|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 435 Records
-
1997 (11) TMI 224
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the assessees who manufactured sugar and carpentry products. Duty exemption under Notification 118/75 was granted for goods used in the factory where they were manufactured. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case to support their decision. The impugned orders were set aside, appeals were allowed, and consequential relief was directed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 223
Issues:
1. Whether the goods in question fall under the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act.
2. Whether the activity undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture of snuff on which duty is payable.
3. Whether the appellants are liable to pay duty on the resultant snuff.
4. Whether the matter should be referred to the High Court for its opinion.
Analysis:
1. The Reference Application sought to refer questions to the High Court regarding the application of Re-Chapter Note to T.I. No. 24, contending that the goods do not meet the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) and, therefore, Section 3 as the charging Section is not attracted. The consultant for the appellant argued that the issue is whether the goods are excisable, not the rate of duty. The goods were snuff purchased in bulk, mixed, and sold in various packages without paying duty. The Tribunal found that the activity did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) and that the resultant products would not be liable to duty, reducing the penalty imposed.
2. The appellants were accused of manufacturing snuff without paying duty, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent adjudication confirming duty payment and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal considered Note 2 of Chapter 24 and arguments from both sides, ultimately ruling that the activity did not constitute manufacture. While the duty amount was confirmed, the penalty was reduced. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the excisability of the product and the applicability of duty.
3. Section 35G of the Act provides for the reference of questions of law arising from orders, excluding those related to duty rates or goods' value for assessment purposes. The Tribunal clarified that if the matter relates to duty rates or goods' value, no reference lies, as it would impact the rate of duty. The Tribunal cited precedent to support the broad interpretation of the words 'relating to or in relation to,' emphasizing that these terms are comprehensive and not restrictive. Consequently, the application to refer the matter to the High Court was rejected, and the party was advised to appeal to the Supreme Court if needed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the excisability of the product, the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f), and the limitations on referring questions to the High Court. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in a comprehensive manner and provided guidance on the appropriate course of action for parties dissatisfied with Tribunal rulings.
-
1997 (11) TMI 222
The appeal was filed by M/s. Paisa Fund Glass Works against a duty demand for clearing products at Nil rate after crossing exemption limit. The tribunal found the demand barred by time as proper officer did not verify timely, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. (Case: M/s. Paisa Fund Glass Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune) [1997 (11) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]
-
1997 (11) TMI 221
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in New Delhi regarding the eligibility of Soapstone, Talcom powder, and Steatite for benefits under Notification 23/55. The Tribunal confirmed that Soapstone is eligible for the benefit, citing previous decisions, and dismissed the appeal, stating that all three items are similar and classifiable under 2505 of the Tariff.
-
1997 (11) TMI 220
The case involves the classification of SDPE sacks under Chapter 63 Tariff and benefit under Notification 223/86. The Tribunal remanded the matter to authorities based on Madhya Pradesh High Court's view that SDPE sacks are classified under Chapter 39. The appeal was allowed for remand.
-
1997 (11) TMI 219
Issues:
Challenge to order demanding duty and imposing penalty based on alleged suppression and evasion of duty.
Analysis:
The appellant contested an order from the Additional Collector of Central Excise demanding duty and imposing a penalty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, argued that they had given a declaration for exemption from licensing requirements, including details of goods manufactured. They did not include the value of free supply material from customers, believing they were within the duty exemption limit. Central Excise Officers visited in 1986, but a show cause notice alleging suppression and duty evasion was issued in 1989. The appellant argued that the notice was time-barred, citing Tribunal decisions setting a 6-month limit from the department's knowledge of the offense. The appellant relied on previous High Court judgments regarding job work activities and assessable value. The Supreme Court's decision in Ujagar Prints clarified that material cost should be included. The appellant's bona fide belief, based on past judgments, was deemed plausible, leading to the notice being considered time-barred. The appeal was successful, and the order was set aside.
Conclusion:
The main issue in this case was the challenge against an order demanding duty and imposing a penalty on the appellant for alleged suppression and evasion of duty. The appellant argued that their exclusion of the value of free supply material was based on a bona fide belief, supported by past judgments, that job charges alone constituted the assessable value. The Tribunal found the notice to be time-barred due to the delay in issuance after the department's knowledge of the offense. The appellant's plea was accepted, and the order was set aside, granting them the benefit of doubt.
-
1997 (11) TMI 218
Issues: Classification of imported goods under C.T.H. 8348.20, Heading 8483.90, and Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI
In this case, the main issue was the classification of the imported goods, specifically Reel Rim Module, under different headings - C.T.H. 8348.20, Heading 8483.90, and the application of Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI.
The Respondents imported the goods and claimed assessment under C.T.H. 8348.20, contending that the goods were parts of textile machinery. However, the Assistant Collector classified the goods under Heading 8483.90, rejecting the Respondents' classification. The Collector (Appeals) later considered the functions of the sunflower wheels, noting that power transmission did not occur between the wheels due to independent rotation achieved by intermediate gears. The Collector (Appeals) also highlighted that the wheels were made of Aluminium, indicating their purpose for pulling tow rather than power transmission.
The Revenue argued that gears are specifically classified under Heading 84.83, citing HSN, and contended that the goods could not be classified as parts of textile machinery under Section Note 2(a).
On the other hand, the Respondents argued that since no power was transmitted through the gears, classification under Heading 84.83 should be excluded.
After considering both sides, the Tribunal reviewed the descriptions and functions of the goods. The Assistant Collector's order highlighted that the goods were toothed wheels covered under Heading 84.83, emphasizing Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI, which guided classification. The literature provided by the Respondents described the goods as Sunflower Gearing Unit with Sunflower Wheels, emphasizing the gear mechanism and construction details.
The Tribunal analyzed the HSN Note describing gears and chain sprockets, emphasizing the transmission of rotary movement between gears. The Tribunal noted that Heading 84.83 covered gears, sprockets, flower wheels, and pulleys, regardless of power transmission, and classified the goods under 8483.90. The Tribunal held that the goods, described as gear wheels, fell under Chapter 84.83 and were correctly classified, setting aside the previous order and allowing the Revenue's appeal based on the specific classification criteria outlined in Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI.
In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issue of classification by interpreting the functions and construction of the imported goods in line with the relevant classification headings and notes, ultimately determining the correct classification under C.T.H. 8483.90.
-
1997 (11) TMI 217
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of motor vehicles with chassis and motor vehicles with body under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Whether the process of fitting Fibre glass reinforced plastic (FRP) body kits on duty-paid chassis constitutes 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of duty on the body building of motor vehicles.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Motor Vehicles with Chassis and Motor Vehicles with Body:
The Revenue contended that motor vehicles with chassis manufactured and cleared by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra fall under Tariff Item 34-I(ii), attracting excise duty at the rate of 30%. When fitted with a body, it becomes a motor vehicle with a body, classifiable under Tariff Item 34-I(ii)(ib) of the tariff. The Revenue argued that by fitting FRP body kits on the chassis, a new article, i.e., a motor vehicle with a definite separate identity, comes into existence, thus involving a process of manufacture attracting the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the Process of Fitting FRP Body Kits Constitutes 'Manufacture':
The respondents contended that the motor vehicles brought to their factory by customers/dealers are fully duty-paid and purchased from Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. The respondents argued that they do not carry out any manufacturing activity to make them motor vehicles but only fit the FRP kits as per customers' requirements. The process of fitting the FRP body on the duty-paid chassis does not amount to manufacture. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order observed that the chassis received from customers on payment of duty were motor vehicles and remained so even after fitting the FRP body kit, thus not constituting manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of Duty on the Body Building of Motor Vehicles:
The respondents argued that they are paying duty on the FRP body kits before fitting them onto the vehicles. The Collector of Central Excise noted that parts of the FRP body are cleared from the factory on payment of duty, and there was no need to pay further duty on body building. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions, such as Collector of Central Excise v. Roplas India Ltd., where it was held that converting duty-paid canvas hood jeeps into FRP jeep body does not result in a new product. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh v. Union of India held that building or fabricating a body on a chassis does not constitute manufacturing a motor vehicle. The Supreme Court upheld this view in Collector of Central Excise v. Ram Body Builders.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents are manufacturing motor vehicles. Given the respondents' payment of duty on the FRP body kits before fitting them onto the chassis, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 216
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Chapter 82 or Heading 98.06, Correct rate of duty applicable, Applicability of Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 98, Interpretation of Customs Notification 257/88, Classification of goods as parts of machinery or tools.
In this case, the Collector (Appeals) held that "Tungsten Carbide Drills" should be classified as tools under Chapter 82, not under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery, rejecting the lower authority's duty structure. The respondents imported bevel gear cutting tools assessed under Heading 98.06, claiming they were tools under Chapter sub-heading 8207.90, not parts of machines. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on this classification, setting aside the lower authority's decision.
The learned SDR argued that Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 98 mandates that parts of machinery from specific chapters fall under Heading 98.06, citing Customs Notification 257/88 to exclude Chapter 82 articles. The SDR contended that the imported bevel gear cutting tools, imported before the notification, should be classified under Heading 98.06 with a different duty rate. Referring to past Tribunal decisions, the SDR emphasized that tools deemed parts of machinery are classified under Heading 98.06, not as independent tools.
The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the imported goods, determining that the bevel gear cutting tools were parts of machinery, not standalone tools. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the blades were essential components of machinery, falling under Chapter Heading 98.06 for classification and duty assessment. The Tribunal applied the decision in a similar case involving chipper knives to classify the blades accordingly.
Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Collector (Appeals) order and classifying the bevel gear cutting tools (blades) under Chapter Heading 98.06. The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between tools and parts of machinery for correct classification and duty assessment under the Customs Tariff.
-
1997 (11) TMI 215
Issues: Modvat credit eligibility for pipes and tubes, Asbestos packing, Asbestos fiber, Asbestos packing yarn; Imposition of penalty
In the present case, the issue revolved around the eligibility of Modvat credit for certain items used in the manufacturing process, specifically pipes and tubes, Asbestos packing, Asbestos fiber, and Asbestos packing yarn. The appellants contended that pipes and tubes were integral parts of the sugar plant as they carried cane juice for sugar manufacture. They argued for Modvat credit eligibility on these items. On the other hand, the department disallowed Modvat credit, asserting that the items were not capital goods. The Tribunal analyzed the nature and usage of these items to determine their eligibility for Modvat credit.
Regarding pipes and tubes, the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that they were essential components of the sugar plant, facilitating the sugar manufacturing process by transporting cane juice. The Tribunal concurred with this view, recognizing pipes and tubes as integral parts of the plant eligible for Modvat credit due to their direct involvement in the manufacturing process. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Modvat credit for pipes and tubes, overturning the lower authorities' decision.
In contrast, the eligibility of Asbestos packing, Asbestos fiber, and Asbestos packing yarn for Modvat credit was disputed. The appellants contended that these materials were used to ensure the leak-proof nature of pipes and tubes, thereby constituting essential components of the plant. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that these items were primarily utilized for preventing leakage in pipes and tubes and did not qualify as integral parts of the plant or machinery. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to disallow Modvat credit on Asbestos packing, Asbestos fiber, and Asbestos packing yarn.
Furthermore, the imposition of penalties by the lower authorities was challenged by the appellants, arguing that since the items in question were capital goods eligible for Modvat credit, penalties were unwarranted. The Tribunal assessed the penalty amount and deemed it nominal, declining to intervene in the penalty imposition. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by allowing Modvat credit for pipes and tubes while upholding the denial of Modvat credit for Asbestos packing materials. The impugned order was modified accordingly, maintaining the penalty imposed by the lower authorities.
-
1997 (11) TMI 214
The appeal was filed by Shri S.R. Patel, Technical Manager of Dujodwala Industries challenging a penalty imposed on him by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The Tribunal found that since the appeal of the company was allowed and there was no finding that the Manager played a more prominent role, the penalty on the Manager was set aside. The appeal was allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 213
The appeal was against an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand. The appellant was held liable for duty on freight and insurance invoices. Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that under Notification 120/75, freight and insurance should not be included in assessable value. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 212
The Revenue appealed against the lower authority's classification of Iron & Steel items under Tariff Heading 85.36 for electrical apparatus. The items do not fall under this heading as they do not have a voltage rating and are not for switching electrical circuits. The goods should be classified under Tariff Heading 7307 and 7069 for specific articles of Iron & Steel. The assessment should be based on the description and material of the goods. The plea of the Revenue is allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 211
The appeal concerned the grant of benefit of Notification 71/87 for the import of Joint Air Splicer without ancillary equipment. The Tribunal held that the benefit should be given even if only the Air Splicer is imported, as the notification aims to encourage exports and modernization of textile machinery. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. (Case: 1997 (11) TMI 211 - CEGAT, MADRAS)
-
1997 (11) TMI 210
The case involved a dispute over concessional rates of duty for sugar cleared under an incentive scheme. The Collector (Appeals) directed the Assistant Collector to recalculate the duty liability for the entire period instead of compartmentalizing individual years. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, stating that the benefit of the notification should not be computed separately for each year. The appeal from the Revenue was rejected.
-
1997 (11) TMI 209
Issues:
Benefit of Notification No. 184/86 for duty exemption for goods supplied to Ministry of Defence.
Analysis:
The appeal concerns the entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 184/86, which exempts goods manufactured by specified units for supply to the Ministry of Defence from duty payment. The appellants, not listed in the notification, claim to be job workers for a listed manufacturer, M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (M/s. BEL). They argue that goods manufactured by them, ultimately supplied to the Ministry of Defence by M/s. BEL, should also qualify for the notification's benefit. They rely on a letter from the Chairman of the Central Board of Customs & Central Excise, clarifying that ancillary units and subcontractors supplying goods to the main units listed in the notification should receive the exemption. The appellants assert that similar instructions have been followed in other cases resulting in dropped demands, urging a fresh examination based on this letter.
The department's representative lacks instructions on the letter's applicability and raises concerns about its status as an official Board instruction. The Tribunal notes that the notification specifies duty exemption only for goods manufactured by the listed manufacturers for defence purposes. Acknowledging the appellants' argument that their goods were for supply to M/s. BEL, who then supplied to the Ministry of Defence, the Tribunal highlights the Chairman's letter's significance. However, they emphasize that the letter was issued in the Chairman's capacity and not on behalf of the Board, necessitating an assessment of its binding nature. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal notes that instructions by the Board would bind lower authorities.
The Tribunal expresses uncertainty regarding the circumstances under which the Chairman issued the letter and whether the Board concurred, as the Board is the statutory authority under the Customs Act. Consequently, they decide to set aside the lower authority's order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directs a reevaluation of the Chairman's letter's applicability, considering the context of its issuance and the actions taken in other cases based on the letter. The appeal is thereby decided in favor of remanding the case for a new decision based on the Tribunal's observations.
-
1997 (11) TMI 208
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi considered a stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,78,200/- and penalty of Rs. 17,000. The appellants were alleged to have clandestinely manufactured and removed various iron and steel goods. The Tribunal directed the deposit of Rs. 50,000 towards duty within 8 weeks, with the balance of duty and penalty waived pending appeal. Compliance was to be reported on 28th January 1998.
-
1997 (11) TMI 207
Issues involved:
1. Whether Central Excise duty on yarn is leviable on single yarn at spindle point or on doubled yarn at the time of clearance.
2. Whether duty on sized weight of the yarn is payable or duty is payable on unsized weight of the yarn.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the levy of Central Excise duty on yarn at different stages. The department argued for duty on single yarn at spindle point, citing Supreme Court precedents. However, the respondent contended that duty should be on doubled yarn at clearance, referencing Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court judgment in a specific case, held that duty is leviable on single yarn at the spindle point, not on doubled yarn. Thus, the department succeeded on this issue in all appeals.
2. The second issue concerns the payment of duty on the sized weight of yarn versus the unsized weight. The Supreme Court's decision in a particular case established that duty is payable on the unsized weight of yarn. Consequently, the assessee succeeded on this issue in all appeals.
3. In one of the appeals, a dispute arose regarding the approval of a classification list and subsequent demand. The department erroneously included a demand in its records. The Tribunal found that since the demand was linked to the resolved issue of duty levy on single yarn, which was decided in favor of the department, the demand was sustainable.
4. Another appeal involved a challenge by the department on the issue of duty levy on single yarn at spindle point. The Tribunal allowed the department to raise this point, emphasizing that it was a legal issue and not a new plea. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the duty was held to be leviable on single yarn at the spindle point.
5. The matter of determining the percentage of loss between yarn at the spindle point and clearance stage was also raised. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration, directing the assessee to provide evidence during readjudication. The Tribunal clarified that the main issues in the remaining appeals were consistent with the conclusions reached based on the Supreme Court decisions.
In conclusion, all five appeals were disposed of based on the above determinations.
-
1997 (11) TMI 206
The appeal involved the question of irregular credit taken on duty-paid Blooms, declared as Axle Blooms for Proforma Credit. Lower authorities denied the credit reversal, but the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that there is no distinction in Tariff between Blooms and Axle Blooms. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the objection by the Revenue was hyper-technical, and the demand of duty reversal was barred by time.
-
1997 (11) TMI 205
Issues: Classification of imported components for 25 K.V. Vacuum Circuit Breaker under Customs Tariff Headings 85.35, 85.36, and 85.38 for duty exemption eligibility.
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the rejection of a claim for assessment under Heading 8538.90 with specific notifications for imported components of a 25 K.V. Vacuum Circuit Breaker. The dispute arose as the authorities contended that the goods should be classified under 85.35 instead of 85.36 for duty exemption eligibility. The appellant argued that the goods were covered under the notification description, citing the case of Frick India Ltd. v. U.O.I. for support.
The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that while item 85.38 covers parts of various classifications, the exemption in question is only applicable to goods classifiable under CTH 85.36. The tribunal examined the relevant portion of the notification, which exempted Automatic Circuit Breakers for circuits of 400 volts and above, and noted that the imported goods were components of a 25 K.V. Vacuum Circuit Breaker, indicating a circuit exceeding 1,000 volts, falling under CTH 85.35, not 85.36.
The tribunal emphasized that the exemption applied to parts of circuit breakers for circuits of 400 volts and above falling under Heading 85.36. The judgment clarified that parts by themselves are classified under Heading 85.38 but must be suitable for use with goods under Heading 85.36 to qualify for the exemption. The tribunal distinguished the case of Frick India Ltd. v. U.O.I., stating that the specific classification under Heading 85.36 was crucial for exemption eligibility.
Further, the tribunal analyzed the scope of the notification and emphasized that the mention of CTH 85.36 in the notification indicated the intended exemption for goods within that classification range. The judgment highlighted the distinction between circuit breakers for circuits exceeding 1,000 volts under CTH 85.35 and those for circuits not exceeding 1,000 volts under CTH 85.36, reinforcing the ineligibility of the imported goods for the claimed exemption.
Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, rejecting the appeal based on the classification of the imported components for the 25 K.V. Vacuum Circuit Breaker under CTH 85.35, rendering them ineligible for the duty exemption specified under CTH 85.36.
............
|
9911796707
