Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 281 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... impugned goods do not qualify as articles of plastic. 4. emsp As regards the alternative classification between Heading 84.15 which covers air-conditioning machines and 84.79 which covers machines having individual functions, it is the submission of Shri G.D. Sharma, ld. DR that the impugned goods comprise of motor driven fan and are design to change the temperature and humidity. On the other hand, Shri Joshi, relied upon a Madurai Collectorate Trade Notice No. 100/90, dated 22-8-1990 reproduced in 1990 (49) E.L.T. T93 in which the field formations have been advised that evaporative type of coolers would be appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.79. Since the impugned goods are nothing, but air coolers and since the classification of air coolers is suggested under Heading 84.79 by the authorities, the impugned goods are clearly classifiable under Heading 84.79. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the lower order and direct consequential relief, if any warranted.
-
1997 (6) TMI 112 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... presentative that the Commissioner (Appeals) was only asked to consider accepting the invoices is correct. However, subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal remanding the case, it has, itself held in a number of cases CCE v. M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 620, a number of orders following this decision and the decision in M/s. Chaphekar Engg. P. Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (64) ECR 58 that subsidiary gate passes issued on or after 1-4-1994 against the original gate passes issued prior to this date, or gate passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 and endorsed thereafter were valid for taking credit. Out of these only one, M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala has been referred to the High Court. M/s. Chephekar Engg. P. Ltd. has not been referred to the High Court and has been decided independently of M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala rsquo s case. Applicant has, therefore, a strong prima facie, case. I, therefore, waive pre-deposit of duty demanded of Rs. 1,95 lakhs approx., and stay its recovery.
-
1997 (6) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Calender rolls ... ... ... ... ..... Section XVI. The goods would merit classification as parts of the principal machine only if application of Rule 2(a) is ruled out. This is not the case here. Since calendering machines are specifically covered under 8420, they would find their rightful place only under this item. The ld. Consultant pleads the case for classification under CTH 8439. Perusal of HSN Notes under 8439 indicates that these calender rolls are specifically excluded under the heading parts under 8439 (see page 1230 of HSN Notes). These notes indicate that such calender rolls would be classifiable only under 8420. We also derive support for conclusion from this Tribunal rsquo s order in case of M/s. Sirsapur Mills v. C.C., Madras - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 67 where the question of classification of swimming rolls and accessories of calender stock of paper came up for consideration. 7. emsp In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal and therefore we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1997 (6) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, the claim for duty to the extent of Rs. 2,95,206.09 must fail. 3. emsp In the show cause notice it was alleged that 9.178 MTs did not contain 35 cotton seed oil and 7 rice bran oil and, therefore, was not admissible for rebate. The stand of the appellant was that even this quantity of vegetable products contained 48.5 cotton seed oil, in which case the notification would be applicable. The question in this light was not considered by the lower authorities. Appellant has placed reliance on a statement attested by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. The statement would show that the products cleared during the period from 5-6-1986 to 30-6-1987 contained 48.5 cotton seed oil. This is a matter for verification. The impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to decide whether rebate was admissible in respect of 9.178 MTs of vegetable products, the subject matter of dispute. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 109 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... the Customer namely the Railways undertook any process on these goods to convert them into parts of Railways, locomotive etc. He suggested that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proof conclusively that at the point of their removal, the castings had not transformed into identifiable parts falling under Chapter 86. We observe that before the introduction of the new Tariff, the department had accepted their identity as steel castings. In view of the non-applicability of the logic of Rule 2(a) it was for the department to prove that the goods had transformed into such parts from the starting point of castings. This was not done anywhere in the proceedings. 8. emsp On the facts as disclosed in the proceedings and following the ratio of the judgment cited and examined by us, we hold that at the material time the goods were classifiable under Chapter 73 and not Chapter 86. We allow this appeal and set aside the lower orders and direct consequential relief if warranted.
-
1997 (6) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Return of goods to factory - D-3 intimation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the lower authorities have rightly demanded duty. 5. emsp Heard submissions of both sides. We find that the admitted position was that D-3 intimation was not submitted in time. However, we find that the Motor Vehicles are very clearly identifiable by the Engine Nos. and Chassis Nos. No two Motor Vehicles of the same make can have the same Engine Number and Chassis Number. The purpose of submitting the D-3 intimation is that the goods should be relatable to earlier clearances. Since Motor Vehicles have got definite identifiable numbers and these were furnished by the Appellants before the lower authorities, we find that the demand for duty again is not justified and the same is, therefore, set aside. 6. emsp In so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned, we find that there is an irregularity on the part of the Appellant. The amount of penalty is not very large and, therefore, the same is sustained. In the result, the Appeal is disposed of in terms of the above findings.
-
1997 (6) TMI 107 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sample - Testing of - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... We find that pocket Autoscope (Fibre Optic Endoscope with Spacula) is covered by Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94, dated 3-6-1994 and thus we hold that on this item, the benefit of the notification shall be admissible. 6. emsp In so far as the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps are concerned, the lower authorities have already held that they are spare parts. On reading of Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 144/88, we find that parts of goods are eligible for the benefit of this notification only when they are required for manufacture of goods stated against Sl. No. 1-39. The admitted position is that the appellant is not a manufacturer but a trader and hence he will not be eligible to the benefit of this notification for rechargeable battery and halogen lamps. The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the Appellant in accordance with law.
-
1997 (6) TMI 106 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ealing Assistant mis-understood the relevant date for reckoning the limitation period. There is nothing on record to show that this in fact was so and that the dealing Assistant rsquo s explanation was called for and that he has said so. Further, we observe that the department has a hierarchial set up and in the hierarchy there are various supervisory levels. Nothing has been brought on record that inspite of the best efforts made by the supervisory officers to ensure the filing of the appeal within time, because of the inaction on the part of the dealing Assistant the appeal could not be filed within time. In a situation like this, therefore, in the absence of any acceptable basis having been laid out for condonation of delay, we are not able to accede to the request of the learned SDR for condonation of the delay. We, therefore, dismiss the prayer for condonation of delay. 7. emsp In as much as the delay is not condoned, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
-
1997 (6) TMI 105 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import against Advance Licence under DEEC ... ... ... ... ..... ularly advance licence, the quantum of enhanced loaded cif value under provision of Section 14. The answer was that unless there was an evidence of fraudulent transaction showing additional payment through illegal channels to the suppliers, such debiting should not be made. In such a context, it will be harsh and unreasonable to say that the failure of the appellants to question the action at the time of such debit should prove fatal to their present import also and for claiming the exemption. Therefore, considering the fact that the appellants are actual users engaged in export production for whom the advance licence has been issued and further having regard to the fact that the adjudicating authority has considered it a fit case to accept the licence on a caution, it will be in the interest of justice to condone the excess in the factual background of this case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellants will be entitled to consequential relief, according to law.
-
1997 (6) TMI 104 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Diversion of goods from export to home consumption ... ... ... ... ..... mits that in this view, the lower authorities have rightly imposed penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He justified the imposition of penalty as also the quantum thereof. 4. emsp Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that Rule 191B(6) provides for imposition of penalty and confiscation of the goods. In the instant case we find that the goods were not available for confiscation. Therefore, there should have been an order that since the goods were not available for confiscation, the amount of penalty higher than Rs. 2,000/- provided under Rule 191B(6) is imposable. On a scrutiny of the Order-in-Original, we do not find any such finding of the ld. Collector. In the absence of this type of finding, we do not see any reason to go beyond the requirement of Rule 191B(6). Since Rule 191B(6) is very specific, we reduce the amount of penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. 5. emsp The impugned order is modified to the above extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... failed to do so. The Collector (Appeals) invoked clause (v) of the notification, which was not relied on in the show cause notice and which also did not contain relevant averments and therefore this clause cannot be looked into. In so far as clause (iii) is concerned, lower authorities should have adverted to the allegation in the show cause notice, if any, indicating that the price was not the sole consideration. If there is no such allegation in the show cause notice, no amount of data in that behalf could be looked into. 8. emsp Infirmity is attached to the impugned order, on account of various circumstances referred to above. Therefore, the matter deserves fresh consideration at the hands of the adjudicating authority. 9. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh after giving the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 10. emsp The appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... re of their other products would qualify on the parameter of blending the products to make them marketable. On this observation, we hold that activity undertaken by the appellants did amount to manufacture and that resultant products would be liable to duty. We uphold the order of confirmation of duty. 8. emsp As regards penalty, the plea made by the appellant is that there was no intention to evade duty on their part and that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that activity undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture. They have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, reported in 1978(2) E.L.T. (J 159) in making the plea that penalty should be waived. Shri Madan, on the other hand, claimed that they had violated law of the land and penalty was justified. After taking totality of the circumstances into account, we deem it proper to reduce penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 101 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... however, rejected the appeal of the appellants claiming the benefit of Notification No. 69/87 in view of the exclusion of goods falling within Heading No. 84.13 CTA from Heading No. 98.06 in terms of Notification No. 132/87, dated 1-3-1987. 2. emsp The appellants have requested to decide their case on merits. 3. emsp Ld. DR submits that there is no merit in the appeal in view of the exclusion of goods under proviso to (xii) of Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. 4. emsp We have carefully considered and perused the Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. Under the proviso to (xii) of the said Notification, it excludes the goods which are millstones, grindstones or other articles specified in Chapter 68 from the purview of the said notification. In view of the specific exclusion of the goods falling under Chapter 68, the benefit of Notification No. 69/97-Cus. cannot be extended. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (6) TMI 100 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Provisional assessment - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... id not respond for paying differential duty on finalisation of provisional assessment. In such a situation, the appellants cannot lawfully contend that the demand is hit by limitation since in the case of provisional assessment the limitation will run from the date of finalisation of the assessment. Therefore, this contention on limitation has to be rejected. However, there is also a plea raised that it is not clear how the Commissioner has arrived at the figure of 6,93,913.44 as the duty demanded in this case. It will be reasonable therefore to clarify to the appellant as to how the amount of duty on drill not covered by the definition of drill in the Textile Commissioner Order for the purpose of this case has been arrived in for which purpose the appellants may be given the work-sheet for the same because this break-up figure is not available in the Commissioner rsquo s order. The department may also give the appellants such clarification in this regard as may be necessary.
-
1997 (6) TMI 99 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation- Trade Discount - Uniformity - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... uyers at different places outside Bombay. This would be on the basis of the quantum of sales. The explanation offered by the appellant was that in respect of outside sales the goods were being delivered at the premises of the buyers while the buyers at Bombay had taken delivery from the godown depot of the appellant and the discount was less in the case of outside buyers in order to cover the cost of transportation. This appears to be a reasonable ground to reduce the discount to such buyers. In our opinion the buyers fall under different classes and offer of discount at different rates to different class of buyers would be within the framework of proviso (3) to Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore, the discounts granted should be allowed. There is no justification to restrict discount to 5 in respect of all buyers and demand differential duty in the above case. 5. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 98 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... have also gone through Heading No. 85.48 which relates to the electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85. We find that Heading No. 85.48 is a residuary entry and the goods were to be classifiable therein, if they were not otherwise covered by any other tariff entry. The Chapter Heading No. 85.23 covers ldquo prepared unrecorded media for sound recording or similar recording of other phenomena, other than products of Chapter 37. rdquo The plastic moulded cassettes could not be considered as media for sound recording. They are in the nature of a housing and we consider that the view taken by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, was correct that during the relevant time, the goods in question were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3922.90. 9. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we set aside the order of the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and as a result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 97 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Deemed credit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ods have been cleared after fulfilling the condition of exemption notification. In the Larger Bench decision in the particular appeal considered by that Bench, the endorsement on the challan as we find in this case was absent. The deemed credit was denied merely by taking recourse to the change in the wording of the proviso in the deemed credit order dated 20-5-1988. In these circumstances, in the facts of this case, we find that the denial of deemed credit is well-founded and needs no modification. However, a plea was made before us by the ld. counsel that the penalty on the appellants is not justified. We are inclined to agree with this plea because of the admitted position that the interpretation of the proviso barring the deemed credit was subject to contradictory decisions by the Tribunal and had to be resolved by being placed before the Larger Bench. In this view of the matter, the penalty on the appellants is set aside. 6. emsp Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (6) TMI 96 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... pecification TMS 24361 is shown and the material specification TMS for rubber coated steel gasket and Engineering change notice for old part No. 6880973 to 23046658 (showing that both the numbers are same). On examining the literature, the Collector (Appeals) arrived at the finding that the goods are classifiable under 8484. 8484.10 reads as ldquo Gaskets and similar joints of metal sheeting combined with other material or of two or more layers of metal rdquo . Invoice indicates under part description ldquo Gasket rdquo . Collector (Appeals) also referred to the material specification for rubber coated steel Gasket. Once the goods are specified as Gaskets, we do not see how we can deny them their classification under legitimate Heading 8484.10 and consign them to the orphanage of general item like other articles of iron and steel. In view of this, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals). We therefore, reject the Revenue appeal and uphold the order.
-
1997 (6) TMI 95 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Eligible for benefit under Notification No. 40/85-C.E.
... ... ... ... ..... ion of any product excisable or otherwise. As per submission made by the learned Consultant, semen is packed in specially constructed tubes which are kept in containers and semen is frozen at temperature of - 190oc. At the time of consumption, a tube is taken out and contents brought to room temperature. Nitrogen in this case is consumed within the factory of production when it is used for freezing of the semen. It is not material that the same gas continues to maintain low temperature even when the tube is cleared from the factory. In other words, the fact that Nitrogen packing in the container inside the factory is cleared from the factory did not negate the fact that it was initially consumed in the factory of production. After examination of the use to which it is put we are satisfied that gas was used by the appellants within the parameters of the notification. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Collector and direct consequential relief, if any.
-
1997 (6) TMI 94 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tea - Benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. not available ... ... ... ... ..... ch package tea is manufactured is accepted, then we find that there is no provision whatsoever in the notifications as to how black tea happened to be in the factory where package tea is manufactured. Admittedly in the instant case package tea is not manufactured in the same factory where black tea is manufactured. We find, therefore, that there is force in the contention of the department that the factory of production in the instant case under the notification means the factory where black tea was manufactured. That appears to be reasonable interpretation of the clause of the notifications. We, therefore, hold that the Notification No. 217/86 is applicable only in respect of such cases where the black tea and package tea is manufactured in the same factory and not in two different factories, even if they happened to be owned by the same manufacturer. Thus we find that it clinches the issue and therefore we allow the appeal of the department and set aside the impugned order.
............
|