Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1999 1999 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 200 of 446 Records

• 1999 (3) TMI 282
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi found that the order-in-original in the case was passed in violation of natural justice principles. The entire proceedings were deemed unsustainable, so the impugned order and the original order were set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following natural justice principles. The appeal was allowed through remand, and the stay petition was disposed of.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 281
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of the imported "Hot Melt Equipment" under the appropriate heading of the Customs Tariff Act.
  2. Entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of the Imported "Hot Melt Equipment":
  
  The appellant firm imported "Nordson Hot Melt Equipment" comprising a Nordson Model 3700 Applicator, a Hose, an Extrusion Gun, a Solenoid, and Nozzles. They claimed classification under Heading 8479.40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which was initially accepted by the Customs Authorities but later reclassified under Heading 8424.20. The Customs Authorities justified this reclassification by determining that the equipment was akin to "spraying appliances" under Heading 8424.20, rather than "other machinery" under Heading 8479.40. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this classification, emphasizing that the primary function of the equipment was not to heat the material but to apply it on the object through extrusion from a gun nozzle.
  
  Upon appeal, the Tribunal agreed with the Department's classification under Heading 8424.20, noting that the equipment's principal function was to deliver molten adhesive at the desired place, similar to spray guns. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's alternative classification under Heading 84.19, as the equipment did not primarily function to treat materials by a process involving a change of temperature.
  
  2. Entitlement to the Benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987:
  
  The appellants contended that even if the equipment was classified under Heading 8424.20, it should still be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., which provides a concessional rate of duty for certain mechanical appliances for spraying liquids or powders other than paint, varnish, oil, distemper, or cement. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the equipment was indeed a mechanical appliance used for spraying liquids other than the specified excluded materials.
  
  The Tribunal observed that the equipment was designed to apply molten adhesives through an electrically heated extrusion gun with nozzles, fitting the description of mechanical appliances covered by Serial No. 17 of the Notification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the said Notification, as the equipment was not excluded by any specific provision of the Notification.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal concluded that while the Department was justified in classifying the equipment under Heading 8424.20, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., as amended. The appeal was thus partially allowed, granting the appellants the concessional rate of duty under the said Notification.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 280
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that broken poles are not liable to duty under Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as they are not marketable as PPC poles. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. (1999 (3) TMI 280 - CEGAT, New Delhi)

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 279
  
  Issues:
  Classification of waste arising in the manufacture of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) as undrawn waste, crimped uncut waste, and cut and process waste; Duty demand on wastes; Appeal against duty demand; Test reports by Chemical Examiner; Finality of earlier order by Collector; Fresh proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 9-2-1993; Criteria for determining cut and process waste; Customers not end users; Physical control of PSF consignments; Misapplication of Board's directions.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Waste and Duty Demand:
  The case involved disputes regarding the classification of different types of wastes arising in the manufacture of PSF - undrawn waste, crimped uncut waste, and cut and process waste. The Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, passed an order classifying undrawn waste and cut and process waste as waste under sub-heading 5503.19, dropping proceedings against them, but confirmed duty demand on crimped uncut waste. The appellants appealed against the order, leading to a remand by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication.
  
  2. Test Reports and Fresh Proceedings:
  The Revenue issued a show cause notice in 1993 based on test reports indicating similarities between cut and process waste and PSF. The appellants argued that the test reports did not conclusively prove that cut and process waste was not waste but good PSF. They contended that the criteria for determining cut and process waste were not properly followed, and customers were not end users but processed the waste before selling it.
  
  3. Finality of Earlier Order and Misapplication of Board's Directions:
  The appellants emphasized the finality of the earlier order by the Collector, which was not appealed against by the Revenue. They argued that the fresh proceedings initiated in 1993 were unwarranted. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments, highlighting a misapplication of the Board's directions in the case. The circular emphasized that non-uniform length fibers could be considered waste, but the test reports did not address uniformity, leading to a lack of reliance on them to reopen past assessments.
  
  4. Decision and Relief:
  In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that there was no substance in the Revenue's case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, providing consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Collector's earlier judgment, physical control of goods, and the misapplication of the Board's directions in the present case.
  
  This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the classification of waste, duty demands, test reports, finality of earlier orders, fresh proceedings, criteria for waste determination, and the misapplication of regulatory directions.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 278
  
  Issues:
  1. Confirmation of demand under show cause notices for contravention of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules.
  2. Eligibility for Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing motor vehicles.
  3. Applicability of Rule 57F(2) as an exception to Rule 57F(1).
  4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 57F(2).
  5. Entitlement to facility under Rule 57F(2) despite payment of duty by manufacturers of fuel tanks and struts.
  
  Issue 1:
  The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,70,33,595/- under show cause notices for contravention of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, alleging that the appellants removed inputs to job workers without paying duty. The Commissioner held that the appellants were not covered by Rule 57F(2) as contended by them.
  
  Issue 2:
  The Tribunal considered the eligibility for Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing motor vehicles. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where it was held that Rule 57F(1)(ii) did not apply in cases where inputs were sent to job workers for further processing and returned to the principal manufacturer for use in the final product, as per a Trade Notice emphasizing such practices.
  
  Issue 3:
  Regarding the applicability of Rule 57F(2) as an exception to Rule 57F(1), the Tribunal noted that the appellants had requested general permission under Rule 57F(2) and had substantially complied with procedural requirements. The Tribunal rejected the adjudicating authority's reasoning for ruling out the applicability of Rule 57F(2) based on procedural lapses.
  
  Issue 4:
  The Tribunal addressed the compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 57F(2), finding that the appellants had substantially followed the procedural requirements, including requesting general permission under Rule 57F(2) and maintaining necessary documentation despite minor deviations.
  
  Issue 5:
  In response to the argument that manufacturers of fuel tanks and struts had paid duty instead of availing the benefit of a notification, the Tribunal rejected this contention based on previous decisions. It held that the appellants were entitled to the facility under Rule 57F(2) following the precedent set in earlier cases, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals based on the previous decision's ratio.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the Tribunal's considerations, and the legal conclusions reached in each aspect of the case.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 277
  
  Issues:
  Classification of goods under Heading 8485, treatment of assessments as provisional, compliance with Rule 9B for provisional assessment, applicability of Supreme Court judgments, limitation period for issuing show cause notice.
  
  Classification of Goods:
  The respondents claimed the classification of their goods under Heading 8485 chargeable to duty at 15% ad valorem. Subsequently, they filed additional classification lists under the same heading. The Assistant Commissioner approved the classification at a higher rate of duty of 20% ad valorem. The issue arose when the Range Officer directed the respondents to pay the differential duty for a specific period. The main contention was whether the assessments were provisional due to the pending approval of classification lists.
  
  Treatment of Assessments as Provisional:
  The Assistant Commissioner, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a personal penalty. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessments could not be treated as provisional as the clearances were based on previously approved lists and there were no changes. The Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, stating that the notice was barred by limitation.
  
  Compliance with Rule 9B for Provisional Assessment:
  The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with Rule 9B for resorting to provisional assessment. It was noted that two conditions must be fulfilled for provisional assessment: obtaining permission from the proper officer and executing a proper bond covering the likely differential duty. Failure to meet these conditions renders the assessment non-provisional. The Tribunal differentiated between assessments pending approval of classification lists and those requiring compliance with Rule 9B for provisional status.
  
  Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments:
  The Tribunal referenced various Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions to clarify the requirements for provisional assessments. It highlighted that assessments cannot be treated as provisional unless the provisions of Rule 9B are fully complied with, including the specific order for provisional assessment and execution of the necessary bond. The judgments emphasized the importance of following statutory requirements for assessments to be considered provisional.
  
  Limitation Period for Issuing Show Cause Notice:
  In the absence of compliance with Rule 9B and the lack of a specific order for provisional assessment, the assessments were deemed not provisional. Consequently, the notice issued after six months from the actual payment of duty was considered barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal, concluding that the assessments were not provisional in this case.
  
  By analyzing the issues of classification of goods, treatment of assessments as provisional, compliance with Rule 9B for provisional assessment, applicability of Supreme Court judgments, and the limitation period for issuing show cause notice, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive judgment that clarified the requirements for provisional assessments and highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory provisions for the proper classification and assessment of goods under Central Excise rules.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 276
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled that imported denim fabric for shirts matched the export license for gents shirts, allowing duty exemption. The tribunal confirmed that denim made of cotton falls under the category of cotton fabrics. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the technical characteristics of the imported goods met the requirements for duty exemption.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 275
  
  The appeal was about the determination of annual capacity of an induction furnace. The appellants claimed a certain capacity, but the authority determined a higher capacity without giving them a chance to explain. The appellate tribunal found that the appellants should have been given an opportunity to explain their case as per Section 3A. The case was remanded for a new determination with the appellants being heard. The appeal was allowed by remand.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 274
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeals filed by a manufacturer of motor vehicles regarding duty payment on a jeep. The tribunal ruled that no duty was payable on the jeep cleared in 1991 after repairs, as there was no finding that the repairs amounted to manufacture. The impugned orders were set aside. (Case citation: 1999 (3) TMI 274 - CEGAT, Mumbai)

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 273
  
  Issues:
  Levy of tax on sale of handkerchiefs claimed to be exempted under Entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
  
  Analysis:
  1. Interpretation of Entry 8A and Relevant Entries: The dispute revolves around the exemption of handkerchiefs under Entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule. The petitioner argues that handkerchiefs should be exempt based on historical interpretations and precedents. Reference is made to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act where mill-made handkerchiefs were considered exempt. The petitioner relies on judgments like Deputy Commissioner of Sale Tax v. Mohammed Abdul Khader and Bangalore Wood Industries v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to support their claim.
  
  2. Classification under Central Excise Acts: The petitioner contends that handkerchiefs should be classified as cotton fabric under the Central Excise Acts, specifically referring to Entry 62. However, the court notes that handkerchiefs are considered articles of apparel and clothing accessories under Entry 62, which excludes them from the category of textile fabrics. The court emphasizes the definitions provided in different chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to determine the classification.
  
  3. Application of Central Excise Tariff Act: The court delves into the application of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in conjunction with the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. It highlights that the definitions provided in the Central Excise Tariff Act are adopted in the Additional Duties of Excise Act, thereby influencing the interpretation of textile items for taxation purposes.
  
  4. Impact of Legal Changes: The court acknowledges the changes in law post the insertion of Entry 8A in the Fifth Schedule, emphasizing that previous judgments based on different legal provisions are no longer applicable. It underscores the importance of aligning with the current legal framework for tax assessments post the specified date.
  
  5. Exclusion from Declared Goods: The court determines that handkerchiefs do not fall under the category of declared goods as defined in the CST Act, thereby disallowing the benefit of tax rates in the Fourth Schedule. The dismissal of the petitions is based on the lack of merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment upholds the tax levy on the sale of handkerchiefs, rejecting the petitioner's claims for exemption under Entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule. The court's analysis focuses on the specific definitions provided in the relevant Acts and the applicability of legal changes post the specified date, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 272
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with whether scaling, ash, and cuprous residues are considered waste and scrap for Central Excise duty. The lower authority had ruled that they are, but the Tribunal disagreed. Citing a Supreme Court case, it was held that these items are not considered goods for Central Excise duty, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 271
  
  The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order demanding Central Excise duty and penalty on the appellants due to lack of positive evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal. The tribunal found discrepancies in the entries and lack of verification, leading to the appeal being allowed.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 265
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi considered a case where the Department had not quantified demands despite requests. The Tribunal observed that the Order-in-Original had been modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Department needed to quantify the modified amount. Since neither party provided the quantification, the stay applications were dismissed with liberty to reapply when necessary.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 264
  
  Issues:
  - Availability of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on Cone Winding Machine used in yarn manufacture.
  - Interpretation of "in the factory of the manufacturer" under Rule 57Q.
  
  Analysis:
  - The appeal concerns the availability of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on a Cone Winding Machine used in yarn manufacturing. The machine was initially received by one unit of the manufacturer, where the final yarn product is made. Subsequently, due to operational reasons, the machine was shifted to a separate subsidiary unit of the same manufacturer. The key contention is whether the first receiving unit is eligible for the Modvat credit despite the machine being moved to another factory of the same manufacturer. The appellant argues that since the machine is used in the process resulting in the final product at the first unit, Modvat credit should be available to that unit. Reference is made to the case of Bajaj Tempo Limited to support this position.
  
  - The opposing view presented by the JDR is that the separate identity of the units under Central Excise Law, with distinct registration numbers, precludes the subsidiary unit from claiming the Modvat credit for the machine installed at a different location. The interpretation of "in the factory of the manufacturer" is crucial, with emphasis placed on the specific wording of Rule 57Q. It is argued that the capital goods must be installed in the factory where the final product emerges for Modvat credit eligibility, as indicated by the use of the definite article "the" in the rule. The distinction between inputs and capital goods is highlighted to assert that the credit availability is limited to the factory where the capital goods are installed.
  
  - The judgment delves into the core components of Rule 57Q for Modvat credit eligibility on capital goods. It is established that the Cone Winding Machine qualifies as capital goods under the rule. However, the decisive factor is the requirement that the capital goods must be used in the manufacture of the final product in the factory where the product is made. The use of the definite article "the" in the rule signifies a specific factory, indicating that the capital goods must be installed at the location where the final product emerges. The judgment emphasizes the importance of the capital goods being instrumental in the production process, limiting the credit availability to the factory where they are installed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as there is no basis to overturn the Order-in-Appeal.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 263
  
  The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No. 68/98 (MDU) passed by the Collector (Appeals) in consideration of the Order-in-Original No. 87/96. The Assistant Collector's order lacked natural justice principles as he did not provide a copy of the chemical analysis report or a further opportunity to the appellants. The order-in-appeal classified the product under a different heading than proposed, going beyond the show cause notice. The Appellate Tribunal set aside both orders and remanded the matter for re-consideration, instructing the Assistant Collector to provide the necessary documents and a fair hearing to the appellants.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 262
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed whether stay sets as per TNEB drawings are liable to duty. The Tribunal ruled that the activity of cutting, drilling, and jointing does not amount to manufacturing, based on previous judgments. Therefore, the goods are not liable to duty, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 261
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Engineers Combine, New Delhi, stating that penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 173Q when duty paid is available as Modvat credit to the customer. The decision was based on previous rulings and the issue being revenue neutral. The appeal was allowed on the limited issue of penalty.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 259
  
  The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved a case of waiver of duty deposit and penalties on M/s. S.G. International and T.N. Mulani. The duty demanded was Rs. 71,68,799, penalty of Rs. 1.40 crores on M/s. S.G. International, and penalty of Rs. 72 lakhs on T.N. Mulani. The tribunal ordered the deposit of entire duty demanded and Rs. 35 lakhs towards penalty within two months, waiving the deposit of the remaining penalties on each applicant. Compliance was required by 25-3-1999.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 258
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appellants to take deemed credit. The Assistant Commissioner rejected their request to take credit in PLA due to the withdrawal of Modvat facility. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Commissioner to assess if the duty burden was passed on to customers before allowing the credit in PLA. The matter was remanded for further decision.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 257
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. cannot be denied to goods with brand names "Sumeet" or "Sears" as they were not meant for flex cords. The lower appellate authority's decision was upheld, but it was noted that if the cords were sold separately as spare parts, the benefit of the notification would not apply. The Revenue's appeal was partially accepted for further verification.

  ---

1 ....67891011121314........ 23