|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 686 Records
-
2006 (2) TMI 487 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Limitation - Exemption under Notification No. 78/90-C.E. availed ... ... ... ... ..... ime. He had also noted that there is no allegation of suppression of any material information or mis-statement or fraud. He has applied the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s ruling in the case of Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 662 (Tri.). The order is legal and proper. Furthermore, we find that there is no evasion of duty intentionally and deliberately. There is no dispute with regard to the concessional rate of duty available to the assessee. For mere procedural lapse, duty is being demanded. The lapse had been condoned by the Department themselves and had allowed the procedure to be followed by the assessee. The issue was raised after the Departmental audit objected to the procedure adopted. In these circumstances, the payment of duty for larger period is not sustainable. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (2) TMI 486 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n high seas basis the consignment had already left the shores of the originating country. In this case the respondent was very vigilant and purchased the consignment after perusing the pre-shipment certificate of a accredited agency in the EXIM policy. The respondent relied upon the pre-shipment certificate of the accredited agency and purchased the consignment. The action of the respondent cannot be faulted with in any way nor can it be said that he was negligent. In this case the appellate authority has correctly come to conclusion that the confiscation of the consignment of HMS and imposition of the penalty on the respondent is unwarranted as there was no fault on the part of the respondent. To my mind the order of the appellate authority is a reasoned one. 4. emsp In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above the order in appeal dated 13-7-2005 does not require any interference. The departments appeal is dismissed. (Operative part pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 485 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Shortages - Stock verification ... ... ... ... ..... nager of the appellant-company was not present on the date of Joint Stock Verification. He had furnished the explanation about the discrepancies to the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent, Anti-Evasion on 14-8-98 and 17-8-98. The appellant-company had also finally explained the discrepancies on 31-8-98 to the Department. However, the Department has not taken into cognizance the explanation given by the appellant-company, which they had submitted before the issue of the show cause notice, and no enquiry to that effect had also been made by the Revenue. In view of this, I remand the matter to the lower authority to adjudicate the case afresh after observing the principles of natural justice and take into consideration the explanation given by the appellant-company and record his finding about the genuineness of the explanation given by the appellant-company or otherwise. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 484 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Clandestine removal - Proof - Remand order - Precedent - Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... 1989 (42) E.L.T. 350 (S.C.) it is seen that the said judgement of the Supreme Court in fact supports the appellant rsquo s point of view. As therein it is held that ldquo in absence of any indication in the language of the statute of the need to establish mens rea, penalty could be imposed for the mere default in complying with the statute. rdquo In this regard, it was submitted that since the appellant had complied with the provisions of sub-section (b) of Rule 173Q(1) by accounting for the seized goods, the only other provision of Rule 173Q(1) under which confiscation could have been ordered was clause (d) which expressly required ldquo intention to evade payment of duty rdquo to be proved. Hence, going by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, no confiscation could be ordered under clause (d) of Rule 173Q(1) without proving intention to evade payment of duty. 6. emsp In this view the order is set aside and appeal allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ts of separators (parts of machine), no duty is required to be paid, as no credit has been taken on these capital goods. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 3. emsp The contention of the revenue is that these are old and used parts of the capital goods, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 57S(2)(C) of Central Excise Rules, a manufacturer is liable to pay duty in respect of such scrap. 4. emsp In this case, the appellant took a specific stand before the Commissioner that M.S. Heavy scrap is in respect of left over small pieces of building material and in respect of aluminium scrap, the stand taken by the appellant is that it pertains to old and used of capital goods on which no credit has been taken. This fact is not controverted by revenue. 5. emsp The scrap in question is of old and used parts of capital goods on which no credit has been taken. In these circumstances, the demand is not sustainable, and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 482 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Act of 1947, is incompetent. The respondents lacks jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner against Section 4-I of the Act of 1947 for violation of export obligation as penalty under Section 4-I of the said Act can be imposed only if a licence holder uses or utilise goods and materials imported under a licence otherwise then in accordance with the conditions of licence. 14. emsp In the present case the respondents failed to make out any case against the petitioner to the effect that the goods and materials imported under the licence dated 20-10-1980 were used and utilised otherwise then in accordance with the conditions of licence, therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. emsp Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The impugned notice dated 26-2-1993 issued by the office of Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (2) TMI 481 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Hospital equipment viz. CT Scanner - Exemption - Confiscation and redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... . The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs rdquo . 11. emsp Therefore penalty imposed under Section 114A is not sustainable. We find that the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner is Rs. 35 lakhs which is more than 50 of the value of the goods. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this amount is on higher side and requires to be reduced. In our view amount of Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) will be sufficient amount for redemption fine in the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. emsp We, therefore, uphold the order of confiscation of CT Scanner under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 35 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees Twenty lakhs only). The penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act is set aside. 13. emsp Appeal is thus, partly allowed. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court on 22-2-2006
-
2006 (2) TMI 480 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Exemption - Import of LPG ... ... ... ... ..... have gone through the records of the case carefully. The respondents have clearly demonstrated that the indigenous LPG and the imported LPG are stored separately in the facility created. Even though the goods are procured from IOCL on High Seas Sales, it is a fact that Sales Tax has been paid on the transaction. The respondents have furnished evidence for the same. From the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister, it is clear that the intention of the Government is to levy SAD on actual users and not on traders. This Tribunal, in the case of Vigirom Chem (P) Ltd. (cited supra), has held that SAD is not leviable when the imported goods have been sold as such and bear the burden of Sales Tax. We also agree with the learned Advocate that proceedings under Section 3A cannot be continued after its omission. In view of these facts, the Revenue appeals have no merits and hence, we reject the same. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (2) TMI 479 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Valuation of goods cleared to sister unit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... a plant (Kg) Rate at which cleared per (Rs.) 01 02 03 04 05 01 95-96 50-PCT-2(PL) 40692.35 80.00 02 96-97 111124.71 80.00 03 97-98 37205.50 80.00 04 95-96 70 PCT-2(PL) 16231.04 80.00 05 96-97 ----- rdquo ----- 43088.14 80.00 06 97-98 ----- rdquo ----- 33670.28 80.00 (up to 12-10-97) Comparable rate available A.V. arrived by adjustment Diff In rate (7) - (5) Diff. A.V. Diff. Duty 06 07 08 09 10 140.00 107.00 27.00 1098693 274673 140.00 107.00 27.00 3000367 750092 125.00 92.00 12.00 446460 111615 140.00 107.00 27.00 438238 109560 140.00 107.00 27.00 1163380 290845 120.00 87.00 07.00 235692 58923 (A) Duty on Rolls -TOTAL emsp 15,95,708 (B) Duty on Tape as per Annexure emsp 1,28,665 B-II of SCN (C) GRAND TOTAL 17,24,373 rdquo 7. emsp No satisfactory arguments have been put forth by the learned SDR to persuade us to take a different view so as to enhance the duty amount for adjustment out of the amount already paid by the assessee. We, therefore, reject the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
2006 (2) TMI 478 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Ultrasound/C.T. Scanner parts - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e through the records of the case carefully. The findings of the lower authorities are based on information supplied by the appellants in respect of previous imports. In our view, those letters are not at all relevant. The fact that the appellants had not imported probes, monitor assembly and keyboard assembly which are very essential parts of Ultrasound Scanner, has not been appreciated by the lower authorities. Since the appellants have imported only certain parts of the Ultrasound Scanner equipment, they are rightly entitled for the exemption Notification 17/2001 which provides for concessional rate of duty in respect of parts required for the manufacture of medical equipments falling under Heading 90.18 to 90.21 and sub-heading No. 9022.13, 9022.14 or 9022.21. Hence, the orders of lower authorities, which have completely ignored the factual position, are not sustainable. Hence, we allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in open Court on 21-2-2006)
-
2006 (2) TMI 477 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
EXIM - DEPB - Kerosene cleared based on DEPB TRA ... ... ... ... ..... lity, this point is very important. If it is found that the Navasheva Customs House had actually issued the said TRAs, then there would not be any duty liability on the appellants. If it is proved conclusively that the TRAs have not been issued by Navasheva Customs House at all, then duty liability would be fastened on the appellants. Since the entire case is based on the proposition that the TRAs are fake documents and this has been challenged by the appellants, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remand the matter to the Original Authority to allow the cross examination of the concerned officers of the Navasheva Customs House to enable the appellants to defend their case. The appellants may also be permitted to inspect all the relied on documents. On the basis of the above proceedings, the Commissioner shall decide the issue de novo. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original authority in the above terms. (Pronounced in the open court on 20-2-2006)
-
2006 (2) TMI 476 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Rectification of Mistake - Tribunal’s order ... ... ... ... ..... to the Larger Bench is not a ground for recall of the present order. 2. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we notice that the Revenue has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record for rectifying the order. Merely on the ground that some other matter has been referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal that by itself does not require the Final Order Nos. 974-975/2005, dated 22-6-2005 to be recalled and to decide the issue after the decision of the Larger Bench. There is no merit in the ROM application and the same is rejected. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 475 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal - Review of its order ... ... ... ... ..... cleared that the Hon rsquo ble High Court was of the view that there was no merit in the reference application filed by the revenue. The reference application was allowed to be withdrawn at the request of the Counsel appearing for revenue and while seeking permission to withdraw the application with liberty to approach the Tribunal. 3. emsp In the present application, the request of the revenue is to review the earlier order passed in favour of the respondent. We find that as per the provision of the Central Excise Act, Tribunal has no power to review the order. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the applications, the same are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court).
-
2006 (2) TMI 474 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Fabrics - Can-drying - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... quo fabrics for the period of dispute. The impugned order indicates that Id. Collector (Appeals) examined the question whether ldquo can-drying rdquo done by the respondents was ldquo any other process rdquo , i.e. any process other than the processes specified in the Table. He answered the question in the negative, thereby virtually holding that ldquo can-drying rdquo was a process specified in the Notification. This finding of the lower appellate authority defies the strict rule of construction of an exemption Notification. That apart, where it is found that the finishing process (can-drying) carried out by the respondents is not one of the processes specified in the Table annexed to the Notification, there is no question of looking into the proviso. The expression ldquo any other process rdquo is found only in the proviso. 5. emsp The appeals of the Revenue succeed. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 473 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... dships. The Department does not appear to have a contra finding regarding this aspect. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants should be given a more sympathetic consideration for the purpose of Section 35F. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) asked them to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs for this purpose. We reduce this amount to Rs. 1 lakh. The appellants shall deposit this amount of Rs. 1 lakh for the purpose of their appeal being heard on merits by the lower appellate authority. 6. emsp For the reasons noted above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits, subject to pre-deposit, by the appellants, of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, the appellants should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 472 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... not contested the merits of the case and the only challenge was with reference to error in the calculation of the duty. Hence, the matter was remanded only to examine the correct quantum of duty amount liable for the period in question on the basis of the findings in Para 19 of the earlier Commissioner rsquo s order. Both the authorities have therefore gone by the remand direction. They cannot enlarge the remand directions given in the Tribunal rsquo s order and re-consider the matter on merits. The appellants have foregone their case by not contesting the merits before the Tribunal. It is too late now to argue the case on merits. Taking into consideration, the overall facts of the case, the RF on the appellant of Rs. 75,000/- is reduced to Rs. 40,000/-. There is no justification to reduce the penalty. Except for this modification, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2006 (2) TMI 471 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Smuggling of goods ... ... ... ... ..... has not dealt in any manner with the gold or currency involved in the current proceedings. 6. emsp In the absence of direct evidence relating to the current appellant to the confiscated foreign currency, to my mind, penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. emsp I find from the order-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to conclusion from the statement of Shiv Shankar, that US 19,500 were obtained from the appellant. This finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is directly in contradiction to the statements which were retracted subsequently. In the absence of any other finding by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant before me is not liable to be penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. emsp In view of the above, the order-in-appeal dated 28-10-2003 deserves to be set aside. I set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. (pronounced in court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 470 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Bulk drug for manufacture of Diagnostic kit - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... dant precaution and the Diagnostic test kits were always exempted from duty and known and understood to be life-saving drugs and medicines. (c) emsp There is force in the pleading of the appellants that reading of the Second Schedule to Drugs and Cosmetics Act entry No. 2 and 5B and section 3(b)(iv) would indicate that the said goods are known and understood by the present appellant and the Trade which deals with them as life-saving drugs and medicament. In this view of the matter the goods are to be held to be known and understood as life-saving drugs and medicines. Since there is no specific definition for the term in the said notification. We find no merits in the orders of the lower authority in having denied when the product is understood as a life-saving drugs and medicines in bulk drugs form benefit as to be granted. They import in bulk would be covered under heading 34B as claimed by the appellants. We order accordingly and allow this appeal. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 469 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... anded. At this stage, it cannot be said to be a mistake on the face of the record as the case has been remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-examining the refund claim on the basis of the principles of unjust enrichment, which is requirement of law. 3. emsp I find that the matter has been remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the refund claim de novo in the light of the principles of unjust enrichment, which is requirement of law before sanctioning of refund. Thus, the remand is not a mistake on the face of the record. The application for rectification of mistake is, therefore, rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2006 (2) TMI 468 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Rectification of mistake - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Consultant requested the Bench to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record. 3. emsp We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The admissibility of Cenvat credit on Capital Goods used outside the Mines was a very contentious issue. Even though, in the said Final Order, the Tribunal decided against the appellants, there was no order regarding their request for setting aside the penalties. Since the issue is one of interpretation and there is no mala fide, we set aside the penalties imposed in OIA Nos. 17/2002 and 18/2002. 4. emsp As regards the second point, we agree with the contention of the appellant that the tenor of the Final Order in para 14 is to allow Cenvat Credit on all Refractory materials. Therefore, in para 14, after the words calcium silicate in blocks, the following words may be added. and other Refractory materials . 5. emsp Thus the ROM is allowed. (Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
............
|
