|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 645 Records
-
2007 (5) TMI 451 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Paper, paper waste - Notification No. 4/97-C.E. - Evidence - Manipulation of records by Public Sector Undertaking
-
2007 (5) TMI 450 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine - Confiscation of currency ... ... ... ... ..... Appeals) had not fixed any time limit for the redemption of the confiscated currency. Nor did the authorities notify the appellant that the option was to be exercised within any time limit. The appellant had made a fair request for adjustment of the redemption fine amount from the confiscated currency and to return the remaining amount to him. This was not acceded to for no valid reason. Now, the appellant has deposited the redemption fine also. The denial of the return of the confiscated currency would amount to absolute confiscation of the currency which is contrary to the order of the Commissioner. Through the impugned order, the Commissioner is permitting his subordinate authorities to countermand his earlier order. Not permitted in law. 7. emsp In the light of what is stated above, the appeal is allowed and the Customs authorities are directed to return the confiscated currency to the appellant or his authorized person immediately. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 449 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Re-adjudication when Remand Order itself appealed against before the High Court ... ... ... ... ..... o the Commissioner taking into account the opening balance as on 1st May 1994. Consequent to the remand order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order. In the mean time, the Revenue has moved the Hon rsquo ble High Court on a question of law against Tribunal s order. The matter is still pending with the High Court. The main grievance of the Revenue over the impugned order is that the Commissioner ought to have kept the matter pending in view of the fact that the issue decided by the Tribunal has not reached finality. 3. emsp We do not agree with the contention of the Revenue. The adjudicating authority has in the true spirit of judicial discipline has complied with the remand order. It would not be correct for this Bench to castigate the adjudicating authority for following the ratio of the Tribunal s decision which has neither been stayed nor set aside by the High Court. Revenue s appeal has no merit. Therefore, we dismiss the same. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 448 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... or working out value of the computer. The cost of installation charges was given by the party themselves as 10 of TSC (as discussed in para 2.1), which appears genuine and correct. I am therefore inclined to allow 10 of TSC as installation charges which obviously being post-manufacturing expenses would not be includible in the assessable value of computer. rdquo 6. emsp We are prima facie of the view that revenue rsquo s grievance that the appellant was recovering part of the price of computer under other irrelevant headings is well founded. ldquo Consultation charges for suggesting the right machine and expert advice on software import technology rdquo are merely empty words to cloth a realization for computer sale. To such a case, extended period would apply. 7. emsp In the above view of the matter, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 30-7-07. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court).
-
2007 (5) TMI 447 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Extended period ... ... ... ... ..... n whatsoever about the correctness of the costs mentioned in the invoices of clearance (and payment of duty). In the present order also there is no finding that cost of any of the items cleared on payment of duty was incorrect or it has been understated. In fact, the costing statement produced by the appellant brings out that the appellant had made a reasonable apportionment towards the materials cleared from the factory and other costs. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression of facts or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty is also not maintainable. Therefore, that part of the demand which was raised beyond the normal period fails on the ground of limitation rdquo . 14. emsp The above findings equally apply to the demands raised under notice dated 18-6-2004. Therefore, that demand fails at the threshold on the ground of limitation itself. 15. emsp The appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any. (Order dictated in the open Court).
-
2007 (5) TMI 446 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Excisability - Marketability - Held that: - In the absence of any evidence, the product cannot be taxed by the Revenue authorities - In the present appeal before us, the Revenue has not produced any concrete evidence as to the marketability of the intermediate products captively consumed by the appellants in their factory for further manufacture of finished goods. In the absence of any such evidence, we are of the view that the appellants have made out a strong case in their favor - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2007 (5) TMI 445 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Caustic Soda - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... Board has directed the appellants to install the necessary equipment for treating the unreacted sulphur dioxide in which the impugned caustic soda is used. The appellants have argued that without such treatment, they would not be legally able to manufacture the finished goods violating the legal directions of the Pollution Control Board. 3. emsp After hearing both sides and considering the case records, I am of the view that the use of caustic soda in this case is very much necessary for the ultimate production of the final goods after meeting the legal requirement imposed by the Pollution Control Authorities. Hence, the impugned Caustic Soda is very much a necessary input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final goods. Consequently, the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 cannot be denied to the appellants. Hence the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 444 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Interest on delayed payment of duty consequent on removal of inputs / capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... the credit taken is required to be paid as such no interest is chargeable as the time limit was deleted by that Notification and set aside the order-in-original. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal. 2. emsp After going through the impugned order, I am of the view that the impugned order is in no way erroneous and the same is passed on sound principle of law as the Notification was correctly interpreted and given effect by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals). Further more the issue is squarely covered by this Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of CCE, Raigad v. M/s. Savita Polymers Ltd., 2007 (208) E.L.T. 200 (Tribunal) 2007 (5) S.T.R. 22 (Tribunal) 2006-TIOL-1463-CESTAT-MUM wherein it is observed that monthly payment of duty is permissible in respect of removal of cenvatable inputs/capital goods as such from the factory. Therefore, applying the aforesaid ratio, the appeal filed by the revenue is liable for rejection. Accordingly appeal rejected. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 443 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... in PLA were made without any corresponding clearance documents, no further endorsement of payment under protest is required to be made on other document especially as a letter dated 30-11-1994 indicating the debit under protest from the assessee to the Department is on record and is not being denied. The debits in this case are therefore held to be under protest and the bar of limitation will not arise. The reliance on various case laws by the appellant is well founded. In view of the above findings that the bar of limitation for claiming the refund in this case cannot be upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding the denial of refund only on the grounds of limitation is erroneous and not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside since these amounts have been debited without any evidence of recovery from the customers. The refund should be settled with interest. In the result, appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounced in Court on 18-5-2007)
-
2007 (5) TMI 442 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... hallenged the inclusion of stevedoring charges but they have taken up the matter at the time of finalization of the assessment. Hence, on this ground the Lower Authorities have not considered the claim as the appellants have not challenged inclusion of Stevedoring charges earlier. 5. emsp We are of the view that at the time of final assessment, the Assessing officers are required to take cognizance of legal grounds taken by the appellants and hence the order passed by the Lower Authorities ignoring claims of the appellants in this regard is not proper. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order in this regard and remand the matter to the Original Authority to decide the matter afresh after ascertaining the factual position regarding payment of stevedoring and landing charges and applying the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. cited (supra). 6. emsp Thus the appeal is partly allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand and penalty - Differential duty on escalation charges ... ... ... ... ..... ion on the plea that the exact escalation amount due becomes final only after the result of the Book Examination Clause by the Ministry of Finance. We are not impressed with this argument. The Book Examination is only to ensure that the escalation granted is not abnormal. In our view, the moment the appellant received the escalation charges, they would be liable for payment of duty on them to the Government. We find that the entire duty demand has been paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice. Hence, we confirm the demand but set aside the penalties, as the duties had been paid even before the issue of Show Cause Notice. There are several rulings which hold that penalty under 11AC and interest are not leviable if the duty is paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice. In these circumstances, we set aside the penalty and interest. Thus, we allow the appeals on the above terms. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing on 3-5-2007)
-
2007 (5) TMI 440 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation of goods - Penalty - Imposition of - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... e benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act was not given to the appellants and that the total value mentioned in the relevant invoices was adopted as assessable value. We find that this plea had not been taken before the lower authorities and therefore they had no occasion to consider it. In the circumstances, the case will be remanded to the original authority or the limited purpose of considering the assessee rsquo s claim under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) ibid. 6. emsp In the result, the redemption fine imposed on the appellants stands vacated and the rest of the impugned order is sustained except in respect of the quantum of duty leviable from the assessee. The original authority shall requantify the duty after considering the assessee rsquo s claim of the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act and after hearing them. The impugned order will stand modified accordingly. 7. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Enhancement of value - Marble blocks polished on one side
... ... ... ... ..... tion Rules specifically provides that transaction value should be the basis for the valuation of the consignment under assessment, unless the transaction value is not representing the full price for the reasons mentioned in the Rule itself. Law does not allow a pick and choose approach. Revenue rsquo s acceptance of higher prices and rejection of lower prices for assessment is clearly illegal. 11. emsp In view of what is stated above, we uphold the impugned order in so far as it relates to the question of classification and set aside the order in so far as it relates to valuation. 12. emsp Redemption fine and penalty have been determined taking into account enhanced values. They would require redetermination treating the transaction values of the consignments as the basis. The case is remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh determination of redemption fine and penalty. 13. emsp All the appeals are ordered in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court).
-
2007 (5) TMI 438 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Petroleum products - Deemed export - Supply to EOU - Notification No. 17/2004-C.E. (N.T.) - Board’s clarification thereof in Circular No. 796/29/2004-CX, dt. 4-9-2004 followed by Circular No. 804/1/2005-CX, dt. 4-1-2005
-
2007 (5) TMI 437 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... o be contentious and full waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery cannot be allowed. 3. emsp Ld. Consultant has also pleaded time-bar against the demand. Obviously, a major part of the demand is for a period beyond the normal period of limitation. It is submitted that the amount coming within the normal period is Rs. 11 to 12 lakhs. The finding recorded by ld. Commissioner for invoking the larger period of limitation is that the appellants had intentionally opted to discharge the lesser duty at the time of resale of the rejected goods by wrongly interpreting sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 and not opted to avail the provisions of Section 16(3). We must contextually state that sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 was not invoked in the show-cause notice. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the relevant provisions of law, we direct the appellants to predeposit Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance on 9-7-07. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 436 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Interest - Refund of - Pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... e appellants in the light of the Trade Notice No. 44/2000, dated 19-6-2000 issued by the Mumbai-IV Commissionerate on the subject matter of return of deposits made under the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act (refund in this case is of pre-deposit) but what was required to be filed was the letter requesting return of amount together with the attested photo copy of order-in-appeal or CEGAT order consequent to which the amount paid under Section 35F of the Act become refundable and an attested photo copy of the Central Excise Challan in Form TR-6 evidencing the payment of amount of such deposit. All these documents were filed along with the claim on 1-11-99 itself and, therefore, the appellants are correct in contending that they would be entitled to refund of interest from 1-11-99 itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by holding that the interest is payable to the appellants herein with effect from 1-11-99. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 435 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Time Limitation - Cost escalation by proforma invoice - Valuation - Held that: - the differential duty demand on the cost escalation element of the assessable value determined by the Commissioner is barred by limitation.
Valuation - includibility - special packing charges - Held that: - the appellants have made a sustainable case against the demand of duty on special packing charges.
Valuation - includibility - whether the “bonus” is required to be included in the assessable value of the bricks? - Held that: - bonus not includible.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2007 (5) TMI 434 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Cenvat/Modvat - whether the credit of basic duty earned by the appellants can be utilized for payment of NCCD on the final product?
Held that: - There is a restriction under Rule 3(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which applies to the credit of various duties, such as additional duties on textiles and textile articles, NCCD, Educational Cess, etc. In terms of this restriction, which overrides the provisions of Rule 3(4), the credit of the named of duties can only be utilized for payment of the said duties alone. As a result, the credit of NCCD can be utilized for only paying of NCCD and not other kind of duties - In the present case, there is no dispute in this regard, since the appellants have utilized the credit of NCCD for paying NCCD only. By no stretch of imagination, this restriction can be extended to credit of duties not specifically listed under Rule 3(7).
In the absence of any restriction and as provided under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit of basic excise duty can be utilized for payment of any duty of excise and since the Commissioner herself has held that NCCD is a duty of excise, there can be no objection to the appellants utilizing the credit of basic duty for payment of NCCD - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2007 (5) TMI 433 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s order directing the firm to deposit the amounts. She has also stated that Shri Bhagirath Lal Agarwal, who was incharge of the firm, died in the hospital. She came to know about the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) only when sale proceedings were initiated. She immediately filed a Writ Petition and, therefore, there was no delay in deposit of the amounts. In terms of the Master Recording case cited supra, the ratio of the said citation is that where proper explanation has been given, the delay in deposit can be condoned. Therefore, in terms of this citation, the delay in deposit of the amount in the present case is condoned. As a consequence, the appeal is required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept the deposit and decide the case on merits within four months from the receipt of the order. The appeal is allowed by remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2007 (5) TMI 432 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - Cenvat/Modvat - Utilisation of credit ... ... ... ... ..... e refund of such surplus amount. rdquo 7. emsp On the plain reading of the above reproduced section, it can be seen that this section can be brought into play to demand the duty only when the assessee has collected excess amount in the guise of excise duty from his purchasers and has not deposited the same with the Government of India. In the present case the issue is not so. It is on record and undisputed that the amount of the duty is indicated on the invoices, during the relevant period, has been deposited by the appellant by making a debit entry in the Cenvat credit account. It is a settled law that debits made in Cenvat credit account is discharge of the duty liability by the assessee. Since the provisions of Section 11D are not at all applicable in the present case, we find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and we do so. 8. emsp Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in Court)
............
|
