|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 363 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 330 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ion of various records. He submits that this is not a case of improper maintenance of accounts but is a clear case of clandestine manufacture and surreptitious removal. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no merit in stay petition and accordingly, deserves to be rejected. 4. emsp I have heard both sides. I have perused the Order-in-Original and the other evidence on record. Prima facie I find that this is not a simple case of improper maintenance of records. To find out whether there was any clandestine manufacture and surreptitious removals, the entire case is to be gone through in detail. Since the appellant has already deposited the entire duty amount of Rs. 80,505.75 and since the case is arguable on both sides it would be proper and just if the stay is granted in respect of the entire penalty amount. Accordingly, I order complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 77,000/- (rupees seventy thousand only). Consequently, the stay application is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 302 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ved above, the matter is arguable regarding the availment of the Modvat credit on the above inputs, i.e. capital goods. 5. emsp The financial hardship as tried to be made out in the stay application is not substantiated by any material. It is not clear as to the actual quantum of loss sustained during the financial year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The other statements in the application are too general. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not in such a bad position to make the pre-deposit of Rs. 30,000/-, when he has complied the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) by depositing Rs. 15 lakhs as already referred above. Hence the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the application is allowed in Part. The applicant is directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 30,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order and report compliance on 18-8-2000 subject to which recovery of the same and balance amount and penalty is stayed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 301 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Transmission belts ... ... ... ... ..... ught to the notice of the adjudicating authority. It is true that the adjudicating authority is expected to know the decisions of the Tribunal or the courts but yet it is equally the duty of the assessee who is conducting his case who ought to have brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority in respect of the matters which are in favour of the assessee. If these matters have been brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority, perhaps he would have dealt with it and come to a conclusion. We are therefore of the view that the matter requires re-determination de novo. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re determination who will do it as expeditiously as possible. Shri Sridharan on behalf of his client stated that the appellant will not use any dilatory tactics. The adjudicating authority shall decide the matter de novo after following the principles of natural justice. 7. emsp Appeals are remanded.
-
2000 (6) TMI 300 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Shortage ... ... ... ... ..... eld in view of the order-in-original No. 49/88, according to which department was aware of the activities of the appellant in 1988, itself. The question of suppression, wilful mis-statement, fraud, alleged in the show cause notice does not arise. Particulars of them are not disclosed. Illicit production and clearance is not made out. In the absence of it, issue of gate pass, determination, approximate rate of excise duty and payment does not arise. It is only on the basis of Entry in RG I Register about the production, duty liability arises at the stage of clearance as held in the order of Asst. Collector the order-in-original No. 49/88. So the contention of the appellant in grounds of appeal in clause (F) (G) (H) deserves to be upheld. Accordingly it is upheld. Point raised is answered in the affirmative. Hence the following Order - ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
2000 (6) TMI 299 - CEGATE, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... y. The graphic design of the pattern is performed by means of a workstation with a personal computer with hard disc and floppy disk drive, high resolution monitor, digitizing tablet, tape recorder and the colour printer. Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. also provides that Note 4 to Section XVI applies when a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of separate components which are intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the Headings in Chapter 84 or, more frequently, Chapter 85. The whole then falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function whether the various components (for convenience or other reasons) remain separate or are interconnected by piping (carrying air, compressed gas, oil, etc.), by devices used to transmit power, by electric cables or by other devices. Following the ratio of the decision in Adi Hi-tech Textiles case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the Appellants.
-
2000 (6) TMI 298 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture - Evidence of - Demand - Limitation - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... upon the report of the Dy. Chief Chemist, but has said that this report does not apply to other goods, rods and sheets, seized from the appellant and therefore it is not possible to consider them semi-finished goods. The appellant rsquo s contention that the rods and sheets are unfinished material which are required to be processed into shells for manufacture of pipes and tubes and therefore these two are unfinished is not supported by any technical literature or evidence and therefore unable to interfere with the Collector rsquo s order confiscating these goods for not being entered in the of RG 1 register. 9. emsp We however, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for re-determining after the Commissioner decides the issues relating to duty which we referred earlier in the order. The Commissioner shall, before determining these issues remanded to him in accordance with law, give the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2000 (6) TMI 297 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... annot be extended on refractories, binding materials. In paragraph 11, it is further stated that apparently the answers to the above two questions arising out of the order are in negative, and hence the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal rsquo s order is not legal, proper and correct and the orders issued by the Commissioner II, Central Excise, Pune, is required to be restored. 5. emsp Perused section 35G(1) of Central Excise Act and the bench order. Heard both sides. Relief sought for by the applicant is not in accordance with the provisions of section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act. Apart from that, as already narrated above, the department has challenged the bench order about its legality and correctness in the reference application. The department has assertively stated the answers to the above questions are in the negative. So under these circumstances, no reference can be made under section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act. So the application cannot be allowed and it is rejected.
-
2000 (6) TMI 296 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... der impugned and the attendant Order-in-Original on the same grounds as already considered above namely that since the waste and scrap was exempted under Notification 208/83, therefore they were clearly recognisable as non duty paid. He submits that ratio of the decision in the appeal already considered above shall apply to this also. 13. emsp Ld. D.R. reiterates. 14. emsp On a careful consideration, we find that the denial of deemed Modvat credit sought under Rule 57H was not on the ground that the stocks were not existed on the cut off date from which the transitional provisions under Rule 57H were found that waste and scrap of steel were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. Therefore, the ratio of our decision arrived at and noted above would clearly apply to the facts of this case. In view of this, the order impugned is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, as per law. 15. emsp Thus, both appeals are allowed with consequential relief as per law.
-
2000 (6) TMI 295 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MUMBAI
Valuation - Lumpsum fees and royalty ... ... ... ... ..... not yet paid any lumpsum fee and royalty to their collaborators and that no provision has so far been made in the books of accounts or balance sheet. Respondent requested to dismiss the Departmental appeal. 5. emsp I have carefully gone through the records of the case and heard the respondent. 6. emsp I find that no ground has been specified in the Departmental appeal to substantiate the claim that ratio of judgment in the following cases is applicable to this case. (i) emsp Essar Gujarat Ltd. mdash 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) (ii) emsp Himson Textiles Engg. Ind. Ltd. mdash 1997 (93) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.) 1997 (71) ECR 83 (Tribunal) 7. emsp I further find that the facts of the present case are different than the facts of the aforesaid cases. I am, therefore, convinced that ratio of the aforesaid judgments is not applicable in the present case. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order passed by lower authority is proper and legal. 8. emsp Hence, I reject the Departmental appeal.
-
2000 (6) TMI 294 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Job charges should be divided into manufacturing expenses and margin of profit of appellant, which is included in job charges should be made applicable to the entire cost of raw materials expenses and thereafter only assessable value should be worked out and Central Excise duty should be paid on the said assessable value is not proper and correct. The recent decision of Tribunal cited above supports the stand of the appellant. So, upholding the case of the appellant, point raised is answered in the affirmative. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed and impugned order is modified as follows. ldquo The assessable value of Satranj manufactured on job work basis by the appellant on the raw materials supplied by M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. should be approved on the basis of landed cost of raw materials job charges of the appellant including manufacturing expenses and margin of profit of the appellant as job worker. rdquo
-
2000 (6) TMI 293 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Utilisation of - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... as chemicals etc. We are inclined to accept this interpretation since no credit has been shown to have been taken on any inputs going into the process of dyeing. Further, we also find that Rule 57F(12) (a) clearly provides that credit can be utilised for payment of duty on any of the final products . Use of credit on more than one final product or an intermediate product cannot therefore be said to be barred under the Modvat scheme. Appellants reliance on the Tribunal decision in Siyaram Platex (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal held that unutilised credit in respect of an intermediate product can be subsequently used in the manufacture of revised final product also supports their case. 9. emsp It is well settled that in cases where two interpretations are possible on a fiscal statute, the interpretation which is favourable to the assessee is to be preferred. 10. emsp Having regard to the above discussion, we allow the appeal with consequential benefits to the appellants.
-
2000 (6) TMI 292 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Production capacity based duty - Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... uch closed space between the chambers are not to be included. 5. emsp We are satisfied that for this purpose the appellant should be heard. We are also satisfied that evidence to determine what the function of the gallery the so called closed space between the stenter and other equimpment in question has necessarily to be considered to determine whether these are covered by the Explanaton or not. 6. emsp Consequently we take up these appeals, allow them and set aside the impugned orders. Each of the appellants may furnish before the Commissioner within a month of the receipt of this order, such evidence as it may have in support of its contention that the notification in question does not participate in or aid in the process of drying or heat setting and therefore the Explanation of the notification will not be attracted to it. The Commissioner shall also give the appellants a chance of being heard on this evidence. He shall thereafter pass orders in determining the capacity.
-
2000 (6) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he KVSS Scheme the separation of the two i.e. the sole proprietor and the proprietary firm cannot be effected. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and cannot find any reason to invoke the separate penalty on the sole proprietor of M/s. Binod Steel as we cannot lay between M/s. Binod Steel and Shri Tekriwal they being one entity. If penalty has been imposed on M/s. Binod Steel and adequately settled under the law the separate penalty on Shri Tekriwal cannot be imposed for the reasons as arrived at in the impugned order. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Broadway Textiles Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, 1999 (35) RLT 729 had held that when the case against the main person is settled under the KVSS, penalty on others should be set aside. In this view of decision of the Tribunal, we uphold that the penalty could not have been imposed on Shri Tekriwal in any case. Therefore, in view of our findings the appeal is allowed. The stay petition is disposed of.
-
2000 (6) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Entry has not been used in a scientific or technical sense..... In their judgment in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.) the Supreme Court held that trade parlance/common parlance of a particular product was the material factor in arriving at the classification. The same view was held by the Supreme Court in their judgment in the case of Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd v. UOI 1997 (89) E.L.T. 633 (S.C.) . 24. emsp The word ldquo soap rdquo as is commercially understood or is appreciated by an individual means a product which lathers, in the process cleansing the body of a person (or a fabric in the case of laundry cloth) of grime and dirt. This was the appreciation of the people used as samples in the test conducted referred to above. In a departmental store like Apna Bazaar, Dove is found nestling on the same shelf with other soaps. 25. emsp With these findings, I agree with the findings of my ld. Brother (J). Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 289 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Power - Exemption - Use of power ... ... ... ... ..... facture of Fire Works and in view of these facts both Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court respectively held that the power was used by the manufacturers claiming the exemption. In the present matter the appellants are not sending any material for being processed on job work basis. They are purchasing the components from the third parties on a principal to principal basis. Merely because close relatives of the Directors were partners of Sterling Components will not make the dealing between two units not to be on principal to principal basis. In fact there is no allegation by the Department that M/s. Sterling Components and Abrama Metal Components were, dummy units of the appellants. Further the Tribunal has already held in their own case, supra, that they were eligible for the exemption. In view of these facts, the benefit of the notification was available to the metal containers manufactured by appellants and accordingly the impugned Order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 288 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Interpretation of Statute - Exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... e whether from the date of application or later or prior to that. Here we are questioning the eligibility. In the absence of similar provisions like rule 57H in the proforma provisions, we are unable to accede to the argument of Shri M.H. Patil. Appeal stands dismissed. Impugned orders is upheld. 10. emsp The other argument is relating to duty paying receipt of goods, in our view, is not material to the decision in appeal. As far as the penalty is concerned, the leviability is very clear. As stated above by us, when the rule making authority does not specifically enable the assessee to take proforma credit as similarly found in Modvat credit like existence of rule 57H, it may not be understood how a seasoned assessee like Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. would have taken the proforma credit. Here there is no question of any mens rea involved. We are therefore of the view that penalty has been rightly imposed. Therefore we reject the argument in respect of reduction of penalty.
-
2000 (6) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Removal - Medicines ... ... ... ... ..... rticularly the fact that there was no findings recorded by the adjudicating authority on this point. In the present matter the Adjudicating Authority has clearly recorded his findings that controlled samples are utililsed within the factory of production for testing and it is deemed to have been cleared from the factory. There is also no substance in the contention of the learned Chartered Accountant that the goods taken as sample are not marketable after expiry of date mentioned on the label. Firstly it is not the case of the Appellants that the P or P medicaments manufactured by them are not marketable. The drugs are marketable and as such it cannot be argued that the drugs drawn as samples are not marketable. Secondly, in view of our findings that drawing and retaining of samples amounts to removal for the purposes of Rules 9 and 49, the question of considering the marketability after expiry of date does not arise. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Appellants.
-
2000 (6) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods - Evidence - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... inued to be shown as the importer in the invoice as well as in the Bill of Lading and Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 squarely recognised the owner as the importer. Since these documents clearly establish the title of M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries to the imported goods, no contravention of Section 111(d) can also be alleged. I also find that the original statements of Shri Vikram Garodia and Shri Prabhudas Ganatra have not been corroborated by any other independent evidence. I also find that since the goods have been directed to be confiscated when they were still at the docks, any alleged contravention of Section 111(o) cannot also be said to have been established. I therefore, concur with the reasoning given by the Collector (Appeals) on the above point in the impugned order. I also concur with the view taken by him that the Order-in-Original has to be set aside. 9. 8195 In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the four appeals filed by the Department rejected.
-
2000 (6) TMI 285 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Manufacture - UPS ... ... ... ... ..... onally supplied items would not form part of the assessable value. As we have seen, in the case of UPS under consideration battery is not found to be optional accessories. These decisions therefore, are not relevant. 11. emsp Another argument that was advanced, that since batteries in question were not cleared along with the UPSs, unlike in the case of CCE v. Electronics and Controls and therefore, their value ought not to be included. We do not see how this is of significance. The goods were supplied as a part of the same contract, and as we have found, are essential for the functioning of the UPS. Further UPS was erected and commissioned by the appellant. The order for the supply of battery was placed by the appellant. A UPS as a complete system has emerged by the activities of the appellant. Therefore the fact that the goods did not reach the appeallant s factory deoes not appear to have any significance. 12. emsp We therefore, see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Ship breaking scrap ... ... ... ... ..... eir original identity as duty paying documents of ship-breaking scrap and to that extent the appellants had been taking Modvat credit available to ship-breaking scrap without actually receiving the ship-breaking scrap. They have thus contravened the provisions of Rule 57G. Their inability to explain the payment of Rs. 350/- to the suppliers for issuing Gate Passes also raise doubts about the bona fide nature of the transactions between them and the suppliers. The statements given by the suppliers during cross examination also fails to bring out clearly any material to support the appellants rsquo case. 11. emsp Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner either on the question of denial of Modvat credit or in relation to the quantum of penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs, imposed on them having regard to the total amount of Modvat credit illegally availed of. 12. emsp Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
............
|
