Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2000 2000 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 391 Records

• 2000 (4) TMI 404 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Words and Phrases - Automatic or semi-automatic - Penalty - Redemption fine

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... redemption fine is not a penalty in a strict sense. It is more compensative than retributive. In cases where redemption fine is imposed on goods which are imported in contravention of legal provisions, the profit which would have been earned by importer is taken as the reasonable yardstick. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the highly technical nature of dispute and the possibility of bona fide opinion existing as to the correctness of classification, I agree with the view taken by the Hon ble Vice-President that a redemption fine of Rs. 6 lakhs is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Dated 8-3-2000 Sd/- (S.S. Kang) Member (J) MAJORITY OPINION In view of the majority opinion, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs set aside and redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 6 lakh from Rs. 8 lakh. Otherwise, the impugned order is up-held. Sd/- (Sidhartha S. Sekhon) Member (T) Dated 19-4-2000 Sd/- (S.S. Kang) Member (J) Dated 19-4-1999

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 403 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reference to High Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of Bharat Commerce and Industries 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J527) held that it was not permissible to do so if levy and assessment of goods under one particular tariff item is held to be illegal, the department cannot refuse to refund the amount on the ground that duty could have been levied under some other heading. rdquo We find that this further plea has been added by the Revenue that in case Modvat credit has been taken and duty on the final products has been paid out of Modvat credit then whether still the refund will be admissible. We find that the question of law arises inasmuch as the duty paid on plastic components was taken as Modvat credit and duty on the final product was paid out of duty taken as credit on plastic components. 6. emsp Insofar as the unjust enrichment in respect of inputs captively consumed is concerned, the issue has already been decided by the apex court and, therefore no reference is now required. In this view of the matter, reference is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 402 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Confiscation of goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... licensing authority for import of these goods by the appellant, and that this licence is valid for goods already shipped. The licence is issued for import of 75,600 printed crown caps with PVM liner and endorsed valid for goods already imported. This is seen from the photocopy of the import licence no. 1532794 issued on 18-12-1995 to the Pepsico India Holdings, New Delhi. It therefore appears prima facie that the licence is valid for the goods imported goods. 4. emsp I therefore allow the appeal on this ground and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall on the importer producing before it, the original customs copy of the licence within two months from the receipt of this order, consider whether the importation could have been covered by this licence. If it so, the licence shall be used for the clearance of the goods and redemption fine refunded to the appellant. In the event that the licence is not valid, a proper order should be passed showing reasons therefor.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 401 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Registration/Licensing - Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed 9-1-1992 reveals that the appellants had given the process undertaken by them right from the stage of purchase of the old pipes and tubes. We, further, observe that the Range Suptd. had visited their premises and studied the process undertaken by the appellants and therefore, the question of misleading the department does not arise. Finally, the department accepted the surrender of registration certificate of the appellants and before accepting such surrender the department should have examined all the aspects of the process undertaken by the appellants to see whether any excise duty was chargeable or leviable or not. We, therefore, hold that the entire demand is time-barred and the appellants succeeds on the question of time-limit itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellants on the aspect of time-limit alone without going into the question, whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to drawing or redrawing.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 400 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Import - Export obligation - DEEC Scheme

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... cation No. 49-CE/94 dated 22-9-1994 by appellants No. (2) and (3). That being so, the duty demand raised and penalty proposed against them and appellant No. (1) through the show cause notices for the periods in question was wholly unjusticiable and not sustainable under the law and as such could not be legally confirmed by the adjudicating authority. In this connection, reference may also be made to the law laid down in Synthetic Chemical v. CCE, Allahabad, 1997 (93) E.L.T. 92, Shriji Chemicals v. CCE, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 375, CCE, Mumbai v. Bhoruka Textiles, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 615, Brindavan Chemicals and Minerals (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 623 and Formica India Division v. CCE, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) referred by the counsel. 18. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, all the appeals of the appellants are accepted and the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside with consequential relief, if any, permissible to the appellants under the law.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 399 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Modvat - Utilisation of input credit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d that the matter is no longer res integra. In view of the above noted decisions, the law with respect to the interpretation of the words ldquo similar rdquo as it then existed in Rule 57F(3) is now well settled. The words ldquo similar rdquo cannot be restricted to mean ldquo same rdquo or ldquo identical rdquo . Instead, when a wider meaning is given to the words ldquo similar rdquo it will encompass the goods broadly falling within the same class or category. When we apply this principle to the facts of the present case, we find that since Calcined Alumina is a product emerging at a stage prior to the process of manufacture of Aluminium, therefore the products are falling within the same broad class or category. On careful consideration we are therefore of the view that ratio of the aforesaid decisions would clearly apply to the facts of this case also. Respectfully applying the same we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 398 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Natural justice - Effective show cause notice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ke to pay any fine in lieu of confiscation and that the Commissioner s order in invoking the bond for recovering the redemption fine is not proper. Although a copy of bond was not produced before us, the point itself seems to have relevance. It is our experience that a bond given for provisional assessment alone, where no licensing aspect is involved, normally binds the importer fully to pay differential duty that may be determined. If, as is claimed, the importer in the bond undertakes to pay the differential duty, the Commissioner s action invoking the redemption fine cannot be upheld. The Commissioner is required to give a finding on this point. 7. emsp In lieu of this, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall after giving notice with regard to the proposal of finalization of provisional assessment, adjudicate upon the notice dated 8-1-97 and notice for provisional assessment together in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 397 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Adjudication - Defective adjudication

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... gned. (ii) We also find that when the matter was submitted before the original authority a number of decisions had been submitted with respect to the issue of whether misdeclaration of quantity would render the export goods as prohibited. Ld. Commissioner has not considered all the decisions cited and to that extent the order appears to be partly not a speaking order. 8. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, and findings we set aside the order-in-original impugned and remand the matter for de novo consideration by the original authority as per directions noted above. 9. emsp No, doubt, the ld. Commissioner shall give an effective opportunity of hearing to appellants and proceed to pass a fully speaking order after all the submissions made before him including the case-laws cited. Since the goods have not been redeemed by appellants, therefore the ld. Commissioner is directed to take-up these de novo proceedings expeditiously. 10. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 396 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Motor vehicle - Fabrication of body on the duty paid chassis - Manufactur

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that fabrication of bodies on chassis would amount to manufacture of motor vehicle falling under Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05, as the case may be. As a different view has been held by the Tribunal, we place these matters before the Hon ble President of the Appellate Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench for resolving the following issue - (i) Whether in view of Note 3 to Chapter 87 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, the activity of body building or fabrication or mounting of structures or equipment on the chassis shall amount to manufacture of a motor vehicle falling under heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff. (ii) Whether the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders - 1997(94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) has been taken away by inserting Note 3 to Chapter 87 of the Tariff and the activity of building body on chassis shall amount to manufacture of motor vehicle falling under heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 395 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Valuation of inputs - Natural justice - Order non-speaking

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1990 (45) E.L.T. 579. Learned DR has not placed before us any ruling which takes a different view on the issue. The principle stated therein has not been followed by the learned adjudicating authority in passing the orders impugned in these appeals. So the valuation issues in both the appeals, have to go back. In the first case arising out of show cause notice dated 3-11-1993, the adjudicating authority must consider the explanation of the manufacturer regarding the variation found at the time of stock taking. 7. emsp The orders impugned in the first appeal are set aside and the matter remitted back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue in the light of the observations made earlier. In the second case, the adjudicating authority is directed to requantify the duty liability of the manufacturer on the facts found by him in the light of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 579. 8. emsp Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 394 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Provisional assessment - Appeal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sional for the purpose of availability of Notification. It they had not executed the bond which they were directed to execute with security, the benefit of their failure cannot be extended to them. Another peal of applying wrong rate of duty on behalf of M/s. Prestige Wire was raised at the time of hearing. We agree with the learned D.R. that as this plea was never raised earlier before either of the lower authority, the same cannot be raised now. We, therefore, upheld the demand of duty of excise. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- form Rs. 15,000/- in respect of M/s. Diamond Wire Industries from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 2500/- in respect of M/s. Prestige Wire Insdustries and from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2000/- in respect of M/s. Chawla Wire Products. In respect of M/s. Sapna Wire Industries we do not find that the penalty is on higher side and we upheld the same. 4. emsp All the Appeals are disposed of in above terms.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 368 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Reference to High Court - Confiscation and penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rence of following question of law to the Gujarat High Court Whether the man-made fabrics which are excisable goods on which additional duty of excise is payable in terms of Section 3(2) of Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, shall also attract penal provisions of confiscation and penalty as is the case with all other excisable goods finding mention in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4. emsp The registry to draw up statement of facts of the case and refer to the Gujarat High Court. The registry may ensure, while forwarding the case, that the registry of the High Court is informed of the earlier matter already referred to so that similar matters can be listed and heard together.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 367 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reference to High Court - Refund

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lore unit. The Bench allowed the prayer and directed recredit. Penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 4. emsp None appears for the respondents when the case was called hence I heard the learned DR and disposed of the application. I find that no plea was raised during the final hearing of the appeal, that permission to re-credit would result in refund for which the Competent authority is the Assistant Commissioner and not the Tribunal. In fact, the learned DR fairly left the matter to be decided by the Bench. Therefore, the question as framed do not arise out of the final order of the Tribunal. However, question of unjust enrichment which has been referred to in the Reference Application, does not arise in the present case where one unit has been allowed re-credit of amount taken as credit by the other unit of the same manufacturer. Since the questions as framed do not arise out of the Tribunal s order, I hold that the Reference application merits rejection and order accordingly.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 366 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Precedent - Adjudication - Remand

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ts of the present case. It may be that the issue involved in that case may be analogous to the issue involved in the present case. Where facts are different but issues are analogous, there must be a careful effort on the part of the quasi-judicial authority to consider the facts of the case and apply the ratio of the decision in the light of the facts of the case. Such an attempt was, obviously, not made by the lower appellate authority. Non-application of mind is, therefore, apparent on the face of the record. In this view of the matter, this Tribunal has to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by way of remand directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the matter afresh and pass a speaking order in terms of this order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 365 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Manufacture

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of Laxmi Packing Pvt. Ltd. He submits that the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 1689/97, dated 8-7-1997 and in another case reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 333 (Tribunal) (Laxmi Packing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise) held that activity of printing cork of tipping based paper does not amount to manufacture. He, therefore, submits that the stay applications be allowed. 4. emsp Heard ld. S.D.R. 5. emsp In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that the process of printing and slitting on cork tipping based paper amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after following the earlier decision held that such activity would not amount to manufacture. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, prima facie, we find balance of convenience in favour of the appellants. Therefore, the stay applications are allowed unconditionally. Registry is directed to list the appeals for hearing dated 18-7-2000. No notice.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 364 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Import licence - EPCG - Rate of duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the meantime, even as per the Commissioner, now Customs duty exemption exists covering the EPCG licenced goods, therefore, it appears that the position taken in the said letter impugned itself is not in accordance with law. 6. emsp However, since the matter has not been considered in detail by the learned Commissioner sitting in quasi-judicial capacity and also since no personal hearing was granted to the assessee before arriving at that decision, therefore, in view of the above noted position with respect to Section 129A(1) of the Act, we have no other go but to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner to pass a speaking order sitting in adjudication proceedings in the matter, after hearing the assessees. Ordered accordingly. Since the matter concerns live Bills of Entry where the goods have been pending Customs clearance, it is expected that the learned Commissioner shall complete the adjudication proceedings within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 363 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n on merits thereof the matter has already been remanded above to the Ld. Commissioner, therefore for consideration on merits, this part of the matter also is to be remanded to the Commissioner. As far as the question of applicability of the extended period is concerned in this case, the same reason as indicated above apply in this case and the extended period would not be applicable. 17. emsp In view of the aforesaid analyses and findings, the order impugned is set aside including the imposition of penalties. Instead, the matter is remanded for de novo consideration by the Ld. Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of the above noted directions for deciding the classification of Pre-pegs on merits as well as for computing the amount of duty which may be demandable for a period of 6 months. The Ld. Commissioner shall give opportunity of hearing and then shall proceed to issue a speaking order in the matter. The appeals are allowed by way of remand accordingly.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 362 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand - Interest on delayed payment - Adjudication

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ved that it is not in dispute that the whole proceedings have arisen on account of the import of the impugned goods without payment of duty in terms of the provisions of the notification No. 80/95-Cus., dated 31-3-1995. The free import of the goods under this notification has a corresponding mandatory obligation for export. Since the export obligation has not been carried out under this exemption notification, the resulting proceedings clearly fall within the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs is the competent authority to adjudicate upon the violation of the provisions of this notification read with those of the Customs Act. Therefore, this submission of the appellants is not tenable and the same is accordingly rejected. 7. emsp In the result the interest amounting to Rs. 1,88,285/- imposed by the Commissioner of Customs is set aside. The appeal otherwise fails. But for this modification, the order passed by the Commissioner is otherwise upheld.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 361 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ntext that the Hon ble Surpeme Court held that exemption covers only that type of yarn which has been specified by name in the Notification. In the instant case blended cotton yarn admittedly is classified as cotton yarn under heading 52.06. Same is considered to be cotton yarn because of Section Note. As such factually the present case is different than the Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills case. 5. emsp Nothing has been pleaded on financial hardship by the appellants. 6. emsp We have considered the submissions of both sides. We note that though the earlier order was placed before the Commissioner at the time of filing their written submission during personal hearing the same has not been taken into consideration by the Commissioner. No comments have been made by the adjudicating authority and nothing is available on record. However we find that prima facie the case is covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal in their own case. As such we allow stay petition unconditionally.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Classification - Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 5 as the case may be) . 11. emsp We do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has also been followed by the Commissioner in the impugned order 20/97 dated 17-3-97. We, therefore, hold that the goods in question are classifiable under heading 85.16 of the Central Excise Tariff. It has not been controverted by the appellants that the appellants had not given the description of their product in C.L. which was mentioned in their sale documents. Correct description of the goods which was only known to them was suppressed from the department and as such larger period of limitation as provided under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is attracted in the present matter. Accordingly, the demand of duty of excise is confirmed. For the similar reasons the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on M/s. Escorts Ltd under the impugned order No. 20/97 dated 17-3-97 is also upheld. 12. emsp All the appeals are disposed of in above terms.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 20