|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 456 Records
-
2001 (5) TMI 108 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Raw sugar syrup ... ... ... ... ..... t ought to have been determined and the Department ought to have proved that the said item has got shelf life and is marketable. As the same has not been established, therefore the case has not been proved against them. 11. On careful consideration of this submission, we are unable to agree with ld. Consultant for the reason that Tribunal has already expressed its view in all the judgments already extracted that the item has got shelf life and is marketable as it is captively used in the manufacture of food pulp. Appellants also manufactured the same product of Maaza , which is also held to be classifiable under 1702.30 by the Tribunal. Therefore, the cited judgment applies to the facts of the present case. As a co-ordinate Bench, we are required to follow the judgment in terms of judicial discipline. There is no ground for referring the matter to Larger Bench. Therefore, while upholding the impugned orders, we do not find any merit in the appeal and hence same is dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 105 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ty, has not considered the matter in depth. We would therefore order remanding the matter back to the original authority, with direction to consider the other raw-material consumption and evidence regarding the same and also the other plea of the appellants made, regarding the manufacture of other items and different formula used from time to time and the certificates and other data produced by them and therefore came to a finding. 3. In view of our findings, we would set aside the Order of the Commissioner and remand the matter back for de novo adjudication. We keep all issues open, including the right of the appellants to submit and rely upon such other additional material as they may opt to do so in the remand proceedings. We are aware, that the matter is very old and has been remanded earlier, but when we find gross denial of justice, reluctantly we order a remand with directions that the readjudication should be completed within three months of the receipt of this order.
-
2001 (5) TMI 104 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Import - Advance Licence - DEEC Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... Duty if the goods were imported and used as raw materials and components by the said manufactures. But in the instant case the petitioners already supplied the goods for being used as components and raw materials in advance and thereafter sought to replace the same by the goods so imported. The Hon ble Calcutta High Court referred to the amending Notification No. 235/87 Cus., dated 5-6-1987 (amending Notification No. 210/82 Cus., dated 10-9-1982) and held that the appellants in that case were entitled to get the benefit of duty free importation of goods which have already been used as components and raw materials for manufacture, for the purpose of replacement or replenishment. 14. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Commissioner of Customs in the present case. We set aside the said impugned order and the appeal filed by M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd. is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 101 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Fabric - Stiffness ... ... ... ... ..... o of that decision would apply to the fabrics in question. The goods therefore cannot be said to be stiffened fabric classifiable under Heading 59.01. 5. The view expressed by the Commissioner in his order, that for fabric to be classifiable under Heading 59.01, it need not have permanent stiffness is obviously erroneous. In the absence of such durable stiffness, such fabrics cannot be put to the use for which this stiffness has been emerged. We repeatedly invited the departmental representative to show us the material on the basis of which the Commissioner says that the records show that the stiffness is not lost on washing the fabrics with ordinary water or warm water, contrary to the test reports cited by the counsel for the appellant which indicate that the fabric looses all stiffness on washing. He was unable to do so. The manufacturer s claim for classification of the fabrics under heading 52.06 has therefore to be accepted. 6. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (5) TMI 100 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... t of Notification No. 175/86 was not available to the assessee. He reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the case law cited by the appellant. We note that the very same issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Vikram International cited (supra). The Tribunal after examining the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 held that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE cannot be denied to the appellant. We further note that Meet National is not a registered trade name of anybody else. Following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vikram International, we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 will be available to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the above terms. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
2001 (5) TMI 98 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... excess money has been paid by the appellant in order to reject the transaction value. The department has not proved their case to enhance the transaction value although there were some evidence of other imports of the item from the same country where the rates are high. There may be several factors governing the higher price in respect of supplies made from Indonesia as it was done by a supplier and not by the manufacturer. Therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Eicher International supra clearly applies to the facts of this case. The transaction value cannot be challenged and in that view of the matter, the judgments cited by ld. DR of East Region Bench is clearly distinguishable for the purpose of grant of discount. As the department has failed to produce evidence of contemporaneous import from manufacturer of the same item, therefore the department s case fails and the appellants contention is required to be accepted by allowing the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 97 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Smuggling - Onus of proof ... ... ... ... ..... land border without payment of duty. I hold, therefore, that the goods are not liable to confiscation under Section (emphasis supplied).111(k) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7.We have earlier noted the intelligence about the diversion of goods. Clandestine import through other borders is not alleged or even hinted. In the face of this observation and the admission, the Commissioner thereafter, proceeded to confiscate the goods under Sec. 111(d) of the Act. His order does not survive. 8.At this stage Shri Sarkar intervenes and submits that the adjudication order is of recent date and the Revenue have still time to file an appeal. The argument has merits but in the face of the lack of any cogent evidence either in the show cause notice or in the analysis made by the Commissioner, the proceedings would have no other outcome. 9.Accepting the contention that no evidence has been placed on record that the goods were illegally imported, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
2001 (5) TMI 96 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Interest - Provisional Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... 1990 only proposed the finalisation of classification of procured Tread Rubber under chapter sub-heading 4008.21. Further the duty in question was payable on finalisation of assessment under Rule 9B(5) and not under Section 11A(2) and hence question of demanding interest does not arise . The same has been closed by the C and AG vide their letter dated 16-11-2000 on receipt of the above reply. We are aware of the fact that this is not a circular of the Board, however this is an interpretation on question of interest under Section 11AA in case of provisional assessments under Section 9B(5) and this interpretation of the Min. of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, would be binding interpretation of law. And any other interpretation would not be correct for interest under 11AA, in case of provisional assessment being finalized, is therefore not acceptable. 3. In view of our findings, we find no merits in the orders of the lower authorities and we set aside the order and allow the appeal.
-
2001 (5) TMI 95 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... to determine whether various prices enumerated in the price list are comparable to each other. He may have some difficulty in making this analysis. The Central Excise Law does not define the comparable goods. Section 4 as it existed on 1-10-1975 spoke of articles of the like kind and quality . The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 speak of identical goods and similar goods . The Rules also define these terms. These definitions are not of use in defining the Central Excise phrase comparable goods . 26.Thus while we find that the action of the jurisdictional officers in adopting the value of sales made to outside person for calculation of the duty for captive consumption, in spite of the few instances of such outside clearances, was legal, we remand the proceedings to the jurisdictional officers for determination of such value in terms of our discussions in para 25 above. The Assessees are directed to co-operate with the jurisdictional officers. 27.The appeal is allowed by remand.
-
2001 (5) TMI 94 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Confiscation - Redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... adequate fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. (c) As regards penalty, the case relied by learned Advocate (Supra) the penalty on importer therein was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. We would consider the liability on A-1 under 112(a) to be the same. (d) As regards penalty on A-2, for admittedly having purchased and financed the import of the car, which is not being denied, we would consider the penalty under Section 112(b) to be the same as Rs. 1,00,000/-. Since the abetter cannot be penalized more than the original Importer more so when the vehicle was not for A-2, but seized form the son of A-1. (e) In view of our findings, we do not find the other case law relied by the appellants to be relevant to arrive at a decision in this case. 3. In view of our findings, we allow the appeal by reducing the Redemption Fine to Rs. 3 lakhs and penalties to Rs. 1,00,000/- each on A-1 and A-2 under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 93 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Plastic 'spools' - Duty liability - Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... e liable for duty for the period prior to its incorporation. However, notices have been served on the two Directors of the present Company, in their personal names, therefore it has to be decided, whether such a service would suffice service on the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm. Since we are remanding the matter back to re-determine the classification of Voltage Stabilizers and the re-quantification of demand required to be made on ground of our findings the classification of spools to be under 39.23. This aspect of the service of notice under Section 11A(1) for the period of demand earlier to the date of incorporation of the Private Limited Company could also be arrived at in the de novo proceedings. (e) 8195 We also keep the other issues of limitation of demand and eligibility of Notification No. 175/86 or and 1/93 and other pleas and issues open to both sides, in the remand proceedings. 3. In view of our findings, we allow the appeal for de novo adjudication.
-
2001 (5) TMI 92 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... t of the Supreme Court in Krishna Chander Dutta (Spices) Pvt. Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 501. In coming to the conclusion that the crushing of black and white pepper does not amount to manufacture, the Court noted that whole pepper and pepper powder were considered to be the same goods in commercial parlance. It appears to us that the ratio of that judgment would be more appropriately applicable to the facts before us. 8.The ground in the department s appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) s order is nothing more than a reference of the ground advanced by the Commissioner in his order (in appeal 3405) holding the process to be manufacture. 9.It has therefore to be concluded that the process employed by LG does not amount to manufacture. In view of this conclusion, we have not considered it necessary to examine further the question of classification of the product. 10.Appeal E/3405/00 allowed, E/2891/00 dismissed. Consequential relief according to law.
-
2001 (5) TMI 91 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Medicaments - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... hink that they were patent or proprietary medicaments. A feeble attempt was made by the representative of the appellant to say that this course of action was resorted to because of frequent show cause notices that the Department indiscriminately issued with regard to such classification. When we asked the representative of the appellant whether the manufacturer declared similarly labelled medicaments, when cleared for home consumption, as patent or proprietary medicaments and paid duty upon them, he was unable to answer. In these circumstances the penalty imposed on the appellant of Rs. 5,000/- is nominal and does not call for any interference. 6.A plea was also made that the appellant would be entitled to rebate under Rule 12(1)(b) of the duty paid on the inputs used for manufacturing the exported products. That is not issue before us. We leave it to the appellant to pursue this claim to the appellant (sic), if so advised, with the appropriate authority. 7.Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 90 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Newsprint - Demand - Adjustment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... sued by the Registrar of Newspapers for India cannot be accepted on the face of it. 5.The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Mihir Textiles reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) has held that both procedural and substantive conditions of notification must be justified before the benefit is given to the party. 6.The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant has contended that the appellant have reversed the amount of Modvat credit availed on the inputs which have gone in the manufacture of newsprint cleared at nil rate and requested for adjustment of duty against the duty payable on the newsprint cleared during the month of May, 1995 and June, 1995. There are no provisions either in the Act or the Rules which may provide for adjustment of duty. Therefore, the adjustment of duty is not legally permissible. 7.In view of the above, we do not find substance in other points raised by the appellants. We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case dismiss the appeal.
-
2001 (5) TMI 87 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Car seat covers (leather and non-leather) - Demand of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ated 4-1-2000 2000 (120) E.L.T. 209 (Tribunal) . In that matter also the conflicting Headings were 42.01 and 94.01 and the learned Advocate for the Appellants, while arguing the matter before Tribunal had submitted that the goods might be classified under Heading 87.08. The Tribunal accepted their contention and classified the car seat covers under Heading 87.08 as accessories of car. The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted in following the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 87.08 of CETA. The learned SDR has rightly pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Finance Act, which have been given retrospective effect, a demand of duty of Central Excise under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act can be made even if the excisable goods were cleared in pursuance of approved classification list. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (5) TMI 86 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Demand - Limitation - Interest and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ort of his contention on limitation is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. We, therefore, hold that the demand is not hit by limitation. 17.In regard to payment of interest, we note that charging of interest came to the statute book w.e.f. 28-9-1996. The demand in the present case pertains to the period 20-3-1992 to 13-7-1995, therefore, interest is not payable. 18.In so far as imposition of penalty is concerned, we note that a penalty of Rs. one lakh has been imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC. We note that Section 11AC came to the statute book only w.e.f. 28-9-1996 whereas in the instant case the demand pertains to the period 20-3-1992 to 13-7-1995. Hence penalty under Section 11AC on this demand, period is not sustainable in law. Further, we find that though Rule 173Q has been mentioned but in the absence of apportionment of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, we hold that imposition of penalty, is not sustainable in law. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 84 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Customs) - Import, capital goods - EPCG scheme - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ed are treated duty free imports by the Government of India as per Notification 111/95, dated 5-6-1995. The goods so imported are not to be valued in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act. Consequently the value of the goods imported cannot be loaded by adding the consideration paid by the importer under three other contracts. In case, authorities which are implementing EPCG scheme find that the importer spent more for getting the capital goods, he can be saddled with more export obligations. Customs authorities cannot impose duty on the ground that considerations under other three contracts have also to be reckoned in valuing the goods for purposes of assessment to customs duty. Commissioner has completely misdirected himself in passing the impugned order. We set aside the order in its entirety. 11. Appeals are allowed. Order-in-Original No. 226/2000/CAC/ CCRS, dated 22-6-2000 impugned in these appeals is set aside in toto with consequential relief if any to the Appellants.
-
2001 (5) TMI 82 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Medicaments - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... the goods have been rightly determined by resort to the value of comparable goods as provided in Rule 6(b)(i) because that procedure yields the nearest ascertainable, equivalent of normal price. The other method of going by cost of production under Rule (b)(ii) would not be appropriate as that rule is to be pressed into service only if the method in sub-clause (i) is not available. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the appellants submission regarding the method to be adopted for valuation also. As pointed out by the learned DR, this issue remains covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cheryl Laboratories (P) Ltd. In that case the Tribunal held that physicians samples cleared free are comparable to the medicines sold and that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules would correctly apply. We find no reason to disagree with that decision. We respectfully follow that decision. 8. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal fails and is rejected.
-
2001 (5) TMI 81 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI
Manufacture, Legal Fiction - Chapter Notes ... ... ... ... ..... arking is affixed by the assessee in the instant case on the container in which Ammonia gas is filled. 9. When the facts of this case are analysed in the light of the above understanding of note 10 to Chapter 28, we are clear in our mind that the activity undertaken by the assessee namely filling of Ammonia gas from bulk tankers into smaller containers will not amount to manufacturing process. Since the activity is not a manufacturing process, no duty liability under the Central Excise Act can be imposed on the assessee. 10. Before parting with the case, it is worthwhile to note that a similar demand on the appellant in relation to the Ammonia gas filled in smaller containers issued by the adjudicating authority, Jamshedpur has been dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patna vide Order-in-Appeal No. 67/JSR/CEX/Appeal/99, dated 25-5-1999. 11. In view of what has been stated above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order impugned herein with consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (5) TMI 79 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Demand - Clandestine Removal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ed. To the same effect is the proposition of law laid down by the Tribunal in Shalimar Agencies v. CCE, Kandla (supra) cited by the Counsel. 13. Regarding the imposition of penalty also under Section 11AC of the CEA the impugned order of the Commissioner cannot be legally on the face of it sustained, as the said section was not on the statute at the time when the evasion of the duty was allegedly made by the appellants. The period involved is from 25-4-1994 to 31-3-1995 and at that time Section 11AC was not on the statute as this section was inserted w.e.f. 28-9-1996 by Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1996. This section did not had retrospective but only prospective operation as ruled by the Apex Court in CCE, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. (supra) referred by the Counsel. 14. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner, under appeal, is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, permissible under the law.
....
|
