Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 443 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... overnment of Punjab the assessment has to be made after taking the said price into consideration under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Appellate Tribunal in the case of Rana Sugar Mills (supra) has held that the minutes of the meeting held by the Chief Minister of a State is not having any statutory backing. Further, in the said case the Tribunal observed that the Department had no case that the Appellants therein had realised any amount over and above the price declared by him and accordingly the claim for differential duty was found to be unsustainable. Following the ratio of the said decision the learned Advocate has made out a strong prima facie case in favour of the Applicants as it has not been claimed by the Revenue that the price of Rs. 85/- per quintal was fixed under any law by the State Government. Accordingly we stay the recovery of the entire amount of duty during the pendency of the appeal
-
2001 (3) TMI 442 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Compounded Levy Scheme - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... or short paid. In the present matter show cause notice has been issued on 4-8-1999 for demanding the duty for the period from 1-1-1999 to 30-6-1999 and as such the entire duty has been demanded within the period of six months. Hence, there is no need for invoking the provisions of the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. In view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Finance Act, the demand for duty can be validly issued for past six months from the relevant date notwithstanding any approval, acceptance or assessment. We, however, agree with the learned Advocate that this is not a fit case for imposing the penalty as the duty liability was fixed by the Department itself and therefore set aside the penalty. We thus upheld the liability of the Appellants to pay the duty demanded subject to availability of the Modvat Credit for which Appellants should provide the necessary requisite evidence to the satisfaction of the Commissioner within one month of the receipt of this Order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 441 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ferred in particular, to observation to this effect in the last para of the order. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, pointed out that the entire record of the case showed that there was no dispute that the deduction claimed related only to excisable goods and not to any non-excisable goods. He therefore, submitted that the observation of the Commissioner that the deduction claimed was also in respect of expenses incurred on non-excisable goods has no basis. Learned Departmental Representative has not pointed out any material in the record to suggest that the observation of the Commisioner is based on records. Therefore, it can not be accepted as having any factual basis. 4. emsp In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the disallowance of part of the deduction claimed by the appellant has not been correctly made. The duty demand has no basis. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
2001 (3) TMI 440 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Raw hides and skins - Fur skins, tanned or dressed, meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... eady clarified the position above. It is not clear that all samples should come to the laboratory. The report can be given by the officers by visual examination or any other methods not necessarily through the instruments of the laboratory. Shri Ramesh Subramaniam is in Tata International at Chennai. I did not consult him in the matter. Concluded. While no firm conclusion could be drawn from such submissions, this much is clear that on the basis of the letter dated 19-4-1996 of FDDI, it could not be established that the goods imported were tanned/dressed fur skins. Shri Ramesh Subramaniam, Director (Tech.), FDDI was not available for seeking classification. 12. emsp On careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that no basis has been made out by the ld. Commissioner of Customs to classify the goods as tanned or dressed fur skins, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order-in-original and allow the appeal of M/s. PIL with consequential relief to them as per law.
-
2001 (3) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... tended. 4. emsp Even though in the order dated 1-2-2001, it was observed that failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, will entail vacation of the order of stay, the bench proceed to state that the ldquo appeals will be liable to be dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act without further notice to them rdquo . This observation makes it clear that on the failure to make the deposit, the appeal will not stand automatically dismissed. Further, order dismissing the same was contemplated. No such order dismissing the appeal was passed in this case. Taking into consideration this situation and to meet the ends of justice, we extend the time fixed for deposit. This approach is resorted to, on further grounds stated by the appellants that they are passing through financial crises, so as to meet the ends of justice. We consider it necessary to condone the delay and accept the pre-deposit. We do so. Office is directed to post the appeal for final hearing.
-
2001 (3) TMI 437 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... that the matter may be adjourned to any other date. It is observed that the matter has already been adjourned twice over earlier at the request of the appellants. I am, therefore, not inclined to adjourn it any further. 3. emsp As already stated above, the present appeal was dismissed by the Bench at the admission stage itself. The appellants have shown scant interest in pursuing the ROA Petition filed by them as is evident from their constant absence from attending the hearings. The Restoration of Appeal Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable and further for non-prosecution.
-
2001 (3) TMI 436 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... force in the submission of the appellant that no royalty is involved in relation to devotional songs. The assessee also started paying duty on the higher value from the day they started charging Rs. 2/- per cassette as additional charge towards cost of master cassette. In these circumstances, the allegation of wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty cannot be sustained against M/s Swar Sudha Cassette. In the case of M/s Puran Enterprises and Others, duty demand was held to be not sustainable by the Commissioner on the ground of time bar also. The Revenue rsquo s appeal does not challenge this finding of the Commissioner. Therefore, in that case it has to be held that there is no error in regard to the finding on time bar. 4. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the appeal of CCE, Mumbai is dismissed and the appeal of M/s Swar Sudha Cassette is allowed on the ground of time bar of demands. Consequential relief, if any, shall be available to the assessees.
-
2001 (3) TMI 435 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... viso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO. Ld. JDR has submitted that such a demand is consequential to rejection of the abatement claim and is, therefore, not hit by the applicant s plea that the demand is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. I think, this question needs detailed consideration in the appeal. It is also noted that the applicants have not pleaded any financial hardship in the present application. I further note that the requirement of clause (e) of Rule 96ZO(2) appears to have remained unfulfilled in the present case and, therefore, the Commissioner rsquo s order rejecting the abatement claim on that ground appears to be prima facie correct. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that these applicants have to be directed to deposit a part of the duty amount for purposes of Section 35F of the Act. Accordingly, I direct the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of six weeks and report compliance on 22-5-2001.
-
2001 (3) TMI 434 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drawback - Duty drawback - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... aim higher drawback to the extent of Rs. 1,37,016/- by mis-declaring the quantity of Zinc Oxide in the Shipping Bill is manifest on the face of even the admitted facts of the case. Shri Yadav rsquo s statement does not appear to have cleared the position any better. I am, therefore, not able to find fault with the decision of the lower authorities to confiscate the aforesaid quantity of 9,082 kgs. of Zinc Oxide and to penalise the exporter. Further, having regard to the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, I find that the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation is only reasonable. However, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs appears to be harsher than what is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. I, therefore, reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs having regard to the facts and circumstances. The order of the lower authorities will stand modified to this extent only. 6. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation, fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ket by not falling under the advertised ISRI brands, then the logic behind the substantial quantum of fine would have sustained. In the present case we find that the goods are briquetted and in some of the bales the density is almost equal to the minimum weight prescribed for taldork grade. Unfortunately the proceedings do not show as to how many of the bales were on the higher end of the spectrum of LB 35 to LB 39.91 but we are inclined accept the statement of Shri Nankani that the importer being an actual user would use the imported goods and the classification of such goods under a particular mark would be of little relevance or importance to the use. 7. emsp Therefore, while accepting that the contravention of the provisions as alleged has been established, we reduce the quantum of fine to rupees five lakhs. The penalty imposed on M/s. Alex Cables Ltd. is remitted in full. The penalty imposed on M/s. Arfin Enterprises Ltd. is reduced from rupees one lakhs to Rs. 20,000/-.
-
2001 (3) TMI 432 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Value Based Advance Licence ... ... ... ... ..... r. We therefore uphold the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. 5. emsp The Additional Commissioner records that the importer had in writing accepted the value proposed of U.S. 0.85 per metre. He has therefore not even applied his mind to valuation. If the importer cited fresh evidence relating to the value, he should have sent the matter to the Addl. Commissioner for consideration, rather than to hold that the Additional Commissioner rsquo s order was incorrect. The value of the goods may not perhaps be relevant, now that we have upheld the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were entitled to be imported under the licence that was produced and therefore entitled to the benefit of Notification 203/92. However, on this point we find for the department. The matter is now remanded to the Additional Commissioner for determining whether any duty is payable and if so quantify it and communicate it to the importer. 6. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2001 (3) TMI 431 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by Department - Authorisation ... ... ... ... ..... -98 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I. (Gurbax Singh) Commissioner Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I rdquo 3. emsp Copy of the order of the Board passed under section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not appended. Where such an order is made, it is the Commissioner who is entitled to file the appeal. That power cannot be further delegated by the Commissioner. In the case of Malhotra Steel Products v. CCE - 2000 (38) RLT 480 the CEGAT had interpreted the wording ldquo such authority rdquo and had dismissed the appeal filed by an officer subordinate to the Commissioner. The same view was held in the judgment reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 266 (T) 1999 (34) RLT 794. In that judgment the Tribunal had relied upon the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289. 4. emsp The facts before us being identical, we hold that the present appeal has been filed without authority of law and therefore dismiss it.
-
2001 (3) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... above submissions. I find that the demand in question was raised on the applicants by the Department by invoking Rule 57H(7). I have examined that provision of law, and I find that the provision is, prima facie, not applicable to the facts of this case. That is a provision which provides that an assessee, when switching-over from the Modvat scheme to a scheme covered by an exemption Notification, is required to reverse any Modvat credit taken on the inputs lying in stock on the date of such switch-over. Apparently that is not the case here. The party, in the instant case, was switching from the Modvat scheme over to the Compounded Levy Scheme which was not a scheme of exemption from payment of duty. In this view of the matter, the applicants have a strong prima facie case and they are entitled to total waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount and stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal. I allow the application unconditionally and post the appeal for hearing on 8-5-2001.
-
2001 (3) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... onger valid in the light of the Supreme Court s decision. This argument, however, will not help the Department in the present application inasmuch as the law which prevailed at the time when the Tribunal passed the above final order was the law laid down by the High Court in Solar Pesticides (supra). The question before me at present is whether the question of law formulated by the Revenue in the present application had arisen from the Tribunal s final order as on the date on which that order was passed. I would squarely answer this question in the negative. Such a question of law did not arise on the date on which the Tribunal passed the above final order. Even the applicants have no case that such a question of law had arisen out of the final order as on that date. The law laid down on the point subsequently by the Apex Court would not go to benefit the Revenue in the instant matter. I, therefore, find that this application only requires to be rejected and I do accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 428 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Notification No. 45/82-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... to his conclusions. We find that the Revenue is not contesting the finding before us on this plain reading interpretation by the Commissioner (Appeals). (b) The Revenue rsquo s on other hand has in the grounds taken of not having considered, the clarification of CBEC vide F. No. 7/9/91 CX.VI, dated 26-4-61 (Circular No. 3/Mad/61) which was for another situation as given in clarification in F. No. 24/3/64 CX.1, dated 11-7-66 it was with regard to Notification No. 117/66, dated 16-7-66. We cannot interpret the present Notification based on these clarifications, given of any intention in another Notification. When plain reading of the Notification before us is abundantly clear. Therefore, we find no grounds in the revenue rsquo s appeal. If the assessee falls within the plain terms of an exemption, the same cannot be denied based on any intendment. We find no substance in the Revenue rsquo s Appeal before us. 4. emsp In view of the findings, Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 427 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and seizure ... ... ... ... ..... amending the IGM was still pending with the Commissioner (Appeals). Amendment of importer rsquo s name and container weights in IGM cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant to the question whether the importation was authorised or not. It follows that the results of the Department rsquo s appeal aforesaid will have definite bearing on the said question which, in turn, will be determinative of the ancillary question whether the imported goods are liable to confiscation or not. Therefore, in my view, the Commissioner rsquo s order extending time for issue of SCN for confiscation by a period of six months can be sustained on the ground of pendency of the Department rsquo s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department must be held to have successfully discharged its burden under the proviso to Section 110(2) by showing sufficient cause for the extension of time. 7. emsp In view of the above findings, I uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner and dismiss the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 426 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... at different sale prices to dealers located at different states had to be accepted for valuation of goods. 2. emsp We have heard the ld. SDR also. 3. emsp The price variations are explained by the appellant as the result of regional differences. There is no evidence on record to show that these prices were not commercial prices. There is nothing on record to show that depressed prices have been deliberately entered in the books of accounts or that they are favoured prices. In such a situation, the ratio of our decision in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. clearly applies and each one of the prices is to be treated as constituting assessable value. The duty demand raised is the result of valuation of the appellants goods contrary to the principle of valuations contained in the Taparia Tools decision. Sucn a duty demand and penalty cannot be held as legally sustainable. The appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief. The duty demand and penalty imposed are set aside.
-
2001 (3) TMI 425 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Order - Appellate order - Patent error ... ... ... ... ..... the phrases in paragraph 6 as reproduced by us above. We find that the appellants are quite right in seeking deletion of these phrases. We accordingly direct that from the Commissioner s order, the following sentences from paragraph 6 shall be deleted and shall be held to be deleted at all times - ldquo In the instant case, though the respondents were manufacturing and selling a composite machinery item to their buyers, they were classifying its various component parts separately, viz. wooden plates and frames for filter press, nutch filter, M.S. casting frame, filter press, etc. with a view to claiming exemption for the wooden plates and frames as an independent product. They have, thus, wilfully mis-stated the classification of the product in the classification lists. Under these circumstances, the Department would be well within its right in invoking the extended period under Section 11A in the matter of raising demand. rdquo 6. emsp The appeals are allowed in these terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 424 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... would prima facie say that it is the charged battery that is sold to him. Therefore, the charged battery is a different article from an uncharged battery. 4. emsp Even we assume, as the Assistant Commissioner concludes, that the provisions of Rule 57F were not available for the reason that the uncharged battery is a complete product, what would follow is that the applicant could not have applied Rule 57F(4). There was therefore no question of making any debit when it sends out the battery, and it was entitled to cancel the debit which it wrongly made. We also take note of the fact that the applicant intimated to the department by its letter of November, 1988, of its proposal to follow Rule 57F(4), and that the demand has arisen as a result of the proceedings initiated nine months later in respect of clearances which have taken place in between. 5. emsp Accordingly, we waive deposit of duty of Rs. 1.23 crores approx. and the penalty of Rs. 20.02 lakhs and stay their recovery.
-
2001 (3) TMI 423 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Job work - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... t in the manufacture of pesticides. The appellant had specifically taken this contention in the reply to the show cause notice. While it has not been dealt with either by the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), neither of them has disputed this claim. Therefore, the purpose for which the provision has been framed has been achieved. If the appellant had debited the credit when it sent out the goods, it would be entitled to recredit it when they were received back. There is therefore no basis for disallowing the credit that was taken. The order disallowing such credit is therefore set aside. 4. emsp The appellant however is liable to penalty for not following the procedure, and the counsel for the appellant does not dispute this liability in principle. Having regard to the fact that there was no wilful intention to flout the rule, the bona fides having been established by return of the goods, I reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. 5. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
............
|