|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the buyers and that the buyers had even subsequently demanded so. The question is not so much whether contract provides for such passing on the benefit or whether there is subsequent demand the question is whether price had been reduced to any extent on account of enjoyment of the benefit of Modvat credit. If so, the reduced price should form the basis for determination of the assessable value. Price may be reduced either by actual reduction of price or by passing on the benefit of Modvat credit to the buyers. The matter in this perspective has not been considered by the lower authorities. We are therefore of the opinion that the matter has to be re-considered by the jurisdictional authority. Impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations in this order and after giving the appellant an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. emsp Appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ance has also been placed by her on the case of CCE v. M.M. Forgings Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 617. 4. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides with reference to the Reference application. In the cases referred to above, the Tribunal has taken the view that in view of the wider meaning and enlarged definition of the capital goods as can he seen from the explanation, it is clear that not only machines which bring about any change but also components and accessories of the machines used for the above purpose are capital goods. In view of the wider wordings it is clear that items such as electric wires and cables, EOT cranes are capital goods as covered under Rule 57Q. Since these items are not specifically excluded and in view of the consistent view of the Tribunal, I am not convinced that any question of law arises to be referred to the High Court. In the view I have taken, the Reference application filed by the department is hereby rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... veniently forgetting that Rule 9(2) of the Rules could not enable any proper officer to issue a show cause notice of the nature contemplated in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. This ground was raised also in the memorandum of appeal a copy of which was served on the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The High Court of Gujarat clarified the matter in the case of Gujarat Fertilisers Co. Ltd. - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 442. It is unfortunate that in spite of this, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda did not take steps to issue a fresh show cause notice under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. We have found such similar instances also. We feel that it is necessary that the matter be brought to the notice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It is necessary that the Board ensures that the legal cells attached to all Collectorates function properly. A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Board. 3. emsp The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... er authorities have not referred to any material to show that a shaft has to be treated as part of stator or rotor and not of mono-block. As explained in Paragraph 4 of the order of the High Court of Gujarat in Jyoti Limited, Baroda v. Union of India and another, 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 546) there is a hollow tube in the central portion of the column assembly through which a shaft is passed in order to supply mechanical motion to the vanes of the pump in the bowl assembly and the vanes together are referred to as impellers which impel water upwards and push the water towards column assembly and the shaft is moved either by a prime mover which may be an electric motor or any other motor which supplies mechanical energy for the purposes of rotating the shaft. From this it is clear that shaft is a part of the mono-block pump and not of the motor, that is, the stator or rotor. In this view, the demand cannot stand. 4. emsp The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Diversion of goods - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ubmitted along with the RT 12 return, there cannot be any case of suppression. If, on the other hand, copies of invoices showing higher prices were not being submitted along with the monthly return, it would be a clear case of suppression. The memorandum of appeal contains an assertion that copies of both the invoices had been perused at the time of scrutiny of RT 12 returns. This aspect was not dealt with in the impugned order. We are of opinion that the matter deserves careful scrutiny at the hands of the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. 6. emsp We set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh after dealing with the question of limitation in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this order and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. We make it clear that the question of liability on merits is not open for reconsideration. The appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 17. This is more so because it is a specific entry under 84.17(2). On the contrary we find that entry 84.17(1) is a general entry. It is a well-settled principal of classification that a specific entry should be preferred over a general entry. We also note that while reading any entry in the tariff harmonious construction is to be followed. When we read main entry against Chapter Heading 84.17, we find that plant and machinery for roasting is covered therein. Further it has been provided under sub-entry 84.17(2) that machinery and equipment for food and drink shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.17(2). Reading the description of products in the Chapter Heading 84.17 with the sub-entry (2) of this chapter heading together, we find that the plant and machinery in the instant case will fall under Chapter Heading 84.17(2). In this view of the matter we hold that the goods will be classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.17(2). 8. emsp In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ring or screw driving) including dies for drawing or extruding metal and rock drilling or earth boring tools. 8202.10 - Tools 8202.90 - Parts. 6. emsp Dies for drawing or extruding metal have been specifically included in heading 82.02. 7. emsp In the appeal the appellants have not produced any material calling for interference in the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The appellants have submitted that they have produced the drawings given by their purchase company to the appellate authority. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) had noted all the material which was produced before him and had come to a view that the die was a external item to the machine and that the same was for working upon another metal and the shape to that metal was to be given by the die. 8. emsp Taking all the facts into account we do not find any material to differ with the findings of the Learned Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. As a result the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner is based on facts. Thus, the first point made out for reference in the Reference application pertains to the question of facts mainly and law remotely. It is the Assistant Commissioner rsquo s satisfaction which decides the issue. Satisfaction is based on the facts of a particular case. In this view of the matter, we find that no point of law needing investigation has been made out. 5. emsp The second point made out as a question of law is purely based on facts inasmuch as, there is no provision under Rule 57G that if a manufacturer is manufacturing a number of final products, he will enlist the raw materials product-wise. The only requirement under Rule 57G is that the inputs and the final product must be specified under Rule 57A and must be clearly described in the declaration required to be filed. Thus, on this point also, we find that no question of law is involved. In the circumstances, the Reference application is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r, the Collector of Central Excise, Pune disallowed deduction of what is called prompt payment cash discount rsquo rsquo of 3 . It was disallowed on the ground that this discount had been given to all buyers irrespective of prompt or delayed payment. If that be so, its real nature is that of trade discount given to all dealers and as such, deduction would be allowed. 3. emsp We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Film Developing and Printing Machine ... ... ... ... ..... however, has not given any finding on it. Notification 187/86 against Sl. No. 48 refers to ldquo Automatic Film Processor rdquo . Automatic film processor, unlike in the Notification 109/87, is not qualified by any other expression. It means that exemption is given to automatic film processors as such and the exemption is not dependent on the use of such film processor in printing industry. Since the impugned goods are admittedly automatic film processors and Notification 187/86 grants exemption to automatic film processor without any condition as to manner of use, we accept the contention of the appellants for exemption for auxiliary duty. 7. emsp In the result, the claim for concessional rate of basic customs duty under Notification 109/87 is rejected and the claim for partial exemption from auxiliary duty under Notification 187/86 is allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief if any, in accordance with law. 8. emsp Appeal disposed off in these terms.
-
1997 (2) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Stricture against Department ... ... ... ... ..... ly the learned lower authority should not have proceeded to discard the transaction value and should not have taken the average of the imported price of other oils for the purpose of assessment of the goods in question. It will be a sad day if the adjudicating authorities after having satisfied themselves after making enquiries and finding that no basis exists for enhancing the value just for the sake of caution proceeded to increase the value. We are not able to appreciate this abundant precaution rsquo the term as has been used by the learned lower authority. The learned lower authority performs judicial function and the only precaution required to taken is that the adjudication is done in accordance with law and based on the acceptable evidence. In the present case neither the basis in law nor on facts exits for enhancing the value of the goods. We therefore set aside the order of the learned lower authority and allow the appeal of the appellants with consequential relief.
-
1997 (2) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Brass Scrap - Exemption from customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... d goods had any zinc, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the appellants are given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim, by producing evidence including clarification about fax message already given that could be obtained from the supplier of the goods, even at this stage that the goods in fact were brass. 9. emsp We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo decision in the matter in the light of observations made earlier. He may have duplicate sample, if available, re-tested. We make it clear that we are ordering de novo proceedings only on the limited question of claim for exemption. So far as orders relating to clearance under OGL are concerned, since Revenue have not gone in appeal, these orders have acquired finality and cannot now be disturbed. In other words, de novo proceedings would be limited only to claim for exemption under Notification 319/88 as amended.
-
1997 (2) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s order has also been rejected by the Tribunal by its Order No. Ref./22/93-NRB. She would, therefore, request that this case may be disposed of accordingly. 3. emsp Learned DR reiterates the Department rsquo s view-point and emphasises that the Assistant Collector has passed his order drawing analogy from Ministry rsquo s Letter C. No. B.21/32/87-TRU Sept., 1987 issue in the case of Flushing Chemicals rsquo . 4. emsp I have considered the above submissions. I observe that learned counsel is correct. Following the ratio of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal passed in respect of the same product and the same issue in the appellant rsquo s own case, I accept the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Testing Charges ... ... ... ... ..... cts. In Ashok Transformers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 652 also the Tribunal followed the earlier decision in Shree Pipes Ltd. We find a similar view taken in Final Order No. 3632/96-A, dated 14-11-1996 in A. No. E/1283/88-A, reported in 1996 (17) RLT 853 (Tribunal) in the case of W.S. Insulators of India Ltd. 5. emsp Thus we find that in later decisions of the Tribunal, the proposition enunciated in Madhavnagar Cotton Mills Ltd. and Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. cases has been distinguished and held not to be applicable. It follows that those decisions are not applicable to a situation where besides the normal test conducted by the manufacturer on his own, where additional testing is done at the instance of buyer and the cost of such additional testing is not liable to be included in the assessable value. This being the correct position in law, it follows that the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) is correct. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nt in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeals on merits. We have heard shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers. 3. emsp The appeals are confined to one aspect, namely, redetermination of the assessable value and excise duty payable by the appellant as a result of which the amount of refund was reduced. As indicated earlier, appellant had availed the exemption subject to limit of clearance stipulated under Notification 80/80 but collected the excise duty from the buyers. This was done in spite of the fact that the appellant was not liable to pay duty on such clearances by virtue of the Notification. Therefore, this amount remained in the hands of the appellant as part of the appellant rsquo s profit and the wholesale price. Inevitably this amount should be reflected in the assessable value and the duty amount recalculated. The procedure adopted by the Assistant Collector is lawful. We find no reason to interfere. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Casting emerging at intermediate stage ... ... ... ... ..... nufacture of ceramic and the ceramic insulators are admittedly cleared on payment of duty. The fallacy in the order of the authorities below arises, therefore, in treating the cast product as final product in themselves. The cast products are in the nature of intermediate product of pig iron, therefore, the cast products are the intermediate products and ceramic insulators are the final product for the appellants. Therefore, the ld. Counsel is correct in his contention that the Modvat credit cannot be denied as the final products are not hit by the bar of the provisions of Rule 57C because they are cleared on payment of duty, and the cast products such as disc and cap are intermediate products to which the provisions of Rule 57D(2) get attracted. We therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of credit of duty paid on pig iron, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (2) TMI 199 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... credit document is not applicable. 3. emsp Shri S.V. Singh, the Ld. JDR opposed the stay, pointed out that the supply in this case is from the manufacturer Reliance Industries to their own Depot. Therefore, Rule 52A will apply. The Trade Notice issued by a Collector cannot over-ride the provisions under Rule 52A and 57G. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made. The issue is arguable and we are of the view that no prima facie case has been made out for totally dispensing with the pre-deposit. In this view of the matter we direct under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits, the applicant should deposit an amount of Rs. 5.74 lacs on or before 31-3-1997. On compliance with this direction the pre-deposit of the balance of duty amount and the whole of the penalty amount of Rs. 5,000/- is dispensed with and recovery stayed. 5. emsp Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance with this order on 10-4-1997.
-
1997 (2) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Utensils - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... rvices. rdquo From this we find that the term utensil rsquo is not limited to the utensils used in the household but covers other items also. As against this, we find that the ld. Collor. (Appeals) had not relied on the dictionary meaning of the term utensil rsquo alone but also relied on the case-law discussed by him. Having regard to the fact that there was no restriction in the Notification defining the term utensil rsquo in a particular way, having regard also to the fact that dictionary meaning of the term utensil rsquo is not limited to household utensil, having also regard to the fact that ISI Specification for the items described items as hospital utensils and having regard to the fact that the words appearing in the statute are to be given their natural meaning and not restricted meaning in the absence of any particular definition, we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machines vis-a-vis plant ... ... ... ... ..... ll as certain other specified machinery. It is the claim of the appellants that the machinery imported by them would go into a plant which plant is designed to produce a commodity. This logic of the appellants is faulty as the tariff heading speaks of machines and not a group of machines each performing an individual function, together making a plant. The appellants have relied upon Section Note 3 to Section XVI of the Tariff which states that composite machines should be classified under that tariff entry which covers the machines performing the principal function of such composite machinery. Here also the logic suffers from the same defect. The description on the bill of entry shows that some of the items are individually named in the tariff by nomenclature and some other articles such exhaust fans are articles of general use. These machines taken together do not answer the description under Heading 84.59(2). We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.
-
1997 (2) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Semi-finished goods - Removal of ... ... ... ... ..... Chapter 9 wherein activity of sorting has been declared to be amounting to manufacture. 4. emsp We find that the issue before us is quite narrow and does not require us to go into the question whether sorting is necessary for the bulk tea to become dutiable. The issue is whether the goods were cleared by the respondents in contravention of Rule 56B or not. Collector has observed that once the department had permitted such a movement, no allegation of contravention of that rule could be levelled against the assessee. In holding so he is quite correct. The department may have made an error in extending the facility, but having extended it, the department rsquo s right to question the removal following the permission is lost. The Collector is also correct in observing that since the duty was paid by the consignee unit, the same cannot be demanded from the consignor unit again. We find no infirmity in the Collector rsquo s order and therefore reject this appeal from the Revenue.
............
|
