Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - SSI exemption - Interpretation of Statute ... ... ... ... ..... ods manufactured on job work basis. I am unable to understand the reasoning given by the authorities below in denying the notional credit. When once the modvat credit is permissible in respect of the goods received from the job worker on job work basis, I do not understand on what ground notional credit has been denied. The Assistant Collector is not correct in reading the word obtained rsquo as purchased in the absence of any explanation therein. Furthermore, the word obtained rsquo is not forthcoming in the contents of Rule 57B as it was rightly pointed out by the ld. counsel for the appellants relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court with reference to the interpretation of statute, I accept the contention of the party that notional credit in the instant case cannot be denied. In the view I have taken, I accept the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1997 (2) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... containers of base metal. In the absence of any evidence or supporting material, no cognizance could be taken of such a general proposition. 9. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any material to differ with the findings of the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, who has held in para 4 of his order as under ldquo 4. I have carefully gone through the order-in-original, appeal petition and records of personal hearing. Chapter note of Chapter 83 specifies rdquo For the purposes of this chapter, parts of base metal are to be classified with their parent articles. So also the articles manufactured by the party do not figure in Note 2 of Section XV as parts of general use rsquo . All the products i.e. Metal containers of tin sheets, lids, bottoms and tops are, therefore, correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8312.12. I uphold the Assistant Collector rsquo s order in this regard. 10. emsp As a result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... allans also show details of the duty paid. In those circumstances, the Tribunal found no reason for not accepting the challans as proof of a payment of duty by TISCO. 8. emsp I find that the contentions raised by the Consultant have strong force. The Collector (Appeals) in his order has referred to the conditions of the Board rsquo s circular. Having regard to the fact that the challans issued by M/s. Salig Ram Shiv Prasad clearly shows that they were not acting independently but on behalf of TISCO as their principals and the exact quantity and duty involved on the inputs having been shown in the relevant documents, the essential requirements of the Board Circular issued by the Board as well as Rule 57G have been fulfilled. 9. emsp I see no reason to dispute the findings of the Collector (Appeals) in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the records available in the file. The Departmental appeal has, therefore, to fail. The same is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sifter - Benefit under Notification No. 59/87-Cus. not available ... ... ... ... ..... ould not result in the production of a commodity. 4. emsp We have heard both sides. The admitted position is that the impugned machine only sifts coffee granules according to their sizes. It may be one of the process connected with production of a commodity but process does not by itself results in the production of a commodity. It merely helps in marketing a commodity. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that a sifter which merely sifts coffee granules according to their sizes is a machine used for production of a commodity. In the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra), the Tribunal held that Paste Pouring machine, Bobbin insertion machine and capping machine used in manufacture of dry cell batteries are not entitled to benefit of this notification as these machines do not produce a commodity but perform one of the 10 processes carried out for production of batteries. Following the ratio of this judgment we reject the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Suppression of manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... cotton fabrics was not available to the appellants. In this background the Tribunal accepted the defence of the assessees that they were under a bona fide mistaken impression that they were entitled to carry out the processes without any licence and removed the goods without payment of duty and hence there was no intention to contravene the legal provision or to wilfully evade payment of duty. In the present case, the assessees had been availing of the benefit of Notification 175/86 prior to the period in dispute and they continued to clear the goods without payment of duty even after they ceased to be eligible to the benefit thereof. We, therefore, uphold the finding of the suppression of manufacture and clearance of excisable goods with intention to evade payment of duty and consequently hold that the extended period of limitation of 5 years under the proviso to Section 11A is applicable herein. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order in its entirety and reject the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dumate wire - Exemption - Certificate - Raw material - Words and Phrases - Dumet ... ... ... ... ..... clearly indicate that they are eligible to exemption under Notification 345/86 and that dumate wire is used in case of manufacture of ldquo lead in wire rdquo and in other case, in the manufacture of ldquo glass to metal seal rdquo . 9.2 emsp In case of Bombay Chemicals Pvt. v. Union of India and Others - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 171 (Bom.) Bombay High Court held that certificates given by competent authorities cannot be ignored and are binding and these cannot be rejected on the ground that they were issued under mistake or mis-presentation. 10. emsp Considering that Collector (Appeals) in case of earlier import of the same appellant arrived at a categorical finding that lead in wire and glass to metal seal are same goods, the opinion of persons manufacturing these goods, and the certificates produced from competent authorities, we hold that appellants have succeeded in making out a case in their favour. 11. emsp In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... sterlisers rdquo . The function of sterlisers is to destroy all micro organism placed therein and to prevent growth of such organism. From the description of the impugned goods, we find that it is an apparatus for growth and cultivation of cells although the first step is that of sterlisation of the medium. The impugned goods do not attract the description of sterlisers and, therefore, cannot be classified under sub-heading 8419.20. As regards heading 90.27, we find that it covers instruments and apparatus for analysis of physical or chemical phenomenon. The impugned goods are for safeguarding and growing biological specimens. Their function is much more than merely checking of the phenomenon taking place therein, although it, admittedly, is one function thereof. In the absence of any specific heading capable of covering impugned goods, we find that the selection of the residuary classification under 84.79 was appropriate. We find no merit in this appeal and reject the same.
-
1997 (2) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Early hearing - Magic Eye for batteries ... ... ... ... ..... recurring phenomenon is allowed to persist for a long period without a final decision. 3. emsp Ld. DR submits that merely because exports are being affected is no reason for early hearing. As to change in practice of assessment, resorted to by the Deptt., he submits that this matter can be gone into at the time of regular hearing. 4. emsp We have heard both sides. Considering the pleas made before us and the foreign export market, as also the established practice which has been changed, we are of the view that interest of justice demand the matter to be settled at an early date so that a final view in the matter can be taken. 5. emsp At this stage, the Ld. DR submits that he would have to collect the details about the past practice of assessment and also obtain necessary documents, and therefore, even while early hearing is allowed, he may be given sufficient time to enable him to defend his case. 6. emsp Considered. The matter be fixed for regular hearing on 4th July, 1997.
-
1997 (2) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Option when two notifications simultaneously available ... ... ... ... ..... r C/List shows their claim for availment of Notification No. 14/92-C.E. and also indicates that they will be paying duty at a rate of 35 . In the Notification No. 14/92-C.E., there is no condition as to the availability of the benefit of this Notification. This notification was applicable to the goods specified therein. The admitted position is that there is no dispute about the description or the nature of the goods even otherwise, the Tribunal has already held that it is the option of the assessee either to opt for availing credit of duty on inputs under the Modvat scheme or to avail exemption as SSI unit under the relevant notification. Having regard to the discussion, we hold that the assessee was entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 14/92-C.E. by paying duty at a rate of 35 as set out in the relevant entry of the Notification. 5. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (2) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... ch as No. 245/83-C.E., dated 13-1-1983 which provides for deduction of statutory discounts of 15 from the value. 3. emsp Shri Ali has placed before us a copy of final order No. 3837/96-A, dated 11-12-1996 (M/s. Carewell Pharmaceutical v. CCE) which involved identical issue. In this judgement, the Tribunal had held that in such a situation value has to be determined under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Applying the ratio of the decision, we find that the order of the Collector is correct in law. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 265 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ed store room of the factory. In the instant case, it has been submitted by the ld. advocate and it has been urged during the submissions right from the original stage, that the invoices in the present case, have been issued by the stockyard of SAIL which is not a factory it is corresponding to a dealer of the excisable goods whose invoices were accepted as valid duty paying documents. It is always customer rsquo s copy of the invoices issued by the stockyard of SAIL that Modvat credit was taken. 3.2 emsp In view of the factual position on submissions at lower stages, I am inclined to agree with the ld. advocate, that the Modvat credit has been rightly taken subject, of course to verification of this limited fact that the invoices have been issued in the present case by the stockyard of SAIL in terms of Notification 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30th March, 1994. Appeal is thus allowed by remand in terms of aforesaid observations. Consequently, Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
1997 (2) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Modvat - Limitation - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... again amended stipulating the date of commencement of the period of limitation as the date of filing of RT 12 return. Both these departures made in 1988 and 1995 appear to be deliberate and there was no warrant to hold the amendment in 1995 to be clarificatory or retrospective in nature. The present case deals with the situation in the interregnum, namely, subsequent to 6-10-1988 and prior to 16-3-1995 which is squarely covered by the provisions of Rule as amended in 1988. Under this Rule, as it stood at the relevant time, date from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned is the date of Modvat credit and not the date of filing monthly RT 12 return. If time is reckoned from the date of Modvat credit, the notice is barred by limitation in respect of Modvat credit taken during the period under dispute, namely, 6-7-1992 to 20-7-1992. Therefore, the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) is correct. 8. emsp I find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 263 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Amonia paper - Tools ... ... ... ... ..... ished product and therefore, the benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of amonia paper could not be allowed. We, therefore, hold that the lower authority was in error in having allowed the benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of amonia paper. 9. emsp In regard to tools, we find that the description of the goods is not set out in the grounds of appeal nor in the annexure attached to the show cause notice. In the paper book filed before us also, no details are set out in this regard. The lower authority has also not entered any finding in regard to the same. We, therefore, have no option but to remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration and entering a finding as to whether the tools are in the nature which fall within the excluded category after taking note of the nature of the tools, for the purpose of availing the benefit. The appeal is therefore, remanded in the above terms for de novo decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
-
1997 (2) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... y their letter dated 27th Dec. 1987 had sought permission of the department to remove the molasses lying in kutcha pits outside the factory premises. We also observe that on 28-11-1988, the appellants further informed the department that they had to store new molasses in kutcha pits in view of the paucity of space available inside the approved pits. From this, we find that there was no mis-statement or suppression of facts. The assessee had not held back any information in regard to storage of these molasses. Now whether we consider it on the issue of depositing molasses in kutcha pits within the factory or removal of molasses in kutcha pits outside the factory, we find that complete and full information was given to the department. In this view of the matter, we hold that the demand is hit by limitation. 6. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (2) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e required to examine is whether the parts and accessories are parts and accessories included in any of the headings of the Chapter claimed by the appellants and it so, they will merit classification under that heading and if not, then we have to examine them whether they are parts and accessories which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84, 85 or 91. This clearly indicates that if any product is not mentioned as part under the particular chapter heading then we have to see whether it is goods classifiable under Chapters 84, 85 or 91 then the same will be classifiable under that headings. In the instant case, we find that CPU Board is an item under Chapter 84 and not an item so specifically mentioned under Chapter 90. We therefore, hold that the goods have rightly been classified under Chapter sub-heading 8473.30 for purpose of Customs duty and 8473.00 for purpose of countervailing duty. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 260 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Payments to third party ... ... ... ... ..... sioner (Appeals) has decided the case by following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Mahindra and Mahindra - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 481 which, however, is prior to the three Judge decision of Essar Gujarat (supra), and which was a case of valuation under unamended Section 14 of Customs Act read with Customs Valuation Rules, 1963, whereas the Supreme Court decision in Essar Gujarat is under the amended Section 14 and Valuation Rules of 1988 incorporating the GATT concept of assessable value being transaction value of imported goods, and hence distinguishable. As noted above, the respondents had cited and relied upon the Tribunal decision in Essar Gujarat before both the lower authorities which has been upset by the Supreme Court Judgment in Essar Gujarat. 7. emsp In the result the impugned order is set aside with the direction that the assessable value be determined in terms set out above in the light of Supreme Court decision in Essar Gujarat case (supra).
-
1997 (2) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... gment in the case of State of U.P. v. Hajismail Noor Mohd. and Co. - (1988) 3 SCC 398. 3. emsp Ld. DR reiterates the departmental arguments. 4. emsp We have heard both sides. The short point to be considered is whether a certificate required in terms of exemption notification can be submitted subsequently if there has been delay in issue of such certificate. We are of the view that if a substantive condition of notification is satisfied, the benefit cannot be denied merely because a certificate of eligibility was submitted subsequently. In view of this we hold that a certificate in these circumstances could be accepted by Assistant Collector if the certificate otherwise proves the claim of the appellant to exemption. 5. emsp In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Assistant Collector of Customs for deciding the matter de novo to examine whether in terms of exemption notification, proper certificate has been produced in support of their claim.
-
1997 (2) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Screen - Dutiability - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... sed screen with the specific design transferred through the process of sensitisation from the film to the screen, could not be considered as a marketable commodity for the purposes of the central excise levy. In fact, the learned Collector of Central Excise who had adjudicated the matter had not discussed as under which Tariff Heading, the goods were sought to be classified. There is no discussion that how the goods were known in the market and in what manner and to what extent they were a separate identifiable commercial commodity, different from the goods brought from outside. 9. emsp In the facts and circumstances of this case, we consider that the designed nickel screen in the manner in which the design was printed on the coated screen through the process of sensitisation, was not a marketable commodity and in view of this, the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was not correct. 10. emsp As a result, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (2) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... o document subsidiary gate pass is mentioned rsquo . Reading the proviso I find that the Not. No. 16/94-C.E., dated 30-3-1994 specifically lays down that the subsidiary gate pass will be a valid document for taking Modvat credit only if it was issued before 1-4-1994. In the instant case, the admitted position is that subsidiary gate pass No. 440 was issued on 8-4-1994. Thus I find that it is not covered by the proviso to Not. No. 16/94. In the circumstances, I find that a point of law is involved. The question can be formulated as under ldquo Whether subsidiary gate passes issued after 31-3-1994 is a valid document for availing Modvat credit as per Not. No. 16/94-CE (NT), dated 30-3-1994, since the subsidiary gate passes cease to be a prescribed document after 31-3-1994. rdquo Registry is directed to refer the above question of law to the Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court after preparing the statement of the case. In the result, the reference application is allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... ose of registering their contract and the benefit under Chapter Heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff Act. 18. emsp We notice that the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Sarathi Studio Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that the camera for studio films is not eligible for benefit under Project Import Regulation. 19. emsp The Madras High Court in the case of Suresh Colour Labs v. Union of India (supra) held that photographic studio and labs do not fall within the ambit of Project Import. 20. emsp Likewise, Bombay High Court in the case of Subhash Photographics (supra) also held that photographic machinery and the mini lab systems imported by the photographic studios and photographic film processing laboratories are not entitled to the Project Import benefit under Heading 9801 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 21. emsp In that view of the matter, we do not find sufficient force and merit in this case and for the reasons stated, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
............
|