|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 424 Records
-
1999 (4) TMI 264
Issues:
1. Request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on the expired provisional registration certificate and subsequent application for extension.
2. Dispute regarding the entitlement to benefits as an SSI unit due to delays in issuing a permanent certificate by the authorities.
3. Opposition to the waiver request based on the absence of a formal certificate despite the application being pending for several years.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, represented by Shri M.L. Chatterjee, sought a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 11,50,137.75, citing the expiration of a provisional registration certificate on 22-2-1990 and subsequent efforts to obtain an extension or a permanent certificate. The counsel argued that despite timely applications and active pursuit of registration, there was no rejection from the authorities, and the unit was informally considered as an SSI unit. Reference was made to previous tribunal decisions supporting the appellant's entitlement to SSI benefits under similar circumstances.
2. On the other hand, Shri T. Premkumar, representing the respondent, opposed the waiver request, highlighting that the letter from the General Manager of District Industries Centre in 1994 was not a formal certificate and emphasized the delay in issuing a definitive certificate even after five years. The argument centered on the absence of a valid certificate to support the appellant's claim for SSI benefits during the disputed period.
3. After considering the submissions from both parties, the tribunal, led by Shri G.R. Sharma, noted the sequence of events, including the expiry of the provisional certificate, the subsequent application for registration, and the communication from the District Industries Centre indicating the ongoing process for SSI registration. Citing precedents and judgments in similar cases, the tribunal decided in favor of the appellant, acknowledging the delay in formal certification but emphasizing the informal recognition of the unit as an SSI entity. Consequently, the tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and stayed the recovery pending the appeal's finalization, aligning with the appellant's position and the established legal principles in such matters.
-
1999 (4) TMI 263
Issues: Classification of waste arising during the manufacture of polypropylene tapes and fabrics for duty liability.
Analysis:
1. The respondent, engaged in the export of polypropylene tapes, fabrics, and woven sacks, faced a duty recovery notice for clearing waste without payment. The respondent claimed exemption under Notification 243/79 and argued that the waste was not liable to duty, citing a Tribunal decision. The Assistant Collector rejected these contentions and confirmed the duty demand.
2. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) found the products exempted under Notification 243/79 and clarified the correct classification under Chapter 39 instead of Chapter 54. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order, leading to the current appeal.
3. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's decision on classification was not within the scope of the proceedings. The waste arising during the manufacture of polypropylene tapes was exempted under the notification, but not for the subsequent stage of fabric manufacture, making duty payable on that waste.
4. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, it was established that certain wastes were not liable to duty due to the absence of specific tariff entries. However, waste arising in the manufacture of sacks was found liable to duty under Heading 5401.90, even though the fabric itself had nil duty under Heading 5408. The appeal was partially allowed, and the duty payable was to be quantified by the Assistant Commissioner for the respondent.
-
1999 (4) TMI 261
Issues: Classification of goods - Aluminium castings vs. aluminium articles, Zinc unwrought vs. zinc articles
In this case, two appeals were filed, one by M/s. Ashoke Moulders (P) Ltd. regarding the classification of zinc as either zinc unwrought or zinc articles, and the other by the Department concerning the classification of aluminium articles/castings. The Assistant Collector initially classified the goods as aluminium castings and zinc under specific sub-headings, which was challenged by the appellants. The Collector (Appeals) ruled that the goods of Aluminium should not be classified under a certain sub-heading and that the goods of zinc should be classified under a different sub-heading.
Regarding the classification of aluminium goods, the Revenue argued that the goods had obtained an identifiable shape of articles and should be classified accordingly. It was noted that the goods were parts of type-writers and duplicating machines, requiring no major machining before use. The Tribunal considered the interpretative Rule 2 and previous judgments on similar issues, ultimately holding that the aluminium goods were classifiable as aluminium castings due to the need for machining before use.
On the issue of zinc goods classification, it was argued that the goods had already taken the shape of parts of type-writers and duplicating machines, thus should not be classified as unwrought zinc. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific heading for zinc castings, and as unwrought zinc is a prerequisite even for castings, the goods were held to be classifiable as zinc articles under a different sub-heading. Therefore, the zinc goods were classified under a specific Chapter sub-heading.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected both appeals after considering the arguments presented and the relevant provisions. The classification of goods as aluminium castings and zinc articles was upheld based on the need for machining in the case of aluminium goods and the absence of a specific heading for zinc castings.
-
1999 (4) TMI 260
The appellate tribunal found that the assessees wrongly took modvat credit on Copper scrap during July 1988 to June 1989. The show cause notice seeking reversal of the credit was issued in November 1992. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on the aspect of limitation, stating that the department had prior knowledge of the wrong credit being taken, making the show cause notice invalid due to the delay of nearly 3 years. The appeal was allowed based on this limitation issue.
-
1999 (4) TMI 259
Issues:
Interpretation of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Rejection of declaration due to absence of show cause notice or notice of demand - Payment of basic duty on imported ships - Dispute regarding countervailing duty - Endorsement on Bill of Entry as notice of demand - Applicability of Section 95(ii)(c) - Effect of Bank Guarantee and personal Bond - Substitution of Designated Authority's order - Payment by writ petitioners within four weeks - Extension of benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.
Analysis:
The judgment by Ajoy Nath Ray, J., addresses four writ petitions related to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The Designated Authority had rejected the declarations in each case citing the absence of show cause notice or notice of demand as required by Section 95(ii)(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. The petitioners had paid the basic duty on imported ships but faced disputes over the countervailing duty. An earlier Division Bench order allowed delivery upon furnishing a Bank Guarantee for 50% of the disputed duty amount. The Court noted that the Bill of Entry's endorsement regarding countervailing duty constituted a notice of demand under Section 95(ii)(b) and fell under the purview of Section 95(ii)(c), rendering further inquiry unnecessary.
Moreover, the judgment clarified that the Bank Guarantee and personal Bond did not result in actual payment to the national exchequer, thus excluding the application of the explanation to Section 87(m)(ii)(b). Consequently, the writ petitions were successful in each case, with the Designated Authority's order being substituted by an order accepting the petitioners' declarations. The petitioners were directed to pay the declared amounts within four weeks, failing which the petitions would be dismissed with costs. Upon payment, the benefits of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme would be extended to the petitioners as if the declaration had been accepted on time.
Furthermore, the petitioners were permitted to make payments through guaranteeing Banks, leading to the discharge of Bank Guarantees and vacation of the appellate order of stay. The Designated Authority was instructed to issue a certificate of fulfillment under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme within a fortnight of payment. The judgment concluded by directing all parties to act on a signed copy of the order and extended the instructions to guaranteeing Banks, despite not being parties to the writ petitions.
-
1999 (4) TMI 258
Issues:
- Benefit of Notification No. 1/93 availed by appellants manufacturing rubber roll pipes.
- Allegation of using a brand name of another person leading to denial of notification benefit.
- Confirmation of duties and penalty imposition by Assistant Commissioner.
- Appeal filed against the Commissioner's order upholding Assistant Commissioner's decision.
- Stay applications filed seeking waiver of confirmed duty and penalty.
Analysis:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 1/93:
The appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for their manufactured rubber roll pipes. However, their goods were found affixed with stickers bearing trade names "Parkman-T" and "Shree Laxmi." The issue arose when another unit, Parker Polymer Industries, Palghar, affixed similar goods with the trade name "Parkman PAL." This led to a show cause notice being issued to recover duty on goods cleared without payment of duty, as it was believed that using another person's brand name could deny the benefit of the notification.
2. Allegation of Using Another Brand Name:
The Assistant Commissioner confirmed duties amounting to Rs. 9,05,490/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, based on the belief that the appellants were using a brand name of another person, thus potentially violating the notification's terms. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the prominent marking on the goods was "Parkman," used by another company before the setting up of the appellant's unit.
3. Confirmation of Duties and Penalty:
The Commissioner's order examined the relevant provisions of the notification and noted that the use of the trade mark "Parkman" without the suffixes "T" or "PAL" was the most prominent marking on the goods. The Commissioner found that the appellants did not counter the findings that the trade mark "Parkman" was used by another company before their unit was established. The Commissioner also highlighted that the uniqueness of the trade mark "Parkman T" compared to "Parkman PAL" was irrelevant given the prominence of the marking "Parkman."
4. Appeal and Stay Applications:
Following the Commissioner's decision, the assessee filed five appeals and stay applications seeking to waive the confirmed duty and penalty. During the hearing, the appellants relied on a circular of the Board stating that the use of certain names or marks not owned by any particular person should not prevent the benefit of the notification from being granted to all users. The appellants argued that the name "Parkman" did not belong to the other assesses and provided evidence from correspondence with the Trade Marks Registry.
5. Grant of Unconditional Stay:
The advocate for the appellants demonstrated that the prefixes and suffixes added to "Parkman" were material inputs and would not create confusion in the buyer's mind regarding the connection of different manufacturers. The Tribunal observed the differences in the brand names and product identification between the appellants and the other unit, indicating that they were not suggestive of the same goods. Considering the prima facie case made by the appellants, the Tribunal granted unconditional stay of the operation of the impugned order.
-
1999 (4) TMI 257
Issues:
1. Financial hardship claimed by the applicants.
2. Insufficient evidence to establish financial hardship.
3. Prima facie acceptance of financial hardship.
4. Lack of conclusive evidence for financial hardship.
5. Waiver of deposit upon compliance.
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to applications filed by two assessees and their directors claiming financial hardship due to being sick industrial undertakings. The common advocate argued solely on financial hardship, citing losses in the balance sheets of the companies. However, the evidence provided was deemed insufficient by the departmental representative.
2. The Tribunal found it challenging to accept the claim of financial hardship for the assessees based on the evidence presented. While the balance sheet for one company showed significant losses in a specific year, there was a lack of subsequent financial data to assess if the losses were recovered. Additionally, claims of pending loans were unsubstantiated by concrete evidence.
3. The situation was even more uncertain for the other assessee, as only a provisional balance sheet was presented without any application to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The authenticity of the bank statement was also questioned, leading to an inconclusive evaluation of financial hardship.
4. The judgment highlighted the absence of specific averments regarding financial hardship for the directors, emphasizing that the claims primarily indicated hardship on the company's part without supporting evidence from the individual applicants. Consequently, the lack of substantial proof hindered a definitive conclusion on their financial status.
5. Since no arguments were presented on the merits of the case, the Tribunal directed the deposit of specified amounts within two months to waive the remaining duty, penalties, and redemption fines imposed on the assessees and directors upon compliance by a specified date. This decision aimed to address the financial obligations while considering the claims of financial hardship made by the applicants.
-
1999 (4) TMI 256
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving shortage of molasses stock. The tribunal found serious flaws in the department's verification method, highlighting the need to measure stock in all storage facilities to determine shortages accurately. The allegations of shortage and duty loss were deemed baseless, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief.
-
1999 (4) TMI 255
The appeal related to the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 4075.76. The Collector (Appeals) denied the credit for non-maintenance of registers, but the appellate tribunal overturned this decision, stating that Modvat credit cannot be denied for this reason. Penalty for non-maintenance of registers was upheld. Appeal allowed for Modvat credit denial, penalty sustained.
-
1999 (4) TMI 254
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed three appeals regarding Modvat credit for various inputs: X-ray films, flow guide developers, flow guide dye penetrants, steel shots, graphite stopper heads, carbon dioxide, and refractories. The Tribunal held that all these items are eligible for Modvat credit based on previous judgments. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief according to law.
-
1999 (4) TMI 253
Issues:
- Claim of exemption under Notification 175/86 for manufacturing washers, rivets, "chaplas", "pattis"
- Denial of exemption by the department on the grounds of goods being component parts of lighters
- Contention of goods being articles of general use and not parts of lighters
- Claim of limitation on the notice issued by the department
- Agreement between association and Collector on classification of certain items as parts of lighters
- Applicability of extended period of limitation under Section 11A
Analysis:
The appellants, manufacturers of washers, rivets, "chaplas", and "pattis", claimed exemption under Notification 175/86 for manufacturing gas lighters. The department proposed to deny this benefit, asserting that the goods were component parts of lighters not covered by the notification. The appellants argued that the goods were articles of general use and challenged the notice on limitation grounds, citing an agreement between the Electronic Lighter Manufacturers' Association and the Collector regarding classification. The Collector, however, determined the goods as parts of lighters, leading to the appeal.
The appellant's advocate focused the case on the limitation issue, referencing the agreement between the association and the Collector that specified certain items as parts of electronic lighters. The departmental representative supported the Collector's classification decision. A letter from the association to the Collector confirmed the agreed classification of specific items as parts of lighters. Despite skepticism about the letter's accuracy, it was considered a shield against the extended limitation period invoked in the show cause notices, as it reflected an understanding between the parties.
The Tribunal emphasized that if an assessee acted in accordance with a decision on classification made in good faith by the Commissioner and trade representatives, there was no intent to evade duty. In this context, the extended limitation period under Section 11A would not be applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the demands were time-barred and set aside the department's order denying the exemption.
-
1999 (4) TMI 252
The appeal was against the confiscation of mobile phones and hard disc drives by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant questioned the valuation of the goods and legality of confiscation. The Tribunal found no reason for absolute confiscation and ordered the Commissioner to disclose material for valuation and profit margin before deciding the penalty. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
1999 (4) TMI 251
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved an application for waiver of deposit of Rs. 1.37 crores and penalty under Section 11AC. The applicant manufactures soap as a job worker for M/s. Wipro Ltd. and M/s. Swastik Surfactants Ltd., determining assessable value based on cost of manufacture and profit. The Tribunal found in favor of the applicant on the issue of assessable value and limitation, waiving the deposit of duty and penalty. The appeal was listed for further hearing on 22-4-1999.
-
1999 (4) TMI 250
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that Electro Mechanical Actuator (EMA) is classified under Tariff Heading 84.66, not 85.01, as contended by the Revenue. The decision was based on the order-in-original and expert opinion from IIT, Madras. The Revenue's appeals were rejected.
-
1999 (4) TMI 249
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi denied Modvat credit due to invoices issued before the allowed time frame. The lower appellate authority rejected appeals for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F. The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, staying recovery during the appeal's pendency, as the issue had been referred to a Larger Bench for decision.
-
1999 (4) TMI 248
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal stating that polyester polyols are entitled to the benefit of Notification 133/86-C.E. The tribunal found that polyester polyols are known as polyester resins based on evidence from the Central Excise Laboratory opinions.
-
1999 (4) TMI 247
The appeal involved the extension of benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. to the 'Centrifugal booster fan' used in air-conditioning machinery. The Revenue sought to deny the benefit, arguing that it is a part of air-conditioning machinery excluded from the notification. The appellate authority extended the benefit, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the fan is specifically designed for use in air-conditioning machinery and is actually being used as such. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the Revenue's appeal.
-
1999 (4) TMI 246
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that the appellants were not required to execute the B-13 Bond and Bank Guarantee as they were paying the full rate of duty. The Assistant Collector's direction for provisional assessment under Rule 9B was deemed unjustified, and the orders requiring the bond and guarantee were set aside. The Assistant Collector was directed to finalize the assessment promptly.
-
1999 (4) TMI 245
The appellate tribunal classified sleeves used for protecting the shaft in power driven pumps under Tariff Heading 84.13 as part of the pump, not the shaft under Tariff Heading 84.83. The function of sleeves is to protect the shaft, not to partake in its function. The tribunal's decision was supported by a previous judgment. The appeal of the Revenue was rejected.
-
1999 (4) TMI 244
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 27-7-1994 regarding the classification of coal tar distilled phenol (hydrated). The delay of two days in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal upheld the classification under sub-heading 2907.11 of the Customs Tariff, dismissing the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
