|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 497 Records
-
2005 (6) TMI 132
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai rejected the appeal by the Revenue regarding valuation rules applied to an EOU clearing goods to a DTA unit. The Tribunal found no evidence or details of market enquiry in the show cause notice, and upheld the CCE(A) order rejecting the appeal. The Tribunal stated that market price in India is not relevant for valuation under the Central Excise Act, and rejected the differential demands made based on assessable values of comparable goods. Appeal was rejected.
-
2005 (6) TMI 131
Issues:
1. Encashment of bank guarantee by the Revenue without fulfilling export obligation.
2. Refund claim rejected on grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment.
3. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
Analysis:
1. The appellants imported raw materials against advance licenses free of duty under Notification No. 128/94-Cus. They executed a bond with a bank guarantee. Despite informing the Revenue about pending extension of the export period, the bank guarantee was encashed prematurely. The DGFT later allowed clubbing of licenses, confirming export obligation fulfillment. The appellants requested a refund, leading to a show cause notice citing time bar and unjust enrichment.
2. The Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the appellants, directing the refund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, citing time limitation and unjust enrichment. The appellate authority found the Revenue rushed in encashing the bank guarantee, especially when informed by both appellants and DGFT about the pending export certificate. The bank guarantee was a security measure, not a payment of duty. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal held that the encashed amount should be refunded to the appellants as it was not a duty demand but a security measure.
3. The Tribunal referred to the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Union of India v. Grasim Industries Ltd., emphasizing that furnishing a bank guarantee does not equate to paying excise duty, hence Section 11B provisions do not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellants.
-
2005 (6) TMI 130
Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit on M.S. Plates
2. Dispute over Modvat credit on Asbestos Yarn Packing and CF Structures
Analysis:
Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat credit on M.S. Plates
The assessee, engaged in sugar manufacturing, challenged the disallowance of Modvat credit on M.S. Plates. The Tribunal found that the plates were used for maintaining machines and machinery parts, making them eligible for credit. The Tribunal cited precedents like Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd. and Global Sugar Ltd., where similar credits were allowed. The Tribunal upheld the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order disallowing the credit.
Issue 2: Dispute over Modvat credit on Asbestos Yarn Packing and CF Structures
Regarding the disputed Modvat credit on Asbestos Yarn Packing and CF Structures, the Tribunal found the impugned order well-founded. Citing the case of KCP Sugar & Indus. Ltd., which held asbestos packing as eligible capital goods for credit, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the credit on these items. Additionally, the Tribunal supported the Commissioner's decision to allow credit on CF structures, as it was used in the factory and had been previously accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Modvat credit for both Asbestos Yarn Packing and CF Structures.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee related to M.S. Plates while dismissing the Revenue's appeal concerning Asbestos Yarn Packing and CF Structures. The judgments were based on the eligibility of the items for Modvat credit as established by precedents and their use in the manufacturing process.
-
2005 (6) TMI 129
Issues:
Appeal against order of CCE (A) on assessment of "Sugar free Tablets & granules" under Section 4A of Central Excise Act for clearance of samples. Interpretation of legal requirement for MRP declaration on goods declared as samples. Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. Compliance with Board's Circular No. 625/16/2002-CX. Interpretation of Rules on MRP declaration under Standards of Weight and Measures (Package) Commodities Rules, 1977. Assessment under Section 4 vs. Section 4A of Central Excise Act.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CCE (A) regarding the assessment of "Sugar free Tablets & granules" under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for clearance of samples during April 2001. The CCE (A) set aside the order of the lower authority, stating that the MRP declaration on the product was not a legal requirement as the goods were declared as samples, not for sale. The matter was further examined, revealing discrepancies in the MRP declarations on the goods meant for sale compared to the samples provided. The Revenue contended that Section 4A would be applicable if there was a statutory requirement under the Weights & Measures Act to declare retail sale price on the package, which was not the case for goods in dispute. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CCE (A) orders, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
2. The respondent's advocate relied on Rule 3 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Package) Commodities Rules, 1977, which states that MRP declaration is mandatory for packages intended for retail. It was argued that since no MRP was printed on the free samples, the exemption under Rule 3 applied, and assessments under Section 4A were not warranted. The Tribunal, after reviewing the rules and Board's instructions, concluded that the absence of MRP on the free samples justified the application of Section 4 for value determination and ad valorem duty payment, as no objection from the State Government authorities regarding MRP printing was raised. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CCE (A) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of legal requirements for MRP declaration on goods declared as samples, the applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the compliance with relevant circulars and rules governing MRP declarations. The distinction between assessments under Section 4 and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was crucial in determining the proper assessment method for the goods in question. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault in the CCE (A) orders and rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory requirements and established procedures in excise assessments.
-
2005 (6) TMI 127
Issues:
Challenge against demand of duty based on denial of SSI exemption due to use of brand name registered by another party; Contesting demand on grounds of different products usage and limitation period.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges a duty demand due to denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The denial was based on the appellant using a brand name registered by another party on Dish Antenna, leading to ineligibility for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the textile company owning the brand was not entitled to the exemption, affirming the denial.
2. The appellants contested the demand on two grounds. Firstly, they argued that since the textile company used the brand on different products, para 7 of the Notification shouldn't apply to them using it on Dish Antenna. Secondly, they claimed the demand was time-barred. The appellant cited case law and a Board's Circular, while the DR supported the adjudicating authority's findings and cited Supreme Court decisions.
3. After considering submissions, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's case. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, it clarified that a small-scale manufacturer using another's brand name not entitled to SSI benefit is ineligible for exemption, regardless of the goods' similarity. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments and upheld the denial of exemption.
4. A portion of the demand was based on value addition, including erection and commissioning charges. The Tribunal ruled this addition was against apex court precedent, leading to the rejection of this part of the demand.
5. Regarding the limitation issue, the appellant argued that the extended period was wrongly invoked due to non-disclosure of brand name usage. Citing a Tribunal decision upheld by the apex court, the appellant claimed a bona fide belief in entitlement to SSI exemption despite brand name use. The Tribunal analyzed the allegations in the show cause notice and concluded that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, rendering the demand time-barred and penalty unsustainable.
6. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand as time-barred, vacating the penalty accordingly. The appeal was allowed, and no penalty was upheld against the appellants.
-
2005 (6) TMI 125
Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original, confiscation of car, imposition of penalty, release of car, disposal of car, duty liability, refund of pre-deposit, failure to inform appellant, legal lapses, mala fide actions.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order-in-original dated 12-10-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. The appellant attempted to clear a car by manipulating documents for benefits, leading to confiscation and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered redemption of the car on payment of a fine and reduced personal penalty. However, the car was disposed of without informing the appellant, prompting a writ petition. The High Court directed reconsideration, resulting in the impugned order stating the duty liability and denying any refund to the appellant. The appellant challenged this decision vehemently.
The appellant's advocate argued that the Commissioner should have implemented the order allowing redemption of the car, as it had become final. The department's disposal of the car during the appeal proceedings was deemed inappropriate, and the appellant was entitled to the car's value plus interest. Additionally, the appellant should not be liable for duty if the car was not released. The advocate highlighted the failure to refund the pre-deposit and the lack of notice regarding the car's disposal, indicating mala fide intentions on the part of the department.
The Tribunal emphasized that orders by lower authorities are not final, with provisions for appeals. The Commissioner's understanding that confiscation was lawful despite the Commissioner (Appeals) order was criticized. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the department's actions were irresponsible and subversive of the judicial system. The appellant was deemed entitled to the full value of the car, with no duty or penalty chargeable due to the car's disappearance. The penalty deposit was to be refunded, following the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and ordering payment of the car's full value with interest. The refund of the penalty deposit was also directed. The decision highlighted the department's failure to follow legal procedures and the appellant's entitlement to fair treatment in the appeal process.
-
2005 (6) TMI 124
Issues:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods based on contemporaneous invoice.
2. Reliability of declared value supported by manufacturer's invoice.
3. Application of legal precedent in determining the declared value of imported goods.
Issue 1: Undervaluation of imported goods based on contemporaneous invoice
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against a decision regarding the valuation of imported Synthetic Camphor Powder. The Department contended that the goods were undervalued based on a contemporaneous invoice showing a higher value than the one declared by the importer. The Department proposed to enhance the value of the goods and demand differential duty. However, the Commissioner of Customs dropped the proposal, stating that the declared value was supported by a manufacturer's invoice and there was no reason to doubt its genuineness.
Issue 2: Reliability of declared value supported by manufacturer's invoice
The Tribunal examined the case and found that the only ground for appeal was the contemporaneous invoice dated 7-1996. The importer's counsel relied on a previous Tribunal decision where the value declared by the importer was accepted based on the manufacturer's invoices produced. In this case, the declared value was based on a Hong Kong party's invoice initially, with the Chinese manufacturer's invoice produced later. The Commissioner determined that both invoices pertained to the imported goods, and there was no basis to question the declared value. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of the manufacturer's invoice as the best evidence of value.
Issue 3: Application of legal precedent in determining declared value
The Tribunal referenced the previous case law where the Tribunal accepted the declared value based on manufacturer's invoices. It was highlighted that in situations where the declared value is supported by invoices related to the imported goods, the Department cannot challenge the value solely based on a contemporaneous invoice without further investigation. Following the legal precedent and the Commissioner's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the importance of genuine documentation in determining the value of imported goods.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the significance of genuine documentation, specifically manufacturer's invoices, in determining the declared value of imported goods and highlighting the importance of legal precedent in such valuation disputes.
-
2005 (6) TMI 121
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled that converting Vat dyes into Vat Paste does not result in a fresh levy under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal citing reasons such as the demands being prior to a specific order and subsequent clarifications from the Board. The decision was influenced by a Bombay High Court case stating that such conversion does not amount to manufacture.
-
2005 (6) TMI 117
Issues:
1. Availment of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods.
2. Interpretation of Rule 57AB and Rule 57AG of Cenvat Credit Rules.
3. Applicability of Board Circular dated 29-8-2000.
4. Interpretation of Rule 57AC of Cenvat Credit Rules.
5. Classification of goods as spares or capital goods for credit purposes.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant availed Modvat credit for capital goods in April 2000, leading to a show cause notice citing Rule 57AB of Cenvat Credit Rules, allowing credit for 50% duty in a financial year and the remaining 50% in the subsequent year.
Issue 2: The appellant contended that Rule 57AG applied as the goods were received in March 2000, and they relied on a Board Circular clarifying credit for goods received and installed before April 1, 2000. The Revenue argued the circular did not apply as goods were not installed by that date.
Issue 3: The Board Circular dated 29-8-2000 allowed credit for goods received and installed before April 1, 2000. However, the appellant failed to install the goods by that date, rendering the circular inapplicable as admitted by the appellant.
Issue 4: Rule 57AC of Cenvat Credit Rules limited credit to 50% of duty in the same financial year for capital goods, with the balance available in subsequent years if the goods were in possession and use. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that spares were not covered, as the rules did not distinguish between machines and parts.
Issue 5: The Tribunal distinguished a previous case involving capital goods imported under a different scheme, emphasizing that in the present case, credit was taken in the same financial year as receipt of goods. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to 50% credit for the year of receipt, with the option to claim the remaining 50% in accordance with the law in subsequent years.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the entitlement to 50% credit in the year of receipt of capital goods, with the option to claim the remaining 50% in compliance with the law.
-
2005 (6) TMI 115
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal related to denial of Modvat credit to the appellants. The credit was disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of a dealer takeover issue, but the Tribunal found this ground legally untenable. The appellants received goods with duty paid valid invoices from a registered dealer, and their use of the goods was undisputed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
2005 (6) TMI 114
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal of a Customs House Agent (CHA) whose licence was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order was not entirely justified as the individuals working on behalf of the CHA were considered employees, and the acts mentioned were not directly related to the clearance of goods. The Tribunal set aside the suspension order but allowed the Commissioner to proceed under appropriate regulations.
-
2005 (6) TMI 113
Issues:
1. Applicability of Rule 57CC for recovery of dues.
2. Imposition of penalty for irregular availment of Modvat credit.
Analysis:
The case involves the appellants, computer manufacturers, who removed exempted computers to certain customers without payment of duty in March 1998 under Notification No. 10/97-C.E. The department objected to this and sought recovery under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeal challenges this demand under Rule 57CC.
Upon hearing both sides, it was argued that the demand cannot be enforced due to the absence of a recovery mechanism in the Central Excise law. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) pointed out that there is a recovery mechanism under Rule 57CC as retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2005. An "explanation" was added to Rule 57CC with retrospective effect, covering the period from 1-3-1997 to 31-3-2000, allowing for recovery of dues under the said Rule. Thus, the demand under Rule 57CC for the month of March 1998 was deemed enforceable.
The appellant's counsel contended that no penalty should be imposed since there was no statutory recovery mechanism for Rule 57CC dues before the Finance Act, 2005. However, the argument was dismissed as Parliament, by inserting the "explanation" to Rule 57CC, did not intend to exempt parties from penal liability. The irregular availment of Modvat credit was not disputed, and penal provisions for this were pre-existing, leading to the affirmation of the penalty.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the demand under Rule 57CC and the imposition of the penalty for irregular availment of Modvat credit.
-
2005 (6) TMI 111
Issues:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to refund claims consequential to finalization of provisional assessments.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Application of Supreme Court judgments in CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. and CCE, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. to the present case.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to refund claims that are a result of finalization of provisional assessments. The Tribunal examined whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the subject refund claims, which were filed after finalization of provisional assessments. The Tribunal concluded that since the refund claims were consequential to the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and were adjustments of duty under Rule 9B, the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to these claims. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Allied Photographics and T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. to support its decision.
2. The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It noted that the refund claims in question fell under the category of "claims for refund arising on adjustment of duty under Rule 9B(5)." The Tribunal emphasized that the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) finalizing the provisional assessments as proposed in the notices invoked Rule 9B. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the subject refund claims were not affected by Section 11B and were exempt from the bar of unjust enrichment as per the Apex Court's rulings.
3. The Tribunal also addressed the application of the Supreme Court judgments in CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. and CCE, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. to the present case. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides regarding the retrospective effect of an amendment to Rule 9B(5) and the relevant date for applying the rule. It concluded that the amended provisions of Rule 9B(5) did not have a retrospective effect and were not applicable to the specific notice issued after the date of the amendment. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant period for the application of Rule 9B was the clearance period of excisable goods, which determined the applicability of the rule to provisional and final assessments.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claims based on unjust enrichment and allowed all the appeals in favor of the appellants.
-
2005 (6) TMI 110
Issues: Valuation of Aluminium scrap, duty payment, challenge to strip valuation, limitation period for notice issuance
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the appellants contested the valuation adopted by the lower authority and duties confirmed on Aluminium scrap removed by them on payment of duty to a job worker who converts it into strips, which are then received back by the appellants on payment of duty. The notice issued considered the value of Aluminium strip per kg received by the appellants from the job worker, reduced by the job charges and less the scrap value, establishing the differences as undervalued scrap dispatched. The Tribunal noted that there was no mens rea to misdeclare on the part of the appellants, as they could have sent the scrap to a job worker without payment of duty and received back strips without payment of any duty, leading to a situation where less duty was paid. The Tribunal found no revenue loss in this exercise and highlighted that the undervalued scrap should have caused a challenge to strip valuation at the job worker's end. The Tribunal also mentioned a previous notice issued to the appellants on the same basis, which was dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the current demand and notice being barred by limitation due to the facts being within the knowledge of the department and no suppression or intent to evade being present.
The Tribunal further discussed the application of the formula of a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Fabrics Processors & Ujjagar Prints to determine the value and directed that the demand should be on the job worker if the sale from the job worker to the appellant is not impugned and is on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal found no merits in upholding the orders of the lower authority and, based on the findings, set aside the order and allowed the appeal. The judgment was pronounced in court by the Tribunal.
-
2005 (6) TMI 109
Issues: Valuation of excisable goods cleared as per approved tenders; Reopening of assessments for the period of June 2000 to September 2003; Invocation of proviso to Rule 9 read with Costing Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue at hand involves the valuation of excisable goods cleared as per approved tenders, with a focus on reopening assessments for the period spanning from June 2000 to September 2003 and the invocation of the proviso to Rule 9 in conjunction with Costing Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal noted that the appellants presented evidence through charts demonstrating that clearances were made at values both higher and lower than those envisaged by the Rule 9 and Rule 8 formula. However, the Commissioner failed to consider this plea, leading to a conclusion that there was no deliberate attempt to evade tax, thus making the bar of limitation available. Citing the Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore case, the Tribunal indicated that the provisions of rules may not be applicable, and values as per Section 4(1) should be accepted. Moreover, if the Rule 9 and Rule 8 formula is deemed applicable, it must be uniformly applied to all removals under question, with adjustments for excess or short payments of duty to determine any overall demand, given that all assessments for the period are being reopened by the notice.
Furthermore, the Tribunal, after waiving the pre-deposit, set aside the order and allowed the appeal for remand to redetermine the issues. It was emphasized that all issues are to be kept open for both sides, ensuring a comprehensive review of the matter. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed for remand, signifying a significant decision in the context of the valuation and assessment procedures concerning excisable goods and the application of relevant rules and provisions in the given timeframe.
-
2005 (6) TMI 108
Redemption fine - confiscation of the vehicle - clandestine removal of yarn - Quantum of - Penalty - HELD THAT:- There is a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- on M/s. SSKT under Rule 209A. Under this provision of law, a penalty could be imposed on a person who acquired possession of, or otherwise physically dealt with, any excisable goods which, according to his belief or knowledge, was liable to confiscation. The above penalty is in relation to confiscation of the cotton yarn, the goods was seized while in transit. The department has no case that M/s. SSKT had physically dealt with the goods in any manner whatsoever. Hence Rule 209A was not invocable against them. Appeal No. E/911/2004 is allowed. In the result, penalty on the appellant stands vacated.
A redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed in lieu of confiscation of the tempo. It has been argued by ld. Consultant that neither the driver nor the owner of the tempo had any knowledge of the fact that goods liable to confiscation were being transported by the vehicle. It has been pointed out that the original authority recorded a finding that the driver had no knowledge of the said fact. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the owner of the vehicle was knowing that it was being used for transporting goods which were liable to confiscation. The mandatory condition for confiscation of a vehicle u/s 115 of the Customs Act (made applicable to goods under the Central Excise Act) is that the owner of the vehicle, his agent, if any, and any person in charge of the vehicle (driver) should have the knowledge that the vehicle was being used for transportation of offending goods. This condition has not been satisfied in the instant case.
Consequently the redemption fine requires to be set aside. Appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 107
Issues:
1. Whether the process of converting lead ingots into anodes amounts to manufacture and if the product is marketable.
2. Whether a specific company was the manufacturer of the product.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was applicable for demanding duty.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing zinc using an electrolytic process involving lead anodes. The department alleged that the job workers were hired labor and the appellants were the real manufacturers of the lead anodes. The Tribunal held that no manufacture was involved in the process. The Supreme Court considered three issues, answering affirmatively to the process amounting to manufacture and marketability of the product. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for the third issue.
Issue 2:
The appellants argued that the job workers operated on a principal-to-principal basis, not as hired labor, citing relevant case law. The department contended that the appellants supplied raw materials and controlled the process, thus manufacturing the goods. The Tribunal examined the work order and rejected the department's argument, emphasizing the job workers' role as manufacturers supported by legal precedents.
Issue 3:
The department raised estoppel against the appellants, claiming they had paid duty on similar items in another unit. The Tribunal rejected this new ground, stating it was beyond the show cause notice's scope. The Tribunal emphasized the job workers' independent role in manufacturing the goods, distinguishing them from hired laborers, as per legal interpretations and factual evidence presented.
In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not the manufacturers of the goods in question and were not liable to pay duty. The demand for duty was set aside, and the penalty imposed was vacated, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.
*(Operative part of this order pronounced in open Court on 7-6-2005)*
-
2005 (6) TMI 106
Refund claim - extra duty deposit - Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The appellants have furnished enormous evidence to show that the extra duty deposit has not been passed on to the buyers of the goods. They have explained the reason for showing the amount in the accounts of the year 2000-01 as the amount receivable and not in the year 1995. They have explained that in the year 1995, when the imports were made and they were asked to pay extra duty deposit by the Customs, they were not very sure of getting back the money from the Customs. The fact is that the money is not payable was confirmed only in 2001. This is the reason for showing the duty as receivable in the accounts of 2000-01. In our view this explanation is acceptable. Moreover, the appellants have also demonstrated that the prices before import and subsequently remain the same.
In our view, sufficient evidence has been produced by the appellants to prove that they have not passed on the duty burden to their buyers. The Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1999 (3) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT] has rejected the Department's plea that refund of the amount pre-deposited for hearing of an appeal not to be released to the assessee unless it is established that he has not wrongly enriched himself by collecting duty from his customers.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (2) TMI 136 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that provisions of Section 11B can never be applicable to the deposit made under Section 35F. In our view, the ratio of these decisions is clearly applicable to the present case. Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2005 (6) TMI 105
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed against the denial of Modvat credit on goods used in the manufacture of capital goods for the final product Zinc. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants based on the definition of 'inputs' in Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
2005 (6) TMI 104
Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation on the hospital
2. Confiscation of medical equipment imported by the hospital
3. Imposition of penalties on the hospital and its secretary
4. Interpretation of conditions for duty-free import under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 7,24,808 on the hospital. The hospital was found to be charging fees from patients for various services, which the appellants argued did not violate the conditions of providing free treatment. However, the Tribunal held that the collection of fees for case paper and admission did not align with the requirement of providing free medical treatment, leading to a contravention of the conditions for duty-free import. The Tribunal ruled that the hospital was not entitled to import medical equipment duty-free.
2. The medical equipment imported by the hospital was confiscated under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. for violating the condition of providing free treatment to patients. The goods were allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,02,095. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to the hospital's failure to comply with the conditions of the notification.
3. Penalties amounting to Rs. 2,51,048 were imposed on the hospital and its secretary under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal acknowledged that the penalty imposed on the hospital was too high and reduced it to Rs. 50,000. However, the penalty on the secretary was set aside as there was no evidence to establish the elements of Section 112(a) against him.
4. The Tribunal carefully interpreted the conditions specified in the notification for duty-free import of medical equipment. It emphasized the requirement of providing free medical treatment to a certain percentage of patients, both indoor and outdoor, based on their income levels. The Tribunal's decision was based on the hospital's failure to meet these conditions, leading to the conclusion that duty-free import privileges were not applicable. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the hospital and fully allowed the appeal filed by the secretary, adjusting penalties and confirming duty demands accordingly.
....
|
9911796707
