|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 292 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Manufacture - Explosive - Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... s do not show that duty has been charged in addition to the price and if there is no other evidence with the department that duty has been charged separately by the appellants from their customers, then the invoice price should be taken as the price inclusive of Central Excise duty. Deduction towards Central Excise duty should be allowed to the appellants in terms of Section 4 of the Act to arrive at the assessable value, if the above conditions are satisfied. 6. emsp Matter, in view of the foregoing discussion, is remanded to the adjudicating authority to determine the net duty liability of the assessee after allowing the benefit of Modvat credit if any as also allowing the deduction towards Central Excise duty from the invoice prices in terms of Paras 4.1 and 5.1 above. 7. emsp Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no warrant for imposition of any penalty on the appellants. It is, therefore, set aside. 8. emsp Appeal disposed of in above terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... zool., bot.) Outgrowth, protuberance. v.t. 1. Institute legal process against (person.) 2. Treat (material), preserve (food), reproduce (drawing etc.) by a process. Produ rsquo ction n. Produ- cing thing(s) produ- ced literary or artistic work. It is observed that production or process would mean physical processing of the goods and the capital goods must have a nexus for bringing about any change in the substance of the goods by direct participation in the manufacturing stream. Humidification only creates atmosphere and does not answer to the use as above. There is no dispute that humidification is required to be done for having certain level of humidity to get the yarn of a particular quality and that by itself does not mean that the humidification plant can be considered as equipment used for production, process or for bringing about any change in the substance in the manufacture of the final products. In the above view of the matter, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... premises. we confirm the duty demanded from 4/87 to 7-5-1990. The activities of the appellants from 8-5-1990 was within the knowledge of the department as the appellants have also furnished the information sought for by the department on 23-5-1990 in response to the letter of the department dated 8-5-1990 and the department issued show cause notice only 15-5-1992. In the premises we hold that demand from 8-5-1990 till October, 1991 is barred by limitation. Since we have confirmed the duty demand for the period from 4/87 to 7-5-1990, the appellants will have to pay duty for this period and they are entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit which is subject to verification, by the department regarding payment of duty on the inputs and subject to this verification. we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. In the circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand). The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 289 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... ough the Commissioner has held that the distributor company is a related person of the manufacturer-appellant, he has not applied the third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) for treating the price at which the related person viz. distributor company sold the goods as the assessable value but only added the advertising expenses incurred by the distributor company to the price at which the appellant firm sold the goods to the distributor company. If in fact, the distributor company were to be treated as a related person of the appellant firm there was no alternative to adopting the distributors rsquo selling price. Giving up that position indicates a possible reservation on the question of related person. Be that as it may, the addition of the advertisement expenses incurred by the distributor to be selling price of the appellant manufacturing firm is not justified in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 288 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ese are in the nature of only raw materials which are further processed to make them into blood-bags by fitment of other necessary items. These sheets by no stretch of imagination can be considered as parts or accessories of the blood-bags. In the above view of the matter we hold that the benefit of this notification is not available as claimed by the appellants. 5. emsp As to the classification of the goods the same has not been posed as an issue before us by either of the two sides and therefore, we are not adverting to the same. At this stage the learned Advocate pleaded that the Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on these sheets should be made available to them. We observe that the learned lower authority should consider the grant of Modvat credit to the appellants in accordance with law. Since the duty is being demanded now this factor should be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of Modvat credit. With the above observations the appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Insecticide ... ... ... ... ..... as insecticides. This position also stands confirmed by the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Kerala cited supra which has been relied upon by the appellants. It is true that, the abovesaid decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court was rendered in the context of the Sales Tax Act. In any event the principle enunciated in the said judgment clearly goes to show that copper sulphate was treated as insecticides. This principle applies to the facts of the appellants rsquo case. It is clear that Chapter Notes 38 specifically mentions insecticides. We further find that Belgaum Collectorate has also classified copper sulphate and insecticides etc. under chapter heading 3808.10 of the CET which also strengthens the case of the appellants. In view of the above, we hold that the impugned orders are not in accordance with law and we set aside the same and classify the goods of the appellants under heading 3808.10 and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1996 (8) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Admission ... ... ... ... ..... vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise rdquo . In the present case, the amended proviso enhanced the limit to Rs. 50,000/-. This amendment has not expressly or by necessary intendment taken away the appellant rsquo s right of appeal in terms the old proviso wherein the limit was Rs. 10,000/-. In this view of the matter, I agree with the opinion of the learned Vice President (J) and order that the appeal shall be listed for being heard on merits. The file may now be placed before the Bench for necessary orders in this regard. Sd/- (T.P. Nambiar) Member (J) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority decision, the order of the Tribunal is recalled and the registry is directed to list the appeal for disposal on merits in accordarce with law and after due notice to the authorities concerned. Sd/- (T.P. Nambiar) Member (J) Dated 1-8-1996 Sd/- (V.P. Gulati) Member (T) Dated 1-8-1996
-
1996 (8) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ard of SAIL Bombay. 2. emsp There is no dispute from the ld. DR that the Board have recognised the challans of stockyards of SAIL as equivalent to gate pass. In the circumstances, when the Proper Officer has issued subsidiary gate pass on the basis of challans of stockyard, which are also recognised equivalent to gate pass and the subsidiary gate pass is also a prescribed document as per the Notification issued by the Board, we do not find any merit in the objection taken by the lower authorities. We therefore allow the appeal with the direction to restore the credit.
-
1996 (8) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis ... ... ... ... ..... l, the Collector (Appeals) directed that the addition of 10 on cost of raw material supplied by the customer plus labour charges as profit was arbitrary. Accordingly, he set aside the order and allowed the appeal. The Department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. 3. emsp The records show that the price lists indicate the cost of raw material and the charges received by the job worker from the customer. The charges collected by the job worker from the customer would in the ordinary course include the profit element of the job work. What the Assistant Collector did was to include an extra profit on charges which themselves include the profit element. We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related persons ... ... ... ... ..... . This order is now challenged. 3. emsp The Department has not investigated the matter thoroughly. Only two circumstances have been brought on record. The first is that two of the partners of M/s. Uniweld are the wife and nephew of the Managing Director of the manufacturing company and the other is the circumstance that the building in which both concerns transact business is the same. We do not think these two circumstances are by themselves sufficient to hold that the transactions were not on principal to principal basis or that there was any extra commercial consideration for the transactions or that M/s. Uniweld were being shown a special favour in comparison with other independent buyers or that the company and the partnership firm have direct or indirect interest in the business of each other. On the materials available there cannot be valid finding that the two are related persons. 4. emsp We set aside the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... emsp We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. The inputs obtained are M. S. Rod cuttings, angle cuttings and plate cuttings. It is contended by the respondents that these are eligible materials and are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 25(9)(ii) and 25(ii). In terms of Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 as amended finished goods specified therein under S. No. 2 of the Notification are exempted from duty if among others inputs are classifiable under Tariff Item 25(9)(ii) and 25(ii). In the Final Order No. E/138-139/96-B, dated 30-4-1996 in case of CCE, Guntur v. M/s. Model Steel (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that the raw materials for the manufacture of M. S. rounds, squares, angles and channels were not scrap but were rollable materials and rejected the department rsquo s appeal. Ld. DR concedes that input materials are rerollable. In view of this following the ratio of the aforesaid order, we reject the revenue appeals and uphold the impugned order.
-
1996 (8) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - ‘Dowtherm Dephyl’ ... ... ... ... ..... e above description of the use of Dowtherm Diphyl, it is clear that it is an essential input for maintaining the required heat in the equipment, but for which the emergence of the yarn could not be brought about. From the function of the material in the manufacturing process of yarn, it is clear that this is an input which is used in relation to the manufacture of the nylon and polyester yarn. This would be sufficient reason and would be in consonance with the term under Rule 57A for giving it the status of eligible input for Modvat credit under that rule. The inputs considered by the Tribunal in the case law cited before us by the ld. Counsel, were also discharging similar function. It is, therefore, held that Dowtherm Diphyl is eligible input under Rule 57A for the purpose of Modvat credit used in the manufacture of nylon and polyester filament yarn produced by the appellants, herein. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... quirement prescribed for the purpose under Rule 57F(2). But the contention did not find acceptance with the Tribunal which held that the requirement of permission under Rule 57F (2) is but a procedural requirement meant for establishing proper co-relation with the duty-paid inputs initially received till they go into the final product. So long as there is no dispute, observed the Tribunal, that the duty-paid material received by the suppliers have come to the hands of the user manufacturer after some processing, the procedural non-compliance cannot be held against the user manufacturer for denying the substantive benefit of Modvat credit. 4. emsp The case of the present appellants is on a better footing as they did have the permission under Rule 57F (2) and had prepared the required challans also for the sending of the input from the supplier to the job worker. Therefore, following the ratio of above decision of the Tribunal impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty-paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... are admittedly the depots of M/s IOC Ltd. I also observe that M/s IOC Ltd. is the manufacturer of furnace oil. I also find that Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (NT), dated 4-7-1994 recognizes the invoice/challan issued by the depots. I therefore, hold that the invoices/challans issued by the depots showing the payment of duty are documents under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in terms of Notification No. 32/94-C.E. I find that the Asstt. Collector has quoted certain Trade Notices which are not relevant for the present case. I also observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the various issues involved in the cases. Before coming to the conclusion, Modvat credit on the strength of documents issued by the depots of M/s. IOC Ltd. are valid duty-paying documents for the purpose of Central Excise Rules, 1944, I do not find any legal infirmity in the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the impugned orders are upheld and the appeals are rejected.
-
1996 (8) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... nits have manufactured exclusively for the appellants. We are of the view that mere doing job work exclusively for a particular person cannot be said to be dummy or they have manufactured on behalf of the assessee unless it is clearly brought out on record to show that entire manufacturing activity has been controlled by the assessee. No evidence has been placed on record to show that manufacturing activity of the other two units was controlled by the appellants nor any evidence to show that there was mutuality of interest in between the appellants and those two units. Further it was clearly admitted in the impugned order that those units are independent units. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Collector is not sustainable in the eye of law in clubbing the clearances effected by other two units. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the appellants and in the result, we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal filed by the party.
-
1996 (8) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... in respect of the very item has come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Joseph Leslie Agencies Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 203 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that item in question is classifiable under Heading 90.17/18 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. It was also observed that classification as air filter under Heading 84.18(2) is not correct. Since this position has been analysed as can be seen from Para 6 of the order in the aforesaid case, it was correctly classifiable under Heading 90.17/18 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, we concur with the earlier decision of the Tribunal and, accordingly, we hold that item imported by the appellants is correctly classifiable under Heading No. 90.17/18 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and they are not eligible for benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption and Modvat can be availed simultaneously on different products ... ... ... ... ..... In the above mentioned decisions, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit and exemption under notification can be simultaneously availed of if the products are different. 2. emsp Shri Nanak Chand, JDR appearing on behalf of the department reiterated the findings. 3. emsp In this case, the short question for determination is whether the assessee can avail simultaneously modvat for some of the product and avail full exemption for other products under the exemption notification. The Tribunal in case of M/s. Vinko Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - Final Order No. 348-349/96-C, dated 22-5-1996 followed the ratio of decision of Tribunal in case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (supra), which was upheld by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, held that Modvat credit and exemption under notification can be simultaneously availed of if the products are different. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Vinko Auto Industries, the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... llector (Appeals) and accordingly, these two appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed. Sd/- emsp (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (J) Later . - 5. emsp At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants appeared and submitted that in the decision of the party, referred to above, it was held that item is classifiable under Heading 37.01/08. Neither it was discussed nor any reasoning was given in arriving at the conclusion. He did not place any case law in support of his contention, except reiterating the grounds urging that this item is classifiable under Heading 84.34. 6. emsp In the absence of any decision in favour of the party on this issue, we are not inclined to take a different view. In view of the judicial discipline, we accept the earlier ruling and accordingly, we hold that this item is classifiable under Chapter 37, as held in the earlier case of the very party. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- emsp (Lajja Ram) emsp (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (T) emsp Member (J)
-
1996 (8) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Words and Phrases - Unit Container - Food - PP Foods sold in bulk ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee is that the bulk packing of the disputed products is not always of uniform weight has not been seriously examined by either of the lower authorities. The Ld. Collector rsquo s orders referred to contracts entered into by the appellants with M/s. Herbetsons Ltd. as also with M/s. Forum House Confectionary Pvt Ltd. which contained specifications of ownership of the container and would also contain the provision whether each container would contain PP Foods of pre-determined weight or not. In the absence of these details it would not be possible for us to hold that the claims made by the appellants in respect of the disputed products are correct. We, therefore, remand the case back to the Assistant Collector who would examine the contracts and any other documents available to determine whether the bulk packing were of uniform standard weights or not and proceed to determine the classification of the goods in de novo proceedings. This appeal is disposed of in those terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... .e. which requires the help of the State Government to be able to run. 7. emsp It was his request that these facts may be taken into consideration and the order may be suitably modified. 8. emsp Ld. DR stated that he has seen the Profit and Loss Account filed by the other party but would like to still maintain that the appellants may be required to deposit the amount as already ordered in the aforesaid stay order. 9. emsp I observe that admittedly this State Undertaking is a sick unit as already observed by the Bench in its order dated 26-4-1996. The Profit and Loss Account produced before us shows that their financial position is still very bad. Therefore, taking note of the BIFR order and the Gazette Notification of the Madhya Pradesh Government shown by the ld. Representative, and the financial position, I modify the aforesaid stay order to the extent it is applicable to the present case and waive the pre-deposit of the amount in question during the pendency of the appeal.
............
|
