|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 427 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 89 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ibunal after relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vikas Industrial Gas v. CCE, Allahabad (supra). M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. filed appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal along with the various other appeals in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE, M.P. reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 3. The Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. In para 22 of the judgment, Hon ble Supreme Court held as under - We have gone through the decision of the Tribunal. In view of the provisions of Rule 57Q, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court which is directly on the issue before us, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue. 7. As no other issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, in view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 88 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... circumstances the Apex Court took the view that the fee for licence and know-how had to be added to the value of the plant imported. Learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the terms of the agreement between the parties in dispute. We do not find any clause which would make the transfer of licence and know-how as a condition for the purchase of the plant and machinery for making it functional. Know-how licence is one relating to Developing agglomerated stones in the plant. We, therefore, find that the ratio of Essar Gujarat (supra) has no application in the present case. 6. In the result, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in coming to the conclusion that the plant and machinery has to be valued at 35,26,122 DM which will take in the value of know-how, transfrer licence fee, cost of assembly and start-up of the plant fee also. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal. The appellant will be entitled to all consequential relief.
-
2003 (5) TMI 87 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... are conspicuously absent in this affidavit. 4. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri A.N. Haksar, appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, submitted that the details given in the affidavit dated 26-5-2003 are sufficient to proceed with this matter. We are afraid that we cannot agree to the above submission. 5. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner to file a better affidavit where he will give all the required details of action taken for implementing the order dated 12-2-2002 passed by this Tribunal. He will also give the names and present address of the Commissioner or Commissioners, who were incharge of the office of the respondent Commissioner from the date the order dated 12-2-2002 was received by the respondent Commissioner till 12-11-2002. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri A.N. Haksar, assured us that similar details regarding the Deputy Commissioners in charge during the different periods will also be made available by the Commissioner in his affidavit. The affidavit shall be filed on 9-6-2003.
-
2003 (5) TMI 86 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand power of Collector (Appeals) - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... applying the ratio of the above decision it is permissible to look into the Notes on Clauses to ascertain the intention of the amendment brought in Finance Bill, 2001. A reference to the Notes on Clauses would clearly show that the intention was to take away the power of remand from the appellate authority. After a conscious interference by the legislature as above, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that the Commissioner (Appeals) would still retain the power of remand as an inherent power of the appellate authority. 12. In the light of the above, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the West Regional Bench in Vipor Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 385 and disagree with the view taken by the East Regional Bench in CCE and Customs, Bhubaneshwar v. Indian Aluminium Co. - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 97 (T) 2002 (50) RLT 92. The question referred is answered as above and the appeals are sent to original Bench for appropriate orders.
-
2003 (5) TMI 85 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... ntention raised by the appellant. On going through the terms of the agreement it is clear that know-how relates to manufacture of the licensed equipment in India. The above has no relation whatsoever to the goods imported under the 4 bills of entry referred above. Even if the brake distributors, door closer could be assembled with the goods thus imported under the above mentioned bills of entry such assembly will not come within the provisions of manufacture of the licensed equipment in respect of which technical know-how has been granted. As held in Maruti Udyog Ltd. such know-how relates only to the indigenous manufacture of the licensed equipment. The licence granted is to manufacture and assemble brake control equipment, door operating equipment in the Republic of India including its parts by using technical know-how furnished by WBS. 6.In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the order impugned to the extent it is challenged in this appeal and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (5) TMI 84 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of pre-deposit
... ... ... ... ..... h was paid through debit in RG 23C/Pt.II. 3. Following the decision of the Apex Court in Kuil Fire Works Industries v. CCE - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Eastern Coils Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 290 we have already taken the view in number of other similar applications for refund that the applicant is entitled to interest on refund of pre-deposit also. 4. In the light of the above, we direct the respondent to refund an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh due to the appellant within one week from the date of receipt of this order if the amount has not been already refunded. We further direct the Revenue to pay interest on Rs. 1.5 lakh at the rate prescribed under Section 11BB for the period from the date of expiry of three months after the date of application for refund till the date of payment. The interest as above will be calculated and will be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
-
2003 (5) TMI 83 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Court in its judgment in Kuil Fireworks Industries v. CCE - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) where it was held that refund of pre-deposit has to be made with 12 interest. Contention similar to the one raised by the Revenue before us was raised before the Kolkata High Court unsuccessfully as is evident from the judgment in Eastern Coils Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 290. Under these circumstances we hold that the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the delayed refund of pre-deposit. For the purpose of the period as well as the rate of interest we adopt the principles contained under Section 27A. The appellant will be entitled to interest at the rate as prescribed under Section 27A for the period from the date of expiry of three months after the date of application for refund till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The miscellaneous application is disposed of as above.
-
2003 (5) TMI 82 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n raised by the Revenue that no interest on refund of pre-deposit is liable to be paid as pre-deposit made cannot be treated as illegal recovery of money on account of statutory claim. Therefore, when such refund is made the Revenue cannot be compelled to pay interest. The Calcutta High Court was not inclined to agree with the above contention. Under these circumstances we direct the Revenue to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs refunded on 17-7-2001. For the purpose of the period during which interest is liable and also for the rate at which it has to be calculated we will adopt the provisions contained under Section 11BB. The applicant will be entitled to interest at the rate prescribed under Section 11BB for the period from the date of expiry of three months after the date of application for refund till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of as above.
-
2003 (5) TMI 81 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 2003, the Revenue could not place before us any material to show that the order passed by the Tribunal has been challenged before any higher forum or any stay has been obtained. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Kolkata Bench that in the facts of the present case the applicant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited during investigation. We, therefore, direct the Respondent to make the refund within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As far as interest is concerned we will apply the provisions contained in Section 11BB. The applicant will be entitled to interest on Rs. 9,19,286/- for a period from the expiry of three months from the date of application for refund till date of payment at the rate specified in Section 11BB. Interest will be calculated on the above basis and will be paid to the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. Miscellaneous application is allowed as above.
-
2003 (5) TMI 80 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Interest thereon ... ... ... ... ..... en to make the refund of the duty portion of the claim. 4. After hearing both sides, we have no hesitation to hold that the delay caused in making the refund is totally unjustified. Applicant is entitled to interest as provided under section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 at the rate specified therein. We therefore direct that duty portion of the refund claim will be paid to the applicant within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if it has not been paid already. Refund should have been made within three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund. Since it has not been so paid, interest will be due from the date of expiry of three months from the date of application till the date of payment at the rate specified under Section 27A. Interest will be calculated on the above basis and will be paid to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous application is allowed as above.
-
2003 (5) TMI 79 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Export Oriented Units - DTA clearance - Departmental clarification ... ... ... ... ..... erpretation upon the said phrase that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue. In the present case, we are not dealing with any circular of Central Board of Revenue interpreting the meaning of the proviso to Section 3(1) and which had been in force. On the other hand, the circular dated 13-2-2002 is one issued giving a wrong interpretation to the decision of the Supreme Court. We have no hesitation to hold that an interpretation thus given by the Board to the decision of the Supreme Court will not be binding. 7. In the light of the above, we hold that the rate as per the proviso to Section 3(1) would be applicable for assessing all the excisable goods which were cleared by 100 EOU to DTA whether in terms of permission granted or in excess of the permission granted. We further hold that the view taken to the contra in Kuntal Granites (P) Ltd. is not good law. The reference is answered as above and appeals are sent back to the Regular Bench for hearing on other issues.
-
2003 (5) TMI 78 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal's order - Interest - Refund of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... to be noted that in the above case the Revenue had put forward a contention that the pre-deposit made cannot be treated as illegal recovery of money on account of statutory claim from the petitioners. Therefore when such refund is made Revenue cannot be compelled to pay interest. Calcutta High Court was not inclined to accept the above contention. Similar is the contention raised before us by the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Revenue. Apart from the above, we find that the Circular dated 2nd January, 2002 also indicates that delay of refund would invite liability for interest. 8. In the above circumstances we are inclined to direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 61.70 Lakhs deposited by the appellant with the Department within a period of 10 days with interest at the rate of 12 from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the final order of this Tribunal dated 12-2-2002. 9. Issue copy of this order to both sides today itself.
-
2003 (5) TMI 77 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tribunal's Order - Non-Implementation of - Contempt of court ... ... ... ... ..... efused to implement the Final Order dated 12-2-2002 passed by this Tribunal. The order passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division III, Ghaziabad, dated 31-3-2003 would prima facie show that he has acted against the direction in the final finding of this Tribunal. We are prima facie of the view that the action of the above officers would amount to contempt of this Tribunal. 5. In the light of the above, we issue notice to Shri Vineet Kumar, Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad and Shri Rajindra Kumar, Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division III, Ghaziabad to show cause within four weeks as to why report shall not be sent to the High Court for initiating proceedings against them under the contempt of Court Act. The affidavit in reply to the show cause notice shall be filed by the above Officers on or before 28th May, 2003. Post the case for further hearing on 30th May, 2003. Registry will serve copies of this order on the above named two officers forthwith.
-
2003 (5) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Refund application - Returning thereof ... ... ... ... ..... onsider the application and make an order thereof, in accordance with law. 4. The impugned order returning the application of the petitioners for refund of claim is, therefore, illegal and void and is liable to be set aside only on the ground that it was the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to have considered the claim application and made an order thereon under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act, and the relevant rules. The impugned order dated 10-1-2003 is, therefore, hereby set aside with a direction that on presentation by the petitioners of the original application dated 20-12-2002 which was returned to them under the impugned order, that application shall be taken on record by the Assistant Commissioner and it shall be duly considered and an appropriate decision be taken thereon in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to the applicant to furnish proof, if any, in support of his claim. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
EXIM - Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ble claim, namely, claim to unsecured debts, while holding that credit in the D.E.P.B. is not an actionable claim. Hence, he submitted that the judgment in the case of Philco Exports (supra) does not lay down correct legal position and needs reconsideration at the hands of this Court. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and are of the confirmed opinion that the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 29.The Delhi High Court rightly relied upon the case of Vikas Sales Corporation (supra) and rightly held that D.E.P.B. credit is not an actionable claim. We concur with the view taken by the Delhi High Court and hold that the D.E.P.B. credit is liable for sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. None of the above contentions canvassed by the petitioners hold water. No other contentions were raised. In the result, petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reference to High Court - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... ngh (supra) more so in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in reference to the alternative remedy. 44.Thus, the law can be summarised that rule of exclusion of the writ jurisdiction is not a law but discretion to be exercised by the Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and if the case requires any kind of evidence etc. the writ Court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction at all. 45.In view of the above observations it becomes clear that the contentions raised by the petitioner are not legal. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the two remedies simultaneously, one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the other under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, filed on 16th May, 2002 and after objection was taken by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. In these circumstances, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 46.Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2003 (5) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Settlement Commission - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ttlement at the pre-adjudication stage. 34. What now remains to be considered is the plea of the petitioner that the Commission has failed to grant relief of Modvat against the additional customs duty demanded. We find that in the impugned order, there is no discussion on the issue. Although the stand of the Revenue is that the petitioner is not entitled to a Modvat credit as they have not paid any countervailing duty (CVD) on the under invoiced components but without recording any final opinion on the issue, we permit the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Commission in respect of the said claim. We are confident that as and when such an application is moved the Settlement Commission shall deal with it on its own merits. 35. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed rule is discharged and interim order dated 16 September, 2002 stands vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Appeal - Restoration of - Interpretation of statutes ... ... ... ... ..... h appear to conflict so that they harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed that Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with the other. 15. The provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a useless lumber or dead letter is not a harmonised construction. To harmonise is not to destroy. 16. The petitioner did apply for grant of waiver of the condition to deposit the amount. The petitioner obtained conditional order from the Tribunal. The petitioner has failed to comply with the said conditions of the Tribunal. Now after a lapse of period of more than two years it is not open to the petitioner to urge that since the demand has been recovered, the appeal should be heard and decided on merits. I do not find any error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Adjudication - Penalty - Misutilisation of imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... n to impose a penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods or material. In the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not sit as a Court of Appeal to examine whether on the basis of the material before the Appropriate Authority or the Appellate Committee the penalty of five times could be imposed upon the petitioners. Once the legislature has conferred powers upon the Appropriate Authority to impose penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the same. The powers being vested with the Appropriate Authority to impose penalty and that power having been exercised under the Act, in my view, no case is made out to interfere with the same. 11.I, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Committee. There are not merits in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Writ jurisdiction - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 6,47,583/- was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1.05 lacs within 15 days. 6.In our opinion, the impugned order is vitiated due to non-application of mind of the requirements of proviso to Section 35F of the 1944 Act because a bare reading of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that he has not, at all, considered the issue of hardship while deciding the petitioner s prayer for waiver and also over-looked the fact that in an identical matter, his predecessor had waived the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty in its entirety. 7.Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P. 5 is quashed with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass fresh order on the application of the petitioner keeping in view order dated 22-10-2002 (Annexure P. 3) passed by his predecessor. We also give liberty to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) that for the subsequent period, the demand has been quashed.
....
|
