|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 339 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... er of the Table annexed to the same exemption notification under which the goods had been earlier received by the appellants after discharging their duty liability under the same serial number of the Table annexed to the same exemption notification, under which the duty was sought to be demanded again, was justified. 15. emsp In the case of Decorative Laminates (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 186 (SC), the Supreme Court had ruled that in determining whether processing amounts to manufacture, the criteria like (i) to what extent the value is added and (ii) whether the product is prepared for a separate use, are relevant. We do not find any finding of the lower authorities on these criteria. 16. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, in these cases, and taking all the relevant considerations into account, both these appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ation. The department, however, has held that this meter as classifiable under Heading 90.31 and rejected their claim since the Notification No. 155/86-Cus. includes only certain items falling under Chapter 84 and 85. 3. emsp Arguing for the appellants the ld. Counsel reiterates the claim made in the appeal but on a specific question from the Bench fairly concedes the department rsquo s point of view. 4. emsp Ld. D.R. reiterates the departmental arguments. 5. emsp We do not see much merit in the appeal. Flow meters obviously fall under only Chapter No. 90 and in fact we find that Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the case of Moorco (India) Ltd. v. C.C., Madras - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) has also upheld their classification only in this chapter. Since the table appended to Notification No. 155/86 does not include Chapter 90 for the purpose of concession this notification is obviously not applicable to the appellants. In the result we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1996 (11) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... o not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Collector (Appeals) in that regard. 6. emsp Insofar as pilene ultra is concerned we find that the appellants had produced the certificate from the manufacturer that pilene ultra is the trade name for polyethylene. We also observe from the declaration filed under Rule 57G that polyethylene has been declared as input. In this view of the matter we hold that pilene ultra is nothing but polyethylene for which proper declaration has been made and therefore Modvat credit shall be admissible on this item as an input. 6A. emsp In the result the impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 7. emsp Insofar as penalty is concerned we find that Modvat credit on the item described as plastic powder has already been reversed by the appellants and other items have been found eligible to Modvat. In these circumstances we set aside the order of imposition of penalty also.
-
1996 (11) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n by way of satisfaction of the AC has been incorporated. Moreover even before this amendment, if the gate pass was lost in transit, it was open to the AC to make inquiries and satisfy himself before allowing the credit. What was earlier implied has now been made explicit by introducing sub-rule 2(A). In these circumstances, sub-rule 2(A) can only be considered as clarificatory in nature providing no procedure which could be deemed to have restrospective effect. rdquo 6. emsp Having regard to the fact that the new system was introduced for the first time with effect from 1-4-1994 and that Notification 23/94-C.E. (N.T.) was issued on 20-5-1994 I agree with the finding of this Tribunal as reproduced above and hold that Notification 23/94-C.E. (N.T.) can be treated as clarificatory Notification and therefore further hold that the respondents had rightly taken Modvat credit on the strength of original invoice. In the result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1996 (11) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants contention that they should be classified under Heading 84.07 on the basis of analogy of hydraulic engines is not acceptable because the items are not hydraulic engine per se nor are they merely hydraulic cylinders of a type covered by that heading but admittedly parts of the steering systems which themselves act as controlling equipment in motor vehicles. Therefore, the appellants contention that the items are classifiable under Heading 84.07 of CTA which covers only hydraulic motors and engines cannot be accepted and the Collector (Appeals) has rightly observed that we cannot look merely on their method of functioning but what is important from the point of view of the tariff is to see the application which includes motor vehicles of various types and therefore, they were required to be treated as component parts of vehicles classifiable under Heading 87.04/06(1) as held by the A.C. and the Collector (Appeals). We therefore, uphold the order and reject the appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machines and Mechanical Appliances ... ... ... ... ..... it was also designed for the manufacture of polyster zip and also found that these machines fitted to the description of Heading 84.59, hence the claim for the classification was upheld. In the present case, the question of classification is not in issue, but only question of benefit of the Notification, which grants benefit to a machinery used for the production of a commodity. As we have noticed that each of the three individual machines perform only one of the functions out of 10 functions noticed above, and that each machine did not produce a commodity by itself, hence the question of interpreting this description of Tariff entry in the Notification does not arise. The machinery in question may have an individual function, but they do not produce a commodity and hence the lower authorities have rightly rejected their contention for the benefit of the Notification. We do not find any merit in this appeal. While upholding the lower authorities order, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal rsquo s decision in Alpha Toyo Ltd. (supra) and Nikhildeep Cables Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and have rightly pleaded that the Madras High Court has held that a job worker is deemed to be actual manufacturer when relationship between raw material supplier and him is on principal to principal basis. 24. emsp The deptt. rsquo s contention that the clearances of M/s. AEL were required to be clubbed with the clearances of respondents on job work basis for the purpose of denying the benefit of the Notification No. 80/80 to the latter is therefore, not acceptable. In fact, in the absence of evidence the department rsquo s case remains unsubstantiated And in any eventuality if it is M/s. AEL which had exceeded the prescribed limit the proceedings have been misdirected against the respondents. 25. emsp We therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). The department rsquo s appeal is therefore, rejected, as already announced in open court.
-
1996 (11) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... d out on the 137 pieces seized before confiscating the goods. If it was found that these tests have been completed, then the appellants could not plead that RG 1 stage had not been reached however, on the other hand, if these tests have been found not to have been carried out, then no case for confiscation would have been made. In the present case, no such examination has been done and the Department has only upheld the confiscation for the reason that the plea regarding goods not having reached the RG 1 stage was taken only in their reply and not on the spot statement of Shri Nigam and for the reason that the non-availability of the dealing hand was not sufficient excuse. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Department has discharged the burden of proving clandestine removal as the evidence on record is not sufficient for the purpose of upholding this charge. Therefore, I set aside the confiscation and penalty, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Checking machine ... ... ... ... ..... ove ball bearings and of cylindrical roller bearings. By means of this instruments the bearing which have been checked, can be sorted out in the groups ldquo Goods rdquo , ldquo too large rdquo , ldquo Too small rdquo . 7. emsp The catalogue while describing in detail the MGL-35-3 instrument indicates that results of radial clearance i.e. the sum of both displacements, is displayed digitally on the electronic measuring system. In addition, a classification in 3 ranges takes place - Too Large (Red), Good (Green), Too Small (Yellow). The good range can be sub-divided in 10 linear classes with an additional plug-in module (10 RL). 8. emsp All this would unambiguously prove that in effect this measuring machine is a checking machine which checks radial displacements accurately. We cannot in view of this make a distinction between checking and measuring for there can be no checking without accurate measurement. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (11) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... dquo in the manufacture of goods rdquo . In the Patna High Court judgment in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. Union of India, cranes used for placement of heavy goods from one place to another in the factory were held to be not eligible for the benefit of Notification 118/75, dated 30-4-1975 which was specifically not made applicable to machinery meant for production or processing of any goods. In the Supreme Court judgment in Rajasthan State Chemical Works case, it was held that use of power in pumping of lime into sall pans and the lifting of coke and limestone with the aid of power amounted to use of power in the process of manufacture. The Tribunal rsquo s decision in the present case that the Chiller Water Coils and Weighing Scales were used in the producing or processing of goods is in line with the above mentioned judgments. The order does not give rise to any question of law requiring a reference to the High Court. The Reference Application is dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the cutting textile fabrics. Therefore, we uphold the appellants contention for classification under sub-heading 8451.50 of the present tariff. The item cannot be considered as a electric mechanical tool under Chapter 85. The description under chapter sub-heading 8457.50 is specific and the item meets the requirement of said description. Hence the classification under Chapter 85.08 is erroneous and requires to be set aside. 4. emsp As regards the claim for the benefit of Notification No. 16/85-Cus. Sl. No. 26 of the said Notification reads as ldquo power driven cloth cutting machine and therefore they claimed the benefit of this notification. In view of the fin- dings given by the ld. Collector that the item is a cloth cutting machine and in view of the admitted position that the machine is also a power driven, the bene- fit of Notification No. 16/85-Cus. is available to them. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
1996 (11) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Zinc flakes/powder and Zinc dust - Distinction between ... ... ... ... ..... or as annexed to his order, 16 claims from Sl. No. 8 to 23 are time barred. Ld. Consultant fairly concedes that he does not press the appeals in regard to these claims which were admittedly filed beyond statutory period of limitation. We reject the appeals in regard to claims at Sl. No. 8 to 23 annexed to the order of Assistant Collector as time-barred and uphold that part of the order of the Assistant Collector insofar as it relates to the limited question of time-bar only. 6. emsp In regard to other appeals relating to refund claims Sl. Nos. 1 to 7 and 24 of the Assistant Collector order we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower authority for de novo consideration after taking into account the trade understanding as well as technical literature on the subject which brings out distinction between zinc dust and powder. Appellants are at liberty to produce such additional evidence before the Assistant Commissioner as they feel would support their case.
-
1996 (11) TMI 139 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Personal hearing ... ... ... ... ..... him. The position as of today is that the post office has informed the appellant that the records of the relevant period have been destroyed and it is not in a position to show sic that the letters were delivered or not. The Customs House file indicates receipt by the post office the letter of first hearing. There is no indication about the despatch of notice of hearing on 16-3-1993. Taking thses into account, it cannot be concluded that the appellant was given notice for hearing on 16-3-1993. We, therefore, hold that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore, set aside. Appeal is allowed. 5. emsp The Commissioner will have to adjudicate the case afresh according to law. The advocate for the appellant undertakes, that, if necessary, he will personally collect the notice of hearing and pass it on to the appellant. He further undertakes that no adjournment will be sought for. These may be taken into account by the Commissioner.
-
1996 (11) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal held that an Ultrasonic cleaning machine which is used for the purpose of cleaning and washing the components by ultrasonic waves is liable to be classified under sub-heading (2) of the Heading 84.59. It has been held that the process of cleaning and washing of the parts to remove the dirt and foreign material for smooth functioning of the parts and components, by the Ultrasonic Machine should be regarded as being in the production line. Therefore, it was held that the machine can be considered as designed for production of a commodity as it improves the functioning of the parts/components by cleaning, which is found to be an essential requirement for fitment of the components/parts to the motorcycle engines manufactured by them and hence the claim for classification under heading 84.59(2) was upheld. In view of these judgments, which has a very clear bearing on the present case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
1996 (11) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Fabric - Tapes ... ... ... ... ..... e tape would be substantial compared thereto. The tape has been defined in the Fair childs Dictionery of Textiles as narrow woven fabric not more than 8 wide. In the Central Excise Tariff, tapes have always been classifiable alongwith parent fibre. In Notification No. 44/86-C.E. at Sl. No. 5 cotton fabrics of not more than 15 cms. in width are prescribed attracting nil rate of duty. In the Fair childs Dictionery of Textile, narrow fabric has been defined as a general term for tapes, weavings, ribbons and other materials. The same source cites a definition of such fabrics by the Federal Trade Commission as having a width of 12 or less. Therefore, even going by the definition, accepted by the ld. Commissioner, there was no cause to hold that tape was not a fabric. The benefit of the entry at Sl. No. 10 of the Notification 52/86-C.E. was available to them. To this extent, the order of the Commissioner is wrong and is set aside with the direction for consequential relief, if any.
-
1996 (11) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Penalty for misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... en thereunder. Hence, the classification as refined copper is ruled out. But can the classification under Chapter 7402 be confirmed in the light of the test result that the item is ldquo an alloy of copper and zinc together with nickel rdquo . The answer is a definite no, in view of heading for ldquo copper alloys (7403.21 etc.), as were for lsquo copper waste and scrap (74.04), copper powder and flakes under 74.06. The Chapter notes defines all the terms. The learned Additional Collector has not t applied his mind on this aspect of the matter and also on the claim of deduction of the lost of goods short received by the appellant due to theft. Hence, the matter is required to be readjudicated de novo on these aspects of the matter. 16. emsp As regards penalty of Rs. 15,000/- the misdeclaration being obvious, the same is maintainable and hence we confirm it. 17. emsp Thus, the matter is remanded for considering correct classification under Chapter 74 to the original authority.
-
1996 (11) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Discount on wholesale price of drugs ... ... ... ... ..... tion No. 161/66 was not contingent on discount actually being given to wholesalers. What we are concerned with is to arrive at the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act. The value depends on the wholesale price at the factory gate. Value of clearances under Notifiction No. 83/83 is reckoned on the basis of assessable value under Section 4 of the Act. Admissible trade discount is deductible under Section 4 of the Act. Since the respondent has no case that any discount was actually offered or was being given to the customers, the discount referred to in the notification for the purpose of reckoning the quantum of exemption, cannot be regarded as discount actually given and required to be deducted for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act. The view taken by the Collector (Appeals) is erroneous. 6. emsp We set aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal - Inherent Powers ... ... ... ... ..... inasmuch as in the said case, the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal itself were kept in abeyance till the decision of the Supreme Court on the similar matter. To the same effect is the decision of the Honourable High Court of Gujarat in the case of Re Surendera Gulabchand Modi. The Honourable High Court observed that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the appellant rsquo s prayer for adjournment till the decision of the Supreme Court so as to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and the incurring avoidable expense. The issue before us is not staying of proceedings pending before us but to stay the proceedings before the lower authorities. We would like to state here that the appellant is at liberty to approach the Collector and it is within the discretion of the Collector to keep or not to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the final decision by the Tribunal on their classification dispute. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing, the Miscellaneous Application is rejected.
-
1996 (11) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Multimeter -Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... ion of the first item namely, precision digital RMS multimeters. 6. emsp In the case of Electronic Devices v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 561 1987 (9) ETR 398 the Tribunal has taken note of the manner in which the word and rsquo is required to be interpreted. The definition of the word and rsquo as appearing in Black rsquo s Law Dictionary has been reproduced in the judgment and also the Tribunal has noted several judgments pertaining to interpretation of the words ldquo and rdquo as well as the word ldquo or rdquo . From this judgment, it is very clear that the word and rsquo is required to be read conjunctively only. On such an interpretation, the words in parenthesis refers to both the items and not exclusively to voltmeters alone. There is merits in this Revenue appeal and hence we accept the same. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. We do not find any merit in the cross appeal and hence the same is rejected.
-
1996 (11) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Goods produced on job work basis ... ... ... ... ..... rade under his brand name and according to his specifications by supplying raw materials and components to independent job worker such trader is not treatable as manufacturer. In case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. C.C.E. - 1990 (40) E.L.T. 762 it was held by Tribunal that even when raw material was supplied by customer but contractors were entitled to work on their own schedule and dealing between the two on Principal to Principal basis, the Contractor was the actual manufacturer and not the customer. Again in Metal Box India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 1817 it was held by Tribunal that merely because raw material was supplied by one to another for manufacture of waxed paper, supplier of raw material is not manufacturer when dealings were on Principal to Principal basis and the manufacturing unit was not a nominee or facade for supplier of raw material. 7. emsp In view of this, we do not see any merit in the Revenue Appeal and reject the Revenue Appeal.
............
|
