|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 902 Records
-
2009 (8) TMI 1023
Issues:
Interpretation of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy regarding imported goods being capital goods or parts of capital goods.
Analysis:
The appellant imported old and used Beams for Wrap Knitting Machine from Korea. The goods were examined to verify their condition, year of manufacture, and declared value. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were parts of capital goods, leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the goods were capital goods, not parts of capital goods, citing provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy.
The appellant's advocate referred to Para 2.17 and Para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy, emphasizing that the goods in question were capital goods, not restricted spares. The Chartered Engineer's report confirmed the critical role of the beams in the knitting process. The advocate also cited a previous judgment to support the argument that the restriction on refurbished spares did not apply to non-refurbished spares.
The Respondent contended that the goods were restricted spares of capital goods and not refurbished or reconditioned, justifying the imposition of fines and penalties. However, after hearing both parties and examining the records, the judge concluded that the beams were separate equipment necessary for the knitting process, falling under the definition of capital goods in Para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy.
The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the beams qualified as capital goods under the policy and were not in violation of customs laws. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on 28-8-2009.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1022
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI heard an appeal filed by Revenue against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) that reduced redemption fines and penalties. The Revenue argued that the respondents imported goods without a license, indicating malice, and that the reduction in fines and penalties was unwarranted leniency. The Company Secretary for the respondent contended that the goods were accurately declared, and that the penalties were already sufficient. The Tribunal found that the respondent imported the goods for the first time, had not misdeclared the goods, and had paid duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered all available materials and reduced the fines and penalties accordingly, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced on 6-8-2009.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1021
Reopening of assessment challenged - Held that:- This court is constrained to hold that even if any income in the assessment year 1983-84 has escaped assessment, it is not on account of failure of the petitioner company to disclose facts, material for assessment, truly and fully. The assessing authority thus lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessment that had been concluded, over four years having elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The writ application is thus allowed.
The impugned notice and the impugned order of assessment are set aside and quashed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1020
Issues:
1. Refund of excess customs duty due to clerical mistake in weighment slip.
2. Re-assessment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Competency of the assessing authority to permit amendments in the Bill of Entry.
4. Comparison of decisions by different courts on similar cases.
5. Applicability of the decision in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. case.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal upholding the refund of excess customs duty amounting to Rs. 36,315 due to a clerical mistake in the weighment slip. The Revenue contended that the respondents did not challenge the Bill of Entry for excess duty payment, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. C.C. The respondents argued that the re-assessment was done under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, referring to a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a similar case.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the re-assessment was not a mere correction of a clerical error but was based on the difference in weight ascertained earlier and finally. The re-assessment was conducted under Section 149 of the Act, allowing amendments to documents. The Proviso to Section 149 restricts amendments after goods have been cleared, except based on existing documentary evidence. The High Court's decision in a similar case supported the refund claim, emphasizing the authority's competence to permit amendments and order refunds.
3. The High Court's decision highlighted the authority's competence under Section 27 of the Act to allow amendments based on existing documentary evidence at the time of goods clearance. The Assistant Commissioner, who assessed the duty and permitted the amendment in the Bill of Entry, was deemed competent to sanction the refund. The court deemed the refund claim maintainable and correctly sanctioned by the competent authority.
4. The Revenue strongly relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. case, while the High Court referenced decisions in similar cases involving disputed assessments and refund claims. The High Court differentiated cases where assessment orders were not challenged, leading to the rejection of refund claims. The decision emphasized the importance of assessment order modification or review before claiming a refund.
5. Considering the discussions and the High Court's decision, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The judgment highlighted the significance of following legal procedures and challenging assessment orders before seeking refunds, aligning with established legal principles and court decisions.
This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and the legal arguments presented by both parties, ultimately leading to the Tribunal's decision.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1019
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant.
2. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant.
3. Allegation of breach of Section 5(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
4. Denial of natural justice by not providing copies of the test report and an opportunity to be heard on merits.
5. Reliability of the test report from the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) detecting melamine in the imported goods.
6. Submission of test reports from Singapore by the appellant to rebut the CFL's report.
7. Imposition of maximum penalty equal to the value of the goods under Section 112 of the Act.
Analysis:
1. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,63,872/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant in connection with the absolute confiscation of goods covered by a bill of entry. The penalty was imposed due to the presence of melamine in the imported goods, which were declared as "assorted chocolate confectionery" valued at the same amount.
2. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the penalty amount. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 129E of the Customs Act towards the penalty and allowed them to be heard on merits after compliance with this direction.
3. The show-cause notice alleged a breach of Section 5(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules due to the presence of melamine in the goods, leading to the proposal for absolute confiscation.
4. The appellant raised the issue of denial of natural justice, claiming they were not provided with copies of the test report and were not given an opportunity to be heard on merits, which was reiterated by their counsel.
5. The reliability of the test report from the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) was emphasized, stating that the CFL's report indicated the goods were contaminated with melamine and unfit for human consumption, leading to the imposition of penalty and confiscation.
6. The appellant mentioned the availability of test reports from Singapore to challenge the CFL's report. However, the Tribunal found the CFL's report reliable, and no substantial evidence was presented to discredit it or prove the relevance and reliability of the Singapore reports.
7. The Commissioner imposed the maximum penalty under Section 112 of the Act, equal to the value of the goods, amounting to Rs. 30,63,872/-. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the penalty and scheduled further proceedings after compliance.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1018
Issues involved: Imposition of penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on various parties for diversion of imported goods meant for earthquake relief.
Imposition of penalties on M/s. Nopaji Lakhmaji Charitable Trust and Shri Shantilal Jain:
- The trusts imported old garments under exemption for earthquake relief but diverted them for sale.
- Shri Shantilal Jain allowed the diversion knowingly.
- Penalties of Rs. 50 Lakhs each were imposed, reduced to Rs. 10 Lakhs and Rs. 4 Lakhs respectively.
Imposition of penalties on M/s. Shivam Development Trust and Shri V.N. Gusai:
- Shri V.N. Gusai's involvement was minimal, penalized for handing over blank letterheads.
- Commissioner found no evidence of import by the trust or Gusai, set aside the penalties of Rs. 50 Lakhs each.
Imposition of penalty on Shri Dev Kumar Kapta:
- Kapta filed Bills of Entry without authorization for one trust, but not aware of diversion.
- No evidence linking him to the subsequent sale of goods, penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs set aside.
Conclusion:
- Penalties reduced for some parties due to minimal involvement or lack of evidence.
- Appeals disposed off accordingly on 25th Aug. 2009.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1017
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on passing of duty incidence to customers.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 91,386 on the grounds that the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person. The appellants had cleared biscuits with a declared MRP of Rs. 660 instead of Rs. 600 due to a data entry error, resulting in the wrong discharge of duty liability. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that wholesale prices were not affected by the amount of central excise duty paid, and customers were unaware of the duty amount as prices were inclusive of duty and varied across states. The Commissioner found that the duty incidence had likely been passed on to customers due to lack of transparency in invoices and varying wholesale prices charged by the appellants.
The main argument presented was that a previous decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the refund due to a clerical error in the computer system. However, the Department argued that as per Section 12D of the Central Excise Act, unless proven otherwise, the duty paid is deemed to have been passed on to buyers. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision supporting this position. The Tribunal observed that the excess duty payment was a result of a mistake in entering the MRP in the computer system. It was noted that the Department had not appealed the previous order where a refund was allowed in a similar situation. The Tribunal found that the wholesale prices were not influenced by the duty amount paid, and the excess duty payment was a genuine error. The case law cited by the Department regarding captive consumption was deemed inapplicable to the current scenario.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the earlier order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The decision was made based on the finding that the duty refund should not be denied in a situation where the duty overpayment was a result of a genuine mistake and where the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1016
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, consisting of Shri M.V. Ravindran and P. Karthikeyan, JJ., heard an appeal from an importer who had imported a consignment of crude Palmolein under Chapter sub-heading 15119090, assessed at a concessional rate under Notification No. 21/02 Cus. Following testing by the public health officer and Chemical Examiner of Customs House Laboratory Vishakhapatnam, the Assistant Commissioner reclassified the consignment under CSH 15111000, demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,33,97,727/- plus interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the importer to appeal to the Tribunal.
Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam issued a show cause notice proposing confiscation and penalties for alleged mis-declaration and import contravention. The Commissioner found the goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act, imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- and a fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.
During the application for stay, the appellants argued that the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by imposing penalties on a consignment already cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that "the out of charge order under Section 47 of the Act follows appropriate classification of the goods and its liability to duty," and that the assessing officer must consider if the import is prohibited. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally sustainable, granting a waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty and staying recovery pending the appeal decision. The judgement was pronounced and dictated in open court.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1015
Clandestine removal - demand on the ground that the appellants could not produce evidence of purchase of goods sold by it from an external source - Held that: - Revenue has not established clandestine clearances by the appellants with any reliable evidence. In the instant case, no evidence has been gathered by the authorities for clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods by the appellants. In the absence of positive and tangible evidence, finding of clandestine clearances and evasion of duty by the assessee cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1014
Issues involved: Appeal against confiscation of biscuits, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, irregular Cenvat credit, unauthorized goods storage, imposition of penalty on company director.
Confiscation of Biscuits and Imposition of Fine:
The appellant, engaged in biscuit manufacturing, appealed against the confiscation of 6002 boxes of biscuits and imposition of fines. Central Excise Officers found excess stock during a visit, with irregular Cenvat credit also detected. The appellant argued that the excess stock was due to space constraints in the store room, not for clandestine removal. The authorized signatory's statement supported this, stating goods were in finished condition. The Tribunal found the confiscation unjustified as the goods were stored in the packing hall due to lack of space in the store room, without intent for clandestine removal. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that confiscation should consider extenuating circumstances.
Imposition of Penalty on Company Director:
The penalty imposed on the company director was contested as the director was not directly involved in the day-to-day affairs of the factory where the irregularities occurred. The Tribunal noted the director's absence during proceedings and lack of evidence linking them to the factory's operations. Consequently, the penalty on the director was deemed unwarranted, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order, setting aside the confiscation of biscuits and redemption fine while also overturning the penalty imposed on the company director. The decision was based on the lack of evidence linking the director to the factory's operations and the circumstances leading to the excess stock of biscuits.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1013
Issues involved: Allegation of clandestine clearances, demand of duty, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, discrepancy in balance sheet and RT 13 returns, evidence of trading activities, principles of Natural Justice.
Summary:
Allegation of Clandestine Clearances:
The case involved M/s. Sarita Software and Industries Ltd. (SSIL) being accused of clandestine clearances based on discrepancies between production figures in balance sheets and statutory returns. The Commissioner demanded duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, which was challenged before the tribunal.
Principles of Natural Justice:
The tribunal found that the burden is on the Revenue to prove clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty. Lack of evidence supporting the allegations led to the order being set aside for re-examination by the Commissioner in light of the evidence and principles of Natural Justice.
Revised Demand and Penalty:
Upon revision, the demand for clandestine clearances was reduced to Rs. 1,00,11,651/- with applicable interest. The penalty under Section 11AC was upheld based on the findings that the evidence of trading activities provided by SSIL was not sufficient to negate the allegations.
Evidence and Findings:
The impugned order highlighted discrepancies in figures, lack of evidence supporting trading claims, and failure to produce relevant documents during the investigation. The Commissioner's refusal to consider the documents furnished by SSIL was deemed a violation of Natural Justice, leading to the order being set aside.
Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order due to lack of evidence and failure to consider the documents provided by SSIL. The appeal filed by SSIL was allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of Natural Justice in such cases.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1012
Issues:
1. Appellant's failure to reverse Modvat credit on a generator sold without following central excise procedures.
2. Allegations of evasion of duty and penalty imposition under Rule 57U(6) and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Appellant's challenge regarding penalty imposition under Rule 57U(6) specifically.
Issue 1:
The appellant, a manufacturer of goods under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, faced allegations of not properly accounting for a diesel generating set sold without reversing Modvat credit. The failure to follow central excise procedures led to a show cause notice being issued, demanding payment of Rs. 1,32,727 under Rule 57U(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Additional Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 83,912 towards Modvat credit, interest, and penalties under various provisions.
Issue 2:
Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant appealed, challenging the penalty imposed under Rule 57U(6) and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, citing the appellant's failure to discharge duty liability on capital goods removal. The appellant, through their counsel, contested only the penalty under Rule 57U(6), arguing that they correctly availed credit on capital goods and were eligible for it.
Issue 3:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed taken eligible Cenvat credit on capital goods but failed to pay proper duty upon removal. The appellant acknowledged the non-payment and settled the duty. The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Rule 173Q, as the appellant did not challenge it. However, regarding the penalty under Rule 57U(6), the Tribunal noted that the rule allows penalties only for wrongful credit taken with intent to evade duty. Since there was no evidence of fraud or intention to evade duty, the penalty under Rule 57U(6) was deemed incorrect and unwarranted.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 57U(6) while upholding the penalty under Rule 173Q. The judgment clarified the specific conditions under which penalties could be imposed under Rule 57U(6) and emphasized the importance of intent to evade duty for such penalties.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1011
Issues involved: Appeal against demand confirmation and penalty imposition for shortage of finished goods and duty evasion.
Demand Confirmation: The appellant's appeal was against the confirmation of a demand of Rs. 2,38,571.00 and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2,41,571.00 for the shortage of finished goods found during a visit by Revenue Officials. The appellant argued that the demand should not be based on entries in private records, claiming that the proprietor was not aware of day-to-day operations. However, the Revenue contended that the shortage was admitted by the appellant's proprietor, who agreed to pay the duty based on the private records showing datewise clearances and customer details. The Tribunal found that the shortage was admitted by the appellant and upheld the demand and penalty, citing the systematic maintenance of private records and lack of retraction of statements by the proprietor.
Legal Precedents: The appellant relied on decisions in similar cases where demands were set aside due to retractions and inadequacy of evidence. However, the Tribunal distinguished those cases from the present one, where the shortage was admitted and private records were well-maintained. The Revenue cited a High Court decision upholding charges of clandestine removal based on systematic record-keeping. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned Order regarding the demand and penalty, but reduced the penalty amount to match the confirmed demand. The appeal was dismissed, with the modified penalty amount of Rs. 2,38,647.00.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1010
Issues: Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.
Analysis:
The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 5-month delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The applicant claimed that the delay was due to receiving wrong advice from their advocate. The advocate initially opined that there was no need to file an appeal, but upon seeking a second opinion from another advocate in Chennai, it was advised that the case was suitable for appeal. The applicant then filed the condonation application along with the appeal, arguing that the issue on merits favored them, especially regarding the penalty under section 11AC of the CE Act. The applicant relied on legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing their bona fides as recognized by the Commissioner (Appeals) and citing relevant court decisions and Tribunal rulings.
The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the applicant had approached the advocate belatedly, without providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal carefully considered the entire issue and noted that the applicant approached the advocate almost two months after the deadline for filing the appeal. The advocate's letter dated 15-6-09 clearly indicated that the applicant visited the advocate only on 27-3-09, failing to justify the delay in seeking legal advice. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims of immediate action upon receiving the Order-In-Original (OIA) unsubstantiated, leading to the conclusion that the applicant did not establish a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the applicant/appellant.
In the final judgment pronounced on 19-8-2009, the Tribunal held that the applicant's failure to provide justifiable reasons for the delay in approaching the advocate, despite a significant period passing since the receipt of the order, led to the dismissal of the condonation application and the subsequent appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of timely legal actions and the necessity to establish valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1009
Issues:
- Appeal against impugned Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding PVC Resins of German origin found in the factory premises.
- Burden of proof on Revenue to show PVC Resins are smuggled into India.
- Verification of documents showing PVC Resins of Korean origin supplied by the Respondents.
- Application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 to determine liability for Customs Duty.
- Reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a similar case.
The Appeals were filed by the Revenue against Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the presence of PVC Resins of German origin in the factory premises of the Respondents. The Revenue alleged that the PVC Resins were smuggled into India, making the goods liable for confiscation and the Appellants responsible for paying Customs Duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that since PVC Resins were not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden of proof rested with the Revenue to establish smuggling, which they failed to do, resulting in the dismissal of the Appeals.
The Revenue contended that the Respondents claimed the PVC Resins were purchased from Delhi, supported by certain documents. Upon verification, it was discovered that the suppliers actually provided PVC Resins of Korean origin, not German. The Revenue argued that as the Respondents failed to demonstrate the lawful import of German origin PVC Resins, the impugned Order was unsustainable.
In response, the Respondents argued that since PVC Resins were neither notified goods nor restricted items under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden of proving smuggling rested with the Revenue. They cited a decision by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a similar case to support their position that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue in cases involving non-notified goods.
The judgment emphasized that as PVC Resins were not classified as notified goods or restricted items, the onus was on the Revenue to establish that the goods were smuggled into India. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, it clarified the distinction between burden of proof and onus, highlighting that the burden of proof always lies with the party required to prove a fact. As the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving smuggling, the impugned Orders were upheld, and the Appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1008
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of duty on clandestine clearances of cotton yarn.
2. Imposition of penalties and redemption fine.
3. Reliability of gate passes and notebooks as evidence.
4. Excess consumption of electricity as evidence of unaccounted production.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Absence of corroborative evidence for clandestine clearances.
7. Withdrawal of challenge to confiscation orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Demand of Duty on Clandestine Clearances of Cotton Yarn:
The demand was based on the alleged clandestine clearances of 27,168 kgs, 30,576 kgs, and 6,450 kgs of cotton yarn, which were purportedly cleared without payment of duty. The original authority demanded Rs. 3,18,888/- as duty and imposed an equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The basis for the demand was gate passes and notebooks maintained by the gatekeeper, which were not authorized by the Managing Director and were not systematically maintained. The Tribunal found these documents unreliable and noted that the demand was raised without sufficient corroborative evidence.
2. Imposition of Penalties and Redemption Fine:
Penalties of Rs. 15,000/- each were imposed on M/s. Prime Cottons Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, along with a redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the detained cotton yarn. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed these penalties but vacated the penalty on the Managing Director. The Tribunal noted the lack of reliable evidence to support the penalties based on the gate passes and notebooks.
3. Reliability of Gate Passes and Notebooks as Evidence:
The Tribunal highlighted that the gate passes and notebooks maintained by the gatekeeper could not be relied upon to determine the actual quantity of yarn removed. The demand was based on discrepancies between gate passes and Central Excise invoices, but the gate passes were not systematically maintained and often did not correspond to actual clearances.
4. Excess Consumption of Electricity as Evidence of Unaccounted Production:
The department argued that excessive electricity consumption indicated unaccounted production. The Tribunal found this explanation unsatisfactory, noting that factors like worker efficiency and yarn counts were not adequately considered. The Tribunal concluded that the excessive power consumption alone could not substantiate the claim of clandestine production.
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that the department did not allow cross-examination of key witnesses, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged this concern, noting that the orders were passed without providing the appellants an opportunity to challenge the evidence properly.
6. Absence of Corroborative Evidence for Clandestine Clearances:
The Tribunal emphasized that clandestine clearances could not be established solely on private records and statements without corroborative evidence. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that entries in private records alone were insufficient to prove clandestine activities. The department failed to provide evidence of sales or identify buyers for the alleged clandestinely cleared goods.
7. Withdrawal of Challenge to Confiscation Orders:
During the hearing, the appellants withdrew their challenge to the orders relating to the confiscation of 1,352.6 kgs of yarn recovered from their godown.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding the demand and penalty for clandestine clearances made during March 2002 to February 2003, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The original authority was directed to re-quantify the liability and decide the appropriate penalty, ensuring the appellants were given adequate opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal underscored the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate charges of clandestine removal.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1007
Issues:
- Challenge against waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts under Notification No. 64/95-C.E.
- Interpretation of conditions for availing exemption under the notification.
- Application of precedent judgments in similar cases.
- Decision on stay petition and recovery of amounts pending appeal.
Analysis:
The judgment in the present case revolves around a challenge against the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts under Notification No. 64/95-C.E. The applicant, a manufacturer of electrical items, supplied goods to M/s. Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) for the construction of warships for the Indian Navy. The dispute arose as the applicant had not supplied the items directly to the Indian Navy or Coast Guard, leading to the denial of exemption benefits.
The applicant contended that they fulfilled the conditions of the notification by supplying goods for the construction of warships for the Indian Navy and submitting a certificate from a designated officer. The Revenue, however, argued that the goods should have been supplied directly to the Indian Navy or Coast Guard, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Leader Engineering Works.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the goods supplied to MDL, authorized for warship construction, met the conditions of the notification. Referring to a precedent case, the Tribunal held that the issue was similar to the one in CCE v. ABG Shipyard. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant established a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit amounts. Therefore, the application for waiver was allowed, and the recovery of the amounts was stayed pending the disposal of the appeal.
In summary, the judgment analyzed the interpretation of the exemption conditions under Notification No. 64/95-C.E., applied relevant precedent judgments, and granted the stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit amounts pending appeal, based on the fulfillment of notification requirements by the applicant.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1006
Issues:
- Classification of imported goods as components or a complete plant
- Denial of exemption from duty under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus
- Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of fine and penalty on the importer
The judgment addresses the issue of whether goods imported by the appellant, including screen drum, electrical cabinets, geared motors, conveyor belts, and bearings, should be classified as components of a complete hot mix plant or not. The Commissioner of Customs held that these goods were only components and not a complete plant, leading to the denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. The value of the imported goods was fixed at DM 5.50 lakhs CIF. Additionally, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the importer.
The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue, IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, where the Tribunal rejected the plea that certain imported components constituted a complete plant. In that case, the fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the penalty was set aside. Applying the ratio of the previous decision to the present case, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order but reduced the fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- and set aside the penalty. The appeal was partly allowed based on this decision.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the imported goods were components and not a complete plant, leading to the denial of duty exemption. The confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was maintained, with an option for redemption on payment of a reduced fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The penalty imposed on the importer was set aside in line with the previous decision's ruling. The appeal was partly allowed, with the fine reduced and the penalty set aside.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1005
Issues: Liability of interest on confirmed duty on samples for the extended period from 1997 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2002, and interests payable under Section 11AB of the Act.
The judgment pertains to an appeal listed before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore following a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's Final Order. The Counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the High Court in Central Excise Appeal No. 105/2006, where it was partly accepted in terms of an earlier order. The High Court had remitted the matter back to the tribunal for consideration of interest only for the delayed period. The appellant contended that interest should not be payable on the duty amount due to the Revenue on the samples, as the freight charges allowed by the Tribunal were not challenged by the Revenue. The submission was based on the decision in the case of Union Air Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE Kochi. On the other hand, the SDR submitted that the issue revolved around the confirmation of duty demand on samples for the extended periods and the interests payable under Section 11AB of the Act.
The crux of the issue was the liability of interest on the confirmed duty on samples cleared by the appellants without discharging the duty liability for the periods from 1997 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2002. The lower authority had confirmed the duty demand, which was upheld by the Tribunal in Final Order Nos. 803 & 804/2006. As the appellants did not appeal against this final order, it attained finality. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 11AB were directly applicable in this case. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by holding that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the duty amount not paid on the samples from the date of clearance until the duty liability was discharged.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant was indeed liable to pay interest on the duty amount not paid on the samples as confirmed by the Tribunal, from the date of clearance until the duty liability was discharged. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, in line with the above decision and findings.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1004
Issues involved: Stay application against waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 based on eligibility for Notification No. 8/2003-C.E.
The judgment pertains to a stay application challenging the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The issue at hand revolves around the eligibility of the applicant for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, due to the operation of two factories in different states. The contention raised is that the unit in Himachal Pradesh produced exempted products, which should not be factored into the value of goods manufactured in Andhra Pradesh.
Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the demand confirmation stemmed from the applicant's alleged ineligibility for the benefits under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. Specifically, the provisions of clause (vii) of Para 2 of the said Notification were found to be applicable in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal opined that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a complete waiver of the pre-deposit amounts. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the applicant to pre-deposit the entire duty amount of Rs. 3,61,218 within eight weeks and report compliance by 3rd November 2009. Subsequent to this compliance, the pre-deposit of the remaining amounts involved in the matter was waived, and the recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal's disposal. Failure to comply with this order would lead to the dismissal of the appeal as per Section 35F of the Act.
............
|
9911796707
