|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 438 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 454
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of weigh bridges installed outside the factory premises for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.
2. Definition and scope of the term "factory" under the Central Excise Act.
3. Distinction between Rule 57A and Rule 57Q regarding Modvat credit eligibility.
4. Applicability of judicial precedents to the definition of "factory" and the process of manufacture.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility of Weigh Bridges Installed Outside the Factory Premises for Modvat Credit Under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules:
The appellants, manufacturers of V.P. Sugar and molasses, claimed Modvat credit on weigh bridges installed at cane purchase centers outside the factory premises. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the credit was irregular because the weigh bridges were not used within the factory premises. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), but the penalty was set aside as it was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.
2. Definition and Scope of the Term "Factory" Under the Central Excise Act:
The appellants argued that the cane purchase centers, where the weigh bridges were installed, should be considered part of the factory as they were integral to the manufacturing process. They cited judicial precedents to support their claim. However, the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the cane purchase centers were not covered by any certificate of registration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules and were situated outside the registered factory premises. Therefore, the weigh bridges installed there were not eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.
3. Distinction Between Rule 57A and Rule 57Q Regarding Modvat Credit Eligibility:
The learned DR emphasized the difference between Rules 57A and 57Q, noting that while Rule 57A allows credit for inputs used in or in relation to the manufacturing process, Rule 57Q provides credit only for capital goods used in the manufacture of finished products. The weigh bridges, being used outside the factory premises, did not meet the criteria under Rule 57Q.
4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents to the Definition of "Factory" and the Process of Manufacture:
The appellants relied on the Patna High Court's decision in Rameswar Jute Mills Ltd. and the Tribunal's decision in Cothas K. Prakash, arguing that the cane purchase centers should be considered part of the factory. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that the definition of "factory" under the Central Excise Act was different and that the weighment of sugarcane was an activity anterior to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal also referenced the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. case, but found it inapplicable as it pertained to Rule 57A, not 57Q.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the weigh bridges were not used in the manufacture of sugar within the factory premises and thus were not eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
-
1999 (12) TMI 453
Issues:
- Modvat credit eligibility for handling equipment like padestrian staker, Fork Lift Truck, and Hydraulic Pellet Truck.
- Exclusion of Battery Charger and Surface Grinder from Modvat credit.
- Interpretation of whether handling equipment qualifies as capital goods in the manufacturing process.
Modvat Credit Eligibility for Handling Equipment:
The appeal addressed the eligibility of Modvat credit for handling equipment like padestrian staker, Fork Lift Truck, and Hydraulic Pellet Truck used in the manufacturing process. The Commissioner allowed the credit for these items based on their usage in handling raw materials, considering them as capital goods. The appellant sought a reversal of this decision, citing a pending reference application. The Tribunal noted the consistent view in various judgments, including the application of the principle established in the Rajasthan State Chemical Works case. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that handling equipment used in the manufacturing process qualifies for Modvat credit.
Exclusion of Battery Charger and Surface Grinder:
The judgment also highlighted the exclusion of the Battery Charger and Surface Grinder from Modvat credit eligibility. The Commissioner did not grant benefits for the Battery Charger, which was not appealed by the assessee. Similarly, the Surface Grinder, used for maintenance and sharpening of blades, was deemed ineligible for Modvat credit. The respondents did not challenge these exclusions, and the Tribunal did not address these items in the appeal.
Interpretation of Handling Equipment as Capital Goods:
The Advocate for the respondents argued that handling equipment, like the items in question, should be considered as part of the manufacturing process based on established legal precedents. Citing judgments such as J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. and Century Cements Ltd., the Advocate emphasized that handling raw materials is integral to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal concurred with this interpretation, referencing the Rajasthan State Chemical Works case and the consistent application of this principle in various judgments. The Tribunal distinguished the Velathal Spinning Mills Ltd. case cited by the Revenue, affirming that handling equipment qualifies as capital goods in the manufacturing process. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the established legal principles and precedents.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues surrounding Modvat credit eligibility for handling equipment, the exclusion of specific items, and the interpretation of handling equipment as capital goods in the manufacturing process.
-
1999 (12) TMI 452
Issues involved:
Classification of a door manufactured by the Respondents as a flush door under sub-heading 4410.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA) or as a door of wood under sub-heading 4410.19 of the Tariff.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Argument by the Appellant (Revenue):
The Appellant argued that the door manufactured by the Respondents should be classified as a flush door under sub-heading 4410.11 of CETA. They contended that the wooden structure/frame is concealed under plywood panels, making it a flush door. Even though the door had decorative PVC skin designs, it did not change the basic character of a flush door. The manufacturing process of gluing plywood panels on both sides left no doubt that the product was a flush door.
2. Argument by the Respondents:
The Respondents argued that the impugned product did not qualify as a flush door under sub-heading 4410.11 of CETA. They emphasized that a flush door should have plain faces covering and concealing its structure, which was not the case with their product due to protrusions and depressions caused by the PVC skin. They cited industry standards and literature to support their claim, stating that the impugned product did not fit the definition of a flush door.
3. Judgment and Analysis:
After considering both arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process and industry standards. They noted that the impugned product closely resembled a flush door as described in the Book "Building Construction" by Ghosh & Verma, with the exception of PVC skins glued to the plywood. The Tribunal observed that the Respondents' product could not be classified under the types of doors mentioned in the book, confirming that it aligned more with the characteristics of a flush door. Therefore, the Tribunal classified the product as a flush door falling under sub-heading 4410.11 of CETA, ruling in favor of the Revenue.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the classification of the door manufactured by the Respondents, emphasizing the key characteristics of a flush door and how the product aligned with industry standards and manufacturing processes. The decision highlighted the importance of industry definitions and common trade understanding in determining the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
-
1999 (12) TMI 451
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved a case regarding duty on Hydrochloric acid and Caustic soda converted into steam. The duty was demanded by denying a notification that exempts goods consumed in the factory for manufacturing final products. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 1.5 lakh within two months and waived the remaining duty and penalty.
-
1999 (12) TMI 450
Issues:
1. Recovery of duty on imported goods under Notification 203/92.
2. Availability of bills of entry related to imported goods.
3. Verification of importer status and Modvat credit evidence.
Issue 1: Recovery of duty on imported goods under Notification 203/92
The appellant faced a notice proposing duty recovery on polypropylene chips imported under two bills of entry, citing ineligibility for duty-free importation due to availing Modvat credit on goods manufactured for export. The appellant contended not importing the goods but exporting polycarbonate mats obtained from others. The Commissioner, however, deemed the appellant as the importer, confirmed the duty demand based on credit taken on exported goods.
Issue 2: Availability of bills of entry related to imported goods
During the stay application hearing, the Departmental Representative failed to produce copies of bills of entry mentioned in the notice and adjudicating order. This raised concerns as bills of entry are crucial import documents, and their absence was deemed serious. The Tribunal granted the department an opportunity to verify the situation, emphasizing the significance of the bill of entry's presence for the appeal's outcome.
Issue 3: Verification of importer status and Modvat credit evidence
The Tribunal highlighted the definition of an importer as per Section 26(2), emphasizing the responsibility of the person bringing goods into India. It was clarified that even if goods were kept in a bonded warehouse post-importation, the entity clearing them from the warehouse would be considered the importer. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the Commissioner directed to ascertain the appellant's importer status, provide evidence of Modvat credit, and ensure due process based on the evidence's availability within a specified timeframe.
This judgment delves into the complexities of duty recovery on imported goods, emphasizing the need for accurate documentation and evidence to determine importer status and eligibility for duty benefits. The Tribunal's meticulous scrutiny of the case underscores the importance of procedural compliance and evidentiary support in customs matters. The decision showcases a commitment to fair adjudication, ensuring that parties are given opportunities to present evidence and address discrepancies in the administrative process.
-
1999 (12) TMI 449
The judgment involved a dispute regarding Modvat credit for strips received by the appellants as inputs, different from the declared M.S. Hoops. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the credit as the strips were used in the final product. The difference in sub-heading was deemed immaterial. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
-
1999 (12) TMI 448
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved three appeals related to duty confirmation against different entities. M/s Maheshwari Dye Chem was directed to deposit Rs. 1 lakh to waive the remaining duty and penalty. M/s. Durrent Chemical Industries was granted stay and waiver of duty and penalty. Shri Rajesh Kadormal Baheti was granted waiver of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. Compliance was to be reported by 16-12-1999.
-
1999 (12) TMI 447
Issues:
1. Duty demanded on conversion of aluminium scrap into powder.
2. Invocation of extended period under Section 11A.
3. Financial hardship claimed by the appellant.
4. Dispute over classification of the manufactured product.
5. Liability of duty and penalty on partners of the partnership firm.
6. Justification for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty.
Analysis:
1. The duty was demanded based on the conversion of aluminium scrap into powder classified under Heading 76.03 of the tariff without payment of duty. The extended period under Section 11A was invoked due to non-declaration of this activity.
2. The appellant argued that the scrap received was mainly used directly in the manufacturing process, except for aluminium sheets which needed melting down. They contended that no powder emerged, and the size of the reduced particles did not meet the specified requirements. They also highlighted the allowance of Modvat credit and the sale of scrap in its received form, reducing the duty liability to approximately Rs. 6.00 lacs.
3. The departmental representative presented evidence suggesting the manufacture of powder and the technological advantages of using powdered metal in ferro alloy production. Financial hardship was disputed, and the claim was not accepted by the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal found it challenging to accept the claim of financial hardship, especially as the liability for duty and penalty would extend to each partner of the partnership firm. The variation in the size of the samples presented did not convincingly support the appellant's argument regarding the necessity of reducing only one type of scrap.
5. While acknowledging potential benefits of using powder in manufacturing ferro alloys, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to justify the classification of the product under Heading 76.03. The duty liability was recalculated to be approximately Rs. 8.00 lacs, and the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 15.00 lacs within two months, with the remaining amount waived.
6. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed compliance with the deposit requirement by a specified date, emphasizing the need to address the duty and penalty obligations promptly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 446
Issues: Alleged wrongful Modvat credit, confiscation of unrecorded final products, imposition of penalty, restoration of Modvat credit, confiscation of goods
Alleged wrongful Modvat credit:
The appeal involved the manufacturing of "Polypropylene Tower Packing" where stainless steel sheets were sent to job workers in Mumbai under Rule 57F(2). The Central Excise officers found final products not entered in the RG 1 Register, leading to a Show Cause Notice alleging the wrongful Modvat credit and confiscation of unrecorded final products. The Addl. Collector ordered reversal of the credit, imposed a penalty, and confiscated goods. The appellants argued that the simultaneous credit was not wrongly taken as the law allowed such movement under Rule 57F(2).
Confiscation of unrecorded final products:
The allegation was that final goods were not received in the factory but cleared directly to buyers. Statements from the factory personnel conflicted on whether goods were brought back to the factory for further processing. The Addl. Collector observed a lack of evidence supporting the physical transportation of final goods to Baroda, leading to the requirement of Modvat credit reversal. However, the duty was paid on the goods, and the absence of evidence did not conclusively prove the non-receipt of goods, thus questioning the necessity of reversing Modvat credit.
Imposition of penalty:
The penalty was imposed due to the procedural violations and the bending of rules for convenience by the assessees. The judgment considered the closedown of the unit and the restoration of the reversed credit, but upheld the penalty to deter violations of procedural rules despite the possibility that the restored Modvat credit might not be utilized.
Restoration of Modvat credit:
The tribunal restored the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,62,838/-, as it was not convinced that the final goods not physically entering the principal manufacturer's factory warranted the denial of the Modvat benefit. The technical violation of goods not entering the factory did not outweigh the substantive benefit of Modvat, leading to the restoration of the credit.
Confiscation of goods:
The polypropylene tower packing was confiscated as it was not recorded in the books of accounts. The Addl. Collector's decision on the quantum of fine was considered lenient, and no interference was warranted in this aspect. Apart from the restoration of Modvat credit, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the confiscation of goods and the quantum of penalty imposed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 445
Issues:
Interpretation of Modvat credit scheme under Central Excise Rules regarding Gate passes issued before and after specific dates.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a reference application filed by the Revenue seeking clarification on the validity of Gate passes for availing Modvat credit under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. The Revenue sought a reference to the Hon'ble High Court regarding the eligibility of Gate passes endorsed after 31-3-1994 but on which credit was taken on or before 30-6-1994. The Tribunal examined previous orders and the Modvat credit Scheme introduced in 1986, emphasizing the importance of prescribed documents under Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules.
The Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994, prescribed specific documents for availing Modvat credit, stating that Gate passes had to be issued before 1-4-1994 to be considered eligible. The judgment highlighted the need for strict interpretation of taxing statutes and notifications, emphasizing that endorsed Gate passes must have been endorsed before 1-4-1994 to qualify as eligible documents under the Notification. Gate passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed after that date were deemed ineligible for Modvat credit under the scheme.
The Tribunal concluded that a question of law arose from the interpretation of the order, necessitating a reference to the Hon'ble High Court. The specific question framed for reference was whether Gate passes issued before 1-4-1994 but endorsed after that date could fall under the coverage of the Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) and be eligible for Modvat credit. Ultimately, the reference application was allowed, indicating the need for further legal clarity on the issue for proper implementation of the Modvat credit Scheme under the Central Excise Rules.
-
1999 (12) TMI 417
The appellant exported blended polyester cotton fabric. Dispute over polyester content in fabric. Varied reports from Textile Committee and SASMIRA. Tribunal averages the reports for fair decision. Appeal partially allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 416
The appeal dealt with the valuation of pre-recorded video cassettes manufactured by the appellant. The tribunal followed a Supreme Court judgment stating that recording on blank cassettes does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the product was not considered an excisable commodity, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 415
The appeal by M/s. Reliance Co-Makers related to exemption notification No. 57/93-CE for radio sets with in-built sound recording and reproducing facilities. The appellate tribunal upheld that the exemption only applied to radio sets including transistor sets, not combination sets with in-built recording facilities. The tribunal rejected the appeal, agreeing with the Collector's classification.
-
1999 (12) TMI 414
Issues:
1. Whether the activity of crushing limestone amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act can be invoked for the demand of Central excise duty.
3. Whether the penalty imposed on the party for non-observance of Central excise formalities is justified.
4. Whether the penalty imposed on the party for violating Central Excise Rules is sustainable.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding whether the activity of crushing limestone by the appellants constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act. The Tribunal had previously held that such activity did amount to manufacture. However, the appellants maintained a bona fide belief to the contrary until the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's earlier finding was considered relevant for the current appeal, covering the periods before the initial decision. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing a penalty on the appellants based on their genuine belief, setting aside the penalty imposed by the lower authorities.
2. The issue of invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act for demanding Central excise duty was raised. The Tribunal did not uphold the department's plea to apply the extended period based on suppression of facts to evade duty. The Tribunal found that the party had a justified belief that the activity might not attract Central excise duty. This finding influenced the decision in the current appeal, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The penalty imposed on the party for non-observance of Central excise formalities was contested. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified as the appellants had a genuine belief that the activity did not attract Central excise duty. The absence of mens rea and valid reasons for the penalty led to the Tribunal setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
4. The sustainability of the penalty imposed on the party for violating Central Excise Rules was questioned. The learned Advocate argued that the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was not justified without allegations or findings of mens rea against the appellants. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing the absence of valid reasons for upholding the penalty. Consequently, the impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 413
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed the issue of whether refractory bricks, conveyor belt, and through flow mixer are capital goods eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Tribunal found that refractory bricks and conveyor belt qualify as capital goods based on previous court decisions, and through flow mixer, as pollution control equipment, is also eligible for modvat credit. The reference application by the Revenue was rejected as the matter was considered settled by previous court rulings.
-
1999 (12) TMI 412
Issues:
1. Imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC for removal of goods without payment of duty.
2. Shortage of inputs and demand for duty on the shortages and raw materials.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the manufacture of products under Chapters 38 and 39, where finished products were found outside the factory premises, leading to a seizure by Central Excise officers. The Addl. Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalties under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC. The advocate for the appellants argued that the statutory penalty under Section 11AC was not warranted as the goods were recorded in prescribed statutory records, and there was no non-levy or short payment. The advocate contended that the liability to pay duty arose when the goods were recorded in the RG 1 register, and there was no fraud or suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that the violation of stocking goods in an approved place could be dealt with under Rule 173Q, and since the goods were recorded in the RG 1 register, the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the part of the order imposing the penalty under Section 11AC, upholding the rest of the order.
2. Regarding the shortage of inputs, the advocate argued that the shortage was due to the volatile nature of the goods and technical reasons, amounting to less than 2%. The Tribunal noted that while some inputs may be volatile, there was no evidence to show that the shortage was accumulated over time. As there was no proof of accumulated shortage, the Tribunal did not interfere with the demand for duty on the shortages and raw materials. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty under Section 11AC but upholding the rest of the order.
-
1999 (12) TMI 411
Issues: Modvat credit eligibility under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules for certain goods.
Analysis:
The case involved the eligibility of certain goods for modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Respondents, manufacturers of excisable goods, had availed modvat credit for duty paid on specific capital goods during a certain period. The department sought to disallow this credit, contending that the goods were not covered under the definition of "capital goods" as per Rule 57Q. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed a portion of the credit and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) partially upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision. The appeal before the Tribunal pertained to the portion of the order against the Revenue.
Upon examination, the Tribunal observed that the lower appellate authority had considered certain goods, including electric motor, LT Power Capacitor, Static Converter Supply Transformer, and electrical goods, as "capital goods" eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Revenue argued that capacitors and electrical goods did not qualify as capital goods, but the Tribunal found no merit in this argument. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question had been previously deemed eligible for modvat credit in various cases and were supported by the Explanation to Rule 57Q. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Tribunal's Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, which upheld the eligibility of similar goods for modvat credit under Rule 57Q.
After reviewing the submissions and the relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that all the disputed goods were rightfully considered as capital goods eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's grounds for appeal were not sustainable in light of the decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd., which supported the eligibility of the goods in question for modvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision regarding the eligibility of the goods for modvat credit under Rule 57Q.
-
1999 (12) TMI 410
Issues:
Import of Accumulator Strips, Nickel Hydroxide blocks/powder, and Cadmium Hydroxide blocks/powder under exemption notification claimed.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Import under Exemption Notification
The case involves the import of specific items under exemption notification No. 206/76. The appellants claimed exemption for items imported between 19-12-1991 and 18-6-1991. Initially, the goods were cleared based on the exemption claimed. However, after almost three years, a show cause notice was issued proposing duty demand, confiscation, and penalties. The Customs House later confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 60,49,068, a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal remanded the matter, leading to a new order-in-original for reconsideration.
Issue 2: Allegation of Misdeclaration and Forgery
The main contention revolved around the allegation of misdeclaration and forgery. The Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that even if a certificate was forged, it did not affect the correct description of the imported items on the Bills of Entry. The Senior Counsel highlighted that the goods were accurately declared, and any claim for exemption was based on the declared goods, not the end-use. The Senior Counsel referred to a Supreme Court decision to support the argument that correct declaration does not amount to misdeclaration.
Issue 3: Application of Exemption Notification
The Department contended that the exemption notification did not apply to the imported raw materials for battery manufacturing. They argued that the burden of proving eligibility for exemption rested on the claimant. The Department emphasized that the end-use for specific Defense purposes needed to be examined, and the exemption claim was not valid for the imported items.
Issue 4: Limitation and Extended Period
The Department invoked the extended period due to alleged misguidance by a forged certificate. However, the Tribunal found that the charge of misdeclaration or suppression of information did not hold as the goods were correctly declared on the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department should have critically examined the exemption claim at the time of assessment, and the delay in challenging the exemption after three years did not justify invoking the extended period.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-original confirming the duty demand and invoking the extended period. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 409
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'liquid gold' under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Entitlement to the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of 'liquid gold' under the Central Excise Tariff Act:
The primary issue in Appeal No. 2070/97-C was the classification of 'liquid gold' manufactured by the appellants. The appellants argued that 'liquid gold' should be classified under Chapter 71 of the Central Excise Tariff, which attracted a nil rate of duty. However, the Assistant Commissioner classified the product under Chapter Heading 3207.90, attracting a duty rate of 20%. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this classification.
The appellants contended that 'liquid gold' was an alloy of gold and should therefore be classified under Chapter 71 as an 'article' of gold. They relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment in the Ratan Lal Garg case, which held that 'liquid gold' was an article of gold for purposes of the Defence of India Rules. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that this judgment was not applicable to the Central Excise Tariff classification. The Tribunal decision in National Gold Industries, which classified 'liquid gold' as a ceramic color under Chapter Heading 3207.90, was considered more relevant.
The Tribunal concluded that 'liquid gold' did not have metallic properties and was more appropriately classified under Chapter 32, which covers dyes, colors, and paints. The appeal was dismissed, and the classification under Chapter Heading 3207.90 was upheld.
2. Entitlement to the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE:
In Appeal No. 2071/97-C, the issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE for 'liquid gold' branded as "Golden Oriole." The appellants claimed ownership of the brand name based on a deed of assignment dated 3-4-1993 from M/s. National Gold Industries. The Adjudicating Authority initially accepted this claim and dropped the SCN and seizure. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, questioning the authenticity of the deed of assignment.
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellants did not produce the deed during the investigation and applied for brand name registration only after the seizure. The possibility of the deed being backdated was raised due to the familial relationship between the partners of the two firms. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the deed based on suspicion and speculation was not justified. The onus was on the Department to disprove the authenticity of the deed.
The Tribunal held that the appellants' claim to the brand name "Golden Oriole" was established based on the deed of assignment and that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted the consequential benefits subject to the other conditions of the notification.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 2070/97-C, upholding the classification of 'liquid gold' under Chapter Heading 3207.90. In Appeal No. 2071/97-C, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, recognizing the appellants' entitlement to the Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE based on the deed of assignment for the brand name "Golden Oriole."
-
1999 (12) TMI 408
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the manufacturer's right to claim Modvat credit on inputs used for producing Grauvre Printing Cylinder (GPC) captively consumed in making printed laminated plastic film subject to duty. The Tribunal's previous decision on a similar case was cited, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
