Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 404 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 234 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... issue demanded that the opinion of a chemical examiner or an expert in the field should have been obtained as to the nature of the product and also to understand the scope of the various chemical terms used in the Chapter Notes and HSN. 7. emsp In the above view of the matter, therefore, we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order are not proper. We, therefore, set aside the same and remand the matters to de novo consideration for re-examining the matter in the light of what is mentioned above and taking into consideration the facts and evidences the lower authority may deem fit to call in and also affording the appellants an opportunity to call in any experts if they so choose. The appellants are entitled to explain their position with regard to any document that the lower authority may rely upon. The appeals are therefore allowed by remand and on the above terms. 8. emsp The cross-objection being in the nature of comments, is misconceived in law and is dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 233 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ctly satisfying human needs without further processing of such goods. At another level, capital goods rsquo are also in contradistinction to raw materials rsquo , and consumables rsquo , even though raw materials rsquo , consumables rsquo are also required for production of other goods. The expression capital goods rsquo would embrace goods which are of more enduring character like plant and machinery rather than the raw materials rsquo and consumables rsquo which get consumed. Switch operating mechanism, being a part of railway track equipment has the character of capital goods rsquo than of raw-materials and consumables rsquo . That being the only point for controversy in respect of switch operating mechanism and the finding being in favour of the Revenue, we uphold the confiscation of switch operating mechanism and consequently, the fine of Rs. 1,95,000/- in lieu of confiscation thereof. 4.4 emsp Appeal disposed of in above terms with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1997 (4) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Money credit Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ndustries Ltd.. The SLP filed by the revenue to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court referred to in the order-in-original was dismissed on 28-10-1990. The Supreme Court judgment has been followed by the Tribunal in the appellants rsquo own case as seen from final order No. A/1114/94-NB, dated 30-12-1994 wherein the Tribunal has held that the effect of rescinding Notification regarding money credit scheme is that the manufacturers would not be entitled to earn any credit after the date of recession. But that would not affect the rights already accrued to them by way of credit and it is open to the manufacturers to utilise the same even after the lapse of the Notification. Following the ratio of the above orders, I hold that credit of Rs. 3,23,806/- has rightly been availed as money credit by the appellants on ethyl alcohol received by them prior to 1-4-1994 and accordingly set aside the demand of duty and penalty in the impugned order.
-
1997 (4) TMI 231 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... for generation of heat which in turn will make some processes relating to the notified finished product possible. Some exempted or non-exempted products may emerge or even non-excisable product may emerge during the process of manufacture. The legislature did not intend to restrict the Modvat credit in respect of the fuel unless it could be shown that the notified product as such was cleared without payment of duty. It is the operation as a whole in the factory which is to be considered. The Tribunal in this context in the case of Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd. referred to supra has allowed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs which were used for purification of water which ultimately was used for generation of steam which was exempted at the relevant time. We therefore in view of the above discussions hold that the appellants would be eligible to the benefit of Modvat credit as claimed. We therefore allow the appeal of the appellants with consequential relief.
-
1997 (4) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... y be imposed unless the party had either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation and the discretion of the authority is required to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. The real emphasis in the Apex Court rsquo s judgment in this case is with regard to consideration of all the relevant circumstances and learned Collector has taken those circumstances into account and learned DR has also pointed out the danger of misuse of the documents, if they were not returned for defacement. 13. emsp At the same time, penalty is also required to be proportionate to the offence. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances and noting in particular that the party rsquo s appeal had been accepted by the Collector (Appeals) to the extent of allowing the benefit of Modvat on merits, I reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
-
1997 (4) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... aspect or the other aspects relating to the applicability of the test reports to the goods received much earlier. We therefore consider it appropriate that the Commissioner should now pass a speaking order dealing with all the points raised by the appellant in its reply. He will pass this order after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of inspection, and if needed, taking copies of the seized documents, which are in the department rsquo s possession. Representative for the appellant undertakes to complete the inspection and taking copies of documents within two weeks of the date on which he is permitted for access by the department of the records for this purpose and to file a reply within one month thereafter. The Commissioner shall ensure that the appellant is given a proper opportunity to inspect the documents and taking copies thereof. 6. emsp With this observation, appeal is allowed. Impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall pass orders according to law.
-
1997 (4) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Super Vacuum Packing Machine imported by a Research Institution exempted under Notification No. 70/81-Cus.
-
1997 (4) TMI 227 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... lifting processes in the factory of the assessee. In that case the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that handling would also be a process in the context of the notified finished products in case it could be shown that without the function of handling the final product could not be manufactured. In the light of the above principles laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court we held in the case that if the appellants could show that the use of Fork Lifts is essential in their factory, without which they will not be able to manufacture the final product, then they are entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. The observations with respect to Rule 57Q and 57S were made by us only in the context and that if so when our decision is clearly covered by the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court cited supra, we are of the view that no question of law has arisen which is required to be referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. Accordingly the reference application is dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 226 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... h the foreign brand name Cannon allegedly affixed. 5. emsp The ld. Advocate has filed a statement of duty payable yearwise in this regard and which has been perused by the ld. JDR who confirms that the statements reflects the correct position. 6. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that provision for levy of statutory penalty came to be introduced on 20-9-1996 and statutory penalty of 100 could not have been levied in the light of the judgment of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT - 120 ITR 1, we order that on the applicant M/s. Nu-Tread pre-depositing a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs only) on or before 29th April, 1997 and reporting compliance on 30th April, 1997, the pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalties levied on the applicants shall stand dispensed with and the recovery of the same stayed pending appeals. The matter will be called on 30th April, 1997 for reporting compliance.
-
1997 (4) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... itannica Volume I describing shuttle loom as under ldquo Shuttless looms are of the three kinds, of which the first predominates dummy shuttle rapier, and fluid jet. The dummy shuttle type, the most successful of the shuttless looms, makes use of a dummy shuttle as projectiles that contains no weft but that passes through the shed in the manner of shuttle and leaves a trail of yarn behind it. rdquo From this it would appear that there are looms which are without shuttles and shuttle is not therefore essential part of the loom but is only an accessory and therefore would not be classifiable under Chapter Heading 98.06. 5. emsp Considering that Notification No. 181/97 refers to goods classifiable under C.T.H. 84.48 we are of the view that the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 181/87 has been correctly given by the Collector (Appeals). In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and therefore we uphold the order and reject the Revenue Appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - `Excisable goods’ ... ... ... ... ..... een considered by the Collector in his order. On the other hand, he has referred to the finding of the Assistant Collector while narrating the development of the case, vide Paragraph 6 of the impugned order. The Assistant Collector has held that the machines have been put on foundation and fixed with nuts and bolts to avoid vibration while working. It was also observed by the Assistant Collector that the machines could be removed from one place to another within the factory or out of the factory and that the machines cannot be termed as immovable property. As this finding is in conflict with the declaration in the affidavit referred to above, the factual position requires to be investigated besides applying the correct principles of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in these decisions discussed above. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Collector and allow the appeal by remand for de novo decision after hearing the appellants. 7. Appeal allowed on the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Mills (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1992 (40) ECR 557, a similar charge of misdeclaration have been brought. The Tribunal after consideration of the case, set aside the impugned order by applying the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s judgment rendered in the case of Kakkar and Co. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi as reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal) 1988 (17) ECR 267 which had been confirmed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that as per Sub-section (5) of Section 46, it clearly laid down that the proper officer may accept the revised bill of entry if it is satisfied that the interest of Revenue was not prejudically affected and that there was no fradulent intention on the part of the importer and in the circumstances, had set aside the imposition of fine. In the present case, the facts are identical with the terms of the ratio cited above. Applying the ratio of the judgments, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Damaged goods ... ... ... ... ..... erent. Nothing has been shown on record to show that any fresh process had been engaged in by the appellants apart from replacing torn/damaged wrappers. This will certainly be covered by Rule 173H. 11. emsp Since neither the order-in-original nor the order-in-appeal has dealt with the two aspects separately, I feel that it is a fit case of remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Assistant Collector insofar as the claim for admissibility of the benefit under Rule 173H is concerned in the case of replacement of wrapping of powder. The Assistant Collector shall, therefore, examine the question of allowing the benefit of Rule 173H in the case of wrapping paper used for detergent powder. The matter may be decided keeping the aforesaid observations in view and after giving an opportunity to the appellants of being heard and after complying with the necessary procedural requirements. 12. emsp In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and is remanded in terms set out above.
-
1997 (4) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Demand - Limitation - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... on of this credit. I, therefore hold that for the purpose of counting the period of six months it is the date of taking credit and not the date of utilisation of the credit which is relevant or filing RT 12 returns which is relevant. In this view of the matter the appeals are rejected. 9. emsp On the Cross Objections filed by the respondents I find that the law is well settled now. The Tribunal has been consistently holding that endorsement of the bill of entry do not change its duty paying character and that the Modvat credit of duty can be taken on the strength of endorsed bill of entry. In view of the case law cited and relied upon by the respondents on the issue I do not see any reason to disagree with the view already taken so far. In this view of the matter I accept the plea of the respondents submitted in the Cross Objections pleading that the Modvat credit can be taken on the strength of endorsed bill of entry. Cross Objections are also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Maintainability of - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... tion as has been placed before us cannot be taken to be reflective of the correct position. In view of the matter, we hold taking note of the various abatements which might become available to the appellants and taking note of the various statements, amount that would become due from the appellant rsquo s if worst is held against them as per the submissions made by the Ld. Senior Advocate, that the ends of justice will be served if the appellants company is called upon to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs) towards duty and Shri Shanmuhasundaram, Rs. 5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards penalty and subject to that the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty payable and penalty by the company and the balance of the penalty levied on Shri Shanmuhasundaram is dispensed with and the recovery of the same stayed pending appeal. Ordered accordingly. The pre-deposit should be made on or before 27th June, 1997 and the compliance report on 30th June, 1997.
-
1997 (4) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... effective rate of duty. Notification No. 313/86, dated 13-5-1986 against Sl. No. 10 (xxxxii) indicates the goods classifiable only under CTH 8479. If department therefore, holds that the goods are classifiable under 8479, the benefit of this exemption Notification in regard to auxiliary duty would be available. 6.2. emsp The learned Advocate makes an alternative plea with regard to exemption from basic duty under Notification No. 155/86. The learned DR submits that this claim cannot be made at this stage unless they fulfil the conditions of the Notification specified therein. We are however of the view that the plea regarding alternate benefit can be made even at the appellate stage but since it is a conditional Notification, we remand this matter to original authorities for the limited purpose of examining the entitlement to benefit under Notification 155/86. The appellants shall be heard before the decision is taken. 6.3. emsp All the appeals are disposed of in these terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat vis-a-vis exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... m, the appeal may be allowed. 2. emsp Shri Satam Singh, ld. SDR, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 3. emsp Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the Tribunal in some of the recent cases have been consistently holding that the option to either opt for availing exemption as a SSI unit or availing Modvat credit squarely lies with the assessee. Whenever, an assessee is manufacturing two or more items falling under different Chapter Headings, then the option is with the assessee to avail Modvat credit on one item and exemption as an SSI unit on the other. This view gets support from the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Faridabad Tools Private Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, supra, in which the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal. 4. emsp Having regard to the above decisions and following the ratio thereof we allow the appeal. Consequential relief if any shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (4) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ay be allowed. 2. emsp Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR reiterated the findings of the lower authority. 3. emsp Heard the submissions of both sides. We have seen the Show Cause Notice and perused it. We find that there is no stipulation for imposition of penalty. In the Show Cause Notice only Rule 57E has been quoted. This rule deals with recovery of money credit wrongly taken etc. and does not stipulate imposition of penalty. There is no other rule quoted in the Show Cause Notice providing for imposition of penalty. We have also perused the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. We find that the Tribunal in all the three cases cited supra, held that penalty is not sustainable when Show Cause Notice does not contain any proposal for taking penal action against the noticee. Following the ratio of the above judgments we hold that penalty was not imposable in the instant case. 4. emsp In the result, the impugned order imposing penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... e uphold the order of the ld. lower authority in this regard. Regarding the levy of penalty since the period involved is 1991 to 1995, the statutory penalty of 100 of duty evaded in terms of Section 11AC as above could not have been invoked as it came into force on 20-9-1996 in view of the judgment of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT reported in 120 ITR 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the pleas made, we hold that ends of justice will be served if the penalty levied on the company which we hold is liable penalty is reduced to Rs. 15,000/-. So far as the Director is concerned we hold that nothing has been brought on record to show that he had wantonly in disregard of the law indulged in violations. In this view of the matter we give him benefit of doubt and set aside the order of levy of penalty on him. The appeal of the company is partially allowed in the above terms. The appeal of the Director is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... landed at Delhi Airport on 22-5-1989. Notification No. 69/87 was available to them during the period and therefore they ought to have been given the benefit under this notification. 4. emsp Ld. DR reiterates the departmental arguments. The ld. DR submits that rate of duty is to be determined in accordance with Section 15 of the Customs Act. The Bill of Entry was filed on 6-6-1989 and therefore the benefit of Notification No. 69/87 rescinded on 29-5-1989 cannot be given. 5. emsp Considered. Section 15(i)(a) of the Customs Act dealing with the determination of rate of duty and tariff value clearly indicates that in case goods are entered for home consumption under Section 46 rate of duty will be the rate prevailing on the date on which the Bill of Entry for such goods is presented. Since the Bill of Entries were presented on 6-6-1989 Notification No. 69/87 rescinded on 29-5-1989 could not be available to them. In view of this we uphold the impugned order and reject the Appeal.
............
|