Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 403 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption notification - Statutory provisions ... ... ... ... ..... the appellants have been able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for delay and they have now filed the required certificate from the Director of Directorate of Vanaspati, Vegetable Oils and Fats dated 14-3-1995 which specifically refers to this Notification dated 24-4-1986 and also to the period October, 1989 to December, 1989 and indicates the name of the oils as mustard oil in (717.624 MT) and there is no dispute about these facts. This certificate also shows that it has been issued on the basis of the application dated 11-1-1990 received from the appellants. In the above circumstances, we feel that the appellants were justified in their submission that the benefit of exemption was required to be given to them, in view of decisions, on similar cases by the Tribunal allowing benefit in such or similar circumstances. 10. emsp Therefore, following the ratio of our own order in the case of Shyam Oil Cake and the case law cited above, we allow the appeal for the same reasons.
-
1997 (4) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... .L.T. 563 held that Modvat credit is not deniable merely because declaration was not filed and the benefit of Modvat credit should not be denied merely on account of non - filing of declaration under Rule 57G or maintenance of RG 1 23A. In the present case, the appllants have filed a declaration and aluminium coils and sheets are specifically mentioned as inputs. The facts of the case relied upon by the Revenue i.e. PG Conductors (supra) are not parallel to the facts of the present case. In the case of PG Conductors, no declaration was filed by the assessee and in these circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In the present case the appellants have filed a declaration specifically mentioned aluminium coils and sheets as inputs. Therefore the benefit of modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that they have not mentioned the sub-heading correctly if otherwise premissible. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Exemption from duty vis-a-vis Modvat Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ferent exemptions available to an assessee, it is open to the assessee to choose to avail one which is more beneficial to it. Therefore, the appellants have rightly availed of the benefit of Notification Nos. 53/88 and 14/92 instead of Notification Nos. 217/86. This is the view of the Tribunal as expressed in the case of Everest Converters v. CCE reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 91 and Gothi Plastic Industries v. CCE reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 123 and Polychem Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 156 (wherein both Notifications have been discussed qua Notification No. 53/88). The recent decision of the Tribunal holding the same view is in the case of Mechciv Engineers Ltd. - Final Order No. 31/97-NB, dated 18-2-1997. Following the ratio of the above orders, which apply on all fours to the facts of the present case, particularly the decision of Polychem Ltd., I hold that the appellants are entitled to the credit in question, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents - Bill of Entry ... ... ... ... ..... s have authenticated the payment of duty on this quadruplicate copy also. We note that the Bombay Custom House has issued a Trade Notice clarifying that Modvat credit can be taken on the strength of photo copy of triplicate Bill of Entry in case the same is lost and in case the party taking Modvat credit on the strength of photostat copy of the Bill of Entry executed an indemnity Bond indemnifies the Government for any loss that may occur because of abuse of triplicate Bill of Entry showing the payment of duty authenticated by the Customs and having regard to the fact that similar facility of taking Modvat credit on the strength of photostat copy of Gate Pass 1 is available after executing the bond, we hold that Modvat credit has correctly been taken by the appellants as the same becomes available to them on execution of the indemnity bond. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (4) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he product is an article of plastic. It does not fall under any of the other headings broadly stated in the tariff. Therefore, it will find place in the residuary entry under tariff sub-heading 3926.90. We also note that the Tribunal had occasion to examine tanks and vessels used by chemical plants and chemicals tanks are anti-reaction vessels. The Tribunal in both the cases cited and relied upon by the appellants held that in the absence of any evidence that the goods were builders-ware classification under sub-heading 3926.90 would be appropriate. We do not see any reason to dis-agree with this findings of the Tribunal. In the result, we follow the ratio of the decision and hold that tanks manufactured for storage of petroleum products are not builders-ware. In the instant case tanks shall be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3926.90. 7. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief if applicable will be given to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification List ... ... ... ... ..... etrospectively from 2-4-1986. 7. emsp It is seen that the classification, as approved, was not challenged and no appeal was filed against the approved classification list. 8. emsp The law is settled that if the classification list, already approved, is challenged, then it has to be within the period of limitation and any revision, subject to the law of limitation, had to be only prospective. In this case, the appellants had sought revision of the classification list for the year 1986-87 on the basis of the classification list for the year 1987-88. This is clear from the relief sought by the assessee in the appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 9. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) whose operative part of the order had already been extracted above. 10. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Variation in credit ... ... ... ... ..... epends on the variation of duty in respect of duty paid by the manufacturers of the inputs. In the instant case no duty debit notes were issued by the manufacturer on the final products nor issue of these debit notes have affected the quantum of duty already paid by the manufacturer of the inputs and since there is no change in the duty paid by the manufacturer of the inputs, there is no question of variation of Modvat credit taken in terms of Rule 57E read with Rule 57A. Following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal the Ld. counsel submitted that their case was fully covered by the decision. 6. emsp Heard the submissions. We find that the facts in the instant case are identical to those dealt with by the Tribunal in the case cited and relied upon by the respondents herein. Following the ratio of that decision we hold that credit of duty taken by the respondents herein cannot be varied. In this view of the matter the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... udicated under which the demand raised was confirmed and a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellants. In terms of the High Court rsquo s stay order, they have already made a pre-deposit of Rs. 6 lakh. He prayed that consequential relief be given to the appellants. 7. emsp As discussed above, the correct classification of the elastic rail clips and two way keys was under Item No. 25(8) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and not under Item No. 68 as held by the adjudicating authority. The appellants had claimed benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 which had been denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the goods in question were classifiable under Item No. 25 of the Tariff. As we find that the goods were classification under Item No. 25(8) of the Tariff, the appellants are eligible for the consequential relief, if otherwise permissible under the law. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... bunal). The Tribunal had referred to their earlier decision in the case of Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 436 and had held that liquid phenyle was a disinfectant. 4. emsp In the case of Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Supreme Court had also explained the term disinfectant. They had held that a disinfectant is one which is used for disinfecting or destroying the germs and that the term disinfectant is wider than the term pesticide. The appellants in their classification list also have referred to their product phenyle as disinfectant fluid. 5. emsp We have already extracted the observations of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and keeping in view the settled position in law, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result both these appeals are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ication, the printed wrappers in question were rightly classifiable under sub-heading 4823.19 as contended by the Revenue in their appeal. Ld. advocate appearing for M/s. Shree Arun Packaging Corpn. had fairly agreed that the correct classification of the goods in question was under sub-heading No. 4823.19 of the Tariff. 9. emsp Taking all the facts and considerations into mind, we allow the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal filed by M/s. Shri Arun Packaging is rejected with the correct classification under sub-heading No. 4823.19 of the Tariff. Ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classifed the goods under sub-heading 4823.90. The order passed by the ld. Collector of Central Excise is modified in the above terms. 10. emsp In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the appeal filed by M/s. Shree Arun Packaging is dismissed with the above modification of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
TV sets exported out of India ... ... ... ... ..... nsumer Electronic and TV Manufacturers Association against levy of additional excise duty on export of TV sets and the circular clarifies that additional excise duty was in lieu of the licence fee which was collectable on domestic use of TV sets and not on TVs exported and the demands of additional excise duty on TV sets when exported out of India are not sustainable. He, therefore, submits that the demands are required to be set aside in view of the above circular and the appeals allowed on this basis. 3. emsp Learned DR, Shri Sethi reiterates the findings of the authorities below and refers to Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. emsp The circular relied upon by the learned Counsel is attached herewith. 5. emsp In view of the clarification issued above, I agree with the learned Counsel that the appellants were not required to pay additional excise duty on the TV sets exported by them outside India, set aside the impugned orders demanding duty and allow the appeals.
-
1997 (4) TMI 162 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Modvat to SSI units ... ... ... ... ..... requirements in bulk. 4. emsp We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the Tribunal has given detailed reasonings in the order for holding that the deemed Modvat facility would be available in respect of the SSI units even when they cross the slab exemption limit so long as the total clearances fall within the overall eligibility parameters provided for in the Notification. The benefit has been made available to SSI units taking into consideration the peculiar conditions under which they operated and taking note of the difficulties. Once the SSI unit is identified to be eligible for Notification 1/93, all the benefits which are available for the purpose whether for Modvat purposes or otherwise would continue to be available to them so long as the status for the purpose of Notification for SSI is not disturbed. In that view of the matter we hold that the question as framed does not merit reference. The reference application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ation lists amounts to contravention of the Rules giving rise to penal liability. But in the absence of any finding that the goods were meant for clandestine removal and in the wake of the appellants offering a satisfactory explanation about the non-entry in the statutory records because the goods had not yet been tested for commercial production, I hold that the goods were not liable to confiscation and accordingly set aside the confiscation of the seized quantity of 4790 MTs. Therefore, the action of the appropriation of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh out of the bank guarantee executed by the appellants in lieu of confiscation is also bad in law. Since penalty is warranted for contravention of the Rules, I hold that the appellants are liable to penalty, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. The impugned order is modified and disposed of in the above terms with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants, in accordance with law.
-
1997 (4) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the classification of the above items under 84.83, by the Assistant Collector is absolutely correct. For the above reasons there is no merit in the appeals and the same are consequently rejected. 5. emsp It is seen from the Section Note 2 of Section XVI that parts which are the goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than Heading No. 84.84 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings. As these parts viz. gearwheels, shafts and pulleys were the goods which were included in Heading No. 84.83, they were to be classified in that Heading. Section Note 2(B) of Section XVI will be applicable only when the parts were such goods which were not included in any of the Headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, referred to above. 6. emsp In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and as a result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... quest. Thus I find that a different view is taken by the Tribunal on the question whether an application is necessary under Rule 57H or whether in the declaration filed under Rule 57G itself, the assessee should declare the inputs lying in stock. In this view of the matter, I hold that a point of law is involved and the point of law can be formulated as under ldquo Whether a separate declaration of inputs is required to be made under Rule 57H(1)(A) for availing Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs lying in stock on the date of filing the declaration under Rule 57H or whether in the declaration filed under Rule 57G showing also the inputs lying in stock is sufficient and no further declaration is required under Rule 57H(1)(A). rdquo In the circumstances, I hold that it is a fit case for reference. 6. emsp Registry is directed to make a statement of the facts of the case for reference to the jurisdictional High Court. The reference application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... roposed to invoke the extended time limit of 5 years under Section 11A of the Act as there was suppression of fact about the actual quantity of BQ steel plates utilised and about the value of fittings supplied by IOC to them. By issue of the corrigendum substituting the above crucial averment in the notice, the department had thrown the game away as the show cause notice did not refer to the suppression aspect relating to the items which were actually covered in the demand confirmed in the impugned order. We accept the plea of time bar raised by the learned counsel in this respect. We, however, find that part of the demand relates to the period within the period of six months from the date of the show cause notice. The confirmation of demand relating to that period will be in order. We uphold that part of the demand relating to the duty paid within the six months period preceding the date of show cause notice and set aside the rest of the demand. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Doctrine of Merger ... ... ... ... ..... as Bank Ltd. In this order the Tribunal have dismissed their appeal seeking reductions in the quantum of fine prescribed in the impugned order. Shri Chidambaram citing the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Telco Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 583 (Tribunal) argue that the Doctrine of Merger applied here and the impugned order cannot be challenged by the department where it has already been dealt with by the Tribuanl in the cited order. He also cited the Supreme Court order in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 790 (S.C.). 5. emsp We have carefully perused the cited judgments. We find that the Doctrine of Merger does not apply in the circumstances where cross appeals are filed by both the litigants to the same order. We, therefore, find no merit in the preliminary objection and order to post this case for hearing on 23rd July, 1997. Copies of this order to be given DASTI to both sides.
-
1997 (4) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Evidence - Statement ... ... ... ... ..... taken from the concerned authorities. Since the Tribunal has, while examining the ambit and scope of Rule 57G(2) as stated above, held that filing a declaration and obtaining acknowledgement thereof is a statutory requirement, we are inclined to follow this ratio. In the instant case, the filing of the declaration is doubtful specially when Gurdarshan Singh, an authorised signatory, in his statement dated 22-5-1992 admitted that they had not declared the said input in the said declaration by mistake/oversight. This statement is very relevant in view of the fact that he was the person concerned with Central Excise matters and, therefore, everything done, especially filing of a declaration, should have been within his knowledge. The admitted position was that no acknowledgement was obtained by the respondents herein. In the circumstances, we hold that the Modvat credit was not admissible to the Respondents. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Trucks and Drills Spares ... ... ... ... ..... the production that can be treated as a production machinery. Admittedly, spares of the production machinery are exempted as specified in Serial No. 4 to the Table attached to the notification. On going through the detailed process and functioning of the trucks, it cannot said that it is a mere handling equipment. It plays an important part in the process of production handling of the ore and other activities as explained by the appellants are integrally connected with the process of production going by the nature of the industries and the various processes employed in connection with the production of the finished product, trucks and drills are essential and integral part of the production machinery at the plant. In the view, we have taken that trucks and drills are production machinery, we hold that spares of trucks and drills are eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 13/81. Accordingly, all these 6 appeals are allowed in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... s of both sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made by the ld. Counsel, perusal of the case records and case law cited and relied upon by the learned Counsel. In his submission we find that 3 items on which Modvat credit was denied by the lower authorities are eligible to Modvat credit as held by the Tribunal in the cases cited by the learned Counsel. From the perusal of the case law we find that the issue regarding eligibility of Modvat credit on the inputs in question has been finally settled by this Tribunal as also by the Hon rsquo ble Calcutta High Court. Having regard to the facts that admissibility of Modvat credit on these items as inputs has already been decided by this Tribunal, we follow the ratio of those decisions and hold that the Modvat credit shall be admissible on refractory bricks, refractory mortars and fire bricks. In the result 12 appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
............
|