|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 576 Records
-
2005 (10) TMI 372 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Manufacturer - Processing of grey fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... p their cause as that decision related to a job worker who has been independently processing the goods. In the present case, the Commissioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 499/501 in the case of CST v. Sukhdev wherein the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that a manufacturer is a person ldquo by whom or under whose direction and control, articles or materials are made. rdquo The evidence in the present case suggests that the appellants are the real manufacturers under whose direction and control, the goods were processed. 6. emsp We, therefore, uphold the duty demand confirmed against the appellants. However, confiscation of seized manmade fabrics and the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside in the light of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. UOI - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 (Del.) which has also been upheld by the Apex Court. 7. emsp In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as above.
-
2005 (10) TMI 371 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Digital Imaging System for face X-ray ... ... ... ... ..... . 23/96-Cus., dated 2-6-1998 holding the same to be covered under the expression ldquo Digital Imaging System for face X-ray rdquo in view of the fact that the said goods are made for dental radiography. We are of the view that the order passed by the lower appellate authority does not require any interference. As such, the department rsquo s appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (10) TMI 370 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty - Excess stock of finished goods - Seizure of ... ... ... ... ..... tinely without discharge of duty and since the same is absent, the liability to confiscation of the goods was set aside. (b) emsp On the failure of the Respondents in not entering the goods in the RG1, he reduced the penalty under Rule 173Q to Rs. 2000/-, the maximum prescribed under the rule for non maintenance of correct stock book. (c) emsp The sold ground taken by the Revenue of the goods not entered for a month will not by itself call for establishing an intent. A person intending to clandestinely remove goods without payment of duty, would be quick to remove the same and not await the risk of detection by keeping the same in his factory for over a month unaccounted. (d) emsp No merits are found in Revenue rsquo s appeal to upset the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) order based on correct appreciation of material evidences absence in this case and the application of the case law. 3.1 emsp Consequent to the findings, this appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in Court.)
-
2005 (10) TMI 369 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Re-export ... ... ... ... ..... ence found to have been committed by them, particularly in view of the fact that they were willing to re-export the goods. We reduce the quantum of penalty to Rs. 10,000/- 5. emsp Admittedly, the appellants, before the adjudicating authority, wanted to re-export the hazardous goods. This request was acceded to by that authority. This part of the order of the adjudicating authority was also sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present appeal of the party, there is no mention about re-export. Hence we suppose, the party is still insisting on re-export. We leave this aspect of the case to the original authority, which shall permit the party to re-export the hazardous goods upon fulfilment, by them, of all the legal requirements of re-export. The impugned order will stand modified to the above extent. Subject to this modification as well as to the reduction of penalty the impugned order stands affirmed. The appeal is disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (10) TMI 368 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Anti-dumping duty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... y filed commercial invoices which shows the grade of imported raw silk as Grade 3A. The appellant also filed a certificate issued by China National Export Bases Development (Tibet) Co. to certify that raw silk is of Grade 3A, packing list also shows that grade of the consignment is 3A. Similarly the certificates issued for raw silk, classification and weight issued by competent authority, Republic of China the same grade has been shown. In these circumstances, as all the documents supplied by the supplier of the raw silk received by the appellant and produced before the Custom authorities at the time of clearance shows that raw silk in question is of Grade 3A. In these circumstances, the allegation of misdeclaration of the goods with intent to evade payment of duty as held by the lower authorities is not sustainable. Consequently the confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalty is set aside and the appeals are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 26-10-2005)
-
2005 (10) TMI 367 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Larger period of limitation - Invocation of - Penalty - Undervaluation
-
2005 (10) TMI 366 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... upon para 27 of CBEC Circular F. No. 354/81/2000/TRU, dated 30-6-2000 2000 (119) E.L.T. T22 wherein it was held that new Valuation Rules has essentially maintained the scheme and features of the Valuation Rules 1975. We find no reasons to deviate from the above said findings. Valuation under the Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 is required to be done according to the rules laid down in the Apex Court Judgment in case of Ujagar Prints Ltd. v. UOI - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) even after 1-7-2000 is the law. This Tribunal in M/s. Tara Industries Ltd v. C.C.EX. - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 758 (Tri.-Del.) has held so as well as and Boards Circular No. 619/10/2002/CX., dated 19-2-2002 stipulate the same. 4. emsp Following the same we find no reason to arrive at to cause to add margin of profit at 15 as urged by Revenue in this appeal. 5. emsp In this view of the above this appeal filed by Revenue is found to be without any grounds. The same is therefore rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (10) TMI 365 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
PVC sheets - Demand - Limitation - Misdeclaration - Appeal - Cross-objection ... ... ... ... ..... therefore liable to confiscation. 12. emsp We have perused the cross objections filed by M/s. Galaxy. The cross-objections filed by the appellants do not indicate why the goods are not liable to confiscation nor do they mention as to how the Commissioner was wrong in confiscating the goods. A cross objection can be filed by assessee/Department on that part of the order against which assessee/Department is aggrieved. If M/s. Galaxy is aggrieved against confiscation of goods which were not accounted for the RG 1, they are obliged to put across their case accordingly. The appellants failed to do. The cross objections are in the nature of written submissions in support of Commissioner rsquo s decision that the goods in question are classifiable under 84.19 of the Schedule to CETA. We have observed that the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3920.19. 13. emsp Departments rsquo appeal is allowed. Cross objections by the respondent are rejected. (Pronounced on 21-10-2005)
-
2005 (10) TMI 364 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... Final Order No. 361/2005-B, dt. 17-2-2005 was in respect of the restoration application filed by the assessee whereas facts as stated in the final order are not relevant to the facts of the appeal filed by the assessee. The dispute in the present case in respect of excisability of newsprints whereas in the Final Order ldquo the excisability of goods (GI wires) has been decided rdquo . 3. emsp We have gone through the final order. We find that the facts recorded in the final order are not relevant to the facts of the present case as on 17-2-2005, the application filed by the assessee for restoration of appeal was listed for hearing and in Final Order after taking into consideration fact of some other case, the appeal was allowed. In these circumstances, the Final Order No. 361/2005-B, dt. 17-2-2005 is recalled and we direct the registry to list the ROA No. 208/2004-B afresh on 24-11-2005 after issuing notice to the assessee. ROM is allowed. (Order dictated in the open Court.)
-
2005 (10) TMI 363 - CESTAT, , NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty - Shipping line ... ... ... ... ..... ore it was loaded on the ship. In Appendix 28, at Sl. No. 21, the name of the certified agency was shown as ldquo Moody International (India) P. Ltd. with its Mumbai address and no certificate from that agency was produced in any of these cases. 3. emsp For the reasons given in our earlier order dated 20-9-2005, and for the reasons given herein above on the additional contention, we do not find any substance in these applications and all the applications are, hereby rejected. If the appellant/applicant deposits the amount payable under the respective impugned orders within eight weeks from today, the appeal(s) in respect of which such deposit is made, will be listed for final hearing in its due course. If the amount is not so deposited, the relevant appeal will stand dismissed. Compliance report be made by 19-12-2005. 4. emsp If the amounts are deposited, all these appeals will be clubbed together and be heard with Appeal No. C/511/2005. (Dictated in open Court on 17-10-2005)
-
2005 (10) TMI 362 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation, fine and penalty - Non-accountal of goods - Demand - Clandestine removal - Demand and penalty - Valuation (
-
2005 (10) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Discretion - Departmental clarifications ... ... ... ... ..... Central Board of Excise and Customs, and can come to an independent conclusion based on law and the facts before him, since he is a quasi judicial officer. (b) Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), as it appears from the order impugned, as regards penalty held that the appellant had removed the goods, after following the proper Central Excise procedure and on payment of duty and there was no mala fide to evade payment of duty. Hence penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not maintainable. Since the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q itself is not being upheld and the findings of the Commissioner are not in challenge in the grounds before us, we cannot apply the decision in the case Z.B. Nagarkar v. Union of India (supra) as urged in the appeal. If Rule 173Q provisions could not be invoked, the question of exercise of discretion is not called for. 4. emsp In this view of the matter, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in Court.)
-
2005 (10) TMI 360 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refund - Limitation - Protest ... ... ... ... ..... ESPI was being charged to duty on higher assessable value based on the selling price of PGIL right from 1997 onwards, which means that the incidence of excess excise duty was the recovered by M/s. PGIL from their stockist/dealers. Even after lowering of the assessable value in terms of Supreme Court in M/s. Ujagar Prints, PGIL selling price to their stockist remained the same, which implies that the incidence of excess excise duty, which was earlier paid to the central excise exchequer is pocketed by PGIL which is their additional profit. Hence the unjust enrichment clause is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and on this count also, the refund is not admissible. Thus viewed from any angle, PGIL are not eligible to the refund rdquo . There is no infirmity in the above reasoning. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that the appellants are not entitled for the refund claim. Hence we reject the appeal. (Pronounced in open Court on 7-10-2005)
-
2005 (10) TMI 359 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Kitchen articles - Article and parts of kitchen articles ... ... ... ... ..... ts of kitchen articles would be covered under Heading 74.18 if made of brass. On reading the HSN Notes, we find no merits in the case of Revenue as urged. We would cover the classification of parts made of brass which would be used in an article of kitchen or household as pressure cookers in this case, to be classifiable under Heading 74.18, even if articles is pressure cooker, in this case, is classified under Chapter 73/76 being made of Stainless steel/Aluminium. 3. emsp In this view of the matter, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected and Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) order is upheld. (Pronounced in Court.)
-
2005 (10) TMI 358 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Printers cleared along with RAX system fixed on RAX machine ... ... ... ... ..... efore, as long as goods are parts of RAX system specified at Sr. No. 13 to Notification No. 56/94, irrespective of where, such parts would fall classifiable they would be entitled to benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 73/90 as amended. However, in the present case, since there is no finding of the authorities below as to whether the item in dispute namely, printer of RAX is input/output processor as claimed by the appellants, we are of the view that the claim of printer as input/output processor is required to be examined afresh by adjudicating authority. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision on the claim of the appellants that the goods in question are covered by Sr. 13 of Notification 73/90 as input/output processor. He shall extend reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence. 3. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2005 (10) TMI 357 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... al - LB) that, where capital goods credit was not admissible, input duty credit could be allowed subject to fulfilment, by the assessee, of the substantive requirements of Rule 57A. There is no dispute in this case regarding receipt of goods in the factory and its utilization in the manufacture of final product. Thus, apparently the substantive conditions for input duty credit under Rule 57A stood satisfied. Hence the benefit of Larger Bench decision is available to the respondents in respect of grinding additives. As regards, Isolator Switch Unit, it was used to control the speed of the instrument classifier which controlled the fineness of grinding. There is no challenge to this finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the assessee can claim the benefit of clause (b) of Explanation (1) ibid to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q. In the result, the impugned order requires to be affirmed and we do so. The appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (10) TMI 356 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cartridge - Parts and accessory ... ... ... ... ..... t boards 8473 30 40 - - - Head stack 8473 30 50 - - - Ink cartridges with print head assembly 8473 30 60 - - - Ink spray nozzle - - - Others 8473 30 91 - - - Network access controllers 8473 30 92 - - - Graphic and intelligence based script technology (GIST) cards for multilingual computers 8473 30 99 - - - Other Significantly, the heading reads lsquo Parts and accessories the machines of heading 8471 rsquo . Numerous parts and accessories have been named against sub-headings, 8473 30 10 to 8473 30 99. Ld. SDR was queried by the Bench as to which of these are parts and which are accessories. No distinction was forthcoming. In the circumstances, it will be far from reasonable for the Revenue to deny the benefit of exemption to the subject goods on the ground that it is an accessory and not a part of the computer printer. 4. emsp In the result, the impugned order gets affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 5-10-2005)
-
2005 (10) TMI 355 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Natural justice - Show cause notice, service of ... ... ... ... ..... he made a short-cut into the second stage, viz. affixture on factory premises. Thus the Commissioner has not followed the statutory procedure of service of Show-cause notice. This apart, he showed undue haste in disposing of the case by fixing an unreasonably short time in the show-cause notice itself, for personal hearing. This haste was perpetrated in the matter of disposal of the case also. The impugned order was passed on 24-3-2003 itself. Negation of natural justice is writ large on the proceedings of the Commissioner. 4. emsp In the result, the impugned order gets set aside and this appeal is allowed by way of remand. Ld. Commissioner shall adjudicate afresh on the Show-cause notice after giving the noticee a reasonable opportunity of replying to the show-cause notice and of being heard. It is upto the Commissioner to consider whether the Official Liquidator appointed by the High Court of Karnataka should be taken on record. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (10) TMI 354 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Excess goods found in approved godown - Demand - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... , since the goods were accounted in the private register and could be explained by the appellants, the confiscation of these goods are also liable to be set aside. 8. emsp The confiscation and the redemption fine imposed on the goods seized are set aside. Since the duty demanded is on the textured yarn which was consumed in the manufacture of textured yarn, the duty part, which is demanded on the texturised yarn consumed in the twisted yarn on 2083.890 kgs. received back from M/s. Vidya Polytex (P) Ltd., is not liable to be demanded from the appellants. The demand to that extent of the duty is set aside. Since the duty, which is involved on the textured yarn consumed for the manufacture of 2722.269 kgs. of twisted yarn, stands discharged by the appellants when the twisted yarn was removed from the factory. There is no demand on that. 9. emsp In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellants is allowed in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2005 (10) TMI 353 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
EXIM - 100% EOU - DTA clearance ... ... ... ... ..... 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95, SAD of customs was one of the duties of customs which could be treated as leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act. But, as already noted, there was no notification granting exemption from payment of SAD on the like goods if imported into India, during the period of dispute. This would mean that, in the calculation of amount of duty of excise on the DTA clearance, 50 of SAD leviable under the Finance Act, 1996 on like goods if imported into India at the material time should also be included. It appears from the records that the assessee included only 50 of this 50 in the amount to be paid as duty of excise on their DTA clearance during the period of dispute. What is demanded by the department is the balance 50 of the 50 so included by the assessee. This demand is clearly sustainable as held by the lower appellate authority. 3. emsp In the result, the appeal gets dismissed. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 3-10-2005)
............
|
