Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1997 1997 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 321 to 340 of 569 Records

• 1997 (7) TMI 262
  
  The appellants imported a pulse width modulator module but claimed it should be classified as parts of a drilling machine. The Assistant Collector and lower appellate authority rejected the claim, stating the imported item was essentially populated PCBs, not parts of a machine. The appeal was rejected as unsubstantiated.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 261
  
  Issues:
  1. Classification of Induction Heater under Chapter Heading 8448.20, 8514.40, or 8516.29.
  2. Eligibility of Control Panel for the benefit of Notification No. 162/86.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Classification of Induction Heater
  The dispute revolved around whether the Induction Heater imported by the appellants should be classified under Chapter Heading 8448.20, 8514.40, or 8516.29. The appellants argued that the heater was specially designed for use in a specific plant and should be considered a spare part under 8448.20 or alternatively classified under 8514.40 as it pertains to heating equipment. However, the department contended that the specific entry of 8516.29 for heaters should be preferred over general entries. The tribunal noted that the heater was described as an induction heater in the bill of entry and lacked supporting evidence of being specially designed for the plant. Thus, the tribunal classified the product under Chapter Heading 8516.29, specific to heaters.
  
  Issue 2: Eligibility of Control Panel for Notification No. 162/86
  Regarding the eligibility of the control panel for the benefit of Notification No. 162/86, the determining factor was the voltage. The notification required a voltage of 400 or more for the concessional rate of duty. The control panel in question had a voltage of 380 volts as per the manufacturer's plate, which did not meet the threshold. Despite arguments of voltage fluctuation and a Tariff Advice suggesting treating 380 volts as 400 volts, the tribunal held that the notification must be strictly construed. As the control panel's voltage fell short of the required 400 volts, it was deemed ineligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 162/86.
  
  In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the classification of the Induction Heater under Chapter Heading 8516.29 and rejected the claim for the concessional rate of duty on the control panel under Notification No. 162/86 due to the voltage discrepancy. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 260
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the Sprinkler Equipment manufactured by the appellants qualifies as an Agricultural Implement for exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. from 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1988.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of Sprinkler Equipment manufactured by M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Limited as an Agricultural Implement for exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, held that the product did not qualify as an Agricultural Implement based on the components and dictionary meaning of "Implement." The Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, affirmed this decision, noting that the goods were not specified as per ISI standards for agricultural use and were separately exempted post-1-3-1988. The Collector upheld the denial of exemption under Notification No. 64/86 for the relevant period.
  
  The appellant argued that the Sprinkler Irrigation System was intended for agricultural use and qualified as an implement under the relevant notifications. They referenced trade notices and expert opinions supporting their classification. However, the respondent contended that the exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. was limited to agricultural implements and parts thereof, which did not encompass the Sprinkler Equipment in question. The respondent highlighted the composition of the system and previous judicial interpretations of agricultural implements.
  
  The Tribunal considered the definitions of "implement" and previous case law on the term in sales tax matters. While acknowledging the appellant's arguments and expert opinions, the Tribunal found that the Sprinkler Equipment did not align with the concept of agricultural implements pre-1-3-1988. The scope of exemption was extended to mechanical appliances for agriculture post-1-3-1988, but the Tribunal upheld the decision that the Sprinkler Equipment did not qualify as an implement under the earlier notification. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the lack of alignment with the exemption criteria under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. during the relevant period.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 259
  
  The appeal involved issues of eligibility for Modvat credit and duty payment on exported goods. The Tribunal admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal allowed waiver of pre-deposit for disallowed credit of Rs. 7,770/- due to minor invoice defect. For Rs. 33,875/- duty amount, the appellants were directed to deposit the amount due to lack of required export document, AR 4, but penalty pre-deposit was waived with recovery stayed pending appeal. Compliance was required by 17th Sept. 1997.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 258
  
  Issues: Classification of Uncoiler and Leveller under 84.45/48 as claimed by the assessee or under 84.59 as per the Department.
  
  Analysis:
  1. Issue of Classification: The primary issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi was whether the Uncoiler and Leveller imported by the appellant should be classified under sub-heading 84.45/48, as contended by the assessee, or under 84.59, as asserted by the Department. The relevant entries under these headings were examined to determine the appropriate classification.
  
  2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the Uncoiler and Leveller are accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machine tools falling under 84.45/48. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric fans, imported these items along with other accessories for stamping press, emphasizing that these items enhance the effectiveness of the machine. Citing a decision of the Bombay High Court, the appellant contended that since the accessories were intended for use in the stamping press, they should not be classified independently under 84.59.
  
  3. Department's Position: The Department, represented by Shri G.D. Sharma, countered the appellant's argument by highlighting the appellant's own reply, which indicated that the Uncoiler and Leveller were invoiced separately as customers had the option to choose suitable capacities. It was argued that these items could be used independently for various machines, making them independent machines with individual functions, not mere accessories or parts.
  
  4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the Uncoiler and Leveller were invoiced separately to provide customers with options, indicating their independent nature. The Tribunal concluded that these items had individual functions and were not solely for the stamping press but could be used with other machines as well. Rejecting the appellant's argument that these items should be classified under 84.45 as accessories, the Tribunal upheld the Department's classification under Heading 84.59 for machines and mechanical appliances with individual functions.
  
  5. Conclusion: Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming the Department's classification of the Uncoiler and Leveller under Heading 84.59. The judgment clarified that these items, due to their independent functions and applicability to various machines, were not to be classified as accessories solely designed for the stamping press under 84.45/48, as claimed by the appellant.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 257
  
  Issues:
  Eligibility of Motor running capacitors for benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the eligibility of Motor running capacitors imported by the respondents for the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus. The Revenue contended that the imported goods, being Motor running capacitors, should not be extended the benefit under the notification as they were considered a type of power capacitors based on Indian Standard IS 1985 (Part XL 11) 1977 Electro Technical Vocabulary. The issue was whether Motor running capacitors qualified as power capacitors under the relevant standards.
  
  The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides. The Bureau of Indian Standards classified Motor capacitors under the heading 'Power Capacitors' with the IS Standard being IS 2993: 1975. Although there are different IS specifications for various types of power capacitors, the classification of Motor capacitors under 'Power Capacitors' did not automatically exclude them from being considered power capacitors. The 1985 Publication of the ISI defined Power Capacitors as intended for use in a power network and Motor Running Capacitors as providing leading current to an auxiliary winding of a motor, which are characteristics of power capacitors.
  
  Despite the differences in application and specifications between Motor running capacitors and traditional power capacitors, such as capacity rating and working voltage rating, it was established that Motor running capacitors are essentially a type of power capacitors. The Collector of Customs' reliance on size and dimension differences to distinguish between the two types of capacitors was deemed insufficient. The contention that Power capacitors are only for power factor connection was refuted based on the Electro-technical vocabulary. The Tribunal concluded that Motor running capacitors fell within the definition of Power capacitors and were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 188/87. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals of the Revenue were allowed.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 256
  
  Issues: Classification of colour video monitors under the old Central Excise Tariff.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal filed by the Revenue concerns the classification of colour video monitors under the old Central Excise Tariff. M/s. Gadodia Electronics Ltd. initially paid Central Excise Duty under Item No. 37BB but later sought a refund, claiming the correct classification under Item No. 68 of the Tariff.
  
  2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, agreed with M/s. Gadodia Electronics Pvt. Ltd. that the colour video monitors should be classified under Item No. 68 of the Tariff, as they were deemed to be only display devices without the capability to record sound or image.
  
  3. The Revenue argued that video monitors should be classified under Heading No. 85.28 of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (HSN) based on Tariff Advice No. 37/84. However, the respondents contended that the Tariff Advice was not applicable to the goods in question, citing the scope of Item No. 37BB and the separate classification of video reproducing apparatus under Heading No. 85.21 of the HSN.
  
  4. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing colour video monitors, sought classification under Item No. 68 of the Tariff, covering 'all other goods not elsewhere specified.' The Assistant Collector of Central Excise classified them under Item No. 37BB, emphasizing the capability of the video monitors to receive and reproduce video signals comprising image and sound signals.
  
  5. Item No. 37BB of the Central Excise Tariff encompassed television image and sound recorders and reproducers, including video cassette recorders and decks. The Tariff Advice clarified the coverage of various instruments under this item, distinguishing them from broadcast television receiver sets.
  
  6. Video monitors, according to the Explanatory Notes to the HSN, are receivers directly connected to video cameras or recorders, primarily used by television companies or for closed-circuit television. They are distinct from display units of data processing machines, designed to generate and display images synchronously with source signals, utilizing various technologies such as cathode-ray tubes or liquid crystal screens.
  
  7. The expression "reproducers" in Item No. 37BB refers to apparatus that convert recorded signals into video signals for direct reproduction on a receiver. The classification of video monitors under Heading No. 85.28 of the HSN distinguishes them from reproducing apparatus under Heading No. 85.21, as monitors serve as display devices without the capacity to record or reproduce images or sound independently.
  
  8. The judgment concurred with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that video monitors, lacking the ability to record or reproduce sound or image, were solely display devices. The reliance on Tariff Advice No. 37/84 regarding closed circuit television sets was deemed inapplicable to the classification of individual video monitors.
  
  9. Considering all pertinent factors, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that video monitors were not capable of recording or reproducing sound or image, solely serving as display devices.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 255
  
  The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of lower authorities regarding the inclusion of the value of the tiffin box inside the insulated products 'hotline' in the assessable value. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the tiffin box is an integral part of the product and cannot be exempted from duty. An analogy with pressure cookers was also rejected.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 254
  
  Issues: Classification of plastic cover for Video Cassette under Central Excise Tariff
  
  In this case, the issue revolved around the correct classification of the plastic cover made for Video Cassettes under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant, a manufacturer of Video Cassette Covers made of Polystyrene, initially classified these covers under Heading No. 39.22 of the Tariff, which was approved by the Central Excise Officers. However, a subsequent application under Section 35E of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 led the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay to classify the goods under Heading No. 85.23 instead of Heading No. 39.22.
  
  The appellant contended that the Tribunal had previously held in their case that Video Cassette Covers should be classified under Heading No. 39.22 and not under Heading No. 85.23 as determined by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Tribunal had classified such covers as other articles of plastics falling under Heading No. 39.01 to 39.18.
  
  During the proceedings, the focus was specifically on the classification of the Outer Cover for the Video Cassette. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified this Outer Cover under Heading No. 85.23, citing that it covered prepared, unrecorded media for sound recording or similar recording. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the Outer Cover made of plastics should be classified under Heading No. 39.22, which pertained to articles for the conveyance or packing of goods of plastics.
  
  The Tribunal emphasized that Heading No. 39.23, which covers articles for the conveyance or packing of goods of plastics, was specific to the type of goods under consideration, while Heading 3926.90, which refers to other articles of plastics, was general and residuary in nature. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the plastic Outer Cover for Video Cassettes should be classified under Heading No. 39.22, as it was during the relevant period before a Tariff Entry change on 10-2-1987.
  
  After considering all relevant facts and arguments, the Tribunal held that the plastic Outer Cover for Video Cassettes was correctly classifiable under Heading No. 39.22 of the Tariff. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 253
  
  Issues: Challenge to Order-in-Original regarding demand of duty on Head Office expenses and transportation charges.
  
  In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and articles, challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The appellant was found to be collecting Head Office Expenses and transportation charges from buyers without paying duty on these elements. The show cause notice issued proposed a demand of duty on these amounts, alleging suppression of material facts and non-disclosure of extra collections. The appellant contested the notice, but the Additional Collector confirmed the demand.
  
  Regarding the Head Office expenses, the appellant argued that the demand related to a period beyond the six-month limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Voltas Limited case, the appellant contended that post-manufacturing expenses should be excluded from the assessable value. The appellant ceased collecting Head Office expenses from May 1983 onwards, believing it would not be part of the assessable value based on legal precedents. The Tribunal agreed that the demand on Head Office expenses was time-barred as there was no intent to evade duty.
  
  Concerning transportation expenses, the Tribunal noted that the M.R.F. decision allowed deduction of transportation costs along with insurance on freight, as per the Bombay Tyre International case. The appellant argued that the transportation charges collected were based on actual costs incurred, including using own trucks and hiring additional trucks. The Tribunal observed that the Additional Collector did not assess whether profits were made from transportation charges exceeding actual costs. The Tribunal directed a fresh consideration on whether duty should be payable on the alleged excess transportation charges, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination and a personal hearing for the appellant.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demand on Head Office expenses and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the transportation charges issue. The appeal was allowed, providing an opportunity for the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the duty liability on transportation charges in light of the Tribunal's observations and legal principles.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 252
  
  The appeal by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. regarding the eligibility of an Air Conditioner for their factory Telephone Exchange under Notification No. 56/78-C.E. was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal held that the internal facility for the factory could not be considered a Telephone Exchange as per common understanding. The concession under the notification was not available to private Telephone Exchange establishments. The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in it.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 251
  
  Issues:
  Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 to Dies for Drawing Metal Strips.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal pertains to M/s. Devidayal Non-Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. challenging the decision of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division "E", Bombay-I, who held that the Dies used for drawing strips were not covered by Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The appeal was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay, prompting the appellants to seek a decision on merits.
  
  The Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 exempts tools designed for use in hand tools, machine tools, or tools for working in the hand, including dies for wire drawing, extrusion dies for metals, and rock drilling bits under Chapter 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The exemption applies to tools manufactured in a factory for use in the same factory or any other factory of the same manufacturer, subject to compliance with the prescribed procedure.
  
  It was established that the Dies in question were tools designed to be fitted into machine tools and classified under Chapter Heading No. 82 of the Tariff. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "including" in the exemption notification does not restrict the scope of the exemption to only the items specifically mentioned. Referring to precedent, it was clarified that items listed with the term "including" cover products that may raise doubts about their inclusion, and items not explicitly mentioned but falling within the general category are also covered.
  
  Upon thorough review of the exemption notification, the Tribunal disagreed with the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay, concluding that the Dies for Drawing Strips were indeed eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision was made in favor of M/s. Devidayal Non-Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 250
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of the term "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
  2. Application of Rule 173H to the process of re-drawing duty paid copper rods, flats, bars, and strips.
  3. Determination of whether the process of converting items into smaller dimensions amounts to manufacture.
  4. Analysis of the distinction between rolled bars/rods and drawn bars/rods for excise duty purposes.
  5. Consideration of Notification No. 174/84 and its applicability to the case.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment involves a dispute regarding the classification of a process as "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants argued that converting duty paid copper rods, flats, bars, and strips into smaller sizes does not constitute manufacture as it does not result in a new product emerging. They contended that the essence of manufacture is the creation of a new taxable article, which was not the case in their process. The lower authorities, however, held that further drawing of hot rolled rods/flats/bars amounted to manufacture and attracted duty under Notification No. 174/84.
  
  The appellants emphasized that their activity only involved converting items into smaller sizes falling under the same tariff item, attracting the same rate of duty. They argued that the lower authorities incorrectly applied Notification No. 174/84 to their process. The judgment highlighted the distinction between rolled bars/rods and drawn bars/rods for excise duty purposes, noting that the tariff descriptions clearly differentiated between the two categories.
  
  The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities focused on the differences between processes like rolling, drawing, and forging to determine whether a manufacturing process had occurred. However, the appellants' main contention was that they had merely converted duty paid copper rods/bars/strips into smaller sizes under the same tariff item. The Tribunal found that the extent to which the appellants had subjected the duty paid wrought bars/rods to further processing was not clarified. As a result, the case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a detailed examination of the conversion process to determine if it amounted to manufacture and the applicability of the exemption under Notification No. 174/84.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a fresh examination, emphasizing the need to determine the extent of processing involved in converting the items into smaller dimensions and the applicability of the relevant excise duty provisions. The decision highlighted the importance of a thorough analysis of the manufacturing process to ascertain the applicability of excise duty regulations.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 249
  
  Issues: Classification of remnants of silver strips as scrap under sub-heading 7101.80 for duty demand.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal challenged the duty demand of Rs. 1,74,941.78 confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise against the appellants, who are manufacturers of electro-mechanical electronic components. The appellants purchased silver strips containing 90% silver for making precious metal contacts like rotor blades and clips. The process involved punching out components from silver strips, with the remnants returned to the supplier for reprocessing. Initially, under Rule 56C, the remnants were returned without duty payment, as silver strips were dutiable at 12%. However, after Rule 56C was abolished in 1986, the appellants sent remnants for reprocessing without duty payment based on Notification No. 53/86 exempting silver strips from duty. The Show Cause Notice alleged duty evasion on silver strips sent for reprocessing without payment. The appellants argued that the material sent was not scrap but directly convertible to strip form, retaining its market value, and should not be classified as waste or scrap.
  
  The appellants contended that the Collector erred in classifying the remnants as scrap under sub-heading 7101.80, as scrap is typically considered waste with reduced value. They argued that the remnants, though altered in shape by punching, retained their purity and market value when remelted and rerolled into strips. They presented samples to demonstrate the process and emphasized that reclassifying the remnants as scrap would lead to repeated duty payments on the same material until fully consumed. The Departmental Representative supported the Collector's findings.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the facts and concluded that the remnants of silver strips, altered only in shape by punching, did not lose their intrinsic value or purity. When sent for remelting and rerolling to recreate silver strips, they retained their worth as pieces of silver and were not considered scrap. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' contentions, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential reliefs, allowing the appeal against the duty demand.
  
  In summary, the Tribunal determined that the remnants of silver strips, altered through punching but retaining their purity and market value when remelted and rerolled, could not be classified as scrap under sub-heading 7101.80. Consequently, the duty demand against the appellants was overturned, and the impugned order was set aside with any necessary reliefs granted to the appellants.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 248
  
  The appellant's request for early hearing was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The goods in question were rare designer watches and pens valued at Rs. 20 lakh, confiscated by customs for not being declared. The goods were not eligible for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, and no grounds were found for early hearing.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 247
  
  Issues:
  1. Alleged misuse of proforma credit facility for rotors and stators.
  2. Interpretation of Notification No. 66/83 and Notification No. 95/79.
  3. Procedural lapses in availing proforma credit and duty payment.
  4. Discrepancy in stock balance and clearance of rotors and stators.
  5. Imposition of duty demand and penalty.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved an appeal by M/s. Khaitan Electricals against the order of the Collector of Central Excise confirming a demand of Rs. 4,96,170.61 on 40,094 pieces of rotors and stators. The appellants were accused of misusing the proforma credit facility under Notification No. 9583 by not paying duty on the final products. The Collector found that the permission to avail proforma credit on laminations was subject to clearing rotors and stators on payment of duty. The appellants argued that they had consumed rotors and stators in the manufacture of electric fans and had accounted for them properly. The Collector noted the discrepancy in stock balance and held that the appellants failed to inform the Department of their intention to avail the benefit of nil rate of duty under Notification No. 66/83.
  
  The appellants contended that under Notification No. 66/83, rotors and stators used in the manufacture of electric fans were exempt from excise duty. They argued that Notification No. 95/79 was not applicable as all rotors and stators were used captively in the manufacture of electric fans. They also claimed entitlement to set-off duty paid on rotors and stators when clearing electric fans. The appellants highlighted procedural lapses and technical nature of the alleged deficiency.
  
  The Tribunal considered whether the appellants, who had obtained permission for proforma credit on laminations, could avail the nil duty concession under Notification No. 66/83 for rotors and stators without specific permission. The Tribunal noted that the conditions for availing proforma credit had been substantially complied with and that there was no dispute regarding the discharge of duty liability on electric fans. The Tribunal found the lapse to be procedural and not deliberate evasion of duty. It concluded that there was no justification for imposing a penalty and allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and penalty.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted any consequential benefits permissible under the law to the appellants.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 246
  
  Issues:
  Applicability of Notification No. 75/86 to parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractors, and trailers for manufacturing internal combustion engines used in various applications.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The appellants contested the duty demand of Rs. 6,58,356.26 based on the interpretation of Notification No. 75/86 as amended by Notification No. 312/86. The dispute centered around whether parts and accessories used for manufacturing internal combustion (I/C) engines for purposes beyond motor vehicles were eligible for the exemption under the said Notification.
  
  The Collector (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Collector's decision that only I/C engines of motor vehicles, tractors, and trailers were eligible for the benefit of the Notification. The Collector reasoned that the notification covered only I/C engines that are part of motor vehicles, not other types of I/C engines under Chapter 84. The Collector emphasized that the use of the words 'used as original equipment' indicated use only in motor vehicles and tractors, excluding other types of I/C engines.
  
  The appellants argued that the Notification required proving that parts and accessories were intended for use as original equipment parts in the manufacture of internal combustion engines under Chapter 84, irrespective of the application of the engines. They contended that I/C engines are utilized in various applications, including marine and industrial engines, beyond automobile vehicles, thus meeting the Notification's criteria.
  
  The respondent Collector maintained that the exemption under Notification No. 75/86 applied solely to parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractors, and trailers specified in the Table annexed to the Notification. The Collector emphasized that the Notification covered only I/C engines part of motor vehicles, not other types of engines or vehicles under Chapter 84.
  
  Upon examining the actual wording of Notification No. 75/86 as amended, the Tribunal noted that the exemption encompassed parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractors, and trailers falling under specific chapters. The Tribunal highlighted that the proviso required satisfying an officer that the goods were intended for use as original equipment parts in the manufacture of internal combustion engines under Chapter 84. The Tribunal clarified that the term 'the said goods' referred specifically to parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractors, etc., restricting the scope of I/C engines eligible for the exemption to those used in motor vehicles and tractors.
  
  Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and rejected the appeal, affirming that the exemption under Notification No. 75/86 applied only to I/C engines forming part of motor vehicles and tractors, not extended to engines used in other vehicles or equipment like boats or stationary power generators.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 245
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that the cost of special testing arranged by the appellant at the instance of buyers should not be included in the assessable value for duty calculation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Department, upholding the decision that the cost of special testing is not to be included in the assessable value.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 244
  
  The appeal considered whether "edge trimming and shots" in the manufacture of ceramic wool are chargeable to duty. The Tribunal ruled that these items are not excisable goods as they do not emerge from the manufacturing process. The appeal by the department was dismissed based on the Supreme Court's definition of excisable goods.

  ---

• 1997 (7) TMI 243
  
  Issues:
  1. Duty demand on HDPE tapes consumed in manufacturing HDPE fabrics.
  2. Concessional duty rate on HDPE tapes used for stitching woven fabrics.
  3. Duty on HDPE sacks manufactured from circular looms.
  4. Imposition of penalty.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The appellant contested duty demands on HDPE tapes consumed in manufacturing HDPE fabrics, citing exemption under Rule 49. The department argued the tapes' use rendered the appellant ineligible for exemption. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including CCE v. Chitra Polypack Industries, to support the appellant's position. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee based on settled case law, allowing exemption under Rule 49.
  
  Issue 2:
  Regarding the concessional duty rate for HDPE tapes used in stitching woven fabrics, the department claimed duty was applicable unless the tapes were intended for weaving sacks. The appellant referred to a telex from the Board of Excise and Customs and previous Tribunal decisions, such as M/s. Auro Plast (India) Ltd., to support their case. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument, stating that no liability arose for using HDPE tapes in manufacturing HDPE sacks, in line with previous decisions.
  
  Issue 3:
  The duty demand on HDPE sacks manufactured from circular looms was not contested by the appellants. Consequently, this ground was dismissed by the Tribunal as the appellants did not pursue this plea.
  
  Issue 4:
  A penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs was imposed, exceeding the duty demanded of Rs. 1 lakh. The appellants argued there was no intent to evade duty. Considering the substantial reduction in duty amount and the lack of intent, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal was disposed of with this modification in penalty.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents, interpretation of exemption rules, and the consideration of intent in imposing penalties in excise duty cases.

  ---

1 ....131415161718192021........ 29