|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 492 Records
-
1998 (2) TMI 297 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ole consideration for the rule (sic) by application of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, the value of the goods should be based on the aggregate of such price and the amount of money value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee. 4. emsp The price paid for application software and training would not form part of the assessable value in terms of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment. Paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (d) of Clause (4) of Section 4 referred to in Rule 5 excludes taxes payable and the amount paid on account of these taxes will have to be deducted in arriving at the assessable value. 5. emsp We therefore allow the appeal in part and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall determine the duty payable on the goods by excluding the value of the application software (only application software), training charges and by arriving ex duty at the price of the value of technical charges. 7. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
1998 (2) TMI 296 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ges, such as expenses on taking zerox copies, typing charges, telegram charges etc. These expenses cannot be regarded as part of the cost of transportation and cannot be included in the assessable value. 6. emsp The last controversy relates to the cost incurred by the transporter for repacking the goods. It is clear that repacking was being done by the transporter only for the purpose of ensuring that the goods were not damaged during transport. There is nothing to indicate that such repacking was ldquo necessary rdquo for the purpose of delivery in the wholesale trade at the factory gate or even at the depot. We, therefore, hold that the cost of repacking cannot be included in the assessable value. 7. emsp The impugned orders are set aside to the extent indicated above and the cases are remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for determining the correct amount of refund, subject, of course, to the provisions of Section 11B(2) of the Act. The appeals are allowed
-
1998 (2) TMI 295 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Fabrics - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... there was no suppression or mis-statement of facts. In that particular case, there was a clear description by the appellant that the item was classifiable under 26AA, but there was no suppression of fact involved in this case. 11. emsp In this particular case, the appellant suppressed the actual fact of manufacturing of tubular fabrics in the circular loom with the aid of power, which is an integral part in the manufacture of the sacks. This is the suppression which they have committed in this case. 12. emsp The learned JDR relied on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 479 (Tribunal) and stated that non-disclosure of true facts amounts to wilful suppression. 13. emsp It is, therefore, seen that when the appellants have suppressed this fact, it amounts to wilful suppression and the longer period is invokable in this case. 14. emsp In the above view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the departmental appeal with consequential relief.
-
1998 (2) TMI 294 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... the appellants have entered into a contract with the customers and as per the customers wish, there was reduction in the price. He, therefore, pointed that this reduction in the price will have to be deducted from the duty. 8. emsp The learned DR pointed out that this aspect has been taken into consideration by the original authority. He pointed out that no evidence has been produced in support of their plea from the customers. But the learned Counsel stated that these reductions were done based on the telephonic talk the appellants had with their customers. 9. emsp We have considered the submissions. The appellants rsquo contention that reduction in the price took place based on the telephonic talk is not acceptable. In order to substantiate their plea, the appellants should have produced some letters from the customers that there was reduction in the price. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, this plea also cannot be accepted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 293 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ods? 2. emsp Heard Shri Rama Rao, learned DR. He stated that the Tribunal in its order held that Modvat credit could not be denied merely on account of deficiency in documents. It was pointed out that certificate is not a prescribed document. 3. emsp Heard the ld. JDR Shri S. Murugandy. He stated that a question of law has arisen in this case. 4. emsp Heard the ld. Advocate Smt. Maithili for the respondents who relied on the decision reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 396. It is now seen that the decision of L and T which was relied on by the Tribunal was followed by the Tribunal. The reference application against that decision of L and T was rejected by the East Regional Bench. Since the Tribunal has relied on that decision and since reference application against that decision is dismissed and in view of the decision relied on by the ld. Advocate, we are of the view that this is not the case where the question of law has arisen. Accordingly, this reference application is rejected.
-
1998 (2) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Precedent - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ressing such a fear is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal, as can be seen from the cited judgments have held that for mere procedural irregularities the Modvat benefit cannot be denied, as can be seen from the observations extracted from Eicher Motors Ltd. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs for which details of sub-headings had been furnished, which tallied with the inputs utilised. Merely because the details of which were not furnished, Modvat cannot be denied. Furthermore, the details had been furnished subsequently and the same had been accepted for subsequent period. There was enough scope for the authorities to have made enquiries on the application dated 3-7-1992, which has not been done and hence for their failure to perform their own function, the appellants cannot be denied the substantive benefit, which is available to them in law. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 291 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... the lower authorities. In that view of the matter, the seizure and absolute confiscation of Indian Currency is required to be set aside in terms of the ratio of the judgments cited by the learned Counsel and on the findings arrived at by this Bench. Ordered accordingly. 10. emsp I notice that the penalty imposed is only Rs. 4,000/-. The learned Advocate submits that in view of the Indian Currency not being confiscable and some items are also not being confiscable, the penalty is required to be reduced. Noting this submission, I reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. 11. emsp In the result, absolute confiscation of items at Sl. Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9(A) and (B) is set aside. All these goods are directed to be returned to the appellant. 12. emsp As regards the other items are concerned, the matter is remanded to the lower authorities for considering the prayer of the appellant for release of the same on imposition of redemption fine. 13. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (2) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r Heading 8536.90. He reiterated the appeal grounds. 3. emsp Heard Shri R. Saroop, learned DR. He drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 184 in the case of Shakun Products v. CCE. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made before us. The point in issue is covered by the above said decision directly. We find that the Tribunal held that these connectors are classifiable under Heading 8544. On perusal of the Heading 8544 it is clear that insulated wires, cables, electric conductors whether or not fitted with connectors are classifiable under the above said heading. In this view of the matter, following the above decision of the Tribunal, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1998 (2) TMI 289 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Lead oxide - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... -in-Original. We observe that this question was not raised before the lower appellate authority and, therefore, the impugned order has not dealt with the question of valuation now attempted to be raised by the ld. Advocate. We also observe that this question has also not been raised before us in the Memo of Appeal submitted by the appellant before the Tribunal. 4. emsp At this stage, ld. Advocate, however, points out that the duty is being demanded on lead oxide and has been sustained by the Tribunal as aforesaid. Therefore the Modvat credit should be given on the lead used in lead oxide which was reversed by them. 5. emsp We agree with this submission of the ld. Advocate. Therefore, the net duty liability i.e. Rs. 33,984.27 minus the Modvat credit that would be available on lead going into the lead oxide involved in the aforesaid liability, would be on the appellant. That amount alone would be recoverable from the appellant. 6. emsp Appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
-
1998 (2) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the appellant was 51 paise per piece. Hence it may be possible that the 1991 prices (June and December) were lower than the 1990 price of 0.70 per dozen adopted by the Collector. Hence we are of the view that it would be in order to apply the rate of Rs. 73.00 per gross (144 pieces) CIF for the subject goods. The assessment has to be finalised on that basis. Penalty is justified. The appellant has resorted to a ruse to declare a low value by using an artificial and ambiguous description ldquo Gross set rdquo for referring to the quantity and claiming it to mean 288 zip fasteners. As we have arrived at a lower assessable value based on the price of Rs. 73 per gross, as compared to the higher value adopted by the Collector in the impugned order, reduction in the quantum of penalty is called for. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs) to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh). The impugned order is modified accordingly and the appeal partly allowed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 287 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Fax machine combined with telephone answering machine ... ... ... ... ..... und that the concerned staff dealing with the matter was not available. We, however, decline to consider his prayer for adjournment, since the issue is in a short compass and could be dis- posed of by hearing the Revenue rsquo s learned Representative. We have consider-ed the pleas advanced by the learned SDR, Shri T. Premkumar. The citations re- lied on by him did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the cases. One of the items, for example, in the case of Peico Electronics and Electricals, was not ex- empt under the relevant notification. However, in the present case, it is admitt- ed to the Revenue that both the Fax Machine and Telephone Answering Mach- ine were separately entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. There is, therefore, no reason not to extend the benefit of the said notification to an article which combines both the aforesaid facilities. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the appeals of the Revenue. Hence, we dismiss the same.
-
1998 (2) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... equired to pay. Therefore the question of filing a declaration prior to the issue being decided does not arise. In such circumstances, the tribunal in a number of cases have held that notwithstanding the fact that no declaration is filed the Modvat credit is allowable. He in this connection relied on the following decisions (1) emsp 1995 (77) E.L.T. 512 (2) emsp 1994 (74) E.L.T. 310 (3) emsp 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563 (Tribunal) 1994 (3) RLT 855 (4) emsp 1996 (86) E.L.T. 74 (5) emsp 1994 (71) E.L.T. 608 6. emsp We have considered the submissions. After considering the same, we are of the view that no question of law as mentioned in the application arises in this case. It is a settled position that once when the duty is demanded the credit can be granted to the appellant subject to the other provisions of the Modvat rules and the duty paying nature of the inputs notwithstanding the fact that no declaration has been filed. In such circumstances, the reference application is rejected.
-
1998 (2) TMI 285 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Iron and steel - Ingot moulds - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rnal documents. We cannot accept the appellant rsquo s contention that ingot moulds manufactured by them for captive use have always a certain percentage which are defective for metallurgical or other reasons and that they have to be scrapped, without any evidence in support of that claim. According y, we hold that the goods cleared were ingot moulds classifiable under sub-heading 8454.00 and liable to be assessed 15 ad valorem. 4.2 emsp We also do not agree with the appellant rsquo s contention that duty has been demand at a price other than the sale value in view of the clear admission in para 20 of the appeal memo. No such plea of fact as now taken before us, was taken in the Appeal memo. In fact, there is a clear admission as aforesaid. 4.3 emsp Regarding the plea of demand being barred by time, we do not find any substance in the appellant rsquo s plea. Ld. JDR rsquo s submissions in para 3.3 are well founded and we uphold the same. 5. emsp In short, Appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... acture of steam. He recorded that water is lifted to an overhead tank about 60 feet high. The water has to be pumped in the boiler at a great pressure. It is obvious that he based his conclusion on an investigation done by him after personal hearing was over without putting the appellants on notice. Once personal hearing had been fixed, the appellants were heard in the matter, the Addl. Collector could not have relied on further investigation conducted by him. If notice had been given to them. They perhaps would have been in a better position to argue the case and plead the circumstances in which their factory works. Carrying out investigation and basing his conclusion thereon without putting the appellants on notice has injected an obvious infirmity in the order. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the concerned Collector for de novo decision after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and observing the principles of natural justice.
-
1998 (2) TMI 283 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... res to be checked up by the concerned Range Office and, therefore, he would have no objection if the matter is remanded. 6. emsp I agree with the submissions of the ld. JDR that the matter requires to be re-examined in the light of the submissions made by the ld. Advocate. I would, therefore, remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify from the Range of origin whether the pre-authentication was made when the correction has been made in the triplicate copy of the gate pass by showing it as ldquo original for carrier rdquo . Even otherwise this can also be verified from the Range Office of origin that the original copy of the relevant gate pass was not issued by the consignor to any other person. In any case, the Range Office of origin can also make an enquiry with the concerned consignor. Therefore, the matter is also remanded on the second point as well. 7. emsp In short, the Appeal is allowed by remand for re-examination in the light of the aforesaid direction.
-
1998 (2) TMI 282 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... that the fact that copy is ldquo duplicate rdquo can be verified by a check from the records of the Range Office of origin from whose jurisdiction the invoice was issued and also by checking with the consignor. 2. emsp Ld SDR. Shri T. Premkumar reiterates the finding of the authorities below. 3. emsp I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I agree with the submission of the ld. Advocate that the matter should be verified as above. Hence, I remand the matter for de novo adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner who should verify the position as above. Appeal is thus allowed by remand. 4. emsp Since Appeal has been disposed of, Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
1998 (2) TMI 281 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI
Export promotion - Value Based Advance Licensing Scheme (VABAL) under exemption Notification No. 203/92-Cus.,
-
1998 (2) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Inputs received whether defective blooms and billets or metal scrap ... ... ... ... ..... TISCO is accepted it follows that these goods have been received by the appellants and therefore, it cannot be held that they have not received billets/blooms of metal and these are only metal scrap. The statement given by Shri Deol is not categorical and the same is required to be seen in the light of the documentary evidence and other submissions of the appellants. In view of the lower authorities procceeding only on the statement and not considering the challans and affidavit and other evidence produced, therefore, it is but proper that the impugned order comprising of two orders-in-original is set aside and matter remanded to the original authorities for de novo consideration. The appellants shall be heard in this matter, who are required to contest the case only on the basis of the original submission and the evidence already produced including the affidavit. The lower authorities shall re-adjudicate the matter after hearing the appellants. The appeals allowed by remand.
-
1998 (2) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... eir behalf and hence we perused the records and considered the D.R. submission. We find that the contention of the Department that the goods are classifiable as parts of electric accumulators was neither substantiated before the Collector (Appeals) nor before us. The Collector (Appeals) has noticed in his order that it was the contention of the respondents/assessee that the strip in question was subject to further processes of manufacture before being used in accumulators. The review order states (as seen from the impugned order) that the goods are used in the manufacture of electric accumulators but this is not backed by any technical material. The Department has not been able to substantiate its case that the goods are classifiable under Heading No. 8507.00 and, therefore there is no case for holding that the goods fall under that Heading with or without the benefit of notification. In these circumstances we hold that the appeal is unsubstantiated and we dismiss it as such.
-
1998 (2) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... invoices in which the address of the Head Office of the Company was given. In this case, we note that there is no dispute about the actual receipt of the goods in the factory and their utilisation thereof. Therefore, the fact that the address recorded in the invoice was that of Head Office of the appellants, unit does not debar them from taking Modvat credit on the strength of this type of documents. Therefore, Modvat credit will be admissible to them in this respect. 20. emsp In so far as imposition of penalty is concerned, we note that a part of the credit has been reversed. Looking to all the facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold that penalty is imposable, but the quantum of penalty is too high. Looking to the totality of the circumstances, we reduce the quantum of penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. 21. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The impugned orders are modified accordingly. Consequential relief if any shall be admissible in accordance with law.
............
|
