|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 623 Records
-
2001 (7) TMI 471
The appellants filed refund claims for Ball bearings classified under Heading 84.82 of Customs Tariff, seeking exemption under Notification No. 271-Cus. The Tribunal rejected the appeals as the appellants did not challenge the original assessment order through an appeal, making the refund claim impermissible. The decision was based on the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. case.
-
2001 (7) TMI 469
Issues:
1. Whether duty of excise is payable at the time of removal of goods from the factory after yarn was doubled or multi-fold or at the single yarn stage.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the question of excise duty liability for M/s. Adinath Textiles Ltd. The issue was whether duty of excise is payable by them at the time of removal of goods from the factory after yarn was doubled or multi-fold, or if duty is payable at the single yarn stage.
Arguments by Appellant:
Shri K.K. Anand, the advocate for the Appellant, argued that they were discharging duty liability at the spindle stage based on Trade Notice No. 17/94. He mentioned that a subsequent Trade Notice amended the procedure, stating that excise duty would be chargeable only at the time of removal. The Appellant contended that they had discharged duty liability as per the initial Trade Notice and that no additional duty was demandable. They also cited relevant case law, including the decision of the Supreme Court in C.C.E., Jaipur v. Banswara Syntex Ltd., to support their position.
Arguments by Respondent:
On the other hand, Shri P.K. Jain, representing the Respondent, argued that excise duty must be paid on the yarn as it is removed from the factory for home consumption. He relied on the decision in C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Oswal Wollen Mills Ltd. to support the contention that duty should be payable at the stage of clearance of double and multi-fold yarn.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and referred to Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, which deem excisable goods to have been removed from the premises upon consumption or utilization. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Banswara Syntex Ltd., the Tribunal held that excise duty liability arises on the manufacture of single ply yarn and not after doubling or multi-folding. The Tribunal emphasized that duty is payable at the single yarn stage, regardless of further processes. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the benefit of Notification No. 26/94, as amended by Notification No. 90/94, which provides for a nil rate of duty on double or multi-fold yarn if appropriate duty has been paid on the single ply yarn. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the Appellant.
-
2001 (7) TMI 467
Issues:
Confiscation of copper wire, imposition of penalty, confiscation of Matador Van, clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods, provisional release of goods, justification for confiscation, payment of duty on removal of goods, reduction of fines or penalty.
Confiscation of Copper Wire:
The case involved the confiscation of copper wire valued at Rs. 2 lakhs with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000. Central Excise Officers found an excess quantity of 2.7 tonnes of copper wire during a physical verification, with more than one tonne loaded in a Matador Van. The appellant was accused of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods, leading to the confiscation. The appellant argued that the excess stock was due to the timing of stock taking before the previous day's production could be entered in records. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation, stating that the appellant was removing goods without accounting for them or paying duty, and that the confiscation was justified.
Imposition of Penalty:
In addition to the confiscation of copper wire, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the appellant. The appellant contended that since the Matador Van had not left the factory, there was no evidence of planning to clear goods clandestinely without paying duty. The appellant argued that duty payment is only required upon removal of goods from the factory. However, the Tribunal found that the loading of unaccounted goods into the van indicated an attempt to remove goods without proper documentation or duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the appellant's explanation lacked substance and that the penalty was justified given the circumstances.
Confiscation of Matador Van:
The Matador Van was also confiscated with an option to redeem on a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appellant argued that since the goods in the van had already been provisionally released, they were not available for confiscation. However, the Tribunal cited a previous judgment allowing the confiscation of provisionally released goods. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was attempting to remove goods without proper accounting or duty payment, justifying the confiscation of the van. The Tribunal also found no reason to reduce the fines or penalties imposed, considering the value of the goods involved.
Overall Decision:
The Tribunal confirmed the impugned order, rejecting the appeal. It upheld the confiscation of the copper wire and Matador Van, as well as the imposition of penalties, based on the findings that the appellant was involved in clandestine production and clearance of goods without payment of duty. The Tribunal found no fault in the lower authority's conclusions and determined that the fines and penalties were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
-
2001 (7) TMI 462
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, a Public Sector Corporation manufacturing Petroleum product, regarding the imposition of penalties and recovery of interest under Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal set aside the orders of penalty and interest imposed under these provisions. However, a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Rule 173Q was upheld as the goods were cleared at a lower rate, constituting a contravention. The appeal was decided accordingly, and the stay application was disposed of.
-
2001 (7) TMI 461
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the duty and penalties on pipes removed without reversing credit. The Tribunal waived remaining penalty for Assessee Company and entire penalty for Executing Manager. The request to restrain encashment of bank guarantee was declined. The Tribunal dismissed the application as the bond was voluntarily filed by the assessee and they must suffer the consequences for standing guarantee for the truck.
-
2001 (7) TMI 459
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,18,427 as crushing, grinding, and sieving of Soap Stone did not amount to manufacture under Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found Commissioner's judgments and chapter note irrelevant, citing Supreme Court cases supporting their decision. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefit.
-
2001 (7) TMI 456
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled that duty cannot be demanded from an importer by revoking the benefit of exemption without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal stated that the burden of proof lies with the department to show that Modvat credit was taken, and failure to verify compliance was due to the assessing officer's omissions. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
-
2001 (7) TMI 454
Issues:
1. Duty calculation and payment discrepancies between related entities.
2. Imposition of penalties for duty short payment.
3. Claim of provisional assessments to avoid penalty imposition.
4. Interpretation of Rule 9B regarding provisional assessments.
5. Applicability of penalty under Sec. 11AC.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Duty Calculation Discrepancies
The case involves M/s. Milton Plastics Ltd. (MPL) and M/s. Milton Plastics Industries (MPI), related entities under the Central Excise Act. MPI manufactured goods and paid duty based on selling prices, while MPL cleared goods from different locations, affecting duty calculation. A document revealed duty short payment by MPI, which was acknowledged by both entities. Despite explanations, duty discrepancies were noted.
Issue 2: Imposition of Penalties
The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty shortfall and imposed penalties on MPI. The appellant argued against the penalty, citing lower prices charged by MPI and previous judgments. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's delay in rectifying the short payment unacceptable, distinguishing it from cases where corrective actions were promptly taken upon realization.
Issue 3: Claim of Provisional Assessments
MPI claimed assessments were provisional based on a letter, but the Commissioner disagreed, stating it did not constitute a formal request for provisional assessment. The Tribunal did not find merit in this claim, emphasizing the lack of a valid provisional assessment request.
Issue 4: Interpretation of Rule 9B
The discussion touched upon Rule 9B, which governs provisional assessments. The Tribunal refrained from delving into case law at that point, indicating potential relevance in future proceedings.
Issue 5: Applicability of Penalty under Sec. 11AC
The appellant contested the imposition of penalties under Sec. 11AC, but the Tribunal found the argument unconvincing. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount as a pre-condition for further appeal consideration, emphasizing compliance within a stipulated timeframe.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed duty discrepancies, penalty imposition, provisional assessments, Rule 9B interpretation, and penalty applicability under Sec. 11AC. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of timely corrective actions and adherence to excise regulations to avoid penalties and ensure compliance.
-
2001 (7) TMI 453
Issues: Rectification of mistake applications regarding the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-CE for iron and steel products.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around rectification of mistake applications filed by the appellants seeking rectification of the Final Orders passed by the Tribunal in their appeals related to the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-CE for iron and steel products. The appellants, who were manufacturers of iron and steel products, had purchased ship breaking scrap of iron and steel as raw material but wrongly availed the benefit of exemption from duty under the said notification. The Collector confirmed the duty demand, stating that the ship breaking scrap purchased by the appellants was not fully duty paid, and hence, the benefit of the notification was not available to them. The Tribunal upheld this decision, sending the matter back only for the determination of the duty amount. The appellants sought rectification of the order, arguing that the law laid down in previous cases had not been followed. However, the Tribunal found no mistake of fact or law in the final order, dismissing the rectification applications as misconceived and not tenable.
The Tribunal noted that detailed reasons were provided in the impugned final order for the non-availability of the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-CE to the appellants due to the inputs purchased by them not being fully duty paid. The findings of the Collector in this regard were upheld. The Tribunal also referenced the law laid down in previous cases but found it not applicable to the appellants' situation based on the facts and circumstances. The argument that the law laid down in previous cases should apply to the appellants' case was rejected by the Tribunal, emphasizing that there was no mistake of fact or law apparent on the face of the final order. Consequently, the rectification applications were deemed misconceived and not maintainable, leading to their dismissal by the Tribunal.
-
2001 (7) TMI 452
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appellant's appeals against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of products sold to distributors, stating that the activities of distributors post-transfer are not relevant for valuation. The Tribunal waived the payment, duty, and penalty demanded, staying their recovery during the appeal.
-
2001 (7) TMI 450
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi considered a case where a penalty was imposed on an appellant for not following the prescribed procedure for despatching inputs to job workers. The Tribunal found that there was no loss of revenue or evasion of duty, so the penalty was unjustified. The penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 446
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the appeal against the order-in-original by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner found the appellants not lawful owners of the goods, imposed a penalty of Rs. 28,000 under Rule 209A. The appellants failed to prove ownership, produced false invoices. The processed fabric was seized at Amritsar from various godowns under fake addresses. The appellants did not provide evidence of ownership, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 444
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal filed by Smt. Archana Wadhwa, setting aside the confiscation of the carrier vehicle and penalties imposed on the appellants. The tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Hand Tractor carried by the vehicle was smuggled, as the only basis was the foreign origin marking. The appellants were not aware of the alleged smuggling, as the person who hired the vehicle fled upon interception by Customs. The confiscation of the carrier vehicle was deemed unjustified, and the penalties were revoked.
-
2001 (7) TMI 442
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case of duty demand and penalty imposed on an applicant, found that the duty demand against the applicant was not proposed in the show cause notice. The applicant had voluntarily deposited a portion of the demanded amount. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty for the applicant, considering the circumstances.
-
2001 (7) TMI 441
Issues:
1. Inclusion of bank charges in the assessable value of water tankers
2. Inclusion of transportation cost in the assessable value of water tankers
Analysis:
Issue 1: Inclusion of Bank Charges
The appellants were contesting the demand of duty imposed on them, arguing against the inclusion of bank charges in the assessable value of water tankers. The contention was that the bank charges paid for securing a bank guarantee for the safe return of chassis to the manufacturer were not related to their manufacturing activities and should not be considered in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing that such bank charges had no nexus with the manufacturing process. Referring to legal precedents and the explanation in Notification No. 4/97, the Tribunal concluded that the bank charges were not includible in the assessable value of the water tankers. Therefore, the demand of duty based on bank charges was not justified, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
Issue 2: Inclusion of Transportation Cost
Another issue raised in the appeal was the inclusion of transportation cost in the assessable value of water tankers. The appellants argued that the transportation cost incurred for delivering duty-paid chassis to their factory gate should not be added to the assessable value of the water tankers manufactured on those chassis. Citing legal precedents such as the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and the Tribunal's decision in Herbertsons Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the transportation cost of the chassis was directly related to the value of the chassis itself, which was not to be considered for determining the value of water tankers as per the explanation in the relevant notification. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for including the transportation cost in the assessable value of water tankers. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on both issues, rejecting the inclusion of bank charges and transportation cost in the assessable value of water tankers. The judgment provided a detailed analysis based on legal principles and precedents, ultimately leading to the decision to allow the appeal and provide relief to the appellants.
-
2001 (7) TMI 439
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi reduced the penalty imposed on M/s. La Chem Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. from Rs. 19,88,497 to Rs. 10 lakhs and on Shri S.S. Nandwana, Managing Director from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000 for wrongly availing Modvat credit based on fake documents. The duty demand was confirmed. Both appeals were rejected after the penalty reduction.
-
2001 (7) TMI 415
Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) regarding imposition of demand, fine, and penalty post settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS).
Analysis:
The Revenue filed a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application challenging the Tribunal's Final Order, arguing that post-settlement under the KVSS, imposition of demand, fine, and penalty was permissible. The Revenue sought to rectify the apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 31-8-2000. The issue revolved around whether demands, fines, and penalties could be imposed after settlement under the KVSS.
The Tribunal examined the facts of the case where Central Excise duty was demanded on Khandsari Molasses procured by the respondents for liquor manufacturing. The duty was demanded on molasses seized on 17-6-1997 and molasses received between 1-3-1997 to 6-6-1997. The respondents paid duty for the seized molasses before the show cause notice. Subsequently, the respondents opted for settlement under the KVSS, declaring their cases on 29-12-1998 and covering additional entities under the scheme.
The Tribunal's order dated 31-8-2000 considered the show cause notice's allegations of confiscation and duty non-payment, which were settled under the KVSS. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order on redemption fine invalid and noted that separate penalty imposition was unnecessary due to the KVSS provisions. The Tribunal analyzed the KVSS provisions, emphasizing that only unpaid duty, cesses, interest, fines, or penalties indicated in show cause notices could be considered as tax arrears under the scheme.
Regarding the seized molasses, the Tribunal found that the duty had been paid before the show cause notice, and the respondents had settled the matter under the KVSS. As the duty on seized goods was paid and no penalty was imposed during the declaration, the show cause notice was deemed withdrawn under Section 90(4) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that as the respondents had paid the determined amount and the duty on seized goods, the show cause notice was no longer valid, as per the KVSS provisions.
After thorough consideration of the facts and legal provisions, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application, finding no merit in the Revenue's argument. The judgment upheld the settlement under the KVSS and deemed the show cause notice withdrawn, emphasizing compliance with the scheme's requirements and settlement terms.
-
2001 (7) TMI 414
The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No. 1081, dated 19-12-2000, where duty demand of about Rs. 86,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was upheld on the appellant for shortage of finished goods and raw material. The appellant, a manufacturer of PVC compound, faced shortage during stock taking by Central Excise Officers. The appellant explained that the materials had been sold without duty payment and paid the duty involved. The penalty imposed was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- due to lack of evidence of clandestine removal without duty payment.
-
2001 (7) TMI 413
The appeal was made against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Appeal No. 14-CE/DLH/2000. The appellant sought interest on delay of payment of Modvat credit and penalty under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the request for interest on merits. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order was in the form of a remand, and intervention by the Tribunal was not necessary. However, the lower authority was instructed to expedite the decision on the appellant's claim for interest within three months.
-
2001 (7) TMI 412
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal. The case involved the interception of silk yarn of Chinese origin from a Maruti Van. The appellant, owner of a travelling agency, was not connected to the goods in question. The penalty of Rs. 30,000 imposed on the appellant was found to be not sustainable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
............
|
9911796707
