Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 587 Records
-
2004 (4) TMI 503 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... ffice use would be consumer goods and thus require a licence. The articles satisfy directly the human need of performing in the office work and is included under the clause mdash (i) Consumer electronic goods, equipment and systems, howsoever described specifically as consumer goods in the policy. Import thereof is not permitted without a licence and the order of lower authority now impugned is to be upheld and appeal dismissed. 3. emsp This appeal is therefore dismissed on merits and non-prosecution.
-
2004 (4) TMI 502 - CESTAT,MUMBAI
Optical glass - Raw Optical Glass ... ... ... ... ..... s been actually used is very relevant in the facts of this case. That has to be re-determined for the classification and application of the notification benefit. (b) The reliance of the head note rsquo s under Chapter Head 70.01 of HSN, especially the following - ldquo (B) Glass (including xxx), in the mass (i.e. in more or less rectangular blocks), with no particular use rdquo (Emphasis supplied) with term emphasised, as relied upon by the learned DR to support the classification, would call for re-determination of end use, when the Catalogues produced are perused and the specific end use is possible as per certificates on record. (c) In this view of the matter, the orders are set aside, and matter remitted for de novo adjudication to the original authority who should hear the appellants and consider the material and proof of actual end use, if any, produced and re-determine the classification and eligibility to notification. 4. emsp Appeal allowed as remanded in above term.
-
2004 (4) TMI 501 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... e Hon rsquo ble High Court of Rajasthan on 18-8-2003 in Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The above Writ Petition was filed prior to the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The appellant was permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to pursue the appeal before the appellate authority. The Hon rsquo ble High Court has directed as follows - rdquo We clarify that until the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority, the amount of Excise Duty in question shall not be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and shall not be transferred to the said account until expiry of one month, thereafter if the order of the Appellate Authority goes against the Appellant. rdquo 2. emsp We adopt the above course and direct the respondent not to transfer the fund to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 until the present appeal pending before this Tribunal is finally decided.
-
2004 (4) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Show cause notice - Proper Officer ... ... ... ... ..... Although this notification designating lsquo proper officer rsquo is based upon the CBEC circular dated 12-5-1987 it has not been brought to our notice that subsequent to 20-12-1988 any fresh notification, designating some other officer as the lsquo proper officer rsquo for the purpose of Rule 57-I was ever issued. This reinforces our view that it is the Superintendent of Central Excise who is the lsquo proper officer rsquo for issuing and adjudicating show cause notices in terms of Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The question as to whether in the case of extended period it will be Superintendent or any other officer, or the Collector alone who can issue and adjudicate the notices is not required to be gone into by us in the present case as none of the notices have been issued invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. emsp We therefore hold that no ground for recall of our order has been made out by the applicants and accordingly dismiss these applications.
-
2004 (4) TMI 499 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... t Commissioner has imposed penalty also. Therefore, we reject the argument raised by ld. Consultant that there is infirmity in the proceedings. We do not find any infirmity in the proceedings. Admittedly, export obligations have not been fulfilled. Therefore, the demand raised by confirming duty is justified. Therefore, the appellants are required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 6,95,52,486/- (Rs. Six crores ninety-five lakhs fifty-two thousand four hundred eighty-six only) and also further duty amount of Rs. 13,18,276/- (Rs. Thirteen lakhs eighteen thousand two hundred seventy-six only) should be pre-deposited within a period of four months from today. On such pre-deposit being made, the penalty on the appellant-company and the Managing Director stands waived and recovery stayed. It is made clear that if the appellants do not deposit the amounts, then the appeals will be liable for dismissal under Section 129E of the Act. Call on to report compliance on 3rd September 2004.
-
2004 (4) TMI 498 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Sludge - Dutiability of ... ... ... ... ..... others like Titanium Dioxide is held to be non-excisable. On the aspect of marketability we observe that the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Patna v. TISCO 2004 (165) E.L.T. 386 (S.C.) held that mere selling of a commodity does not mean it is marketable. It can be sold as rubbish. The Hon rsquo ble court held that marketability means selling of a commodity known to the commerce and which may be worthwhile to trade. 11. emsp Further it appears that some of the scrap in this case is such that it has not resulted out of any process of manufacture. On the limitation as well, the applicants rsquo case needs a careful consideration. All in all, we hold that the applicant succeeded in making a strong prima facie case in their favour. Having regard to the facts and the case law cited we hold that the applicants rsquo plea for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty has prima facie merit. 12. emsp Pre-deposit of duty and penalty waived and recovery thereof stayed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 497 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ia. While determining the assessable value of the goods under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the following may also be taken into consideration (a) Sale (invoice) price of the goods under assessment (b) Sale price of other consignment of the identical/similar goods cleared from the zone into the domestic tariff area at some other time (c) Export price of the identical/similar goods exported from the zone (d) Nature of sale transaction i.e. whether transaction is at arms length between two independent parties and the sale price is the sole consideration for the transaction, or the price is influenced by the relationship between the seller and the buyer or by some other consideration rdquo . 3. emsp We have perused the records and contention made by both sides. The valuation ordered under the impugned order is contrary to the circular of the Board. The duty demand made on that basis cannot be sustained. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 496 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 6/80/96-CX., dated 1-10-1996. Such gases ldquo escaping in the atmosphere by flare systems or otherwise may not be manufacture rsquo , the total waiver of the amounts required to be deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is called for and ordered. 2. emsp The oral plea of early hearing made by the ld. D.R. is granted and matter listed for final hearing on 19-5-2004. 3. emsp Applications disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (4) TMI 495 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ts were subject to specific rate of duty, re-computation has to be made for that period on that basis. According to the assessee upon re-computation, correct amount of duty is only Rs. 11,71,343/-. Under a written submission dated 6-4-2004 Revenue has contended that actual amount of duty would be higher at Rs. 13,18,202/-. This is for the reason that Revenue has taken the entire price as assessable value and not as cum-duty price. There is no merit in this view of the Revenue. It is well settled that the total price realised by the assessee is to be treated as cum-duty (inclusive of duty ). Accordingly, we re-fix the duty amount at Rs. 11,71,343/-. Appellant rsquo s submission that penalty amount should also be reduced taking into account the reduced duty demand also merits acceptance. Accordingly, penalty amount is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs (rupees five lakhs). 3. emsp It is ordered that the above correction of duty amount and penalty be incorporated in our subject Final Order.
-
2004 (4) TMI 494 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... et Truck/Spring Hangers and Supports 88438 88438 14 Catalyst Support Spring 86037 86037 15 Track Ball Assembly 63833 63833 16 Connectors AEC-O2R-20 455OC 62874 62874 17 Industrial Air Screw Fan Type AS 43527 43527 18 Spares for Heater Plant Studs with Euts 39728 39728 19 Pneumatic Impact Wrench 38718 38718 20 Switch Board, Switch Bracket 32480 5515 37995 21 Intrinsic Safety Barrier 33341 33341 22 Tube Closure Assemblies and Enclosures 30400 30400 23 Spares for Microjet Printer 29906 29906 24 Spare Pats for Industrial Sewing Machine 23691 23691 25 Gas Leak Detector, Chlorate Sensor 21156 21156 26 Glass Cloth Electrical Insulators 11220 11220 27 Element with Fibre Glass, Sleeve in G.I. Flux Conduit 9158 9158 28 Spare Parts for Combustible Gas Indicator 5701 5701 29 FLP Plug 4980 4980 30 Bus Ducts and Accessories (Raw and Fire Water) 3277 3277 31 Braided Gland Packing 806 806 Total 36580 28446 175358 3511555 219635 1006349 1981261 664296 356573 55285 25983 102623 7969846 37/178
-
2004 (4) TMI 493 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Interest for delayed refund ... ... ... ... ..... n after conducting personal hearing, the Adjudicating Authority took full one year to finalise the case and the assessee had to suffer without any lapse on their part. We, therefore, agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the interest is payable to them. The decisions, relied upon by the learned S.D.R., are in respect of the amount which has been deposited as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Certainly, in such cases, a question of refund will arise only after the final order, deciding the dispute, is made in favour of the assessee. Such a situation does not exist in the present matter as the Department itself has been dealing with the refund claim since 1990. We also observe that the dispute regarding excisability of hot rolled steel strips in any case had been decided by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee vide judgment dated 2-5-1995 as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.). We, therefore, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2004 (4) TMI 492 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Bulldozers ... ... ... ... ..... considered the submissions made by both the sides and we find that in case of Malabar Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin 2002 (149) E.L.T. 751 , this Bench of the Tribunal has categorically held that dumpers used for bringing blasted limestone from the quarry to the crusher of cement plant being integrally connected with the process of manufacture were eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Department rsquo s appeal filed against this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court after condoning the delay after considering the facts of the case 2003 (153) E.L.T. A94 (S.C.). In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it has reached finality. Accordingly the credit is allowed on the Spares to Dumper. 15. emsp The appellants have not pressed for credit on the goods exclusively used in mines and therefore the credit on inputs/capital goods used in the mines is disallowed. 16. emsp These 13 appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (4) TMI 491 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Forgings - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... ssification of the goods involved herein in the respondents rsquo own case. We do not see any reason to differ with the same since a direct decision on the same issues in respect of the same goods in the appellants as well as respondents rsquo own case. Shivaji Castings rsquo judgment being of a general nature, not involving these very goods, would not be a correct guide in these cases. It goes without saying that the lsquo essential character rsquo of goods would be dependent on the goods under consideration and not on general principles. 7.1 emsp Hence, following respectfully the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the appellants and respondents rsquo own case in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 367, we hold that the imported goods connecting rod forging would be classified under Tariff Heading 84.06 and cross-forging under Tariff Heading 87.09/12(1) for the purposes of customs duty and under Tariff Item 26AA for the purposes of countervailing duty. 8. emsp Appeals disposed of in the above terms.
-
2004 (4) TMI 490 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... of the goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 98, 000/-. The said part of the impugned order is challenged before me. 3. emsp I have heard Shri J.C. Patel, learned advocate and Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned D.R. 4. emsp The appellants main contention is that in the absence of any verification from the processing houses as regards non duty paid character of the processed fabrics, confiscation of the same is not justified. The appellants cannot be penalised on the basis of conjecture and suspicion. I agree with the above contention of the learned advocate. No proceedings have been imitated against the processing house and no investigations have been conducted at their end so as to arrive at conclusion of non duty paid character of the processed fabrics. In these circumstances confiscation of the same is not justified. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2004 (4) TMI 489 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand and penalty - Clandestine removal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... er Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944. They have clearly admitted that they have cleared the goods without payment of duty. Despite the opportunity of hearing, the appellants have not submitted any defence. They have failed to submit their reply to the show cause notice. In these circumstances, the Ld. JDR emphasised that the cases of the appellant is based on their own admission and is devoid of any merits. He submitted that both the authorities have confirmed the demand and penalty. He submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant may also be dismissed for want of prosecution besides the merits as mentioned above. 2. emsp After hearing the Ld. JDR and perusal of the records, I find that the case of the appellant is based on their own admission and as such there is no escape from the demand and the penalty imposed on the appellant. I also do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellant. In these circumstances the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 488 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay by department ... ... ... ... ..... refund application, they produced the certificate. The Commissioner has taken a view that the Supreme Court judgment which the Revenue relied as in the case of Flock (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) is a ruling under Excise Rules and is not pari materia to Customs Act and hence, he held that in the refund proceedings the validity of the certificate and the benefit of notification can be considered and hence allowed the refund. 2. emsp We have heard both sides in the matter. Prima facie the Revenue is armed with the Apex Court although it is rendered on Excise side. It is prima facie having binding force on the Customs Act as well. As the issue involves a very important question of law, therefore the stay application is allowed granting stay of the operation of the Order. Both sides prayed for early hearing as an important question is involved in the appeal and it could be decided expeditiously. The prayer is accepted. Appeal to come up for hearing on 8th July, 2004.
-
2004 (4) TMI 487 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... of the said judgment observed that the consumer goods are goods to be understood as goods which are available in the market for consumption by common people. The goods which are exclusively consumed by industries like textile industry might not fall within the ambit of consumer goods. 3. emsp Learned Advocate for the respondents has also placed on record a catalogue showing the details of the nails and screws imported by them. From the photographs appearing in the said catalogue and the details given there against it is evident that the nail and screws are not of common type usually used by consumer directly but the same are ringed nail or buttress which can be used by the shoe making industries only. The revenue has not placed on record any evidence to rebut the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) that the nails are used as raw material in the shoe industries. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
2004 (4) TMI 486 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ds, viz. ldquo YOL-18 rdquo (industrial solvent), with an intention to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty, but held that the applicant as a director looking after the day-to-day activities (other two directors are admittedly non-acting directors) is solely responsible for mis-classification of the goods. 2. emsp We have heard both sides. 3. emsp We are prima facie satisfied that this is a fit case for granting waiver of pre-deposit for the reasons that the role of the applicant in giving rise to the liability to duty has not been spelt out and further for the reason that the finding that the assessee mis-classified the goods is not sufficient prima facie to hold that he is liable to penalty as the claim for different classification other than that ultimately held by the department is not a ground for holding that Rule 209A has been violated. 4. emsp We, therefore, waive pre-deposit of penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.
-
2004 (4) TMI 485 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Notification No. 38/97-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of such goods has been availed of by the manufacturer. If the unit, which is manufacturing plastic containers, is availing the benefit of this Notification, it is not the case of the department that in the said unit any credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of plastic containers has been availed of by the manufacturer. In view of this, the benefit of this Notification cannot be denied to the unit manufacturing plastic container. The appellate Tribunal has held in the case of Polyinks Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relying upon the decision in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Munjal Gas, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 1006 (T) 2003 (55) RLT 402 (CEGAT) that ldquo merely because of the fact that Modvat credit is availed of by the respondents in Unit No. 1 will not make them ineligible for availing the exemption from payment of duty in respect of goods manufactured in Unit No. 2. Accordingly, we reject the appeal, filed by the Revenue.
-
2004 (4) TMI 484 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Caustic soda lye (CSL) - Adjudication - Res judicata - Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs
............
|