|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 748 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 771
Issues involved:
Manufacturers availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 268/82-C.E., rescinding of notifications, challenge on ground of promissory estoppel, incorporation of principle of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, rejection of refund claims on ground of unjust enrichment, appeal challenging rejection of refund claims.
Summary:
The assessees, manufacturers of tyres and tubes, were availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 268/82-C.E. which was later rescinded and continued through subsequent notifications. The exemption granted under these notifications was challenged on the ground of promissory estoppel, leading to legal proceedings. Meanwhile, the principle of unjust enrichment was incorporated under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and the assessees' refund claims were rejected on this ground. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessees' appeal, stating that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not relevant in their case. The Revenue appealed this decision before the Tribunal.
In the Tribunal's final order, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need to examine the question of unjust enrichment in refund claims under Section 11B. The lower appellate authority failed to provide a clear finding on unjust enrichment as directed, instead accepting the assessees' argument that they were not required to file a refund application under Section 11B. The Tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's decision and remitted the case for a fresh determination on whether the assessees had unjustly enriched themselves, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessees.
Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the case being sent back for a clear finding on unjust enrichment.
*(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on completion of the hearing)*
-
2009 (9) TMI 770
Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. regarding concessional rate of customs duty for sewing machines without in-built motor.
Summary:
The case involved M/s. Hi-Tech Machinery System, Chennai filing a Bill of Entry for sewing machines seeking concessional rates of customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit, stating that sewing machines typically have in-built motors and the absence of a motor would not affect their identity as sewing machines. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit, leading to an appeal by the Revenue.
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the imported sewing machines did not have in-built motors, although they had provisions for them. The relevant entry in Notification No. 6/2002 did not exclude sewing machines with provisions for in-built motors, only those with in-built motors. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the benefit was available to the imported goods as per the clear language of the notification.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the sewing machines without in-built motors were eligible for the concessional rates of customs duty as per Notification No. 6/2002-C.E.
-
2009 (9) TMI 769
Issues:
Whether interest is required to be paid on excise duty discharged by issuing supplementary invoices on account of price revision.
Analysis:
The issue in dispute revolved around the requirement of paying interest on excise duty discharged through supplementary invoices due to price revision. The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled by a recent decision of the apex court in Commissioner v. SKF India Ltd., which held that interest on differential duty paid as a result of issuing supplementary invoices due to retrospective price revision is indeed payable. The assessees argued that in their case, the price variation was known pursuant to the sales contract and was not contemplated at the time of goods removal. They relied on precedents such as E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CTI and CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu to support their contention. Additionally, they raised the issue of Revenue neutrality not being considered by the apex court in the SKF India Ltd. case. However, the Tribunal emphasized that since the matter was conclusively settled by the apex court and there was no room for departure from its decision, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and rejected the appeals.
In conclusion, the Tribunal, guided by the precedent set by the apex court in Commissioner v. SKF India Ltd., ruled that interest on excise duty paid through supplementary invoices due to price revision is indeed payable. Despite the arguments presented by the assessees regarding the specifics of their case and the issue of Revenue neutrality, the Tribunal held that it was bound by the apex court's decision and, therefore, upheld the impugned orders, ultimately rejecting the appeals.
-
2009 (9) TMI 768
The Cenvat credit disallowed to manufacturers of carbon-dioxide gas was allowed as M/s. Pure Industrial Gases had no intention to evade duty. Settlement Commission granted immunity to M/s. Pure Industrial Gases from penalty. The appeal was allowed by CESTAT Chennai.
-
2009 (9) TMI 767
The appeal dealt with whether cartridges imported with intraocular lenses are eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption, but the Commissioner (Appeals) granted it. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that cartridges are accessories supplied with the lens and should also be eligible for duty-free assessment.
-
2009 (9) TMI 766
The appellate tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, with Judges Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, heard appeals from both an appellant and the department regarding an impugned order. The appellant, represented by Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, conceded the demand of duty and payment but contested a penalty. The department appealed the interest and penalty imposed under Sections 11AB and 11AC. The tribunal found the issue similar to a Supreme Court case, CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd., where the court ruled that payment of differential duty later is unintentional and not fraudulent, warranting interest but not penalty. The tribunal agreed with this precedent, concluding that no penalty was justified in this case. The tribunal also upheld a token penalty for contravening Rule 173F, as the appellant was obligated to pay the full duty upon removal. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed both appeals. The decision was announced on 24-9-2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 765
The appeal challenged the confiscation of six tractors due to licensing violations. The assessable value of the tractors was Rs. 3,83,992. Importers failed to produce compliance certificates under Motor Vehicles Rules. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 1.50 lakhs, and the penalty remained at Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal was allowed for the reduction in fine.
-
2009 (9) TMI 764
Issues:
1. Disallowance of abatement claimed by the manufacturers of MS ingots during shutdown periods.
2. Imposition of interest and penalty for non-payment of duty at the material point of time.
Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots, opted to pay duty monthly under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The dispute arose when show-cause notices were issued proposing to disallow abatements claimed during shutdown periods and demanding duty payment. The Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated the matter, disallowing abatement for 9 days and confirming a duty demand. However, the issue of interest and penalty was deferred. The impugned order imposed interest and penalty on the ground of non-payment of duty at the material point of time.
2. The key legal provision in question was Rule 96ZO(3), which stipulates consequences for failure to pay the entire amount due by a certain date. The appellants argued that the duty payable was determined only by the Commissioner's order in February 2001, and thus, there was no failure to pay the amount by the specified dates. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, concluding that since the duty amount was finalized only in February 2001, there was no default in payment by the due dates. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the imposition of interest and penalty, ruling in favor of the appellants.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, in this case, overturned the imposition of interest and penalty on the manufacturers of MS ingots, as there was no failure to pay the duty amount by the specified dates, as per Rule 96ZO(3). The judgment highlighted the importance of timely determination of duty payable before penalizing for non-payment.
-
2009 (9) TMI 763
Issues:
Challenge to order confirming demand and denial of exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E.
Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in cement manufacturing, challenged the order confirming a demand of Rs. 4,09,404/- along with interest by the Commissioner, Jaipur. The dispute centered around the denial of exemption claimed under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-06. The appellants sought exemption based on the notification's provisions, paying duty at a specific rate per metric ton plus cess for cement sold to industrial/institutional consumers.
The appellants contended that the Commissioner failed to correctly interpret the notification, specifically the third proviso to Explanation II concerning goods falling under Chapter Heading 2523.29. They argued that since they sold goods in large quantities, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, pertaining to retail sales, did not apply. They claimed there was no need to disclose wholesale commodity prices due to the exemption they believed applied.
However, the respondents, represented by the learned DR, opposed the appellants' arguments. They highlighted that the Weights and Measures Rules applied not only to retail but also wholesale transactions. Rule 6 of the Rules mandated declarations on packages intended for retail sale, including a declaration of the retail sale price on each package. The definition of a wholesale package encompassed retail packages, necessitating compliance with retail price disclosure requirements.
The Tribunal observed that the exemption under the notification's proviso applied specifically to exemptions provided under the Rules. As such, the waiver of the demanded amount was not warranted based on the arguments presented by the appellants. The Tribunal dismissed the application for stay, directing the appellants to deposit the amount as per the impugned order within eight weeks.
The matter was scheduled for compliance on 20-11-09, with the Tribunal's decision emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the regulatory requirements and the limited scope of exemptions under the relevant Rules in determining duty liabilities.
-
2009 (9) TMI 762
Issues:
1. Excess Cenvat credit claimed by the respondent.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
3. Review appeal filed by the Department regarding the quantum of penalty.
4. Dismissal of Department's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Appeal filed by the Department against the order-in-appeal.
Analysis:
1. The Department alleged that the respondent had taken excess Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,074, which was later paid back with interest upon discovery. Despite the repayment, a show cause notice was issued for confirmation of the demand and penalty imposition.
2. The Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,074 under Section 11AC along with Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Department, dissatisfied with the penalty amount, filed a review appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) citing that Rule 13 prescribes a minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the order-in-appeal dismissed the Department's appeal, leading to the current appeal by the Department. During the hearing, only the Departmental Representative was present, reiterating the grounds of appeal.
4. The judge, after considering the submissions and records, noted that when a penalty is imposed under Section 11AC equal to the duty evaded, it cannot exceed the Cenvat credit amount confirmed. The judge clarified that Rule 13 sets an upper limit, not a minimum penalty, and when Section 11AC is invoked, Rule 13 does not apply. Consequently, the judge found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.
5. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, affirming the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal.
-
2009 (9) TMI 761
Issues involved: Allegation of clandestine removal of goods, imposition of central excise duty, penalties u/s Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary:
1. The proceedings were initiated against the respondents for clandestine removal of goods involving central excise duty. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under Central Excise Rules and Section 11AC of the Act. The respondents appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeals were allowed, leading to the present appeals.
2. The Tribunal rejected multiple adjournment requests by the respondents' advocate and proceeded to hear the appeals on merits. The entire case was based on documentary evidence, confirmed by a handwriting expert. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, citing lack of further investigation by the department to corroborate the seized documents.
3. The Department was expected to establish the allegation of clandestine removal with convincing evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) interfered with the original order based on the absence of additional investigation. However, the Tribunal found that the documentary evidence, proven to be in the respondents' handwriting, was substantial and the lack of further investigation did not invalidate it.
4. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the quality of evidence presented, focusing on the absence of additional investigation. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was detailed and supported by the seized documents, indicating no arbitrary decision-making.
5. The imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was deemed unjustified as the provision was not in force during the relevant period. Therefore, the penalty under this section was rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Consequently, the appeals partly succeeded, with the impugned order quashed and set aside, except for the penalty under Section 11AC, which was not applicable during the relevant period. The original authority's order was restored, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (9) TMI 760
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) of the Central Excise. The Commissioner ruled that there was no stock shortage at M/s. Gajanan Steels Ltd. and that the penalty on Director Shri R.K. Gupta was beyond the scope of the proceeding. The Tribunal remanded the matter to reconcile discrepancies with IS standards, which the Revenue agreed to. The Revenue's grounds for appeal included the IS standard calculation and the Director's voluntary statement. The Commissioner found that the shortages were within IS tolerance limits and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on Shri R.K. Gupta. The Revenue's appeal was subsequently dismissed. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2009 (9) TMI 759
Suspension of CHA licence - the exporter was found to be non-existent in respect of three shipping bills filed by them - Held that: - the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, under whose jurisdiction this Tribunal is functioning, is relevant and in the case of CC v. National Shipping Agency [2008 (1) TMI 400 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY], the Hon’ble High Court held that the issue of suspension order on 30-10-2006 for violation committed in the year 2005 indicates that there is no emergency which required licence to be suspended - The facts in this case are similar to the facts considered by the Hon’ble High Court - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 758
Issues:
1. Assessment of imported dry ginger at a higher value than declared by the appellant.
2. Failure to provide copies of Bill of Entry to the appellant.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice by lower authorities.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Assessment of imported dry ginger at a higher value
The case involved the import of dry ginger by the appellants from China, with the declared price of US $1150 per metric ton (PMT). The assessing officer raised doubts on the declared price, leading to adjudicating and appellate proceedings. The lower authorities determined the assessable value at US $1900 PMT based on values from other Bills of Entry. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of excess payment to the seller and that the assessing officer's doubts were based on a public ledger not suitable for comparison. The appellant contended that the declared price was contractual and not inflated.
Issue 2: Failure to provide copies of Bill of Entry
The appellant raised a significant procedural issue regarding the failure to provide copies of the Bill of Entry, which they requested. This failure to provide essential documents violated principles of natural justice, hindering the appellant's ability to present a complete defense. The absence of these documents undermined the fairness of the adjudication process.
Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice
The Tribunal acknowledged the breach of natural justice due to the non-provision of essential documents to the appellant. In light of this procedural error, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing. The Commissioner was directed to provide the appellant with copies of the Bill of Entry and invoices, allowing for a fair and complete presentation of their case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of observing principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a reevaluation, emphasizing the significance of procedural fairness and the right to access essential documents in administrative and appellate proceedings.
-
2009 (9) TMI 757
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI stated that pre-delivery inspection charges and free after sales service charges should not be included in the assessable value. This decision was based on Circular No. 681/72/2002-CX, dated 12-12-2002. The department's appeal was dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 756
Issues:
1. Impleadment of M/s. Lombard North Central PLC as a respondent in the department's appeal.
2. Conflict of interest between M/s. Lombard North Central PLC and Mr. Abdul Hassan Mohamed Khan.
3. Prayer for imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle.
4. Disposal of appeals out-of-turn based on the live issue of re-export of the car.
Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the application filed by M/s. Lombard North Central PLC seeking impleadment as a respondent in the department's appeal. The applicant expressed that the pendency of Mr. Abdul Hassan Mohamed Khan's appeal is detrimental to their interests as it hinders the re-export of a vehicle that belongs to them. The Commissioner's order allowed re-export of the car without imposing a fine or penalty on the applicant. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, decided to implead the applicant as an additional respondent in the department's appeal No. C/1205/08. This decision was based on the fact that the department's prayer for redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle could adversely affect the applicant's interests.
2. The judgment addresses the objection raised by Mr. Abdul Hassan Mohamed Khan's counsel regarding the impleadment of M/s. Lombard North Central PLC as a respondent in the appeal. The importer's counsel argued that there is no conflict of interest between the importer and the applicant since the importer had challenged only the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal found that the department's appeal, which sought redemption fine, could impact the applicant's position, justifying their impleadment as an additional respondent.
3. The Tribunal highlighted that the department's appeal primarily sought the imposition of a redemption fine in place of confiscation of the vehicle. This aspect was considered prejudicial to the interests of M/s. Lombard North Central PLC, prompting the Tribunal to allow the application for impleadment. The decision was made in the interest of justice, considering the implications of the department's prayer on the applicant's situation.
4. Additionally, the judgment referenced a previous order by the Bench, noting that there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order at that stage. It was observed that the issue of re-export of the car was live, prompting the appeals to be prioritized for disposal out-of-turn. As a result, the Tribunal directed both appeals to be scheduled for final hearing on a specific date, emphasizing the need for the additional respondent to obtain certified copies of interim orders passed in the department's appeal.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision-making process, ensuring a thorough understanding of the legal complexities involved.
-
2009 (9) TMI 755
Issues:
Classification of impregnated filter paper under chapter heading 4811, Benefit of Notification No. 18/95 and 8/96, Consideration of compression of sheets for exemption eligibility.
Classification of impregnated filter paper under chapter heading 4811:
The case involved the classification of impregnated filter paper under chapter heading 4811. The department issued show cause notices alleging that the impregnated filter paper did not fall under the relevant notifications for exemption. The original authority held that the goods cleared fell under a specific classification and imposed a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority's order. The Department argued that the goods fell under a different classification based on the Chemical examiner's reports and relevant tariff descriptions.
Benefit of Notification No. 18/95 and 8/96:
The respondents availed the benefit of Notification No. 18/95 and 8/96 for specific periods. The department issued show cause notices challenging the eligibility of the impregnated filter paper for these notifications. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had differing opinions on the applicability of these notifications, leading to the appeal by the Department.
Consideration of compression of sheets for exemption eligibility:
The Tribunal, based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, analyzed whether the impregnated filter paper required compression of sheets to be excluded from the exemption notifications. The relevant tariff entries and notifications were examined to determine the eligibility criteria. The respondent argued that mere impregnation did not meet the exclusion criteria specified in the notifications. The Tribunal concluded that the products did not meet the specific requirement of having sheets compressed together for exclusion, thus upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Department, affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification and eligibility for exemption notifications. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant tariff descriptions, notifications, and the specific criteria for exclusion mentioned therein. The Tribunal's interpretation emphasized the necessity of fulfilling the prescribed conditions for exemption eligibility, particularly regarding the compression of sheets in the case of impregnated filter paper.
-
2009 (9) TMI 754
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on abetment of offence committed by M/s. Amba Expofab and their proprietor.
Summary:
1. The penalties were imposed on individuals for abetting the offence committed by M/s. Amba Expofab in relation to duty-free goods imported under Advance Licences. The main party's applications were adjourned.
2. The penalties were imposed based on investigations revealing diversion of goods to the domestic market, leading to show cause notices and penalties.
3. The CHA's claim regarding suspension of licences and lack of confiscation or penalty under Section 112 was contested, and a pre-deposit was ordered.
4. The Chartered Accountant's liability for abetment was established based on issuing a solvency certificate facilitating duty-free import and diversion of goods, warranting a pre-deposit.
5. Shri Harbhajan Singh Sandhu was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery due to lack of inculpatory statements and denial of cross-examination.
6. Shri Manoj Omprakash Goel's involvement in diverting goods to the domestic market was detailed in his statement, leading to a penalty under Section 112(a) upheld by the Tribunal.
7. Financial hardships were not pleaded, and pre-deposit amounts were specified for the appellants with compliance deadlines set.
Separate Judgement:
- Shri Harbhajan Singh Sandhu was granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery due to lack of inculpatory statements and denial of cross-examination.
-
2009 (9) TMI 753
Issues: Detention of inputs/raw materials by Central Excise authorities, question of levy of duty, permission to utilize detained inputs/raw materials, furnishing security in the form of bank guarantee
Detention of Inputs/Raw Materials:
The High Court observed that the Central Excise authorities had conducted stock verification of inputs and finished products of the petitioner's company. Samples of non-dutiable and dutiable inputs and finished products were taken and sent for testing. The Court noted that since the verification had already been done and samples sent for testing, there was no valid reason to continue detaining the inputs/raw materials. It was emphasized that under the guise of a detention order, authorities cannot impede business operations or manufacturing activities.
Question of Levy of Duty:
The judgment highlighted that the issue of levy of duty or any further verification was yet to be decided by the Central Excise authorities. It was made clear that the detention order should not be misused to halt the business activities of the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the authorities must follow due process and adjudicate on the matter appropriately.
Permission to Utilize Detained Inputs/Raw Materials:
In the final decision, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to use the detained inputs/raw materials. However, this permission was subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes security of two lakh rupees in the form of a bank guarantee in favor of the concerned authority. Once the bank guarantee was provided, the detention order on the goods would no longer be valid. It was explicitly stated that cooperation in the adjudication proceedings was mandatory for the petitioner.
This judgment by the Allahabad High Court addressed the issues of detention of inputs/raw materials by Central Excise authorities, the pending levy of duty, granting permission to utilize the detained goods, and the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee as security. The ruling emphasized the importance of following due process, conducting necessary verifications, and ensuring that business activities are not unduly disrupted by detention orders.
-
2009 (9) TMI 752
Issues Involved: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in passing orders.
Analysis:
1. Jurisdictional Issue: The appeal raised concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in passing three impugned orders. The Department contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Tiruchirappalli did not have the jurisdiction to decide these cases at the time the orders were passed. It was argued that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Madurai had the appropriate jurisdiction for these appeals. The Department sought for the orders to be set aside due to lack of jurisdiction and requested a remand for fresh orders to be passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Court's Decision: After hearing both sides, the Court acknowledged that the impugned orders were indeed passed by an officer lacking the necessary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ruled that these orders could not be upheld. They set aside the orders and remanded the cases to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Madurai. The Court emphasized the importance of decisions being made within the appropriate jurisdiction, expressing dissatisfaction with Commissioners deciding cases beyond their designated authority.
3. Outcome: Ultimately, all three appeals filed by the Department were allowed by the Court through remand, directing the cases to be reconsidered by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Madurai for appropriate orders after providing the respondents with a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court's decision aimed to rectify the jurisdictional error and ensure that the cases were handled by the appropriate authority, preventing unnecessary costs and ensuring a fair process for all parties involved.
............
|
9911796707
