|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 495 Records
-
2006 (10) TMI 325
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty of customs and excise duty along with penalties.
2. Alleged diversion of raw materials by Marvel Fashions.
3. Violation of natural justice principles and lack of opportunity for cross-examination.
4. Prima facie case against Marvel Fashions.
5. Pre-deposit amount and waiver conditions.
6. Penalty imposition on recipient 100% EOUs.
7. Penalty imposition on Cosmos Trading Co.
Analysis:
1. Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
The judgment deals with applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of substantial amounts of customs and excise duty, as well as penalties imposed on various entities including Marvel Fashions, individuals associated with Marvel Fashions, Cosmos Trading Company, and recipient 100% EOUs. The tribunal considered the evidence and circumstances to decide on the waiver requests.
2. Alleged Diversion of Raw Materials:
The case involved allegations against Marvel Fashions for diverting raw materials instead of using them in the manufacture of processed fabrics for export as per the 100% EOU scheme. The department relied on statements and reports to support their claims of diversion and misuse of raw materials by Marvel Fashions for local markets instead of export purposes.
3. Violation of Natural Justice:
The judgment addressed the issue of alleged violation of natural justice principles, specifically regarding the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of concerned persons. The tribunal found that the applicants had the chance to present their defense and objections but failed to do so, leading to the decision against them.
4. Prima Facie Case Against Marvel Fashions:
The tribunal examined the evidence on record, including admissions by Marvel Fashions' officers and inquiries into transportation discrepancies, to determine the existence of a prima facie case against Marvel Fashions. The tribunal found sufficient material to establish charges against Marvel Fashions.
5. Pre-Deposit Amount and Waiver Conditions:
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the tribunal directed Marvel Fashions to make a partial pre-deposit towards the customs and excise duty demands within a specified period. Upon compliance with the pre-deposit, the remaining duty and penalties were waived, with recovery stayed pending appeals.
6. Penalty Imposition on Recipient 100% EOUs:
Regarding penalties imposed on recipient 100% EOUs, the tribunal found that there was no prima facie evidence to support the penalties as the EOUs had not received the goods from Marvel Fashions. Therefore, the penalties were waived for these entities pending appeals.
7. Penalty Imposition on Cosmos Trading Co.:
In the case of Cosmos Trading Company, the tribunal determined that there was insufficient evidence to justify the penalty imposed on them for supplying raw materials to Marvel Fashions. Consequently, the requirement of pre-deposit of the penalty was waived, and recovery was stayed pending the appeal.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, highlights the key issues, findings, and decisions made in the case.
-
2006 (10) TMI 324
Issues:
- Whether penalty is attracted under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act in the present case.
Analysis:
1. The case was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, following a judgment in another case. The appellate tribunal considered the issue of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
2. The key issue was whether the elements of "fraud, collusion, or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty" were present in the case to attract penalty under Section 11AC. The section provides for penalties in specific cases of duty evasion due to fraudulent activities.
3. The appellant, a manufacturer of coated paper, procured paper from paper mills and claimed Modvat credit on the paper received. Damaged paper not used in manufacturing was sold as waste paper, with Central Excise Duty discharged on the quantity disposed of. The appellant disclosed these transactions in statutory records and returns.
4. Central Excise authorities disputed the appellant's entitlement to credit on damaged paper, leading to deposits made by the appellant. A show cause notice was issued, proposing recovery and penalty under Section 11AC. The penalty imposed was later reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. The appellant argued that Section 11AC did not apply as there was no intent to evade duty. It was emphasized that the appellant maintained detailed accounts, disclosed transactions, and paid duty on the cleared damaged paper. The main contention against the appellant was the inclusion of duty in insurance claims, which the appellant argued was not illegal.
6. The tribunal examined the facts and held that the appellant's actions did not amount to fraud or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Not declaring insurance claims did not constitute suppression, especially when statutory records and returns disclosed other relevant details. The duty paid on damaged paper was significant, indicating compliance.
7. Consequently, the tribunal found that the ingredients of Section 11AC were not present in the case, leading to the conclusion that the penalty under the section was not justified. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed was set aside.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the considerations made by the appellate tribunal in determining the applicability of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act in the case at hand.
-
2006 (10) TMI 323
Issues involved: Appeal challenging demand of interest u/s 11AB for refund of Special Excise Duty obtained erroneously based on false certificate.
Summary:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Ford India Private Limited against the demand of interest u/s 11AB for obtaining a refund of Special Excise Duty (SED) based on a false certificate. The appellants had cleared cars availing exemption under Notification No. 5/1999-C.E. by producing certificates from the State Transport Authority that the cars were registered as taxis. Subsequently, it was discovered that one vehicle had been registered under a different class, leading to the realization that the refund was obtained erroneously. The buyer of the vehicle had forged the certificate, which was unknowingly presented to the Central Excise authority by the appellants. The lower appellate authority upheld the demand of interest u/s 11AB but vacated the penalty u/s 11AC. The main issue was whether the demand of interest was sustainable in law.
The appellants argued that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11AB exempt cases where duty became payable before 11-5-2001, which was the case for them as they received the refund on 19-1-2001. They contended that the demand of interest was not valid as the duty was not due after the said date. On the other hand, the department argued that sub-section (2) of Section 11AB applied since they discovered the fraud only on 29-8-2001. The department, however, could not specify the date from which interest should be computed for recovery if not from the date of erroneous refund.
After hearing both sides, it was concluded that the appellants were not involved in the fraud and, therefore, the penalty under Section 11AC was vacated. Regarding the demand of interest, it was held that as the duty became payable on 19-1-2001, before the assent of the Finance Bill, 2001 on 11-5-2001, the demand of interest affirmed by the lower appellate authority was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 322
Issues:
1. Service Tax on pre-design, drawing, technical assistance activities.
2. Service Tax on excavation of cable trench, laying cables, wiring activities.
Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the Service Tax on pre-design, drawing, and technical assistance activities rendered by the appellant as an electrical contractor. The appellant argued that these activities were part of erection, commissioning, and installation work, not design and technical assistance. They contended that the Service Tax should be charged from expert engineers who performed design work. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument, stating that the engineering designs and technical assistance were provided by separate electrical engineers, making the appellant not liable to pay Service Tax on these grounds.
2. The second issue involves the Service Tax on activities related to excavation of cable trench, laying cables, and wiring. The appellant claimed that certain deductions were applicable to the amounts received for these activities. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not address the appellant's pleas for deductions in the order, making it not a speaking order. The Tribunal found the appellant's grounds for deductions sustainable and directed them to pre-deposit a reduced amount of Rs. 25,000 within two months, with the balance of Service Tax waived and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, stating that they were not liable to pay Service Tax on the pre-design, drawing, and technical assistance activities and allowing deductions for the excavation and wiring activities. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of addressing the appellant's pleas for deductions and directed them to pre-deposit a reduced amount while staying the recovery of the balance pending appeal disposal.
-
2006 (10) TMI 321
Issues involved: Stay application for operation of impugned order allowing refund of security deposit u/s Customs Act, 1962.
Summary:
The Revenue filed a stay application against the impugned order allowing the respondent's appeal for refund of a security deposit made for a project contract for imports. The department argued that the refund of the security deposit is considered a payment of duty u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and should be regulated accordingly. The respondent contended that the provisions of Section 27 do not apply to the refund of such security deposits, citing Section 18 of the Customs Act. The respondent argued that the refund should be made suo motu if the duty already paid was found to be in excess after finalization of provisional assessment.
Upon careful consideration, it was noted that Section 18 of the Customs Act allows for provisional assessment of duty on imported goods, and in case of excess payment, the duty shall be refunded suo motu upon finalization of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court's observations in the Mafatlal case regarding excess duty payments under Central Excise law. It was clarified that the provisions regarding refund of excess amounts collected on provisional assessment under Central Excise law do not directly apply to the Customs Act.
The Tribunal concluded that no claim needs to be filed u/s 27 for obtaining a refund of a security deposit made for provisional assessment of goods at the time of import. As Section 27 does not apply to such refunds, the impugned order allowing the refund of the security deposit was upheld. The Revenue's stay application was dismissed as they did not establish a case for staying the operation of the impugned order.
-
2006 (10) TMI 320
Issues involved:
Demand of duty on goods returned to the factory under bond.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of duty on goods returned to the factory under bond. The appellant's foreign buyers rejected the goods due to quality issues, prompting the appellant to seek permission to bring back the exported consignment. The appellant informed the department about the need to repack the material due to quality concerns. The appellant argued that the department failed to verify the goods within the required timeframe, as stipulated under Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant contended that since the goods were intact and available for verification, the demand for duty was unjustified. The appellant relied on a previous decision by the Tribunal in a similar case to support their position.
The Revenue, represented by the Departmental Representative, maintained that the lower authorities correctly ordered the recovery of duty and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to provide timely intimation to the department upon the arrival of the container at the factory, which hindered proper verification by the departmental officers.
After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the relevant provisions of Rule 173M, the Judge found that the proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of clause 1 of Rule 173M focused on verifying the particulars of the goods, not the container. The Judge noted that since the goods were available for verification and there was no evidence of diversion, the departmental officers' failure to verify the goods rendered the demand for duty unjustified. Consequently, the Judge ruled that the penalty was not warranted and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
-
2006 (10) TMI 319
Issues Involved:
Demand of duty on goods returned to the factory under bond.
Verification of goods under Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Imposition of penalty.
Analysis:
1. Demand of duty on goods returned to the factory under bond:
The issue revolved around the demand of duty on goods returned to the factory under bond. The appellant argued that the goods were rejected by foreign buyers due to quality issues, leading to the need for repacking and relabeling. The appellant contended that since the departmental officers did not verify the goods within the required timeframe, the duty demand was not justified. The appellant cited a previous decision to support their case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the demand for duty, emphasizing the lack of verification by the departmental officers.
2. Verification of goods under Rule 173M:
The Tribunal examined Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which pertains to the verification of goods meant for export. The proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of clause 1 of Rule 173M focuses on verifying the particulars of the goods. The appellant highlighted that the goods were intact in drums, awaiting verification by the departmental officers. Since the officers did not conduct the necessary verification and there was no evidence of diversion of goods, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for duty was unjustified. The lack of verification by the departmental officers played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision to set aside the demand for duty.
3. Imposition of penalty:
The Revenue had imposed a penalty along with the duty demand. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both sides and examining the provisions of Rule 173M, concluded that since the demand for duty itself was not justified due to the lack of verification by departmental officers, the penalty was also not warranted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside both the duty demand and the imposed penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, setting aside the demand for duty on goods returned to the factory under bond and the imposed penalty. The lack of verification by departmental officers played a significant role in the Tribunal's ruling, highlighting the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in such cases.
-
2006 (10) TMI 318
Issues involved: Allegation of abetment in importing illicit goods, imposition of penalty u/s 112(a)(i).
Summary:
The appeal concerned the appellant being held to have abetted in the offence of importing illicit goods on behalf of a friend, leading to confiscation and penalties. The appellant contended that he had no connection with the import of goods and thus penalty should not be imposed u/s 112(a)(i).
The appellant argued that he merely allowed his friend to use his address for importing goods, believing they were licit. Despite his innocence, authorities held him responsible based on his address provision. The appellant cited a Bombay High Court judgment defining abetment and argued that the requirements of abetment were not met in his case, relying on recent rulings supporting his stance.
The JDR contended that providing his address for the friend's business was enough to implicate the appellant in abetment. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish the appellant's abetment in the offence. The appellant acted in good faith, unaware of the illicit nature of the goods, and the abetment element was not proven. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
*(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)*
-
2006 (10) TMI 317
Issues:
1. Transfer of credit from one account to another under Modvat Rules.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57F(4) of CE Rules, 1944.
3. Eligibility to transfer Modvat credit for payment of duty on any final product.
4. Compliance with Rule 57G of CE Rules for utilization of credit balance.
Issue 1: Transfer of credit from one account to another under Modvat Rules
The case involved a Revenue appeal against the rejection of an application for transferring credit from one account to another under Modvat Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, stating that the transfer of unutilized credit from one account to another was not contrary to Modvat Rules. The Commissioner referred to a Tribunal ruling in a similar case to support this decision. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that the transfer was not permissible after a certain date.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 57F(4) of CE Rules, 1944
The Commissioner analyzed Rule 57F(4) of CE Rules, 1944, as amended in 1995, to determine the legality of transferring credit between accounts. He noted that the rule allowed for the utilization of credit towards payment of duty on any final product, regardless of whether the inputs were actually used in manufacturing that product. The Commissioner found that the adjudicating authority had misinterpreted the rule by referring to a later version instead of the applicable one.
Issue 3: Eligibility to transfer Modvat credit for payment of duty on any final product
The issue revolved around the eligibility to transfer Modvat credit accrued after a specific date for payment of duty on any final product. The Commissioner found that the conditions for transferring and using inputs after the specified date had been met, making the transfer of credit permissible. He emphasized that no permission from the excise authority was required for such transfers if the necessary declaration had been filed.
Issue 4: Compliance with Rule 57G of CE Rules for utilization of credit balance
The Commissioner also examined compliance with Rule 57G of CE Rules, which required a declaration to be filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for utilizing credit balance. He found that the action of transferring unutilized credit from one account to another was in line with the provisions of Modvat rules and did not require permission from the excise authority.
In conclusion, the Commissioner upheld the appeal, allowing the transfer of credit with consequential benefits. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant rules and previous tribunal rulings, concluding that the transfer of credit was legal and proper. The appeal was rejected, affirming the Commissioner's decision.
-
2006 (10) TMI 316
Issues: Classification of spares for pressure cookers under CETA sub-headings 7323.90 and 7323.10, applicability of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, imposition of penalty.
In this case, the lower appellate authority agreed with the Revenue's classification of spares for pressure cookers under CETA sub-heading 7323.90 instead of 7323.10, which covers complete pressure cookers. Despite this, the lower authority dropped the demand raised in the show cause notice, citing Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, which applies to goods cleared clandestinely. The Tribunal noted that the notice invoked Rule 9(2) along with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, and since the product was classified under 7323.90, the demand should have been upheld. As the demand was within the limitation period and the assessee had filed a declaration, no penalty was imposed. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and upheld the duty demand, restoring the adjudicating authority's decision on duty demand.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by upholding the duty demand and setting aside the lower appellate authority's decision. The key issue was the correct classification of spares for pressure cookers under CETA sub-headings 7323.90 and 7323.10. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, which applies to clandestinely cleared goods, did not prevent upholding the duty demand in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the notice invoking Rule 9(2) and Section 11A justified sustaining the demand, given the product's classification under 7323.90. The absence of penalty imposition was justified due to the timely demand and the assessee's declaration filing.
Overall, the Tribunal's decision focused on the proper classification of the goods and the application of relevant excise rules. By setting aside the lower authority's decision and upholding the duty demand, the Tribunal ensured compliance with the correct classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The absence of penalty was deemed appropriate considering the circumstances of the case, including the timely demand and the assessee's compliance with declaration requirements.
-
2006 (10) TMI 315
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the filing of appeals by different officers.
2. Determination of the timeliness of appeals filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs.
3. Analysis of the applicability of provisions of Section 129D in relation to the authority passing the order.
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the filing of appeals. The issue arose when the Revenue filed two appeals against the same Order-in-Original, initially by the Dy. Commissioner and later by the Commissioner of Customs. The argument was made that both appeals were in time as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 129D, which authorizes the Commissioner to file the appeal. However, it was clarified that sub-section (2) of Section 129D applies only when the order is passed by an officer subordinate to the Commissioner, not by the Commissioner himself.
2. The timeliness of the appeals was a crucial point of contention. The respondent argued that the appeal filed by the Commissioner was time-barred as it was not submitted by the prescribed date. Reference was made to the absence of provisions for condonation of delay by the Tribunal. Citing previous decisions, the respondent emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals and highlighted that the present appeal was beyond the limitation period, rendering it time-barred.
3. The judgment also delves into the applicability of Section 129D in relation to the authority passing the order. It was established that the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (4) of Section 129D do not apply when the order is passed by the Commissioner of Customs himself, as opposed to a subordinate officer. Consequently, the appeal in question was deemed time-barred due to being filed beyond the stipulated period.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the analysis of the provisions of Section 129D and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the appeal was indeed time-barred due to the order being passed by the Commissioner of Customs himself.
-
2006 (10) TMI 314
Issues:
1. Revocation of license of CHA under Regulation 22(c) of Custom House Agent's Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004.
2. Allegation of operating license through unauthorized persons and not handling customs documents directly.
3. Compliance with Regulation 13(a) of CHALR, 2004.
Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs revoked the license of the appellants, a CHA, under Regulation 22(c) of CHALR, 2004, based on allegations of operating the license through unauthorized persons and not handling customs documents directly. The Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo consideration regarding these allegations. The appellant denied allowing unauthorized persons to handle baggage and argued that their canvassing agent was not authorized to appear before customs authorities. The Commissioner's decision was based on conjecture without concrete evidence, leading to the revocation of the license.
2. The appellant contended that there was no evidence supporting the allegations against them. The Commissioner's decision was criticized for being based on assumptions and presumptions, lacking statements from relevant individuals like P. A. Gigesh and V. A. Mary Das. The appellant had been in business for 22 years without any prior charges, making the revocation seemingly unjustified. The JDR argued that allowing unauthorized persons to handle packages could warrant license suspension, citing a Chennai Bench judgment.
3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision to be unfounded, relying on conjecture and assumptions. No concrete evidence or admissions were presented to prove that unauthorized individuals handled the packages. The absence of categorical evidence led to the conclusion that the revocation of the license was not legally sustainable. A comparison was drawn to a previous case where evidence of unauthorized handling existed, in contrast to the lack of evidence in the present case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence in such matters.
This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in legal proceedings and the requirement for decisions to be based on factual findings rather than conjecture or assumptions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the revocation of the license underscores the significance of upholding legal standards and procedural fairness in administrative actions.
-
2006 (10) TMI 313
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of equalized freight charges in the assessable value.
2. Inclusion of labour and painting charges in the assessable value.
3. Invocation of the extended period for demand.
4. Financial hardship and pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F.
5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Equalized Freight Charges in the Assessable Value:
The appellant was engaged in manufacturing transformers and collected Rs. 35,98,220/- on account of equalized freight, which was not included in the assessable value. The Revenue contended that these charges should be included as per the amended provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Joint Commissioner found that the appellant collected fixed freight amounts, which were not actual transportation costs, and included these in the transaction value. The Tribunal held that since the transportation cost was fixed and not actual, it was rightly included in the assessable value as per Section 4(3)(d) and Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
2. Inclusion of Labour and Painting Charges in the Assessable Value:
The appellant collected Rs. 11,96,563/- as labour and painting charges, which were also not declared. The adjudicating authority included these charges in the assessable value, stating that the appellant had full knowledge of the Act and Rules and did not pay the correct duty. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the appellant did not raise the contention that these charges were for repairs in the reply to the show cause notice, making it an afterthought. Thus, the inclusion of these charges in the assessable value was upheld.
3. Invocation of the Extended Period for Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand prior to 10-4-2001 was time-barred. The authorities inferred intentional duty evasion due to the appellant's knowledge of the amended Section 4. The Tribunal noted that approximately two-thirds of the duty demand was within the limitation period, indicating that a more specific opinion on the invocation of the extended period would have been desirable.
4. Financial Hardship and Pre-Deposit Requirement under Section 35F:
The appellant, declared a sick unit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, contended that pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Metal Box India Limited, held that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act does not apply to pre-deposit requirements under Section 35F. Considering the appellant's financial condition as a running concern, the Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.
5. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC:
A penalty equal to the duty amount was imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC. The Tribunal found this penalty neither harsh nor excessive, noting that the provisions allowed for a penalty up to three times the value of the excisable goods.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of equalized freight and labour and painting charges in the assessable value, confirming the duty demand and penalty. The invocation of the extended period was partially justified, with the majority of the demand within the limitation period. The appellant was directed to make a partial pre-deposit considering its financial condition, and the penalty imposed was deemed appropriate.
-
2006 (10) TMI 312
The appeal addressed the determination of the retail sale price for goods with multiple retail sale prices. The Tribunal ruled that the higher of the multiple MRPs should be considered the retail sale price, as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner's decision to consider the reduced MRP was overturned, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 311
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai rejected the Revenue's request to stay the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying 'Thiourea 99% minimum' under CTH 29039010 instead of as an insecticide under CTH 3808. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld as 'Thiourea 99%' is specifically covered under the tariff entry of Chapter 29, and the apex Court judgment cited by the Revenue does not apply to this case. The request for stay was denied, and the appeal will be determined during regular hearing.
-
2006 (10) TMI 310
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - duty paid on the machines/ equipments of a sugar plant - HELD THAT:- We find that the facts of the present case are similar to those present in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.[2000 (8) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]. In this case also parts and components were bought/manufactured by the contractor and the invoices were issued in the name of the manufacturer of the final goods in whose premises the said parts and components were finally assembled and machinery installed. While in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements, the credit has been extended mainly on account of the fact that Rule 57T(7) did provide for availment of credit in case parts and machinery got erected through a job worker, the Tribunal did make an observation that the credit can be allowed under the provisions of Rule 57Q itself without taking resort to provision of Rule 57T(7).
However, in the case of NRC Ltd.[2001 (6) TMI 114 - CEGAT, MUMBAI], the Tribunal did not refer to the provision of Rule 57T(7) and allowed the credit on the basis of Rule 57Q under which the parts and components of capital goods are also entitled to Modvat credit as inputs for the manufacture of goods to be produced out of such machinery for the installation of which such parts have been used. It has been further observed by the Tribunal that it is immaterial whether the payment for the components/accessories has been made by the contractor or the manufacturer of finished goods as it is the factory of the manufacturer of finished goods in whose premises components/parts of machinery is installed which in turn is used for the manufacture of finished dutiable goods.
Similar definition of inputs for the purpose of capital goods exists in Rule 2(b) read with Explanation II of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. We accordingly follow the same and hold that the appellants shall be entitled to the credit of duty paid on such components and parts which are used in the manufacture of sugar plant installed in their premises.
The order of the Commissioner is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 309
Issues:
1. Enhanced declaration value of Mobile Batteries and Mobile Circuit Boards
2. Confiscation of goods with redemption fine
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962
4. Alleged non-declaration of Mobile Circuit Boards
5. Discrepancy in declared value and appraiser's valuation
6. Violation of Import Trade Control (ITC) rules
7. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty
Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs enhanced the declaration value of Mobile Batteries and Mobile Circuit Boards, leading to confiscation of goods with a redemption fine and imposition of a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's baggage containing the goods was examined at the Airport, where discrepancies were found in the declaration. The appellant maintained that both batteries and circuit boards were declared through a single invoice, challenging the basis for the enhanced value set by the appraiser.
2. The appellant argued that the appraiser's report, which formed the basis for the enhanced value, was not provided to them, and the Commissioner did not justify the valuation method. The appellant contended that the transaction value based on the invoice should be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence. Despite acknowledging the commercial quantity violation of ITC rules, the appellant sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty.
3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant declared both batteries and circuit boards for duty payment, as evidenced by the invoice. The adjudicating authority's reliance on the appraiser's valuation without disclosing the underlying rationale was deemed insufficient. Lack of evidence supporting the higher valuation or challenging the accuracy of the appellant's invoice led the Tribunal to uphold the transaction value over the appraiser's assessment.
4. Considering the declared value of Rs. 1 lakh and the baggage rule violation, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 75,000 and the penalty from Rs. 60 lakhs to Rs. 60,000. The obsolete nature of the electronic goods, coupled with the appellant's failure to clear them, influenced the decision to lower the redemption fine and penalty amounts.
5. The appeal was disposed of on 27-10-06, reflecting the Tribunal's decision to uphold the appellant's declared value, reduce the fines and penalties, and consider the circumstances surrounding the case, including the nature of the goods and the lack of evidence supporting the enhanced valuation.
-
2006 (10) TMI 308
Issues:
1. Validity of pre-inspection certificate by a de-recognized agency.
2. Confiscation of imported consignment and imposition of penalty.
Issue 1: Validity of pre-inspection certificate by a de-recognized agency:
The appellant imported 12 containers of HMS scrap on High Sea Sale basis and submitted a pre-inspection certificate issued by a de-recognized agency, leading to a show cause notice for violation. The appellant argued that the inspection agency was accredited at the time of issuing the certificate and the goods were correctly declared. The adjudicating authority, however, held that the agency's de-recognition rendered the import liable for confiscation and penalty. The appellant contended that even if the agency was de-recognized later, the certificate's validity should be upheld as the goods were inspected and found in order. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the inspection agency was accredited when the certificate was issued, and subsequent de-registration did not invalidate it. As the goods were found compliant upon examination, the confiscation and penalty were deemed unsustainable.
Issue 2: Confiscation of imported consignment and imposition of penalty:
The appellant purchased the consignment after thorough document verification, including the pre-inspection certificate. The Revenue argued that the agency provided incorrect certificates prior to de-recognition by the Ministry of Commerce. The Tribunal noted that the goods were examined, found as declared, and the pre-inspection certificate was issued by an accredited agency at the time. As the inspection agency's de-registration did not affect the certificate's validity, the impugned order confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty was set aside. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the pre-inspection certificate despite the agency's de-recognition, leading to the setting aside of the order confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant based on the correct issuance of the certificate and the compliance of the imported goods with the declaration.
-
2006 (10) TMI 307
Classification - Poultry keeping machinery parts - granting the benefit of exemption notification - poultry cages of Iron and Steel - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the Revenue has failed to establish that the poultry equipment can be treated as articles of iron and steel. The articles have specific use as poultry equipment and the item is understood in the trade as well as in the commercial parlance as poultry equipment which has a specific description under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 8436 of the Central Excise Tariff.
We notice that the Madras Bench in the case of CC v. M/s. Chowdary Enterprises [1996 (12) TMI 201 - CEGAT, MADRAS] by Final Order has also decided the classification of this very item under Chapter Heading No. 8436.99 and has rejected the Revenue’s claim for classification under Chapter Heading 73. In view of the correct order passed by the Commissioner and supported by the judgments cited including the Tribunal ruling of Chennai Bench in the case of CC v. Chowdary Enterprises (supra), we find no merit in the present appeal and dismiss the same.
-
2006 (10) TMI 306
Issues:
1. Whether the machinery parts disposed of as scrap by the appellant were dutiable under Central Excise Act.
2. Whether penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed on the appellant.
3. Whether the machinery parts removed without payment of duty were correctly classified as "waste and scrap" falling under a specific heading.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, a sugar and molasses manufacturer, disposed of machinery parts as scrap. The department alleged the goods were "waste and scrap" and demanded duty. The appellant contended the goods were discarded due to wear and tear, not involving manufacturing activity. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially upheld the demand and penalties. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence proving the goods were "waste and scrap" as defined. The burden of proof was on the Revenue, which was not discharged. The demand of duty and penalties were set aside in favor of the appellant.
2. The proposal for imposing Section 11AC penalty was contested. The Deputy Commissioner dropped the penalty for a specific period, which was upheld by the appellate authority. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against dropping the penalty. The appellant's appeal against the penalty was allowed, as no mens rea was involved in removing the goods.
3. The definition of "waste and scrap" under Section Note 8(a) was crucial. The department argued that some machinery parts were unusable due to wear and other reasons, falling under the definition. However, the Tribunal found the department failed to prove how much of the goods arose during manufacturing. The appellant was registered for sugar and molasses production, not for manufacturing machinery parts. The demand of duty was unsustainable as the goods were not proven to be "waste and scrap" under the specific heading. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision where the burden of proof was on the Revenue, not met in this case.
In conclusion, the appellant's appeal was allowed, setting aside the duty demand and penalties. The department's appeal against dropping the penalty was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving goods as "waste and scrap" under the relevant classification for imposing duty.
............
|
9911796707
