|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 446 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 326
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta set aside the penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakh imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II. The penalty was levied without proper investigation and evidence collection, and the show cause notice did not specify the basis for the penalty. The tribunal found the penalty imposition unjustified and disposed of the stay petition.
-
1999 (3) TMI 325
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS dismissed the revenue appeal due to failure to rectify defects and non-production of original authorization by the Commissioner, as required by a Supreme Court judgment. The appeal was kept pending since 1996 despite multiple opportunities given to rectify the issues. The stay application was also rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 324
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS allowed the Miscellaneous application for early hearing of the appeal. The appellants had debited the amount as per the interim order, but the Commissioner dismissed the appeal without considering this evidence. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for a decision on merits after giving the appellants a hearing opportunity.
-
1999 (3) TMI 323
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS dismissed the stay application and appeal as abated because the company was under liquidation and no application was filed by the Official Liquidator, as required by Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
-
1999 (3) TMI 322
The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No.152/90-M dated 31-5-1990 regarding the classification of "Water Pump Kit." The matter was remanded for reconsideration in light of previous decisions on similar goods like cable jointing kits. The Tribunal directed the Original authority to consider the previous case laws on cable jointing kits while re-evaluating the issue.
-
1999 (3) TMI 321
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Draw Frame & Speed Frame for credit as capital goods.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras concerned the eligibility of Draw Frame & Speed Frame for credit as capital goods. The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy. Both authorities had deemed the items eligible for the benefit, which was contested by the Revenue in the appeal.
The learned Consultant referred to a previous case involving Hindustan Spinners 'B' Unit, where the Tribunal remanded the Revenue's appeal for reconsideration. The Consultant had no objection to remanding the current matter for redetermination in line with the Tribunal's direction in the Hindustan Spinners 'B' Unit case. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) also had no objection to remanding the matter for de novo consideration.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that in the Hindustan Spinners 'B' Unit case, the Tribunal had already remanded the Revenue's appeal for reconsideration regarding the grant of Modvat credit for similar capital goods. In the present case, the matter concerned Draw Frame and Speed Frame. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter for de novo consideration, similar to the Hindustan Spinners 'B' Unit case.
The Tribunal highlighted that there were no clear findings on the eligibility of the items in question in the original and appellate orders. The Tribunal emphasized the need for de novo consideration by the original authority to address all points raised in the adjudication, including whether the goods were received before a specific date and the utilization of credit subsequently. The Tribunal directed the original authority to reconsider whether all three items were capital goods based on submissions from both sides.
In line with the previous case and the need for de novo consideration, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision based on the findings and considerations outlined in the judgment.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras remanded the matter regarding the eligibility of Draw Frame & Speed Frame for credit as capital goods to the original authority for de novo consideration, following the principles established in a previous case and emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation of all relevant points.
-
1999 (3) TMI 320
The Collector found no evidence of illegal importation of machinery spares for sanitary napkins. Department's appeal on limitation accepted. Appeal dismissed as department failed to prove illegal importation. No interference with the impugned order.
-
1999 (3) TMI 319
The case involved the question of whether cutting and welding Cupronickel pipes to different shapes constitutes manufacturing a new commodity. The tribunal ruled that the process does not create a new product, based on precedents and a Supreme Court judgment. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
-
1999 (3) TMI 305
Issues:
1. Importation of CT Scanner and Ultrasound Scanner under Customs Notification No. 279/83.
2. Failure to fulfill post-importation condition of providing free treatment to outdoor patients.
3. Confiscation of scanners, imposition of fines, and challenge before Delhi High Court.
4. Interpretation of time limit for compliance with exemption conditions.
5. Verification of compliance with conditions by the adjudicating authority.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the importation of a CT Scanner and an Ultrasound Scanner by the appellants under Customs Notification No. 279/83. The Department alleged that the appellants did not fulfill the post-importation condition of providing free treatment to at least 40% of total outdoor patients, leading to adjudication by the Commissioner.
2. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the scanners under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. Additionally, penalties were imposed on the appellants for non-compliance. The parties challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, which granted a stay order and extended the pre-deposit period.
3. The Senior Advocate for the appellants argued that the exemption notification did not specify a time limit for compliance with the free treatment condition. Referring to relevant clauses, it was contended that the appellants had complied with the required norms within a reasonable period. The Counsel cited a similar Tribunal judgment to support the argument against the imposition of penalties in the absence of a specified time frame.
4. On the other hand, the Revenue representative justified the denial of benefits under the notification, emphasizing the non-compliance by the appellants even over a six-year period. It was argued that the lack of indoor facilities for patient treatment further indicated non-compliance with the notification conditions.
5. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, noted the absence of a specified time limit in the notification for compliance. Referring to the precedent cited by the Counsel, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for detailed examination of whether the appellants had, on average, treated at least 40% of outdoor patients for free. The adjudicating authority was instructed to verify compliance with the notification conditions and make a decision after providing the appellants with an opportunity to substantiate their claim during the readjudication proceedings.
Therefore, the appeals were allowed by way of remand for further examination and decision by the adjudicating authority.
-
1999 (3) TMI 304
The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal in the case involving alleged outward smuggling of raw cattle skin valued at Rs. 33,800. The goods were recovered while being transported to an Indian town far from the border with Bangladesh. The appellant, a poor skin trader, had genuine intentions and the goods were not in the process of smuggling. The tribunal ordered the release of the confiscated goods and refund of sale proceeds if already disposed of.
-
1999 (3) TMI 303
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the eligibility of certain inputs for Modvat credit in the case of manufacturers of toothpaste. The tribunal found that the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit for raw materials used in the preparation of flavouring substance, overturning the adjudication order. The decision referenced a previous case involving plastic granules, supporting the appellants' claim. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
-
1999 (3) TMI 302
The appellate tribunal set aside a penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the appellant, the owner of premises where illegal activities took place, as there was no evidence connecting the owner to the activities. The tribunal found that the lower authorities misinterpreted the provisions of Rule 209A by penalizing the owner without proof of involvement.
-
1999 (3) TMI 301
Issues: Interpretation of Notification 24/91 and eligibility for its benefits.
In this case, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 24/91 and whether the appellant was entitled to its benefits. The appellant initially availed the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 but later sought to switch to Notification No. 24/91. However, the latter notification prohibits its benefits if the appellant had already availed of Notification No. 175/86 or 1/93. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appellant's petition based on this ground, which the Tribunal found justified. The appellant argued that they fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 24/91 and had not simultaneously availed benefits under both notifications. They contended that since they only switched to Notification No. 24/91 after utilizing Notification No. 1/93 for clearances up to a certain amount, they should not be barred from claiming benefits. The Tribunal considered these submissions alongside the specific provisions of Notification No. 24/91, which required certification of factory capacity and imposed restrictions on annual production volumes for eligibility. The Tribunal noted that when two notifications covering similar circumstances are in force simultaneously, and one restricts availing benefits if the other is already utilized, it implies the government offers a choice to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits under Notification No. 24/91 due to their prior utilization of Notification No. 1/93, thereby dismissing the appeal.
-
1999 (3) TMI 300
The appeal by M/s. Asian Engineering Works against the denial of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal held that if the benefit of concessional rate of duty was not available and Modvat credit was not availed, the goods could be removed at nil rate of duty under Clause 1(a)(ii) of the Notification. The decision was based on the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Sul Engineering Works.
-
1999 (3) TMI 299
Issues:
Whether Petroleum Jelly is being manufactured at an intermediate stage of the production process of Boroquein Antiseptic Cream.
Analysis:
The case involved two appeals with a common issue of determining whether Petroleum Jelly was being manufactured by the Appellant Company during the production of Boroquein Antiseptic Cream. The Collector of Central Excise had held that the company manufactured Petroleum Jelly and imposed duty for a specific period, along with penalties. The Appellant argued that Petroleum Jelly did not come into existence at any stage and that only the antiseptic cream was produced. The Appellant cited various legal decisions to support their contention that unless a product identifiable in the commercial community exists, it cannot be considered excisable goods.
The Appellant further contended that the department did not consider relevant notifications while calculating the duty and that there was no suppression of facts as all information was available to the department through regular visits and maintained records. The department argued that the final product contained soft paraffin base, synonymous with Petroleum Jelly, and that the change in ingredients was not disclosed with the intent to evade duty. The department emphasized that non-disclosure was a deliberate act as the company switched from using Petroleum Jelly to its ingredients.
Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the process of manufacture and relevant legal principles. The burden of proof was on the department to establish that Petroleum Jelly was manufactured at an intermediary stage and was marketable. The Tribunal observed that the department failed to provide evidence that Petroleum Jelly was produced as a distinct product during the manufacturing process. The test report only indicated the presence of soft paraffin, which was a component of the final product. The Tribunal concluded that the department did not substantiate their claim that Petroleum Jelly was manufactured at an intermediary stage. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed without delving into the time limit for demanding duty under the Central Excise Act.
-
1999 (3) TMI 298
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the appeals regarding the liability of steel pilings and girders for duty. The tribunal found that the goods were movable property, not immovable, and upheld the duty demand. Penalties were imposed on the appellant for failure to pay duty and comply with the provisions of the Act. The appeals were dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 297
Issues:
1. Classification and dutiability of Fibre Glass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) bodies manufactured by M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd.
2. Applicability of duty on FRP bodies fitted on jeeps of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
3. Validity of the procedure approved by Central Excise Authorities for movement of chassis and FRP bodies.
4. Application of Modvat credit in the duty payment process.
Classification and Dutiability of FRP Bodies:
The judgment involved appeals by M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. regarding the dutiability of FRP bodies fitted on jeeps of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. The initial classification under sub-heading 8707.00 as approved by the Assistant Collector was challenged in an appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order set aside the classification list and demanded duty on the FRP bodies, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 62,69,055.00 for clearances during 1992 and 1993.
Applicability of Duty on FRP Bodies:
M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. had a long-standing arrangement with M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. where the latter paid duty on the jeeps inclusive of the value of FRP bodies. The Central Excise Authorities had approved this arrangement, and previous show cause notices demanding duty on FRP bodies had been dropped. The judgment highlighted that the approved procedure for movement of chassis and FRP bodies, including the use of Modvat credit, should not be retrospectively challenged to demand duty.
Validity of Approved Procedure:
The judgment emphasized that the procedure for movement of chassis and FRP bodies, approved by the Central Excise Authorities and reaffirmed in an adjudication proceeding in 1991, could not be questioned later. The order of the Assistant Collector affirming the procedure had become final as it was not challenged. The judgment cited previous decisions of CEGAT and the Supreme Court supporting the contention that once a procedure is approved, retrospective changes leading to duty demands are impermissible.
Application of Modvat Credit:
M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. argued that the Modvat credit system should have been followed, allowing them to pay duty on raw materials used in manufacturing FRP bodies and enabling M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. to utilize the same credit for duty payment on jeeps. The judgment agreed that the entire movement was covered by the Modvat procedure, and any reassessment leading to duty demands would be revenue-neutral as duty paid at intermediate stages would be available as Modvat credit.
In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the duty demand, and emphasizing that changes in procedure should be prospective in cases like these.
-
1999 (3) TMI 287
The appeal was against duty-demand of Rs. 31,000 and a penalty of Rs. 1,000 for non-accountal of inputs received in the factory. The impugned Order did not consider the submissions made by the appellants, leading to a lack of application of mind. The case is remanded for reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).
-
1999 (3) TMI 286
The appeal was rejected due to non-deposit of the ordered amount. The appellant requested a reduction in the deposit amount due to financial difficulties, but this was not considered. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for re-consideration of the variation application. The appeal is allowed and restored for re-consideration.
-
1999 (3) TMI 283
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed four appeals by the Revenue against a common order-in-appeal. M/s Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. was not considered a manufacturer and thus not eligible for exemption under Notification 175/86. The appeals were allowed as the benefit of the notification was not available due to the monogram of another person being affixed on the goods.
............
|
9911796707
