Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 437 Records
-
1997 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... ification 175/86, in the circumstances as mentioned above. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the lower appellate authority. The question of counting the clearances in any financial year beginning from 1st April of that financial year would arise only when an assessee comes within the scope of that Notification and claims exemption thereunder. Prior to 22-6-1989 admittedly the respondents were not within four corners of the exemption Notification because the respondents got themselves registered only from 22-6-1989. By virtue of para 4 of the said Notification, the respondents could not avail the benefit of the said Notification prior to 22-6-1989. Therefore, the question of counting the clearances from 1-4-1989 to 21-6-1989 does not arise. Computation of their clearances would start from 22-6-1989 when they came under the umbrella of the Notification. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Molasses - Stock-taking ... ... ... ... ..... e of Ghatampur Sugar Company Limited 1996 (85) E.L.T. 69 cited and relied upon by the learned Counsel I find that one of the contention was that the appellants were not given any concession on account of froth/foam among other things. 7. emsp In the instant case I find that allowance for foam has been given to the appellants. I note that during the month of summer froth/foam is a natural phenomena with molasses. I agree with the contention that the CO2 gas in the process of fermentation is generated. Fermentation is a natural phenomena which causes changes in the Brix of molasses. CO2 in the process of escape or emerging from molasses creates froth/foam. In the instant case the allowance has been given therefore the ratio of the judgment cited by the appellants is not applicable to the present case. Having regard to the above discussions and findings I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. In the result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (3) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... of a final product is not a disqualification for modvat purposes. Again in the case of CCE v. Swaraj Mazda reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 258, this Tribunal held that the phrase in or in relation to the manufacture has a very wide amplitude it not merely includes the processes and inputs essential to or incidental or accessory to the completion of manufacture (including deemed manufacture) but any item or process which is essential for making the final product marketable. Therefore, any material or item which was normally so used and was, as a matter of commercial practice provided normally with the final product ready for delivery at the factory gate (and was not an optional accessory) would qualify as an input for the purposes of modvat. Following the ratio of the judgments of the Tribunal cited supra, I hold that modvat credit will be eligible for use of button cell in electronic calculator. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (3) TMI 268 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ... ... ... ..... or being remade, refined, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar process in the factory rdquo ... 4.2 emsp Plain reading of the aforesaid rule does not indicate that the goods have to be returned because the consignee finds them to be defective. Only stipulation is that goods are returned to the factory for being remade, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar process in the factory. There is no rebuttal to the ground taken by the appellants right from the beginning that the goods had got deteriorated during the long storage in the transporter rsquo s godown and, therefore, they were required to be remade, refined, reconditioned. In the absence of any rebuttal of this plea of the appellants, the benefit of refund claim could not be denied on the ground that the goods were not found defective by the consignee. Hence, I do not find any substance in the findings of the authorities below. Appeal is, therefore, allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1997 (3) TMI 267 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Change in name in the Bill of Entry ... ... ... ... ..... was received by it only on 28th November, by which time shipment had already taken place. Apart from this, the fact remains that the identity in law of the appellant continued unchanged despite the change in name. Therefore in law the person which placed the order and the person who received the goods was one and the same person. 5. emsp The departmental representative next contends that the bills of entry do not bear endorsement on the reverse which is required, according to the instructions of the Board, in cases where the importer rsquo s name is registered by the Company and the credit is taken by one of the units. This issue has been decided by this Tribunal in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v.CCE - 1994 (72) E.LT. 948. This Tribunal has held that since the importer and the person utilising the goods are the same the credit could not be denied on the ground that endorsement was required. Credit was therefore correctly taken. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. The impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (3) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... n they came to know the order passed by the Assistant Collector is appealable. On the other hand, the order passed by the Assistant Collector for the same period with reference to the same issue has already been challenged by the party before the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector has passed a fresh order in pursuance of the directions given by the Collector (Appeals). In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very difficult to appreciate the cause/reason given by the party that they were not aware of the fact that order passed by the Assistant Collector is appealable one. The legal maxim ignoratia juris non-excusat is clearly applicable to this case. Taking over all facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) holding that the appeal filed by the party before him was barred by time. In the view, we have taken, the appeal filed by the party is dismissed on this issue. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (3) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o. 715/81 with CA No. 11644 and 7564 of 1986, decided on 9-9-1986 as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.). 2. emsp Heard both sides with reference to the issue in question. Shri B.B. Gujral, ld. Counsel drew our attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in this context. On going through the relevant orders and since the issue has already been decided by the High Court and the same has been approved by the Supreme Court, following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, we accept the contention of the party and accordingly the item in question is classifiable under 18(II)(1). In the view we have taken, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department.
-
1997 (3) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Adjudication - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... ester fibre. The Collector has rejected this claim on the grounds that the construction of the fabrics was not declared to the department and also that the manufacturer had been suppressed. Neither reasoning is capable of denying the benefit of this Notification. The SASMIRA report shows that the polyester content was less than 70 per cent. This aspect also will have to be considered by the Collector. 7. emsp Therefore, while up-holding the Collector rsquo s order that the processes undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture, we remit proceedings back to the jurisdictional Collector for redetermination of the amount payable by first examining the submissions and the evidence as to classification and secondly by extending the benefit of Notification No. 35/84-C.E. if available. The Collector would be free to redetermine the quantum of penalty after these calculations. The orders of confiscation of land, building, etc. are upheld. The appeal is decided in these terms.
-
1997 (3) TMI 263 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... n view of the decisions of the Tribunal referred to above, the appellant could not have filed declaration under Rule 57G(1) of the Rules in order to claim benefit under Rule 57A of the Rules and this special circumstance distinguishes the facts of the present case from the facts of the case in Kakkar Complex Steels Pvt. Ltd. Whatever information the appellant was required to furnish under Rule 57G of the Rules had already been given in the declaration submitted under Rule 57T of the Rules and the same was subject to verification by the department. In the peculiar facts of the case, we hold that the Modvat benefit under Rule 57A of the Rules is admissible to the appellant notwithstanding the failure to file the declaration under Rule 57G(1) of the Rules. In this view, we feel it unnecessary to consider the dispute arising on the applicability or otherwise of Rule 57Q of the Rules. 11. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.
-
1997 (3) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Return of inputs found defective after reversing credit ... ... ... ... ..... f submissions of both the sides and having regard to the relevant documents, for example, documents at pages 31, 32 and 33 namely GPI 1380 dated 24-3-1992 issued by M/s. Modi Steels, Modinagar covering quantity of 10.640 MTs of steel wire rods, GPI No. 254 showing return of rejected steel rods from M/s. Modi Industries and GPI No. 2191 under which the goods came back to the appellants Excise duty has already been paid on goods received back, I am satisfied that the appellants have been able to establish that the goods which were sent out by the appellants for reconditioning (after reversal of credit entries) were the same goods which had came to them earlier under GPI No. 1380. Same is the case with other consignments in Annexure to the show cause notice. This being the reason, there is no reason to disallow the credit and therefore, I hold that the appellants are entitled to avail Modvat credit on the entire quantity, set aside the impugned order and allow these two appeals.
-
1997 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Notification ... ... ... ... ..... y differential duty. 8. emsp Sl. No. 6 of Notification refers to ldquo Parts of goods specified in Sl. No. 5 of the Notification No. 146/86, dated 26-2-1986. S. No. 6(i)(a), (b), (c) and (d) refers to parts including sub-assemblies whereas Sl. No. 6(ii) refers to rdquo others . It was contended the roller bearings consists of outer ring, inner ring and retainer assembly and impugned goods are only part of retainer assembly which itself is a sub-assembly. 9. emsp We cannot accept the contention that since Sl. No. 6(i)(a) does not refer to parts of sub-assembly the impugned goods are not covered by this Sl. No. Even assuming impugned goods are part of sub-assembly they do not cease to be parts of roller bearings. We therefore hold that impugned goods are covered by Sl. No. 6(i)(a) of the Notification itself and cannot be pushed to a residuary heading of ldquo others rdquo under Sl. No. 6(ii) of the notification. In the result the impugned order is upheld and appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (3) TMI 260 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... ove. Hence the value of US 600 per MT which the Commissioner found to be that of some other importation of widespec may have been because that material was virgin polymer, and may not have been reprocessed. For that value to apply it has to be shown either that the material under consideration is not reprocessed and therefore the value of the importation of other widespec virgin plastic will apply, or in the alternative that the value of the (undisclosed) other import, the details of which have not been disclosed will apply because that is also reprocessed widespec material of comparable technical characteristics and other factors exists such as will justify invocation of the Valuation Rules. The Commissioner rsquo s order, as it stand, does not deal with either of these aspects. The Commissioner has also not had the benefit of Dr. Trivedi rsquo s opinion. We therefore set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner is at liberty to adjudicate the case afresh according to law.
-
1997 (3) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... es or electronic micro circuits or capacitors other than paper capacitors) required for the manufacture of medical electronic equipment. There is no dispute about the parts as are specifically excluded. The basic question is whether such batteries can be considered as parts of electronic medical equipment. It has been contended before us that catalogue itself indicates that the batteries had various application and it is of general nature and not designed for any particular instance. We find that the battery is merely a source of power and cannot be considered as integral part of electronic medical equipment. There is clear distinction between parts and accessories and even though the medical equipment would not work without the battery the battery nevertheless cannot be considered as part of the equipment but at best only accessory. 5. emsp In view of this we find considerable merit in Revenue Appeal and therefore we set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue appeal.
-
1997 (3) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... y the deptt. insofar as the clandestine production/removal of 849.364 MTs. of MS ingots/steel castings are concerned. 6. emsp The ld. Counsel also argued the question of limitation. On the evidence placed on record, I find that the appellants have submitted raw material returns in form-V and the production returns in form and RT-12 returns. These returns were being submitted from time to time. These returns show the use and balance of raw material as also the finished product. Thus I do not see any suppression or misstatement on the part of the appellants. I therefore, hold that demand is hit by limitation. Since the entire demand is beyond a period of six months, therefore, same is time-barred. 7. emsp In view of the above findings, I hold that the appellants win the case both on merits as well as on limitation. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (3) TMI 257 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ... ... ... ..... bearings are the same. It may be that two articles have the same functions but, nonetheless, they are distinct and separate. As the functions of bushings are the same as that of the bearings, sometimes bushings are also called bearings, as pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal. But when these two articles are known in the market by two different names it is difficult to uphold the contention that they are same and identical, even though they perform the same functions. We, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the Appellate Tribunal and the Customs authorities that bushings and bearings are same and identical. rdquo Indian plywood considers it as a tool in view of the function of coated abrasive paper. But I observe that the said judgment does not take note of Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Jain Engineering Co. (supra) before holding ldquo Coated Abrasive Paper rdquo as a tool on the basis of its function. 5. emsp Hence, I dismiss Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
1997 (3) TMI 256 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... m at Dubai and he was carrying the gold for a consideration on behalf of the appellant. The statement has further supported by the evidence of the carrier identifying the appellant from a photograph shown to him. The recovery from the carrier of the contact number of the appellant in Dubai is also a sufficient evidence pointing to the involvement of the appellant in the offence. In these circumstances, we find that sufficient evidence exists to penalise the appellant under Section 112 in the departmental adjudication and it is well settled that the degree of proof as required in such adjudication is not as the same in prosecution in court of law. Therefore, we are of the view that the penalty on the appellant is correct in law. However, considering the plea of the appellant before us, we hold that a lower personal penalty may meet the ends of justice. The penalty is accordingly, reduced from Rs. One lakh to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1997 (3) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... ng this ratio it would follow therefore that for a product to be an intermediate product within the meaning of Rule 57D it is not necessary that it should go into existence as a result of the process by which the final product is being manufactured, which is what the order of the Collector says so. The contention that the bags are used as packaging material is not correct. It may be true that L.D.P.E. granules may be packaging material the bags which are manufactured out of these granules have attained the state of packing material, and when the luggage manufactured by the appellant is packed in it before being marketed. The packaging material would, on the ratio of the Pond rsquo s decision would be treated as inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product in the form in which it is marketed i.e. packed in the bags. The appellant was therefore entitled to take credit on the duty paid on granules. 7. emsp Appeal allowed. The impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (3) TMI 254 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit admissible ... ... ... ... ..... on No. 217/86-C.E. was admissible to such manufacturer. Against the said order of the Tribunal, it appears, the Revenue had filed Civil Appeal No. 434 (NM) of 1991 which has been dismissed by this Court on March 25, 1991. Since the only question in this appeal is the very same, namely, whether air bags and bladders can be treated as inputs in the manufacture of tyres, we have to dismiss these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. He submits that although the question before the Apex Court was regarding the benefit of Notification 217/86-C.E., the same ratio would apply to Rule 57A because they are worded similarly. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the Revenue rsquo s appeal. 4. emsp I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I agree with the plea of the ld. Representative for the respondents rsquo Company in view of Supreme Court rsquo s observation in the case of Modi Rubber extracted above. Accordingly, I dismiss the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
1997 (3) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - New ground ... ... ... ... ..... t Collector (Appeals) in appeal has taken a ground entirely different from what was in dispute during the proceedings. Collector (Appeals) could not have adopted a ground which was never contested before him by revenue and in regard to which the appellants were not put on notice. This order therefore suffers from a basic infirmity and cannot be sustained as it is. Without going into merit of the case, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Asstt. Commissioner of Customs for de novo decision after giving appellants an opportunity of being heard. We also note that Asstt. Commissioner had passed a completely non-speaking order inasmuch as he accepts the claim of the appellants that the goods were classifiable under Heading 84.19 and admits also that refund will become ldquo suo motto rdquo . And yet he holds it is not admissible. In any case, since we are remanding the matter to Asstt. Commissioner, we do not wish to dwell any further on this aspect.
-
1997 (3) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 90.22 to 90.25 or 90.27 to which the rate applicable to the non-electric counter parts will be applicable. We find that the coverage of this sub-heading No. (4) of heading No. 90.28 is also wide. The rate of duty is 40 . 6. emsp Learned Advocate had also submitted that the sub-heading (1) of heading No. 90.28 is a residuary entry and the classification under this sub- heading could only be considered if the goods are not classified under any other specific heading/sub-heading. Keeping in view the scheme of the Tariff and the scope of heading No. 90.25 when read in the context of 90.28(4) we consider that the classification of bearing analyser BEA-52 under the residuary entry No. (1) of heading No. 90.28 was not proper and they were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. (4) of Heading 90.28. 7. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account we do not agree with the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals). Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
............
|