|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 349 Records
-
1998 (10) TMI 159
Issues:
- Duty demand confirmation and penalty imposition under Central Excise Rules.
- Allegation of suppression and misstatement leading to duty demand.
- Challenge to duty demand and penalty by appellants.
- Explanation of facts by the appellants regarding manufacturing activities and transactions.
- Allegation of related person status between companies and individuals.
- Commissioner's findings on transactions not at arm's length.
- Interpretation of factors supporting related person status.
- Shareholding implications and challenge by the appellants.
- Upholding of duty demand and revised penalty imposition.
The judgment involves appeals against an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand and penalties under Central Excise Rules. The duty demand, totaling over Rs. 25 lakhs, was based on three show cause notices alleging suppression and misstatement from September 1989 to December 1994. Appellant PCPL challenged the duty demand and penalties, while CCCL and individuals challenged penalty imposition. The appellants explained their manufacturing activities and transactions, disputing the related person status between the companies and individuals. The Commissioner found transactions not at arm's length, leading to the conclusion of related person status. The Commissioner considered various factors supporting this status, including financial flows and shared interests in business. The Commissioner also analyzed shareholding implications, concluding that CCCL was a related person of PCPL. The duty demand was upheld based on this finding, with revised penalties set at Rs. 3 lakhs for PCPL, Rs. 1 lakh for CCCL, and Rs. 50,000 for an individual. The judgment provides detailed reasoning for each issue, considering the facts, legal interpretations, and submissions made by the parties involved.
-
1998 (10) TMI 158
Issues:
1. Classification of goods and applicability of duty exemption.
2. Interpretation of manufacturing process.
3. Reassessment of factual aspects and job work relationship.
Classification of Goods and Applicability of Duty Exemption:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods and the applicability of duty exemption under Notification No. 53/88-C.E. The appellants, manufacturers of plastic articles, argued that fixing a plastic handle to a wrench did not change its classification and did not amount to manufacturing. They contended that all articles they manufactured were exempt from duty under the notification. However, the Department argued that the product cleared by the appellants was a tool holder classified under a different heading, making the exemption inapplicable. The Tribunal noted the need to determine the exact description of the goods and how they were marketed, emphasizing the importance of using correct terms and specific findings in resolving the dispute on both factual and legal grounds.
Interpretation of Manufacturing Process:
The Department emphasized that the plastic grip was not merely fitted but molded onto the key, resulting in a new product. They argued that the appellants were not just manufacturers of plastic grips but were involved in the production of Allen Keys. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to reexamine the factual aspects, including the nature of the job work relationship between the appellants and the supplier. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of clarifying the basis for the Department's findings and the evidence supporting the assertion that the appellants were manufacturing and marketing the Allen Keys as tool holders, distinct from general-use screwdrivers.
Reassessment of Factual Aspects and Job Work Relationship:
In light of the above considerations, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment of all issues and aspects. They directed that the appellants be given an opportunity to present their case before a final decision was made. The Tribunal stressed the need for a comprehensive review of the factual details, including the identity of the goods, the manufacturing process, and the relationship between the parties involved in the production and sale of the products. The decision highlighted the significance of clear and specific findings to resolve the classification and duty exemption issues effectively.
-
1998 (10) TMI 157
Issues:
Classification of printed continuous stationery and rulled papers under Central Excise Tariff.
Analysis:
The appellants, primarily a Printing Industry, manufacture manifold business forms and rulled papers, both considered articles of stationery. They claimed classification under Heading 4820.00 with duty exemption under Notification No. 43/86. The Assistant Collector suggested classification under sub-heading No. 4823.90, leading to a dispute. The appellants argued that their products should not be classified under 4823.90, emphasizing the marketability test and lack of conditions in the Notification. They contended that the items should fall under sub-heading 4901.90 due to the primary use of printing in the manufacturing process. The Printing Industry's role was pivotal, and the items were known and used as stationery in the market.
Regarding rulled papers, the appellant highlighted that the basic character of the paper remained unchanged after printing, and the final product was commonly recognized as stationery. The appellant's position was that both printed continuous stationery and rulled papers should be classified under sub-heading 4820.00, not 4823.90. They argued that printing was not a manufacturing process for classification under Chapter 48, except in specific cases. The products were considered classifiable under sub-heading 4901.90, attracting a nil rate of duty.
The Department's view was based on the Explanatory Notes and Circulars, but the Board's reconsideration in 1991 clarified the classification of continuous computer stationery under Heading 4820. Trade Notices further supported this classification. The Department's stance was reconsidered, leading to the acceptance of the appeal in favor of the appellants. The Trade Notices and Circulars provided clarity on the classification of printed continuous stationery, emphasizing their categorization under Heading 4820. The dispute was resolved in favor of the appellants based on the updated classification guidelines and trade notices, leading to the acceptance of the appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 156
Issues:
1. Classification of pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Exemption eligibility for medicaments under specific notifications.
3. Reopening of a case without new facts or proper authority.
4. Interpretation of tariff entries for classification and duty implications.
Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They manufactured various products, including Zoacide-V tablets, Decanazole cream, and Estolin in syrup and tablet forms during 1986-87 and 1987-88. The classification of these products under specific sub-headings of Chapter 30 was crucial for determining the duty implications.
2. Certain medicaments manufactured using specific ingredients were eligible for exemption from duty as per relevant notifications. The appellants claimed exemption for Zoacide-V tablets, Decanazole cream, and Estolin based on these notifications. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued regarding the eligibility of Estolin for exemption due to the ingredient used, Erythromycin Estolate, not being explicitly mentioned in the tariff entry.
3. The case faced a challenge when the issue regarding Estolin's exemption was reopened without new facts or proper authorization. The Assistant Collector initially withdrew the show cause notice, but his successor reopened the case leading to a demand being confirmed without following the legal procedures for reopening a case.
4. The interpretation of the tariff entries under Chapter 30, specifically sub-heading 3003.11, was crucial in determining the duty liability of the manufactured products. The Tribunal analyzed the specific entries under 3003.11, which included Erythromycin and its salts and esters, concluding that these products fell under the nil rate of duty as per the classification.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and accepted the appeal, emphasizing that the classification and exemption eligibility of pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30, along with the interpretation of specific tariff entries, were crucial in determining the duty implications for the appellants' manufactured goods.
-
1998 (10) TMI 155
The Revenue's appeal contended that railway and tramway tyres should be classified under Tariff Item 8607, but the Tribunal upheld the decision to classify them under sub-heading 7207.90. The Tribunal ruled that since the goods in question are forgings and need further work, they should be classified under 7207, not 8607 or 7326. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was confirmed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 154
Issues:
Classification of pipe fittings under Central Excise Tariff from 1-3-1986 to 29-2-1988; Effectiveness of revised classification list filed under protest on 27-1-1988; Manufacturing activity of bending pipes to make reducers and tees; Applicability of judgments in determining classification; Alignment of Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) with Central Excise Tariff.
Issue 1 - Classification of Pipe Fittings:
The appeals revolve around the classification of bends, reducers, and tees used as Buttwelding type fittings under the Central Excise Tariff. The original classification under Heading 73.05 was challenged by the appellants, who filed a fresh classification list under sub-heading 7305.00 on 27-1-1988. The Assistant Collector confirmed the original classification, but the appellate authority set it aside due to a violation of natural justice principles. Eventually, the classification under Heading 73.05 was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) based on the approved classification list filed by the appellants themselves.
Issue 2 - Revised Classification List Effectiveness:
The Collector (Appeals) examined whether the revised classification list filed under protest on 27-1-1988 could be effective retrospectively without a show cause notice. It was determined that the approval granted on 1-2-1988 for the classification list filed on 27-1-1988 made it effective from the date of submission, as per Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Issue 3 - Manufacturing Activity of Bending Pipes:
The learned Counsel argued that bending pipes to create reducers and tees did not amount to manufacturing as the original pipes remained unchanged. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it was contended that the items should be classified as pipes and tubes. However, the Revenue contended that post-HSN alignment, the items were akin to pipe fittings and should be classified under Heading 73.07 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Issue 4 - Applicability of Judgments in Determining Classification:
The Tribunal considered various judgments, including those related to the classification of pipe fittings under different tariff headings. It was noted that post-HSN alignment, the classification of MS pipes, bends, etc., fell under Heading 7307. The Tribunal relied on definitions from scientific dictionaries to support the classification under the new tariff heading.
Issue 5 - Alignment of HSN with Central Excise Tariff:
The Tribunal analyzed the impact of aligning the Harmonized System of Nomenclature with the Central Excise Tariff on the classification of goods. Relying on previous judgments, it was concluded that the classification under Heading 7305 was correct post-alignment, and the demand for duty was upheld from 1-3-1986 onwards.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the classification of pipe fittings under Heading 73.05 of the Central Excise Tariff and emphasizing the correctness of the classification list effective from the date of submission. The judgments cited, definitions referred to, and the alignment of the HSN with the Tariff played crucial roles in determining the classification of the goods in question.
-
1998 (10) TMI 153
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi considered the classification of forged steel products for exemption under Notification No. 94/88. The tribunal upheld the decision that the forged items, requiring further machining to become complete articles, cannot be classified as parts of machinery. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 152
Issues: Classification of forged rolled rings and other forged products under 7208.90 or 7308.90.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification Issue:
The main issue in this case revolves around the classification of forged rolled rings and other forged products under either 7208.90 as claimed by the assessee or under 7308.90 as claimed by the department. The advocate for the appellant argued that since these items are forged and require further machining, they should be classified under 7208.90, citing a previous Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court ruling to support this classification. On the other hand, the department argued that the items should be classified under 7308.90 as complete articles of iron and steel, relying on Chapter 84 Note 6 and a Tribunal decision in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
2. Previous Tribunal Decision:
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding the classification of the same items had been previously considered in the appellant's case. In that earlier decision, Rule 2(a) of the Interpretation Rules was ruled out, and it was held that since the items continued to be forged and required further machining to become finished products, they should be classified under 7208.90. The Tribunal found no contradictory decision and no information on whether the matter had been taken to the Supreme Court. Given the precedent set in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention and classified the items under 7208.90/7207.
3. Final Decision:
After careful consideration of the arguments from both sides and the precedent set in the appellant's previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the forged rolled rings and other forged products should be classified under 7208.90/7207, as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the five appeals filed by the appellant were disposed of accordingly based on this classification.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on the classification of forged items under specific tariff entries, considering the nature of the items, the need for further machining, and the interpretation of relevant rules and precedents to determine the appropriate classification under the Customs Tariff Act.
-
1998 (10) TMI 151
Issues: Classification of dual-desk made of wood under Tariff Headings 94.01 and 94.03
Analysis:
1. The issue in this matter pertains to the classification of a dual-desk made of wood, consisting of seating arrangement and desk joined by steel pipes. Initially, the goods were classified under Tariff Heading 9403.00. However, later, the Revenue contended that the product should be classified under Tariff Heading 94.01 as it primarily serves as seats for school children. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty, which was confirmed by lower authorities based on classification and time bar objections.
2. The appellant argued that the product cannot be solely considered a 'seat' as it includes a desk, falling under Tariff Heading 94.03. Referred to as a 'dual-desk' in trade, the essential character is imparted by the desk component. The advocate highlighted Rule 3 of the "Rules for Interpreting Central Excise Tariff," suggesting that if classification is ambiguous, the later heading should prevail. Therefore, the dual-desk should be classified under Tariff Heading 94.03, and no additional duty is payable as per Notification No. 261/86-C.E.
3. On the contrary, the Revenue argued that the principal function of the product is for seating, making it classifiable under Tariff Heading 94.01. The product primarily serves as seats for school children, justifying its classification under this heading.
4. The Tribunal considered both arguments and observed that the product is a composite item, comprising both a bench and a desk. As it is neither purely a seat nor solely a desk, the essential character is derived from both components. Therefore, applying Rule 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Interpretation Rules, the Tribunal concluded that the dual-desk should be classified under Tariff Heading 94.03. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted relief based on the revised classification.
-
1998 (10) TMI 150
Issues involved:
Classification of a product described in the invoice as "Sandvik Cold Hard Rolled Stainless Steel Conveyor Bands Ends Prepared for Riveted Joint."
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellants initially claimed the assessment of the goods as parts of a Band Caster machine under Heading 8479.90, which was accepted, and duty was paid accordingly.
2. A show cause notice was issued, alleging that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 7314.11 based on technical specifications, excluding them from Chapter 84 as parts of general use.
3. The Assistant Collector classified the goods under sub-heading 7314.11 as stainless steel conveyor bands with ends prepared for riveted joints, invoking Section Note 1(ij) of Section XVI to eliminate classification under Chapter 84.
4. The appellants' appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The appellants argued that the goods were parts of a band-caster machine, emphasizing the specific qualities of the steel used and their function in conveying molten liquid without deformity.
6. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Tariff Heading 73.14 as endless belts of metal strip, falling under Section XV, based on the technical write-up provided.
7. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant tariff headings, Section Notes, and Explanatory Notes to determine the correct classification of the goods.
8. Despite the goods being specifically designed for a band-caster machine, the Tribunal noted that Note 1(ij) of Section XVI excluded endless belts of metal strip from Chapter 84, necessitating classification under Section XV.
9. The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding Tariff Heading 7314.11 and the interpretation of "cloth" to include endless bands of stainless steel, ultimately upholding the lower authorities' classification under sub-heading 7314.11.
10. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' reliance on a Supreme Court report concerning stainless steel sheets, as the specific Section Note in this case differed.
11. No additional arguments were presented, leading to the rejection of the appeal based on the classification analysis provided.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the classification dispute over the specific product in question and the application of relevant tariff headings and statutory notes to determine the correct classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
-
1998 (10) TMI 149
The application for stay and waiver of Rs. 65,000 penalty was denied by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The appellant failed to provide strong grounds to warrant the stay of the penalty. The case law cited by the appellant was deemed irrelevant to the current case. The appellant was directed to deposit the entire penalty amount within 10 weeks. Compliance was set for 27-1-1999.
-
1998 (10) TMI 148
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 223/86-C.E. regarding exemption for HDPE sacks manufactured from circular looms fabric.
2. Validity of refund claims for the period prior to the amendment made by Notification No. 57/90.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is the interpretation of Notification No. 223/86-C.E. regarding the exemption for HDPE sacks manufactured from circular looms fabric. The appellants argued that since they manufactured sacks using stitching and cutting machines, and not circular looms, they should be entitled to the exemption. They contended that the notification only excluded sacks manufactured on circular looms, not those made from circular fabric. However, the Revenue's representative argued that the intention of the notification was clear - to exclude sacks made from fabric produced on circular looms. The representative emphasized that looms only produce fabric, not the sacks themselves. The appellants also cited an amendment made in 1990, adding an explanation that sacks made from fabric woven on circular looms would be deemed to have been woven on such looms. The appellants claimed that this supported their case for entitlement to the exemption.
2. The second issue pertains to the validity of the refund claims filed by the appellants for the period before the 1990 amendment. The Revenue's representative argued that the 1990 amendment was clarificatory in nature and supported the Revenue's interpretation of the original notification. The representative emphasized that the clarification was necessary to prevent rendering the proviso to the notification nugatory. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, agreed with the Revenue's representative. The Tribunal found that the 1990 amendment was clarificatory and supported the Revenue's position. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower authorities' rejection of the refund claims.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the interpretation of Notification No. 223/86-C.E. regarding the exemption for HDPE sacks manufactured from circular looms fabric. The Tribunal found that the intention of the notification was to exclude sacks made from fabric produced on circular looms from the exemption. The Tribunal also considered the 1990 amendment, deeming sacks made from fabric woven on circular looms to be included in the exclusion. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claims based on the interpretation of the notification and the clarificatory nature of the 1990 amendment.
-
1998 (10) TMI 147
Issues:
1. Review of classification lists approved by the adjudicating authority.
2. Power of the Assistant Collector to review classification lists.
3. Correctness of Modvat credit availed by the respondents.
Issue 1: Review of Classification Lists:
The case involved the respondents engaged in the manufacture of chemicals under Chapter 28 and 31 of the Schedule to the C.E.T.A., 1985. The respondents filed classification lists for approval of sodium nitrate/ammonium nitrate under C.E.T. sub-heading 2834.00, which were approved. However, it was later found that the classification lists were wrongly approved as no new goods came into existence by conversion of ammonium nitrate. The Department initiated proceedings for revision of classification lists and recovery of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector dropped the proceedings, stating that the power to review approved classification lists vested only with the Collector. The Department appealed the decision.
Issue 2: Power of the Assistant Collector to Review Classification Lists:
The respondents argued that the review of classification lists is permissible only if new facts come to light and since the entire manufacturing process was submitted to the department at the time of license grant, review was not warranted. However, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that excise authorities are not estopped from taking a different view from the approval of the classification list, and the Assistant Collector was empowered to review the same. The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority erred in concluding that the classification list cannot be reviewed by the officer who approved it.
Issue 3: Correctness of Modvat Credit:
Regarding the correctness of Modvat credit availed by the respondents, the Tribunal could not make a finding due to insufficient material on record and the absence of a finding by the lower authorities on this argument. The respondents claimed they undertook the manufacturing process correctly and did not carry out any prilling. The Tribunal remanded the matters for a decision on merits after providing the respondents with a reasonable opportunity to be heard in person.
In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand for further consideration on the correctness of Modvat credit availed by the respondents after clarifying the power of the Assistant Collector to review classification lists.
-
1998 (10) TMI 146
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard an appeal regarding confiscation of goods found in excess but upheld penalty imposition. The goods were in fully finished condition, not accounted for, and were liable to confiscation. The Tribunal modified the order, confiscating the goods and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 9,000, while upholding the penalty without reduction.
-
1998 (10) TMI 145
Issues:
1. Claim of exemption under Notification No. 16/85-Cus. and Exim Policy 1993 Appendix 1.
2. Confiscation of imported band knife cutting machine.
3. Misdeclaration of the value of the goods.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
Claim of Exemption: The appellants imported a band knife cutting machine and sought exemption under Notification No. 16/85-Cus. and Exim Policy 1993 Appendix 1. The Customs authorities confiscated the machine, stating it was a general-purpose machine not solely for the garment/hosiery industry. The appellants argued that the machine was suitable for use in the textile and plastic industry, enabling precise cutting of materials, thus qualifying for exemption. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing that the machine was intended for use in the garment/hosiery industries, granting the benefit of exemption and Open General License (OGL).
Confiscation of Machine: The Customs authorities confiscated the imported machine due to the denial of exemption benefits and misdeclaration of value. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the machine was indeed intended for use in the garment/hosiery industries, making it eligible for exemption and OGL. Consequently, the confiscation was deemed unjustified, and the machine was allowed to be redeemed upon payment of a fine.
Misdeclaration of Value: The Customs authorities alleged misdeclaration of the goods' value, as a slip found with the machine indicated a price higher than the declared value. The appellants argued that the declared price was negotiated due to wear and tear during an exhibition, justifying the lower value. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation, ruling that the negotiated price was correct, and the misdeclaration charge was unsubstantiated. The penalty imposed under Section 12 of the Customs Act was set aside.
Imposition of Penalty: The Customs authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 12 of the Customs Act for alleged misdeclaration of the goods' value. However, the Tribunal found no grounds for sustaining the penalty, considering the marginal difference in prices and the appellants' bona fide belief in the correctness of the declared value. Therefore, the penalty was revoked, and the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, regarding the exemption claim, confiscation of the machine, misdeclaration of value, and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.
-
1998 (10) TMI 144
Issues:
Classification of food items under Tariff Heading 20.01 or 21.07.
Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the classification of food items under Tariff Heading 20.01 or 21.07. The Respondents argued that the items should be classified under Tariff Heading 20.01 as "preparations of vegetables, fruits, nuts, or other parts of plants," while the Revenue contended that they should fall under Tariff Heading 21.07 for "edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included."
The tribunal analyzed the scope of Chapter 20, which specifically addresses preparations of vegetables, fruits, etc., and Heading 21.07, which pertains to "edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included." It was noted that before classifying a product under Chapter 21 or Heading 21.07, other chapters or headings in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule must be excluded.
Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 20 was considered, which states that the chapter covers products prepared or preserved by processes other than chilling, freezing, or certain preservation methods. This note clarifies that preparations of vegetables, fruits, etc., in Chapter 20 encompass processes beyond chilling or freezing.
The judgment differentiated between items like "special palada" and "suji halwa," which were found to be preparations of rice flakes and wheat suji without any vegetables or fruits. As these items did not involve vegetables or fruits, they were not classified as preparations of vegetables, fruits, nuts, or other plant parts under Chapter 20 but were placed under Heading 21.07 as argued by the Revenue.
In contrast, the remaining items such as "vegetable burger," "South Indian sambar," "vegetable cutlets," and "vegetable stew" were identified as preparations of vegetables mixed with additives like spices and oils. These items contained visible vegetables and were not processed by chilling or freezing, falling under Heading 20.01 as preparations of vegetables. Since they were packed in unit containers, they were classified under sub-heading 2001.10, leading to a partial allowance of the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of food items based on their ingredients and preparation processes, ultimately determining whether they should be categorized under Tariff Heading 20.01 or 21.07.
-
1998 (10) TMI 143
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that the date of taking credit is the relevant date for computing the limitation period of six months for recovery of erroneous credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Assistant Collector to re-determine the demand within six months from the date of taking credit.
-
1998 (10) TMI 142
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal of the assessee regarding Modvat credit for inputs like grinding wheels and honing stick, following previous judgments. The department's appeal was dismissed. Consequential relief, if any, was granted as per law.
-
1998 (10) TMI 141
The appeal was dismissed for default in appearance on 9-6-1998. The request for adjournment had been filed and received in the Registry on 8-6-1998 but not put up before the Bench. The dismissal order was recalled, appeal restored, and fixed for hearing on 18-12-1998.
-
1998 (10) TMI 140
The appeal was against a penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the Collector for clearing hydrogen and steam without duty payment. The appellant claimed unawareness of duty exemption rules but penalty was upheld as duty was payable for the goods cleared over five years. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
