Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1999 1999 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 201 to 220 of 333 Records

• 1999 (1) TMI 141
  
  Issues:
  1. Stay of payment of duty and penalty.
  2. Allegations of fraudulent misuse of DEEC scheme.
  3. Failure of natural justice in providing documents.
  4. Financial inability of the appellants.
  5. Prima facie guilt of violations.
  
  Issue 1: Stay of payment of duty and penalty
  The appellants filed applications seeking a stay of payment of duty amounting to Rs. 59,02,903, which was part of the total duty demanded under an adjudication order. A penalty of Rs. 1 crore was imposed on the Proprietor, and an application was made for waiver of this amount. The Tribunal directed the appellants to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within two months, with the waiver of the remaining duty and penalty upon such payment.
  
  Issue 2: Allegations of fraudulent misuse of DEEC scheme
  The appellants, holders of Advance Licence, were accused of importing goods and exporting them to fulfil obligations under the DEEC scheme. It was alleged that export documents were forged by the Proprietor of a shipping agency, involving manipulation of invoices, preparation of forged shipping bills, and misuse of test reports and stamps. Statements of involved parties were recorded, and a Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to the impugned order after due hearings.
  
  Issue 3: Failure of natural justice in providing documents
  The appellants argued a failure of natural justice as they were not provided with documents referred to in the Show Cause Notice despite multiple requests. The department claimed that opportunities were given to access the documents, but the appellants failed to collect them as per the correspondence exchanged between the parties. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the letters exchanged to determine any failure of natural justice, eventually directing the appellants to pay an additional sum towards the duty.
  
  Issue 4: Financial inability of the appellants
  The Consultant representing the appellants did not raise any arguments regarding financial difficulties faced by the appellants. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellants to pay a specified sum within a stipulated time frame, considering the lack of arguments presented on financial grounds.
  
  Issue 5: Prima facie guilt of violations
  The statements provided by the appellants and an employee indicated prima facie guilt of violations related to the charges leveled against them. The Tribunal ordered the appellants to pay a portion of the demanded penalty, with the waiver of the remaining sum upon timely payment.
  
  This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, providing detailed insights into the legal proceedings and decisions made in the case.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 140
  
  Issues:
  - Assessment of duty on imported ship for breaking
  - Applicability of Customs Act and Tariff
  - Claim for refund and Modvat credit
  
  Assessment of Duty on Imported Ship for Breaking:
  The appellant, engaged in breaking old ships, imported a vessel with a certified Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) of 4675 long tons. Despite evidence of removal of 110 long tons (five cranes), the duty was assessed on 4785 long tons, resulting in excess duty payment. The appellant claimed a refund, citing Customs Act provisions for remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods. However, the authorities rejected the claim, considering the import as a whole under the Import Policy and Customs Tariff Act. The stability book, crucial for duty assessment, lacked amendment regarding the removed cranes, leading to duty calculation discrepancies.
  
  Applicability of Customs Act and Tariff:
  The lower authorities upheld the duty assessment based on the stability book's LDT, as per Section 12 of the Customs Act and Chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant's argument for remission under Section 23 of the Customs Act was dismissed due to the vessel's intended purpose for breaking, not constituting loss or destruction of goods. The duty calculation at 1000 per LDT under Chapter 89 was deemed appropriate, emphasizing the significance of the stability book in determining duty liability.
  
  Claim for Refund and Modvat Credit:
  Despite paying duty on 4785 long tons and claiming Modvat credit, the appellant sought a refund for the excess duty paid. The authorities denied the refund, noting the appellant's acknowledgment of the duty amount by claiming Modvat credit during ship breaking. The appellant's inconsistent stance on duty payment and credit eligibility led to the rejection of the refund claim, as the duty assessment was deemed proper based on the stability book's information.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the duty assessment on the imported ship for breaking as per the stability book's LDT, in alignment with Customs Act provisions and Customs Tariff Act regulations. The denial of the refund claim was justified due to the appellant's utilization of Modvat credit while paying duty, indicating acceptance of the duty amount charged.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 139
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Classification of imported goods.
  2. Requirement of an import license.
  3. Confiscation and imposition of penalty.
  4. Applicability of Open General License (OGL).
  5. Finalization of Bill of Entry.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Imported Goods:
  
  The primary issue was whether the imported consignment of 325 cartons of Polyester Film coated with Ferric Oxide should be classified as "Audio Magnetic tapes in Jumbo rolls" or "Metallised Polyester Film." The Customs authorities initially classified the goods as Audio Magnetic tapes under Sl. No. 607(4), Appendix 3, Part A, requiring a specific import license. However, the importers claimed the goods fell under Sl. No. 565(48) of Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, which did not require a license and were eligible for clearance under OGL.
  
  The Tribunal, in a prior period case involving the same importers, had classified similar goods as "Metallised Polyester Film" under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff, eligible for OGL and not as Audio Magnetic tapes. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 12-2-1997, remanded the case to the Tribunal, emphasizing the need to determine whether the goods were "audio magnetic tape in jumbo rolls" or "metallised polyester film" requiring further processing to become audio magnetic tape.
  
  2. Requirement of an Import License:
  
  The Customs authorities argued that the goods required an import license as they were classified as Audio Magnetic tapes, which appeared under restricted items. The importers contended that the goods were metallised polyester films, which did not require a license under OGL. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's directive, concluded that the goods were indeed metallised polyester films and thus did not require an import license.
  
  3. Confiscation and Imposition of Penalty:
  
  The Collector of Customs had confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) for contravention of Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of confiscation and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal, upon re-evaluation, set aside the confiscation and penalty, aligning with the Supreme Court's observation that the goods were metallised polyester films.
  
  4. Applicability of Open General License (OGL):
  
  The importers sought clearance under OGL, arguing that the goods fell under Sl. No. 565(48) of Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, which did not require a license. The Tribunal upheld this claim, referencing its earlier decision and the Supreme Court's directive, confirming that the goods were appropriately classified under OGL and did not necessitate a specific import license.
  
  5. Finalization of Bill of Entry:
  
  The Bill of Entry for the imported goods had not been finalized. The Tribunal noted that its mandate was confined to deciding the ITC classification of the goods, as per the Supreme Court's order, and did not extend to the classification for customs purposes. The Tribunal directed that the finalization of the Bill of Entry should be done by the Customs authorities in light of the finding that the goods were "polyester films metallised" and not Audio Magnetic tapes in jumbo rolls.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were metallised polyester films, falling under Sl. No. 565(48) of Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, of the Import Policy for April 1985 - March 1988, and thus did not require an import license. The confiscation and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs were set aside. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the Supreme Court's directive and its prior ruling in a similar case involving the same importers. The finalization of the Bill of Entry was left to the Customs authorities, with the Tribunal's findings serving as the basis for classification.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 138
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Entitlement to claim the benefit of Notification 46/89.
  2. Interpretation of Rule 57K, 57A, and 57L of the Central Excise Rules.
  3. Eligibility for money credit on Rice Bran Oil (RBO) used in soap manufacturing.
  4. The role of intermediate products (fatty acids) in the money credit scheme.
  5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Tomco.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Entitlement to Claim the Benefit of Notification 46/89:
  The appellants are manufacturers of soap and claim the benefit of Notification 46/89, which specifies that vegetable oils used in soap manufacturing are eligible for money credit. The notification aims to promote the use of minor oils in soap manufacturing. The dispute arises from the Collector's interpretation that the appellants are not entitled to this benefit because the fatty acid, an intermediate product, is exempt from duty.
  
  2. Interpretation of Rule 57K, 57A, and 57L of the Central Excise Rules:
  Rule 57K allows the government to specify final products and raw materials eligible for money credit. Rule 57L states that money credit cannot be allowed if the final product is exempt from duty. The department contends that since the fatty acid is exempt under Notification 12/89, the appellants cannot claim money credit. However, the appellants argue that the fatty acid is an intermediate product used in soap manufacturing, which is the final product.
  
  3. Eligibility for Money Credit on Rice Bran Oil (RBO) Used in Soap Manufacturing:
  The appellants process RBO supplied by Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL) into fatty acids and other products, some of which are used in their soap manufacturing. The department argues that the appellants are not entitled to money credit because the fatty acid is exempt. The appellants counter that they comply with the notification and trade notices, and the fatty acid is used in soap manufacturing, making them eligible for money credit.
  
  4. The Role of Intermediate Products (Fatty Acids) in the Money Credit Scheme:
  The appellants process RBO twice, obtaining fatty acids, glycerine, and pitch. The fatty acids are used in soap manufacturing. The department argues that the fatty acids are exempt and not final products under Rule 57K. The appellants argue that the intermediate products should not disqualify them from money credit, as they are ultimately used in soap manufacturing.
  
  5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in the Case of Tomco:
  The appellants cite the Supreme Court's decision in Tomco, which allowed the benefit of a similar notification for using RBO in soap manufacturing. The department argues that the case is different because it involved set-off, not money credit. However, the principle of encouraging the use of RBO in soap manufacturing applies to both cases.
  
  Judgment:
  The tribunal concluded that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 46/89. The notification and relevant rules do not exclude intermediate products like fatty acids from the money credit scheme. The appellants' use of fatty acids in soap manufacturing aligns with the notification's intent. The tribunal found the Collector's interpretation incorrect and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 137
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against disallowance of Modvat credit and imposition of penalty based on the discrepancy in values of goods cleared by consignors located at different places.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal challenged the disallowance of Modvat credit and imposition of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the discrepancy in values of goods cleared by consignors located at Pune and received by the appellants at Hyderabad. The main contention was that the duty was correctly calculated and paid on the higher price, which corresponded to the correct assessable value under Section 4. The appellant argued that under the Modvat scheme, the credit available should be equal to the duty debited on the inputs by the manufacturer, and they had not taken more credit than what was paid on the goods. The department's view was reiterated by the ld. DR, emphasizing the discrepancy in values.
  
  The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and records of the case, particularly focusing on Invoice No. 103. It was noted that the dispute did not concern the correctness of the assessable value but rather the entitlement of the appellants to take credit for the duty debited by the manufacturer at Pune. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, highlighting that the Modvat rules do not link the quantum of duty credit available to the value of the goods. The department's objection to the concessional sale of goods to a sister concern was deemed unfounded as duty had been computed and debited correctly at the manufacturer's end. The Tribunal concluded that the Order-in-Appeal needed to be set aside as no violation of the Modvat scheme rules was established.
  
  In the final judgment, the Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief as per law. The decision clarified that the Modvat credit should be based on the duty debited on the inputs by the manufacturer, regardless of any internal pricing arrangements between related entities.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 136
  
  Issues:
  Determining assessable value of goods based on sales through related persons, imposition of penalty for alleged suppression of facts.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was filed by M/s. Avon Scales Co. challenging an order confirming the demand of Central Excise Duty and imposing a penalty. The dispute revolved around the assessable value of goods, particularly weighing scales, manufactured by the appellants. The Collector of Central Excise had demanded duty due to the majority of sales being made through related persons, triggering differential duty calculations.
  
  The appellant's advocate argued that no preferential treatment was given to the trading partnership concern despite the familial relations between partners of the manufacturing and trading firms. He contended that the assessable value should be based on normal prices, not the prices at which goods were sold through related concerns. The advocate also emphasized that all relevant facts were disclosed to the Department, and there was no suppression. He challenged the penalty imposition, asserting that it was unwarranted.
  
  On the other hand, the JDR for the Revenue highlighted that most sales were routed through related persons, justifying the use of related concern prices for determining the assessable value. He pointed out that full details were not initially provided, leading to demand quantification in a corrigendum.
  
  The Tribunal noted the familial relationships between partners of the manufacturing and trading concerns. It was established that the two entities were related persons, influencing the correct determination of duty based on prices from related concerns. The Tribunal acknowledged that there was no suppression of facts, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the part of the order related to the demand of Central Excise Duty but set aside the penalty imposition. The Tribunal also addressed the appellant's concern regarding the quantification of demand, directing appropriate relief upon verification of eligible deductions. The appeal was disposed of based on these considerations.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 135
  
  Issues:
  - Classification of goods under Rule 57F(1) for home consumption
  - Time limitation for issuing show cause notice
  
  Classification of goods under Rule 57F(1) for home consumption:
  The appeal was against an Order-in-Original confirming a differential duty on MODVAT inputs cleared under Rule 57F(1) for home consumption. The appellant argued that the mounted brakeliners received were used for manufacturing brake assemblies and some were cleared as spares. The appellant contended that the nature of the product did not change with minor modifications and cited precedents classifying similar parts as motor vehicle parts. The appellant maintained that the goods were specifically designed for a particular model of motor vehicles and not interchangeable. The appellant also highlighted previous orders classifying the products as motor vehicle parts, which were not reviewed or appealed against. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued after a significant delay was time-barred due to no suppression of facts with wilful intent, as all required procedures were followed, and duty was paid correctly. The Tribunal noted that the goods were received as inputs, majority used for manufacturing, and only a small percentage cleared under Rule 57F(1) for home consumption with proper documentation and duty payment. The Tribunal found no intention to defraud the government revenue and ruled the demand as time-barred, setting aside the order and penalty.
  
  Time limitation for issuing show cause notice:
  The Tribunal analyzed the procedural compliance by the appellant, noting the absence of clandestine manufacturing or misdeclaration. The Tribunal emphasized that duty paid on the inputs exceeded the credit taken, ensuring no revenue loss. Due to the delayed issuance of the show cause notice beyond the stipulated period and the absence of wilful intent to suppress facts, the extended period for demand was not applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the demand as time-barred and overturned the order-in-original, including the penalty, as the demand itself was invalidated by the time limitation. The appeal was allowed based on the time bar issue, without delving into the classification dispute of the goods.
  
  This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides insights into the classification of goods under Rule 57F(1) for home consumption and the time limitation for issuing a show cause notice, outlining the arguments presented by the parties, the Tribunal's findings, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 134
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against cancellation of CHA license by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the cancellation of the appellant's CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The main issue was whether the cancellation of the license was justified instead of renewing it as per the renewal application under Regulation 12. The appellant had been granted temporary CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, which was later converted into a permanent license. Subsequently, the appellant obtained a CHA license in Chennai as well. The appellant's business shifted from Bangalore to Chennai, leading to the non-renewal of the Bangalore license. When the Chennai license was due for renewal, the appellant applied under Regulation 12, but the renewal was rejected by the Commissioner. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed Regulation 10 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR), which governs the grant of regular CHA licenses. The appellant had qualified and obtained licenses under Regulation 10 in both Bangalore and Chennai. The license at Chennai was issued under Regulation 10(2) and was valid until a certain date. The appellant applied for renewal under Regulation 12(1)(b) before the license expiry, but the renewal was denied based on the non-existence of the Bangalore license.
  
  The Tribunal found that Regulation 10 deals with granting regular licenses and does not provide for renewal, suspension, or revocation. The license issued in Chennai was independent of the Bangalore license, and there was no explicit provision for a linkage between them in the regulations. The Tribunal also examined Regulation 12, which allows for renewal of licenses under certain conditions. Since the appellant met the renewal criteria and no misconduct was recorded, the non-renewal solely based on the absence of the Bangalore license was deemed unjustified.
  
  Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the renewal of the appellant's license in Chennai under Regulation 12. The renewal was to be effective from the date of the license's expiry. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 133
  
  Issues:
  Classification of Chlorine tablets, computation of duty value for duty exemption slabs under specific notifications, confirmation of penalty imposed, classification of other related products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix.
  
  Classification of Chlorine tablets:
  The ROM application was filed by the Revenue against the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, which classified Chlorine tablets as Sodium hypochlorite under Chapter Heading 2828 of the CET instead of the Revenue's claim under Heading 3808.90. The Revenue pointed out errors in the order, specifically related to the computation of duty value for duty exemption slabs under certain notifications and the confirmation of penalty imposed. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address the classification of other related products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix. The Tribunal found that the order did not provide findings on these aspects, leading to an apparent mistake in the judgment. The order was required to be recalled for re-hearing to address these issues.
  
  Computation of duty value and penalty confirmation:
  The Revenue challenged the duty computation and penalty imposed by the Additional Collector, seeking confirmation of a higher duty demand and penalty amount. The Tribunal observed that the Additional Collector had not given findings on the correct classification of products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix, despite considering their clearances while calculating duty. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address the Revenue's challenges regarding duty reduction, penalty imposition, and the correct classification of these products. This lack of findings on crucial aspects led to the decision to recall the order for re-hearing.
  
  Classification of related products:
  The Tribunal found that the Additional Collector did not provide a clear classification for products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix, even though their clearances were considered in duty computation. The Revenue had specifically challenged the duty demand and penalty imposed, seeking confirmation of higher amounts. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address the Revenue's challenges and failed to provide findings on the correct classification of these products. This lack of clarity and findings necessitated the recall of the order for re-hearing to address these issues comprehensively.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal, in response to the Revenue's ROM application, identified significant errors and omissions in the original order related to the classification of Chlorine tablets, computation of duty value, penalty confirmation, and the classification of other related products. The Tribunal found that crucial aspects were not adequately addressed, leading to an apparent mistake in the judgment. As a result, the order was recalled for re-hearing to provide comprehensive findings and address the issues raised by the Revenue effectively.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 132
  
  Issues:
  1. Stay application filed by the revenue appeals.
  2. Classification of oleo pine resin under sub-heading 1301.90 of Central Excise Tariff.
  3. Relevance of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act in determining the rate of duty.
  4. Consideration of evidence regarding the manufacturing process of oleo pine resin without aid of power.
  5. Interpretation of Tribunal judgment in the case of Dujodwala Products Ltd.
  6. Applicability of Explanation to Section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act.
  7. Distinction between resin in powder form and other forms for classification purposes.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The Tribunal heard both sides regarding the stay application filed by the revenue appeals. The issue was considered based on a previous Tribunal judgment involving Oleo Pine Resin's classification under sub-heading 1301.90, leading to the rejection of the stay application.
  
  2. The assessee imported oleo pine resin claiming it was manufactured without aid of power, supported by certificates from suppliers. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the evidence provided was not considered by the lower authority, emphasizing the suppliers' certificates confirming the manufacturing process without power. This led to the classification of oleo pine resin under sub-heading 1301.90 for duty purposes, following the Tribunal's judgment in a similar case.
  
  3. The dispute involved the application of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act to determine the duty rate for filtered oleo pine resin. The Revenue argued for a 10% duty rate based on power usage, while the Senior Advocate contended that the manufacturing process without power warranted a 'nil' duty rate under sub-heading 1301.90, supported by the Tribunal's previous decision.
  
  4. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, emphasizing the importance of certificates from suppliers indicating the resin's manufacturing process without power. The classification under sub-heading 1301.90 was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's argument based on Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act and the applicability of the Explanation.
  
  5. The Tribunal concluded that the previous judgment in the Dujodwala Products Ltd. case settled the issue at hand, and further examination was unnecessary. The form of imported resin, whether powder or otherwise, did not impact the classification as long as the manufacturing process remained consistent, leading to the dismissal of the appeals based on the Tribunal's precedent and the evidence presented.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 131
  
  Issues:
  Excess stocks of steel ingots in transit and unaccounted stocks found in factory premises, imposition of central excise duty, redemption fine, penalty, discrepancy in excise records, appeal against the orders of adjudicating authority and Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal pertains to M/s. Samman Steel & Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. concerning the discovery of excess stocks of steel ingots in transit and unaccounted stocks in their factory premises. The Dy. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, confirmed the demand for central excise duty along with a redemption fine and penalties. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the decision but reduced the redemption fine. The primary contention raised by the appellants was that discrepancies were due to the absence and negligence of their staff, and they argued against the imposition of penalties.
  
  During the hearing, the appellants claimed that the excess stocks were loaded mistakenly due to labor error, and they disputed the method of calculating excise duty. However, the Respondent argued that the discrepancies indicated a deliberate attempt at surreptitious removal of goods without payment of excise duty. The authorities found that the records were not maintained up to date, and excess goods were transported without excise duty payment, leading to the imposition of fines and penalties.
  
  Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the discrepancies in records and stocks were admitted by the appellants, and the duty liability was acknowledged. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the excuses provided by the appellants for the discrepancies were not valid. The decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to reduce the redemption fine was upheld, and the appeal was rejected based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the orders of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate records and complying with excise duty obligations.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 130
  
  Issues:
  Classification of goods under the physical control system, application of Rule 9(2) regarding clandestine removal, reliance on Supreme Court judgments for limitation aspect, deliberate mis-declaration to evade duty, imposition of penalty, confiscation of goods.
  
  Classification of Goods:
  The appellants received polyamide chips under Chapter X procedure at Nil rate of duty, manufactured monofilament yarn, and cleared it on payment of duty. A consignment was cleared showing the goods as 'nylon monofilament yarn' under Heading 54.04. The chemical examiner later classified it as synthetic monofilament yarn under Heading 5406.19. The Superintendent requested additional duty payment due to the classification difference.
  
  Application of Rule 9(2):
  The appellants operated under the physical control system, where clearance required the officer's counter signature. The gate pass and application for removal were in the proper format, indicating clearance with the Department's knowledge. The Collector erred in not applying a judgment stating that Rule 9(2) does not apply when goods are removed with the authorities' permission. The basis for the duty demand was deemed unsustainable.
  
  Reliance on Supreme Court Judgments for Limitation:
  The appellants cited a Supreme Court judgment to challenge the show cause notice issued beyond six months from assessment, highlighting the absence of allegations regarding suppression. The judgment in Raj Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills was applied, emphasizing that deliberate mis-declaration must be proven for Rule 9(2) invocation. The Collector's finding of mis-declaration did not justify duty demand or penalty imposition.
  
  Deliberate Mis-declaration and Penalty:
  The Collector held that the appellants deliberately mis-declared the goods to evade duty, leading to demand confirmation, goods confiscation, and penalty imposition. However, the absence of suppression allegations and the clearance under the Department's knowledge rendered Rule 9(2) inapplicable, invalidating the actions taken.
  
  Confiscation of Goods:
  The action of confiscation was based on the mis-declaration accusation, which was found unsubstantiated due to the goods being cleared with the Department's knowledge. The order confiscating the goods was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the lack of grounds for duty demand, penalty, or confiscation.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 129
  
  Issues: Classification of Polyester Plastic Button Making Machines under Tariff Heading No. 84.65 or 84.77
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal raised concerns about the correct classification of Polyester Plastic Button Making Machines imported by the appellants. The Department argued for classification under Tariff Heading No. 84.65, while the appellants contended it should be classified under Heading No. 84.77.
  
  When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants, but they had submitted written arguments and requested a decision on merits. The Tribunal heard the Respondent's representative and reviewed the records.
  
  The Customs Tariff Act under Chapter 84 sub-heading Nos. 84.65 and 84.77 was examined. Sub-heading 84.65 pertains to machine-tools for working on hard materials, while 84.77 relates to machinery for working rubber or plastics. The Assistant Collector considered the appellants' argument that the machine required heating the blanks before processing to ensure they were soft and uniform. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification under Heading No. 84.65, emphasizing that the machine was designed for working on hard plastics, specifically polyester resin with high strength.
  
  In their submissions, the appellants highlighted the necessity of heating the blanks to prevent breakage and disagreed with the Collector (Appeals) interpretation. They argued that the machine was intended for plastic/polyester buttons only and not for other hard materials like bone or urea.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the focus of Tariff sub-heading No. 84.65 was on machine tools for working on hard materials, which included the hard plastic blanks used for making buttons. The appellants' assertion that the blanks were temporarily softened before processing did not alter the classification under Heading No. 84.65. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities in classifying the machine under Heading No. 84.65, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 128
  
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a delay in filing, which was condoned. The main appeal was considered after granting a stay of pre-deposit. The Order-in-Original was challenged for classifying a product differently from the show cause notice without giving the appellants a chance to respond, leading to a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the original order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 127
  
  Issues:
  - Whether a show cause notice within the time prescribed under Section 11A is necessary in case of erroneous refund even if revision/refund proceedings under Section 35E have been initiated.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The case involved appeals by the Revenue regarding the necessity of a show cause notice within the prescribed time under Section 11A for erroneous refunds despite revision/refund proceedings under Section 35E. The Assistant Commissioner granted refunds to the respondents, leading to appeals by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals due to the absence of a show cause notice within six months under Section 11A, rendering the proceedings infructuous.
  
  2. Shri R.K. Roy, representing the Appellant, argued that the reliance on certain Supreme Court decisions by the Commissioner (Appeals) was misplaced. He contended that Section 11A mandates a show cause notice for recovery of erroneous refunds, with a time limit of five years if conditions are met. He challenged the Commissioner's decision that the appeal was infructuous due to the absence of a notice within six months, urging for the appeal's allowance.
  
  3. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Chatterjee, representing the Respondent, cited Supreme Court decisions and Tribunal rulings to support the necessity of a notice under Section 11A within the prescribed time limit for refund recovery, despite actions under Section 35E. He referred to Tribunal decisions and a Circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, emphasizing the requirement of a show cause notice within the specified timeframe.
  
  4. After considering both sides' arguments and the cited judgments, the Tribunal concluded that a show cause notice under Section 11A is essential for recovering erroneous refunds, regardless of Section 35E actions. The Tribunal highlighted the need for issuing the notice within the time limits specified in Section 11A, either six months or five years under specific circumstances. As the Revenue failed to demonstrate issuing any notice within the prescribed periods to the respondents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross-objections accordingly.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 126
  
  The case dealt with the classification of monobloc pumps as electric motors under Heading 85.01. The Tribunal ruled that monobloc pumps should be classified under Heading 85.03 as no electric motor comes into existence during their manufacture. The appeal was allowed based on this classification.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 125
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS dismissed Revenue appeals due to defects and previous final orders favoring the Respondent. The Tribunal upheld that certain charges like demurrage do not form part of the value of goods for customs valuation. Stay applications were also rejected.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 124
  
  Issues:
  Manufacture process of Pharmaceutical product involving by-products and permissions under Central Excise Rule, 1944; Classification of product as finished or semi-finished; Allegations of duty evasion and penalty imposition; Consideration of marketability for determining dutiability of excisable goods; Aspect of limitation in invoking extended period for demand.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment involves the appellant's manufacturing process of a Pharmaceutical product, Ethambutol Hydrochloride, which generates by-products like L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric. The appellant sought permission under Rule 57F(2) to remove this by-product for recovery of Calcium tartarate. The permission was later withdrawn by the department, leading to allegations of duty evasion and penalty imposition. The Commissioner's order confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty, and ordered confiscation of the appellant's assets, prompting the appeal.
  
  The appellant argued that L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric was a waste product fit only for recovery of Tartaric Acid, lacking industrial application or marketability. They cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the necessity of marketability for determining dutiability of excisable goods. The appellant also raised the aspect of limitation, contending that the department, having granted permission initially, could not later allege contravention by the assessee for the same period covered under the permission.
  
  The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence, correspondence, and the Commissioner's order. It found that the department failed to establish the by-product as a finished product capable of being marketed, thereby not proving its excisability and dutiability. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner erred in rejecting evidence without proper examination, similar to a Supreme Court judgment's observation in another case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on both merit and limitation grounds, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief as per law.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 123
  
  Issues:
  1. Compliance with procedural requirements for Modvat credit.
  2. Interpretation of Notification No. 117/88 regarding declaration under Rule 57G.
  3. Application of Modvat credit in the case of change in final product declaration.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 1-10-1989, with the issue revolving around Modvat credit denial due to a procedural lapse. The appellants argued for waiver of pre-deposit citing a Tribunal judgment in a similar case. The waiver was granted, and the appeal was taken up for hearing.
  
  2. The core question was whether the appellants' declarations under Rule 57G for electric motors could be considered valid for claiming Modvat credit for inputs used in stators and rotors, which were later declared as final products. The department contended that a fresh declaration was required under Notification No. 117/88. The appellants argued that the inputs remained the same, and the change in final product declaration was merely procedural.
  
  3. The Tribunal's precedent in a similar case emphasized that full disclosure was essential for Modvat credit, irrespective of technicalities in declaration headings. The department argued for a fresh declaration due to the change in final product categorization. However, the judge noted that the duty-paying input remained consistent, and a procedural lapse in filing a fresh declaration should not negate the substantive Modvat credit eligibility.
  
  4. Considering the above arguments and the Tribunal's stance on procedural violations not justifying credit denial, the judge set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of substantive compliance over technicalities in Modvat credit cases.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 122
  
  Issues:
  - Modvat credit scheme application for manufacturing units receiving inputs under different names
  - Validity of Trade Notice and Tribunal Judgments
  - Impact of rule changes post-1-4-1994 on invoice endorsements
  - Interpretation of judgments regarding transfer of goods between sister units
  - Commissioner's observation on rule amendments and inter-unit exchanges
  - Consumption of goods in factory vs. legal dispute
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved multiple applications seeking stay for the same assessees and issue, ultimately leading to the disposal of the main appeals with mutual agreement. The assessees operated two manufacturing units under the Modvat credit scheme, facing Show Cause Notices for credit reversal and penalties due to receiving inputs under a different unit's name. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reversal and penalties, prompting the appeals and applications.
  
  The appellant relied on a Trade Notice allowing the use of goods received under different names in the factory with appropriate endorsements, supported by a Tribunal Judgment emphasizing the continuity of Modvat credit for multi-unit companies. The respondent referenced post-1-4-1994 rule changes and judgments disallowing endorsed invoices for Modvat credit, distinguishing situations involving dealer dispatches from inter-unit transfers. Notably, a specific Tribunal Judgment and a subsequent single Member Bench decision reinforced the allowance of credit without endorsements in inter-unit transfers.
  
  The presiding judge considered the submissions, acknowledging the rule changes post-1-4-1994 affecting endorsements on invoices but emphasizing the applicability of judgments in cases of goods transfer between sister units. The judge highlighted the continued validity of the Trade Notice permitting endorsements in specific situations like the one at hand, where inter-unit exchanges remained unaffected by the rule changes impacting dealer invoices.
  
  The judge noted that despite the legal dispute, the goods were indeed received and consumed in the assessees' factory, leading to the allowance of the appeals, overturning the impugned orders, and granting consequential relief. Consequently, the stay applications were disposed of accordingly, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.

  ---

1 ....789101112131415........ 17