|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 452 Records
-
2002 (3) TMI 105 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Telephone Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... use Notice was issued to the party on 17-6-93 relating to the period 1-6-90 to 31-10-92. Accordingly, he said that demand in the instant case is barred by time. 2. 8195 Shri Narasimha Murthy, submitted that the Commissioner himself has given a relief in respect of 128 RAX wherein, in respect of 512, the issue has been properly considered and benefit has been denied. He said that in the facts and circumstances, the Department was also justified in holding that the demand was not barred by time. 3. 8195 We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the very issue has already been considered by the Tribunal holding that the party is entitled to take the benefit based upon the certificate issued by GM of Department of Telecommunications. Following the earlier decision and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the contention of the party that demand is barred by time in the instant case. In the view we have taken, appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 104 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Food products - Snacks ... ... ... ... ..... ut any basis and erroneous. 16.Both the authorities below had recorded detailed reasons for not allowing change in the classification of the products in question from Headings 2108 to 19.04 of the CETA. They have discussed in details the scope of both these headings and the material facts and circumstances including the process of manufacture, ingredients of the products brought on record and the ratio of law laid down in TTK Pharma Ltd. v. CCE, and CCE, Coimbatore v. Nektar Food Products (Supra) by the Tribunal and thereafter recorded the concurrent findings that the products in question merit classification only under Heading 2108 of the CET. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the discussions made above, we also do not find sufficient grounds to differ with their findings, in any manner. 17.In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is ordered to be dismissed being without merits.
-
2002 (3) TMI 103 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Filter paper - Classification - HSN Notes ... ... ... ... ..... nated filter paper is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Purolator India Ltd. Classification after 1-3-97 is covered by the HSN Notes which are binding as held by the Apex Court in the case of Woodcraft Products Ltd. 15. In view of the above impugned order in regard to classification of the product is set aside. 16. The product shall be classified under Chapter sub-heading 4817.90 prior to 1-3-97 and under Chapter sub-heading 4811.31 on or after 1-3-97. During the period Nov., 96 to Feb., 2000 the respondents herein shall not be eligible to benefit of Notifications No. 18/85 and 23/96 (sic). We note in the instant case the Deputy Commissioner who was the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case we reduce the penalty to Rs. 3.0 lacs (Rupees three lacs). 17. The appeal filed by Revenue and Cross-Objection filed by M/s. Polymer Papers Ltd. are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (3) TMI 102 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Appeal, forum of Appeal - Demand - Provisional Assessment - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... quent proceedings, taken by the Superintendent to finalise these assessments would not within his jurisdiction. The letter dtd. 24-6-99 by the Range Superintendent therefore cannot be considered an order of finalisation of provisional assessments. We follow the decision in the case of CCE v. Sanghi Organisation 2001 (133) E.L.T. 618 (T) to set aside the letter dated 26-4-99 on this account. (e) 8195 We find that the orders of Karnataka High Court, in the writs filed in this case, nor that of Commissioner (Appeals), permit any more quantification of demand. They only determine the exigibility of BSM under CETA 1985. Even the Show Cause Notices proposing the Classification do not raise a presumption for a demand of duty. Therefore, we cannot uphold the plea made before us of a ministerial quantification being made by Revenue, being arrived by the impugned letter. 4. In view of our findings, the orders are set aside and the appeal allowed. Misc. Application stands disposed off.
-
2002 (3) TMI 98 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Conveyor system - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... est factor for holding it to be excisable. In view of Apex Court s rulings as correctly noted by the Board, apart from having to be covered under the CE Tariff, goods to be excisable should not be immovable and should be capable of being taken to the market and sold. The belt conveyor system in question was permanent, immovable and incapable of being marketed and the same would belong to the non-excisable category. Only those conveyors which are movable in nature and can be temporarily installed at construction sites etc. for carrying materials will be liable to duty under CSH 8428.90. 12.In view of our findings, we hold that the belt conveyor system in question is not excisable. The demand of duty on the item is illegal and the same is set aside. Consequently, the penalties imposed on TRF are also set aside. The non-imposition of penalty on ACC and the sub-contractors is found in order. In the result, Appeal No. E/2465/99-B is allowed and the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 97 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... dealt with. The Adjudicating Authority had placed the burden of proof on the Appellant. In our view the Department has not conclusively proved that the goods bearing SK Marka belonged to the Appellant No. 1 and as such no duty can be demanded from them in respect of these goods. However, the goods seized at the premises of Johnson Transport Co. are liable to confiscation as no duty paying document has been shown by the Appellant and redemption fine as imposed is upheld. Duty of excise will also be payable, if any. Similarly, the goods which were found unaccounted in the factory premises of VJBT and VJBP are liable to confiscation. The redemption fine adjusted is upheld. The Central Excise duty at the appropriate rate will be payable at the time of clearance of the said goods. 7. 8195 In view of this penalty on VJBT is reduced to Rs. 35,000/- and on VJBP to Rs. 2,000/-. Penalties imposed on other two Appellants are set aside. 8. All the Appeals are disposed of in these terms.
-
2002 (3) TMI 96 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Insurance charges - Place of removal ... ... ... ... ..... had bargained for and that the full price claimed par the contract was therefore due. 25. 8195 In the present case the terms of the contract would in no way indicate that the goods were delivered to the buyer on approval or on sale or on return. Therefore, the provision regarding payment of balance 10 of sale price after approval can only be a condition subsequent. 26. 8195 In the light of the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties in the present appeals we come to the conclusion that sale of the goods has taken place at the factory gate and therefore, even by applying the dictum in Escorts JCB and Prabhat Zarda the place of removal is not the premises of the buyer as contended by the Revenue. Under these circumstances, we hold that the element of freight and transit insurance are not to be included in the normal value of the goods. We, therefore, set aside the orders impugned and allow the appeals. The appellants will be entitled to consequential reliefs.
-
2002 (3) TMI 94 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Customs House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... Bangalore Branch. We cannot, therefore find any reason of a visit of penalty under the Customs Act on CHA company. When we find no liability on penalty under Customs Act, Section 112 or 114, and the appropriation as ordered is also not approved, consequent benefits should flow to the CHA. (c) During the hearing, the Advocate has produced letter No. C. No. VIII/13/01/96, dated 13-12-2001, which is conveying the Bangalore Commissioners pleasure of Renewal of the CHA licence for 5 years with effect from 13-11-2001 to 12-11-2006 operative at Bangalore. This reinforces our view that there is no case to call for a penalty on the CHA under Section 112(a) or 114(iii) as arrived at by the same Commissioner, since conduct of a CHA is a vital input for continuation/renewal of its licence operative in the Customs Post and nothing amiss in that aspect have led to this renewal. 5.In view of our findings, the order against the CHA is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential benefit.
-
2002 (3) TMI 93 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... t of the arguments of the Revenue was that if the final product which is gas filled bulbs in the instant case carried nil rate of duty then Modvat credit cannot be claimed and taken by the respondent even if they were paying duty on waste. We note that waste is the specified product. For purpose of taking Modvat credit, waste which is the specified product is final product and since waste is a final product on which duty is paid by the respondent herein held that they will be eligible to take proportionate Modvat credit and utilise the same for purpose of payment of duty on waste. This view is supported by the clarification given by the CBEC referred to above. Though that clarification has been given in respect of Cenvat credit however, in terms of the other decision cited by the respondent, the clarification will be equally applicable to Modvat. 6.Having regard to the above findings, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by Revenue. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
2002 (3) TMI 88 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - "Place of removal" ... ... ... ... ..... ontract containing terms which would go against the general ruling risk follows the property as contemplated by Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 12. 8195 Property in the goods was passed on to the buyer at Delhi/New Delhi which is the place of removal in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, freight and insurance charges for transportation of the goods from Delhi/New Delhi to the buyer s premises are not includible in the assessable value. Since we are taking a view that the appellant is not liable for any short levy it is not necessary for us to go into the other issues raised in this appeal regarding the applicability of the extended period of limitation. It is also not necessary for us to consider the adequacy of the quantum of penalty imposed which is the issue raised in the appeal by the Revenue. 13. 8195 In the result, Appeal No. E/1633/2001-A filed by the assessee is allowed while Appeal No. E/1632/2001-A filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 86 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
EXIM Policy - Import - Value Based Advance Licence - Misdeclaration - Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... for the appellant has made a solemn statement before us that the entire imported goods would be utilized for export under the existing contract. In case the undertaking really works out then the appellant should be entitled to exemption from duty under the scheme. In case the appellant works in terms of the undertaking, he would not be liable to duty in regard to the import made otherwise duty as leviable under the Act shall be payable. The appeals are disposed off with the aforesaid directions. No costs........... When we find no liability of confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m), no penalty liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and no sinister design in the operations of imports/exports considered. Therefore, following the directives and the ratio of Rattan Exports case (supra), no liability for duty, could be raised in any case on the goods imported on the five advance licences. 5. In view of our findings, the order is set aside and appeals allowed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 85 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Valuation (Central Excise) - MRP - Packaging charges - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal in the aforesaid case has observed that relationship with actual inclusion of costs or any relationship of value under Section 4 has been gradually done away with. Hence there is no reason to relate an inclusion and/or exclusion of package costs to actual and or statutory requirements of Section 4, as being pleaded to determine eligibility of credit. 7. 8195 In the facts and circumstances and in view of the statutory definition of MRP, which is inclusive of cost of packing irrespective of the fact that whether it was a primary packing or secondary packing, since the costs of such packing material is deemed to have been included in the value of the final product, and the party has paid the duty on MRP, there was no reason to deny the Modvat credit. In the view we have taken, the party is entitled to take Modvat credit on the duty paid on the raw materials used in the packing material. In the result, these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2002 (3) TMI 84 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Payment of duty - Fortnightly payment ... ... ... ... ..... the present matter duty which was payable under the Act read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was not debited fully the mischief of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 will be applicable and the facility of making the payment on fortnightly basis can be forfeited by the Revenue. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the amount of duty involved we are of the view that the forfeiting the facility of paying the duty on fortnight basis for a period of two months is quite harsh. As observed by the Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (Tri.) the limit fixed under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 is maximum period for which the facility can be forfeited and is not mandatory that in all such cases the facility should be forfeited for the maximum period. We, accordingly, hold that the forfeiture of the facility for one month is sufficient in the present matter. We order accordingly.
-
2002 (3) TMI 80 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ghing evidence and drawing inferences therefrom, in all such cases, each case has to be considered on its own facts. Therefore, if in the cases referred by the learned Counsel, detailed above, the evidence was not sufficient direct or circumstantial to establish smuggled nature of the goods and knowledge of the possessor, the observations, made in those cases by the Tribunal while setting aside the confiscation of goods and penalty on the possessor, cannot be made applicable in the instant case, wherein there is overwhelming evidence to establish knowledge of the appellants of the smuggled character of the impugned goods, as discussed above. 13. 8195 In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner confiscating the seized goods and imposing penalty on the appellants. The order is perfectly valid and we upheld the same. As a result, the appeal of the appellants is ordered to be dismissed being without any merit.
-
2002 (3) TMI 78 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Drawback of import duty ... ... ... ... ..... ting it as used for the commercial activity would amount to artificially restricting the scope of this section. 12.In this regard Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Millipore (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 62 (Kar.) held that once a machine is operated, may be for a shorter time for demonstration or exhibition to show its performance etc. the machinery is used .. Once there is operation of a machinery, it amounts to its use and as such, the refund could be claimed only under Section 74(2) and not under Section 74(1) of Customs Act, 1962. 13.As discussed in detail in the O-in-A, it is well-established that the machine had been unpacked, installed and exported. The machine was installed during April, 1998 and the suggestion for replacement was made sometime in October, after about six months. 14.In view of the above, Government is of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 15.The appeal is, accordingly rejected.
-
2002 (3) TMI 77 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Revision - Show cause notice for revision - Drawback ... ... ... ... ..... s e.g. mono chloro acetic acid, chloro nitro benzene etc. are classified in Chapter 29. 12.Further, Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 32, states that Chapter 32 does not cover separate, chemically defined elements or compounds. 13.Because of the above reasons, 2 4 Dinitro Chloro Benzene is classifiable under Chapter 29 of Customs Tariff. Hence because of General Note 10 of Notification No. 22/97-Cus. (N.T.), the impugned item is not covered by Sl. No. 32.01 of Drawback Schedule. 14.CBEC also has clarified in Circular No. 9/96-Cus., dated 13-2-96 that where among the various tariff references that may be attracted by the broad description of goods in the Ntfn., only one or few tariff references have been mentioned, in such cases, mention of only selected tariff heading/references should be treated as deliberate restriction of the scope of the exemption. 15.The order No. 12 (KDT) CUS/JPR/2000, dated 21-6-2000 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jaipur is, therefore, set aside.
-
2002 (3) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... Govt. by giving back duties paid on the inputs used in the manufactures of exported goods. When the sale proceeds are not realised, the reason because of which the exporter gets drawback facility itself gets nullified. Hence, Govt. has amended Sec. 75 of Customs Act, 1962 making realization of sale proceeds as the condition for drawback. Against this background it will be incorrect to argue that this amendment was made only for custom duty portion and not for central excise component because non-realisation of export proceeds will amount to loss of revenue for Govt. either on the customs or on the excise front. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of LIC v. Escorts had held that while interpreting provisions of statutes harmoniously the interpretation which advances object of the enactment should be adopted. 12.Govt. is therefore of the opinion that there is force in the submissions of the applicant Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner (A) is accordingly set aside.
-
2002 (3) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Interim relief ... ... ... ... ..... allowing the petition itself. That is not so, and that is because whereas the order of the Commissioner imposes a duty of over Rs. 275 Crores and penalty of Rs. 45 Crores, the bank guarantees which are being encashed are only for Rs. 72.50 Crores. Interest of the respondents is protected in view of the statement made by the learned Attorney General which is recorded hereinabove. 114.We clarify that the Tribunal will proceed to hear the appeal in the meanwhile, without being influenced in any manner with any of the observations made in this order. 14A.Shri Shreedharan applies for stay of this order for a period of 3 weeks. Shri Sorabji leaves it to the Court to pass appropriate order. Accordingly, this order is stayed for a period of 3 weeks. Respondent will give prior notice to the petitioner before moving the Apex Court against this order. 15.Writ Petition to be placed for final hearing on 1st July, 2002. 16.Authenticated copy of this order be made available to the parties.
-
2002 (3) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
... ...
... ... ..... ubject matter of penalty under the said provision. Reference is also invited to a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore v. Supra Foundry Services (P) Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 543 (Karnataka) wherein their Lordships have also taken the view that Sections 11AB and 11AC are prospective in operation. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid view and based on the aforesaid discussion and our understanding of Section 11AB, particularly the specific language employed in sub-section (2) thereof, we hold that this Section being prospective in operation, the respondent is not liable to pay interest on the duty determined and payable for the period in question before the section was made applicable and, accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was correct and justified in passing the order dated 8-2-2001. 6. The application of the Revenue is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Criminal law - FIR ... ... ... ... ..... of R-4 s factory premises only betrays his ignorance about the requirement of law in the matter. Registration of a case on the information received is a statutory duty cast on a police officer and does not involve conferment of any benefit or otherwise on the complainant. 11.Therefore, all things concerned, we hold that R-3 had failed in discharge of his duty in entering substance of petitioners complaint in the prescribed form and registering a case and so had DCP (NW) exceeded his jurisdiction and brief to return a judgment on the merit of this complaint. 12.R-3 is accordingly directed to register a case on petitioners complaint under appropriate offences and forward it to Joint Commissioner, Crime Branch along with R-4 s FIR No. 156/99 for investigation by the Crime Branch in the matter. Joint Commissioner, Crime Branch is directed to supervise the investigation in both cases and take appropriate follow-up action in the matter within four months from receipt of this order.
....
|
