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... tification No. 281/86 exempts all excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in the said factory for repair or maintenance of machinery installed therein, from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The lower authority did not have the opportunity to examine the availability of the said Notification to the impugned goods as the Appellants had not claimed the exemption under the Notification. Further, Notification No. 217/86 (later 67/95) also exempts specified excisable goods used captively in or in relation to the manufacture of final products subject to certain exceptions. I, therefore, remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to consider whether the impugned goods are eligible to exemption under the Notification Nos. 281/86 and 217/86 (subsequently 67/95) and pass order afresh as per law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellants. The Appeal is, thus, allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (1) TMI 547 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he sides. We find that in the case of L.M.L. Ltd. supra the Apex Court has held that the off cuts would clearly answer to the expression lsquo scrap rsquo contained in Tariff Item 72.10. The Tribunal, following the ratio of the decision, ordered, in the Appellants own case, vide final order dated 6-1-1999 in Appeal NDE/A 2663/92-B, that the product in dispute is required to discharge duty as off cuts under Heading 72.10 and is not waste and scrap as claimed by the Appellants. rdquo Following the ratio of both these decision we hold that the product in question is classifiable under Heading 72.10 of CETA and duty is to be discharged accordingly. If any amount of duty becomes refundable, the same has to be refunded to the Appellants in accordance with law and after considering the applicability of doctorine of unjust enrichment as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industires Ltd., 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
-
2000 (1) TMI 532 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ertificate of origin as well as packing list. No material has been brought on record by the appellants to show that product is single thermoplastic material. The offcuts of sheets certainly cannot be material in primary form and accordingly Note 7 to Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act is not applicable. We also observe that the adjudicating authority had examined the samples of the product in question and he gave his clear finding that the goods were not covered under Note 6 to Chapter 39 and accordingly it was not treated as goods in primary form. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and do not interfere with the classification of the product as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. However, we agree with the learned Advocate that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed are on the higher side and accordingly we reduce redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- and penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2000 (1) TMI 531 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ab and Haryana is as here-under - ldquo Whether Modvat credit is admissible under Rule 57A of C.E. Rules, 1944 on wiremesh and felts used as parts of paper making machines/machinery and not at all as inputs as defined under Rule 57A ibid. rdquo 6. emsp On a perusal of the case law cited, coupled with the grounds of application, I am convinced that the above question of law already stands referred from the case of Union Carbide India Limited (supra) to the jurisdictional High Court. It was the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the said case of Union Carbide India Limited that was followed by the lower appellate authority and, later on, by the Tribunal. Having regard to these facts, I find no reason to reject the present application. The application is accordingly allowed. Registry shall take appropriate follow-up action in the matter to ensure that the above question of law is referred to Hon rsquo ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act.
-
2000 (1) TMI 525 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... hority regarding the nature of the lsquo bought out item rsquo . In fact, as regards lsquo ruggedisation rsquo the learned DR fairly conceded that this was not a physical goods, but only certain charges for an activity, this would indicate, that no mind has been applied by the lower authorities, as regards the essential or auxillary/accessory nature of these lsquo bought out items rsquo . If the item is an auxillary or an accessory, not essential for the final product, then its value, to our mind, cannot be added. However this finding of fact has to be arrived at, for this purpose, since the matter is already in remand before the Assistant Collector, we have no hesitation to allow this appeal, remand the matter and direct the Assistant Collector to determine, whether their values could be added or deductions allowed. 5. emsp For this purpose, the appeal is allowed as remand for re-determination, after following the principle of natural justice. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 521 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... (T) wherein the Tribunal held that the contention that capital goods must have direct involvement with the final products being produced is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Copper Corporation case 1965 (16) STC 25 and J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. 1997 (91) E.L.T. 34 (S.C.). Reference has also been made to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lupin Laboratories v. C.C.E., Indore reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 370 (T) wherein Tribunal held that pipe fittings, electric cables etc. are eligible for Modvat credit. From the above decisions, it is clear that according to law laid down by the Supreme Court and followed by the CEGAT in the case of Jawahar Mills case, direct participation of the capital goods in production is not required for eligibility to the Modvat credit. Accordingly, there is merit in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the same is therefore confirmed and appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
-
2000 (1) TMI 520 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... er is covered by the aforesaid Tribunal decision. The matter has now been finally settled by the Supreme Court decision in West Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) 2000 (88) ECR 544 (SC). We accordingly set aside the impugned order in appeal to that extent. 5. emsp The adjudicating authority had imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The value of the goods confiscated was Rs. 4,54,238.50. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has not gone into the merit of the quantum of the redemption fine. While his observation that no redemption fine could be imposed, is set aside we remand this matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) only on this limited issue of redemption fine, to look into the quantum of redemption fine after giving an opportunity to the respondents to present their case and then pass a speaking appealable order as per law. 6. emsp Thus on this limited question, the appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2000 (1) TMI 519 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... generating set was brought into existence in their premises will not make them the manufacturer unless the Revenue is able to establish that M/s. Electro Control Device were their hired labour. No such evidence has been brought on record to prove this aspect. We observe that Collector has held the appellants as manufacturer as all the manufacturing activities were carried out in the licence premises of the appellants. As it has not been rebutted by the Revenue that the generating set was brought into existence by M/s. Electro Control Device, duty cannot be charged from them. Accordingly, no penalty would also be imposable on them. 7. emsp We, accordingly, held that the diesel generating set is excisable goods classifiable under Heading No. 85.02 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. However demand of excise duty is not sustainable against the appellants and accordingly, we set aside the demand of duty and penalty. 8. emsp The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
2000 (1) TMI 518 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... Meerut reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 339 (T) that if an item is otherwise covered by Modvat scheme its eligibility could be considered under appropriate rules by concerned authority even if declaration is made under incorrect rule (Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944). They have also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 761. 4. emsp From the above discussions it is seen that the claim relating to the Welding electrodes remains decided against the assessee in the case of Vivek Alloys Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the Appeal of the Revenue succeeds. On issue with regard to eligibility of foundry chemicals, the decisions of the Tribunal are in favour of the assessee and the credit is not to be denied merely because of the same was claimed under the wrong rules. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue on this score has to be rejected. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.
-
2000 (1) TMI 517 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat credit on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... racy. The fact that it gives the weight with more precision than a weighbridge can be no reason for denying capital goods credit in respect of it. This view is supported by the decisions quoted above. In the first decision, a learned Single Member of this Tribunal took the view that a weighing machine does satisfy the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. In the second decision cited, a Bench of two members of this Tribunal came to the conclusion that weighing machine plays a necessary part in manufacture and marketing the goods and it is a necessary capital equipment. 5. emsp I am in respectful agreement with these observations made by this Tribunal in the decisions referred to above. Consequently, I hold that the authorities below were not justified in denying capital goods credit in respect of the electronic weighing machine imported by the appellant. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed. Orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority are set aside.
-
2000 (1) TMI 516 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Eligible for exemption under Notification No. 160/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... switching electrical circuits. ISI standards have different specifications for switches and relays. Although relays and switches perform the function of making or breaking electrical circuits, that does not make them one and the same item. In the case of C.C.E. v. M/s. L and T Ltd. reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 717 , the Tribunal has held that the benefit of exemption under Notification 160/86 (same notification as is involved in the present appeal) is available to contractors which are different commercial commodity from switches although both are used for making or breaking electrical circuits. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon this decision to hold that relays are distinct and different from switches. The learned DR has not been able to adduce convincing argument for dislodging the findings of the lower Appellate authority which we concur with. 3. emsp In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. The Cross objection is disposed of accordingly.
............
|
