|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 675 Records
-
2000 (11) TMI 780 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Inputs cleared from supplier’s factory under cover of gate passes - Demand - Limitation
-
2000 (11) TMI 779 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of Clearances - Exemption - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ngs reached by the Collector in the impugned Adjudicating Order. We, therefore, uphold the order as far as clubbing of the clearances is concerned for the purpose of availment of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE by M/s. Unique Industrial Handlers Pvt. Ltd. is concerned. However, we find force in the submissions made by the learned Advocate that no duty would be chargeable in respect of goods which have been exported by M/s. Unique Project Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. The duty is, therefore, to be worked out again after deducting the value of the goods cleared for exports, if any. Consequently, the amount of penalty imposable will also have to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating authority after the amount of duty has been worked out. We, therefore, remand the matters to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of working out duty demand and for purpose of imposing penalty on all the appellants in accordance with law. All the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
-
2000 (11) TMI 776 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Payment of duty - Debit made in the Modvat account - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... n terms of Rule 57CC cannot be adjusted against the subsequent duty liability of the appellant. We do not agree with the above view of the Revenue. Payment under Rule 57CC was also made by debiting the RG-23A part-II amount. If the appellant would have paid entire amount of duty at the time of clearance of their final product, the same debit entry would have occurred, though under different provision of law. However, basicaly it is debit made in the Modvat account which is relevant. Merely because the debit entry was made under Rule 57CC, the same will not take away the character and factum of payment of duty from RG-23A part-II. As such, we hold that the debit entry of Rs. 5,29,413/- made by the appellant has to be adjusted against the total duty amount of Rs. 8,60,295/-. The appellants have already made the payment of balance amount of Rs. 3,30,882/-. As such no further payment is required to be made by the appellant. The impugned orders are set aside and appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 772 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... facture of other dutiable final product i.e. ingot mould. The Revenue has contended in their memo of appeal that the respondents should have paid the duty on moulding boxes and again they should have taken credit under Rule 57Q which has not been done by them. From the above stand of the Revenue one thing becomes clear that the Revenue is not disputing that credit availed on scrap would have travelled to the respondents for discharge of duty on the final product. What they are disputing is that proper procedure has not been adopted by the respondents. The procedure suggested by the Revenue is not under any rule of law and is also revenue neutral. The moulding boxes can safely be held as having been emerged at the Intermediate stage and further used in the manufacture of ingot moulds captively. As such the provisions of Rule 57D would get attracted. No merits are found in the above plea of the Revenue. 6. emsp As a result all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
-
2000 (11) TMI 764 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Inputs - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... be denied on this ground. The same is accordingly allowed. 12. emsp As regards the Modvat credit of Rs. 4,535.00 denied on the basis of wrong name in the invoice, the appellants admit that wrong invoice was handed over to them by the transporter. The said amount is not being challenged by them. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 13. emsp Apart from the foregoing, the appellants have also challenged the show cause notice dated 26-6-1998 on the ground of limitation. Inasmuch as we have allowed the appeal on merits except the portion of Rs. 4,535.00, we do not intend to go into the limitation aspect. 14. emsp As regards the penalty, the same is set aside, inasmuch as the demand has been set aside by us. 15. emsp As a result, duty of Rs. 4,535.00 (Rupees four thousand five hundred thirty-five) only is confirmed against the appellants and the balance amount of duty and penalty confirmed against and imposed upon the appellants are set aside, by allowing the appeal to that extent.
-
2000 (11) TMI 737 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Natural justice - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ix months from the date of issue of show cause notice, the demand is invalid and does not sustain. 11. emsp At the time of passing the stay order, we had asked the assessee as to what would be the duty leviable for the period within the permissible period. Shri Krishnamurthy had mentioned a figure of Rs. 2 lakhs. The actual duty liability will, however, have to be determined by the jurisdictional officer and for this purpose, proceedings will have to be remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner. 12. emsp In view of our findings above, we make the following order A. The demand in excess of the period permissible without invoking the proviso to Section 11A is hit by limitation B. The demand within the permissible period shall be recalculated by the jurisdictional Commissioner in de novo proceedings. C. The jurisdictional Commissioner shall be free to decide on the aspects of penalty leviable on these appellants in the de novo proceedings. 13. emsp Appeals are allowed in part.
-
2000 (11) TMI 736 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... vourable orders from the appellate authority and the credits were utilised only thereafter. In these circumstances merely because a separate register showing the receipt of the capital goods was being maintained by them, the same cannot be made reasoned for denying the Modvat credit. We fully agree with the above submission of the respondents. The effect of maintenance of a separate register is only that the quantum of credit in respect of capital goods received during the pendency of the appeal becomes readily available in case of ultimate success by the assessee. There can be no question of any mala fide on the part of the respondents, which the original adjudicating authority has attributed to them. We also note that such a maintenance of a separate account was with due intimation to the range superintendent. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly we reject the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
2000 (11) TMI 735 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Condonation of delay - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... h Court directed the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. In the background of the history of this case we deem it proper to condone the delay. 6. emsp There is another very strong reason in our condoning the delay and that is the illegality, which permeates the proceedings. Section 45 of the Act as it stood on the date of issue of the show cause notice required the trust to keep records and ensure that the cargo was not removed without the permission of the Customs. In 1995 the section was amended making the trustee liable to pay duty on the pilfered cargo. It goes without saying that this enactment cannot be given retrospective effect. In the face of this fact both lower authorities passed patently wrong orders. We therefore do not confine ourselves to allowing the application but also proceed to decide the appeal in their favour. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Directions are made for consequential relief if any.
-
2000 (11) TMI 734 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... he retention of duty paid on the final product. 6. emsp However, we take note of the appellants rsquo submissions that the impugned demand is barred by limitation. The appellants started taking Modvat credit after filing a declaration under Rule 57G. The observation of the adjudicating authority, that such declaration was filed by mis-interpreting the provisions and with the sole intention to file credit irregularly, does not find favour with us at this stage inasmuch as if the Revenue was of the view that the appellants are not entitled to Modvat credit, the objection should have been raised immediately after filing the declaration. There is no justification for the Revenue to wait for five years to raise the objection and consequent demand of duty. As such, prima facie, we are of the view that the appellant has a good case on the point of limitation. The stay petition is allowed unconditionally. As the huge revenue is involved, we fix the main appeal on 14th December, 2000.
-
2000 (11) TMI 733 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Granulated slag - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ured from outside and Modvat credit would have been availed of rdquo . 10. emsp Reading of the above paragraph shows that the adjudicating authority is moving in the arena of assumptions and presumptions, when he observes that if the appellant would have paid duty on waste and scrap or would have procured the same from outside, then would have availed the Modvat credit of duty. This is clearly not permissible under the law. The fact is that Modvat credit has not been availed by the appellants. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants have duly satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 19/88-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 27/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the appellants. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 11. emsp Inasmuch as the appeal has been allowed on merits we do not intend to deal with the alternative plea of limitation raised by the appellants.
-
2000 (11) TMI 732 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ur 2000 (118) E.L.T. 517 (Tri.) 2000 (39) RLT 272 (CEGAT), the Tribunal held that penalty and redemption fine are not imposable on re-export and confiscated the goods. While issuing the said order, the Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of HCL Hewlett Packard v. CCE, Delhi, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 367 (T) and in the case of Skantrons Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 635 (T). We are of the view that when the goods are allowed to be re-exported, imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the importer is not warranted and also legally not tenable. On perusal of the various case-law and documents on record, we are of the view that the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of stay. We, therefore, grant the prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty. While doing so, we take note of the fact that the said goods are still in the custody of the Customs authorities. 6. emsp The stay petition is thus allowed unconditionally.
-
2000 (11) TMI 731 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... be considered by the authorities while deciding the adjudication and appeal. For failure to do this alone, the case is required to be remanded for a fresh decision, after considering the relevant points. The appellant rsquo s submission that he was not guilty of any mis-declaration since he could not be faulted for declaring the transaction value for assessment also is required to be examined in depth. 6. emsp In view of our observations above, the case is ordered by way of remand to the original authority for a fresh decision and the appeal disposed of accordingly. 7. emsp Since the imported consignment is still pending clearance, this case merits early adjudication. Accordingly, it is directed that the original authority shall reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order at the earliest, and in any case, within 6 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant shall participate in the re-adjudication proceedings and co-operation in the early decision of the case.
-
2000 (11) TMI 730 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit scheme ... ... ... ... ..... acturers and subsequent clearance of the same by them to those very manufacturers, has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. D.K. Processors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) while reversing the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner. In that case, the Tribunal has taken the view that job worker cannot be saddled with the duty liability on the goods received under Rule 57F(4) of the Rules for heat setting and stentering and thereafter returned to the manufacturers, who cleared the same on payment of duty. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, absolving the appellants of the duty liability by reversing the order-in-original of the Asstt. Collector referred to above, is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any illegal infirmity. 6. emsp Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 728 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Dutiability - Articles made during construction of Bridge ... ... ... ... ..... d to judgment in Duncans Industries Ltd. case the Supreme Court has highlighted as to why Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. case decided by the same Court will not be applicable. 11. emsp While deciding the case of Dempo Engineering Services (Appeal No. E/4345/95), we have considered the judgment of the TELCO v. Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 463 paragraph 10 thereof. We are therefore of the view that the products in question are only immovable property and not a movable property. 12. emsp Even if it is assumption these are immovable property can the longer period of limitation be invoked. Show cause notices are silent regarding how suppression has taken place and how the intention to evade payment has been established in this case. We are therefore of the view even on limitation the appellant has strong case because no material has been brought forth by the department as evidence. Appeals are allowed setting aside the impugned orders with consequential relief if any according to law.
-
2000 (11) TMI 724 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... it to rebut the stand taken by the assessee. In para 18 of the Adjudicating Order, the Commissioner has observed that the assessee has evaded duty by means of wilful misstatement and suppression of fact in a very calculated manner to fail to declare the correct assessable value to the Department and therefore he was invoking the larger period of limitation. 18. emsp We are of the view that in view of what is stated in the previous paragraph in the instant case larger period of limitation cannot be invoked, especially when there is absence of findings relating to intention to defraud especially when there is a case of revenue neutrality. Even if it is valued at higher rate at Pune factory, the same credit duty would be available to the assessee when it is removed from Pune to Pithampur factory. The whole case has been wrongly assessed to tax. We are of the view that the order suffers from infirmity, hence it is set aside. Appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
-
2000 (11) TMI 722 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Exemption - Notification No. 171/88-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... it of duty paid on the inputs i.e. blooms, billets, ingots etc. and the waste and scrap in question has arisen during the course of manufacture of the final product which are finished fish plates and bearing plates. As such the Condition No. (i) of the notification in question will apply, which the appellants have failed to satisfy. The arguments of the appellants that waste and scrap has arisen from rough forgings is not convincing inasmuch as it is the entire process of manufacture starting from ingots/billets/blooms up to the stage of emergence of the final product which has to be taken into acount for the purposes of notification in question. Accordingly we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 171/88 was not available to the appellants and the value of clearances of waste and scrap have been rightly held to be includible in the aggregate value of clearances computed for the purposes of Notification No. 1/93. Impugned orders are thus upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (11) TMI 720 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron & Steel products, Notification 202/88-C.E., Scrap input - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... t is not in dispute that the inputs purchased by them were melted for manufacturing their finished product, i.e. S.S. ingots. The Collector (Appeals) relied on the definition of Waste and Scrap as given in Note 6(a) to Section XV of the Tariff according to which Waste and Scrap means ldquo Metal waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals and metal goods not usuable as such because of breakage, cutting up, wear or other reasons. rdquo As the inputs were purchased from the market and these were remelted, the conclusion reached by both the lower authorities that it was nothing but waste and scrap cannot be faulted. The Appellants, except mentioning that the order has been passed on assumption and presumption, has not substantiated their claim that inputs purchased by them were not waste and scrap. For want of the evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned Order and accordingly reject the appeal.
-
2000 (11) TMI 686 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Accountal of goods - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Director, NTC, Shri Pradip Kakkar, Director, NTC, Shri Deepak Atal, Director, NTC, Shri K.K. Mitra, Director, NTC, and Shri S.R. Guha Roy, Factory Manager, NTC, are also liable for penal action under Rules 9(2), 52A, 210 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for unauthorised removals and for contraventions of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as alleged in the show cause notice referred to above, in respect of each of the transactions wherever violations of law and procedural lapses were noticed as evidenced in the show cause notice adjudicating above. No evidence has been produced to show the active involvement of the appellants who are directors of M/s. NTC. Accordingly we are of the view that the penalty imposed upon them are not justified in the absence of any specific role shown to have been played by them. Accordingly the appeals filed by them are allowed. As a result appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected and filed by the appellants are allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 685 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... haped carrier and designed as a part of a digital data processing machine storage falls in Heading 84.73. rdquo 8. emsp Applying the above notes for classification, of such assembly, as in this case when read with note 1(g) of Chapter 91, we have no hesitation to classify sub-assembly under Chapter Heading 9114.00. When we find no reason to support the cryptic finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and after reading HSN notes, we find that item is classifiable under 9114 and the duty as per 9114 as approved in the classification list were paid. We find no reason to uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards of classification of ECB sub-assemblies. 9. emsp In view of our findings, Appeal E/5333/90 is also therefore required to be allowed. Appeal E/SB/5339/95 which is based on the logic of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which we are not upholding in appeal E/5333/90 is also therefore required to be allowed. 10. emsp In view of our findings, appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 684 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - Export - DEEC Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... rtained value attributable to the factors such as expenses incurred towards packing, handling, transportation, interest, margin of profit. As against this, we have examined the method and manner of calculation as explained by the ld. Advocate during the course of personal hearing. But he did not adduce any documentary evidence in respect of cost of production of the exported goods and other expenses. In the absence of any evidence such as certificate of a Chartered Accountant etc., the plea of the ld. Advocate cannot be accepted. The ld. Advocate rsquo s plea that the valuation done by the Customs authorities is not in keeping with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not merit acceptance inasmuch as the provisions of Section 14 ibid., are not applicable to export goods. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the method and manner of fixation of the FOB value by the Commissioner and, accordingly, we uphold the impugned order. 6. emsp The appeal is thus rejected.
............
|
