|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 520 Records
-
2002 (11) TMI 652 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat - Penalty - Suppliers of inputs - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... by the assessee - that the scrap other than CRCA can be used in its furnace. There is however no contravention of law in the assessee having received and utilised scrap other than the CRCA scrap. That is a matter between it and the suppliers. The department rsquo s interest would arise only in a situation where scrap of whatever amount that the assessee received or shown not to be duty paid and supplied under documents showing its payment of duty on which the assessee took credit. We are not of the view that this requirement has been satisfied. In other words, the mere presence of non-duty paid scrap and duty paid scrap in the premises of the dealers who supplied material to the assessee, and that the fact that somewhere along the way the scrap lost its identity as CRCA cannot themselves prima facie justify that what was supplied was scrap on which duty was not paid. 6. emsp We, therefore, waive deposit of the penalties imposed on the other applicants and stay their recovery.
-
2002 (11) TMI 651 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Adjudication - Remand proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... he orders of the Tribunal. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the matter. When once the direction was given to the Commissioner, he ought to have followed the direction of the Tribunal and to give a clear finding whether valid notice was served on the partners of the erstwhile firm to raise the demand. No such finding is forthcoming. If he was aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal it was open to him to file an appeal against such order without passing some observation, which were uncalled-for as it was rightly pointed out by the appellants rsquo Counsel. In view of the overall facts and circumstances and in view of the infirmities in the impugned order, we have no alternative but to remand the matter once again to the Commissioner to examine the direction as indicated earlier by the Tribunal and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. All the connected issues are kept open. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2002 (11) TMI 650 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ty should be determined. In the present case with regard 242 bags no such offence have been committed. In this case documents had been prepared and statutory documents had been made ready except for debiting the entry in PLA were there was sufficient balance, therefore for such offence only Rule 226 should have been invoked. Imposition of penalty on this quantum of goods is not justified and not legal in the light of the judgment referred to before me. Hence the order is modified. However the quantum of mandatory penalty and the quantum liable to be paid on the seized 8 bags is sustained. The duty involved is Rs. 7,982/-. The Apex Court has held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. BHEL (supra) that mandatory penalty need not be equal to the extent of duty liability. Therefore taking into consideration the Apex Court judgment mandatory penalty under Section 11AC is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- only. The order is modified accordingly and the appeal is disposed off in this term.
-
2002 (11) TMI 649 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Suppression/Misdeclaration of facts ... ... ... ... ..... whether the goods cleared to Whirpool India Ltd. are used in the manufacture of refrigerator and if so whether they are to be classified under different heading. As mentioned earlier, the proposal in the show cause notice is based on the very same document filed by the assessee and as mentioned above. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee had not in any manner misdeclared the product or had suppressed any relevant fact which had led the department to believe that the classification was correctly held under Heading 7326.19 and 7616.10. We, therefore, hold that the Revenue has wrongly invoked the larger period of limitation in this case. 5. emsp Since we are inclined to allow the appeal on the ground of limitation we do not propose to go into the contentions raised by the appellant on the basis of the Board rsquo s Circular No. 6/86, dated 25-9-86 to the effect that its product cannot be treated as parts of refrigerator. We set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (11) TMI 648 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Entitled to benefit of Notification No. 75/84-C.E.
... ... ... ... ..... ourt in the case of Steel Authority of India has interpreted the expression ldquo intended for use. rdquo The Court has held that ldquo the exemption notification required proof that the raw naphtha was ldquo intended for use rdquo in the manufacture of fertilizer and not that the raw naphtha was used in the manufacture of fertilizer hellip hellip It does not appear to be correct to hold, as the Tribunal did in the first Order, that this meant that it was requisite that it should be proved that the raw naphtha had been actually used in the manufacture of fertilizer. In the context, what was required to be shown was that the raw naphtha was used for the purpose and with the intention of manufacturing fertilizer. rdquo Following the ratio of this judgment, we hold that the appellants have complied with the condition stipulated in the notification and they are eligible to get the furnace oil at concessional rate. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (11) TMI 647 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ve been attached to these returns would have shown that it had been cleared under relevant exemption notification. This is of course in addition to the fact that this argument is outside the scope of the notice which as we have noticed alleged suppression on the ground of absence of pharmacopoeial standards for roxithromycin. We have already recorded the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this regard and we find it to be acceptable. If out of the four products of which the exemption was claimed, three were indicated to be of pharmacopoeial standards, and there was no such indication for the fourth, it would be clear to anyone reading it that there was no claim made for the fourth product that it was of any pharmacopoeial standards. We therefore do not find sufficient basis for the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The notice therefore must be held to be barred by limitation. 6. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (11) TMI 646 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... o being classifiable under Heading No. 8414.80, by the Commissioner (Appeals). In my view, the view taken up by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly in consonance with the provisions of Rule 57Q, referred to above. 5. emsp The Modvat credit disallowed on fibre glass insulator and flexo board by the adjudicating authority, had been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and this part of the order has not been challenged by the Revenue. Similarly, on the capicitor starter, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit by reversing the order of the adjudicating authority in that regard, and the Revenue has not challenged this part of the order. 6. emsp Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the Modvat credit in respect of the above referred items is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such the impugned order is affirmed. As a result, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed being without any merit.
-
2002 (11) TMI 645 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... g C so that Carbon dioxide (one of the inputs for aerated water) could be kept in the dissolved state in the final product. If the temperature exceeds 4 deg C, the gas will bubble out as its solubility in water decreases with increase of temperature. The essentiality of the refrigeration system for the manufacture of the final product is thus indisputable. It has not been disputed by the lower appellate authority, either. I, therefore, hold that the compressor and other parts of the refrigeration system used in the appellants rsquo factory were eligible capital goods in terms of Clause (a) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q(1). The cited decision of the Tribunal in Watsol Organics (supra) appears to support the appellants rsquo case in relation to compressor and allied items. 9. emsp In the result, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to the impugned goods and the appeal is allowed. The miscellaneous application for amending the memo of appeal also stands allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 644 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Penalty - Interpretation of statutes - Exemption notification
-
2002 (11) TMI 643 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the amount referred to above. Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty, in doing so he cited certain case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order citing other case law. 3. emsp Shri Mehta, ld. Advocate for the appellants refers to Tribunal judgment in the case of Crop Health Products Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 376 (T). In the judgment the appellants were in identical circumstances and the invoices bore name of the loan licensee but not of the actual manufacturer. In that situation the Tribunal held that the omission of the name of the consignee and his address, though not a minor omission, should not disentitle the manufacturer from the benefit of Modvat credit so long as the goods had been received by the manufacturer. 4. emsp Since in this case the actual receipt of the goods is not disputed, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable and the appeal succeeds.
-
2002 (11) TMI 642 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Inputs, manufacture and supply of, for use in final products ... ... ... ... ..... re of seats in their factory for ultimate supply to Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL). The Larger Bench held that M/s. BSL could lawfully act as job-worker as well as raw material-supplier for purposes of Rule 57F. On a perusal of the facts of the Maruti Udyog case, I find that the ratio of this decision could be appositely applied to the instant case. 7. emsp In view of the above finding, I hold that the clearance of dyed yarn by the appellants without payment of duty to their customer during the period of dispute was quite in order, as they were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. It is also pertinent to note that if the clearance of final products by the appellants rsquo customer were also to be taken into account, the entire transaction would be Revenue neutral. The demand of duty and, consequently, the penalty are liable to be vacated. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2002 (11) TMI 641 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Evidence - Evidence, documentary evidence - Witness, cross-examination of ... ... ... ... ..... dical documents cannot be brushed aside merely by observing that indoor patient register, etc., were not produced. If the Revenue did not find the said documents acceptable, question in cross-examination should have been put to Dr. Mahapatra. Except the statements of co-accused, there is no other material against the appellant. The statements are not sufficient to hold that the appellant had dealt with the goods in any manner so as to attract imposition of penalty on him. It is not the case of the Revenue that gold was seized from the possession or he was carrying or dealing with the same. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Anant Samant, supra, that ldquo Customs Act does not provide for levy of penalty for making any attempt or for that matter does not provide for levy of penalty for preparations for making any violation rdquo . In view of this we hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 639 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by Department - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... tain whether the application was indeed received by the CEGAT or not. There is no explanation forthcoming in the application for condonation of delay for such glaring mistakes. 4. emsp The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents has merit that as per settled case law, the CEGAT has no power to condone the delay in filing the application by the department under Section 35E(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as held by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Azo Dye Chem. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 201 (Tribunal-LB). Following the said decision, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and consequently the main application filed beyond time-limit allowed, i.e. 3 months. 5. emsp Before parting with the order, we would like to mention that the Board may devise suitable procedure for ensuring that its directions to file an application as a result of review of orders passed by Commissioners are implemented within a prescribed time-limit of three months.
-
2002 (11) TMI 638 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Paper, printing and writing paper, Notification No. 48/89-C.E. - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... gh Court when similar issue was decided by the Madras High Court in party rsquo s favour. The Madras High Court has decided the issue against the party holding that grammage beyond 225 GSM will be lsquo board rsquo . The Larger Bench consisting of five members in the case of New India Industries Ltd. v. CC, Bombay (supra) also upheld the Revenue rsquo s contention that in terms of Notification No. 55/86 to consider the item as printing and writing paper, the grammage should not exceed 180 GSM. Therefore, the order passed by the AC is required to be confirmed by setting aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) which is not legal and proper. Further, the prayer for remand is not accepted as the goods have already been cleared and the test result available on record clearly discloses the GSM to be 300 and therefore, the issue is settled against the party and in favour of Revenue in terms of citations noted. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 636 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cotton yarn, subjected to beaming, warping, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. rdquo 5. emsp We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the ratio of this judgment should not apply to the facts before us. The notification, as we have noted, does require the yarn which is subjected to the various processes to have paid duty at the appropriate rate and this has not been done. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in his order that the stand that the department has taken communicated in press notes of the Principal Collector of Central Excise is that the exemption will only be available to composite mills who discharge duty at spindle stage and do not avail of the benefit of Rule 49A. Irrespective of that, the fact that the deferment of duty is available under Rule 49A to yarn manufactured and captively consumed by a weaving mill does not by itself justify departing from the ratio of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment. We are therefore unable to interfere. 6. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 620 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Undervaluation - Contemporaneous imports - Redemption fine - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... in Mulund is not known. However, the consignments under consideration in Kolkata and in this case both consist mainly of Hyundai and Samsung monitors of 14 rdquo . We therefore see no reason why the value of the consignment imported at Calcutta at 8 should not be accepted. Accordingly, we order that the appellant rsquo s consignments should be assessed to duty at US 8 per monitor. As to the fine, the Commissioner rsquo s order is entirely silent as to why, while apply the value decided for the goods imported at Mulund, he has not applied the redemption fine that was applied to them. In the light of this silence and there being no material offered before us to show that the redemption fine determined at 12.5 for the import at Mulund and 12 to that at Kolkata being incorrect, we think that a fine of 12 would be appropriate. The redemption fine is therefore reduced from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 1.10 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 25,000/- 6. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2002 (11) TMI 619 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM - Import licence ... ... ... ... ..... yes in the sensitive list by way of Notification did not affect the validity of the imports. 2. emsp On hearing both sides, we find that this issue already stands settled by the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Carpet House 1996 (88) E.L.T. 436 , wherein the duty free clearance was held to be permissible because the restriction in Import Policy as existing on the date of issue of licence was held to be relevant and it was held that subsequent amendment was not to govern the import. The item imported in that case also Supranol Green BW dyes. The Reference Application filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal rsquo s order in the Carpet House case was also dismissed by Order Nos. CI-4497-4498/WZB/1998, dated 4-12-98 2000 (126) E.L.T. 627 (T) . 3. emsp As the issue is covered in favour of the importers by the decision cited supra, we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
2002 (11) TMI 616 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand vis-a-vis refund - Payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... dvat credit amount. The notice issued to the appellant under Section 11A(1) of the Act demanded duty that is short-levied. If the appellant had not paid the amount of Rs. 95,086.02 earlier, it would have been entitled, after the confirmation of the demand by the Commissioner, to pay it out of the amount available in its Modvat account. The manufacturer is entitled to pay duty out of the Modvat account that is disposed. The manufacturer necessarily has to pay duty earlier short-paid or not paid out of the funds that are at its disposal when the demand is confirmed. If, consequently, the appellant could legally pay duty from its Modvat account for current clearances, there is no logical reason as to why it could not do so for clearances made a few months earlier. 6. emsp I agree that penalty could not be imposed both upon the partner as well as on the firm. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon Ram Todi is set aside. 7. emsp Appeal E/1532 allowed in part. Appeal E/1533 allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 614 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty under Section 11AC ... ... ... ... ..... 0 of duty amount be set aside. 2. emsp After hearing Shri A.K. Monda1, ld. SDR I find force in the appellant submissions, the provisions of Section 11AC provide for imposition of 100 penalty equivalent to duty amount confirmed. As such the original adjudicating authority could not have imposed penalty more than the duty confirmed against the appellant. Inasmuch as the order passed by the Tribunal upholds the entire the penalty quantum, I am of the view that there is a rectifiable mistake in the order. Accordingly I reduce the penalty amount imposed upon M/s. Sonex Chemicals under the provisions of Section 11AC from Rs. 1,74,218.88 (Rupees one lakh seventy-four thousand two hundred eighteen and eighty-eight paisa) to Rs. 1,64,219.38 (Rupees one lakh sixty-four thousand two hundred and nineteen and thirty-eight paisa). It is made clear that the penalty imposed under the provisions of Rule 226 is not being interfered with. Miscellaneous application is disposed of in above terms.
-
2002 (11) TMI 613 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
SSI exemption ... ... ... ... ..... he Counsel that the another party viz. M/s. Protech Appliances Pvt. Ltd. fairly conceded the appellant rsquo s better right over the brand name. He said that the another party, M/s. Protech Appliances Pvt. Ltd. had filed an application before the Trade Marks Authority for registration of the trade mark, but the application was withdrawn as can be seen from the letter dated 7th November, 2002. In view of this position, the appellants are entitled to SSI exemption. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Since the withdrawal of application by another party is subsequent to passing of the impugned order, we are of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. In the view we have taken the matter is remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
............
|
