|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 520 Records
-
2002 (11) TMI 559 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Organic surface-active agents - Scouring powder ... ... ... ... ..... be used for industrial purpose, which is mentioned in the note, is emphasised by the representative of the appellant. We do not see how this makes a difference. The note refers in general to the preparations of heading 34.05, and cannot be interpreted to mean that anything that is used for industrial purposes will fall in that heading. Further it is feasible that scouring powder classifiable in this heading may be used to scour sinks, etc., in factories and other industrial sites. 4. emsp Heading 34.02 includes organic surface-active agents mdash preparation other than those of heading 34.01. The explanatory notes make it clear that surface-active preparation classifiable in this heading includes detergents for the textile industry, to eliminate fats and small quantities of alcohol during the manufacture. This description, it appears to us, fits exactly the claim made by the manufacturer of the goods. They are therefore classifiable in heading 34.02. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 558 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e/multifold yarn from non-duty paid single yarn some yarns are wasted and the assessee clear this waste as ldquo Hard Waste rdquo at nil rate of duty as per Tariff. rdquo A perusal of this para itself indicates that the Department accept the position that the single yarn so produced and portion thereof is captively consumed in the manufacture of double/multifold yarn and certain parts at this activity result in waste which is termed as Hard Waste. In this view of the matter, I am not able to agree with the findings arrived at by the ld. Member (Technical) in his order. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the order and finding of the ld. Member (Judicial) that the bar of limitation in this case exists and as extended period cannot be invoked. Reference is answered accordingly. Sd/-(S.S. Sekhon)Member (T) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority order, the appeals are allowed on the point of limitation. Sd/-(V.K. Agrawal)Member (T) Sd/-(Archana Wadhwa)Member (J)Dated 13-11-2002
-
2002 (11) TMI 557 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Filter - Water filter - “Hydrapure” ... ... ... ... ..... s bacteria are removed in the process of filteration. The fact that the water gets purified in the process of filteration will not take out the apparatus from the class of water filter. In support of the above, he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III v. IEK Plastics Ltd., 1999 (107) E.L.T. 205. 3. emsp The finding on the factual position entered by the original authority was not found incorrect by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no case for the Revenue that apart from the filtering process any other process is being carried out in the functioning of the apparatus for purifying the water. If that be so, it is only a case of water getting purified by filteration. We, therefore, find that the appellant is justified in claiming exemption under notification No. 155/86 which was followed by Notification No. 54/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. 4. emsp In the result the order impugned is set aside and appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 556 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... atter decision without taking note of the earlier decision has concluded and that too partly on an admission made by the appellant that, the process was manufacture. 3. emsp The departmental representative reiterates the finding of the Commissioner. 4. emsp Since we are only concerned with the penalties imposed on the appellants, we refrain from expressing any view as to whether the activity undertaken by Compusoft and National Control Systems amounted to manufacture or not. So far as the penalty is concerned, we have seen the two decisions that have been cited before us, one holding that the activity amounts to manufacture and other holding that it does not. In the light of the fact that two Benches of the Tribunal themselves have expressed diametrically opposite view, and also taking into consideration that penalty cannot be simultaneously imposed on the partnership firm and its partners, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants. 5. emsp Appeals allowed in part.
-
2002 (11) TMI 555 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... t disclosed all the details. Therefore, in terms of these judgments, we are not in a position to give any relief to the appellant. Hence, we reject their pleas and confirm the duty amounts assessed on the ldquo drawings and designs rdquo imported by the appellants through couriers. 9. emsp In so far as the levy of mandatory penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is concerned, we notice that these imports were made during the period much earlier to the date of promulgation of the said section. Therefore, there is no cause for imposing penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. (supra) which has been followed by the Tribunal in Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. CC, Ahmedabad (supra). In that view of the matter, the mandatory penalty imposed by the Commissioner in the present case is set aside. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above and disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 554 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... the Apex Court judgment. Therefore there is not merit in the appeal of the revenue and the same is rejected rdquo . 4. emsp We notice from the above extract that the Tribunal has also followed the Apex Court ruling rendered in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). The Commissioner in the impugned order has clearly noted that the appellant had affixed only the name of the company M/s. Sri Ramakrishna (CBE) Ltd. and M/s. Sri Jaganatha Textiles and there is no allegation that the appellant had fixed any specific brand name. Therefore Revenue is not justified in denying the benefit of SSI exemption notification solely because the appellant had indicated the above two names on their labels. It is also seen that these two names were affixed on the labels and not even on the goods. In view of large number of judgments and also in view of the extract of the judgment noted above the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 552 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Order - Tribunal’s order - Implementation of - Adjudication - Re-adjudication - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... ourt. A similar reference bringing the question of liability of uncalled for interest on pre-deposits was referred to the Chairman, CBEC by this Tribunal rsquo s order. 5. emsp We would also in these Miscellaneous Applications pass directions that the amounts as duty should be refunded and a copy of this order should be sent to the concerned Chief Commissioner, who will initiate suitable action on the officers for not implementing the Tribunal rsquo s orders, inspite of the Board instructions as regards the refund of deposits. 6. emsp We earnest hope and expect the Chief Commissioners to take such steps in the matter as would be necessary to get such cases expedited, so that the appellants are not sent to from pillor to post for their legitimate dues and be forced to file Miscellaneous Applications which cause for unproductive work in the Tribunal. This would avoid an uncalled for interest liability on Public Exchequer. 7. emsp Miscellaneous Applications disposed of as above.
-
2002 (11) TMI 551 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Interest on delayed refund ... ... ... ... ..... unds. Proviso mentioned in section 27A of the Customs Act provides that in case any duty is not refunded from three months from the date of assent of Finance Bill, they shall be paid to the applicant under interest under the section from the date immediately after three months from such date till the date of refund of such duty. 3. emsp One may normally think that this section will not have any retrospective effect, but the actual words used therein would indicate that this position is not so. Wherever the refund claim is pending even though filed before the assent of the Finance Bill, 1995 the words that they shall be paid to the applicant under the interest under this section would clearly indicate that any refund application pending with the department would be entitled to be paid with interest under this section. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not wrong. It is upheld and the appeal of the department is dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 523 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... es the findings of the adjudicating authority, highlighting the finding that the raw materials and finished goods were found short on the visit to the factory on 22-7-1997. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find prima facie force in the contention that the duty demand of Rs. 1,86,381/- has been confirmed without proper consideration of the defence plea that the fabrics, on which such demand was confirmed, were not industrial fabrics under Chapter 59 but grey synthetic fabrics under Chapter 54. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we direct pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards duty within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit pre-deposit of balance duty and penalties shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeals. 5. emsp Failure to comply with the above direction shall result in dismissal of appeals without prior notice. 6. emsp Compliance to be reported on 24-12-2002.
-
2002 (11) TMI 522 - CEGAT,MUMBAI
Customs House Agent Licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... issions and perusal of the case records, we find that there is a distinct time lag between the case against the employees of the appellants detected in April 2001 and the suspension order issued in September, 2002. We also find that no hearing was granted before passing the order of the suspension. Accordingly, following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal cited above, we direct the Commissioner of Customs to give a personal hearing to the appellant and pass a speaking order on the question whether the suspension of the licence should continue or not. Such order shall be passed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of the Commissioner failing to pass such order within the stipulated period, the impugned order will stand vacated on expiry of the said period. We also make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Commissioner proceeding with the contemplated inquiry against the appellant under Regulation 23.
-
2002 (11) TMI 521 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Inspection charges, annual inspection charges ... ... ... ... ..... They have submitted that this issue remains concluded in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal. 1994 (74) E.L.T. 687 1996 (84) E.L.T. A167 (S.C.) 2000 (125) E.L.T. 836 and 1999 (114) E.L.T. 725 etc. 4. emsp We have perused the records and heard the learned SDR also. The issue remains covered in favour of the appellant by the aforesaid decisions. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the recoveries were towards the cost of testing/inspection by third parties. These inspections were in addition to the normal testing, etc., carried out as a part of manufacture by the appellants. Such additional test/inspection at the instance of the buyers, over and above the testing which forms part of the manufacturing activity do not form part of manufacture. Same is the position in respect of recovery for the same. The demand is erroneous. The impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
2002 (11) TMI 519 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Clandestine removal, Power consumption, Iron and Steel products ... ... ... ... ..... , they are required to substantiate the factor of electricity consumption for the production and clandestine removal of the goods. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo consideration. The assessees rsquo argument and grounds pertaining to the electricity being not the factor for confirmation of demand and Revenue has given up this point is required to be taken into consideration. The Revenue should establish with figures of consumption of electricity the fact of clandestine production and clearance of goods with other supporting evidence. The aspect pertaining to the levy of penalty on Shri Murali is also left open for reconsideration by the original authorities. The assessees are entitled to take all legal pleas pertaining to their stands as has been argued before me before both lower authorities in de novo proceedings. The issue is left open for detailed consideration by the original authority. The matter shall be decided expeditiously.
-
2002 (11) TMI 508 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Class of buyers - Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts ... ... ... ... ..... also of the view that the appellant has made out a case on the ground of limitation. It is not denied that the appellant was filing price list prior to 1-3-94 for OE supplies and spares supply to MUL and the copies of purchase orders showing clearly the difference in price. They were filing other assessment documents like copies of invoice-cum-delivery challan, RT 12 returns filed along with gate passes which would clearly indicate that the same item was being supplied at to different prices to MUL at the same time. The RT 12 returns filed by the assessee had been assessed up to month of October, 1996. It is clear that all the relevant information was available with the department and therefore, the allegation of suppression of relevant facts is totally without any basis. 10. emsp Thus on merits as well as on the ground of limitation demand affirmed by the order impugned is not sustainable. In the result, we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (11) TMI 507 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... s not issued to the applicants. The contention of the revenue in the present application is that opportunity of personal hearing was given to the applicants and there was no necessity to issue the show cause notice while fixing the capacity of furnace under Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error apparent on record while passing the final order. 4. emsp The Tribunal, while passing the final order, came to the conclusion that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal only remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority with certain observations and the contention of the revenue is that the observations are wrong. In this situation the opinion of the revenue cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent on record, which requires rectification in the remand order passed by the Tribunal. The application is rejected.
-
2002 (11) TMI 505 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... Modvat credit has been taken have not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the poor financial condition of the appellants and since the appellants do not have a prima facie case in their favour, we direct them to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks from today and balance amount of duty and penalty shall be waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals. However, it is made clear if the above mentioned amount is not pre-deposited within a period of eight weeks from today, their appeal shall be dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We also waive pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) on Shri Mohsin Khan partner of the appellant firm. We order accordingly. Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 27-1-2003, and for final hearing of the appeal.
-
2002 (11) TMI 504 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Import - DEEC ... ... ... ... ..... erate has already dropped the proceedings vide Order-in-Onginal No. 9/2001-Adjn. Cus., dated 28-11-2001. We also note that the letter dated 20-2-2002 written by the JDGFT, Hyderabad to M/s. U-Foam Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad in their export obligation against the Advance Licence bearing No. P/L/3286996 and DEEC Book bearing No. 021652 both dated 8-10-92 has been discharged in terms of para 126 of the Hand Book (Vol. I) 1992-97. They have also cancelled the Bank Guarantee No. 030/1/93, dated 15-4-1997 which was executed to their bankers in terms of fulfilment of export obligation. 6. emsp In view of the facts and circumstances and the settled law, we remand the case back to the original authority only for the limited purpose of verification whether the export obligation has been fulfilled against the Advance Licence No. P/L/3286996 and DEEC Book No. 021652 both dated 8-10-1992. We, therefore, allow their appeals by way of remand in the above terms by setting aside the impugned order.
-
2002 (11) TMI 503 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty import manifest, unloading of un-manifested goods ... ... ... ... ..... have undertaken on behalf of the master of the vessel on the ground that no individual employee of their Company has been penalised. The Commissioner has taken a lenient view and has not confiscated the goods belonging to the actual importer, but this cannot be taken to mean that the goods are not liable to confiscation under Section 111. I also find that the penalty is imposable in this case on the master of the vessel and consequently on the appellants being his agent under both the clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112. 7. emsp Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner penalising the appellants. However, considering the facts of the case and explanations submitted by the appellants, I reduce the penalty imposed on them from Rs. 1,60,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- and order that pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellants be adjusted against the same. Subject to the above modification in the penalty amount, the appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (11) TMI 502 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Organic surface-active agents - Scouring powder ... ... ... ... ..... be used for industrial purpose, which is mentioned in the note, is emphasised by the representative of the appellant. We do not see how this makes a difference. The note refers in general to the preparations of heading 34.05, and cannot be interpreted to mean that anything that is used for industrial purposes will fall in that heading. Further it is feasible that scouring powder classifiable in this heading may be used to scour sinks, etc., in factories and other industrial sites. 4. emsp Heading 34.02 includes organic surface-active agents mdash preparation other than those of heading 34.01. The explanatory notes make it clear that surface-active preparation classifiable in this heading includes detergents for the textile industry, to eliminate fats and small quantities of alcohol during the manufacture. This description, it appears to us, fits exactly the claim made by the manufacturer of the goods. They are therefore classifiable in heading 34.02. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 501 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... double/multifold yarn from non-duty paid single yarn some yarns are wasted and the assessee clear this waste as ldquo Hard Waste rdquo at nil rate of duty as per Tariff. A perusal of this para itself indicates that the Department accept the position that the single yarn so produced and portion thereof is captively consumed in the manufacture of double/multifold yarn and certain parts at this activity result in waste which is termed as Hard Waste. In this view of the matter, I am not able to agree with the findings arrived at by the ld. Member (Technical) in his order. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the order and finding of the ld. Member (Judicial) that the bar of limitation in this case exists and as extended period cannot be invoked. Reference is answered accordingly. Sd/-(S.S. Sekhon)Member (T) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority order, the appeals are allowed on the point of limitation. Sd/-(V.K. Agrawal)Member (T) Sd/-(Archana Wadhwa)Member (J)Dated 13-11-2002
-
2002 (11) TMI 500 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... atter decision without taking note of the earlier decision has concluded and that too partly on an admission made by the appellant that, the process was manufacture. 3. emsp The departmental representative reiterates the finding of the Commissioner. 4. emsp Since we are only concerned with the penalties imposed on the appellants, we refrain from expressing any view as to whether the activity undertaken by Compusoft and National Control Systems amounted to manufacture or not. So far as the penalty is concerned, we have seen the two decisions that have been cited before us, one holding that the activity amounts to manufacture and other holding that it does not. In the light of the fact that two Benches of the Tribunal themselves have expressed diametrically opposite view, and also taking into consideration that penalty cannot be simultaneously imposed on the partnership firm and its partners, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants. 5. emsp Appeals allowed in part.
............
|
