|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 677 Records
-
2000 (11) TMI 477
Issues:
1. Modification of Stay Order regarding pre-deposit of disputed duty amount.
2. Whether assembly of Diesel Generating Sets amounts to "manufacture".
Analysis:
1. The Tribunal had earlier directed the applicants to deposit 50% of the total duty amount as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal, subject to which the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount was waived. The applicants sought modification of this Stay Order to dispense with pre-deposit of the entire duty amount unconditionally. The ld. advocate argued that subsequent developments, including a Tribunal order in the applicants' favor on a similar dispute and a Supreme Court judgment, supported their case for dispensing with pre-deposit. The Revenue contended that the applicants had only been asked to deposit 50% and there was no ground for waiving the pre-deposit of the balance amount. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and subsequent developments, modified the Stay Order to dispense with the pre-deposit of the entire duty amount during the pendency of the appeals.
2. The main issue in the appeals was whether assembling Diesel Generating Sets on a base frame at the installation site constituted "manufacture". The appellants argued that the sets became immovable property due to the installation process and did not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner rejected this plea, stating that the sets remained movable property even after assembly, as they could be removed and sold elsewhere. The ld. advocate highlighted the facts of the case and referred to a Supreme Court judgment on a similar matter to support the appellants' case. The Tribunal, after a detailed analysis and considering the arguments presented, found that the subsequent developments and the Supreme Court judgment warranted a re-examination of the issue. Based on the latest judgment and exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had made a strong case for dispensing with pre-deposit of the balance duty amount, modifying the Stay Order accordingly.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Applications, modifying the Stay Order to dispense with the pre-deposit of the entire duty amount during the pendency of the appeals.
-
2000 (11) TMI 460
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit.
2. Jurisdiction of CEGAT to award interest on delayed refunds.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refund of Pre-Deposit:
The appellants, M/s. Sachin Textiles Pvt. Ltd., initially deposited Rs. 5 lakhs as a precondition for the hearing of their appeal. After the appeal was allowed, they requested a refund of the pre-deposit. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground of limitation, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, stating that the amount deposited pursuant to CEGAT's order would not fall under the provisions of Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After further correspondence, the refund was sanctioned, but the appellants then requested interest on the belated refund, which was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that it was not covered under Sec. 11BB of the Act.
Similarly, in another case, the appellants deposited Rs. 10 lakhs as a precondition for hearing their appeal, which was later allowed. They requested a refund of the pre-deposit, which was sanctioned, but their demand for interest on the delayed refund was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, leading to the present appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of CEGAT to Award Interest on Delayed Refunds:
The appellants relied heavily on various decisions by different Benches of the Tribunal where interest was awarded under similar circumstances. Some cited cases include:
- ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad
- Sawhney Export House (P) Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi
- Konark Cement & Asbestos Ltd. v. CCE
However, contrary to these decisions, there are judgments by the Tribunal and High Courts holding that the power to award interest does not vest in CEGAT. For instance, in the case of Skantrons (P) Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, the Tribunal held that it could not grant interest on belated refunds as it was a creature of the statute and could not go beyond the provisions of the parent Act.
The Orissa High Court in C.C. Ex. & Cus. v. Golden Hind Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. examined whether the power to make such orders arose from Sec. 129B(1) of the Customs Act, which allows the Appellate Tribunal to pass orders as it thinks fit. The High Court concluded that the powers vested in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were broader than those vested in CEGAT, and thus, CEGAT did not have inherent power to award interest.
Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in Prestige Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. held that the Act and the Rules did not provide for payment of interest in case of refund of duty, and the authorities under the Act, including the CEGAT, had no power to award interest.
The Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. E. Merck (India) also reviewed the writ jurisdiction of High Courts on equitable grounds and their awarding of interest, emphasizing that the authority to make orders directing payment of interest must arise from the statute.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that for making orders directing payment of interest, the authority must arise from the statute, and since CEGAT is a creature of the statute, it is not vested with this authority in the absence of specific delegation. The Tribunal also examined Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which enable the Tribunal to make necessary orders to give effect to its decisions. However, the Tribunal found that these rules did not bridge the gap arising from the language of Sec. 129B(1) of the Customs Act or Sec. 35 of the Central Excise Act.
Given the conflicting judgments and the importance of the issue, the Tribunal requested the Hon'ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to settle the matter. The Registry was directed to transfer the papers to the Central Registry at Delhi for further proceedings.
-
2000 (11) TMI 459
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition and computation of anti-dumping duty on Pure Terephthalic Acid (PTA) from Japan, Malaysia, Spain, and Taiwan.
2. Determination of non-injurious price and landed value.
3. Transparency in the investigation procedure by the Designated Authority.
4. Validity of the period of investigation and data used for determining imports.
5. Imposition of anti-dumping duty on exports from Spain and other countries.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition and Computation of Anti-Dumping Duty:
M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an application seeking the imposition of anti-dumping duty on PTA from Japan, Malaysia, Spain, and Taiwan. The Designated Authority recommended anti-dumping duty on PTA from Spain but not from Japan and Malaysia, citing that imports from these countries were above the non-injurious price. M/s. Reliance Industries appealed for enhancement and imposition of duty on all countries mentioned, while M/s. Interquisa, Spain sought quashing of the duty on their exports.
2. Determination of Non-Injurious Price and Landed Value:
M/s. Reliance Industries contended that the non-injurious price was incorrectly determined lower than their cost of production, leading to an erroneous finding of no causal link between injury and imports from Japan and Malaysia. They argued that the landed value was inflated due to incorrect inclusion of certain costs. The Designated Authority explained that deductions were made for raw materials, utilities, sales tax, and income tax, with electricity costs based on actual costs rather than market tariff. The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's method but emphasized the need for greater transparency in disclosing cost elements excluded from the non-injurious price.
3. Transparency in Investigation Procedure:
The Tribunal noted that the Disclosure Statement by the Designated Authority lacked sufficient information, causing difficulties for the appellants. It stressed the importance of comprehensive and clear statements to ensure parties understand the basis of cost computations and can make informed submissions. The Tribunal urged the Designated Authority to improve transparency in its investigations.
4. Validity of Period of Investigation and Data Used:
M/s. Interquisa argued that no imports from Spain occurred during the period indicated in the application, and their imports during the investigation period were de-minimus. The Designated Authority justified the investigation period from April to December 1998, as large imports were anticipated. The Tribunal found the Designated Authority's decision appropriate, rejecting the forecast data in favor of actual import data from the Director General of Commercial Intelligence.
5. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on Exports from Spain and Other Countries:
The Tribunal found errors in the computation of landed value due to the inclusion of SAD and handling charges, which inflated costs and affected injury margin findings. It directed the re-computation of landed value excluding these elements and imposed definitive anti-dumping duties in US $ terms. The injury margins were revised, leading to the imposition of duties on specific exporters from Japan and Spain.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's determination of non-injurious price but directed corrections in the computation of landed value. It emphasized the need for transparency in the investigation process and imposed revised anti-dumping duties on PTA exports from Japan and Spain, disposing of both appeals accordingly.
-
2000 (11) TMI 458
Constitutional validity of Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D, 6(1) and 7(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
Held that:- We fall to understand the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel that there may be a law and order situation. Once an Expert Body has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it is no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation. It is for the concerned State Government to see that the law and order is maintained. In any democratic Society there are bound to be divergent views. Merely because a small section of the society has a different view, from that as taken by the Tribunal, and choose to express their views by unlawful means would be no ground for the Executive to review or revise a decision of the Tribunal. In such a case, the clear duty of the Government is to ensure that law and order is maintained by taking appropriate actions against persons who choose to breach the law. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 457
The appellants availed Modvat credit based on invoices from M/s. R.N. Enterprises, Bombay, but faced objections from Central Excise authorities. They reversed the credit but later filed a refund claim, which was rejected. The tribunal ruled that the appellants cannot claim a refund as they did not challenge the initial objection properly. The appeal was rejected.
-
2000 (11) TMI 456
Issues:
Four applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of excise confirmed and penalty imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise under Order No. 13/2000 dated 9-6-2000.
Analysis:
1. Clubbing of Clearances:
The appellant contended that the clearance of excisable goods by two separate units should not be clubbed as there was no financial flow back between them. The appellant argued that the statements relied upon by the Department lacked the signature of any Central Excise Officer, making them inadmissible as evidence under the Central Excise Act. The appellant emphasized the independence of both units, citing separate labor forces, premises separated by Wiremesh, separate electricity connections, and the mere application of anti-corrosion oil by one unit to goods bought from the other. The appellant also highlighted a previous decision stating that common workers are not a material fact.
2. Opposing Arguments:
The Respondent, opposing the application, referred to the Commissioner's findings indicating common control, workforce, management, stores, and other shared aspects between the two units. The Respondent argued that various statements, including those under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, corroborated each other, supporting the conclusion that the units were essentially one entity. The Respondent also cited a precedent where clubbing of clearances was upheld due to common procurement of raw materials and shared financial arrangements.
3. Decision and Order:
After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found the issue of clubbing clearances to be arguable. Due to the financial position and losses incurred by the appellant, a partial waiver was granted. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs towards duty within four weeks, with the remaining duty and penalty waived upon compliance. The recovery of the waived amounts was stayed during the appeal's pendency, with a compliance report due on 20-12-2000.
This judgment addressed the complex issue of clubbing clearances for excisable goods between two units, evaluating factors such as shared workforce, control, and financial arrangements. The Tribunal's decision balanced the arguments presented by both parties, considering the financial hardship claimed by the appellant alongside the evidence of commonality between the units. The outcome provided a partial waiver based on the appellant's financial position, highlighting the importance of compliance with duty payments while the appeal process continued.
-
2000 (11) TMI 455
The applicants filed for waiver of duty and penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with Stay Order. Applicants claim they were not served with the order on waiver of duty and penalty. Case adjourned, duty and penalty waived for appeal hearing. Adjourned to 22-1-2001.
-
2000 (11) TMI 454
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved an application for waiver of duty and penalty related to Modvat credit for finger tips under Central Excise Rules. The issue was whether the finger tips qualified for Modvat credit as input or as capital goods. The tribunal directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 50,000 within six weeks, with the remaining duty and penalty waived for appeal hearing. Compliance was set for 18-1-2001.
-
2000 (11) TMI 453
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi directed M/s. Fibre Glass Insulation to pre-deposit Rs. 1,50,000. The appellants were asked to comply by depositing the amount in cash or through PLA within two weeks, or the stay order would be withdrawn. The matter related to classification, not Modvat credit. Next hearing scheduled for 5-1-2001.
-
2000 (11) TMI 452
The Revenue's application for reference of a question of law from Tribunal's Order No. 758/98-B1 was rejected as not maintainable under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act. The issue related to eligibility for exemption from duty under Notification No. 167/79. The Tribunal cannot relax specific provisions of a notification for claiming duty exemption.
-
2000 (11) TMI 451
Issues:
1. Appeal against dropping of Central Excise duty demand on Innoculum Media and Calcium Citrate.
2. Interpretation of Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Marketability of Innoculum Media and Calcium Citrate.
4. Time-barred demand of duty.
5. Allegation of suppression of material facts.
Analysis:
1. Appeal against dropping of Central Excise duty demand on Innoculum Media and Calcium Citrate:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise dropping the demand of Central Excise duty on Innoculum Media and Calcium Citrate. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Collector based on the excisability of Calcium Citrate and marketability of Innoculum Media.
2. Interpretation of Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff:
Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 29 was crucial in determining the excisability of Calcium Citrate. The note states that the Headings of the Chapter apply to separate chemically defined organic compounds, regardless of impurities. The Tribunal found that Calcium Citrate falls under this definition, making it an excisable commodity.
3. Marketability of Innoculum Media and Calcium Citrate:
The Tribunal examined the marketability of Innoculum Media and Calcium Citrate. While Calcium Citrate was deemed marketable due to its various uses and chemical composition, Innoculum Media was found not to be marketable based on the lack of evidence supporting its market presence.
4. Time-barred demand of duty:
The ld. Collector had held the demand of duty to be time-barred, which was challenged by the Revenue. The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was invoked by the Department due to the alleged suppression of material facts by the respondents to evade Central Excise duty.
5. Allegation of suppression of material facts:
The Department alleged that the respondents suppressed material facts, particularly regarding the marketability and use of Calcium Citrate, to evade duty. The Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked by the Department based on the evidence of suppression by the respondents.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order concerning the excisability of Calcium Citrate and the limitation issue. The decision on Innoculum Media was upheld, confirming the demand of duty on Calcium Citrate. The appeal was partly allowed, addressing the various issues raised by the Revenue in the case.
-
2000 (11) TMI 450
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 19,81,104 under the Compounded Levy Scheme for the period from September 1997 to March 2000. The applicants opted out of the scheme in January 1998 and argued they should not pay duty from that date. The Tribunal accepted the applicants' statement and waived the pre-deposit of duty demanded, staying recovery pending the appeal.
-
2000 (11) TMI 449
The Commissioner of Customs New Delhi filed an application stating errors in the Tribunal's final order. The Tribunal did not find any error in the order as the Apex Court decision was not cited during the appeal. Another case cited by Revenue was of a later date, so no mistake was found. The request for rectification of mistake was rejected.
-
2000 (11) TMI 448
The Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake against an order, claiming a mistake in dismissing their appeal under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The Tribunal rejected the application, stating that the mistake should be apparent from the record, not based on arguments. The decision was supported by a previous case law. The application was dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 447
Issues: Abatement claim for central excise duty during factory closure period.
Analysis:
1. Abatement Claim Disallowance: The appeal filed by M/s. Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd. concerns the abatement in the payment of central excise duty during the factory closure period. The Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the abatement claim citing non-compliance with Rule 96-ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The grounds for rejection included failure to provide the electricity meter reading when production stopped, lack of meter reading and stock position details at the time of production restart, and missing declaration as required when informing about factory closure.
2. Appellant's Submission: Shri Amit Awasthi, representing the appellants, argued that the electric meter was sealed by the State Electricity Authorities, making it inaccessible to them for readings. He contended that necessary information from the State Electricity Authorities was submitted and that procedural lapses, such as delayed stock position submission, should be condoned. He referenced Tribunal decisions where similar matters were remanded for verification of closure through collateral evidence.
3. Respondent's Argument: Shri K. Panchasaran, for the Respondents, maintained that the Trade Notice requirements were fundamental to the abatement scheme and were not fulfilled. Consequently, the rejection of the abatement claim for the specified period was justified by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur.
4. Verification and Typing Error: The written submissions revealed discrepancies in dates related to factory closure, with a typographical error in the claimed abatement period. The lack of discussion on these communications and the closure status of the unit, along with the inaccessibility of the electric meter for reading, required further verification.
5. Precedent and Remand: The appellant cited Tribunal decisions like M/s. Raj Ratan Castings (P) Ltd. and others, where matters with similar circumstances were remanded for re-consideration of abatement claims during actual factory closure periods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for collateral evidence, including government department certificates, to form a well-founded decision.
6. Remand Order: The judgment remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for allowing the appellants to present necessary material. The Commissioner was directed to issue a speaking appealable order following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering collateral evidence for a comprehensive decision-making process, beyond mere departmental certificates.
-
2000 (11) TMI 446
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 75/84 for exemption of Central Excise duty on furnace oil procurement.
- Application of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules for demanding duty.
- Validity of penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.
Interpretation of Notification No. 75/84:
The appellants, a co-operative society manufacturing fertilizers, procured furnace oil for steam generation in their urea plant. The dispute arose when the Department alleged that the furnace oil was used for steam generation, not as feed stock in urea manufacture, thus demanding Central Excise duty. The appellants argued that their procurement was in line with CT 2 certificates for fertilizers manufacture. However, the certificates did not mention the relevant notification. The Tribunal found the Department at fault for allowing duty-free procurement for an unintended purpose, concluding that the demand was justified under Sl. No. 5 of the Notification.
Application of Rule 196 of Central Excise Rules:
The demand of Central Excise duty was raised under Rule 196, which allows duty recovery for unaccounted or lost goods. The appellants had declared the furnace oil usage for steam generation, but the Department issued CT 2 certificates for fertilizer manufacture. The Tribunal held that Rule 196 was wrongly invoked as the appellants' case did not meet its requirements. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal ruled that duty short-levied cannot be recovered under Rule 196, leading to the demand's dismissal. Even if demanded under Section 11A, it would be time-barred.
Validity of Penalties Imposed:
Penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were imposed alongside the duty demand. The Tribunal deemed these penalties unsustainable since the demand itself was dismissed. Section 11AC applies to non-levied or short-paid duty cases, not relevant here. Moreover, the demand period predated Section 11AC, making its application invalid. The adjudicating authority failed to provide reasons for the penalties, further undermining their validity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, provides insights into the interpretation of Notification No. 75/84, the application of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, and the validity of penalties imposed under the Central Excise Act.
-
2000 (11) TMI 445
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the appellants failed to comply with the pre-deposit directive despite being aware of it. The appellants' request to modify the stay order and waive the duty deposit was rejected. The order for pre-deposit was made in the presence of the appellants' advocate, and no grounds were found to waive the deposit.
-
2000 (11) TMI 444
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 9,94,877.40 and penalty of Rs. 11 Lakhs in a case involving disallowed Modvat credit. The Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiver due to minor discrepancies in declaration of inputs. The applicant agreed to reverse an amount of Rs. 31,283.35 and was required to deposit this sum within one week.
-
2000 (11) TMI 443
The appeal was against an order-in-appeal regarding products like control panels and manipulator parts. The issue was whether they were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 281/86. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing a Tribunal decision. The Tribunal found that the items were parts of machine tools and entitled to exemption, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.
-
2000 (11) TMI 442
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 22/28-4-98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.
- Confiscation of Car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Imposition of fine and personal penalty on the appellant.
- Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Contention regarding the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original.
- Appeal challenging the time-barred decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22/28-4-98, where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs had confiscated a Car imported by the appellant under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem it on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred, as it was filed more than 1½ years after the adjudication order. The Commissioner observed discrepancies in the appellant's claim regarding the date of communication of the order appealed against, leading to the dismissal of the appeal under Section 128.
In the present appeal, the appellant contended that the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was not time-barred as it was filed within three months of receiving the Order-in-Original, supported by an attestation dated 24-6-97 by the Appraising Officer. The Revenue contended that the attestation does not conclusively prove non-receipt of the original order by the appellant, shifting the onus on the appellant to establish the actual date of receipt. The appellant's reliance on the attestation was challenged by the Revenue, emphasizing the appellant's failure to discharge the onus of proving the receipt date.
Upon hearing the arguments, the Judge found merit in the appellant's submission regarding the attestation on the photocopy of the Order-in-Original, suggesting that the Commissioner (Appeals) should verify the claim of the appellant by examining the record to determine the actual date of receipt. Consequently, the Judge set aside the previous order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough review, instructing the Commissioner to pass a speaking order on the time-barred issue and, if necessary, consider the appeal on its merits, ensuring the appellant is given a fair opportunity to present their case.
In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the direction for the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the claim of the appellant regarding the receipt date of the Order-in-Original, ensuring a fair hearing and a reasoned decision on the time-barred status of the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
