|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 641 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Demand - Inputs sent for processing ... ... ... ... ..... xport. It is, thus, apparent from sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F that the respondents were entitled to send the tools manufactured by them for the purpose of tin coating to their job workers. There is no force in the submissions of the Revenue that as the tools have attained the essential characteristics of tools these cannot be sent for carrying out further process under Rule 57F(4). We agree with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order to the effect that the reasons for removing of tools was to extend their life period which is covered by Rule 57F(4). It is also not the case of the Revenue that the tools were not used by the respondents in the manufacture of final product. As the removal of the impugned goods was duly covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules no duty of excise was payable by the respondents at the time of removing the tools for the purpose of tin coating. Accordingly the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 639 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... make good the debit entry made by them, which means that the debit entry is liable to be cancelled. This is required to be done by book adjustment in RG 23C Part II records, which the authorities below have allowed the appellants to do. The appellants rsquo grievance that they cannot utilise the amount in question now for payment of duty on the final product, is not justified inasmuch as in any case, they could not have utilised the amount towards payment of duty on the final product as the same would have stood lapsed on 1-8-1997 itself. The appellants have not shown me that because of such debit entry on 31-7-1997, they were compelled to make payment from PLA on that day itself, i.e. before 1-8-1997, and if they would not have debited the amount in question, they would have utilised the same for payment of duty on the final product. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no infirmity in the views taken by the authorities below. Appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 628 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... , hold that repacking of yarn does not amount to manufacture and hence we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 13. emsp In so far as the appeal of the assessee regarding imposition of penalty is concerned we note that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has rendered a finding that sufficient evidence was supplied by the assessee and, therefore, no cause existed for invocation of extended period. Since this aspect has not been agitated in the appeal filed by the Revenue we do not see any reason to ignore this finding. And since the extended period was not invocable to the demand of duty the penalty cannot be imposed as was held by the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. M/s H.M.M. Ltd. (supra). 14. emsp The two appeals are disposed of in the above terms by upholding the impugned order in regard to dropping the demand and setting aside the impugned order in regard to imposition of penalty.
-
2002 (9) TMI 625 - CEGAT, PUNE
Melting scrap ... ... ... ... ..... as finished products like pipes, etc. this could be settled by mutilating the doubtful pieces as requested by the importer. We find that part of the consignment has been so mutilated. Such clearance of the goods have already been permitted by the Commissioner under the Addendum to his Order-in-Original No. 6/Cus./2002, dated 20-2-2002. The appellant is also right in his contention that the mere presence of pipes, angles, etc., is no ground to treat the consignment as other that scrap in view of this Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Global Shiptrade (P) Ltd., case. 8. emsp In view of what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, they are set aside. It is ordered that the consignments may be assessed and cleared according to the declaration filed in the import documents. The appellants shall carry out mutilation of the pipes, angles, rods, etc., according to the direction of Customs authorities at the port.
-
2002 (9) TMI 623 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Paper and paperboard and articles thereof - Cigarette packets - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... Heading 4819.19, they not cover the subject goods. It is not understood how when the flattened or folded cartons and boxes are not covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Vijay Flexible Containers Pvt. Ltd., they are covered by the same wordings to be classified under Heading 4819.90 due to the Tariff amendment to the Heading 4819 by the Budget Proposals of 1996-97. (e) emsp We would find classification under Heading 4823.90 to be more appropriate by applying the rules of classification on the basis of letter and spirit of the Budget Proposals. We do not find, there is any reason to change of classification from under Heading 4823.90, merely because of the Department appeal against the Tribunal rsquo s decision on classification under Heading 4823.90 is pending before the Supreme Court as no order of the Apex Court has been shown to us by both sides. 6. emsp In view of our findings we find no merits in the appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 621 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Confiscation, fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... . SDR for the Revenue that this discount falls foul of the provisions of Rule 4(2) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. We, therefore, hold that the discount of 15 on this count in the FOB value of the imported goods is not admissible to the appellants. In view of the facts before us, however, we do not find any suppression or mis-declaration on the part of the part of importers which would lead to the confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(m) and render the appellants subject to the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, we hold that the invoice price is liable to be loaded by an element of 15 of the value reflected therein on account of this discount being inadmissible as discussed above and the duty is to be charged accordingly by applying the rates of duty separately on the values of the machine and the software. The redemption fine and the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2002 (9) TMI 620 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
EXIM Policy - Car - Whether new or second hand ... ... ... ... ..... er (Appeals) accepting the invoice price for the purpose of assessment as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and also confirm the confiscation of the vehicle with an option of redemption fine of Rs. 1,70,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- which we consider quite reasonable and we do not want to interfere with this portion of the order. The only interference required at our hands is to give finding whether the vehicle is a new vehicle and whether the rate of customs duty has to be applied by treating the impugned car as a new car or a second-hand car. We are of the considered opinion that the car is a new car as it has not been registered and it was not in use and has been supplied by the franchise dealer of the manufacturer of the car and therefore the rate of duty of customs is required to be applied by treating the impugned car as a new car. The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms and we order accordingly, with consequential relief, if any.
-
2002 (9) TMI 618 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... es Ltd. (supra) has allowed the refund of duty to the assessees. In our view, no prima facie case for staying the operation of the order is made out. The equity and balance of convenience also do not warrant that the operation of the order should be stayed by the Tribunal till the reference is answered by the Hon rsquo ble High Court. No hardship would be caused to the Revenue if they are required to refund the duty which they had collected from the assessee. More over, in case they succeed in the reference, they can seek a proper order from the Hon rsquo ble High Court or the Tribunal for the refund of that amount to them, by the assessee. The Revenue will also be at liberty to ask for the interest on that amount, if permissible, under the law. But a mere pendency of the reference on a question of law, in our view, is not a ground to allow the prayer of the Revenue for stay of the impugned final order. We, therefore, reject the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 617 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... epresentative. 4. emsp We find that the issue involved herein has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal holding that the item in question is classifiable under Heading 23.02 in the case of Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, Bangalore and Ors. reported in 2001 (138) E.L.T. 414 (Tri. - LB) 1999 (82) ECR 98 (Tribunal). In view of this settled position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 614 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Order - Binding effect - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... dence of the additional amount of duty (which is sought to be taken as credit) must be passed on to the manufacturer of final products before it can be taken as credit have not been complied with. It is true that the credit was taken on 11-7-1998 whereas the incidence of duty was passed on to the respondent only on 28-9-2000 and 8-11-2000. We however do not consider it necessary to examine whether in such a situation sub-rule (2) will apply or not. This is because the reason that the notice issued to the respondent did not cite this ground for denying the credit. The sole ground in the notice was the applicability of the provisions of Rule 57E(3). Counsel for the respondent is right when he says, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641, that a new case cannot be made out by the Commissioner. We leave it to the Commissioner to pursue, if permitted by law, this aspect of the matter. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 613 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ced by the appellant and held that the goods in question are meant to be fitted in their valve actuators. In the present appeal the Revenue had not produced any evidence to rebut the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the Revenue is only that the importer has claimed different classification at various stages before the adjudicating authority as well as before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue in the present appeal is no where mentioned that the goods are classifiable under different heading other than as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp As the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was held that the valve actuators are classifiable under Heading 8501 of the Customs Tariff. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order regarding classification as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of parts of valve actuators under Heading 85.05 of Tariff. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 612 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification - Confiscation, fine and penalty - Import without licence - Redemption fine - Quantum of
-
2002 (9) TMI 611 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
EXIM - DEEC Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... d and the export in question not de-logged, the appellants have been rightly held to have not fulfilled the condition envisaged in the Notification. The Notification does not say that in a case where there was excess export, any condition thereto can be waived or diluted. The various case laws cited by the appellants do not come to their rescue as the facts and circumstances in those cases are not pari materia with the present case. We observe that the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Textiels Ltd. v. CC, Bombay reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) has held that Exemption/Benefit dependent upon satisfaction of certain conditions cannot be granted unless such conditions are complied with, even if such conditions are only directory. In view of the above findings, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate authority and we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 609 - CEGAT, EKOLKATA
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e name of M/s. Annanda Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. has not been mentioned in the said letter will not make the same as invalid. I also note that the Tribunal in the case of Autolec Industries Ltd. referred (supra) has held that if an assessee brings the duty paid goods of other manufacturer in his factory, which goods are different than the one manufactured in his own factory, no penalty is imposable upon him. Trade notice issued by Vadodara Collectorate Trade Notice No. 99/92, dated 23-12-1992 is also to the effect that permission under Rule 51A is required only in respect of the goods manufactured by an assessee or similar goods manufactured by other manufacturers. Inasmuch as the impugned goods are not similar to the goods manufactured by the appellants, the confiscation of the same and the imposition of the penalty upon the appellants is neither justified nor warranted. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2002 (9) TMI 608 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... at the sale was covered by other challans and turnover sales. In view of these facts the Supreme Court held that the larger period is invokable as it was incumbent on the appellants to file the classification list, entry the production figure in RG-1 to effect the clearances under gate-passes and to disclose the particulars of clearances in RT-12 Returns. In the present matter the department had already issued a show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation and another show cause notice for the normal period and as such facts of the present matter are different. Similarly the ratio of the decision in the BPL case is not applicable as the department was not made aware of the manufacture and clearance of product whereas in the present matter the department was aware of the same. We, therefore, hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts of the present matter. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders on the aspect of time-limit alone.
-
2002 (9) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plastic - Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... ate inventory and accounts of the receipt, use of inputs for the purpose of manufacture of final products cleared under exemption be maintained. We note that the adjudicating authority has examined each aspect legally as well as factually for coming to the conclusion. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner. The same is, therefore, upheld in so far as M/s. Padmini Polymers and Shri Vivek Nagpal and Shri R.K. Chawla are concerned. The same is sustainable in law and we hold accordingly. 12. emsp In so far as the appeal filed by M/s. Padmini Polymers Ltd. is concerned, we find that the amount of redemption fine and penalty is just nominal and the ld. Counsel appearing for M/s. Padmini Polymers in his usual fairness did not press the appeal further. Therefore, the appeal is rejected. 13. emsp In view of the above findings both the appeals one filed by Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Padmini Polymers are rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 605 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty on transporter ... ... ... ... ..... oods were accepted by the transport company for transportation from Delhi to Calcutta and the company was sought to be penalised under Rule 209A of the Rules, it was observed by the Tribunal that for want of any evidence to prove that the transport company had knowledge about the non-duty paid character of the goods, the provisions of Rule 209A of the Rules could not be invoked. To same effect is the proposition of law laid down in Robindra Textile Mills v. CCE, 1992 (60) E.L.T. 481 (T) and Standard Pencils (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 245 (T). 8. emsp Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the discussion made above, no case for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules is made out against any of the appellants. The impugned order of the Commissioner is, therefore, set aside against the appellants in toto. The appeals of the appellants accordingly stand allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 603 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal - Accountal of goods - Confiscation - Seizure - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... at no penalty at all could be imposed on the appellant No. 3 as the goods found stored by him were non-excisable being supari, cannot be accepted. Supari, as observed above, is one of the material ingredients for the manufacture of pan masala. The appellant No. 3 helped the appellant firm in storing supari, in their premises with a full knowledge that it was one of the ingredients for the manufacture of pan masala. The penalty, in our view, had been rightly imposed on appellant No. 3. However, the penalty amount could not be enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- when in the earlier adjudication order which was set aside by the Tribunal (referred to above), was only Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant No. 3. 15. emsp In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner except for modification in the penalty on appellants 2 and 3, is upheld. The appeals of the appellants accordingly stand disposed of, in the above terms.
-
2002 (9) TMI 601 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Non-accountal of goods in RG-1 ... ... ... ... ..... tion was clearly to evade the payment of duty and to clear the excess goods on finding proper time and opportunity, without paying any duty. The shortage of inputs could lead to only one conclusion that they had removed the goods without payment of duty and that is why they readily accepted their liability and debited the duty amount. 8. emsp Therefore, in the light of what has been discussed above, in our view, the provisions of Rule 173Q has been rightly invoked against the appellants for non-accountal of the inputs as well as finished goods in the statutory record. However, since the appellants had already debited the duty amount involved on the inputs found short, we reduce the redemption fine in respect of the confiscation of the goods to Rs. 1,50,000/- and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 9. emsp Except for this modification the redemption fine and penalty, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. The appeal of the appellants accordingly stands disposed of.
-
2002 (9) TMI 599 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, C
Settlement Commission - Case - Application for - Production capacity based duty ... ... ... ... ..... 15/26/2001-SC. The Principal Bench, Delhi have also on a similar issue admitted an application on 20-8-2002 relating to M/s Ashirwad Steels and Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vide their Admission Order No. A-76/CE/2002. Judicial discipline demands that we follow the same line of approach in this matter. Hence by a majority decision, the application is allowed to be proceeded with by virtue of provisions under Section 32D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant shall pay the admitted duty amount of Rs. 2,91,666/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order as required under sub-section(3) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. With the admission of this application, this Bench acquires the exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any Central Excise Officer as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 32-I of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Sd/-(N. Rajagopalan)Vice-Chairman Sd/-(N. Obhrai)Member Sd/-(K.P. Sridhara Raman)Member
............
|
