Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal before Collector ... ... ... ... ..... ppeals are of 1989. Accordingly, we heard the learned SDRs and perused the record. 4. emsp Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR, submitted that in these appeals, the appeals filed by the respondents before the Collector (Appeals) were not maintainable, since neither the Show Cause Notice nor any adjudication order was passed by the competent authorities. In other words, his submission was that, against the direction or asking the appellants to furnish the details before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice cannot be the subject matter of the appeal before the Collector (Appeals). 5. We have considered the submissions and found substance in it. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders-in-appeal and since no show cause notice was issued in the instant case, the question of adjudication or readjudication or de novo adjudication does not arise at this stage. However, the Department is free to proceed, according to law, if so advised. 6. In the result, all these appeals are allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... g in monetary terms of fuel which the appellants would have used in the absence of steam. The ld. Collector (Appeals) had referred that the steam generated as a by-product was used by TTP captively to heat illmenite. Thus, it is clear that when he was referring to the savings in monetary terms of fuel, he was referring to the heating of illmenite and not to the production of sulphuric acid which in fact had already taken place when the steam is generated as a by-product. The ld. Collector (Appeals) had only allowed abatement in respect of that steam which is used for heating of illmenite or any other process subsequent to the production of Sulphuric Acid. We do not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and the appeal filed by the Revenue merits rejection. 5. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no merit in either of the appeals by TTP and the one filed by the Revenue. Both the appeals are rejected.
-
1995 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... a medicament as per the definition given in Note 2 of Chapter 30, and all the ingredients are mentioned in Pharmacopoeia. The product is sold in the name of siloderm ointment rsquo , it is not specified in a monograph or in a pharmacopoeia, Formulary or other publications, as mentioned in Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30. The product bears on itself and its container, a name of ldquo siloderm ointment rdquo which is a registered brand name, and which is used in relation to the medicine for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between this medicine and the appellants who are the proprietors of this trade name. Hence, the product satisfies the definition of ldquo patent or proprietary medicaments rdquo to be classified under Chapter sub-heading 3303.10 of Central Excise Tariff as amended on 1-7-1990. Therefore, the appellants should succeed in these appeals. Thus, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned orders are set-aside, with consequential relief, if any.
-
1995 (12) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... same and sells the galvanised product is not liable to pay excise duty, but a concern like the appellant which manufactures tubes and pipes and galvanises the same will have to pay excise duty inclusive of the galvanising charges. The two situations are not comparable. In the former case, since the process of galvanising does not amount to manufacture for the purposes of the Act, there is no duty liability. In the latter case also, the mere activity of galvanisation does not amount to manufacture for the purposes of the Act, but galvanisation improves the quality and enriches the value of the product and, therefore, this cost component or the price component should go into the valuation of the galvanised product which is cleared at the factory gate. The anomaly suggested does not really exist or, if it exists, it is inevitable in view of the legal position that the process of galvanising does not amount to manufacture for the purposes of the Act. 15. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Printing industry machinery ... ... ... ... ..... view point. 11. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the learned DR rsquo s submissions have a lot of force and the orders of the lower authorities are correct. 12. emsp Admittedly, there is no dispute on the classification as these items were already classified under the same heading in which the main machine had earlier been classified. 13. emsp Insofar as the exemption notification is concerned, it allows the benefit thereof only in respect of the goods specified in the Table appended to it. This Table does not specify autopaster for printing machine. Not only that the Entry at Sr. No. 1, which covers the main machine does not include parts or accessories thereof or any auxiliary equipment. 14. emsp In these circumstances, the appellants rsquo request cannot be accepted. The orders of the lower authorities are correct and the submission of the learned DR that the notification does not cover this item is also correct. Hence, the appeal is rejected.
-
1995 (12) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... een set-up and commercial production started rdquo but have contended that they have been allowed import ldquo as an expansion of the storing capacity of the plant for supply of Nitrogen gas to the consumers rdquo . Heading No. 84.66(1) relates to the items ldquo required for the initial setting-up of a unit or the substantial expansion of an existing unit rdquo . The ldquo expansion of the storing capacity of the plant for supply of Nitrogen gas to the consumers rdquo could not be considered as expansion of the unit. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had observed that the required documents had not been furnished by the appellant. The appeal had been rejected by him. The appellant had not met the objections raised by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, and the Collector of Customs (Appeals). They had only made general denials. We find nothing on record to disturb the findings of the lower authorities. 8. Taking all the relevant consideration into account, we reject the appeal.
-
1995 (12) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... here was no logic or reason for not excluding the value of packing material supplied by the buyer itself which is of durable in nature and is returnable to the assessee by the buyer. Similarly in the case of Govind Pay Oxygen it was observed that Section 4(4)(d)(i) does not make any provision for excluding the cost of packing which is supplied by the buyer to the assessee for the obvious reason that the assessee does not spend for such packing and therefore, its cost cannot be included in the value of excisable goods and this view was affirmed by the Apex Court as it was rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the respondents. We are not convinced with the argument advanced by the Learned Departmental Representative that containers and tins supplied by the buyers were not of durable in nature in the absence of any evidence placed on record. In the view we have taken we do not find any substance in the Appeal filed by the Department and accordingly, Appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Misdeclaration of value/goods when proved ... ... ... ... ..... i Dada Saheb Shinde one of the noticees is a partner. Penalty has been imposed both on the firm and the partner. In the circumstances of the case, we consider that the penalty on Shri Dada Saheb Shinde needs to be waived. The appellants have also pleaded that the redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakh has no relationship with the margin of profit and that the goods have suffered long storage and demurrage, and have pleaded for some relief on this account. 13. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only). The penalty on Shri Dada Saheb Shinde is waived. In so far as Shri Lalit Ajmera is concerned, his role has been discussed in the Order-in-Original but keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we reduce penalty on Shri Lalit Ajmera from Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs) to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh). All the three appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (12) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Branding of goods ... ... ... ... ..... n that the principle of natural justice was not violated by the Collector while passing the impugned order. We agree with the findings of the Tribunal in the Stay Order No. 183 to 185/93-C, dated 4-11-1993. 17. In view of the above discussion, we hold as under (a) emsp the two medicines manufactured by the appellants herein are the PP medicines and the brand name is owned by M/s. Mercury Laboratories, Baroda (b) that the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86 shall not be available to the appellants herein (c) emsp that no case is made out by the Revenue to prove that the appellants herein were related persons of M/s. Mercury Laboratories or the appellants herein was a dummy unit of M/s. Mercury Laboratories and therefore, the price charged by the appellants shall be taken for computing the assessable value. (d) We hold that the demand is not hit by limitation. 18. Having regard to the above findings, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals are rejected.
-
1995 (12) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related persons - Class of buyers ... ... ... ... ..... r were compensated in any way by the assessee, either by granting exclusive right of sale in any particular territory or by paying cash compensation or otherwise (i) The two companies are not related persons (j) emsp Absence of any reliable material to show the transaction price was not sole consideration or condition for transactions and (k) Absence of material to show that the Bombay wholesaler and other wholesale buyers were different class of buyers. The above circumstances point unerringly to one conclusion, namely that the common price charged by the assessee for the Bombay wholesaler and other wholesale buyers was the normal price, that is the price at which the goods were ordinarily sold to buyers in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal since there are no other inhibiting factors. The conclusions and the finding arrived at by the Collector are erroneous. 8. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electrocast Refractories ... ... ... ... ..... deemed as covered by Notification No. 242/76. 9. emsp In view of the foregoing and following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Sd/- (P.K.Kapoor) Dated 3-11-1995 Member (T) Order per G.R. Sharma, Member (T) . - I have perused the order proposed by the learned Member (Judicial) as also the one proposed by the learned Member (Technical). I find that the issue involving in the present appeal is granting of the benefit of Notification No. 242/76. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to agree with the order proposed by the learned Member (Technical) for the reasons set out in his order. Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Dated 7-12-1995 Member (T) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) (P.K . Kapoor) (G.R. Sharma) Member (J) Member (T) Member (T) 7-12-1995
-
1995 (12) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... had not noticed these packings is little hard to believe. When goods are removed in such numbers and officials visiting the factory time and again, can it be said that no one had noticed these clearances in special packing. In the circumstance, I am constrained to agree with the views expressed by Member (J). In the result, the impugned order is required to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 37. The appeal papers shall be placed before the original Bench by passing final orders. Sd/- (S.L . Peeran ) Dated 12-12-1995 Member (J) FINAL ORDER ORDER 38. emsp Order per G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) . - As per maiority, it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the cost of special packing, that is to say, 7-ply Double Faced Corrugated Boxes is not includible in the assessable value and the demand was time barred. 39. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, if any according to law.
-
1995 (12) TMI 120 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Job worker whether Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... ing M/s. SLPL as not the manufacturer of the slides. In the case of M/s. Basant Industries, Agra v. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 (SC) 1995 (6) RLT 1 (SC), it was held by the Apex Court that the supply of components of power driven pumps by M/s. Basant Industries, Agra, (appellants therein) to other manufacturers will not make (Basant Industries, Agra) as manufacturer and the pumps cannot be said to have been manufactured on behalf of the appellants therein. 9. emsp In view of the above, we hold that the appellants M/s. VST Industries were not required to take out a licence in the premises of M/s. SLPL or authorise the latter to follow all Central Excise formalities as per Notification No. 305/77 and further that the benefit of Notification No. 77/83 and earlier Notification No. 105/80 was available to the appellants M/s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd. 10. In the result, we set aside the impugned Order passed by the authorities below and allow both the appeals.
-
1995 (12) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... a cage which keeps them in place and ensures that their spacing remains constant. PARTS 1........... 2........... 3. .......... 4. Rings, cages, fixing sleeves, etc. 20. emsp Hence, the roller retainers/metal cages are rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 84.62 as it stood at the relevant time. 21. emsp This heading is however, not covered by the exemption Notification No. 35/79. Therefore, the Asstt. Collector was right in denying them the benefit of this notification. 22. emsp In view of the above position, we hold that foot step bearings are correctly classifiable under Heading 84.63 as bearings and metal cages which are parts of bearings are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 35/79. 23. emsp The order of the Collector (Appeals) is modified to the above extent and the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order is restored in full and confirmed. 24. emsp Accordingly, the department rsquo s appeal stands accepted and the assessee rsquo s appeals are rejected.
-
1995 (12) TMI 118 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ). On the ratio of the decisions of various Courts including the case of Solar Pesticides, it has been held in those cases that the question ldquo unjust enrichment rdquo arises only in those cases when the duty paid goods are sold as such and not after any processing of those goods. This is also, apparent, as pointed out above, from the legal presumption made in Section 12B of the Act. In view of the foregoing, both the questions, as raised by the Collector, stand already decided by judgments of various High Courts one of which in turn relies upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of H.M.M. Limited v. The Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation (A.I.R. 1990 SC 47). Therefore, no question of law, as raised by the Collector in the subject Reference Application, arises in the case. Accordingly, the Reference Application is rejected. 5. emsp The Stay Petition filed by the Revenue also stands rejected in view of the above order of rejection of their Reference Application.
-
1995 (12) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... exemption Notification No. 345/86 was also involved and on this point, the matter had been remanded. 8. emsp Learned counsel stated that in view of the language of the Section 130, if a question relating to rate of duty is one of the issues involved, then also no reference lies. 9. emsp We observe that the learned counsel is correct. A reading of Section 130 of the Customs Act shows that if the order relates, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, no reference lies to the High Court. Since interpretation of exemption notification is one of the points involved in the present case, no reference would lie to the High Court under this provision. We also observe that the learned counsel is right in citing the orders and judgment mentioned above. 10. In view of the above position, we hold that the reference application is not maintainable. It is dismissed as such.
-
1995 (12) TMI 115 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... e circumstances of the case, we agree that there is no ground for ordering mutilation. 11. emsp On the question of jurisdiction also, the adjudicating authority had discussed the matter in para 12 of his order. We agree with him that the seizure of the goods as well as issue of the show cause notice by the DRI could not be said to be without jurisdiction. 12. emsp The Collector of Customs had ordered that the impugned goods should be assessed to duty as acrylic tow of prime quality under Tariff Heading No. 5501.30 and the assessable value of the goods should be determined on the basis of CIF value of US 1.76 per kg. We confirm this part of the Order. 13. emsp However, keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case we reduce the amount of fine from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) and the amount of penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Subject to above modifications, the impugned order is confirmed and we order accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... f the technical literature produced by the Ld. Counsel as well as the revised opinion of the DGHS and CCI issued after examining the samples, the items in question are required to be considered as intravenous cannula and tubing for long term use. The issue relating to these items already stands covered by a series of Tribunal rsquo s orders and recently we had an occasion to come across a Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 249 (Cal.) which deals in details with infusion sets falling within the category of intravenous cannula and tubing for long term use. Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s orders cited by the Ld. Counsel and the above judgment of the Calcutta High Court, we observe that the items in question are covered both by OGL as well as by the Customs exemption Notification No. 208/81 as amended. We therefore, set aside the impugned orders and accept the appeals with consequential relief, if any due.
-
1995 (12) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... f notification under which exemption is claimed. Similar issue was exa- mined in depth by CEGAT in their order No. 199/85 in case of the appellants. rdquo 13. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the issue is squarely covered by Tribunal rsquo s own order in appellants own case w.r.t. these very sheds and the item in question. The Tribunal rsquo s order even covers the issue as to whether taking out a certificate under Shop and Establishment Act can alter the situation and the answer is in the negative. 14. We take note of the fact that the appellants have not been able to show that any of the facts mentioned in the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal read out by the Ld. S.D.R. were in any way incorrect. 15. emsp In the circumstances, we feel that Ld. DR is correct in pointing out that the department rsquo s action is required to be upheld. We therefore see no merit in appeal and we reject the same and confirm the orders of the lower authority.
-
1995 (12) TMI 112 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Non accountal of production ... ... ... ... ..... 124 the Tribunal has held that the duty payable after the date of the knowledge of the Department about short levy or non levy has to be restricted to only six months. In this case, as observed by us earlier the officers visited the appellants factory on 1-2-1988 for carrying out check and scrutiny of the records and after detailed verification show cause notice was issued on 11-7-1988 in which no demand for duty was raised and there was no charge of any suppression or mis-statement of facts. Under these circumstances, the allegation or charge of suppression in the show cause notice issued on 19-5-1992 after a loose of over 4 years from the date of the knowledge of the Department about the activity of the appellants would not be sustainable. The demand of Rs. 82,446.30 has, therefore, to be held as time barred. In view of the above finding the penalties imposed on the various appellants also cannot survive. 12. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
............
|