|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 995 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ote further that though cross-examination of these witnesses was requested which was not allowed. The demand is also stated to be time-barred. Though the Counsel for the applicants has pleaded financial hardship, however, looking to the facts that the applicant had good business before 1999 he must have sufficient money. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10.0 lac (Rupees ten lac) on or before 12-5-2002. This deposit will be treated as a predeposit in respect of the two stay petitions filed. 6. emsp On compliance of the above directions predeposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty shall be dispensed with and recovery thereof shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeals. 7. emsp Failure to comply with the above directions shall lead to the vacation of the stay and dismissal of the appeals without any further notice. 8. emsp The matters should be listed for reporting compliance on 17-5-2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 994 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Grinding media ... ... ... ... ..... er, Modvat credit on lubricants as inputs under Rule 57A is liable to be allowed where the goods are declared as capital goods under Rule 57Q instead of as inputs under Rule 57A is also involved. We note that a similar question was considered by a Two-Member Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Devyani Beverages Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 1999 (33) RLT 73 wherein the Bench held that the declaration filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 57Q was sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on glass bottles which were inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A. we also hold similar view in the instant case and sustain the appellant rsquo s challenge against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying Modvat credit on the ground that the declaration was not in terms of Rule 57A. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. rdquo In view thereof the assessee rsquo s case is accepted and appeal allowed setting aside the impugned order. Appeal allowed. Stay petition stands disposal of.
-
2002 (2) TMI 992 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... made by both sides with reference to the facts granted unconditional stay as per Order No. 805/2000, dated 15-9-2000 in Stay No. E/st/459/2000 in Appeal No. E/908/2000. 3. emsp Shri Narasimha Murthy, appearing for Revenue fairly conceded that the issue is similar in the case referred to by the other side. In view of this position, he requests both the cases may be posted for final hearing at an early date. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the Chennai Bench while granting stay has followed the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 218 (T). In view of the submissions made by both sides, we are of the view that this is a fit case to grant stay. Accordingly stay application is allowed. The prayer made by both sides for early hearing is considered and accordingly both the connected appeals are posted for regular hearing on 9th April, 2002. Thus this stay application is disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 990 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ut by the supplier. 4. emsp I have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not in dispute that the Modvat credit was taken on the strength of invoices issued by the dealers registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. It is not the case of the Department that the goods were not received by the respondents or the goods were non-duty paid. Non-authentication of an invoice is a curable defect, which can be got rectified from the supplier of the goods. This was the view held by Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramgarh Chinni Mills. I also observe that Commissioner (Appeals) had also allowed the appeal filed by the respondents following the decision in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 185 and Singhal Pesticides v. CCE - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 635 (Tribunal). Following the ratio of these decisions I held that the respondents were eligible to avail of the Modvat credit and accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 988 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Reference to High Court - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... eared from the factory of manufacturer availing Modvat credit, be made applicable to the present issue, where the goods are neither received as packing material nor cleared from the factory as scrap? 2. The assessee received only empty gas cylinder and uses them as storage tanks for storing inputs and whether such empty gas cylinders can be considered as inputs to be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A? 3. emsp None appeared on behalf of the Respondents. However, the respondents requested for an adjournment on the ground that the Tribunal has relied upon the earlier case of West Coast Industrial Gases which is pending before the Supreme Court. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the questions involved herein have already been considered and answered by the Supreme Court. Following the ratio of the same, we are not inclined to refer the above questions to High Court. Accordingly, the reference application filed by the Revenue is hereby rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 965 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... B) holding that such items are eligible inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and he submits that notwithstanding the non-filing of a separate declaration under Rule 57A (declaration was filed under Rule 57T), the credit should be allowed on these items treating them as inputs under Rule 57A. 4. emsp The ld. Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the authorities below. 5. emsp On considering the rival submissions and perusing the records and the case law cited before me, I agree with the appellants that credit is available on the items in dispute as they are inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. This plea was also taken before the Commissioner (Appeals) as seen from the impugned order but he has not given any finding on this alternative plea raised before him. 6. emsp In the result, following the decision of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal cited supra, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (2) TMI 963 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... clared by the appellants and the credit is not available. I have considered these submissions. From the facts of the case, it is observed that the appellants are contending that they have made declaration in respect of each item on which the Modvat credit is availed - the only difference being that the names of the items are different in modvatable documents received by the appellants than the ones mentioned in their modvatable declaration. In my view, this discrepancy would be covered by the amended provisions of Rules 57G and 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by Notf. No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 9-2-99. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for reconsideration and passing a de novo order in the light of the ratio of the Tribunal decision as referred to above. The appellants shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity before taking a final view in the matter.
-
2002 (2) TMI 961 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... f Customs - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 93 (T) in support of his contention that since the quantity of fabrics imported by him is more than the invoices relied on in the show cause notice, those imports cannot be treated as contemporary imports. Prima facie we are of the view that the difference in quantity is not so much that we can totally ignore the imports relied on in the show cause notice. Apart from the above, in the present case there is an additional factor that the importer was making payment to a party at Singapore and for such arrangement no justification by way of any acceptable material was given. 5. emsp Taking into consideration all these aspects we are inclined to direct the applicant to deposit a substantial portion of the duty demanded as pre-deposit. 6. emsp The applicant is directed to deposit, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) as pre-deposit within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. 7. emsp To come up for reporting compliance on 22-3-2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 960 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Smuggled goods - Non notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Bearing Corporation. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned DR that the Revenue has discharged its burden of proving the smuggled nature of the goods by recording the statement of Sansar Gupta. As observed by us earlier, the statement does not suggest that the ball bearings in question were smuggled into the country. The law has been settled that in cases of goods not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act or not covered by Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, the Department has to lead the evidence to prove that the goods were imported illicitly into the country. We are of the view that the Revenue has not discharged the initial burden of proving the smuggled nature of the ball bearings in question and the burden has not been shifted to the Appellants. Accordingly we hold that no penalty is imposable on any of the Appellants in the present matters. We, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on all the Appellants.
-
2002 (2) TMI 959 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... l product would be capital goods and therefore qualify for availing Modvat credit. As regards the Modvat credit on H.R. Coils, Shri H.C. Varma, JDR for the appellants relies on the following decisions (i) M/s. Rosa Sugar Works v. C.C.E., Kanpur - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 950 (T) (ii) M/s. Navakarnataka Steels Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belgaum - 2000 (123) E.L.T. 913 (T) 4. emsp In both of the above decisions, it is held that C.T.D. Bars, Angles, Channels, plain plates, Coils, Hot-rolled plates, Joists and H.R. sheets being only in the nature of structural or construction material and used for fabrication/structural purposes are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, the Modvat credit on H.R. coils is not admissible. 5. emsp In view of the above findings, I reject the Revenue appeal as regards Modvat credit on S.S. Tubes and allow same in respect of H.R. Coils. 6. emsp The Revenue appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms.
-
2002 (2) TMI 958 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... n of the Assistant Commissioner. In the instant case, the credit was taken on the strength of original copy of invoice without obtaining prior sanction from the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the duplicate copy of invoice had been lost in transit. This fact is not in dispute. In the case of Avis Electronics (supra), this Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench has clearly held that a manufacturer of final product can take credit on inputs on the strength of original copy of invoice only after satisfying the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that the duplicate copy of the document had been lost in transit and after obtaining his sanction for availing credit on the strength of the original copy. This mandatory requirement under Rule 57G has not been fulfilled in the instant case. The ruling of the Larger Bench has been correctly followed by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the impugned order requires to be upheld. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 957 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... oosa Haji Patrawala (supra) as rightly held by the lower appellate authority. The credit of Rs. 4,31,594/- (which had been disallowed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the invoices covering the goods were not pre-authenticated) has also been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Company Secretary has, in this connection, relied on the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 185 , wherein it was held that non-pre-authentication of invoice was not a valid ground for denial of Modvat credit. No better authority has been cited before me on the point. I am inclined to follow Vikrant Tyres (supra) and hold that the credit of Rs. 4,31,594/- has been rightly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). On both the counts, the Revenue rsquo s appeal fails. 7. emsp In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed, while the Revenue rsquo s appeal is rejected. The assessee will be entitled to consequential reliefs, if any.
-
2002 (2) TMI 956 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... e that the above goods had been used as parts, components or accessories of machines. This finding of the lower appellate authority has not been effectively challenged in the present appeal. The available evidence appears to support the finding that the bars and rods were used as structural materials for civil foundation work attached to the ground. The structural materials which thus became part of immovable property (non-excisable) could not have been held to be eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities below in relation to the credit of Rs. 1,22,601/- taken on structural materials. 5. emsp In the result, the appeal is rejected in respect of the credit of Rs. 1,22,601/-, while it is allowed in respect of the balance amount of credit. The appeal is also allowed in respect of the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. Order dictated and pronounced in open Court on 4-2-2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 955 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... e learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that taking of credit after filing the declaration is a statutory requirement and since this requirement has been complied with the credit was admissible. We do not see any legal infirmity in this finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. emsp The second argument of the Revenue was that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed Modvat credit on the strength of invoices which did not contain complete details. However, when the Departmental Representative was requested to indicate as to which particulars were not indicated in the invoices he could not point out any such particulars nor could he clarify as to how the particulars were incomplete. 7. emsp Thus, we find in ultimate analysis that the allegations of Revenue do not stand when examined critically. In the circumstances, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 952 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... d for manufacture of the final products. The impugned order cannot be accepted as a speaking order. The aspect of use of the goods has necessarily to be examined carefully as mandated by the Supreme Court in Jawahar Mills (supra). 4. emsp I set aside the impugned order to the extent it relates to the items mentioned at Sr. Nos. (i) and (v) in Para 1 above and, as regards the 5 items mentioned at Sr. Nos. ii, iii, iv, vi and vii in Para 1 above, remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for afresh decision, in the light of the Apex Court rsquo s ruling, on the question whether the said 5 items were eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q for Modvat credit. A reasonable opportunity of being heard shall also be given to the assessee on the remanded issue. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed in relation to the goods mentioned at Sr. No. (i) and (v) in Para 1 above and allowed by way of remand in respect of the goods mentioned at Sr. Nos. ii, iii, iv, vi and vii of the said list.
-
2002 (2) TMI 950 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Remand - Order ... ... ... ... ..... e item oxygen is used in the manufacture has merely held that they are capital goods. In the light of the circular noted I am of the considered opinion that the order is not a speaking order. The order-in-original also does not go in detail as to what capital goods are? Ld. Chartered Accountant points out to para 2 of the impugned order wherein it is recorded that the assessee had filed declaration under Rule 57A also. If this be the case then their claim for benefit under Rule 57Q is required to be examined. In the absence of clear cut finding it is but proper that the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to original authority to re-examine both under Rule 57A and 57Q and in the light of its definition and use to which the item is to be noted. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority for de novo consideration. The assessee shall be given opportunity to contest the case and the authorities shall follow the principles of natural justice.
-
2002 (2) TMI 948 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Dutiability - Insufficient declaration ... ... ... ... ..... icient declaration. No proforma of declaration was prescribed under the Modvat rules and the assessee declared and took credit as per interpretations of the same in their own manner. The correct course would have been to verify, whether infact the inputs have gone into the final products and whether the final products have suffered duty as the Modvat Rules 57A very specifically disallowed items and values for which credit could not be taken, and where credit was eligible. In the present order of the lower authorities, we find that this important aspect has not been examined and or a finding arrived at which in our view is required and matter is required to be allowed as remand. 5. emsp In view of our findings, the order is set aside and appeal allowed for de novo adjudication. The appellants have to satisfy the original authority as to how the invoices have been used, showing in the specific terms final products, though they were castings in generic terms as declared by them.
-
2002 (2) TMI 946 - CEGAT, NEW DELH
Rectification of mistake - Error apparent on record ... ... ... ... ..... strial Gases Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 734 (T) has held that the said condition did not debar availing of the exemption in respect of some of the other products and that each specified goods has to be considered separately for the purpose of the condition. 3. emsp Opposing the prayer, Shri R.D. Negi, ld. SDR submitted that such a plea was not taken by the Appellant at the time of hearing of their Appeal by the Tribunal that there was no such averment made by them in their grounds of Appeal. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that the Tribunal in the Final Order No. 510/2001-B has considered the condition No. (i) of Para 2 of Notification No. 8/99 which was omitted by Notification No. 16/99. As such there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, we recall our earlier Order on this ground itself and without going into the other mistakes mentioned in the application. The matter will come up for arguments on 15-2-2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 945 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... Bench judgment of the Tribunal the credit of duty on HSD oil is required to be given as it was an eligible input under Rule 57A. 6. emsp Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal the Revenue filed Revision application before the Hon rsquo ble High Court in Revision No. 19/2000 and the Hon rsquo ble High Court after due hearing directed the Tribunal to draw up the question of law as noted in the reference matter of the Hon rsquo ble High Court for answering the same. 7. emsp Shri A. Jayachandran, learned DR, for the department has produced four sets of paper book for forwarding statement of facts along with the question to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. 8. emsp We have drawn up the above statement of facts along with the question framed as above. The Registry is directed to forward the records to the Registrar of the Hon rsquo ble High Court for placing the matter before the appropriate Bench of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature at Madras for answering the question.
-
2002 (2) TMI 920 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... of invoices from different set of invoice books being maintained at their various despatch points. In this connection he refers to the letter dt. 23-5-94 of the Deputy Commissioner (Technical), Jamshedpur. However, he fairly agrees that the said letter could not be placed before the authorities below inasmuch as the same was misplaced and could be located by them only after making frantic search after the passing of the impugned orders. 4. emsp Inasmuch as the sole ground for imposition of penalty upon the appellant is that they had not taken the requisite permission under the provisions of Rule 57A(6) for maintenance of different sets of invoices and the appellant having now produced the letter granting such permission, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after looking into the said letter so produced by the appellant. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
............
|
