|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 631 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 558 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r Heading 8544.00 of Central Excise Tariff. We find that issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shakun Products v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T 184. In that case the Tribunal held wiring harness is classifiable under Heading 8544.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly appeal is hereby rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 557 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Washing machine - Not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 54/93-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... chines including those which do both wash and dry. The plea of the appellants that the language of this notification deserves to be construed liberally and its benefit must be extended to them, has been rightly not accepted by the authorities below. Being an exemption notification, it has to be construed rather strictly and the onus was on the appellants to show that they were entitled to its benefit. But they have failed to do so. Going by the wordings of this notification, the authorities below had rightly denied its benefit to the appellants as their product washing machine does not fall within its four corners. 3. emsp In view of the discussion made above, the view taken by both the authorities below that the appellants are not entitled to the partial exemption in terms of Notification No. 54/93 is legally valid and sound and as such no interference is called for. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same is ordered to be rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 556 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... . He points out that all other grounds taken in appeal are not sustainable and they are only relying on certain text book definition on lsquo plastics rsquo which is not material for consideration of the case. In view of test results clinching the issue hence he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions, and on perusal of the orders and the grounds taken, we are totally satisfied that in the present case, the classification has been arrived at only after AC having drawn the sample and having obtained a test result from the National Test House, Alipore, Calcutta. Same has not been contested before the authorities and the Commissioner has clearly noted in his order that test report has not been challenged. 5. emsp In that view of the matter, all other submissions made in the grounds of appeal which are theoretical cannot be accepted in the matter. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and hence same is rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 555 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ure and for want of any material regarding Commercial understanding of the impugned products as plain shaft bearing, the impugned Order cannot be sustained. The Ld. Advocate has rightly relied upon the decision in Gupta Manufacturing Co., supra, wherein it was held that description of by assessee is immaterial unless it is shown that the goods satisfy the trade understanding and are known in trade as such. Finally, the Revenue has primarily relied upon the catalogue of the Appellants for determining the classification which has been regarded by the Tribunal of little evidentiary value in the case of Trading Engineers (International) Pvt. Ltd. We are, therefore, of the view that Department has not substantiated the classification of impugned products under Heading 84.83 of Excise Tariff. As we are allowing the appeal on merit, we are not considering the other pleas raised by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants. We, thus, set aside the impugned Order and allow both the Appeals.
-
2000 (8) TMI 554 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - New plea - Dutiability - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... o marketability rdquo is a decisive test for dutiability. It only means ldquo Saleable rdquo , or ldquo suitable for sale. rdquo It need not be in fact ldquo marketed. rdquo In the present matter, the entire quantity is captively consumed and that is why the product is not being sold. Accordingly there is nothing to suggest that product in question is not marketable. The Commissioner (Appeals) in Overseas Trading case has set aside the order following the decision in Lohia Sheet Products case as no evidence of marketability was produced though the assessee therein raised the issue of non-marketability. The facts in present matter are different as the Appellants admittedly have not raised this point at all before both the lower authorities. We also observe that benefit of Notification No. 134/94-C.E. has been extended to the Appellants while demanding duty on the impugned products. We, thus, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly reject the appeal.
-
2000 (8) TMI 553 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Import - OGL - Confiscation - Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... s reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.) no findings are therefore being arrived at on the liability of confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) for this part of seizure. (d) In view of our findings so far as the order regarding 561 MT covered by four BEs pending clearance in the Kochi Customs the same is required to be set aside along with the show cause notice and the BEs are remanded back for assessment by the proper officer of the Kochi Customs House. (e) The order regarding confiscation of 71 MTs of scrap seize at Pondicherry cleared in the earlier consignment is set aside. Show cause notice regarding this part of seizure at Pondicherry and confiscation of the said quantity is required to be upheld and remanded to the Commissioner, Kochi Customs, for re-adjudication. (f) In view of our findings the orders on penalty and duty demand are therefore required to be set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication. 7. ensp We order as above and allow the appeals accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 552 - CEGAT, MUMBAI I
... ...
... ... ..... ision sets are inputs under Rule 57A or not has already been decided by the Tribunal in its decision in E/1007/95 in Order No. 254/96-WRB, dated 12-1-1996. The Tribunal has held these to be inputs. In view of the ratio of that decision I see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 551 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... esent equipment as a whole is so heavy that it cannot be lifted in hand for the purposes of lubricant under high pressure. The lubricant is stored in a steel drum which is subject to creation of high pressure and since the entire equipment cannot be held in hand, therefore merely because the administering gun can be held in hand, it cannot be said that the entire system can be classified under 84.67 which deals with only in hand guns. The equipment is undisputedly having a tank to hold and an integral pump, which meets the chapter notes of HSN 84.24. Therefore, we find great merit in the representations of the appellants and accordingly we allow their appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law. 10. emsp Ld. Chartered Accountant submits that as far as the second item namely Air Receiver is concerned, the appellants do not wish to press the issue before us and they have already paid the duty demanded thereon. Hence, no orders are required to be issued on that matter.
-
2000 (8) TMI 550 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Re-import - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... have alerted the Proper Officer of Central Excise to initiate such action in the matter as was necessary under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and should not have taken on them to decide whether the export was required to be made under Central Excise bond or otherwise. We find that the original export was made from Chennai and no such objections were raised by the Customs House at the time of export. Therefore, the Chennai customs having not objected to the Shipping Bill passed by their own Customs officers, cannot now find faults/flaws with the Export. We find that there is no cause to deny to the present re-import, benefit of clause 3 to notification 94/96 of Customs. We find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and we do not consider any grounds taken by the Commissioner to induce us to hold the goods to be excisable as proposed in the grounds made out in the appeal filed before us. 6. emsp In view of our findings, the stay application and appeals are rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 549 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal following the C.B.E. and C. Circular No. 263/45/89/CX. 8, dated 7-8-1989 have held above clearly that defective goods returned are inputs for purpose of Modvat. He, therefore, submits that in view of the Larger Bench decisions and particular decision on their own product covers their product clearly and therefore, prays that the appeals may be allowed. 4. emsp Shri R. Babu, ld. DR reiterates the findings of the authorities below. 5. emsp I have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel and the DR. I find that the product in particular is covered by decision of the Tribunal. I also note that three Larger Benches of this Tribunal while dealing with the same issue i.e. admissibility of Modvat credit as inputs on goods returned as defective held that Modvat credit as inputs would be available on goods returned as defective. In this view of the matter, the three appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
2000 (8) TMI 548 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation and penalty - Fabrics - Polyester fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... ent goods under import and therefore we cannot uphold the valuation arrived at by the ld. Commissioner as well as we do not find any provision for arriving at the value of imported goods based on the sale price of velvet in the local market as arrived at by the Commissioner. Since we set aside the order for placing the importer under proper notice after obtaining appropriate technical opinion about the goods under import, we would not like to give any finding on the excess quantity since the excess quantity also could be redetermined with technical opinions as to what should be the error of margin as per the market and technical specifications permissible for like goods. 7. emsp In view of our findings, we set aside the order with the directions that since the goods are retained for a long time, the re-adjudication in the above terms should be got conducted as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight weeks. The appeal is allowed as a remand for de novo adjudication.
-
2000 (8) TMI 547 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nt raised in the Reference Application and a point of law does arise in such cases and it requires judicial interpretation as to what is the limit of the obligation cast on the manufacturer under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) read with Explanation thereto. The reasonable steps that are expected to be taken by the person availing of credit of duty is that he should satisfy himself either from his personal knowledge or on the strength of a certificate given by a person with whose handwriting or signature he is familiar or on the strength of a certificate issued to the manufacturer or the supplier by the Superintendent of Central Excise within whose jurisdiction such manufacturer has his factory or the supplier has his place of business subject to the proviso to the said Explanation. 8. emsp In view of the above discussion, I accept the Reference Application and hereby refer the matter to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2000 (8) TMI 546 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Remission of Duty/Destruction of Goods - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... consumption and are a health and pollution hazard, therefore order the permission for destroying the same under Central Excise supervision as prescribed. (d) emsp As regards proposed demand of duty on L6 holder for tobacco received under Chapter X procedure, since there is no allegation of misuse or non-use of the same and the same should have been allowed to have been destroyed by the proper officer, which request has not been considered and no resumed order is given, the same are now allowed to be destroyed, the duty on the same will stand remitted on such destruction. (e) emsp As regards demand of duty on intermediate Cigarettes, which had not reached the stage of fully manufactured goods, and have been rendered unfit for human consumption, they are thus not capable of being sold. They cannot be charged to duty. There can be no duty liability on goods which cannot be marketed or/and are incomplete goods. 4. emsp In view of our findings the appeal is allowed in above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 545 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation - Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... la fide intention. They continued to declare power driven pump in their C/Lists even after Gujarat High Court decision on the belief that it formed on the basis of the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order. If the appellants are under legal obligation to change their classification after pronouncement and declaration of law by any judicial authorities, the onus equally lies on the Revenue to do corrective action as early as possible when the facts are already in their knowledge. As such, we hold that demands in question having been admittedly raised after a period of six months from the relevant time are barred by limitation. We also note that the Gujarat High Court rsquo s decision was delivered in the year 1979 whereas the show cause notices were issued much later i.e. in the years 1983, 1984 and 1991. In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification for invoking the longer period against the appellants. Accordingly, we allow all the appeals on the point of limitation.
-
2000 (8) TMI 544 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... oal tar distillate and it is a residue not being mixed and should be classified under 2708.19, which is the heading for pitch other than these pitch which are obtained by blending with creosote oil or other tar distillates. The impugned order is classifying pitch (all sorts) under 2708.11 is not found to be in order as this heading covers only blended pitch and soft pitch is found to be not blended. Therefore, soft pitch has to be classified under 2708.19. 6. emsp As regards hard pitch and extra hard pitch they are pitch blended and aerated, they would fall under 2708.11 as classified by Asstt. Collector, held by Commissioner (Appeals), and not under 2708.19 as made out in the present appeal. 7. emsp The Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is confirmed as regards classification of road tar/special tar and hard pitch/extra pitch and the order regarding the classification of soft pitch under 2708.11 is set aside and appeal allowed classifying the soft pitch under 2709.19 (sic).
-
2000 (8) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... eading 38.23. 3. emsp We are not able to accept either of these contentions. The Heading 2204.00 was deleted by the Finance Act, 1989, which came into effect on 13-5-1989. From that date also the respondent was required to file another classification list as provided by the provisions of Rule 173C. In any event the classification list earlier filed would cease to be effective as the tariff heading itself has been deleted. Therefore, for the period covered by the classification list, the Collector (Appeals) order not being questioned, has to be confirmed. That is the only period we are concerned with. 4. emsp Even otherwise we are not able to see how Heading 38.23 applies. Note 1A to Chapter 38 excludes from its scope separate chemical defined compound otherwise specified in that note. It is not (sic) found that ethyl alcohol is separate defined compound or otherwise specified. This chapter will not apply. 5. emsp We therefore see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
-
2000 (8) TMI 542 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification - Import licence ... ... ... ... ..... d produced the licence. From the order impugned before us, we do not find any finding of the Collector on this aspect or a reference to it and therefore we cannot consider that aspect at this stage. 8. emsp Since an import licence is required and the respondent importer rsquo s Advocate is making a strong plea that a licence was produced and there is no finding about such an act, we are not able to determine the margin of profit with subject imports for the purposes of determining the fine and penalty in this case, we would uphold the ground taken in the appeal as regards invocation of section 111(d) and would remand the case to the appropriate authorities to redetermine the fine and penalty if any subject to considering the submissions of the respondents importers and the effect of their submitting the import licence to cover the import of printer mechanisms in question. 9. emsp The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms for de novo determination of the points referred.
-
2000 (8) TMI 540 - CEGAT, IKOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... as ldquo Jute Webbings rdquo . The entity under classification is not understood as lsquo jute-fabric rsquo even by the appellants themselves or by others dealing in them. Therefore, ldquo Jute Webbings rdquo would not be covered under chapter heading 53 of Central Excise Tariff Act. We are reinforced in our view of exclusion of lsquo jute webbing rsquo from chapter 53 by reading of the ldquo General Explanatory Notes rdquo on page 711 in the HSN which are required to be read as per the notes under 53.10. These notes exclude ldquo narrow woven fabrics rdquo from woven fabrics falling under Chapter 50 to 55. 5. emsp We observe that the Asstt. Collector has found that the appellant itself has classified the same products under 5806.90 in their subsequent classification which is not being contested before us, or Commissioner (Appeals). 6. emsp In view of our findings hereinabove the classification of lsquo jute-webbings rsquo is confirmed under 5806.90 and the appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 539 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Custom house agent licence - Renewal of - Qualification ... ... ... ... ..... nce. In terms of Regulation 10(2), such agents were eligible to work in all Customs Stations. The present appellant was working in Mumbai in addition to Pune. In terms of the communication made by the appellant on 11-4-2000, during the period, they had handled over 900 documents. The perusal of the qualifying standards laid down in the Public Notices does not indicate that there was any condition that the qualifying documents should be handled only at the Customs station where the licence was granted. It has, therefore, to be assumed and accepted that the total documents handled by the CHA in all Customs Stations where he was permitted to operate would be taken to fulfil the norms laid down for the assessee to be eligible for the renewal of the licence. Viewed in this manner, we find that the appellant CHA had fulfilled the norms. 4. emsp We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct the Commissioner to renew his licence for operation for the period stipulated in Regulation 10.
-
2000 (8) TMI 538 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
HSD oil and furnace oil - Exemption for export promotion ... ... ... ... ..... benefits of Notification when under two or more Notifications are available, the option would remain with the assessee and he cannot be forced into the choice Notification of the Revenue. We have perused the Notification Nos. 1/95 and 10/95 and we cannot find any limitations in Notification 1/95 to exclude the 100 EOU engaged in aqua- culture from the ambit of this Notification. Similarly, Notification No. 10/95 does not restrict or prescribe a condition that this Notification would be applicable to the appellants, who will not be availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. Therefore, we cannot agree with the findings of the Commissioner. The impugned order is therefore, required to be set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, as we are of the considered opinion that these judgments cited above are applicable and the issue being covered, benefit of Notification No. 10/95 cannot be forced on 100 EOU aquaculture forms during the relevant period. Ordered accordingly.
............
|
