Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 699 Records
-
2004 (3) TMI 652 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... t quasi-judicial. The appellate authority, however, sustained the penalties in its quasi-judicial jurisdiction. The appellants have challenged this dichotomy writ large on the impugned order. This challenge is prima facie sustainable. If any demand of establishment/supervision charges under the Customs (Fees for Rendering of Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 is administrative and not quasi-judicial, then the question whether any penalty is liable to be imposed on the person on whom such demand has been raised will also have to be treated likewise. Therefore, it appears to me that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have sustained penalties on the appellants in his quasi-judicial jurisdiction, having held that he had no such power in respect of demands of establishment/supervision charges raised on the party. The appellants have a strong prima facie case. Accordingly, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery are allowed and the appeals are posted to 21-4-2004.
-
2004 (3) TMI 651 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Clubbing of - Manufacturer - Confiscation and penalty - Accountal of goods
-
2004 (3) TMI 650 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation, fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ontainer. Therefore Customs Tariff Heading 3506.10 is the rightful parentage for the goods. Although the goods can be considered as office stationery, they are specifically covered under CTH heading 3506.10. Hence they are consumer goods requiring specific licence for the import. The earlier clearance of part consignment on the strength of special import licence cannot be pressed into service by the importers to claim that these goods should also be cleared under the coverage of SIL. In view of our finding that the goods are covered by CTH 3506.10 and are consumer goods requiring specific licence for their import, we hold that the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). Having regard to the value of the goods we reduce the fine to Rs. 1 lakh. Penalty is set aside in view of the bona fide belief of the importers, based on earlier clearance that the goods could be cleared on production of special import licence. 3. emsp The appeal is thus partly allowed as above.
-
2004 (3) TMI 649 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Clandestine removal - Accountal of goods - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... cannot be supported. There is no provision in the rules for confiscating the unaccounted raw material, in cases where no Modvat credit has been taken. Therefore, this part of the order deserves to be set aside, which I do. 8. emsp In view of the discussion above I uphold the order of (1) emsp Confiscation of 19 Diesel Engines valued at Rs.1,14,000/-. However, I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. (2) emsp The order confiscating the raw materials is set aside. (3) emsp The order confirming the duty of Rs. 35,160/- is confirmed. However, penalty imposed under Section 11AC is reduced from Rs. 35,160/- to Rs. 20,000/- and the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q is set aside. (4) emsp Consequent to reduction of penalties as above, the penalties imposed on the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are also reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. But for the modification indicated above the orders of the lower authorities are confirmed. The appeals are thus partly allowed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 648 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing charges ... ... ... ... ..... credit in respect of the wooden boxes. The assumption is now found to be without factual basis. 5. emsp It is clear that the wooden boxes/crates is not the normal packing of the sheet glass manufactured by the appellant. Such packing is used only for safety of transport. The cost of such additional packing is not required to be included in the assessable value. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed rdquo . 3. emsp It is clear that wooden box packing in the appellant rsquo s case is additional packing required for the safety of the goods in transport. The cost of such additional packing does not form part of the manufacturing cost of the parts in question. It forms only part of its transport cost. There is no requirement to include such costs in the assessable value of the goods. Orders holding to the contrary cannot be sustained. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any, to the appellants.
-
2004 (3) TMI 647 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... re duty in respect of the goods cleared by them. No duty demand in the show cause notice has been raised from them. In respect of the goods which were seized on the plea that these were branded goods, no duty could be demanded and those goods were never cleared by them without payment of duty. Rather, the goods were lying in the factory. Those goods were also not unaccounted in the record. Therefore, penalty under Rule 25 could not be imposed. Penalty under this Rule could be imposed only if the goods were unaccounted, but as observed above, this is not the case here. The penalty under Section 11AC had already been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order. Therefore, under these circumstances, no seizure of the goods could be effected and no redemption fine and penalty could be imposed. Consequently the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief if any permissible to the appellants under the law.
-
2004 (3) TMI 646 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... r of the raw material to the Applicants have not discharged the appropriate duty they were not eligible for Modvat credit that the invoice is issued by the supplier only mentions ldquo goods cleared under Rule 96ZP rdquo and nowhere it is mentioned in the invoice that appropriate duty has been discharged by them. In reply the learned Advocate referred to pages 81-83 of the paper book which indicates the duty deposited by the supplier and the duty amount which has been deferred. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In view of the fact that the duty has been discharged by the supplier of the raw material which may not be paid as per the stay of the Department, the Applicants have made out a strong prima facie case in terms of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vikas Pipe (supra). We, therefore, stay the recovery of the entire amount of duty and penalty during the pendency of the appeal which are posted for regular hearing on 5th May, 2004.
-
2004 (3) TMI 645 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ems played in parlour games, billiards, special tables for casino games and automatic bowling alley equipment rsquo . 3. emsp Ld. Counsel Shri S. Ignatius submits that the word in the above sentence ldquo Model rdquo was not submitted but the statement was with regard to the ldquo Parlour Games rdquo . He submits that the word ldquo Model rdquo should be replaced with ldquo Parlour Games rdquo as that is what was contended. 4. emsp Ld. SDR Smt. R. Bhagya Devi has no objection to the rectification. 5. emsp On a careful consideration, the Bench find that there is no mistake pointed out in the Final Order that is in finding portion of the order. Only one word is supposed to have been mis-typed. Instead of typing ldquo Parlour Games rdquo it has been typed as ldquo Model rdquo . The sentence should be read in the way in which the ld. Counsel requires it to be done substituting the word ldquo Parlour Games rdquo with ldquo Model rdquo . The rectification to that extent is allowed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 644 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Contemporaneous imports - Import ... ... ... ... ..... uation Rules read with Section 14 (1A) of the Customs Act is not legal and proper. In view of the above facts and circumstances we set aside the order of enhancement of value both in respect of alleged 30 sets as well as component parts. We also set aside the order of confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. We also set aside the order of imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act and also set aside the order of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the importers under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. We therefore do not agree with the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Sea), Chennai that the goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 412109, dated 22-7-2002 are 30 sets of Samsung Brand VCD Players of Model Z820Me and are in CKD condition. Thus the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Ordered accordingly. 9. emsp The operative portion of the order was pronounced in Open Court on 31-3-2004.
-
2004 (3) TMI 643 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... n 29-11-1990, the notice of appeal was sent to the applicant by registered post and was directed to appear before Tribunal on 11-6-1998. On 11-06-1998 neither the compliance was reported nor any counsel or representative was present before the Tribunal, hence the appeal was dismissed in terms of Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 5. emsp The application has been filed on 5-11-2003 after the expiry of the period of five years. It is incumbent on the applicant to explain the delay for each day. In the present case, application for the restoration of appeal has been filed after the expiry of the period of five years and no cogent reasons have been given. It was duty of the applicant to trace the record and put up his appearance, he was totally negligent and careless. Applicant could not give any satisfactory explanation for delay. Under these circumstances, he deserves no sympathy and this application deserves to be dismissed. 6. emsp Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 642 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... sion that they were Actual User (Industrial). As against this, the submission of the learned SDR is that since the specific imports in question were not covered by a valid import licence, confiscation and imposition of penalty were justified. 4. emsp We find merit in the appellant rsquo s case. There is no dispute that the items in question were required for manufacture of VCRs. In fact, the case originally made was that full VCR was being imported in the guise of VCR parts. Import Policy allowed the import of component of actual industrial users. In the case of restricted and prohibited items, import licences were being issued for such industrial users. In fact, for the earlier period, the appellants had been granted such licence. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that confiscation of the said items and imposition of penalty were not warranted. We, therefore, amend our Final Order Nos. 919-920/2000-A, dated 16-11-2000 so as to allow the appeal on this issue also.
-
2004 (3) TMI 641 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - EXIM - Advance licence ... ... ... ... ..... the item imported happened to be the same viz. Sodium metal. The appellants have also submitted that they are faced with acute financial crunch and they are not able to mobilize any funds for making pre-deposit as the Banks are not willing to extend any credit facility. They have also submitted that the appellants will not be able to recover the duty now demanded from the foreign customers. Taking all these factors into consideration, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have made out a prima facie for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. We, therefore, grant waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty involved in this case and grant stay of the recovery of the same till the disposal of the appeal. 6. emsp Since the amount involved in this appeal is very high, the appeal will be posted for hearing on out of turn basis. The exact date of hearing will be fixed and communicated to the parties in due course.
-
2004 (3) TMI 640 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... the Tariff. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon an earlier Order-in-Appeal Nos. 316-318/98 (N), dated 13-11-1997 and against such order, the Revenue has not preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and has accepted that order. From the extract of the Order Nos. 316-318/98, in the present impugned order, we find that an expert has confirmed that lsquo On Load Top Changer rsquo is part of transformer. There is no expert opinion on the item in dispute. In view of the above, we hold that in the interests of justice the matter be examined afresh in the light of the assessees claim for classification under Chapter Heading 85.04 and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision after obtaining the expert opinion on the disputed item. Fresh orders shall be passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
2004 (3) TMI 639 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation, fine and penalty - Second-hand crank shafts ... ... ... ... ..... e second hand goods. It is only that second hand capital goods that are restricted. The goods under import are replacement parts and freely importable under Paras 10 and 5.4 of the Exim Policy. The Counsel for the appellant however mainly pleaded that the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner is excessive. He cited several decisions in support of his plea that the adjudicating authorities/appellate authorities have not been imposing/confirming fines beyond a particular level (45 of the value). 4. emsp I have gone through the various contentions. Insofar as the contention that no licence is required to import the second hand goods is concerned, I hold that the appellant is misreading Paras 10 and 5.4 of the Import Export Policy. The goods under import being second hand need a licence. 5. emsp Confiscation is upheld. Taking the totality of circumstances, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 40,000/ -. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is sustained. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 638 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ing in the pipelines, which are embedded into earth, this Circular is not applicable to them. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have also perused the case records and Board rsquo s Circular and we are of the considered opinion that the duty has to be paid by the appellants on the pipes, which have been manufactured by them without licence and cleared to the site without payment of appropriate duty. We, therefore, confirm the order of the ld. Commissioner demanding duty. Since, the appellants have not disclosed that they have cleared these goods without payment of duty and have not obtained any licence, the penalty has been rightly imposed on them under Rule 173Q of the Rules ibid. However, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousands only). But for this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (3) TMI 637 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ially cleared without payment of duty, there is no other document that can vouch for the authenticity of the payment of duty on the goods so cleared except the certificate which the respondents produced. The list of duty paying documents as specified in the Rule 57G of the Rules may not specifically refer to duty payment affected subsequently to the clearance of the goods. However, the payment having been made on the basis of cash challan and duly certified by the concerned appraiser of the Customs House, it cannot cease to be a duty paying document. In fact, it is the most primary document of duty payment the acceptance of which cannot be disputed, when the secondary document generated from primary duty paying document (cash challan) such as invoices of the traders and the dealers and godown keepers are being accepted as duty paying document. 6. emsp On the basis of the above analysis, I find that the appeal filed by the Revenue is without any merit and the same is rejected.
-
2004 (3) TMI 636 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... peal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner by the Revenue was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the demand and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. Hence the present appeal. 2. emsp We find that Notification No. 175/86 requires the factory to be registered with the Director of Industries for claiming the benefit of the same. However, proviso (b) to Para 4 of the notification is to the effect that the registration requirement is not there in case the manufacturer has been availing the exemption under this notification or any of the specified notification during the preceding financial year. The appellants have claimed that during the financial years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, they had been claiming benefit of SSI exemption. As such, they are entitled to the Notification No. 175/86 in terms of 4(b) of the same. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.
-
2004 (3) TMI 635 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... entries in statutory records. The lower authorities found that there was no evidence on record to show that the inputs had actually been received in the assessee rsquo s factory under cover of the relevant invoice. The assessee has relied on a decision of the Tribunal which has been distinguished by the lower appellate authority which has found that, in the cited case, the relevant octroi receipt and GRs were available to show inputs having been received in the factory. Referring to the documentary evidence produced by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the payments made by the party to the input-supplier could possibly be paper transactions only. This finding indicates that the conclusion reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) is based on conjecture rather than on evidence. There seems to be a fairly strong case for the applicants. Accordingly, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery are granted as prayed for. The appeal is posted to 7-5-2004 for hearing.
-
2004 (3) TMI 634 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ny, both of whom are aggrieved by the penalties imposed on them. The DR has reiterated the above objection, and Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain has opposed it. 3. emsp The main appeals are against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting drawback claims, which were passed under Section 128A of the Customs Act. As per Clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Act, these appeals are not maintainable before the Tribunal. The remaining appeals are against the penalties imposed on the appellants consequent to rejection of the drawback claims. In my considered view, these appeals also cannot be maintained as per the above provision of law. The remedy open to the appellants is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 129 DD of the Act. 4. emsp These appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. The appellants are at liberty to approach the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act in the manner prescribed under law.
-
2004 (3) TMI 633 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty - Order - Finality of - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... have not arisen out of order passed by the Dy. Commissioner determining their annual capacity of production. These are subsequent proceedings initiated by the appellants themselves for claiming the refund of duty after the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. case (supra). The decision of Madras High Court in the case of Gemini Metal Works (supra) wherein it has been held that the order found to be void for violation of principles of natural justice, can be attacked in collateral proceedings initiated on the basis of such void order. No proceedings has been initiated by the Revenue on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In Gemini Metal Works (supra), the cancellation of the licence, in violation to the principles of natural justice, had given rise to the subsequent order passed by the Customs Department, which is not the case in the present matter. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal, which is rejected.
............
|