Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
S.S.I. Exemption - Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... includes the cost of such packing except the cost of packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. Metal boxes used by the appellant must be of durable nature but the appellant had no case, at any stage, that the boxes were returnable by the buyer to the assessee. By returnable rsquo is meant not the possibility of return, but the requirement of return, either under agreement between the parties, express or implied, or according to trade practice. Appellant has not established that metal boxes were returnable. Therefore the value of the excisable goods would include the value of the container also. Hence the value of the metal boxes is to be included. The value of clearances during the year in question exceeded the limit of Rs. 15 lakhs for an individual product thereby depriving the appellant of the benefit of notification in regard to clearances in excess of the limit. We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rotor and shaft ... ... ... ... ..... No. 15 of the relevant notification. In the instant case the appellants have imported Rotor and Shaft which was claimed as parts of Raphinator classifiable under Heading 84.31 read with Notification No. 93/85 as paper- making machinery. It was fairly conceded by the ld. Advocate for the appellants that item imported by the appellants can be used for pulp cutting and not for paper-making machinery. We find that since the notification exempts only paper-making machinery and component part thereof and in view of the strict interpretation of the notification, benefit in terms of the notification cannot be extended to the items imported by the appellants as it was rightly argued by the ld. DR. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below in denying the benefit in terms of the aforesaid notification. Accordingly we uphold the impugned order and in the result the appeal filed by the party is hereby dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... re is nothing unusual in our view in regard to the modalities of the transaction as entered into by the appellants. The same trader it is seen has sold the goods to other importers in India at the same price. Thus we get here two sets of prices. One set of prices relate to the imports by the importers in India directly from the manufacturer and the other set of price is by the imports to India through the trader. Both the prices, in our view are genuine for the purpose of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. Nothing has been brought on record to say as to how the provisions of Section 14 have not been complied with. The case law cited by the revenue above in our view would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the issue before us is covered by the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court cited by us supra. In view or the above, we hold that the appellants rsquo prayer has to be allowed. We order accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty-paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... depot of M/s. IOC Ltd. that the sale depot of the company received non-duty paid goods and sells the goods after payment of duty (emphasis supplied) from their depots. It has also been stated that the respondents were registered with the Central Excise Authorities. Reading Rule 52A and 57GG, I do not see any legal infirmity in the invoices issued by the Ambala sale depot of the respondents herein. I also observe that Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 prescribed the invoice issued by a manufacturer from the factory or his depot. In the instant case, the invoice has been issued by the manufacturer from his depot and therefore, in terms of Notification No. 32/94-C.E., it was the document prescribed by the Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 57G. 6. emsp Having regard to the above discussion, I do not see any legal infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1996 (8) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Invoice Price - LDPE ... ... ... ... ..... squo s invoices have been held to be bona fide and genuine documents, the benefit arising from such a position cannot be denied to the imports on the ground that the said order/confirmation does not relate to the goods and that there must have been a subsequent contract and the price that prevailed at the time of such a subsequent contract must be adopted. The factors that weighed with the Collector for dropping the charge of misdeclaration of value will hold good for the acceptance of the invoice value for the purpose of assessment of duty also. The decisions cited by the learned Counsels support such a course. Thus, in the Sunshine Metal of Alloys Indus. Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that where the prices were fluctuating in the market and the contract was genuine, the contracted price was acceptable. 7. emsp In the circumstances, the Collector rsquo s order enhancing assessable declared by the appellants cannot be sustained. We set aside the same and allow the appeals.
-
1996 (8) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... merits after hearing the SDR, Shri T.R. Malik. 3. emsp On perusal of the appeal papers and details of calculation furnished by them therein, we find that the appellants have established that they had paid insurance on the element of Customs duty also. The amount involved is Rs. 6,860/- plus Rs. 6,489/-. The insurance charges that would normally be payable to arrive at the CIF value of the goods would include the cost freight element and the insurance for delivery of the goods at the time and place of the importation. The Customs duty that is paid by the importer is after the importation is completed and it constitutes a post importation development. Any insurance amount paid on Customs duty relates to a post importation factor. It would, therefore, be not liable to be included in the assessable value which should represent the landed cost. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the contention raised by the appellants and set aside the impugned order. The appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 257 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... nd has passed the impugned order. 2. emsp Heard Shri Vinayak Thakur the Senior Manager for the appellants and Shri R.K. Talajia the Ld. JDR for the Respondent. 3. emsp With D-3 declaration already filed and their being no challenge to the position that the goods have been received and utilized, mere lapse of not mentioning at entry in RG 23 Part I could not be taken as grave lapse resulting into denial of proforma credit. The fundamental applicable, in this regard, have already been identified in various decisions given by the Tribunal. The distinction made by the ld. Collector does not appear to be convincing so as to overlook the ratio of these decisions. The approach of the Collector therefore cannot be accepted. The appellants are eligible to availed of proforma credit. The lapse is more procedural one which can be rectified. The order passed by the Collector is therefore set a side, and appellants are held eligible for availment of proforma credit. The appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 256 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Manufacture - Interpretation of Statute ... ... ... ... ..... y the appellant for cutting and punching for use in transmission towers would attract the tariff heading. The question is whether the same duty paid angles and channels become dutiable again merely because of the appellant subjecting the same to cutting and punching. The process adopted by the appellant is the process of cutting and the process of punching. Neither the Section, neither the Chapter nor the discription ldquo specify rdquo these process as ldquo amounting to manufacture rdquo . Therefore, it follows that the Legislature has not utilised Clause (ii) of Section 2(f) of the act, by making specification in the Tariff Act that this particular process amounts to ldquo manufacture rdquo . In these circumstances, we follow the decisions referred to above and hold that the processes adopted by the appellant do not amount to ldquo manufacture rdquo and the products resulting from these processes are not excisable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... mitted that the claim was time barred only upto 17-4-1984. In view of their own admission while on merits the order of the Collector (Appeals) is not sustainable, the amount of refund payable had necessarily to be restricted to the period of limitation. In the case of Shri Ram Fibres Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 714 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had held ldquo Procedure as given in Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for payment of duty under protest if not followed then the duty paid will not be treatable as paid under protest. rdquo 10. emsp In view of the above, the assessees are entitled for refund in respect of turnover discount in cases where the refund claims were covered by the normal period of limitation of six months. The refund claim, of course, will be further subject to the provisions of unjust enrichment. 11. emsp The order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is modified and all the four appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation- Detention Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... y which were shown to us during the hearing by the Learned Counsel. In the circumstances, we feel that the subject imports which were effected in the middle of 1993 cannot be held to have been undervalued when the declared price was US 305 PMT. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 5. emsp At this stage, Learned Counsel makes a request that direction may be issued to the customs authorities to issue detention certificate. While we are not inclined to accede to the request for issue of such a direction, we feel that the setting aside of the order which contains clear observation about the absence of any evidence regarding surreptitious remittance over and above the invoice price and the direction to accept the invoice price would constitute unconditional acceptance of the declared price. In the circumstances, it will be appropriate for the Customs House to consider any request for issue of detention certificate which the appellants may make to them.
-
1996 (8) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fore, the Chapter Note 2(b) will come into play. In consequence, these parts being suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine have to be classified with that machine. In view of this, we hold that findings arrived at by Collector (Appeals) in ordering classification of these parts under their respective headings is not correct. We, therefore, set aside that part of his order. In fact, this is the contention of Revenue also though for different reasons as indicated at Page 4 of their appeal memo where they have opposed Collector (Appeal rsquo s) order of ldquo breaking up of a single system into parts for the purpose of assessment rdquo . Since the apparatus incorporates advance technology which uses imaging on a screen with X-rays, the product would be more appropriately classifiable under 9022.90 as ldquo other, including parts and accessories rdquo . 7. emsp In the result, we allow the appeal of importer appellant and reject the Revenue Appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... application under Rule 57H. 4. emsp Rule 57G provides that the assessee can take credit after obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration containing the details of the inputs, finished product etc. Potassium chloride is classified under Chapter 28 and Chapter 31 depending upon its purity. There is no denial that the tariff had come into force recently. In any event, the credit has been taken in pursuance of the declaration which was filed. In the absence of any provision in the rules to say that the declaration must be filed immediately after the item is notified, credit cannot be denied on this ground. It is not possible to interpret Rule 57G so as to read this provision into it. In our view, the declaration filed on 14-3-1986 cannot be considered to have no force, merely because Chapter 31 was not notified in the list of inputs on that date. The question of Rule 57H therefore does not arise. 5. emsp We, therefore, allow the appeal. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1996 (8) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Captive consumption - Dutiability dependent on marketability ... ... ... ... ..... 9 Central Excise Rules and their amendment retrospectively. The Supreme Court held even for levy duty on goods captively consumed the marketability thereof has necessarily to be established. Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) has further found that the Tribunal decision in the case of Elmo Engineering Works v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1984 ECR 1089 based on Government of India rsquo s letter dated 4-2-1981 also supports the respondents case and the department has not rebutted the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the above decision. In the circumstances, one is inclined to concur with the order proposed by the Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial). 20. emsp Thus, the order proposed by Member (Judicial) is concurred with. Dated 12-8-1996 Sd/- emsp (K.S. emsp Venkataramani) Member emsp (T) In view of the majority of opinion the appeal is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- emsp (S.L. emsp Peeran) (S.K. Bhatnagar) Member (J) emsp Vice-President Dated emsp 16-8-1996 Dated 14-8-1996
-
1996 (8) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Trailers - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... Item 68, but dispute was only about the lower/base portion of those products which were provided with wheels to facilitate their movement from one place to another. The whole of the machine could be towed by Motor Vehicle but the mounting was designed to keep the mixer machine on it. The lower/base portion on which the machine was placed could not be, as such, used for transportation of goods or by persons. 7. emsp Collector (Appeals) had recorded that lower frame portion was an integrated and essential component/part of the machine and machine was provided with pneumatic wheels. They are not sold as trailer and were not used as trailer as known in the Trade/Industry. 8. emsp On going through the Entry No. 34 of the Tariff, Trade understanding of the product Trailer and nature of the goods in question, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Baroda. We find no merit in this appeal by the Revenue. The same is rejected.
-
1996 (8) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty-paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... nter alia, a manufacturer from his depot as valid documents for the purpose of Modvat credit under Rule 57G. This is the clarificatory circular of 26-4-1996. In this case, admittedly, the invoices are within the aforesaid period and have been issued by the manufacturer from his sales depot. Therefore, with the issue of clarification as above by the Board exercising its powers under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules, the disputes so far as this consignment of inputs with the appellants is concerned, got resolved. Moreover, the Assistant Commissioner could not have invoked the provisions of Notification No. 21/94 for denying the credit on inputs received under invoice issued in April, 1994 by the sales depot of the manufacturer. A perusal of the invoice also indicated that the particulars prescribed under Notification No. 15/94 have also been entered by hand in the computerised invoice, in question. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Final products ... ... ... ... ..... Alloy, Unwrought Copper Alloy, Phosphor Bronze Rods, Bars, Brass Rods, etc. The inputs are shown as various metals like Tin, Lead, Bismuth, Silver, Copper. Zinc, Cadmium, Rosin, Alcohol, Phos Copper, etc. While there cannot be a general postulation that a final product cannot be an input, as such relative terms will depend upon the manner of use and occurrences, the objection taken in the present case that the appellants had taken credit on items which they had not declared as inputs in their declaration under Rule 57G is quite valid. The description of inputs Copper Lead or Tin or Zinc metal as the inputs will not cover their product Copper alloy ingots, Bars, Rods, Lead alloy ingots, Soldering Flux, solvent or paste, solder wire etc. The case law cited by the learned Counsel is distinguishable as the party had declared the returned defective goods as inputs. The Collector (Appeals) has decided the matter correctly. The order in appeal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tely in clause (iv), as, even during the course of manufacture of carbon papers, coating takes place. Even assuming the learned Counsel rsquo s submission in this regard is correct, we will have to look at clause (vi). This clause covers carbon and other copying papers (including duplicator stencils) and transfer papers, whether or not cut to size and whether or not put up in boxes. Since there is no dispute that the appellants rsquo product falls under 48.09, this is a type of copying or transfer paper. This being the position, in the absence of exclusion of transfer paper for offset plates from clause (vi) of the proviso to the Notification, we are of the view that all types of transfer papers, including transfer papers for offset plates would be excluded from the benefit of Notification. We therefore, hold that coated paper for offset plates manufactured by the appellants is not entitled to the benefit of Notification 44/86, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... how cause notice can operate only insofar as the appellant factory was concerned and he had no authority for waiving the show cause notice on behalf of the owner of the truck. Further the quantum of fine which had been imposed is also much higher than the combined amount of fine and penalty imposed on the appellant firm manufacturing the subject goods, the prime offender. Imposition of fine having a relation to the value of the truck without reference to the value of the offending goods and the duty leviable thereon which is a yardstick for the offence involved would be excessive and unrealistic. In any case, as the confiscation of the truck is liable to be struck down on the ground of non issue of the show cause notice, the quantum of fine becomes a secondary issue. I set aside the order insofar as the confiscation of the truck is concerned and allow the appeal of the owner of the truck. 8. emsp The appellants would be entitled to consequential relief in terms of this order.
-
1996 (8) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... egard to the stipulations of Notification No. 16/94 as also the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala I hold that endorsed gate passes are valid duty-paying documents for the purpose of Rule 57G and that Modvat credit taken on the strength of these documents was valid and is sustainable in law. 7. emsp On the second issue I find that M/s. M.G. Associates can be termed as dealer for the purpose of Notification No. 15/94 inasmuch as M/s. M.G. Associates purchased substantial quantity of the products from sale depot of the manufacturer. Having regard to the stipulations in Notification No. 15/94 I hold that invoice issued by M/s. M.G. Associates is valid document for the purpose of Rule 57G and, therefore, Modvat credit taken on the strength of these invoices was admissible and is sustainable in law. In view of the above findings the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1996 (8) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yoke - Components parts ... ... ... ... ..... . The goods admittedly are spares only as the plant is already installed. The invoice itself indicates that the consignment is spares for Ammonia Refrigeration compressors installed in CA Rolactam Plant as per order dated 29-11-1985. The equipment is already installed and these spares are not meant for use in the manufacture of the equipment but only imported as spares. These obviously would not be covered by expression ldquo component part rdquo . In the case of Hindustan Sanitaryware Ind. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (supra), it has been held by the Tribunal that first assembly parts are components. If imported extra these are spares. In case of Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 358 (Tribunal), the Tribunal held that such parts as may initially be used in the assembly or manufacture of the machine would be component parts. 5. emsp Following the ratio of these orders, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
............
|