|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... red from high tenacity artificial filament yarn and it is not subject to any process. 2. emsp Lower Appellate Authority has classified the product under Tariff Heading 54.08 on the ground that this fabric is not directly used in the manufacture of tyres and therefore it has no industrial purpose. In other words, the lower appellate authority also admits that it is indirectly used in the manufacture of tyres, though it may not form part of the tyre. It is therefore, obvious from the position as narrated by the respondents themselves in their written submissions dated 4-9-1998 as also from the finding of the lower appellate authority that this fabric has no other use except the industrial use in the manufacture of tyres. Consequently, the Tariff Headings 59.09 is more appropriate than the Tariff Heading 54.08 because the former tariff heading is more specific to the fabric in question. 3. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1999 (3) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... placed on the trolleys. The trolley and the containers do not merge into a new product. The container can be placed and removed from the trolley without any dismantling process. The character of the container also undergoes no change. It is for storage of materials whether placed on a trolley or not. The containers are also sold with or without the trolleys. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants are only manufacturing plastic containers and they are not manufacturing trailers and semi-trailers as classifiable under 87.16. It is also clear that this matter was fully in the knowledge of the Department as evidenced by the 1983 adjudication order of the Assistant Collector. Therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts is also not correct and justified. In view of these findings, we also hold that the imposition of penalty was unwarranted. The appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1999 (3) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... acture of HDPE tapes was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 53/87 and hence the appeal before us. 3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate appears for the appellants and Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. JDR represents the Revenue. 4. We have heard the submissions of both sides. We note that the claim of the appellants is based on the question of classification of waste of HDPE tapes either under chapter sub-heading 5401.10 or under 5401.90. We note that the issue of classification came up before the Hon rsquo ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajpack Well Limited 1990 (50) E.L.T. 201 wherein the Hon rsquo ble High Court held that the HDPE tapes and waste thereof will be classifiable under Chapter 39. Since the HDPE tapes and waste thereof are no longer classifiable under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the question of admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 53/87, dated 1-3-1987 does not arise. In the circumstances, the appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tive properties. They have also pointed out that Note 1(b) to Chapter 35 of the Central Excise Tariff Act clearly provides that this chapter does not cover medicaments and other products of Chapter 30. It has not been disputed by the Department that the impugned product is mentioned in Pharmacopoeia and has digestive properties. The HSN Explanatory notes, referred to by the Collector (Appeals), speaks of Papain obtained from the dried latex of the Papaya tree. In the present matter, the dried latex of unripe papaya is mixed with Lactose B.P., Sodium, Meta- Bisulphate and cystine. There is thus substantial force in the contention of the Appellants that their product is classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Tariff as medicament. Further, Heading 35.07 covers prepared enzymes not elsewhere specified or included and heading read with Note 1(b) make it clear that the impugned product is not classifiable under Heading 35.07. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Appellants is allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hat labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer would amount to manufacture. Therefore a new marketable commodity classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2404.60 has emerged. The appellants rsquo contention therefore that their product was classifiable under sub-heading 2404.60 has merit. 6. Ld. JDR Shri V.M. Udhoji, reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 7. emsp Following the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order in appellants rsquo own case (supra), we hold that the correct classification of the said product would be under Chapter Heading 2404.60. 8. Appeal accordingly succeeds with consequential benefits to appellants. However, since the question relates to a refund claim, the law relating to unjust enrichment will be applicable and the authority concerned shall allow the refund subject to the provisions of the law relating to unjust enrichment.
-
1999 (3) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... ere export is prohibited by any law, those goods which have been imported may be permitted to be exported. The formal procedure of filing a shipping bill and observing other formalities relating to export of goods would have to be followed. There is nothing in the law prohibiting the Collector from permitting re-export of goods. This long standing practice only simplifies the procedural requirement of a complex and time consuming requirement. Therefore, when an adjudicating authority after ordering confiscation of imported goods permits their re-export the goods he is in effect first ordering the redemption for home consumption and thereafter permitting them to be re-exported. Each of these two actions is permitted by law. An order whereby both are combined therefore is not contrary to law. 7. emsp The order of the Collector is in law therefore correct. However, having regard to the gravity of the offence, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Consequential relief.
-
1999 (3) TMI 147 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... igned to receive such equipment, classifiable under that heading. Accordingly the doors would also be classifiable under this heading. 6. emsp The fact that the cold room is by itself very large, is no reason for not considering these as cabinets. The book ldquo Modern Refrigeration and Air Conditioning rdquo by Andrew D. Althouse, Carl H. Turnquist and Alfred F. Bracciano published by The Goodheart-Willcox Company Inc., refers to cabinets or commercial refrigeration of various sizes. Para 13.3 refers to walk-in cabinet of size 12ft x 10ft x 9.10 . The book ldquo Refrigeration and Air Conditioning rdquo by Billy C. Langley published by Reston Publishing Company says that walk in coolers are generally larger than 100 ft. The relatively large size of the cold room by itself is not enough to disqualify it as not being refrigeration cabinet. The doors were thus correctly classifiable under Heading 8418.99. 7. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief, if any.
-
1999 (3) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Notification No. 25/84-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... conventional raw material for the purpose of granting exemption under Notification Nos. 22/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 73/95-C.E., dated 20-3-1995 and 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997. The wordings of one of the Notification i.e. 22/94-C.E. are identical to Notification No. 25/84 as the Notification provides a concessional rate of duty to Paper and Paper Board or articles made therefrom if such paper and paper board or articles have been manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 75 by weight of pulp made from materials other than bamboo, hardwoods, softwoods, reeds (other than sarkanda) or rags. The Department is bound by the clarification issued by the Board and it cannot be claimed by them that use of waste paper will make the paper, manufactured by the Appellants, non eligible to the benefit of the Notification No. 25/84-C.E. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1999 (3) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Steel structures - Dutiability of - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... 1999 (107) E.L.T. 337 (Tribunal) 1999 (31) RLT 5 (CEGAT) wherein it has been held that the fabricated items constitute parts of immovable structurals and do not assume shape of any specific item and therefore, are not liable to duty. The Tribunal also observed in the said judgment that the fabrication of steel structurals by cutting to size, drilling holes and welding or riveting of materials does not amount to manufacture and that these process undertaken were in the nature of intermediate processes. 3. Learned JDR, Shri Nunthuk for the Revenue while conceding that the Tribunal has recently passed a judgment, reiterates the findings of the original authority which has held that these processes amount to manufacture of new goods. 4. emsp Following respectfully the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. and Others, supra, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants after we set aside the impugned order so far this appeal is concerned.
-
1999 (3) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ngs of the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. They have not shown that the populated PCBs are classifiable under Heading 85.42 of CTA. According to Note 2 to Chapter 90 parts and accessories if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machines are to be classified with the machine itself. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in respect of classification of goods at Sl. No. 7 under Heading 9032.90 as admittedly these are parts of the machine which fall under Chapter 90. In respect of goods at Sl. No. 8 of bill of entry, we are not agreeing with the submission of learned JDR that these are parts of date processing machine alone and should be classified under sub-heading 8473.30. It is not disputed by the learned JDR that these parts are being used by the appellants in the machine which falls under Chapter 90 and as per Note 2 to Chapter 90 these parts are also classifiable under sub-heading 9032.90. The appeal is thus disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (3) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Spent Nickel Catalyst ... ... ... ... ..... after the Nickel catalyst has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished products. According to Rule 57D(1) of the Rules, the Modvat credit is not deniable in respect of the quantity of inputs contained in waste or refuse or by product. The Appellants, while clearing the waste i.e. spent Nickel catalyst, did not pay any excise duty as the goods falling within Chapter 26 were exempted from the whole of the duty of excise as per Notification No. 19/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. As per the provisions of Rule 57F(4), any waste, arising from the processing of inputs may be removed on payment of duty as if such waste has been manufactured in the factory. The rate of duty applicable will be rate of duty in force on the date of removal of the goods. As the spent nickel catalyst was exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 19/88, no Central Excise duty was payable by the Appellants. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nds (slits) of the required width and rewinding it rsquo . 3. Thus, a slitter-cum-rewinding machine is internationally recognised as a paper cutting machine. In this view of the matter, we set aside the findings of the Adjudicating authority that the machine imported by the appellants is liable to confiscation, set aside the penalties and allow the Appeals. 11. We find in the present case, the machine in question is fully programmable paper cutting machine, as in the case of above mentioned decision of the Tribunal and objection of the Revenue was also the same that machine was slitter-cum-rewinder and both were different machines. The Tribunal held that slitter-cum-rewinding machine is recognised as cutting machine. 12. emsp In view of the above discussion and the decision of the Tribunal, we find that the machine in question is a paper cutting machine which is classifiable under 8441.10 of Customs Tariff. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1999 (3) TMI 141 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture - Embroidered grey fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... amount to manufacture. rdquo We are not able to see how, as the Commissioner claims in the impugned order, examination of this position indicates that embroidered fabrics are manufactured if they are subjected to further processing. The note itself does not specify or suggest any reference of embroidered fabrics. The connection between the note and the fabrics which the Commissioner seeks to apply it is totally absent. In the absence of any deeming fiction contained in the notes, the processes carried out on the goods would not amount to manufacture. It is only subsequent to the introduction of Note 8 to Chapter 58 in 1995, by which the processes specified in that note, in relation to fabrics of this chapter amounted to manufacture, that carrying out any of these processes would attract duty. No duty was therefore payable by the appellant. 7. We therefore do not consider it necessary to deal with the arguments raised on limitation. 8. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (3) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... such period as he may consider necessary Provided also that in the case of goods or parts thereof which are not accompanied by duty paying documents, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the identity of the goods can be established by other collateral evidence, he may by order and subject to such conditions as he may impose, relax the requirement of the production of duty paying documents. (3) The goods or parts thereof (retained in, or brought into, a factory or a warehouse in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) may, if not subjected to any process amounting to manufacture, be removed from the factory or warehouse without paying of duty subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner . 6. From the reading of Rule 173H shows that no such condition of six months for removal of the goods was mentioned. Therefore the finding of the learned Commissioner in the impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Mineral water whether natural or artificial, is excisable - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ecause in that case brand name owner was not registered SSI Unit and it has been clearly held that it was not eligible for exemption. 7. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. The question before us is not whether mineral water manufactured by Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is excisable or not. We observe as rightly pointed out by the ld. Advocate that mineral water, whether natural or artificial, is excisable. It is also on record that Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is admittedly registered SSI Unit. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve, as rightly pointed out by the ld. Advocate for the appellants, that the brand name owner of Bisleri i.e. Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is eligible for grant of exemption under this notification. Consequently, the mischief of para 4 will not come into play for denying the benefit of Notification 1/93-C.E. to the appellants herein. Hence we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (3) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... subsequent to this declaration. They had filed clarificatory letter on 5-7-1994 giving detailed particulars of the castings already declared in the earlier letter. Shri Kapoor submits that the inputs in question were covered by the first declaration and, therefore, there is no ground for denying the credit. 2. Heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned D.R. who reiterates the findings in the order. 3. emsp I have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The inputs involved in the instant case were castings and they had been declared by the appellants as inputs in their letter dated 22-11-1993 which was prior to the taking of Modvat credit. The later letter can only be treated as of clarificatory nature. Denial of credit was, therefore, not justified. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of duty involved.
-
1999 (3) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ks (Final Order No. 395/88, dated 12-7-1988). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 4. Heard ld. JDR and perused the appeal papers. 5. emsp In this case, the respondents were availing the benefit of Notification 22/82 and one of the conditions of the notification was that the total production of matches in a calendar month during the financial year shall not exceed 15 million matches. In the month of December, 1989, the respondents manufactured more than 15 million matches. This fact was not disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal while interpreting the provision of Notification 22/82, in Final Order No. 395/88, dated 12-7-1988, held that if the limit in the Notification 22/82 on the monthly production has been exceeded in a financial year, the concessional rate of duty is not applicable for whole of the financial year. Respectfully following the ratio of the above mentioned decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 136 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... value of the goods cannot be lower than the price of the raw material from which they are made. We agree in the principle that the cost of manufactured article would not normally substantially lower than the cost of the material which are made. The importer had specifically taken the stand that the goods were made out of brass waste. Considering that the goods were parts of artificial jewellery where there would be no great requirement of tensile strength and standard quality, and only appearance would be significant, this was not an unreasonable stand. It has not in any way been disproved. The value of scrap is substantially less than the value of prime metal and there is nothing to show that the cost of the goods was lower than the price of the goods being made. The burden of proving that the value declared was not acceptable, which lay upon the department, has not been discharged. The Collector (Appeals) conclusion therefore cannot be found fault with. 5.Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... e products - duct sections. These sections have to be joined together by making a complete duct for movement or conveyance of the cold air from the central air conditioning system. This cannot be called as immovable goods or having been permanently fixed on the walls. These have been temporarily fixed with the help of flanges manufactured by the appellants out of duty paid angles. Flanges therefore also become duty, paid manufactured from the raw material, angles. We have gone through the impugned order and detailed findings given by the adjudicating authority as mentioned above bring out the fact that the new commodities as explained therein by act of fabrication undertaken by the appellant herein have been brought into existence. The two types of articles viz., duct and flanges are liable for duty as held by the lower authority. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the appellants herein. Consequently we reject the same.
-
1999 (3) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Nickel articles ... ... ... ... ..... below, we find that the entry against sub-heading 7501.00 reads ldquo Nickel rdquo (including nickel waste and scrap), and articles thereof. A plain reading of this sub-heading shows that the waste and scrap of nickel shall be dutiable under this heading. The contention of the appellant that the waste and scrap arising in the process of manufacture of articles thereof is not included in the entry inasmuch as including nickel waste and scrap pertains to other things other than articles thereof. We find that the rate of duty on nickel and waste and scrap of nickel shall be governed by Heading 75.01 of the Tariff. What comes out of the process of manufacture of articles of nickel will be waste and scrap of nickel. Since there is specific entry for waste and scrap of nickel, therefore the waste and scrap generated in the process of manufacture of articles of nickel will be leviable to duty under Chapter Heading 75.01. 4. emsp In view of the above findings, the appeal is rejected.
............
|
