|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 469 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 151
Issues Involved:
1. Early posting of appeals for hearing.
2. Fulfillment of post-importation conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
3. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act.
4. Imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act.
5. Demand of customs duty under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act.
6. Quantum of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Early Posting of Appeals for Hearing:
The Department filed applications seeking early posting of the appeals for hearing. These applications became infructuous as the appeals were disposed of on the same day.
2. Fulfillment of Post-Importation Conditions Under Notification No. 64/88-Cus:
- Jaya Nursing Home (P) Ltd.: Imported a Whole Body CT Scanner without paying customs duty based on a certificate from the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The Customs authorities found that the hospital did not fulfill the free treatment conditions for outdoor patients and did not reserve 10% of beds for patients with family income less than Rs. 500 p.m. during 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. Consequently, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued.
- Childs Trust Hospital: Imported a "CO2 Surgical Laser System" without paying customs duty under the same notification. The Customs authorities found that the hospital did not provide the required free treatment to outdoor patients (40%) and indoor patients (10%) after 1990 and 1994, respectively. An SCN was issued for these violations.
3. Confiscation of Imported Goods Under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act:
- Jaya Nursing Home (P) Ltd.: The Commissioner of Customs upheld the SCN allegations, confirming the demand for duty, confiscating the imported goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.
- Childs Trust Hospital: The Commissioner confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 9,10,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. The demand for duty was dropped as time-barred.
4. Imposition of Penalties Under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act:
- Jaya Nursing Home (P) Ltd.: A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed under Section 112(a).
- Childs Trust Hospital: A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed under Section 112(a).
5. Demand of Customs Duty Under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act:
- Jaya Nursing Home (P) Ltd.: The duty demand was confirmed based on the Supreme Court's decision in CC v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre, stating that such a demand could be raised under Section 125(2) along with confiscation and penalty, without reference to Section 28 of the Act.
- Childs Trust Hospital: No demand for duty was confirmed as it was considered time-barred.
6. Quantum of Redemption Fine Under Section 125 of the Customs Act:
- Jaya Nursing Home (P) Ltd.: The assessable value of the imported equipment was over Rs. 61 lakhs with a customs duty of over Rs. 24 lakhs. The market price was estimated to be around Rs. 85 lakhs plus profit. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 7.5 lakhs, and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs.
- Childs Trust Hospital: The value of the imported equipment was Rs. 6,62,164/- with a customs duty of Rs. 9,09,068/-. The maximum redemption fine under Section 125 was around Rs. 6.6 lakhs plus profit. The fine was reduced from Rs. 9,10,000/- to Rs. 2 lakhs, and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 25,000/-.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner regarding the violation of post-importation conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. and the consequent confiscation and penalties. However, the quantum of redemption fines and penalties were reduced based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appeals were disposed of with these modifications.
-
2003 (8) TMI 149
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 27,210/- as it was taken based on cash memos from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, not a prescribed duty paying document. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the documents used did not meet the criteria for availing modvat credit.
-
2003 (8) TMI 146
The appellants filed appeals against an order-in-appeal regarding refund of duty. Adjudicating authority ordered refund to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund, which was challenged by appellants. Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected himself on the issue and dismissed the appeal incorrectly. The order was set aside, and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision. Appeals of the appellants allowed by way of remand.
-
2003 (8) TMI 144
The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed Service Tax demand with interest but dropped the penalty due to retrospective re-validation of tax liability. The Revenue's appeal challenging the dropped penalty was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA. The Tribunal held that retrospective amendment cannot impose penalties, sustaining the Service Tax demand.
-
2003 (8) TMI 142
Issues:
Imposition of penalty on Customs House Agent (CHA) under Section 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged involvement in fraudulent export activities.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Submission by Appellant:
The appellant, through his advocate, argued that he was not aware of any illegal activities or fraudulent plans of the exporters. He claimed to have acted in good faith and followed all regulations laid down for CHAs. The appellant's representative at Tuticorin, Shri T. Ramasamy, was also not penalized by the Commissioner despite being unaware of the fraudulent activities. The appellant's practice of providing pre-signed shipping bills for administrative convenience was highlighted, emphasizing that this was not a basis for imposing a penalty. The advocate referred to previous judgments where penalties were not imposed when the clearing agent had no knowledge of illegal activities.
2. Revenue's Submission:
The Revenue argued that the act of the authorized signatory providing a blank shipping bill to his representative led to the commission of an offense, justifying the penalty. References were made to legal precedents where the actions of representatives were attributed to the principal, leading to penalties or revocation of licenses.
3. Judgment and Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the submissions and records. It noted that the employee of the CHA, Shri T. Ramasamy, was found to be unaware of the fraudulent export, and no penalty was imposed on him. The replacement of goods after customs clearance was also considered, absolving the CHA of responsibility. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing that penalties can only be imposed in cases of culpable negligence, which was not established in this case. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases by the Revenue, as they did not align with the facts of the present case.
4. Decision:
Based on the legal precedents and the lack of evidence showing the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent activities, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the CHA under Section 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment was delivered on 25th August 2003, with the option for the appellant to approach for a copy of the order.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both sides, the legal principles applied, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal in setting aside the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent.
-
2003 (8) TMI 140
Issues:
Availability of Cenvat credit for duty paid on inputs used outside factory premises.
Analysis:
The Appeal filed by M/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. questioned the availability of Cenvat credit for duty paid on inputs used outside the factory premises. The Appellants argued that the inputs used in their mines should be eligible for Cenvat credit based on the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case. They contended that the definition of inputs in the Cenvat Credit Rules did not restrict the use of inputs outside the factory. The Appellate Tribunal had previously upheld similar arguments in other cases.
In response, the Departmental Representative highlighted that the definition of inputs in the Cenvat Credit Rules clearly stated that goods must be used within the factory of production to qualify as inputs. This interpretation was supported by a circular issued by the Board. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of inputs in the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing that goods must be used within the factory of production to be considered inputs. The Tribunal rejected the argument that this requirement only applied to certain types of goods like lubricating oil and greases. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in a previous case, noting that the rule interpreted by the Supreme Court did not contain the specific requirement of being used within the factory of production. With the change in the definition of inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, which included the phrase 'within the factory of production,' the Tribunal concluded that the earlier Supreme Court judgment was not applicable. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed concerning the disallowance of the Modvat credit, while the penalty was set aside due to the interpretational nature of the issue.
-
2003 (8) TMI 139
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore rejected two applications - ROM No. 415/02 by the department and ROM No. 4/03 by the party - seeking rectification of a Final Order due to a mistake regarding the issue of scrap generated by mechanical operations. The Tribunal held that the order was dictated in open court and found no substance in the rectification requests.
-
2003 (8) TMI 136
Issues: Modvat credit on old capital goods and duty paid on labour charges
In this case, the issue involved the appellants' claim for Modvat credit on duty paid for repairs of a capital good, specifically the Fibrizer Rotor Assembly. The Department objected to the credit, arguing that no new capital goods were received and that Modvat credit was not available for duty paid on labour charges. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.
The appellants contended that they were entitled to the credit under Rule 57Q as the duty was paid on the total value of the goods and job charges. They argued that the Department recognized the job worker's activity as "manufacture," justifying the duty paid on labour charges. The Department, however, maintained that Modvat credit was not available for old capital goods or duty paid on labour charges, citing precedents where minor repairs were not considered manufacture.
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the credit was taken within the statutory period under Rule 57Q, which allowed credit on specified capital goods. The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid on both the goods and labour charges, and the job worker's activity was considered manufacture by the Department. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants rightfully took the credit on duty paid for the capital goods used in manufacturing the final product, as per the valid invoice. Therefore, the impugned order disallowing the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 135
Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit on cement, chemical items, and H.S.S. hand tap under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, along with imposition of penalty.
Cement: The Tribunal extended capital goods credit to cement based on the Supreme Court's decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd., emphasizing the wide definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q. The contention that building material used for construction cannot qualify under Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act was rejected, as Rule 57Q's expression is broader. Therefore, credit on cement was deemed admissible.
Chemical items: Although not qualifying as capital goods under Rule 57Q, the chemical items used for water treatment in the sponge iron plant were considered eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, as they are essential inputs for the manufacturing process.
H.S.S. hand tap: This tool used in Lathe Machines for cutting metal was granted credit based on the Tribunal's decision in a similar case, where credit was allowed for H.S.S. drill. The argument against credit based on a different case was dismissed, as the appellants' use of Lathe machines for specific purposes justified the credit.
Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing credit on cement, H.S.S. hand tap under Rule 57Q, and on chemical formulations under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, setting aside the disallowance and penalty imposed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 132
Validity of Show Cause Notice - Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs - Demand - Clubbing of clearances - Dummy units - mandatory penalty - interest u/s 11AB - manufacture of finished product cleared - difference between the Members.
Whether the order proposed by learned Member (Technical) rejecting the appeal on merits but reducing the penalties or whether the order passed by Member (Judicial) allowing the appeal in respect of clubbing of clearances with the clearances of M/s. Reliable Corpn. and remanding the matter for the purposes of clubbing the clearances with the clearances of M/s. Abbas & Co. is correct.
HELD THAT:- From the record it is clear that, the SCN does not spell out the allegations correctly and M/s. RC and M/s. Abbas & Co. have not been put to notice on the point of clubbing of clearance with separate reasons. Hence, I agree with the finding of Member (J) on non-issue of SCN. Further, it was explained by the learned Senior Advocate that if at all there was any discrepancy, it could have been in the form of clandestine removals but even no allegations have been brought out in that regard. He pointed out that at the time of the raid on the premises of M/s. RC, the department had not found out any excess production or any other documents being not properly maintained. There was no shortage of material also to allege clandestine removal. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to agree with learned Member (Judicial) on the point of merits as arrived by Member (J) in her considered order. In paras 19 to 21, learned Member (Judicial) has also examined the other points which have been taken by the Revenue to allege mutual flow of funds. I have gone through the order and I agree with the said findings.
In so far as the allegation of suppression is concerned, it was argued by learned DR that the Commissioner has given a detailed finding on suppression and that should be upheld, while the Sr. Counsel argued that both the units after crossing the limit as per the notification were paying duty and their records were being scrutinized and the department have not found any discrepancy in respect of same.
Insofar as the charge of clubbing of clearances of M/s. Abbas & Co. with the clearances of M/s. PR, the learned Member (Technical) has confirmed the demand and has held that the clearances of M/s. Abbas & Co. are to be clubbed with M/s. PR, while Member (J) has remanded the matter for de novo consideration. I am inclined to hold that demands are not to be confirmed for the reason that M/s. Abbas & Co. has not been put to notice on the ground that their clearances are required to be clubbed with the clearances of M/s. PR. The show cause notice confines itself to M/s. PR & RC. The same, finding as given with regard to show cause notice would apply to the facts of M/s. Abbas & Co. However, as a third Member, I cannot choose to give an independent order other than the one proposed in the points of difference. As the learned Member (Judicial) has remanded the matter for de novo consideration, I am inclined to accept the view for remanding the matter. However, the Commissioner shall take into consideration the findings recorded by the majority in this order on the point pertaining to show cause notice being bad in law and other points noted in the majority order.
MAJORITY ORDER - In the light of the majority view, it is held that the clearance of M/s. Reliable Corporation are not to be clubbed with the clearances of M/s. Poly Resins. Longer period of limitation also cannot be invoked in this case for demand of duty. As regards question of clubbing of clearances of M/s. PR with the clearances of M/s. Abbas and Co., in the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for decision. Penalties imposed are also set aside.
-
2003 (8) TMI 131
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai directed the appellants to submit an indemnity bond securing the duty amount as the original bill of entry was not traceable. The appellants can avail the credit they had already taken upon submitting the bond.
-
2003 (8) TMI 130
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on HR/CR Sheets, HR/SS Plates, and Plain Plates.
2. Denial of Modvat credit on thermocouples.
Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of non-ferrous metals, claimed Modvat credit on certain items under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show-cause notice alleged that the sheets and plates used as raw materials were not parts of machinery under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of Modvat credit. The main argument by the appellants was that the sheets and plates were components or spares of machines and should be eligible for credit. However, the Tribunal found no specific evidence regarding the identity of the machines in question, making it impossible to determine if the items qualified as components or spares under Rule 57Q. As a result, the denial of Modvat credit on sheets and plates was upheld. Regarding thermocouples, the denial of credit was upheld as they did not qualify as capital goods for Modvat credit.
2. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The appellants relied on previous decisions to support their claim for Modvat credit on the items in question. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing the identity of the machines for which the items were claimed to be components or spares. Without this specific evidence, it was deemed futile to decide on the eligibility of the items for Modvat credit. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision upheld by the Supreme Court to support this reasoning. Consequently, the denial of Modvat credit on sheets and plates was upheld, while the denial on thermocouples was also maintained due to their classification not meeting the criteria for capital goods under Rule 57Q.
Overall, the appeal challenging the denial of Modvat credit on the mentioned items was rejected by the Tribunal based on the lack of evidence regarding the identity of the machines for which the items were claimed to be components or spares, leading to the conclusion that they did not qualify for the credit under Rule 57Q.
-
2003 (8) TMI 129
Issues: Denial of credit under Rule 57A(1) on processed fabrics received, interpretation of Notification 29/96, reliance on trade notice, consideration of deemed credit and actual credit under Rule 57A(2), failure to apply provisions correctly by the Commissioner (Appeals).
In this case, the appellant, engaged in textile fabric processing, faced a denial of credit under Rule 57A(1) for processed fabrics received, based on a trade notice alleging non-compliance with the Commissioner's directives. The appellant utilized deemed credit under Notification 29/96 for grey fabrics and Rule 57A(1) credit for processed fabrics. The Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, imposing penalties. The notification specifies rates for inputs based on manufacturing status, excluding manufacturers availing credit for inputs under Rule 57A(1), clarifying that processed fabric used as input is exempt. The trade notice, aligned with a 1996 circular, did not support the denial's basis. It differentiated between deemed credit and Rule 57A(1) credit, allowing the latter for processed fabrics. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to justify why both credits couldn't be availed simultaneously, overlooking the appellant's entitlement to do so.
Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, emphasizing the correct interpretation of Notification 29/96, the distinction between deemed and actual credits, and the misapplication of provisions by the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the credit to the appellant for processed fabrics received.
-
2003 (8) TMI 128
Valuation of operational software in the assessable value/transaction value of computers - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not the software etched or burnt or what in the computer world is called as EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory)/BIOS software on the mother board of the computer. The software, in dispute, is admittedly operational software, loosely these could be referred to as operational/application software packages, commercially termed e.g. Windows-2000, Office-XP etc. They are not for running the computer per se, but are useful to run the programmes as desired by the user of the computer.
The 'software' being considered by the Apex Court in the case of PSI Data System Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT] that case was tangible Software for Operational/Application.
Similarly, wherein cases at Sl. No. (iii), where Operational/Application Software is loaded and is supplied separately on a tangible like disc, floppy and CD Rom. The value of such tangibles cannot be reckoned for the purposes of duty under the Central Excise law.
Since the loading of the entire value of the tangible Operational/Application Software cannot be loaded on to the value of the computers in any of the situations, in which the clearances could be made, the demands as made, cannot be upheld, therefore the penalties as arrived at cannot be sustained.
Thus, the appeal No. E/410/2003 is required to be allowed after setting aside the order. Appeal Nos. E/1307-1308/2002 filed by M/s. Compaq has to be allowed, since in that case the operational/application softwares have been supplied on tangibles separately. The value thereof, cannot be added for the purposes of duty, in view of the findings arrived at hereinabove. This appeal is also allowed after setting aside the order.
Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 124
Cenvat/Modvat - Demand - Determination of assessable value - Penalty and Interest - HELD THAT:- We are reinforced in coming to such a finding, that there was no sale price available, since the Commissioner in the impugned order itself is determining the valuation, of the removals effected to Indian Railways, under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, for the purposes of determining liability under erstwhile Rule 57CC and Rule 57AD. Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, is applicable, if the value of the excisable goods under assessment cannot be determined under Rule 4 or 5. Rules 4 and 5 of these Rules prescribe valuation to be based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee, for delivery at any other time nearest to the time of removal or when price was not the sole consideration for such sale effected. In the present case, when it is found that no sales are being effected, we cannot determine valuation under 6(b)(i) without ruling out Rule 4 and 5. Thus, the valuations as directed by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. Once the sale value as arrived at and directed, cannot upheld, the sale price cannot be determined, once sale price cannot be determined, 8% of the amount, as required, cannot be determined under Rule 57CC.
Since Rule 57CC prescribes reversal 'of an amount' and not of Modvat credit availed or of duty; no machinery provision exist under the Rules for the reversal of 'the amounts' required under Rule 57CC, the reversal as ordered under Rule 57-I or Sec. 11A cannot be upheld. Since Rule 57-I provides for reversal of credit and recovery of credit wrongly availed and Sec. 11A restricts itself to recovery of duty. Tribunal in the two decisions, which are being relied upon, has held that the 'amounts' mentioned in Rule 57CC is not in the nature of a duty. Therefore, the recoveries as ordered cannot be upheld. Relying on Pushpaman Forgings [2001 (10) TMI 223 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] wherein the Tribunal held that in the absence of machinery provision in the Act or the Rules for the recovery of 'an amount' under 57CC, the present order of recovery of 'an amount' under 57CC cannot be upheld.
We also rely upon the case of Gas Authority of India Ltd. to come to our conclusion that recoveries under Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not in the nature of duty and therefore Rule 57-I (ibid) cannot be invoked to recover any short payment relying upon Board Circular No. B-42/1/96/TRU, dated 27-9-96 which has clarified that Board also holds that deposits made under Rule 57CC was not in the nature of duty and therefore cannot be taken as Modvat credit, would induce us, to confirm that there is no substance to support the present order and the same is required to be set aside.
As regards the mandatory penalty imposed, equivalent to duty evaded under Rule 57-I(iv)/57AH(ii) read with Sec. 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is found that the same cannot be upheld, for recovery of 'an amount' since the Rules and Sections relied upon by the adjudicator to impose the 100% mandatory penalty cover only input credit and duty and not 'an amount under Rule 57CC'.
The penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 also cannot be upheld since Rule 173Q(i)(bb) is applicable only to taking of credit or duty or money in respect of inputs, capital goods and it is not applicable to an 'amount' which is required under Rule 57CC to be reversed.
Since interest under Rule 57-I(v)/57AH(i) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Sec. 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 is required to be imposed only in case of duty and credit and the present recoveries not being in the nature of duties and credit, the interest as ordered cannot be upheld.
Thus, the order is set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief, as per law.
-
2003 (8) TMI 120
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deductions in respect of "rent on containers" (ROC) and "freight" from the sale price to arrive at the assessable value of aerated water.
2. Challenge against the implementation order disallowing deductions on account of ROC and freight as well as finalization of assessment in respect of 'Canister'.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Disallowance of deductions in respect of ROC and freight
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal disallowing deductions for ROC and freight from the sale price of aerated water. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the deductions and set aside the implementation order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's decision on the admissibility of ROC was in principle, allowing the claim only based on actual costs. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that deductions should be permitted based on actuals. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on ROC were set aside. Regarding transportation expenditure, the Tribunal found that the actual expenditure was higher than the claimed amount, leading to no case for additional deductions.
Issue 2: Challenge against the implementation order
The Tribunal observed that the Revenue's challenge against the Commissioner's order-in-original was dismissed in a previous case. The grounds pleaded in the challenge against the implementation order were similar to the grounds in the dismissed appeal. The Tribunal held that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on ROC, contrary to the previous decision, had to be set aside. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the order-in-appeal did not provide reasons for disallowing the findings on 'Canister,' leading to the vacating of this decision.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of determining deductions based on actual costs and ensuring compliance with legal principles in assessing the assessable value of products.
-
2003 (8) TMI 118
The appeal involved eligibility for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q for items like Hacksaw Blades, items used in mines, M.S. pipes, and Syntex water storage tanks. Hacksaw blades were not eligible as capital goods. Items used in mines were not eligible based on a Supreme Court ruling. M.S. pipes and pipe fittings qualified as capital goods. Syntex water storage tanks did not qualify as capital goods. The order was upheld for items 1, 2, and 4, and set aside for M.S. Pipes & Pipe Fittings. The appeal was allowed only for M.S. Pipes & Pipe Fittings.
-
2003 (8) TMI 116
Issues:
1. Whether the claim for refund of amount deposited by M/s. Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd. is barred by limitation.
Analysis:
The issue in this Appeal was whether the claim for refund of amount deposited by M/s. Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd. is barred by limitation. The Appellants manufactured draw twisted yarn and twisted yarn. Central Excise Officers alleged that they sold draw twist yarn in guise of twisted yarn without paying Central Excise duty. The Appellants handed over six post-dated cheques totaling Rs. 20 lakhs under protest to the Superintendent, Central Excise. The amount was realized and credited to the Central Government's account. A show cause notice was issued, but no reference to the deposit was made. The Appellants filed a refund claim, which was initially rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of prematurity and being time-barred. However, the Tribunal set aside the demand for duty and penalties, treating the deposit as a pre-deposit. The Appellate Tribunal found that the refund claim was not barred by the time limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
The Appellants contended that the deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs was treated as a pre-deposit by the Tribunal, making them eligible for a refund. They argued that the refund claim was not time-barred as the payment was made under protest. They also cited relevant case law to support their position. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the amount deposited by the Appellants was treated as a pre-deposit for entertaining the Appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal had previously held in similar cases that such deposits could be considered pre-deposits. The confirmation of duty demand and penalties was set aside by the Tribunal, making the Department liable to refund the deposited amount. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner (Appeals)' finding that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B. The Tribunal highlighted that the payment was made under protest, no show cause notice was issued before the refund claim, and Rule 233(b) of the Central Excise Rules was not applicable post-clearance. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellants, setting aside the impugned Order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd., holding that their claim for refund of the deposited amount was not barred by limitation and ordering the Department to refund the amount treated as a pre-deposit by the Tribunal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 115
The appellate tribunal in Bangalore ruled in favor of the appellant for a refund claim of Rs. 42,345.06, despite the original TR6 challan not being submitted with the refund application. The tribunal stated that formal refund applications are not required for refunds ordered by higher forums like the High Court. Refunds can be made through indemnity bonds in cases where TR6 challans are lost or destroyed. Refusal of payment in such cases is not justified.
-
2003 (8) TMI 113
Issues involved: Appeal against order-in-appeal affirming confiscation of seized goods of foreign origin under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty.
Summary:
The appeal was directed against the order-in-appeal affirming the confiscation of seized goods of foreign origin under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty. The goods were found during a search at the premises of the appellants' firm, and the adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner of Customs affirmed this order. However, upon review, it was observed that the burden to prove the smuggled character of the goods was on the Department. While the proprietor admitted the foreign origin of the goods, the Department failed to prove their smuggled nature, especially considering the goods were available in the open market and not notified goods at the relevant time. The mere non-production of a bill could not lead to the inference of smuggling. As the Department did not discharge its burden, the confiscation and penalty were deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief permissible under the law.
............
|
9911796707
