|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 542 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Tobacco - Departmental instructions - Cigarettes Manual - Demand - Exemption - Clandestine removal - Accountal of goods
-
2002 (9) TMI 540 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
EXIM Policy - Appeal to Tribunal - Adjudication - Bill of Entry assessed by Proper Officer - Redemption fine
-
2002 (9) TMI 539 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e Office of Commissioner (Appeals). However, the said employee got an urgent call from his home town about the illness of his mother and he left immediately without filing the appeal. He submits that all these facts were placed before Commissioner, who should have taken note of the same and should have condoned the delay. 3. emsp In view of the above explanation given by the appellants and keeping in view that delay is only of 17 days, I direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay and take up the main case for disposal. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
2002 (9) TMI 538 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... appealable order and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have entertained the same. We cannot agree with this contention. Going by the wording of Section 35 the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. But at the same time according to us the Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector. The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot just allow the appeal since he had not gone into the merits of the contentions raised in the Memorandum of appeal. We, therefore, affirm that portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector and direct the Assistant Collector to re-consider the application submitted by the appellant herein for refund and dispose of the same on merits after giving reasons. 4. emsp The appeal is disposed of as above and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.
-
2002 (9) TMI 537 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Related persons - Mutuality of interest - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... there is no charge or finding that the prices of tyres manufactured by M/s. SATL were deliberately depressed. Moreover, it is not, and indeed cannot be the case of the department that the material on record is not sufficient to reach a conclusion, one way or the other, on the basic aspect of ldquo related persons rdquo . In view of the fact that the order of the Commissioner has taken all aspects into account and that ld. M(T) has considered all aspects for holding that M/s. SATL is not related to M/s. CEAT and M/s. Goodyear, I hold that remand of case is not called for, and concur with the finding of the ld. M(T) that on merits the appeals are required to be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 23. emsp The file is now returned to the original bench for recording the majority order. Sd/-Jyoti BalasundaramMember (Judicial) ORDER The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Sd/-Krishna KumarMember (Judicial) Sd/-Gowri ShankarMember (Technical)
-
2002 (9) TMI 533 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... rayed that the order of remanding the case back to the department for trade discount may be amended as the same has been erroneously mentioned by the Tribunal in the said final order. 3. emsp Heard ld. DR Shri C. Mani who also has fairly conceded that the Trade Discount was not the issue before the learned Commissioner and also not before the Tribunal. 4. emsp We have carefully gone through the Order-in-Appeal and find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was seized of only cash discount and had decided about the cash discount only and there was no issue before the learned Commissioner about trade discount. In view of above facts and circumstances, an error apparent on the face of record has occurred. We, therefore, amend the order of remanding back in respect of trade discount and that portion of the order pertaining to trade discount remanding to the lower authority is hereby deleted from the Final Order No. 491/2002, dated 1-3-2002. Ordered accordingly. ROM is thus allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 531 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... nts. Some copies of the ledger of Punjab and Sindh Bank were also produced which show that during the relevant period, these firms had been regularly having transactions. There is also no denial that these firms which have issued gate passes, are registered under Central Excise Department. The Department has not recorded the statements of the persons who have issued the gate passes. All these goes to show that the Department has failed to bring on record the true factual position and as such, the appeal filed by the appellants may be allowed. 6. emsp After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the records, I find that the Department has failed to meet the points raised by the appellants. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the finding arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority. Once again, the matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a speaking order in respect of the points raised by the learned Advocate. The matter is accordingly remanded.
-
2002 (9) TMI 529 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the letter against which the appeal was filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the same was in the shape of a letter written to the appellants informing them that their representation had been dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner with the remarks - ldquo ....that the matter cannot be decided afresh rdquo . I fully agree with the appellate authority that such a correspondence between the Superintendent and the appellants cannot be treated as an appealable order and the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal as not maintainable. The appellants, if aggrieved with the said letter, could have approached their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities for deciding the disputed issue of availability of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods with a request to issue the proper show cause notice and adjudicate the same in accordance with law. 2. emsp In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merits in the appeal and reject the same.
-
2002 (9) TMI 528 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts ... ... ... ... ..... ght of the above discussion, we hold that the demand under the show cause notice dated 4-8-99 is barred by limitation. 8. emsp The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that so long as the assessment of Ennore factory on the basis of duty paid on the different components transferred from there to Alwar has not been reopened, it is not permissible to have a different assessment at the receiving end. In support of the submission he placed reliance on the following decisions - Eveready Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 379 (T) Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 625 (T) GKN Invel Transmissions Ltd. 2001 (137) E.L.T. 527 (T) 2001 (42) RLT 711 (CEGAT) . We do not think that it is necessary for us to go into this contention also in the light of our finding that demand is barred by limitation. 9. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellant will be entitled to all consequential reliefs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 525 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... sel for the appellant that there is no finding that there was a difference in the number of billets and blooms which subsequently were after grinding obtained as wire rods/rounds. We also note that there is no evidence placed on record to show any removal from the factory in the form of wire rods/rounds. We further note that billets and blooms are subjected to the process of grinding to remove the defects etc. and that in the process of grinding, there is a loss in weight. This loss in weight is in the form of waste and scrap generated in the process of grinding. We also note that this waste and scrap is cleared on payment of duty. Thus, we find that there is no evidence on record to sustain the allegation of clandestine removal. In the circumstances, we hold that the findings of the ld. Commissioner are not sustainable in law. Therefore, they are set aside and the appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 524 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Production capacity based duty - Annual capacity of production ... ... ... ... ..... een gained anything in the year 1996 by wrongly declaring the pinion distance. As such, we are of the view that the evidentiary document produced by the appellants requires to be accepted as against report of the visiting officers. Inasmuch as in the said evidentiary documents, the nominal centre distance of pinion has been shown as 254 mm, we direct the Commissioner to determine the annual production of capacity of the appellants by adopting the ldquo d rdquo factor as 254 mm. 10. emsp Before parting, we would like to observe that the matter could have been remanded for further verification of the ldquo d rdquo factor in the presence of experts but we have been informed by the appellants that the said mill has been dismantled. As such, it is not possible to re-verify the ldquo d rdquo factor and the dispute needs to be resolved on the basis of the evidentiary documents on record which we have done in the preceding paragraph. 11. emsp Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (9) TMI 523 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Bone Tallow - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... parlance Bone Tallow and Mutton Tallow are the same thing or in common parlance Bone Tallow is also known as Mutton Tallow. The Affidavits are only saying that there is no difference between the Bone Tallow and Mutton Tallow and the Tallow purchased by them is understood by them as Mutton Tallow/Bone Tallow. The Commissioner in the impugned Order has not accepted these affidavits by giving his finding that in common and commercial parlance there is distinction between Mutton, Beef, and Pork, etc. though all these are flesh of animals. Tallow, according to the Webster Dictionary, is ldquo the white nearly tasteless solid rendered fat of cattle and sheep rdquo . As the notification exempts only the Mutton Tallow, the benefit of the same is not available to Bone Tallow manufactured by the Appellants. Therefore, the duty demanded from them is confirmed. The penalty, however, is on the higher side which is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. But for this modification, the appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 522 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Change without giving any reason - Natural justice - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... the product in question falls under Chapter Heading 2811.90 that from the process of manufacture of the said product, it is observed that the party rsquo s claim that they were selling almost ash after extraction is not justified. 4. emsp After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the records, we find that the appellant has been filing the declarations for a long time classifying their product under Chapter Heading 2621 and there has been no change in the process of manufacture or otherwise. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal of the Revenue without any plausible explanation with regard to change in classification amounts to passing of non-speaking order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is necessary that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) may record his findings for change of classification. The appeal is, therefore, remanded for de novo adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellants.
-
2002 (9) TMI 521 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying document - Duplicate copy of invoice ... ... ... ... ..... s observed that the receipt is given for the letter only and not that all the contents have been receipted. He has observed that the RT 12 returns are not checked immediately after their receipt and more over it takes time to check the RT 12 returns because of the reason that the impugned invoices which are received in a large number along with the RT 12 returns are to be checked properly with reference to the Modvat declaration under the provisions of Rule 57G. In my view, this could not be the reason to allege that the appellants had not filed the impugned invoice along with their RT 12 return when they have got a due acknowledgement from the Range Superintendent for the receipt of the same along with other modvatable documents filed under the RT 12 return. In this view of the matter, the denial of the Modvat credit and the imposition of penalty on the appellants is not justified. The appeal is therefore allowed by setting aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).
-
2002 (9) TMI 520 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Chapter X Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... . (iii) IFFCO Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow - Final Order Nos. 3-5/2001-C dated 16-1-2001 2001 (129) E.L.T. 456 (Tribunal) 2. emsp We have perused the records and have heard the learned SDR. We find that the issue is no more res integra and this Tribunal has held in the appellants rsquo own case as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that indirect use (use in generation of electricity) also amounts to use ldquo in the manufacture of fertilizers rdquo and the assessees are eligible for the exemption. Further our Final Order No. 3-5/2001-C.E., dated 16-1-2001 2001 (129) E.L.T. 456 (T) was passed with specific regard to exemption under No. 75/84, which has come up for consideration in this appeal also. Our order was also passed based on two orders of the Apex Court in the appellants own case as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.). 3. emsp Appeal is allowed following our previous order in the appellant s own case. Appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief.
-
2002 (9) TMI 519 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ntained in clause (iii) of Section 4(4)(G). The lower authority has found the buyers place to be the place of removal. Prima facie this in our view is wrong. In later judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Associated Strips have clearly distinguished the fact if the case and the facts in earlier judgment in Prabhat Zarda and Escorts JCB. We are prima facie of the view that the demand made on the assessee is wrong. This is because once the goods have been earmarked at the factory gate itself the appropriation has taken place. Therefore the contract has been discharged vis-a-vis seller and buyer. Any action that may be taken in respect of transportation is post appropriation. The relationship between manufacturer and the consumer (Board) is that of the contract of service by the manufacturer for undertaking transportation and undertaking insurance. This is only our prima facie view. 6. emsp We therefore waive deposit and stay their recovery during their pendency of the appeal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 516 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ected. 4. emsp Ld. DR Shri C. Mani reiterated the stand taken by the Department. 5. emsp I have carefully gone through the case records. The triplicate copy of the bill of entry dated 15-9-1995 which was produced by the ld. Counsel in the open court and after verifying the triplicate copy of the bill of entry which is in the name of the Head Office of M/s. BOC India Ltd., Calcutta. I find that the triplicate copy of the bill of entry is available and was also produced before the respective range superintendents who had also defaced the triplicate copy of the bill of entry pertaining to their jurisdiction. 6. emsp I am therefore of the considered opinion that it was an error apparent on the face of the record and requires to be rectified and the appeal filed by the revenue deserves to be rejected in view of the above facts and circumstances and I therefore recall the Final Order No. 673/2001 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. E/552/99 and reject the appeal filed by Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of retrospective operation of the explanation to the first proviso to sub-section (1-A) of section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 which was inserted by Act No. 1 of 1996 on March 5, 1996 with effect from April 1, 1988 challenged
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is a settled position that the Legislature can impose tax retrospectively though it cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable. On a closer scrutiny it becomes clear that till August 18, 1995 (date of pronouncement of High Court judgment) they could have and in fact collected the tax. The explanation was inserted on March 5, 1996 so, in effect, the retrospectivity which really affects them, is only for about six months. Even if they have not passed on burden of tax to the customers during that period, the effect cannot be said to be so unreasonable, arbitrary and harsh as to invalidate the explanation. Such occasional hiccups are not unusual incidents of business.
However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the appellants to pay sales tax levied/leviable during the period August 18, 1995 to March 5, 1996 in six equal installments, to be paid in each month commencing from October 1, 2002. If any of the appellants fails to pay any installment within two weeks of the same becoming due, it would be open to the concerned authority to collect the amount of tax due, in lump sum, in accordance with law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 489 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... nexures were not accepted by that authority. Ld. Counsel has contended that the dealers rsquo invoices read with annexures ought to have been accepted as valid duty-paying documents under Rule 57G. Ld. Counsel has drawn support from the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Hybrid Electronic System P. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-I 1996 (87) E.L.T. 526 (Tribunal) . I find that the cited case law was not a part of the grounds of the appeal nor was it cited when the Final Order was passed. The invoices in question were not before the Bench when the order was passed. Even any mention of the invoices was not made in the appeal memorandum. An ROM application can be allowed only when a mistake apparent from the record is pointed out. In the instant case, the Final Order appears to have been passed correctly on the basis of the records available at that time and after due consideration of the submissions made at that time. There is no mistake apparent from the record. The ROM application is rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 488 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 16-3-1995 to 10-8-1995. These show cause notices although alleged short-levy of excise duty, they are however in the nature of demanding additional duty of excise. He cites relevant case law. 4. emsp He submits that the present show cause notice covering the same period was issued in year 2000. 5. emsp On the point of limitation we find merit in the case of the assessee. The three show cause notices make it very clear that the same facts as are shown in the present show cause notices were present at that time also. In the face of the knowledge of the department, the allegation that the assessees has suppressed the facts as is made in the present show cause notices lacks merit. We find that assessee rsquo s contention has prima facie merit. At this stage (although we find the arguments on merit very interesting) only on the ground of limitation we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty and orders stay of their recovery during the pendency of this appeal.
............
|
