|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 631 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 759 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Import - Loaded printed circuit boards ... ... ... ... ..... goods accordingly appear to be in the nature of kits, or assemblies ready for fitment and not just printed circuit board to be subsequently fitted with active and passive elements and other components and fittings before they can be used as assembly or component. The impugned goods were accordingly covered by the entry under Serial No. 610 of Appendix 3 Part A and cannot be deemed to be covered by OGL as per Sl. No. 565(15) of list 8, Part 1 Appendix 6 which contains only PCBs but not PCBs loaded or stuffed with semi-conductor device. Accordingly, the decision of the Tribunal in Atari (India) Electronics, supra, is not applicable as the goods impugned in that case were loaded printed circuit boards and not PCBs mounted with semi-conductor devices and other items and fittings and as such the impugned goods could not be imported without a licence. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and all the appeals filed by the Appellants are rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 757 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron and steel products - Classification of inputs at the hands of receiver not challengeable - Demand - Limitation
-
2000 (8) TMI 756 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods - Jurisdiction - Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... y has correctly been demanded. 7. emsp In so far as 92 pairs rsquo , confiscation is concerned and their option of being redeemed on payment of redemption fine is concerned, we do not find anything to interfere with the orders. The orders of confiscation of 92 pairs of shoe uppers are, therefore, upheld. 8. emsp In so far as imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s. Gurdarshan Leather is concerned, it appears to be very much on the higher side. Even under Section 11AC, the penalty amount is restricted to the amount equivalent to duty. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that a penalty of Rs. one lakh will be justified in the present case. The penalty is, therefore, reduced to Rs. one lakh. 9. emsp In so far as penalty of Rs. one lakh on M/s. Drish Shoes Ltd. is concerned, looking to the facts of the case, we find that this is on the higher side, the same is, therefore, reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 753 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... rice to the related person were influenced. Therefore, on facts also, we cannot uphold the order of mutuality of interest or any flow back. 5. emsp Since we are setting aside the impugned order on merits as per the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court judgment which was followed consistently by the Tribunal and the High Courts, we do not wish to go into the other issues raised by the Chartered Accountant regarding entities being not related and/or the issue of time bar being raised in these appeals. 6. emsp Since we find that the value as declared and on which duties have been paid cannot be altered in the facts of this case, and there could be therefore, no determination of any short levy of duty, there is no case for invoking the penal clause and the penalties imposed are required to be set aside. We find that the imposition of penalty on the Proprietor and the firm separately was not called for. 7. emsp In view of our findings, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
-
2000 (8) TMI 751 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... l Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder concerning imposition of penalties. In our view, the Adjudicating Officer has strained and unfettered authority to determine the quantum of penalty, of course, subject to the general rule of law that penalty imposed shall be proportionate to the gravity of offence committed. However, while quantifying the penalty, the adjudication authority shall take congnizance of the mitigating or extenuating circumstances. In the instant case, the adjudicating authority has specified such mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the order impugned and as such does not call for any interference. 5.2. emsp As this ground of lsquo inadequacy of penalty rsquo is repeatedly invoked in the appeals before the Tribunal, we are constrained to advise the Reviewing Authorities to exercise their power of review with caution and restraint. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and as such, reject the same.
-
2000 (8) TMI 747 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Power Generation Project - Exemption Notification - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... included if they are representing the costs of design and engineering and not costs of erection, test and commissioning etc. Therefore, the exact quantum of design and engineering charges is required to be redetermined and thereafter added to the value. We find that the assessment being under chapter 9801 provisionally as regards the value and classification of the goods under import, therefore we would instruct the concerned Proper Officer to redetermine the exact quantum of design and engineering charges and thereafter add to the value as and when the assessment is finalised. For this purpose, the appellants are free to produce such material as they may have with them, to prove the quantum of costs incurred on account of design and engineering charges and under other heads. The present order as regards valuation is however not disturbed till the finalisation of the entire project import assessment is completed. 10. emsp The appeals are therefore allowed in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 740 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation - Show cause notice - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... the quantum of capital investment on plant and machinery and thereafter whether the benefit of Notification for that period under TI 68 was eligible or not. The other demands issued under other show cause notices as mentioned in para 17 of the impugned order are set aside. (d) Since major portion of the demands is set aside being barred by limitation we cannot uphold the levy of penalty under Rule 173Q. Since the demands in the show cause notice at Sl. 6 on para 17 for the year 83-84 is partially within the period of six months we do not consider it to be a fit case for imposition of penalty for any period. Penalty ordered is therefore set aside. (e) In view of the above findings the appeals are allowed as regards penalty and determination of duty on show cause notices mentioned in para 17 of the impugned order except for Sl. No. 6 for the period 83-84 for which demand is also set aside with a direction for de novo adjudication. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 705 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) - Confiscation, redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... e. We, therefore, consider that insofar as the imposition of redemption fine is concerned the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise has no validity. 4. emsp As regards the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,66,018/- we find that the allegation regarding the non-payment of duty of Rs. 2,66,018/- and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC were the subject matter of the show cause notice which had been settled under the Scheme as mentioned above. We, therefore, consider that separate imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,66,018/- was also not called for in view of the expressed provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. 5. emsp In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the contentions of the appellants and as a result the appeal is allowed. It is, however, made clear that the confirmation of the duty of Rs. 2,66,018/- ordered by the adjudicating authority has not been challenged before us and this amount has already been deposited by the appellants.
-
2000 (8) TMI 703 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Unaccountal of finished goods ... ... ... ... ..... is statement dated 27-10-1995 had admitted the shortage of this raw material and he had also stated that he was ready to pay the Central Excise duty involved on the goods found short. On due consideration of these facts, there is no discrepancy found in the findings of the adjudicating authority with regard to this charge against the appellants. Since the raw material on which Modvat credit had been availed is found short and no plausible explanation is forthcoming, the duty in respect of these goods is rightly confirmed on the appellants. 6. emsp In view of the above analysis, the appeal is therefore partly allowed by way of remand to the original authority for de novo adjudication in the above terms with regard to the finished goods found in excess. The confirmation of duty of Rs. 41,412/- in respect of raw material found short is confirmed. The penalty of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of this confirmation of demand is upheld. 7. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 702 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... e provisions may be generally followed to the extent possible. When understood with this limitation, it is clear that all the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the substantive right of appeal to this Tribunal are not extended to an application contemplated by it. Only those which are procedural in nature can apply to such an application. rdquo ldquo 9. emsp In view of what has been stated above, we answer the reference in the following manner - In an application filed under Section 35E(4) of the Act, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal beyond the period of three months allowed by that clause. rdquo 2. emsp Shri Ravinder Babu, Ld. JDR fairly conceded that these four appeals were filed beyond the period of three months. In the facts and circumstances and following the ruling given by the Larger Bench in the aforesaid case, these four appeals (No. 1822-25/99-D) are hereby dismissed as barred by time. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 699 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ls filed by this Commissionerate we have had the opportunity to make similar observations. In a number of cases we have repeatedly granted extensions to rectify the defects. We, however, find that this Commissionerate is immune to all such directions. 4. emsp We also find that the appeal papers although signed by the empowered authority, the signatures have been attested by a functionary lower in rank. 5. emsp In a number of cases we have been constrained to dismiss the appeals filed by this Commissionerate without going into the merits thereof. It is really unfortunate that a Commissioner can be so lax, unmindful and negligent in discharging the very basic functions required of him as an appellant. 6. emsp We dismiss this appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The stay application also stands disposed of. 7. emsp Copies of this order be sent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad as well as to the Member, CBEC incharge of law and judiciary.
-
2000 (8) TMI 697 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name of ineligible person ... ... ... ... ..... 8-2-1993 for having used the brand name of ineligible person in respect of the goods in question (rear axels) during the period in dispute is in any manner erroneous and devoid of logic. His order is rather perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In Namtech Systems Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (T) the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has also taken the view that the manufacturer using the brand name of ineligible person in respect of specified goods is not entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/96 or 1/93. 13. emsp Consequently, the impugned order of the Collector confirming the duty demand for the period in question on the appellants is confirmed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the penalty imposed on the appellants is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) from Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). With this modification of the penalty amount, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed being without merit.
-
2000 (8) TMI 696 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal by Department - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... with the work is not a correct ground and accepted one in the light of Commissioner filing appeals in other cases. 9. emsp In the case of U.O.I. v. Suresh N. Shetty (supra), the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka laid down salient features for sufficient cause and indicated that where there is a case for negligence or inaction or want of bona fides immutable to the Revenue then some latitude is required to be given. In the present case, no such ingredients are found for showing some latitude as 46 days delay has not been explained. We have noted that there is no such Board s circular in the matter and the Commissioner was fully aware of the reasons and they had accepted order dated 23-1-2000. Subsequent changed view has since been held in the judgment brought out to our notice to be no ground for condoning the delay and therefore we do not accept the reason given for condoning the delay. The applications are rejected and as a consequence the appeals of the Revenue are rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 693 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... to reimburse the stockists any expenditure incurred on sales promotion from the manufacturer to the tune of 4 of their turnover even if they incur any advertising expense on behalf of the manufacturer. Details of the reimbursements were submitted to the Commissioner. In any event, the normal price had remained the same for all the 1400 stockists all over the country. Counsel for respondents had relied on the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal in support of their contention that expenditure incurred by the stockists cannot automatically be included in the assessable value. We find that the decisions cited on by the appellants support their contention. We are therefore unable to accept the Revenue rsquo s case on this point also. As a result, we are of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The Revenue application is accordingly rejected. 13. emsp The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is also disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 692 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... separators, which the appellants have chosen to call as interleaving trays cannot be considered to be excisable goods, As such the very first ground adopted by the Revenue for denying the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the specified inputs on the ground that interleaving trays being final product are not mentioned in the declaration, no longer survives. 11. emsp We also find force in the appellant rsquo s submissions that these interleaving trays at the most be considered as packing material. The inputs of packing material of final product, where value of packing material is included in the value of the final product, are eligible inputs for the purposes of Modvat credit as was held in the case of Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) (P) Ltd. referred supra. As. such viewed from any angle the appellants become entitled to the Modvat credit of duty. 12. emsp In view of the foregoing we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (8) TMI 689 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... applications seeking stay of the operation of this order. 4. emsp Shri K.M. Patwari reiterated the various claims in the appeal memorandum. We find that the Circular dated 30-10-1996 was issued at a date subsequent to the period involved in this case. We also find that the Circular proceeds on the assumption that valuation is warranted under sub-clause (ii) of Rule 6(b). As regards the assertion that the sale to outsider is not 25 of the production, but only at 4.8 , we note a certificate produced by Shri M.H. Patil in which for the disputed period the cost accountant has certified such sales at about 11 . Although the appeal memorandum speaks of the Judgment in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria v. Commissioner of Central Excise for the purposes of the present application it may not be relevant. We further find that the Tribunal rsquo s Judgment is upheld by the Supreme Court 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 . 5. emsp Finding no merit in any of the plea advanced, we dismiss the application.
-
2000 (8) TMI 688 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has not been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner by holding that such re-packing into smaller containers has to be treated as whole-sale transactions from the factory gate. 7. emsp We also find that Shri R.N. Das, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondents has referred to the other decision reported on 2000 (119) E.L.T. 394 (Tribunal) 1999 (34) RLT 573 in the case of Savita Chemicals Ltd. who were also the manufacturer of lubricating oil. In an identical facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that as there were factory gate sales and the price at which the sale was made to independent buyer is available, the said price became the basis of sale to other consumers as also for stock-transfers to depots. If the sale price from depots is higher than the price at which stock-transfer has taken place, the Department cannot demand differential duty. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same.
-
2000 (8) TMI 685 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of foreign supplier rsquo s invoice, which was much lower. We find that in the case of Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals v. C.C.Ex. reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 535 (Tribunal) 1996 (12) RLT 275 , the Tribunal while dealing with the identical issue, had held that the importers having not disclosed the sale-invoice value of the Canalising Agency, the allegations of misdeclaration and suppression were proved and longer period was accordingly available. Similar set of facts exists in the present appeals. As such, following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., we do not find any merits in the appellants rsquo plea of limitation. 6. emsp However, we feel that in the facts and circumstances of the cases, penalties imposed upon the appellants can be interfered with. Accordingly, we order 50 reduction in the penalties imposed upon the appellants in each and every appeal. All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
2000 (8) TMI 683 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... and as adopted by the Addl. Collr., is not correct not being sanctioned by the Valuation Rules. The Valuation Rules are to be applied sequentially and the Rule 8 states that subject to provisions of Rule 3 of these Rules where the value of imported goods cannot be determined using reasonable means, consisted of principle and general provision of these Rules etc. Therefore, once value under Rule 3 with reference to transaction value is determinable there is no authority to resort to Rule 8 or any subsequent rule in the Valuation Rules. For the above reason, the order of the Addl. Collr. is erroneous. The same is set aside including his order for confiscation under Section 111(m) and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a). The appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellant. rdquo 5.1 emsp In view of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and accordingly, confirm the same. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 681 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal - Jurisdiction of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... lf of others. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that there is no jurisdiction is not correct in law. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) can entertain appeal against any order or decision passed by an officer of Customs subordinate to the Commissioner. Jurisdiction in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore not inhabited or restricted to a particular kind of order or decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) is bound to take cognizance of an appeal if it is filed following the conditions laid down in law and decide the matter, so long as there is an order or decision by the proper officer of Customs i.e. Assistant Commissioner, CHA Section passed under the Act including the Rules/Regulations issued thereunder resulting in a person being aggrieved. 7. emsp In this view of the matter, we allow the present appeal as remand to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to decide the matter on merits by following the principles of natural justice. We order accordingly.
............
|
