|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 101 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat vis-a-vis SSI Exemption - Benefit of Notification No. 75/87-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... contemplated in clause B of the para 1 of the said Notification 75/87, and thus the manufacture and clearance have borne the burden of excise duty. The contention of the appellant that excise authorities have no grouse as the duty on the goods is clear. It is held in the light of the availment of benefit under the said notification. The option given under the ruling 1990 (47) E.L.T. 389 is for the full benefit under the notification. As held by the Collector (Appeals), the appellant is entitled to Modvat credit in the later event when he has paid the duty under the second stage under the notification. So the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The grounds urged by the appellant are not sufficient and satisfactory to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Collector (Appeals). So the point raised is answered in the negative. Hence I pass the following order Order For the reasons indicated above, the appeal cannot be allowed and it is rejected.
-
1999 (1) TMI 100 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... M/s. Jay Krishna Prints (Final Order No. 962/98-D, dated 9-12-1998) in which the Tribunal has held that printing frames which are converted flat bed screen made out of nylon bolting cloth fall for classification under Heading 84.42 and covered by the notification issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the result, we hold that the printing frames manufactured by the respondents herein are classifiable under Heading 84.42 and covered by Notification 39/90, dated 10-10-1990 issued under Section 11C of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the appeal rejected.
-
1999 (1) TMI 99 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... me Court decision arising in an Income Tax matter. The relevant portion of the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order is extracted below ldquo In Mohan and Co. v. Collector of Central Excise 1987 (30) E.L.T. 624 the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 (ITR 60) held that Dharmada receipts charged from customers in the invoices do not form part of the normal price specially when it is not used for any other purpose but only for charitable purpose. Therefore it follows that the amount collected shown the the invoice as charity and collected as such, particularly in the absence of any allegation that the amount was used for any purpose other than charity purposes could not be added to the assessable value. The demand confirmed is unsustainable. rdquo 4. emsp Following the Final Order referred to above, we allow the present appeal with consequential relief if any, to the appellants in accordance with the law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 98 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification
... ... ... ... ..... ts rsquo learned Advocate submits that several boards are laminated and then cut to sizes and cleared as such in three pieces - two of length and one of width - in disassembled condition which can be assembled at the site of work as a door frame. A special attention has been drawn to Note 5 to Chapter 44 which as mentioned above, pertains to Heading 44.10 referring to ldquo articles of wood not elsewhere specified. rdquo It is submitted that the product as manufactured and as cleared is nothing but an article of wood and since it has not been specified elsewhere, it clearly falls under Tariff sub-heading 4410.90. We agree with the reasons advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellants. As mentioned above, Tariff sub-heading 4410.90 clearly covers it in view of Chapter Note 5 and this being neither a plain particle board nor a plywood nor a similar laminated wood. As the very name of the product implies, it is an article of wood. 6. Appeal disposed of in the above manner.
-
1999 (1) TMI 97 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Bath oil - eligible for exemption under Notification No. 385/86-C.E. - Interpretation of taxing statute
-
1999 (1) TMI 96 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fference between overnighters and carryons on the one hand and brief cases and suit cases on the other, relates only to size and nomenclature. This being so, the goods have been rightly held to be classifiable under T.I. 48A in view of the language of the entry which is wide enough to cover the goods in question. Since the goods are classifiable under T.I. 48A, the benefit of Notification 182/82 is not available to them. 2. Doctor rsquo s bags There is no dispute on the classification of this item. The item is plastic moulded luggage and hence is to be considered as an article of plastic covered by Notification 182/82. We, therefore, hold that the doctor rsquo s bags manufactured by the appellants herein are entitled to exemption in terms of Notification 182/82. In the result, we uphold the impugned order on classification of overnighters and carryons and set aside the order of denial of benefit of Notification 182/82 to doctor rsquo s bags. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 95 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of Customs duty rdquo . It is possible for us to hold that Section 28 may include the entire provisions of Section 28 including the proviso thereof. The term fraudulently in paragraph 3 of the show cause notice may only indicate the views of the intelligence unit. Assuming for one moment, the term fraudulently is used for the benefit of the department, even then, can we held against the appellant? In our view, we cannot hold against the appellant. In para 13 of the order, the Collector specifically held that the appellant did not try to defraud the Customs department. When we look into the finding given by the Collector, we are of the view that facts found by the Collector cannot be questioned as there is no appeal filed by the department against such a finding. Hence, plea of invoking of larger period cannot be upheld. We are, therefore, of the view that the department has not made out any case. Hence, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any permitted by law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 94 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Custom House Agent’s licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... 1998. The fact of dismissal of the employee by appellant was also been communicated to the Custom House in December, 1998. In the absence of any material, whatsoever, to show either the involvement of any of the Director or even any other employee of the appellant in the involvement of the fraud stated to have been committed, we do not find any justification for invoking the provisions of Regulation 21(2). We are also not able to get a satisfactory answer as to the progress of the enquiry and as to when the notice contemplated under Rule 23 will be issued. The only answer was the matter was taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is not even clear whether that agency has been reminded. 6. Taking all these into account we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner suspending the license. However, we make it clear that this order does not purport to restrain the Commissioner, if so advised, from exercising of the powers under Rule 23(3).
-
1999 (1) TMI 93 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... licant rsquo s favour. The goods have been certified by the Drug Controller, Ahmedabad to be manufactured under the licence issued for ayurvedic medicines. Ingredients including coconut and sesame oil are specified in Aryabhishak as ayurvedic texts specified in the 1st Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. There is also some indication on the container as use of the product for dandruff. Prima facie the issue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. The demand for duty is also for a period covered by an approved classification list i.e. prior to the change of the classification and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Cotspun Ltd. - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 24, this issue also favours the applicant rsquo s case. 5. We therefore waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery. 6. emsp The prayer made by the Advocate for early hearing on the ground that there is a recurring effect is accepted and the appeal is listed for hearing sometime in January 1999.
-
1999 (1) TMI 92 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ssions of both the sides. We see no force in the Counsel rsquo s submission that the use of the expression others rsquo in the classification list amounts to disclosure to the Department that the assessees were using not only base fabrics falling under Chapter 52 but also base fabrics falling under other Chapters. The learned DR is correct in his submission that the word others rsquo in the classification list only gives the description of the appellants final product. Further there is nothing on record to substantiate the assessee rsquo s contention of submission of raw material records/registers to the Department throughout the relevant period. Therefore, we agree with the Adjudicating authority that, there has been a mis-classification in the classification list with intent to wrongly avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the Notification which is not available to the appellants. In this view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1999 (1) TMI 91 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Man-made fibres cleared on 2-1-1993 - not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 123/81-C.E.
-
1999 (1) TMI 90 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to Section 4(1)(a) clearly recognises the possibility of different classes of buyers and different prices. The contention of the Revenue that the contract with the MSRTC cannot be extended beyond the date on which the contract with ASRTU was concluded is not supported by any material to show that the parties to the contracts have treated them so. In Annexure V of the Memo of Appeal appellants have shown the details of the payments received by them from MSRTC for clearances covered by GP 1s in January, 1989. This further proves that MSRTC had continued to treat themselves as a different class of buyers from ASRTU. The Department has, on the other hand, failed to show any material to substantiate the claim that ASRTU has been supplying the goods at a uniform price to all its constituents. 9. emsp Having regard to the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. The cross objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (1) TMI 89 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... apparatus or equipment in which they are to be used. Further, the material used varies (special alloys, compositions based on silicon carbide etc.). The lsquo Notes rsquo goes on to say that resistors remain classified here even if specialised for a particular machine or apparatus. 3. emsp We have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions made from both sides. We find that the item in question is a heating element and performs its function of thermal conductivity by functioning as a resistor. The Explanatory Notes relied upon by the learned J.D.R., Shri S.N. Ghosh, specifically includes the resistors made of all materials under Tariff Item 85.16, irrespective of the classification of the apparatus or equipment in which they are to be used. In the circumstances the classification adopted by the Customs was correct. The appellants were not eligible for Notification No. 69/87 also in view of classification under 85.16. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 88 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Rubber compound ... ... ... ... ..... from both sides, it was observed that the burden to prove the marketability of the product is on the revenue, as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). It was observed in that order that the Department has not adduced any evidence to show that the goods are capable of being marketed. In the impugned order, we also find that apart from relying upon the facts that the goods have a shelf-life of 48 hours, no evidence has been adduced by the Department to show the marketibility of the product in question. As the earlier order of the Tribunal is between the same parties setting aside the order of the Commissioner dated 23-5-1994 which has been relied upon by the authorities below in the present appeal, we follow the same and set aside the impugned order after allowing the stay applications un-conditionally. Accordingly, the appeal is also allowed. 5. Appeal as well as stay petition are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (1) TMI 87 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... in the impugned order. In the instant case the impugned order, nowhere those 11 cases have been discussed in the finding portions. Hence we feel that the impugned order suffers legally. One more point, Shri Joshi has invited our attention to the reference of adjudicating authority, the communication received from the Railway Organisation as indicated in page 7 of the impugned order. We are in agreement with the contention raised by Mr. Joshi, that there is a failure of natural justice inasmuch as the department had not given the intimation of the communication received from the railways. 6. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand it back to the lower authority for determination de novo after observing the rules of principle of natural justice. 7. emsp We hereby specifically direct the adjudicating authority to give a copy of the communication received from the railways to the assessee. The appeal is allowed by way of remand after setting aside the impugned order.
-
1999 (1) TMI 86 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... murrage charges, wharfage, container detention charges are being accumulated on day to day basis as the goods are still at the port. 2. Mr. R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 3. emsp After considering the grounds put forward in the application, we think it proper to list the case for early hearing. Accordingly, the same is fixed for hearing on 12th February, 1999.
-
1999 (1) TMI 85 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... .T. 479 (Tribunal). He further submitted that in their case the electrodes were consumables and were used in the finishing of their final products. 4. emsp Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR, reiterated the view taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 5. emsp I have carefully considered the matter. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that welding rods were used for welding the sheets which were used in the furnace. The welding rods were also used for removing the surface defects and minor repairs of their final products. 6. emsp I find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd., supra. The Tribunal had held that the welding electrodes were eligible input for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. emsp Following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, I find that this appeal filed by M/s. K.L. Steels Ltd. merits acceptance. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and order accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 84 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tea - Benefit of Notification No. 193/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... r in so far as the denial of the benefit of Notification 193/1986 for the clearances of package tea upto 2-7-1988 is concerned. 6. emsp Learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority which has been set out above. 7. emsp We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate that since the appellants did not clear the goods under separate gate passes, they had been denied the benefit of the Notification upto 2-7-1988. It is only a script work which was involved and the objection being resorted to by the Department for making different gate passes is only technical in nature. There is no allegation whatsoever that black tea has not been paid duty by the appellants as is clear from the exhibit F. available at page 56 of the paper book. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the appellants subject to verification of the chart of the duty payment made by them in the aforesaid exhibit F. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1999 (1) TMI 83 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... e declaration made by the supplier the party has indicated that the items are classifiable under Heading 8431.00. 3. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. Whether the items in question are classifiable under Heading 8428.10 as claimed by the party before the Tribunal was not an issue before the authorities below. But the classification being a question of law, taking into consideration that it can be raised at any stage, I am of the view that this plea can be admitted at this stage. Further, since the authorities below have not examined the classification issue with reference to the facts, this issue has to go back for reconsideration. Accordingly, I direct the Assistant Commissioner to examine the issue of classification of the products in question and pass an appropriate order according to law after providing the party an opportunity of personal hearing. Thus this appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 82 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Printing frames ... ... ... ... ..... ction for printing textile fabrics shall not be charged for the period 28-2-1986 to 2-9-1987. This exemption was not applicable in the case of printing frames used in any other factory of the same manufacturer manufacturing these frames. On 1-11-1989, Notification 190/89 was issued exempting such printing frames used in any other factory of the same manufacturer subject to following of Chapter X procedure. From the above it is clear the exemption to printing frames used by the appellants in another unit is available only with the issue of Notification 190/89, and hence the authorities below have rightly sanctioned refund claim dated 12-12-1990 only for the period from 1-11-1989 to 18-11-1989 and rejected the balance claim. The contention of the appellants that the Notification 190/89 operates with retrospective effect cannot be accepted in the absence of Notification providing for retrospective effect. 4. emsp In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
....
|
