|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hat storage tanks and vessels of Iron were classified under the heading - Reservoirs, tanks, vats and similar containers for any material under Heading No. 73.09 of the HSN. Thus, they themselves have agreed that their products were containers. As we have discussed above, the HSN was not relevant for classification of the goods in question before 1-3-1988 and that the goods of the respondents were covered by the Heading No. 73.22 of the BTN and the Central Excise Tariff for the containers, there was only the applicable Heading No. 83.12. 10. emsp Thus, the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras that the goods were classifiable under heading No. 7308.90 was not correct. We consider that the view taken by the Asstt. Collector that the goods manufactured by the assessee were rightly classifiable under Heading No. 8312.90 was correct. 11. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we allow the appeal of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (2) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste and Scrap of Aluminium and Copper ... ... ... ... ..... g the retrospective effect to the Notification No. 246/87-C.E., dated 2-11-1987. In these proceedings, we are not concerned with the period subsequent to 2-11-1987. In fact, the intention as reflected in the amendment on 2-11-1987 makes it clear that for the earlier period, it was not a condition precedent for availing of the benefit under Notification No. 172/84-C.E. (as amended) and Notification No. 182/84-C.E. (as amended) that the benefit will not be applicable if Credit had been taken on the inputs from which such scrap had been generated. 9. emsp As there was applicable Exemption Notification with regard to the waste and scrap, we consider that even in terms of Rule 57F, the appellants were eligible for the benefit of exemption separately provided to them. 10. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into account, we do not agree with the views taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and as a result, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (2) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... ve considered the submissions and perused the judgment and also perused the records. In the present case it is an admitted fact the goods were manufactured by independent contractors and the relationship between them is that of principle to principle basis. On this ground, Collector (Appeals) as well as Collector in the appellant rsquo s own proceedings in some cases have dropped proceedings as per the copy of the order produced and placed in the file. In some other cases which were challenged before the Tribunal, it has been held that the contractors were independent manufacturers and they were manufacturing on the basis of principle to principle basis. In view of this Tribunal rsquo s order and Gujarat High Court rsquo s judgment, the manufacturer of the poles being the contractor, we uphold the appellant rsquo s contention and order that the demand raised be set aside. The confirmation of penalty is also set aside in terms of the judgment cited. Thus the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Packaging material ... ... ... ... ..... ondent ld. Advocate submits that aluminium foils used in the manufacture of tea chest in the factory and instead of putting tea first in the aluminium foils which are subsequently put in the tea chest they lines, the tea chests themselves with aluminium foils and thereafter pack such tea in such tea chest. This make it clear that aluminium foil is used in or in relation to manufacture of tea. 4. emsp We have heard both sides. Once aluminium foils are used as a lining material in the tea chest, we do not understand why such aluminium foils cannot be treated as inputs in or in relation to manufacture of tea. In fact it is contended before us by the ld. Advocate that Collector himself extended the benefit to other tea Estates in his jurisdiction. Since we hold that use of aluminium lining in the manner described above is use in relation to manufacture of package tea, we do not see any infirmity in the order of Collector (Appeals) and, accordingly, the revenue appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Remand - Welding machines ... ... ... ... ..... laim for exemption under Notification 69/87, he has observed, has not been improperly supported by them by indicating that it does not fall under the proviso appended to the notification. We find that Collector (Appeals) in the first instance ought to have arrived at the basic classification of trig torch before classifying it under 98.06. There is also nothing in the appeal papers to indicate whether or not the impugned goods are excluded from purview of Notification 69/87 in the light of exclusion condition set out in the proviso. In view of this, we are of the view that this part of the order would have to be remanded. 6. emsp In the result, we reject the appeal in regard to switches and fuses and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision in regard to trig torch assembly. The appellants shall be heard in person before a decision is taken. The appellants shall be at liberty to produce such additional evidence as they consider would support their case.
-
1997 (2) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Modvat - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... n under Rule 57G filed on 2-3-1987 indicates the Chapter 72 and since the ship-breaking scrap on which modvat is claimed is covered under sub-heading 7215 and non-mention of sub-heading cannot take away substantive right of the assessee. Further she observed that there are connecting documents like the classification list and gate passes which are available for reference. She was also correct in holding that although time limit as such was not specified prior to 6-10-1988 under Rule 57-I, the demand if any, should be raised within a reasonable time subject to provisions of Section 11A as Section 11A is the only provision for raising demand. 5. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, Collector (Appeals) was right in analysing the entire position and holding that department was not right in denying the Modvat credit. Since I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, I uphold the impugned order and in the result appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... product. Thus the contention of the department is not correct in assuming that only that amount of credit of duty of inputs shall be refunded which is equivalent to the duty payable on the final product. In the instant case, we find that the department had conducted investigations after receipt of the refund claim of the respondents herein. There is no dispute that the duty calculated by the respondents herein on unit quantity of the export product is wrong nor there is any finding in the order of the Assistant Collector that the calculation submitted by the respondents in respect of the duty involved on the inputs used in the unit quantity of the export product is wrong. We hold that the duty has been correctly calculated. Since the refund according to Rule 57F(3) is relatable only to the credit of duty taken on inputs, we do not see any legal infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Collector (Appeals). In this view of the matter, we uphold the order and reject the appeals.
-
1997 (2) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name affixed on specified goods as of another person ... ... ... ... ..... was in respect of identical goods. What the Commissioner ought to have considered was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, M/s. Limca Flavour and Fragrance Ltd. were, in fact, eligible to exemption under Notification No. 1/93. If it is contended that they were not eligible to such exemption, the onus was clearly on the Revenue. We are therefore satisfied that the matter would have to go back by way of remand for determining whether, in fact, M/s. Limca Flavour and Fragrance Ltd. where eligible or not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for considering the liability or otherwise of the appellants to pay duty. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for de novo decision in the light of observations made herein before. The appellants shall be heard in person and shall be at liberty to produce such additional evidence before the Commissioner as they consider would support their case.
-
1997 (2) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Transfer of balance on conversion of firm into company ... ... ... ... ..... ind that permission was granted to M/s. Chandra Industries for availing Modvat credit by following the procedure of Rule 57A read with Rule 57G. We also observe that articles of association of the successor company M/s. Chandra Hi-Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. had acquired and taken over as a going concern of the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm and carried on the business conducted by the said partnership firm. We find that the ratio of this decision of the Tribunal cited and relied upon by the appellants covers the present case on all fours. We also observe that the legal position as examined above also covers the situation fully. Following the ratio of this decision, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the transfer of balance amount lying in RG 23A Part II on the date of conersion in the account of M/s. Chandra Industries. 9. emsp In the result, the appeal succeeds. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Glass - Laminated safety glass ... ... ... ... ..... nd adopted in the present case for setting aside the demand. 3. emsp The ld. DR Shri Jangir Singh reiterates the findings in the order of the authorities below. 4. emsp We have heard both sides. The Circular No. 13/94 clearly sets out that if the range of thickness of laminated safety glass is between 6.0 mm to 6.8 mm nominal thickness which has been taken for purposes of working out the duty liability is 6.00 mm. Since in the present case, the thickness of the laminated safety glass manufactured by the appellants ranges between 6.0 mm to 6.4 mm it falls within range covered by the Circular and hence the nominal thickness should be accepted as 6.00 mm. Since the appellants had paid duty on 6.0 mm thickness, no further duty would be payable by them and duty differential demand is therefore, not sustainable. 5. emsp In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the appellants are not subject to any further duty liability, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Money Credit ... ... ... ... ..... obtaining the dated acknowledgement. The safeguards built into Rule 57H for Modvat cases are available in the elaborate Notifications themselves. If these are taken care of, the availment of money credit will be in conformity with the provisions governing Money Credit Scheme. On that note, we set aside the order and allow the appeal subject to the condition that the appellants satisfy the Assistant Commissioner that their taking the credit and utilising it were as permitted in the relevant Notification No. 45/89 and subject to its procedure safeguards. rdquo 11. emsp The ratio of decision of the Tribunal in case of Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries (supra) is fully applicable in present case. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal subject to the condition that appellant satisfy the Assistant Commissioner that their taking the credit and utilising it were as per the Notification No. 46/89, dated 11-10-1989 and subject to its procedural safeguards.
-
1997 (2) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - classification ... ... ... ... ..... re goods included in any of the Headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than Heading nos. 84.85 and 85.48), are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings. Thus, the classification of microphones under Heading No. 85.18 of the new Tariff had been correctly decided by the adjudicating authority. He has already extended the benefit of notification no. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 w.e.f. 2-4-1986. For the period 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986, the issue of applicability to the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 has not been raised by either side before us. Thus, we refrain from passing any judgment on this aspect of the matter and confirm the view taken by the adjudicating authority. 11. emsp The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. PUNWIRE. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of penalty to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). 12. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (2) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... correctly classifiable as other polyesters meriting classification under Heading 3907.99 and not under Heading 29.05 as other Diols is well founded and is upheld. The alternate claim made is for classification under Heading 38.23 covering residual products of chemical or allied industries not elsewhere specified. This claim is also not acceptable because the product as has been pointed out by the Collector (Appeals), is not a mixture of glycols. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is rejected. 11. emsp As there is no dispute that the switches were for motor vehicles but were not otherwise classifiable under Heading 87.08 in view of the section/chapter notes, there is no ground for not classifying them under specific applicable entry on the basis of the common parlance test. 12. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Price List not filed ... ... ... ... ..... ine the duty payable on the said goods intended to be removed on the basis of the said declared price, as intimated by the Assistant Collector (Tech.), Central Excise Collectorate Chandigarh rsquo s letters C.No 38/HQ/TU/6/86/Pt.I/59807, dated 30-9-1986 and 60505 dated 8-10-1986. rdquo the possibility of their belief that they were not required to file any price list even after the Budgetary change which otherwise resulted in the change of tariff structure and by way of providing ad valorem rate of duty instead of specific rate (sic.) and in any case, they have subsequently taken the action as advised. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, I consider that it was more in the nature of a technical lapse and an error which was remediable and condonable. I, therefore, accept that it was a case of bona fide mistake for which no penalty was called for. I, therefore, set aside the penalty and accept the appeal. The appellants should, however, be more careful in future.
-
1997 (2) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... g the quantum of fine as percentage of the value is not a legal order. It is also claimed that quantum of penalty is harsh. Further claim is made that even though PLA did not have sufficient balance, there was sufficient balance in the RG 23 Part-II register to cover the quantum of duty. 4. emsp We have carefully considered these submissions. A procdure exists whereby permission of the Jurisdictional Officer can be taken to take goods out of the licenced premise for the purpose of weighment. This facility was not availed of by the Licencee. Rule 49 requires that no manufactured goods be cleared without payment of duty thereupon. The practice prevalent in that area of such illegal clearance cannot be cited as a defence nor do we find any infirmity in the lower orders prescribing the quantum of fine as percentage of value. Given the value of the goods, the quantum of fine or of penalty cannot be called to be excessive. Thus we find no merits in this appeal and dismiss the same.
-
1997 (2) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cable compound - HFDA 0581 semi-conducting XLPE Cable compound ... ... ... ... ..... ubmissions, the appellants have mentioned about it also, in the absence of any observations by the lower authorities that this variety was also involved in the present case. We however draw support for our conclusion from the technical material cited therein and reasons for the Tribunal rsquo s findings in that case. 17. emsp In our opinion the authorities below have erred in not extending the benefit of Notification No. 196/84 as the imported item as it is an insulating compound used in cable insulating systems. Further, the authorities below have also erred in not recording any observations or findings with respect to the other notification and the question of CVD. I would, therefore, like to observe that it was incorrect on their part to do so and specific findings ought to have been recorded in respect of these aspects as well. 18. emsp With the above observations and findings, the appeals are accepted in respect of HFDA 0581 (XLPE) as already announced in the open court.
-
1997 (2) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Staplers - Benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 125/86-Cus. and 16/85-Cus ... ... ... ... ..... r, we find that Asstt. Collector himself has recorded that importers imported industrial stapling machine. In case of Collector of Customs v. M/s. Continental Exporters - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 312 - Tribunal held that staplers of various types which are capable of being used in packing cases are eligible for benefit of the Notifications 47/84 and 16/85-Cus. Exemption to packing machines is permissible even if such machine may be used as office stationery article or may fall under any heading other than Heading 84.19 of the Customs Tariff Act. The reason for which the Asstt. Collector has not followed the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s Order is that Department has gone in appeal to the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court. This, we find, is not correct approach in such matters. Unless an Order, through proceedings taken at law is set aside, it remains a valid order and has to be followed. 6. emsp Following the ratio of this order, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... rsquo falling under sub-heading 7209.90, 7211.11 and these headings as rightly mentioned by the Ld. DR cover flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel. Therefore this declaration can at best be taken into account for products falling under these headings and sub-headings. The alloy steel rounds with reference to which the modvat credit has been taken do not find any mention either by way of description or by way of indication of heading or sub-heading. The tribunal has no doubt taken a view that the description and other indications in the declaration or accompanying documents etc. should be sufficient to arrive at a correct decision and if necessary more information should be called for. But in this case apparently the product has not been declared even broadly. Therefore, the authorities below were justified in holding that no declaration had been filed. The orders of the authorities below are therefore right in this respect. 10. emsp The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Levy sugar ... ... ... ... ..... st of the customers. Finally the Writ Petition was allowed quashing the levy price fixation by the Government. The High Court also made it clear that the difference between the levy price and the price fixed by the High Court which was required to be deposited in the State Bank of India, would be paid over to the manufacturers. Thus it must be taken that by the intervention of the jurisdictional High Court that the levy price fixed by law was Rs. 147.53. Looking at the matter from a different angle, the High Court having quashed the levy price fixation, it must be taken that during the relevant period there was no valid law fixing the price of the levy sugar and if that be so, Proviso (ii) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act will not be attracted. Either way, the appellant must pay duty on the correct assessable value, namely, Rs. 147.53 per quintal and hence would not be entitled to refund of any duty paid. 4. emsp We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 236 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ned the matter is required to be re-examined and we therefore for this limited purpose while upholding that the goods are liable to duty, remand the matter to the learned lower authority for de novo consideration and decision after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. In the facts and circumstances they are liable to penaly. However taking into consideration that the appellants are manufacturers of the goods on job work basis and the quantum of duty involved we hold that the ends of justice will be met if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). So far as the confiscation of plant and machinery is concerned in the facts and circumstances of the case the confiscation is sustainable in law. However taking into consideration the submissions made and the quantum of duty involved we hold that the ends of justice will be met if the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand). But for the above modification the appeal is otherwise rejected.
............
|
