|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 477 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 113
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA granted an unconditional stay in the case of Smt. Archana Wadhwa and others, dispensing with the pre-deposit of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 2,16,85,015.00 and a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the applicants based on the Orders-in-Original and their financial condition, ordering the stay petition to be allowed unconditionally.
-
2000 (10) TMI 112
Issues:
1. Appeal filed by department and assessee against order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.
2. Denial of exemption claim under Notification No. 140/83-CE.
3. Ownership of brand name "BIGEN" and eligibility for exemption.
4. Previous orders and appeals related to exemption claim.
5. Validity of trade mark assignment and sole proprietorship claim.
6. Evidence of collaboration with foreign company and impact on exemption claim.
7. Interpretation of Notification No. 140/83-CE and trade mark ownership.
8. Decision on appeals filed by department and assessee.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves two appeals filed by the department and the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, confirming a demand of duty and imposing a penalty. The order excluded a period covered by a previous Order-in-Original. The appeals were related to the denial of exemption claim under Notification No. 140/83-CE.
2. The denial of exemption claim was based on the ownership of the brand name "BIGEN" by a Japanese firm, which continued to be the worldwide owner of the trade name. The Commissioner's order highlighted that the manufacturer in India, although a subsequent proprietor of the brand name, was not eligible for exemption under the notification due to the worldwide ownership of the brand name by the Japanese firm.
3. The assessees claimed ownership of the brand name "BIGEN" through a deed of assignment and registration with the Trade Marks Registry. The communication from the registry recognized the assessee as the sole proprietor of the registered trade mark, which formed a crucial basis for their claim for exemption under Notification No. 140/83-CE.
4. Previous orders and appeals related to the exemption claim were discussed, including a Tribunal decision in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision and the communication from the Trade Marks Registry supported the assessee's claim of sole proprietorship and eligibility for exemption.
5. The department raised concerns about collaboration with a foreign company and the impact on the exemption claim. However, the Trade Marks Registry's communication and the Tribunal's previous decision favored the assessee's position as the sole proprietor of the brand name, strengthening their case for exemption under the notification.
6. The judgment emphasized the statutory recognition by the Trade Marks Registry of the assessee as the sole proprietor, which was crucial in determining the eligibility for exemption under the notification. The evidence presented by the department regarding collaboration with a foreign company did not undermine the assessee's claim as the rightful owner of the brand name.
7. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the department, affirming the assessee's right to the exemption claim under Notification No. 140/83-CE based on the ownership of the brand name "BIGEN" as established by the Trade Marks Registry communication and previous Tribunal decisions.
-
2000 (10) TMI 111
Issues: Valuation of imported second-hand machines under Import Control Regulations.
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CHENNAI, the appeals were filed by the same party for the import of second-hand machines under the Import Control Regulations. The appellants submitted a Chartered Engineer's certificate indicating the residual life of the machines. The Customs authorities rejected the certificate for valuation of the imported machinery but accepted it for establishing the value of new machines and determining the old and used conditions of the machines. The lower authorities granted ad hoc depreciation without providing reasons for the rate adopted and calculated the value under rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, based on the discarded certificate's value. The Collector (Appeals) approved the rejection of the certificate's valuation under Rule 4 and determined the value under Rule 8, which was contested by the appellants. The Tribunal found that the transaction value can only be rejected under specified circumstances as per Rule 4(2) and not arbitrarily. The Tribunal criticized the authorities for selectively accepting parts of the certificate and not questioning its validity for Import Control Regulations, leading to inconsistencies in valuation. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeals and granting consequential benefits as per law.
-
2000 (10) TMI 110
Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 36/94 for manufacturing cement concrete blocks.
2. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 67/95 for parts of cement manufacturing machinery.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Denial of benefit under Notification No. 36/94
The appellants, engaged in cement manufacturing, claimed benefits under Notification No. 36/94 for cement concrete blocks. The denial was based on the location of manufacturing activities, which were carried out at a pre-cast yard away from the construction plant. The appellant's representative cited a Tribunal case emphasizing a liberal interpretation of "manufactured at the site of construction." The Tribunal held that the narrow interpretation by the Commissioner was erroneous and that notifications must be interpreted to ensure intended benefits are enjoyed by the assesses. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating there was no justification to deny the benefit under Notification No. 36/94.
Issue 2: Denial of benefit under Notification No. 67/95
Regarding the denial of benefits under Notification No. 67/95 for parts of cement manufacturing machinery due to the absence of a cement production factory, the appellant's representative argued that the factory of production refers to items produced within the factory, not just the finished product. The representative referenced a Tribunal decision supporting this interpretation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that Notification No. 67/95 grants exemption to capital goods manufactured in and used within the factory of production. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification to deny the benefit under Notification No. 67/95. As a result, the appellants succeeded on this issue as well.
In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants, with benefits granted under both Notification No. 36/94 and Notification No. 67/95.
-
2000 (10) TMI 109
The appeal was against a duty demand on six marine containers for not meeting re-export conditions. Two containers were not re-exported, but evidence was provided for the others. The Tribunal found the evidence sufficient and set aside the demand, penalty, and confiscation.
-
2000 (10) TMI 108
Issues:
1. Legal sustainability of the decision of the Collector (Appeals) by the Department.
2. Interpretation of the Handbook of Procedures regarding sensitive items.
3. Empowerment of Custom authorities to investigate import licenses.
4. Relevance of individual value adjustments in licenses.
5. Presumption made by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding value restrictions in a license.
Analysis:
1. The Department filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Collector (Appeals) on various grounds. The Department argued that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts of the case and applied case law erroneously. The Department contended that the Order-in-Appeal was not legally sustainable due to these reasons.
2. The dispute also involved the interpretation of the Handbook of Procedures concerning sensitive items. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for not considering the preamble to the List II of Sensitive List, which indicates that individual value limits should apply to sensitive items. The Department argued that the entire purpose of having a list of Sensitive Items would be defeated if individual value limits were not fixed for all relevant entries.
3. Another issue raised was the authority of Custom authorities to investigate the correctness of import licenses. The Department argued that Custom authorities have the jurisdiction to ensure that conditions required for the clearance of sensitive items are fulfilled. The Department cited the EXIM Policy 1992-97, which mandates individual value limits for items under Sensitive Item List II.
4. The relevance of individual value adjustments in licenses was also discussed. The Commissioner (Appeals) had mentioned that the Commissioner of Customs could allow individual value adjustments as per Notification No. 204/92-Cus. However, the Department argued that such adjustments could only be considered if individual values were provided for in the license.
5. Lastly, a presumption made by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding value restrictions in a license was challenged. The Commissioner (Appeals) had presumed that no value restriction was given for a particular license due to the absence of Standard Input-Output Norms. However, the appellate tribunal emphasized that without proper action taken under licensing regulations, the validity of imports cannot be questioned, citing judgments from previous cases.
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, confirming the order passed by the Order-in-Appeal. The tribunal held that the Department's approach was not based on law, emphasizing the importance of proper actions under licensing regulations before questioning the validity of imports.
-
2000 (10) TMI 104
Issues: Valuation dispute based on related person concept under Section 4(4)(C) of the Act.
In this case, the Revenue filed an appeal concerning the valuation issue, claiming that the appellant, a partnership concern, should be treated as a related person of the buyer company due to the common partners being directors of the buyer company. The Revenue argued that since goods were sold to the buyer using their brand name, the buyer should be considered a sole selling agent. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their contention that a sole selling agent should be treated as a related person.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the concept of related person should be understood as defined under Section 4(4)(C) of the Act. They highlighted that there was no evidence of mutuality of interest or money flow between the two concerns. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, they emphasized that in the absence of mutuality of interest, the parties cannot be considered related persons. The Tribunal in the previous case had noted that the relationship between private limited companies cannot be determined based on partnership firm principles and that there was no evidence to establish a relationship between the two private companies.
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, stating that the mere fact that the partners of the assessee were directors of the buyer company did not establish a related person relationship. They agreed with the respondents that there was no evidence of mutuality of interest or money flow between the parties. The Tribunal also noted that the show cause notice did not allege the buyer as a sole selling agent, and based on the lack of evidence, they dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found the case law cited by the respondents applicable and concluded that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal, dismissing it along with the cross objections.
-
2000 (10) TMI 103
Issues involved: Appeal against order granting refund of credit under Central Excise Act.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad, granting the appellants a refund of credit amounting to Rs. 1,16,28,268.60. The case involved the classification of products by the respondents and the subsequent claim for refund based on the classification under Chapter 39 of the Tariff. The Tribunal set aside the classification determined by the Department and allowed the appeals of the assessees, leading to the refund claim. The Revenue contended that granting the refund would result in unjust enrichment to the respondents, but the Tribunal disagreed, citing relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and previous decisions supporting the refund of credit of duty to the applicants. The lower Appellate Authority's finding that the respondents were entitled to the refund amount did not have any legal infirmity, and the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to grant the refund of credit to the respondents, amounting to Rs. 1,16,28,268.60, based on the classification of products under Chapter 39 of the Tariff and the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the Tribunal's decision was in favor of the respondents.
-
2000 (10) TMI 102
The appeal was filed against the denial of modvat credit. The show cause notice lacked allegations regarding the filing of a declaration. The impugned order was passed on different grounds, beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The appeal was allowed, and the order was set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 100
Issues involved: Refund of Modvat credit for duty paid on tin plate used for manufacturing tin containers, availability of Modvat credit for duty paid on inputs, provision for cash refund in Modvat credit.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai addressed the issue of refund of Modvat credit for duty paid on tin plate used in manufacturing tin containers for vegetable products. Initially disallowed by the department, the Tribunal later allowed the Modvat credit on tin plate to be utilized in the manufacture of vegetable products. Subsequently, the duty on the vegetable product was withdrawn in the budget of 1996-97.
The assessee claimed a refund of the Modvat credit as it could no longer be used towards payment of duty on the final product. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim citing the absence of a provision for cash refund in Modvat credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) granted cash refund based on the Tribunal's order.
The department challenged this decision on three grounds. Firstly, they claimed the respondent manufactured another final product, acid oil, but the Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to support this. Secondly, the department argued that Section 11B of the Act pertains to claiming duty, not Modvat credit, which was contradicted by Rule 57A indicating Modvat credit as duty. Lastly, the department contended that there is no provision in the rules for giving Modvat credit, citing previous Tribunal cases where cash refunds were ordered.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that when a manufacturer is unable to utilize Modvat credit due to departmental actions, relief in cash is appropriate. In this case, the assessee was compelled to pay duty from personal funds due to the denial of credit, justifying the cash refund. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the cash refund granted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
-
2000 (10) TMI 98
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal of a company engaged in manufacturing portland cement, granting Modvat credit and setting aside the order disallowing the credit. The Tribunal held that the company should not be penalized for mistakes made by sellers, specifically Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the application without discussing the merits, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the assessee.
-
2000 (10) TMI 96
Issues involved: Whether repacking of goods amounts to manufacture u/s chapter 33 of the tariff? Whether affixing labels on goods renders them marketable?
Repacking as manufacture: The appellant, a manufacturer of cosmetics, repacked goods for the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) in a manner different from regular market packaging. The Commissioner alleged this repacking amounted to manufacture u/s chapter 33 of the tariff, which includes activities like repacking to render products marketable. However, the Tribunal noted that the repacking did not add marketability as the goods were already marketed to other customers in their original packaging. The process only involved transferring goods to different retail packs, not enhancing marketability. The Tribunal emphasized that for a treatment to be considered manufacture, it must confer marketability that the product lacked before.
Value addition and labelling: The Commissioner argued that the value addition resulting from repacking was taxable, but the Tribunal disagreed. The appellant sold goods to CSD at lower prices due to being a large customer and exempt from sales tax, resulting in potential value reduction. The demand based on value addition was deemed unsustainable. Additionally, the Commissioner claimed that affixing labels on goods for CSD with celebratory messages constituted a treatment rendering goods marketable. However, the Tribunal found that this labelling did not enhance marketability but was a promotional method for CSD, not affecting the goods' inherent marketability.
Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confirming repacking as manufacture and labelling as a treatment rendering goods marketable. The activities undertaken by the appellant were deemed not to amount to manufacture u/s chapter 33 of the tariff, as they did not enhance marketability and did not involve significant value addition.
-
2000 (10) TMI 93
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue challenging Modvat credit taken on ineligible documents beyond six months u/s Rule 57G.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against Modvat credit taken by the assessee on documents issued beyond the permissible six-month period as per Rule 57G. The Revenue argued that the credit was taken on ineligible documents and was reversed only after a significant delay in obtaining the eligible Bill of Entry copies. The respondents contended that they had promptly reversed the credit upon audit objection and later obtained the relevant documents within the permissible period. They argued that any delay was due to factors beyond their control and that the credit was taken within the stipulated timeframe from the date of goods receipt. The Tribunal noted that the original credit entries were within the six-month period and were reversed promptly upon objection. The delay in obtaining the correct documents was also partly attributed to the department. The Tribunal found no legal bar in the Rules preventing the availment of Modvat credit due to delays in completing credit entries, as long as goods receipt occurred within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
This judgment clarifies that the timing of taking credit under Modvat rules is linked to the receipt of goods within the prescribed period, rather than the completion of credit entries. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of prompt reversal of incorrect credits and allowed the credit when the correct documents were obtained within the permissible timeframe.
-
2000 (10) TMI 91
Issues involved: Classification of goods under Chapter heading 8708.00 u/s Section XVI, Section XVII, and HSN explanatory notes.
Summary:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the subject castings are parts of gear box and clutch, ultimately used in motor vehicles. The Assistant Collector's classification under Chapter heading 8708.00 was deemed unsupported by legal provisions, and the reclassification was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The time limit u/s 11A was discussed for applicability.
2. The grounds in the appeal highlighted the application of section note 1(k) to Section XVI and note 2(e) to Section XVII. It was argued that gear box and clutch, though specified under heading 84.83, are correctly classifiable under heading 87.08 as parts of motor vehicles. Reference to HSN explanatory notes supported this classification.
3. The department's representative reiterated the grounds for the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the classification under Heading 8483.00 for parts of gear box and clutch, which cannot be considered as parts of motor vehicles under Chapter 87.
4. Upon review, it was found that the subject goods are parts of gear box and clutch, classifiable under Heading 8483.00. The goods were understood as parts of gear box, not motor vehicles, based on interpretation of Chapter Notes and commercial understanding. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
5. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the Revenue appeal was rejected based on the classification of goods as parts of gear box under Heading 8483.00.
-
2000 (10) TMI 90
Issues:
Classification of various machine parts under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Analysis:
The appeal involved the classification of machine parts under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant challenged the order of classification based on specific grounds. The parts in question included shafts, gear belt pulleys, bearing blocks, clamp couplings, and feed shafts, each serving a specific function in machinery assemblies. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification based on Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Act, stating that parts designed for specific machines maintain their characteristics and should be classified accordingly.
The appellant argued that the orders were misconceived and contrary to factual positions, citing Ministry Circulars and Trade Notices to support their claim that specially designed transmission elements should not be classified under a single heading. They contended that the disputed parts were essential for their finished product, a draw texturising machine, and could not be used in other machines due to their unique design. Additionally, they pointed out the separate heading under 84.48 for parts and accessories of textile machinery, suggesting the goods in question should be classified accordingly.
During the hearing, the Departmental Representative presented the case as the appellant did not appear, and the Tribunal considered the submissions and material on record. The Tribunal found that Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI was correctly applied, affirming the lower authorities' classification. They distinguished the items in the present case from those covered in a previous Tribunal order, emphasizing the binding nature of Section Note 2 for the classification of parts under Section XVI.
Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, confirming the orders of the lower authorities. The judgment underscored the importance of Section Note 2(a) in determining the classification of machine parts under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and upheld the principle that parts designed for specific machinery should be classified accordingly, even if they could potentially be used in other machines.
-
2000 (10) TMI 87
Issues involved:
1. Claim of duty free clearances under exemption Notification 11/97 for importing capital goods.
2. Availing facility of assessment of goods as project import under heading 98.01.
3. Timely production of certificates from the Ministry of Environment and Forests for claiming exemption.
4. Dismissal of refund claim on the ground of limitation.
5. Finalization of provisional assessment and enforcement of bank guarantees.
Issue 1: The appellant imported capital goods for setting up a plant to manufacture refrigerators without using Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and claimed duty free clearances under exemption Notification 11/97. The entry exempted goods for substitution of ozone-depleting substances and setting up new capacity with non-ODS technology, in line with environmental protection protocols.
Issue 2: The appellant also sought assessment of goods as project import under heading 98.01, independent of the exemption. Provisional assessment was done, and the appellant furnished bonds for this purpose and for producing required certificates from the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Issue 3: The appellant faced delays in obtaining certificates from the Ministry, leading to enforcement of bank guarantees prematurely. The absence of a specific time limit in the notification for producing certificates raised questions on the enforcement of guarantees without justification.
Issue 4: The refund claim of Rs. 41.35 crores was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner as barred by limitation, being filed six months after the bank guarantee was encashed. However, the Tribunal found the claim not barred by limitation but rather premature.
Issue 5: The Tribunal emphasized that provisional assessments were not finalized, as the goods were assessed provisionally for multiple reasons, and the enforcement of bank guarantees did not equate to finalization of assessment. The premature recovery of the amount was deemed hasty and not in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal of the refund claim and directed the department to refund the amount promptly, highlighting the need for adherence to procedural requirements and the principle of provisional assessment until all conditions are met.
-
2000 (10) TMI 85
Issues:
Eligibility of air-conditioner parts for duty exemption under entry 11 of Notification 56/95; Interpretation of parts and assemblies for split air-conditioning machines; Allegations of collusion in manufacturing complete split machines.
Eligibility for Duty Exemption:
The appeal dealt with the eligibility of parts of air-conditioners for duty exemption under entry 11 of Notification 56/95. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding that the goods manufactured by the appellant, claimed for exemption, constituted an entire unit of split air-conditioning machine, thus denying the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner relied on a Board's clarification stating that indoor unit is not a part of a refrigerating machine. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this view, highlighting that the definition of a part should not be strictly limited to engineering terms. Applying a strict definition would render the notification redundant for various goods falling under specific headings, as per the Harmonised System of Nomenclature. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification aims to exempt not only parts in the engineering sense but also assemblies of such parts, thereby allowing the exemption for the goods in question.
Interpretation of Parts and Assemblies:
The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's reliance on the Board's circular for defining parts, emphasizing that the common understanding of a part should not be limited to strict engineering definitions. The Tribunal provided examples of various goods falling under specific headings that are assemblies of parts, which would be denied exemption if a strict definition were applied. By referencing the Explanatory Notes of the Harmonised System of Nomenclature, the Tribunal highlighted that the notification aims to exempt both parts and assemblies of air-conditioning machines, not just individual parts in the engineering sense. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order was unjustified due to the incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a part entitled to exemption under the notification.
Allegations of Collusion:
The Commissioner (Appeals) alleged collusion between the appellant and another manufacturer to produce complete split machines, despite no evidence in the show cause notice indicating the appellant's direct involvement in manufacturing complete split machines. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have limited the decision to the scope of the notice and failed to establish the appellant's direct involvement in manufacturing complete split machines. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order based on the lack of evidence supporting the collusion allegations and the incorrect interpretation of parts for duty exemption.
-
2000 (10) TMI 84
Issues:
1. Appeal against dropping proceedings for payment of Central Excise duty or reversing Modvat credit on cement.
2. Whether concrete cubes manufactured along with sleepers are excisable goods.
3. Liability to pay duty on concrete cubes or reverse Modvat credit.
4. Applicability of Rule 57D of Central Excise Rules on Modvat credit denial.
5. Marketability and manufacturing tests for levy of excise duty.
6. Claiming Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing dutiable goods.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against dropping proceedings for payment of Central Excise duty or reversing Modvat credit on cement, challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order-in-original.
2. The respondents manufactured concrete sleepers and availed Modvat credit on inputs. Show cause notices were issued for non-payment of duty on cement cubes used in manufacturing sleepers. The Assistant Commissioner dropped proceedings, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The Revenue contended that concrete cubes are excisable goods and duty should be paid. Alternatively, they argued for reversing Modvat credit if cubes are not marketable. Respondents argued that cubes are not marketable, hence not dutiable, and Modvat credit cannot be denied under Rule 57D.
4. The Tribunal found that while cubes were manufactured, they lacked marketability, making them non-excisable. However, the respondents were obligated to reverse Modvat credit on inputs used for cubes as they were not dutiable goods.
5. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 57D does not apply as cubes were distinct goods from sleepers, used for strength testing. The expenditure on cubes was included in sleeper prices, justifying denial of Modvat credit.
6. Citing Chandrapur Magnet Wires case, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit can only be claimed on inputs used for dutiable goods, not non-dutiable ones. Thus, the respondents were directed to reverse the Modvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing concrete cubes, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, legal interpretations, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.
-
2000 (10) TMI 83
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai decided that garlic is classified under heading 071290.04, not subject to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The decision was based on a previous judgment and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
2000 (10) TMI 82
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai waived the penalty of Rs. 5,000 each imposed on M/s. Eagle Shipping Agency and its partner Prakash Palan under Section 114 of the Act. The penalty was imposed due to one consignment containing anti-weapons instead of declared castings for door handles. The Tribunal found no evidence that the Custom House Agent knew or had reason to believe the true contents of the consignment, so penalties were waived and their recovery stayed.
....
|
9911796707
