Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2001 2001 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 241 to 260 of 623 Records

• 2001 (7) TMI 766
  
  The judgment is about a waiver of deposit for an imported paint shop assembly. The issue is the entitlement to Modvat credit of customs duty paid on the goods. The assembly of components into a paint shop is considered manufacturing. The Tribunal allows the application for additional grounds. Waiver of deposit is granted due to the repetitive nature of the issue and the appeal being listed for hearing.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 765
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai rejected Revenue appeals against impugned orders dated 10-2-1997. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's decision that a process of dilution did not result in the manufacture of a new product for classification under Chapter 38. Legislative changes brought in the Budget were held to have prospective effect only. The appeals were rejected based on previous decisions.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 764
  
  Issues:
  1. Denial of Modvat credit on certain items by the authorities.
  2. Classification of items as capital goods for availing Modvat credit.
  3. Dispute regarding taking Modvat credit on original invoices.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit on certain items
  The case involved the denial of Modvat credit on specific items by the authorities, alleging that the items were not capital goods or that Modvat credit was taken on original invoices. The appellants, engaged in cement manufacturing, contested these allegations before the Commissioner (Appeals) after the Deputy Commissioner's Order-in-Original was upheld.
  
  Issue 2: Classification of items as capital goods for Modvat credit
  During the arguments, the appellants' representative, Shri Sudeep Singh, emphasized that various items such as CFC Section, Penion, Gears, Armoured cables, telecommunication cables, Transformer with Feeder, Electronic Speed Switch, Lab precision oven, Cast Basalt Tiles, Thermocouple, Vibration Control Unit, and EOPC were essential capital goods for their manufacturing process. Singh cited precedents and tribunal rulings to support the classification of these items as capital goods eligible for Modvat credit.
  
  Issue 3: Dispute over taking Modvat credit on original invoices
  The authorities contended that Modvat credit was improperly claimed on original invoices, citing mandatory provisions of the rules. However, the representative for the appellants argued that the requirement to take Modvat credit on duplicate invoices was introduced later, and during the relevant period, there was no such stipulation. The judge noted this discrepancy and ruled that the denial of Modvat credit based on the use of original invoices was not legally sustainable.
  
  In the final judgment, the judge allowed Modvat credit on some items while disallowing it on others. Specifically, Modvat credit was not granted on CFC Section, Thermocouple, Vibration Control Unit, and Lab Precision Oven. However, the credit was deemed admissible on the remaining items. Regarding the issue of taking Modvat credit on original invoices, the judge clarified that during the relevant period, there was no legal requirement to use duplicate invoices, as this provision was introduced later. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed based on these findings, with any consequential relief to be provided as per the law.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 762
  
  Issues:
  1. Confirmation of duty demand under Notification No. 1/93 for copper alloy articles.
  2. Applicability of limitation period for duty demand.
  3. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 11AC.
  4. Misstatement and suppression leading to evasion of duty.
  5. Reduction of penalty amount.
  6. Adjustment of deposited amount towards the duty demand.
  
  Confirmation of Duty Demand under Notification No. 1/93:
  The judgment confirms the demand of duty on copper alloy articles under Notification No. 1/93. The appellants did not dispute that the products were not specified under the notification. The Classification List filed by the appellants did not mention the notification, and they cleared goods at a concessional rate despite declaring a higher duty rate. The authorities rightly invoked the extended period of limitation due to misstatement and evasion of duty.
  
  Applicability of Limitation Period:
  The consultant for the appellants argued that the duty demand raised after a significant delay was barred by limitation. However, the judgment held that the appellants' conduct of declaring a higher duty rate while availing the concessional rate amounted to misstatement and suppression, justifying the invocation of the extended limitation period.
  
  Imposition of Personal Penalty under Section 11AC:
  The appellants contested the imposition of a personal penalty under Section 11AC, claiming it was not justified as the provision was not in force during the relevant period. The judgment agreed that Section 11AC did not apply retroactively but noted that the show cause notice also proposed a penalty under Rule 173Q. The penalty amount was reduced from Rs. 15,435.00 to Rs. 5,000.00 based on this consideration.
  
  Misstatement and Suppression Leading to Evasion of Duty:
  The Revenue argued that the appellants' actions amounted to misstatement and suppression with the intent to evade duty payment. The judgment concurred, highlighting the inconsistency between the declared duty rate in the Classification List and the actual concessional rate availed by the appellants, leading to a clear case of evasion.
  
  Reduction of Penalty Amount:
  The judgment reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 15,435.00 to Rs. 5,000.00 considering the absence of applicability of Section 11AC for the relevant period and the proposal of penalty under Rule 173Q in the show cause notice.
  
  Adjustment of Deposited Amount Towards Duty Demand:
  The appellants had already deposited Rs. 680.00 towards the differential duty amount. The judgment directed the Additional Commissioner to consider this deposit while quantifying the duty demand, ensuring proper adjustment of the deposited amount in the final calculation.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 723
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Eligibility of Modvat credit on capital goods supplied by RIL.
  2. Interpretation of Rule 57R and Rule 57Q.
  3. Applicability of extended period of limitation for demand.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Eligibility of Modvat credit on capital goods supplied by RIL:
  The appellants, manufacturers of polyester staple fibre (PSF), entered into an agreement with Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) where RIL supplied raw materials and capital goods free of cost to the appellants. The appellants claimed Modvat credit on these capital goods. The department objected, arguing that the appellants were not the owners of the inputs, which was a requirement for availing Modvat credit. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for duties and imposed equivalent penalties.
  
  2. Interpretation of Rule 57R and Rule 57Q:
  The appellants argued that the concept of ownership was not contemplated in the Modvat rules and that procedural lapses should not deny substantive rights to Modvat credit. The Tribunal examined Rule 57R(3) and Rule 57Q, concluding that ownership of the goods was implied in the rules. The Tribunal reasoned that using inputs without acquiring ownership would result in unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the appellants, not being the owners of the capital goods, were not entitled to Modvat credit.
  
  3. Applicability of extended period of limitation for demand:
  The appellants contended that the department was aware of the relevant facts since 1995, and thus the extended period of limitation could not apply. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellants had not disclosed the ownership details adequately and invoked the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal cited the Nizam Sugar Factory case, stating that knowledge of the department does not preclude the application of the extended period under proviso to Section 11A.
  
  Separate Judgments:
  Member (T) J.H. Joglekar disagreed with Member (J) G.N. Srinivasan on the applicability of the extended period of limitation. Joglekar held that the demand was barred by limitation, as the department had knowledge of the facts for over three years. The matter was referred to a third member, Gowri Shankar, who concurred with Joglekar, concluding that the demand was indeed hit by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 713
  
  Issues:
  Refund claim rejection on unjust enrichment grounds post finalization of provisional assessment.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal stemmed from the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,43,441/- due to unjust enrichment post finalization of provisional assessment in the year 1990. The appellant contended that as per Supreme Court rulings and Tribunal decisions, unjust enrichment does not apply when a refund claim is a consequence of finalizing provisional assessment. The appellant cited the amendment to Rule 9B(5) and Section 11B, emphasizing its prospective nature and the need for parties to prove non-passing of duty to consumers. The Tribunal had previously allowed a similar appeal based on these grounds, setting a precedent.
  
  The respondent, however, supported the order-in-appeal, citing judgments where unjust enrichment applied in similar cases. Notably, the respondent referred to a specific case where unjust enrichment was deemed applicable to all pending cases. The appellant distinguished this judgment, highlighting the unique nature of refund claims post finalization of provisional assessment.
  
  Upon considering both arguments, the Tribunal sided with the appellant, drawing strength from previous decisions aligning with the appellant's position. The Tribunal reiterated that unjust enrichment does not apply to cases involving refund claims following the finalization of provisional assessment. Citing various precedents, including the Mafatlal Industries case, the Tribunal emphasized that assessments finalized before the amendment date are entitled to refund benefits under Section 11B without unjust enrichment implications. The Tribunal referenced its earlier order in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the entitlement to recredit the refunded amount due to the nature of the provisional assessments.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal found the respondent's references and the Commissioner's citations irrelevant to the issue at hand, as they did not pertain to refund claims post finalization of provisional assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and allowed the appeal, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the refund without unjust enrichment implications.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 712
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the enhancement of the value of imported goods to US $ 1.05 per kg is justified.
  2. Whether the lower authority's reliance on a solitary bill of entry for valuation is valid.
  3. Whether the declared value of US $ 0.32 per kg should be accepted or enhanced to US $ 0.45 per kg.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Justification of Value Enhancement to US $ 1.05 per kg:
  The lower authority enhanced the value of the imported goods from US $ 0.32 per kg to US $ 1.05 per kg based on a single bill of entry (No. 131242) where the transaction value declared was US $ 1.05 per kg. The appellants contested this enhancement, arguing that similar goods were regularly assessed at US $ 0.45 per kg by various Custom Houses, including Kolkata. They cited several adjudication orders and bills of entry supporting this consistent valuation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant Industries v. Addl. Collector of Customs (1996) held that mere comparison of invoices from different importers is not conclusive for determining under-invoicing and that reliance on a stray instance of higher value is incorrect.
  
  2. Validity of Reliance on Solitary Bill of Entry:
  The appellants argued that the lower authority's reliance on a solitary bill of entry (No. 131242) was erroneous and insufficient for enhancing the value to US $ 1.05 per kg. The lower authority failed to consider other relevant evidence and instances where similar goods were assessed at US $ 0.45 per kg. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and CEGAT have consistently held that reliance on a single instance of importation at a higher value is not a valid basis for valuation, as seen in the cases of Basant Industries and Goodluck Industries v. Commissioner (1999).
  
  3. Acceptance or Enhancement of Declared Value to US $ 0.45 per kg:
  The appellants declared the value of the imported goods at US $ 0.32 per kg. The lower authority rejected this value under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, 1988, and enhanced it to US $ 1.05 per kg under Rule 6. The appellants argued that the transaction value should be accepted as per Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, unless there is evidence of misdeclaration or additional consideration paid. They cited the consistent practice of assessing similar goods at US $ 0.45 per kg by various Custom Houses, including orders passed by higher authorities like the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, and the Jt. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. The adjudicating authority found sufficient merit in the appellants' contention and noted that the Custom House had been adopting the value of US $ 0.45 per kg for similar goods. Therefore, the declared value of US $ 0.32 per kg was not acceptable, and the value should be enhanced to US $ 0.45 per kg in line with the established practice.
  
  Conclusion:
  The adjudicating authority set aside the lower authority's order enhancing the value to US $ 1.05 per kg and directed that the value of the imported goods be enhanced from US $ 0.32 per kg to US $ 0.45 per kg for assessment purposes. The appeals were disposed of with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 711
  
  Issues: Classification of goods, liability to duty, limitation period, penalty imposition, valuation method, availability of Modvat credit, limitation defense, brand name affixation, penalty redetermination.
  
  Classification of Goods:
  The case involved eight job workers manufacturing goods supplied by a company. The issue was the classification of the goods as fittings for running water gutters. The job workers did not pay duty on these goods, leading to a demand notice for duty and penalty. The manufacturers claimed classification under sub-heading 3926.90 or Heading 39.25, while the Commissioner classified them under Heading 39.17. The Tribunal found that the goods were properly classifiable as fittings for gutters under sub-heading 3925.99, rejecting the Commissioner's classification under Heading 39.17.
  
  Liability to Duty and Limitation Period:
  The manufacturers contended that the demands were barred by limitation, but the Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal also clarified that the benefit of Notification 1/93-C.E. would not be available to the goods. The duty liability was to be redetermined, considering Modvat credit availability, and failure to file a declaration under Rule 57A was not a bar for availing credit.
  
  Valuation Method and Modvat Credit:
  The manufacturers argued for valuation based on the cost of manufacture, while the Commissioner arrived at a different value by deducting elements from the sale price. The Tribunal remanded the matter for redetermination based on the cost of manufacture, allowing evidence from both sides. It was clarified that Modvat credit should be considered, subject to proof of duty payment and utilization of such products in the final goods.
  
  Brand Name Affixation and Penalty Imposition:
  The manufacturers affixed the brand name of the raw material supplier on the goods, leading to a penalty imposition under Section 11AC equal to the duty evaded. The Tribunal found that the presence of the brand name was a conscious action by the manufacturers, rejecting the claim that it was unintentional. The penalty was to be redetermined based on the gravity of the offense and the duty amount evaded.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeals were disposed of, and the Commissioner was directed to adjudicate afresh on the classification, valuation, Modvat credit, limitation defense, and penalty imposition issues based on the Tribunal's findings and directions.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 710
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of Notf. No. 9/99 for claiming concessional rate of duty
  - Requirement of filing a separate option letter under the notification
  - Date of exercising the option for availing the benefit
  - Applicability of the benefit from the date of exercising the option
  - Remand for determining the date of receipt of option letter/classification list
  
  Interpretation of Notf. No. 9/99 for claiming concessional rate of duty:
  The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the interpretation of Notf. No. 9/99. The Commissioner held that the benefit of the notification could be availed by submitting the required information on the body of the classification declaration. The Revenue argued that an option letter was necessary for availing the benefit under the notification. The Tribunal noted that the notification did not specify the requirement of a separate option letter and ruled that the benefit could be claimed in the classification list itself.
  
  Requirement of filing a separate option letter under the notification:
  The Revenue contended that an option letter needed to be filed as per para 2 of Notf. No. 9/99 for claiming the benefit. They emphasized that the date of exercising the option was crucial for determining the availability of the benefit. However, the Tribunal observed that the notification did not mandate a separate declaration and held that mentioning the notification number in the classification list sufficed for claiming the benefit.
  
  Date of exercising the option for availing the benefit:
  The Revenue stressed that the date of exercising the option was essential for granting the benefit under the notification. They argued that the benefit would only be available from the date of exercising the option until the end of the Financial Year. The Tribunal concurred that the date of option exercise was significant and needed to be specified for providing the benefit.
  
  Applicability of the benefit from the date of exercising the option:
  The Tribunal determined that the benefit of Notf. No. 9/99 would be applicable from the date of receipt of the option letter or classification list by the Assistant Commissioner. As the options were received on different dates impacting eligibility, the Tribunal remanded the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) to ascertain the dates of receipt for determining the benefit's availability to the assessees.
  
  Remand for determining the date of receipt of option letter/classification list:
  Due to the varying dates of option receipt being crucial for eligibility, the Tribunal remanded the appeals for the Commissioner (Appeals) to establish the specific dates of receiving the option letter or classification list. The benefit would be granted to assessees who had filed the option letter or made a claim for Notf. No. 9/99. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 709
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules regarding Modvat credit.
  2. Applicability of Rule 57B to transitional credit under Rule 57B.
  3. Determination of Modvat credit for inputs obtained from small-scale manufacturers.
  4. Relationship between Rule 57A, Rule 57H, and Rule 57B in granting credit.
  5. Impact of Rule 57B on the acquisition of inputs from small-scale manufacturers.
  6. Purpose and applicability of Rule 57B in the context of Modvat scheme.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules concerning Modvat credit. The issue arose when an assessee, a manufacturer of paints and varnishes, filed a declaration under Rule 57G and opted for the Modvat Scheme in 1991. The assessee claimed transitional credit under Rule 57B for the stock of inputs held on a specific date. However, the claim was initially allowed but later rejected by the Asst. Collector, leading to an appeal and subsequent Tribunal involvement.
  
  2. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Rule 57B to transitional credit under Rule 57B. It was observed that Rule 57B allows credit of duty on inputs obtained from small-scale manufacturers, providing a mechanism for granting credit at specified rates. However, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 57B is not applicable for determining transitional credit under Rule 57B, emphasizing the specific provisions and limitations of each rule.
  
  3. In determining the Modvat credit for inputs obtained from small-scale manufacturers, the Tribunal highlighted the procedural aspects outlined in Rule 57H. This rule governs the procedure for obtaining Modvat credit and empowers the Asst. Collector to allow credit of duty paid on inputs received before obtaining acknowledgment of the declaration. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the importance of following the prescribed procedures for claiming Modvat credit under the relevant rules.
  
  4. The relationship between Rule 57A, Rule 57H, and Rule 57B was crucial in understanding the credit mechanisms available to manufacturers. While Rule 57A specifies the duty allowable as credit based on goods used in the final product, Rule 57H outlines the procedure for obtaining Modvat credit. The Tribunal noted that Rule 57B introduces additional considerations for credit on inputs obtained from small-scale manufacturers, emphasizing the need to adhere to the distinct provisions of each rule.
  
  5. The impact of Rule 57B on the acquisition of inputs from small-scale manufacturers was a key aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal examined the timing of input acquisition concerning the availability of higher Modvat credit under Rule 57B. It was clarified that the decision to acquire inputs from small-scale manufacturers should not be influenced by the potential benefits under Rule 57B, as the credit is limited to the duty actually paid on the inputs at the time of acquisition.
  
  6. Finally, the Tribunal delved into the purpose and applicability of Rule 57B within the Modvat scheme. It was highlighted that Rule 57B aims to incentivize manufacturers to purchase inputs from small-scale manufacturers by offering higher credit rates. However, this benefit is contingent on specific conditions and does not extend to inputs already in stock when the manufacturer obtains acknowledgment of the declaration. The judgment ultimately favored the Revenue, emphasizing the limited scope of Rule 57B in certain credit scenarios.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 708
  
  The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal allowing Modvat credit on copper conductor as capital goods. The Tribunal upheld the order, stating that copper conductors fell under the definition of capital goods at the relevant time. The appeal was rejected.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 707
  
  Issues:
  - Challenge to evidence correctness by Revenue Appeals from Commissioner's order
  - Availment of Modvat credit on duty paid by job workers
  - Interpretation of Rule 57F(3) procedure regarding duty payment by job workers
  - Applicability of CEGAT decision in CCE v. Lucas TVS Ltd.
  - Justification for taking Modvat credit on duty paid by job workers
  
  Analysis:
  1. Challenge to evidence correctness by Revenue Appeals: The Appeals arose from the Commissioner's order challenging the evidence correctness in paras 5 and 8. The Appellants contended that the duty was paid on a different final product, justifying their Modvat credit availment. They cited a CEGAT decision and argued that no revenue loss occurred since the job worker would have availed credit if duty was discharged before input removal. The Tribunal found merit in these submissions, emphasizing that the job worker returned entirely new products after duty payment, entitling the Appellants to Modvat credit.
  
  2. Availment of Modvat credit on duty paid by job workers: The Revenue contended that the Appellants cannot take Modvat credit on duty paid by job workers, highlighting alleged violations of the law. However, the Appellants justified their Modvat credit claim, stating that the job workers paid duty on assembled components returned to them. The Tribunal upheld the Appellants' position, emphasizing that the procedure followed aligned with legal provisions and the decision in CCE v. Lucas TVS Ltd.
  
  3. Interpretation of Rule 57F(3) procedure regarding duty payment by job workers: The Tribunal carefully considered submissions from both sides and examined the records. It observed that the Appellants followed Rule 57F(3) procedures, with job workers paying duty on assembled components returned to the Appellants. The Tribunal found this procedure compliant with the law and upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the Tribunal's earlier ruling in CCE v. Lucas TVS Ltd.
  
  4. Applicability of CEGAT decision in CCE v. Lucas TVS Ltd.: The Tribunal reproduced findings from the CEGAT decision, emphasizing the transformation of inputs into new excisable commodities by job workers. It highlighted the entitlement to Modvat credit on cleared products, including differential duty paid. The Tribunal affirmed that the Appellants could claim Modvat credit on duty paid by job workers, in line with the legal provisions and precedent set by CEGAT.
  
  5. Justification for taking Modvat credit on duty paid by job workers: The Appellants justified their Modvat credit claim based on the duty paid by job workers on returned components. The Tribunal concurred with this justification, noting that the Appellants utilized intermediary products in manufacturing final products after taking Modvat credit on job workers' duty payments. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing compliance with the law and the Tribunal's previous ruling on similar matters.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 704
  
  Issues:
  1. Rejection of refund claims for spare rollers brought back to the factory after one year.
  2. Denial of refund claims based on the replacement of grease caps with rain caps.
  3. Classification change of idler rollers and clearance under a different sub-heading.
  4. Requirement of clearing reprocessed goods before refund claims can be sanctioned.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appellants, manufacturers of conveyors and spare parts, had their spare rollers rejected by customers, leading to reprocessing under Rule 173L. The refund claims were rejected due to the goods being brought back after one year without extension. The appellants argued that their application for extension should be deemed granted if not refused, emphasizing the need for the proper officer to decide on the extension before rejecting the claims. The Tribunal agreed, directing the application's consideration before the refund claims.
  
  2. A portion of the refund was denied due to cap replacement, with the Assistant Commissioner questioning the reprocessing. The Tribunal interpreted the wider use of "reconditioning" under Rule 173L to cover cap changes making rollers suitable for conveyors, supporting the appellants' claim of reprocessing.
  
  3. The Assistant Commissioner noted a classification change of idler rollers post-reprocessing, leading to denial based on different sub-headings. The appellants clarified the captive consumption of rollers in conveyor manufacture, deeming it as clearance. The Tribunal agreed, stating that captive consumption constitutes clearance, thus rejecting the objection.
  
  4. Authorities contended that reprocessed goods must be cleared before refund claim settlement, which the appellants disagreed with, citing Rule 173L. The Tribunal acknowledged the absence of such a provision but highlighted that refunds should not exceed duty payable on reprocessed goods. The matter was remanded for the Assistant Commissioner to reassess the refund claims in light of the observations.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remand, emphasizing the proper consideration of the extension application, the broader interpretation of reconditioning, the clearance through captive consumption, and the duty payable on reprocessed goods.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 698
  
  The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to a delay in filing and lack of petition for condonation of delay. The Revenue's contention of filing a condonation of delay petition was not considered, and the Tribunal found no mistake in its order. The Revenue's petition was dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 696
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
  2. Ownership and use of the trade mark 'BONUS'.
  3. Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.
  4. Determination of assessable value and quantification of duty.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
  The appellants claimed exemption from licensing control under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., asserting they were an SSI unit with clearance value below the prescribed limits. They argued that the trade mark 'BONUS' was their own, supported by an Assignment Deed dated 22-11-1993 from M/s. Ecograph A.G., Switzerland. The Department, however, contended that the appellants used a trade mark belonging to another person (the Swiss company), disqualifying them from exemption under para 4 of the notification.
  
  2. Ownership and Use of the Trade Mark 'BONUS'
  The appellants argued they acquired ownership of the trade mark 'BONUS' in India from 26-4-1993, as per the Assignment Deed, and registered it in their name on 11-3-1994. They cited the Calcutta High Court's decision in ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, supporting their claim of ownership. The Department countered that the appellants only obtained the right to use the trade mark, not ownership, thus invoking para 4 of the notification against them.
  
  3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation under Section 11A(1)
  The Department issued a show-cause notice alleging suppression of facts and misdeclaration by the appellants, invoking the extended period of limitation for demanding duty from November 1993 to 29-9-1994. The appellants contested this, arguing they had disclosed all relevant information, including the use of the trade mark 'BONUS' and their joint venture status with the Swiss company.
  
  4. Determination of Assessable Value and Quantification of Duty
  The appellants contended that the sale price should be treated as cum-duty price, and the value of exported goods should be deducted from the total clearance value for duty calculation. The adjudicating authority had not properly considered these submissions, necessitating a fresh evaluation.
  
  Judgment Summary:
  
  Entitlement to Exemption:
  The Tribunal concluded that, from 11-3-1994, the appellants were the owners of the trade mark 'BONUS' for purposes of para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., and thus entitled to exemption from duty for goods cleared under the 'BONUS' brand name from 11-3-1994 to 29-9-1994. The demand for duty on goods cleared during this period was deemed illegal.
  
  Ownership and Use of Trade Mark:
  The Tribunal found that, by virtue of the Assignment Deed and subsequent registration, the appellants had exclusive rights to the trade mark 'BONUS' in India from 11-3-1994. This ownership was recognized under Indian law, providing them protection against infringement and validating their claim for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
  
  Extended Period of Limitation:
  For the period prior to 11-3-1994, the Tribunal upheld the Department's demand for duty, as the appellants had not established ownership of the trade mark and were using a brand name owned by the Swiss company. The Tribunal also upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation, as the appellants failed to rebut the allegation of suppression for this period.
  
  Assessable Value and Duty Quantification:
  The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-evaluate the assessable value and duty quantification, considering the appellants' submissions regarding cum-duty pricing and exclusion of exported goods' value.
  
  Penalty:
  The penalty imposed on the appellants was reduced to Rs. 5000/- in light of the findings on the merits of the case.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was disposed of with directions to set aside the duty demand for the period from 11-3-1994 to 29-9-1994, and to re-quantify the duty for the period prior to 11-3-1994, considering the appellants' submissions on assessable value. The penalty was reduced accordingly.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 685
  
  Issues:
  1. Confiscation of excess stock due to non-accountability.
  2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A.
  3. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalty.
  
  Issue 1: Confiscation of excess stock due to non-accountability
  
  The appellants were found to have an excess quantity of bags during a visit by officers, with the Works Manager attributing it to labor unrest. The authorities initiated proceedings, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation of goods and recovery of duty. The Dy. Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 6,09,020, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The goods were to be accounted for in statutory records and cleared on payment of proper duty. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on the company and its representatives under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A, respectively.
  
  Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A
  
  The Dy. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants under Rule 173Q, along with penalties on the Works Manager and a company representative under Rule 209A. The penalties were justified based on the findings of non-accountability of goods and failure to meet statutory obligations despite the labor unrest explanation provided by the appellants.
  
  Issue 3: Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalty
  
  M/s. Essel Mining and Industries filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected it, upholding the original authority's decision. In the second stage appeal, the appellants argued labor unrest led to the non-accountability of goods, citing a precedent. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that despite the labor unrest, the finished goods were in the bonded store room, indicating normal production activities. The Tribunal noted the marketability of the printed bags and the failure of the appellants to establish bona fides regarding non-accountability. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and the penalty to Rs. 25,000, while the appeal was rejected, affirming the confiscation and penalties imposed.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of confiscation, penalty imposition, and the subsequent appeal process, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the authorities and the Appellate Tribunal.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 679
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected the application to rectify a mistake in the final order regarding the import of Seamless Steel Tubes for High Pressure Industrial Gas Cylinders. The Tribunal upheld the import of 4955 pieces based on documentary evidence, dismissing the appeal to set aside duty demand on the balance quantity.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 678
  
  Issues:
  1. Dismissal of appeal as time-barred due to delayed filing.
  2. Contention regarding non-service of Order-in-Original and delayed appeal filing.
  3. Proof of service of the Order-in-Original and compliance with statutory requirements.
  
  Issue 1: Dismissal of Appeal as Time-Barred:
  The appellant argued that the Order-in-Original was not served on them, leading to a delayed appeal filing. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing the issuance of the original order in 1991 and the appeal filed in 2000. The appellant contended that they only received the recovery proceedings in 2000, prompting them to request a fresh copy of the order for appeal filing. The Tribunal found the appeal dismissal unjustified, considering the circumstances of non-receipt of the original order.
  
  Issue 2: Non-Service of Order-in-Original and Delayed Appeal Filing:
  The appellants maintained that they were not served the Order-in-Original, and no revenue recovery occurred during the period in question. Upon receiving a demand letter in 2000, they requested a copy of the order and promptly filed the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner provided a note confirming the service of the order, but the appellant disputed this claim. The Tribunal reviewed the lack of concrete proof of service and accepted the appellant's assertion that they only learned of the case in 2000, justifying the delayed appeal filing.
  
  Issue 3: Proof of Service and Statutory Compliance:
  The Deputy Commissioner claimed that the Order-in-Original was dispatched in 1991, but the appellant denied receiving it. The Revenue failed to produce postal acknowledgments or despatch registers, raising doubts about the actual service of the order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper service under Section 153 of the Customs Act, noting the absence of evidence of service. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay on recovery and remanded the case for re-adjudication, acknowledging the appeal as timely filed from the date the appellant obtained a xerox copy of the order.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings, recognizing the appellant's claim of non-service of the Order-in-Original and the subsequent timely appeal filing.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 672
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai considered whether duty could be demanded from the appellant for contravening conditions of Notification 203/92. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to show sufficient justification for invoking the extended period, and the notice was deemed barred by limitation. The Department's failure to verify compliance was attributed to the assessing officer, not the importer. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 645
  
  Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff, Benefit of Notification 179/77
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved an appeal against an order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, regarding the classification of profiles and circles made from duty-paid M.S. plates/sheets under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector held that these items amount to manufacture and confirmed a demand along with imposing a penalty. The appellant did not challenge the classification but contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification 179/77, which exempts goods produced without the aid of power from duty. The appellant argued that the Collector did not consider their plea on this ground as it was not raised before the adjudicating authority initially. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, and the order was passed in the remand proceedings, leading to the allowance of the appeal based on the benefit of the notification.
  
  The appellants, in this case, were manufacturing profiles and circles, and the lower authorities classified these goods under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants did not dispute this classification but claimed entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 179/77. The Collector had acknowledged this claim made by the appellants, but refrained from giving a decision on it due to the claim not being raised before the first adjudicating authority. The appellants had argued that the cutting of profiles and circles from duty-paid sheets does not constitute manufacture and that these items should fall under the same tariff heading as the sheets. However, the Collector disagreed, stating that such cutting amounts to manufacture and falls under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants had specifically contended that they manufactured these items without using power, relying on liquified gas instead. Given that Notification No. 179/77 exempts goods produced without power from duty, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the appellants' compliance with the notification requirements.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment centered on the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff and the applicability of Notification 179/77. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of raising all relevant claims before the adjudicating authorities and emphasized the need for consistency in applying statutory exemptions such as the one provided under the mentioned notification. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural and substantive aspects that need to be considered in excise duty matters, ensuring that all legal grounds and benefits are appropriately addressed and adjudicated upon during the proceedings.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 32