|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 631 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 680 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... es (P) Ltd. v. CCE, in the case of Khalsa Pulp and Paper Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector, 1997 (92) E.L.T. A76. The Apex Court has endorsed the view of the Tribunal by holding that even if specified goods falling under one of the headings manufactured by the manufacturer exceeds Rs. 15 lakhs and the value of the first clearances of all other specified excisable goods not having exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs, the other goods would continue to enjoy the exemption till the aggregate ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs exemption for first clearances is reached. 6. emsp Keeping in view this ratio of the law, the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) for extending the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 cannot in any manner be said to be erroneous and devoid of law. The clearances of the respondents admittedly did not exceed under all the Chapters, Rs. 30 lakhs, limit prescribed under the said notification. 7. emsp Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 678 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation and Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... norms, the orders are required to be set aside and remanded back to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication. (c) emsp We have considered the question of imposition of Penalty and find that in the facts of this case, the Commissioner is coming to a finding that a misdeclaration was made of the values to the DGFT authorities and thereafter, in his findings, he has not recorded as to how the misdeclaration made to DGFT authorities would call for penal consequences under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the Penalty order is also required to be set aside and remanded back for de novo adjudication. The Collector should come to a clearcut finding as to why he is considering the imposition of Penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 to be called for in the facts of this case. 5. emsp In view of our findings above, the two orders impugned before us are set aside and remanded back for de novo adjudication with liberty to both sides to raise such points as they may be advised.
-
2000 (8) TMI 645 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... oses of countervailing duty. We find that the said issue has since been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Jamshedpur Engineering and Machines Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vide its Order No. A-1306/Cal./2000, dated 14-6-2000 2001 (134) E.L.T. 250 (Tribunal) wherein rolls have been held to be properly classifiable under Heading 8455.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As such, after rejecting request for adjournment, we take up appeal itself and following the ratio of the earlier decision, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (8) TMI 644 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Tea waste - Sample testing ... ... ... ... ..... y one chemical report issued for all the three samples then obviously the contents and characteristics of all the three samples are the same. If the Department has accepted it for one of the samples and have allowed the disposal tea waste I do not find any logic in finding the remaining two samples of the same repot as not conforming to tea waste definitions. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential relief. rdquo 6. emsp The Revenue has challenged the above order on the ground that the appellants have clandestinely removed tea and replaced the same with the teawaste. I do not find any evidence to that effect. As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the definition of tea waste as defined in Tea Waste (Control) Order, 1959 is in consonance with chemical examiner rsquo s report. Nothing more has been produced by the Revenue at the appeal stage. I do not find any reasons to interfere, in the Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s order. The same is accordingly upheld.
-
2000 (8) TMI 643 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 3-1994, would be available to them. 4. emsp We have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR, for the Revenue. We find that Sub-Heading 8482.10 describes the item as ball bearing. The goods imported by the appellants are undisputedly ball bearings. The appellate authority has rightly observed that when there is a specific heading covering a specific item, the goods have to be assessed under the same. The appellants have not shown that the ball bearings imported by them are not for regular use or general purpose ball bearings. The mere fact that the same are required to be used for Electric Motors, will not shift their classification from Chapter 84 to Chapter 85. Similarly, we find that the benefit having been extended to ball bearings imported earlier, for initial setting up of their Unit does not advance the appellants rsquo case, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellants and reject the same.
-
2000 (8) TMI 641 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... re separately sub-classified in sub-heading 8455.30. But the tariff entry 84.55 for the purpose of Central Excise has been framed by making only two sub-classifications. Therefore, Revenue rsquo s reliance on the HSN is inappropriate and thus impermissible. In view thereof, it is incorrect to group the lsquo rolls rsquo in the category of lsquo parts rsquo for the purpose of sub-classification in sub-heading 8455.90. As there are only two sub-headings under Heading 84.55, lsquo rolls rsquo merit classification under the other sub-heading, viz., 8455.10, attracting excise duty 10 ad valorem instead of 15 ad valorem as applicable to sub-heading 8455.90 during the relevant period. 8. emsp In view of the foregoing analysis and discussion, we classify the lsquo rolls rsquo under sub-heading 8455.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Consequently, we set aside the order impugned. 9. emsp In fine, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2000 (8) TMI 640 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Production capacity based duty - Annual Capacity of production ... ... ... ... ..... E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2000 is to be applied with retrospective effect. 11. emsp In view of the noted above, it has acquired finality in these two decisions extracted above, we are of the considered view that there is no need to remand the matter back for re-consideration by the lower authority thereby only increasing his work. Therefore, applying the ratio of our decisions noted above, we are of the considered opinion that since these galleries are not to be included in the dimension of the Hot Air Chamber of the Stenter, therefore irrespective of the period of dispute, the orders impugned need to be set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any as per law. Ordered accordingly. rdquo 3. emsp On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the entire records, we notice that the ratio of the said order clearly applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, applying the ratio of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 639 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Exemption - Exemption - ... ... ... ... ..... ority that the said payment cannot be considered to be replenishment of quantity of goods already cleared is not justified. However, we feel that this factor should be further verified by the Asstt. Commissioner before extending the benefit of the notification in question. The Asstt. Collector will allow the benefit of the notification, if the appellants are able to satisfy him about duty payment on the flex yarn in question. With these observations we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner for the limited purpose of verifying the duty payment particulars in Challan No. T 56/1, dated 27-12-1995. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. As regards the penalty of Rs. 70,000/- we find that even when the benefit of the notification is allowed to the appellants, there has been admittedly a lapse on their part, which deserves to be met with token penalty. Accordingly we reduce the penalty from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and confirm the same.
-
2000 (8) TMI 638 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Benefit of Notification No. 208/83-CE ... ... ... ... ..... since it was obtained by breaking of ship. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure of the applicant to pay about 50 of the duty as ordered by him. 3. emsp The Tribunal in its decision in Maharashtra Steel Industries v. CCE - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 342 could not be denied solely for the reason that no duty had been paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the finished goods it had gone by the fact that there was no requirement in the notification 208/83 that any specific duty has to be paid on the inputs and that payment of nil duty is also been held by the Courts to be payment of duty. The facts before us thus appears to be prima facie covered by the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly the applicant would be entitled to waiver of deposit of duty. 4. emsp We therefore take up the appeal itself for disposal, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the appeal to him for decision on merits without insisting on any deposit.
-
2000 (8) TMI 637 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification of goods - Bituminous mixture - ... ... ... ... ..... ellant rsquo s products in question, no fillers were used. (ii) emsp Bituminous paints and varnishes have got the presence of one or more film producing agents (other than asphalt, bitumen, tar or pitch). In the present case this condition or ingredient is not at all satisfied. The goods in question are made simply by using bitumen, asphalt tar or pitch etc. and diluting the same in solvents. No other film producing agent is used in manufacture of the said goods. iii) emsp The said bituminous mixtures/cut-backs manufactured at the appellant rsquo s factory have got much longer drying time which is in no manner similar to paints or varnishes which dry much faster. We agree with the above submission of the ld. adv. that HSN explanatory notes also support their case. As a result and in view of the foregoing we hold that all the 30 items manufactured by the appellants are properly classifiable under Heading 27.15. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (8) TMI 636 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... us Supreme Court decisions, has held as under - ldquo 15. emsp In the present case also there is no dispute that the goods were manufactured by the contractor namely Jaiswal Engineers and fabricators. Merely because the appellants had provided the land, raw materials and residential accommodation to the contract labourer that by itself is no ground to fasten duty on the appellants. Therefore the Collector rsquo s reasoning that contractor is not the manufacturer is required to be over-ruled in view of the Apex Court judgments and the Tribunal rsquo s judgments noted above. In that view of the matter, the appeal succeeds both on merits and on time bar and hence the Appeal is allowed. rdquo 6. emsp We find that similar set of facts and circumstances exist in the present case. Accordingly we hold that the appellant cannot be considered as a manufacturer. Accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants by setting aside the impugned order-in-original.
-
2000 (8) TMI 635 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... cordingly, the demand if at all, could be raised only for a period of six months from the relevant date. As regards the contention that the duty could not even be raised for the period of six months, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Assotex Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 742 (T) 2000 (39) RLT 254, has held that in case of clearance made as per approved classification list, the demand prior to issuance of show cause notice is sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 110 of Finance Act, 2000. It has been given a retrospective effect. Accordingly, while setting aside the demand for the period prior to the period of six months from the date of issuance of the show cause, we remand the matter for fresh decision in respect of demand of six months based upon the outcome of the remand proceedings classifiable before the Assistant Commissioner. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
2000 (8) TMI 634 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t the purchase order was annexed to the price list which clearly reveals that CR sheets are to be supplied free of cost by M/s. TELCO. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the appellants suppressed or mis-stated with an intention to evade payment of duty. 5. emsp We also find force in the appellants rsquo submissions that in case the duty on the higher value would have been paid by them, M/s. TELCO could have claimed Modvat credit of the same. In such a case result would have been Revenue neutral. In a situation like this it is difficult to hold that the appellants have indulged in lower declaration of assessable value with an intention to evade payment of duty. This was also the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of R.H. Indus. - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 798 (Tribunal) 2000 (36) RLT 848 referred supra. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing we set aside the impugned order on the point of limitation and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (8) TMI 632 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... or under water work or tariff control all to be classified there. We find specially designed T.V. cameras would be covered under this Heading. Therefore the present industrial use camera falls under 8525.30. The finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the leaflet prescribes a ldquo special encasing rdquo for fitting on the cameras before use, which is not challenged in appeal, would indicate that the camera under import is not specially designed but it is only after it is encased in the special fitting the camera provides the specific function. Therefore, we find the imports to be covered under item 8525.30 and 8417.90 excludes them. (e) When the parts are specifically covered under a chapter sub-heading of 85, then they have to be classified under that heading as per Rule 2 to Chapter XVI for classification of parts. Note 4 of Chapter XVI is not applicable in this case. 6. emsp In view of our observation the Commissioner (Appeals) order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 629 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... irti and Co. v. C.C. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 151 (Tribunal) 2000 (39) RLT 485 (CEGAT), Tribunal has reduced the redemption fine imposed in that case to the extent of 100 to 85 of the CIF value by following the ratio of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal wherein 85 redemption fine was held to be reasonable. We note that in the present matters the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is only to the extent of 60 i.e. much lower than imposed in other cases of import of Poppy seeds. As such we do not find any reasons to interfere in the same. 5. emsp In these circumstances we find that imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in the first case and of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in the second case is justified. The adjudicating authority has given reasons for imposing higher penalty in the second case because of repeated imports of Poppy seeds without licence by the said importer. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the same. Accordingly both the appeals are rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nder show cause notice dated 8-9-1989 was through the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise. There was allegation of wilful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty of excise. Thus, we consider that the demand confirmed with reference to that show cause notice dated 8-9-1989 was proper and justified. 17. emsp After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to our above observations with regard to the demands for the months of July, 1988 and August, 1989, we agree with the view taken by the adjudicating authority. However, the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only). Subject to above reduction in the amount of penalty from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only), and the setting aside of the demand for the months of July 1988 and August 1989, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 605 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is order dated 23-9-1992 has classified the goods manufactured by the appellant under Heading 3204.90 of the Tariff. On appeal from that order, the Tribunal, by a majority view of two to one, held that classification of Indrox 985 P-12 requires reconsideration by the Collector (Appeals) in the light of the technical literature produced relating to the products and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The Tribunal rsquo s order indicated that the appeal was only related to this product. So far as the other product Indrox 9 PR-12 is concerned, Collector (Appeals) rsquo s order has thus acquired finality. 2. emsp The position therefore would be that the classification of Indrox 985 P-12 has to be reconsidered as ordered by the Tribunal and classification of the other products would be under Heading 3204.30 as held by the Collector (Appeals). 3. emsp The appeals are therefore disposed with a direction to give effect to the orders of Collector (Appeals) and of the Tribunal according to law.
-
2000 (8) TMI 592 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Iron and Steel products - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... gs and unmachined cast articles cannot be accepted inasmuch as the process of ldquo fettling rdquo refers only to one of the processes known as lsquo thrashing rsquo and not to all the aforementioned processes. As such, the clarification of the Ministry as contained in their letter F. No. 139/35/89-CX.4, dated 1-8-89 does not come to the rescue of the appellants. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court referred to by the appellants is not relevant because the impugned goods, as admitted by the appellants themselves, were subjected to the aforementioned processes. Since the same processes are found mentioned in Notfn. No. 223/88-C.E., and the impugned goods were found to be outside the scope of Notfn. No. 275/88-C.E., the benefit under the latter Notification was rightly denied to the appellants. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order impugned and consequently we reject the appeal.
-
2000 (8) TMI 588 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Open General Licence ... ... ... ... ..... e needs to be imported by an actual user for industrial use. He has however, not pursued his reasoning to its logical conclusion but instead reduced the fine fixed by the Dy. Collector for redeeming the goods which are ordered to be confiscated. 2. emsp Once it is held that the import of the goods could not be objected to on the ground that it did not figure in any of the excluded appendix of the policy the inevitable conclusion is that its eligibility for their import under OGL has been established. That the goods are components and not a complete machine is not denied by the Dy. Collector or Collector (Appeals) nor that the fact that the appellant imported the goods for fitment with for petrol dispensing pump. Therefore the goods satisfy the requirement of being component required by an actual user for an industrial use. There was therefore no cause for confiscation of the goods arise. 3. emsp We therefore set aside impugned order and allow the appeal. Consequential relief.
-
2000 (8) TMI 587 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... cation. Waste and scrap of iron and steel falls under Heading 7204 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff which is not mentioned in Column (2) of the Table annexed to the notification and as such the benefit of the exemption contained therein cannot be extended to the finished products. This was the view taken by the Tribunal in the Poona Rolling Mills case (supra). We also do not agree with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that extended period of limitation as provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is not invokable inasmuch as the Respondents never mentioned in their classification list while claiming the exemption that the final products would be manufactured out of waste and scrap. If they were using waste and scrap, they had not complied with the condition specified in the notification and the fact of using such inputs was suppressed from the Department. 4. emsp We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
............
|
