|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 576 Records
-
2008 (6) TMI 424
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Notification No. 21/2002, Misdeclaration of goods, Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, Redemption of goods under Section 125, Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a), Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, Out-of-turn disposal of the appeal.
Classification of Imported Goods:
The Commissioner of Customs classified stainless steel plates and plate cuttings imported by the appellants as parts of drums under CTH 7310, denying the benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002. However, the Tribunal found that the plates and cuttings were correctly described in the bill of entry and were not parts of drums under Heading 7310. Previous imports under the same notification were allowed, supporting the appellants' claim. The Tribunal noted the description of the goods and the purpose for which they were imported, concluding that the appellants made a prima facie case against confiscation, differential duty demand, and penalty imposition.
Misdeclaration of Goods:
The assessing authority alleged misdeclaration of the goods based on the proposed classification under SH 7310 29 90, which was confirmed by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal observed that the plates and plate cuttings imported by the appellants were correctly described in the bill of entry as "STAINLESS STEEL PLATES, PLATE CUTTINGS," indicating their intended use for manufacturing drums. The Tribunal found no grounds to support the misdeclaration allegations.
Confiscation and Redemption of Goods:
The Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 125. The Tribunal, after examining the records and considering the appellants' case, found a prima facie case against the confiscation, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for all adjudged dues.
Imposition of Penalty:
In addition to confiscation and redemption orders, the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the party under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal, upon finding a prima facie case in favor of the appellants, ordered the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for all adjudged dues, dismissing the early-posting petition due to the stay order.
Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery:
The Tribunal, having found a prima facie case in favor of the appellants regarding the classification, misdeclaration, and confiscation issues, ordered the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for all adjudged dues. The JCDR's submission regarding the unavailability of records did not impact the Tribunal's decision to grant the waiver and stay of recovery, ensuring relief for the appellants.
-
2008 (6) TMI 423
Issues: Revenue's appeal against remand order by Commissioner (Appeals) under amended Section 35A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved the Revenue appealing against the remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the amendment of provisions of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the issue on merits instead of remanding it back to the adjudicating authority. The Ld. SDR representing the Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, where it was held that the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) had been withdrawn by amending Section 35A. The Tribunal found merit in the submissions made by the Ld. SDR, quoting the Supreme Court's decision that the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to exercise the powers of the adjudicating authority in matters of assessment. Therefore, the impugned order remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority was deemed incorrect and unsustainable. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) while keeping all issues open for consideration. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with directions for the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant a personal hearing to both sides before reaching any conclusion.
-
2008 (6) TMI 422
Issues: Appeal against order-in-appeal, lack of categorical findings, remand for reconsideration
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the appeal was directed against the order-in-appeal, with the respondent filing a cross-objection as well. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. The Learned DR contended that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) lacked categorical findings regarding the appeal's allowance or rejection. The impugned order highlighted the importance of promoting Ayurveda and herbal products due to the depletion of natural resources. However, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) only concluded that the appeal should be admitted and the original order was infructuous, without expressing any views on the case's merits. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the order incorrect and set it aside, instructing the Commissioner (Appeals) to issue a detailed order after reconsidering the matter and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The appeal was allowed for remand, and the cross-objection supporting the impugned order was also disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (6) TMI 421
Issues: Unauthorized import of second-hand machine without specific import license, incorrect declaration of machine value, loading of value by Commissioner, confiscation of machine, redemption fine, personal penalty.
In this case, the appellants imported a second-hand machine and spares without the required import license, leading to the unauthorized import of goods. The machine's declared value was disputed as it did not align with the estimated value provided by M/s. SGS, Italy. The Commissioner enhanced the machine's value to Rs. 32,19,402 after granting a 70% depreciation from the original value, based on Circular No. 495/16/93-Cus. The appellants contested this valuation, citing Circulars 27/98-Cus. and 43/98-Cus., which they believed supported a 90% depreciation. However, the Tribunal found these Circulars irrelevant to the current case, as they pertained to capital goods de-bonded from EOU/EPZ. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the machine but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 4 lakhs and the personal penalty to Rs. 50,000 due to the appellants being the actual users of the imported machine. The appeal was partly allowed with the modified fines and penalties.
-
2008 (6) TMI 420
Issues involved: Common issue involved in both the appeals regarding imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary:
Issue 1: Refund claim and imposition of penalty
The assessee was entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,94,085 as per the Final Assessment Order. The assessee availed the credit but later debited the amount in the RG-23A Part-II Account upon audit pointing out the irregularity. A show-cause notice was issued proposing to demand the amount and impose a penalty. The Asstt. Commissioner allowed the refund claim before passing the Adjudication Order. The penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee contended that there was no intent to evade payment of duty and cited relevant case laws to support their argument.
Issue 2: Justification of penalty
The Revenue argued that the assessee availed the credit suo moto, which is impermissible under the law, and knowingly committed irregularities, justifying the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.
Judgment:
After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, it was found that the assessee was entitled to the refund as per the Assessment Order. The assessee voluntarily debited the credit upon audit observation, and the Asstt. Commissioner had already allowed the refund before the Adjudication Order. It was concluded that there was no fraudulent activity or intent to evade duty, hence, the penalty under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC of the Act was deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 3-6-2008.)
-
2008 (6) TMI 419
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard a case where the value of imported Acrylic Fibre was disputed. The adjudicating authority increased the value based on another importer's higher value, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The Revenue appealed, presenting an invoice showing a higher value for the same goods from the same supplier. However, the Tribunal noted a significant difference in the quantities imported, with the present respondent importing almost double the quantity mentioned in the invoice relied upon by the Revenue. As quantity impacts the consideration for sale, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding no merit in it.
-
2008 (6) TMI 418
Issues involved: Valuation of goods cleared by respondent-company to another company where the chairman of both companies is the same.
Valuation Issue:
The issue in this case pertains to the valuation of goods cleared by the respondent-company to another company where the chairman of both companies is the same. The adjudicating authority had held that both companies are related persons and that the price charged was incorrect, leading to a confirmation of differential duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original, emphasizing the lack of documentary evidence proving any extra commercial interest flowing between the companies. The Commissioner cited the case of Union of India & Others v. ATIC Industries Ltd. to define the concept of "related person" under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that both companies are related persons, but upon review, it was found that during the relevant period, the judgment in Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CCE was applicable. The Supreme Court in that case clarified that mere shareholding or common directors between companies does not establish them as related persons. Therefore, the impugned order holding that the companies were not related persons and the assessable value was correctly determined was upheld, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals and the disposal of the Cross Objections filed by the respondents.
-
2008 (6) TMI 417
Extension of Stay of order - Held that: - where the stay has been extended till disposal of appeal, and not for a limited period, it is none of the business of the Department to insist on payment of duty etc., which is subject matter of the appeal, and any action on the part of officer will be seriously viewed by the Tribunal as an attempt to flout its order
-
2008 (6) TMI 416
Issues:
1. Utilization of Cenvat credit in the metallisation process of polyester film.
2. Whether metallisation of polyester film amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act.
Analysis:
1. The dispute in the appeal revolves around the utilization of Cenvat credit and whether the metallisation process of polyester film constitutes 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand for recovery of Cenvat credit and imposed a penalty, which was later reduced by the Commissioner on appeal.
2. The Appellate Tribunal considered the argument regarding waiver of stay and examined the Supreme Court's decision in Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi. While the Supreme Court held that metallisation does not result in a new product and, therefore, does not amount to manufacture, it was noted that this finding was made due to the lack of evidence on the manufacturing process.
3. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish whether a new and distinct product emerges from the process. As the Revenue failed to provide evidence supporting their claim, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that metallisation does amount to 'manufacture'.
4. The assessee presented detailed information on the metallisation process, highlighting the use of specialized machinery and techniques to create a distinct product suitable for packaging food items. The end-product resulting from this process differs significantly from the original film and is essential for its intended use.
5. The Tribunal acknowledged that previous decisions following Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. were subject to scrutiny, as evidenced by the case of Kuwer Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Noida. The Supreme Court remanded the decision in the latter case to further investigate whether metallisation constitutes 'manufacture'.
6. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. decision is not definitive, and the determination of whether metallisation amounts to 'manufacture' must be based on factual analysis. As such, the question of whether a new product emerges from the metallisation process remains open for consideration.
7. Considering the arguments presented and the lack of conclusive evidence against the assessee's position, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived, and the recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
-
2008 (6) TMI 415
Issues involved: Appeal against differential duty demand on imported Medium Density Fibre Boards (MDF Boards) under Sections 111(m) and 114A of the Customs Act, denial of opportunity for cross-examination, legality of statements recorded by DRI officers, need for remand based on principles of natural justice.
Summary:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order demanding over Rs. 37 lakhs in differential duty on MDF Boards imported from Malaysia. The Commissioner held the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty under Section 114A. The appellant, after clearance of goods, faced investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) based on statements and documents. The appellant sought to cross-examine individuals involved in the case but was denied by the adjudicating authority, leading to an ex parte order by the Commissioner.
The appellant raised various grounds against the show-cause notice and subsequent proceedings, emphasizing the retracted statements, the mysterious death of a key witness, and alleged coercion during statement recording. The appellant also questioned the authorization of DRI officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for natural justice principles to be followed, including the right to cross-examine, file a final reply, and be personally heard.
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to conduct a de novo adjudication, allowing the appellant opportunities for cross-examination and a fair hearing. The legal question regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers was left for the Commissioner to address. The decision was made to ensure a just and transparent resolution of the dispute in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
-
2008 (6) TMI 414
Issues involved: Determination of the period for filing MODVAT declaration u/s Rule 57T(1) in relation to the registration date of the factory or the receipt date of capital goods.
Summary:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai involved the issue of whether the period for filing MODVAT declaration under Rule 57T(1) should be calculated from the registration date of the factory or the receipt date of capital goods. The respondents, engaged in cotton yarn manufacturing, had obtained Central Excise registration on 17-6-1997 and procured capital goods before that date. The MODVAT declaration was filed within 3 months from the registration date but beyond that from the receipt date of capital goods. The question was whether the premises where the capital goods were received could be considered a "factory" at that time. The Tribunal noted that manufacturing activity had not commenced when the capital goods were received, and a place could only be termed a "factory" when manufacturing activity took place. Therefore, the capital goods were deemed to have been received in the factory on 17-6-1997, the registration date. The delay in filing the declaration was rightly condoned by the Assistant Commissioner, and the appellate authority's decision was upheld based on precedent. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 413
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and was dismissed because the case was pending with the Settlement Commission. However, as the Settlement Commission later rejected the application, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
-
2008 (6) TMI 412
Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of Final Order
2. Stay Order from Appellate Court
3. Compliance with Appellate Orders
4. Proceedings against CHA
5. Judicial Discipline and Implementation of Orders
Analysis:
1. Implementation of Final Order:
The appellant filed an application for the implementation of the Final Order dated 19-11-2007. The Tribunal directed the department to provide a report on whether any appeal had been filed against the final order and the reason for non-implementation. Despite the department's claim of filing an appeal, no action was taken within the stipulated time frame. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely implementation of orders and directed the Commissioner to allow the CHA to function as per the final order within seven days.
2. Stay Order from Appellate Court:
The appellant argued that in the absence of a stay order from the High Court, the final order should be implemented. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that appellate orders should be followed diligently by subordinate authorities unless suspended by a competent court. The Tribunal noted that no stay had been obtained against the final order, further highlighting the need for compliance without undue delay.
3. Compliance with Appellate Orders:
The Tribunal highlighted the significance of following appellate orders diligently to avoid harassment to assessees and maintain order in the administration of tax laws. It stressed that subordinate authorities are bound by decisions of higher appellate bodies, and non-compliance can lead to chaos. The Tribunal urged the department to adhere to the principles of judicial discipline and implement orders promptly.
4. Proceedings against CHA:
The Tribunal inquired about any proceedings initiated against the CHA following the final order. It was revealed that no such action had been taken by the Commissionerate, indicating a lack of compliance with the Tribunal's directives. The Tribunal expressed concern over the delay in taking necessary steps against the CHA as per Regulation 20 of the CHALR, 2004.
5. Judicial Discipline and Implementation of Orders:
Considering the observations of the Supreme Court regarding the importance of implementing appellate orders, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the department to promptly execute the final order. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to ensure the CHA's compliance with the final order within seven days, highlighting the necessity of judicial discipline and adherence to legal directives for effective administration of justice.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of timely implementation of final orders, adherence to appellate decisions, and the maintenance of judicial discipline to uphold the rule of law and prevent undue harassment to parties involved.
-
2008 (6) TMI 411
The case involved sales tax collected but not paid to the Sales Tax Authority due to exemption under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The Tribunal held that such sales tax should be included in the assessable value of goods. The duty demand and interest were upheld, but the penalty on the appellants was waived. The appeal was rejected except for the penalty waiver.
-
2008 (6) TMI 410
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Commissioner to demand duty from consignee, Liability of consignor for duty payment on consignments not received, Interpretation of warehousing provisions under Central Excise Rules.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner dated 26-4-04 regarding the movement of petroleum products without payment of duty under bond from refineries to warehouses. The issue arose when certain consignments despatched to an IOC warehouse were not received, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 3,84,02,373. The Commissioner demanded duty on the undelivered consignments, claiming the consignee had constructively received them. The appellant argued that action should only be initiated at the dispatching end, as the consignor had already paid the duty. The Tribunal noted that movements were covered by bonds executed by the consignor, with consignments moved under AR 3A documents without duty payment. The consignee was required to provide a re-warehousing certificate, and the consignor was liable for duty if the certificate confirming receipt was not received within 90 days. The Tribunal held that for consignments not physically received by the consignee, the duty liability remained with the consignor, and action should be taken by the consignor's officer, not the Commissioner of the consignee's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the consignments in question were not physically received at the IOC warehouse in Bathinda, leading to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Ludhiana lacked jurisdiction to demand duty from the Bathinda warehouse. Noting that duty had been paid at the consignor's end, the Tribunal deemed the demand for interest and penalty on the Bathinda warehouse unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of correctly attributing duty liability based on the physical receipt of consignments and the obligations under the warehousing provisions of the Central Excise Rules.
This judgment clarifies the distinction between consignor and consignee responsibilities in cases of undelivered consignments under warehousing provisions. It underscores the necessity for proper documentation and physical receipt of goods to determine duty liability, highlighting the significance of adherence to procedural requirements outlined in the Central Excise Rules for movements under bond. The decision reaffirms the principle that duty payment obligations are tied to physical receipt, ensuring clarity in jurisdictional matters and preventing unjust demands on entities not responsible for the non-receipt of goods.
-
2008 (6) TMI 409
Issues involved: Appeal against denial of benefit of notification No. 51/96-Cus., confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and personal penalty.
Denial of benefit of notification: The appellants, an educational institute affiliated to a university, imported goods claiming benefit of a notification based on an essentiality certificate issued by the university. Subsequently, the university withdrew the essentiality certificate, leading to a show cause notice for recovery of customs duty and confiscation of goods.
Confiscation of goods and penalty: The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, confiscated the goods, and imposed redemption fine and penalty. The appellants argued that they had the essentiality certificate at the time of import, and the subsequent withdrawal should not affect the import. They contended that there was no suppression or misrepresentation in availing the benefit of the notification.
Decision: The Tribunal found that the appellants availed the benefit of the notification based on the essentiality certificate, which was later withdrawn due to the appellants not being recognized as a Ph.D. research center. As they were not entitled to the benefit, the denial of the notification and confirmation of customs duty were upheld. However, considering that the goods were imported with a valid certificate, the Tribunal held that confiscation and penalty were not justified and set them aside. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (6) TMI 408
Penalty - Entire duty paid before issuance of show cause notice - Held that: - There is no finding that the assessee dealt with the raw materials procured under N/N. 43/2001 with an intent to evade payment of duty. The offence found against the appellant is that it had not followed the procedure for movement of raw material to the job worker or for export of finished goods procured under N/N. 43/2001. The original authority had found that the appellant had committed only technical violations, they being a new assessee. In the circumstances, no penalty is called for against the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (6) TMI 407
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard a case where the appellant, a manufacturer of beverages, was using duty paid glass bottles for bottling. The Department claimed duty on broken bottles cleared as scrap, but the Tribunal found the appellant not liable as they were not manufacturing glass bottles intentionally. The Tribunal waived pre-deposit and penalty, staying recovery until appeal disposal. (2008 (6) TMI 407 - CESTAT, New Delhi)
-
2008 (6) TMI 406
Issues involved: Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act for incorrect declaration of country of origin in import documents.
Summary:
The appellant, a representative of a Customs House Agent (CHA), filed an appeal against a penalty of Rs. Five lakhs imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act for incorrect declaration of the country of origin in import documents. The goods imported were compact fluorescent lamps from Malaysia, but the Revenue alleged they were actually from China and liable for anti-dumping duty. The appellant contended that they were not connected with the importer's attempt to evade duty, as the documents were supplied by the importer and no firm in Malaysia existed as mentioned in the invoice. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to verify the country of origin and was therefore liable for the penalty.
Upon review, it was found that the import was indeed from M/s. M.G. International, and the documents were provided by the importer. The appellant later supplied the manufacturer's invoice to the Customs authorities, which indicated Malaysia as the country of origin. However, upon verification, it was discovered that the Malaysian firm mentioned in the invoice did not exist. There was no evidence of the appellant's intention to evade duty or collude with the importer in providing false information. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unsustainable and set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
-
2008 (6) TMI 405
Issues: Misdeclaration of goods description and value, challenge to Commissioner's decision, reliance on NIDB data, contemporaneous import evidence, valuation of goods, waiver of pre-deposit, out-of-turn hearing for appeal.
In this case, the appellants imported semi-refined paraffin wax but labeled it as fully refined paraffin wax. The Customs authorities, after testing samples, found the oil content to be 0.7%, contradicting the declared content of 3 to 3.5%. The authorities framed a case of misdeclaration against the importer, leading to a show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority valued the goods at a higher rate based on Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and NIDB data, confiscating the goods and imposing penalties.
The appellants challenged the Commissioner's decision on various grounds. They argued that the show-cause notice did not rely on NIDB data or global crude oil price hikes. They contended that details of contemporaneous imports from China were not provided, and the standard imports considered were not identical or similar to the subject imports. The appellants also highlighted the lack of information on the oil content of the standard goods in the order. The Commissioner's valuation based on contemporaneous imports was disputed, as the necessary details were not furnished, and the show-cause notice did not mention the global crude oil price hikes. The appellants raised concerns about the enhancement of value without a legally sustainable basis.
Considering the heavy demurrage and detention charges incurred by the appellants due to the continued detention of the goods, an application for out-of-turn hearing and disposal of the appeal was made. The appellants expressed concerns about the perishable nature of the goods, leading to devaluation and consequential loss. Acknowledging the factual aspects and the urgency of the situation, the Tribunal granted the application and scheduled the appeal for an expedited hearing to prevent further financial losses.
In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the misdeclaration of goods, challenges to the Commissioner's decision, reliance on NIDB data, contemporaneous import evidence, valuation issues, waiver of pre-deposit, and the urgent need for an out-of-turn hearing to mitigate financial losses for the appellants.
............
|
9911796707
