|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 623 Records
-
2001 (7) TMI 1092
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the confiscation of logs due to excess cargo but set aside the personal penalty imposed on the carrier agents as there was no evidence of mala fide intent and only a marginal difference in cargo. The appellants' explanation was accepted, and the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1090
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Modvat credit and penalties imposed on the appellants for availing credit on Iron Moulds sent to job worker without receiving them back. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 was upheld as the Modvat credit was wrongly availed, and the notice for penalty imposition was not time-barred. The appeal against the penalties was rejected.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1088
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the respondents regarding Modvat credit on capital goods used in manufacturing cement. The Tribunal found that the items in question are parts of machinery and fall under the definition of 'capital goods.' The appeal by the Revenue was rejected as it lacked merit. (Case citation: 2001 (7) TMI 1088 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
2001 (7) TMI 1087
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed a miscellaneous application to recall a stay order directing the appellants to deposit a penalty amount. The Tribunal found that one appellant was penalized without a show cause notice, and the other appellant had no knowledge of illegal exportation, leading to the unconditional allowance of the stay petitions.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1085
The appeal was against the Commissioner's order demanding duty on imported goods due to Modvat credit issue. The appellant claimed credit was reversed before goods were exported. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Commissioner was directed to pass orders after hearing the appellant's submissions.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1050
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellants regarding disallowance of Modvat credit on minor procedural irregularities. The Tribunal directed the original adjudicating authority to re-consider and allow credit for certain items where procedural issues were rectified. The appeal was partially allowed and partially remanded for further consideration.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1049
Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
3. Claim of reversal of proportionate credit by the appellant.
4. Appellant's failure to follow the prescribed appellate procedure.
5. Applicability of Tribunal's power to rectify apparent mistakes in orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involved three appeals by the same appellant engaged in ship-breaking, where ships were imported in 1993 and cleared on payment of additional customs duties. The appellant took Modvat credit on the first two ships but not on the third. Show cause notices were issued for reversal of credit, leading to appeals against the order confirming the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as filed beyond the prescribed period, prompting the appeals before the Tribunal.
2. The appellant argued that there was no liability as proportionate credit had been reversed for goods cleared without duty payment. They claimed that errors would be rectified after contacting the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant relied on a Tribunal judgment to support their contention that the Tribunal could consider appeals dismissed on limitation grounds if the case was strong on merit. However, the Tribunal noted a substantial delay of over 20 months in the present case.
3. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed appeal filing periods before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal. While the Commissioner has limited power to condone delays, the Tribunal may have broader discretion. The appellant's failure to follow the appellate procedure as advised in the order was a critical issue. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's disregard for the prescribed legal process, despite being informed, led to the dismissal of the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. The Tribunal underscored that the appellant's choice to ignore the legal procedures outlined in the order precluded them from claiming a strong case on merits. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal had the authority to rectify apparent mistakes in its orders within a specified period, a power not vested in lower authorities. The appellant's argument that the Assistant Commissioner could have corrected the error was deemed invalid.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to dismiss the appeals, emphasizing that the appellant's failure to comply with legal procedures and the substantial delay in filing the appeals were key factors in the dismissal. The judgment concluded by dismissing the appeals and disposing of the stay applications.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1047
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata disposed of four appeals arising from the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Patna. Confiscation of Indian paddy and trucks with redemption fines imposed. Appellants claimed interception at a different location, leading to benefit of doubt and appeal allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1045
Issues:
- Whether excess amount collected by the assessee from buyers as transportation charges should be added to the assessable value.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals and stay applications were filed by the Revenue against a common issue decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) Hyderabad, concerning the inclusion of excess transportation charges collected by the assessee in the assessable value. The assessee argued that the excess amount collected was based on agreed principles and unforeseen variables affecting actual transport costs. Reference was made to previous Supreme Court judgments where it was held that excess amounts in such situations were not includible in the assessable value.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue and found that the excess charges collected by the appellants were not required to be included in the assessable value. The Commissioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. CCE, where it was held that the duty of excise is on manufacture, not on profit made by a dealer on transportation. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision in Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad supported this position. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s case, confirming that the excess collected amount need not be included in the assessable value.
3. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal's decisions were not in line with statutory provisions and sought a stay on the orders. They argued that other charges collected by the assessee should be part of transportation charges for valuation and assessment purposes. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent distinguished the situation, emphasizing the contract for transport charges and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supporting the exclusion of excess transportation charges from the assessable value.
4. Upon considering the arguments and records, the Tribunal found merit in the respondent's submissions. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been extensively examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases, including Baroda Electric Meters and Indian Oxygen Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow the judicial discipline and upheld the decisions excluding excess transportation charges from the assessable value. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the stay applications and appeals, affirming the legality of the Commissioner (Appeals) orders.
5. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the grounds raised in the appeals were not sustainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decisions aligned with the Supreme Court's judgments. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the precedent set by the Supreme Court and dismissed the appeals, confirming the exclusion of excess transportation charges from the assessable value.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1043
The case involves a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 33,12,691.60. The dispute is related to the availing of input stage credit and benefits under Notification 203/92 for duty free clearances. The applicants sought the benefit of the notification based on the reversal of input stage credit, but the Government's Amnesty Scheme did not cover them. The tribunal directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 15.00 lakhs towards duty within eight weeks, with the balance duty and penalty pre-deposit dispensed with and recovery stayed pending the appeal. Compliance was to be reported by 5-9-2001.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1041
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai heard a Revenue appeal regarding the removal of waste plastics under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal upheld the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 14/92-C.E. The Revenue argued that a "NIL" rate of duty could be considered as duty payable, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing previous judgments and stating that the issue is settled. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the matter is no longer pending before the Apex Court.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1024
Issues:
- Whether drawback of duty is available to M/s. Handloom Only in respect of goods exported by them.
Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s. Handloom Only raised the issue of the availability of drawback of duty for goods exported by them. The Customs Department alleged that the garments were overvalued and no drawback claim was admissible. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty, stating that no drawback was admissible as the market value of the goods was less than the claimed drawback amount. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the export of the consignment after drawing samples and remanded the matter for a fresh valuation based on objective criteria. The Commissioner, in the subsequent order, found through market enquiries that the market value of the goods exceeded the drawback claimed, indicating that drawback was available to the exporters. The Commissioner's order denying drawback was deemed incorrect as the market value was proven to be higher than the claimed drawback amount.
The advocate for M/s. Handloom Only argued that the Commissioner's finding that the aspect of drawback was not covered by the remand order was inaccurate. The Tribunal's previous order permitted export pending reevaluation of the goods' valuation and drawback claim. The advocate also highlighted that an undertaking not to claim drawback due to pending market enquiry did not preclude the exporters from claiming drawback later. The Department's approval of export under a drawback shipping bill contradicted any claims that the goods were not shipped under drawback. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that the validity of an order must be judged based on the reasons given in the order itself.
On the other hand, the Department's representative requested a remand to the Commissioner to determine the admissibility of the drawback claims. The charges against the appellants were related to alleged overvaluation for excess drawback claims. The Department's denial of drawback was based on the appellants' undertaking not to claim it, without assessing the admissibility on merit. The Department sought a remand for a comprehensive evaluation of the drawback claim.
The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the earlier findings by the Commissioner, which denied drawback, were based on incorrect assumptions about the market value of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the exporters should not be deprived of the drawback claim solely based on the earlier undertaking not to claim it. The Tribunal also noted that the previous remand order did address the drawback claim, and subsequent market enquiries confirmed that the market value exceeded the claimed drawback amount. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, affirming that drawback of duty was available to the appellants as per the law, and could not be denied based on incorrect valuation assumptions.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1023
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with the assessable value of captively consumed goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Tribunal held that the profit to be considered is the profit the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of captively consumed goods. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Excise Authorities, as there was no justification for adding profit to the assessable value of captively consumed goods.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1022
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai overturned the duty demand of Rs. 93,264.63 but upheld the penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for failure to inform the Department about the manufacture of computers for training purposes. The goods were exempted from duty under Notification No. 167/71-C.E.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1020
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the amendment of the grounds of appeal. The refund claimed was found admissible due to finalization of provisional assessment. The assessment was considered provisional despite the absence of a formal order under Rule 9B. The application for stay of the order was dismissed. The prayer for early hearing was declined due to uncertain position relating to the functioning of the benches and the amount involved.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1019
Issues:
1. Confiscation of consignments and truck with redemption fine.
2. Imposition of personal penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in imposing penalties without issuing show cause notice.
Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs, Shillong, had confiscated two consignments of Phensedyl Cough Syrup valued at Rs. 21.41 lakhs and the truck transporting them, with a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000. Additionally, penalties of Rs. 5,00,000 each were imposed on the owners of the transport company, Shri Rajesh Agarwal and Shri Rakesh Agarwal. The appellants contested the confiscation of the truck and the personal penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The appellants argued that they were the owners of the trucks hired by M/s. Tripura Golden Transport Co. for transporting the consignment. The officers of customs intercepted the trucks and found discrepancies in the quantity of goods loaded compared to the cash memos produced. The officers suspected illegal export to Bangladesh and confiscated the goods. During investigations, it was revealed that the goods were intended for legitimate transactions within India.
3. The appellants contended that no show cause notice was issued to Shri Rajesh Agarwal, yet a personal penalty was imposed on him, violating principles of natural justice. The judge, after reviewing the evidence, found no involvement of the appellants in illegal activities. The goods were to be unloaded at the transporters' godown in Agartala, and the consignee was to collect the goods from there. As there was no evidence implicating the appellants in illegal export activities and no notice issued to Shri Rajesh Agarwal, the penalties and confiscation of the truck were deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside concerning the confiscation of the truck and the imposition of personal penalties on the appellants.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1018
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata involved multiple appeals related to the confiscation of silver and personal penalties. The appellant's ownership claim was rejected, leading to confiscation. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was criticized for not properly addressing the appellant's submissions and legal arguments. The appeals were remanded for further consideration, allowing the appellants to raise legal issues and rely on precedent decisions.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1017
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant, a cement manufacturer, allowing Modvat credit on Armoured Cables, Carrying Idlers, Polymer Liners, and Unprocessed Polyester fabrics as they are considered essential capital goods for cement production. The impugned order disallowing the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1016
Issues:
1. Whether distillation of benzene raffinate amounts to manufacture and makes the product liable to duty.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved the question of whether distillation of benzene raffinate constitutes a manufacturing process, rendering the product liable to duty. The Asstt. Collector initially held that distillation of benzene raffinate was a manufacturing process, making the product dutiable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision based on the claim that distillation was merely for removing impurities and did not result in a new product. The Commissioner relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support this stance. The manufacturer argued that distillation led to the emergence of a new product, citing a Supreme Court judgment for support.
The Tribunal acknowledged that distillation could result in the creation of a new commodity or be a step in the manufacturing process. However, it emphasized that distillation could also be used solely for purifying a substance without creating a new product. The Tribunal found no relevance in the Supreme Court judgment cited by the manufacturer. Importantly, the Tribunal noted the lack of information regarding the chemical composition of the products, the purpose of distillation, and the potential uses of benzene raffinate. It highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the claim that distillation was solely for impurity removal. The Tribunal also pointed out the need for further examination by the Asstt. Commissioner, directing a review of evidence from both parties within a specified timeframe.
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order and instructing the Asstt. Commissioner to make a decision based on the evidence presented by both sides. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the chemical composition and purpose of distillation, in determining whether the process amounted to manufacture. The decision highlighted the need for a thorough assessment before reaching a final conclusion on the dutiability of the product resulting from the distillation process.
-
2001 (7) TMI 997
Issues: Taxability of deposit made by Nepali citizen in Indian bank, applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
In this case before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna, the issue revolved around the taxability of a deposit made by a Nepali citizen in an Indian bank. The depositor had opened a joint account and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,23,700 in the financial year 1991-92. The Assessing Officer treated the deposit as income earned on Indian soil and assessed it under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, considering the Branch Manager of the bank as an agent of the depositor. A penalty of Rs. 77,704 was imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment due to failure to file income returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, leading the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act, challenging the Commissioner's order.
Upon hearing arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and the Income-tax Act. It was highlighted that two modes of assessment were considered: one under section 69 of the Act and the other under Article 21 of DTAA. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was established that unexplained investments may be deemed income under section 69, a legal fiction, while Article 21 of DTAA operates on factual grounds. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of DTAA, being more beneficial to the assessee, took precedence over the Act. Therefore, deposits made by Nepali citizens in Indian banks could not be taxed in India, invalidating the assessment in this case.
As the assessment under section 69 of the Act was deemed invalid, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was also deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The judgment clarified the taxability of deposits made by Nepali citizens in Indian banks and emphasized the importance of DTAA provisions in determining tax liabilities in such cases.
............
|
9911796707
