|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... hall examine all the points raised by the appellants and personally verify the fact about the entire activity and the processes being carried out by the appellants themselves and that the item is a finished part which is cleared to the Domestic Flour Mills and that the Domestic Flour Mills are not carried any of the processes but they are utilising the same as stated by them in their certificates. The adjudicating authority shall carry out this factual verification and consider their pleas in the personal hearing to be held by him after due notice and pass a speaking order. The original authority shall also consider all the rulings of the Tribunal and Higher Courts on this aspect of the matter while deciding the case. The lower authority shall also examine the plea of the item being exempted under Notification No. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995 in view of the fact that the same is captively consumed by them and as such it is exempted from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.
-
1998 (1) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... re covered by Notification No. 14/92-C.E. which they had claimed. She submits that even if on reference, the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court decided the case in favour of the department, they will still be entitled to the benefit. We have perused the submissions of both sides. We find that the issue is as to whether the assessee has the option either to avail the exemption or to pay duty and avail Modvat credit is available or not has already been referred to the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court. This is one of the main issues decided by the impugned order. The plea of the respondents that they are covered by another notification as indicated above, does not in any way disentitle the applicant to claim reference to the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court. Looking to the facts of the case, we find that the reference in this case lies with the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court. Registry will prepare a statement of facts and send the case to the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court for decision.
-
1998 (1) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Class of buyers ... ... ... ... ..... lso are in favour of customers of Ludhiana and customers outside Ludhiana. According to learned Counsel for the appellant customers of Ludhiana and customers outside Ludhiana fall into two class of buyers and the price difference is referable to the transport charges required to take the goods from the factory or depot, as the case may be, to the premises of the customers outside Ludhiana. The matter in this perspective was not placed before the adjudicating authority and the same calls for consideration. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also raised a contention based on limitation in respect of three demands and this aspect also should be considered when merits are considered. Impugned orders do not cover the aspects now highlighted. Therefore the orders are set aside and the case is remanded to jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh after giving the appellant an opportunity of producing relevant evidence and of hearing. 4. emsp The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 182 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Manufacture - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... xistence any new commodity for the activities undertaken by them as described above. 5. emsp Next question is whether the pasting of printed labels on plain carton before putting the footwear in the cartons, can be considered to be an activity of manufacture in the sense that they become converted from plain carton to printed carton. We observe that no evidence has been produced by the Revenue on record that affixing a printed label on the plain carton will make the plain carton a printed carton as known in the trade. It is well-settled that burden to adduce this evidence in the matter of classification lies on the Revenue. Therefore, we hold that for lack of any evidence, the Revenue has not proved that the activity of pasting of a printed label on a plain carton would amount to bringing into existence a printed carton. In view of our aforesaid findings, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question of limitation. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1998 (1) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... appeal. 3. emsp We notice that the question of relationship and the applicability of proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been raised in the memorandum of appeal. On the other hand, the memorandum of appeal raised a totally different contention, namely, that there is flow of additional consideration from the buyer to the manufacturer and this element should be included in the assessable value. A copy of the show cause notice has not been produced before us, but the summary of the contents of the show cause notice furnished in the order-in-original shows that it was based only on the alleged relationship between the parties and not on flow of additional consideration. The order-in-appeal also does not indicate that the ground now taken was raised before the Collector (Appeals). The adjudication of the price list cannot travel beyond the grounds raised in the show cause notice. Therefore, this appeal has no substance. The appeal is dismissed
-
1998 (1) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the turnover during a particular period and it cannot be known on the occasion of sale by the manufacturer to the buyer. There is no dispute that the turnover discount was available to all buyers, whose turnover would exceed a particular limit during a particular period. There is also no dispute that turnover discount was actually granted to those buyers who satisfy the condition. The lower authorities were in error in refusing deduction of turnover discount and rejecting the refund claims referable to turnover discount. The matter requires to be reconsidered in the light of the provisions under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. emsp The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the rejection by the Assistant Collector of the refund claim for Rs. 36,119.00 is set aside and the case is remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for consideration of the claim in the light of Section 11B(2) of the Act. The appeal is allowed in this manner.
-
1998 (1) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... of a product under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules has been held by a larger Bench of the Tribunal in Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 676 (Tribunal). On the question of margin of profit what the Rule requires is that addition of margin of profit, if any. The transformers in which Coils are fitted are also not sold by the respondent. They are used by the Board in its own activities of transmission and distribution. Neither of the lower authorities has relied on any data to come to the conclusion that there could be notional margin of profit on Coils and the extent of margin of profit. If it can be held that there could be margin of profit for a product like Coil, such margin of profit could be included in the assessable value. In the absence of any materials in this behalf and on quantification there was no justification to direct addition of margin of profit. 11. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeals.
-
1998 (1) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Confiscation and penalty - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ifiting tackle). The note also gives the items which are to be included under this heading which are already reproduced above. On a careful reading of the HSN Explanatory Notes under Heading 84.67, it is very clear that the item is not akin to the items shown in HSN Explanatory Notes and it does not satisfy the same and therefore, the reclassification adopted by the Addl. Collector on his personal opinion is totally unsustainable. In that view of the matter, there is no case made out by the Addl. Collector for initiating proceedings against the appellants for reclassifying the goods under Heading 8467.00. There is no mis-classification or suppression for invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. There is no clandestine removal for invoking Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules and we further hold that the entire proceedings initiated by the Addl. Collector is totally unsustainable in law. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... case, we also note that the appellants was already manufacturing Graphite Electrodes right from 1977. We note that Tribunal in coming to the conclusion in the case of Hind Spinners Industries Growth Centre relied upon the clarification given by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in their Circular No. 277/iii/96-CX, dated 2-12-1996 in which the Board clarified the position and on the basis of this circular, the Tribunal in this case came to the conclusion that Modvat credit could be utilised right from the date of receipt of the inputs in the factory if the factory was already a running one. Following the ratio of the judgments in the above two cases and also relying on the clarification given by the Board, we hold that the appellants rightly utilised Modvat credit from the date of receipt of the goods and taking credit thereon. 5. emsp In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1998 (1) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of capital investment on plant and machinery ... ... ... ... ..... ice was not functioning and was not used at a particular time, its value cannot be excluded. Learned Counsel has drawn attention to the explanation of the notification but this explanation allows exclusion only of the value of the machinery rendered unfit for use and the appellants have not produced any evidence in the form of a certificate of the Chartered Engineer or some other export or any other evidence to show that this item had been rendered unfit for use and therefore this contention also remains unsubstantiated. 11. emsp Since the appellants have not been able to show that the value of the capital investment on plant and machinery in their unit was within the limits prescribed by the notification for the purpose of extending the benefit claimed and the Department has been able to show that it had exceeded the prescribed limit therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, rejected as already announced in the open Court.
-
1998 (1) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ays is included in the price, he is entitled to refund of proportionate interest. This method of collecting advance interest was adopted, evidently to safeguard against difficulties in collection of interest subsequently but subject to liability to refund interest in case there is no delay. The principle laid down in MRF Ltd. case 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) is squarely applicable to all instances where interest is liable to be paid for delayed payment. The lower authorities were not justified in rejecting outright the claim for deduction of the interest element. The Assistant Collector ought to have approved the price list subject to the qualification indicated above. 4. emsp For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the price lists shall be treated as having been approved with right for deduction of the interest element if liability to pay on the alleged element in all cases is within the period. 5. emsp Appeal is allowed as indicated above.
-
1998 (1) TMI 174 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ich it has been observed that cement and steel cannot prima facie be considered to be parts of machinery should applied. She says that it is evident that the wording of the Rule 57Q goods of which the inputs form part or raw material has to be excisable. 4. emsp Prima facie the Indo Rama decision which was an interim order does not appear to have considered whether the cement and steel would be part of a plant, which was specified as capital goods in the rule. There is no requirement that the capital goods specified in Rule 57Q must necessarily be excisable goods. The later decision in stay order of the Tribunal in Llyods Steel Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Order No. 1466-67/96 is relevant. Balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant. We therefore accept the offer made by the applicant. On the credit to the extent of Rs. 1.00 lac being kept unutilised in the RG 23A pending the appeal, deposit of the duty and penalty is waived and stay their recovery.
-
1998 (1) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Service charges ... ... ... ... ..... , the appellants have given the list of 18 purchasers including the agents to whom the goods have been supplied. The service charges had been collected only from M/s. Santosh Sales and Services and M/s. Chhaya Sales and Services and not from other 16 persons to whom the goods have been cleared. Therefore, in view of the undisputed facts, it has to be held that the department has not proved their case. The appellants have not collected deferred price in the form of service charges. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that the optional service contract for maintenance after expiry of free warranty period and collecting after sales charges after the warranty period is not includible in the assessable value. This judgment, in our opinion is not distinguishable as contended by ld. DR. We hold that the appellants have made out a case in their favour and hence the impugned order is set aside, The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Intermediate products - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... s are both covered by Notification No. 217/86. This view is supported by the clarification given by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in their circular dated 4-5-1994. This circular clarified the position no doubt in respect of Modvat credit. But since it clarifies the position of intermediate products in regard to Notification 217/86, therefore, it is equally applicable to the facts of the case before us. Looking to the above findings, we set aside the impugned order in Appeal No. 2798/87-B1 and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, admissible under law. So far as the second appeal is concerned, the only issue contested before us was that no show cause notice was issued and the case was initiated by making endorsements in R.T. 12 returns. We find that this situation is fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kosan Metal Products cited above. Following the ratio of the Apex Court, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 171 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nd, as it is well settled, the expression ldquo used in the manufacture of goods rdquo should normally encompass the entire process carried on by the manufacturer in converting the raw material into finished goods. Further, we find that the scheme itself does envisage the protection of the credit facility on inputs contained in the waste arising during the manufacture of the finished product as provided for in Rule 57D. Moreover, this is not a case where the input facility is being claimed on the quantity of the inputs which were destroyed as such. The Assistant Collector has observed that they have paid back the credit of duty involved on that quantity. In these circumstances, considering that the Modvat scheme itself is a beneficial provision for according input duty relief, we are of the view that the decision of the Assistant Collector is reasonable and in accordance with the broader scheme of Modvat benefit. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ect. 6. emsp Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that payment of differential duty was made before the inspection by the Anti Evasion Wing and much prior to the show cause notice is an indication of absence of mala fides on the part of the appellant. Impugned order clearly recorded receipt of some information. There is a reason to believe that appellant might have become aware of the receipt of some information by the Anti Evasion Wing and started the activity commencing with the letter dated 23-5-1989. 7. emsp In the light of what we have indicated above, it is clear that the appellant deliberately cleared the goods in the name of wholesalers even though they were really intended to be taken to the duty paid godown and this was being done with intent to evade duty. In these circumstances, the act of the appellant deserved to be penalised. Quantum of penalty imposed also appears to be very reasonable and we find no ground to interfere. 8. emsp The appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... al Collector did not really consider the essence of the contention raised by the appellant, namely, that services for which charges were collected had nothing to do with the manufactured items but related only to plant layout drawings, piping drawings, electrical drawings, floor loads and location drawings. 5. emsp Shri K. Srivastava, SDR has made available a copy of the Contract Order. Total amount of the contract includes the cost of manufactured items, sub-contract items, bought out items, erection and commissioning, imported items and engineering charges. The cost of manufactured items would necessarily take into account any engineering service which may be required in connection with those items. Engineering service charges separately collected can have nexus only with the layout of the plant. No part or charges on account of such services can be included in the assessable value of the manufactured items. In this view we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hag Polymers v. C.C.E. supra, I find that the facts of this case are different from the present case. The goods were confiscated which were found in access in RG 23A record in the case of Bhag Polymers (supra). In the present case, no such proceedings were taken place. The Tribunal in the respondents rsquo own case in Subros Ltd. v. C.C.E. supra after considering the earlier decisions of the Tribunal held that there is no dispute that the assessees have been able to make substantive compliance with the provisions, therefore, they are entitled for the Modvat credit though the inputs were not entered in the RG 23A Part I register. 6. emsp In the present case, the Commr. (Appeals) after verifying from the records came to the conclusion that there is no doubt in regard to the receipt of the inputs into the factory and are used in the manufacture of final product. 7. emsp In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... than Rs. 1.5 crore during the preceding financial year as against the case before us in which the aggregate value of clearances was more than Rs. 1.5 crore during the preceding financial year. 10. emsp Having regard to the facts brought out above and the case law cited and brought to our notice, we find that the unit taken on lease was not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as the unit during the relevant period was not entitled to SSI exemption. The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the benefit of exemption under Notification 175/86 and revenue had come up in appeal in this case. We find that in this judgment and in the case decided by the judgment, the aggregate value of clearances was less than Rs. 1.5 crore. Thus, the case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the aggregate value of clearances in the case before us during the preceding financial year was more than Rs. 1.5 crore. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 166 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... issue has been disposed off by this Bench in its Order No. 1338/96-WRB, dated 16-4-1996 1997 (91) E.L.T. 597 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has held that the motor vehicle parts have to be subjected to phosphate coating in the painting shop for ensuring their quality and hence held that chemicals used in such process cannot be dismissed as not used in the process of manufacture of the final products and hence the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Order in that case allowing Modvat credit. Following the Tribunal decision, in the present case, we uphold the impugned order and reject the Department rsquo s appeal.
............
|
