|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 491 Records
-
2006 (6) TMI 57
The issue was whether installing duty paid components of security systems at a customer's site constitutes manufacturing of an excisable product. The Tribunal ruled that systems created at the customer's site are not excisable goods, based on previous decisions and Board's order. The lower authority's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2006 (6) TMI 56
EXIM Respondents imported capital goods under EPGG scheme but cant able to fulfill the export obligation in last two years As per boards circular allowing payment of duty and interest in respect of unfulfilled portion of export obligation.
-
2006 (6) TMI 55
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Customs duty demand against M/s. Connectronics & Cables Pvt. Ltd.
2. Imposition of personal penalties on individuals.
3. Revenue's appeal against the dropping of duty demand in Chart "D".
4. Validity of evidence used for undervaluation claims.
5. Re-examination of duty demand in Chart "D".
6. Quantum of penalties based on the outcome of de novo proceedings.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Confirmation of Customs duty demand against M/s. Connectronics & Cables Pvt. Ltd.:
The Commissioner confirmed a Customs duty demand of Rs. 34,32,122/- against M/s. Connectronics & Cables Pvt. Ltd., based on incriminating documents and statements obtained during searches. The documents included a statement of accounts from Mirtex Enterprises (HK) Ltd., Taiwan, showing discrepancies between the declared and actual prices of imported goods. The Tribunal upheld this confirmation, considering the statement of accounts as reliable evidence of undervaluation.
2. Imposition of personal penalties on individuals:
Personal penalties were imposed on Shri Vinod Kumar Chawla (Rs. 75 lakhs) and Shri Asheesh Chawla (Rs. 50 lakhs) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The penalties were based on their involvement in the undervaluation scheme, as evidenced by their statements and the seized documents. The Tribunal did not finalize the quantum of penalties, leaving it open for re-quantification based on the outcome of the de novo proceedings.
3. Revenue's appeal against the dropping of duty demand in Chart "D":
The Commissioner dropped the duty demand of Rs. 1,31,46,082/- in Chart "D" due to a lack of specific evidence, such as quotations or statements of accounts proving undervaluation. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the goods in Chart "D" were identical to those in Charts "A" and "B". The Tribunal remanded this issue to the Commissioner for re-examination, directing the application of the same values if the goods were indeed identical.
4. Validity of evidence used for undervaluation claims:
The Tribunal addressed the appellants' contention that the evidence (fax messages and quotations) could not be the sole basis for undervaluation claims. However, it upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the statement of accounts and the appellants' admissions provided substantial evidence of undervaluation. The Tribunal emphasized that the destruction of correspondence by the appellants indicated deliberate undervaluation.
5. Re-examination of duty demand in Chart "D":
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-examine the duty demand in Chart "D" afresh, considering the possibility of applying the same values as in Charts "A" and "B" if the goods were identical. This re-examination was necessary due to the absence of detailed descriptions of the goods in the original charts.
6. Quantum of penalties based on the outcome of de novo proceedings:
The Tribunal left the issue of penalties open for the Commissioner to decide upon re-quantification based on the outcome of the de novo proceedings. The final quantum of penalties would depend on the results of the re-examination of the duty demand in Chart "D".
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 34,32,122/- and remanded the issue of the dropped demand of Rs. 1,31,46,082/- for re-examination. The quantum of penalties was left open for re-quantification based on the de novo proceedings. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
2006 (6) TMI 53
Cenvat / Modvat Credits availed in respect of manufacture of exempted goods reversed simultaneously and it also said no input credit had been availed It satisfied Notification No. 30/2004 C.E. and benefit received of it alongwith Notification No. 29/2004.
-
2006 (6) TMI 52
Issues: Appeal against surrender of registration certificate and recovery of pending duty demand.
Analysis:
1. Surrender of Registration Certificate:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the surrender of a registration certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no provision under the Central Excise Act restricting an assessee from surrendering the certificate when ceasing goods' manufacture. The Revenue contended that the surrender is subject to statutory obligations, including payment of all dues to the government. However, as the respondent had stopped production and surrendered the certificate, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no fault in rejecting the surrender. The Tribunal agreed that any pending dues could be recovered under the Central Excise Act/rules, dismissing the appeal.
2. Recovery of Pending Duty Demand:
The Revenue argued that the order by the lower authority was not appealable, challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on recovery of pending duty demand. The Revenue claimed that the recovery could be made after compliance with statutory obligations, including duty on finished excisable goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there were no allegations of manufacturing excisable goods by the respondent, who surrendered the certificate due to halted production. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no issue with rejecting the surrender, as all dues, if any, could be recovered under the law. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that the Revenue could recover any dues under the existing provisions, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
-
2006 (6) TMI 51
Central Excise Confiscation Trucks drivers transporting the M.S. ingots stating that goods were loaded from the factory of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd But the documents produced for these goods were the bills of another Goods transported without payment of duty Redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys P Ltd
-
2006 (6) TMI 50
Issues Involved:
Appeal against demands on bought out items like nuts and bolts used in the erection of towers.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from an Order confirming demands on bought out items like nuts and bolts used in the erection of towers. The appellants sought a decision on the merits of the case. The bench sought assistance from a consultant, Shri Venkatesh, who cited relevant judgments in favor of the assessee. He referred to a judgment in the case of Supercold Refrigeration Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin, where it was held that the value of bought out items need not be added to the goods received from the factory if they are used along with other equipment for manufacturing goods. Additionally, reliance was placed on judgments in the cases of Silson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane, and Emerson Network Power India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai, supporting the same principle.
The Learned JCDR conceded the position and presented a ruling of the Tribunal in the case of BHEL Vs. CCE, Meerut, which also supported the view that duty cannot be levied on bought out items when duty-paid goods are removed to the site along with bought out finished/installable goods procured from the market. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the order confirming demands on bought out items was incorrect in light of the judgments cited. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not legal and proper. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order confirming demands on bought out items and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief deemed necessary.
The operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing, where the Tribunal provided relief to the appellants by setting aside the order confirming demands on bought out items like nuts and bolts used in the erection of towers.
-
2006 (6) TMI 49
Service Tax Clearing and forwarding agent Penalty u/s 80 of Finance Act, 1994 waived as appellant had given detailed reason in respect of delay in payment of service tax and return because of peak season due to deepawali and other festivals Penalty u/s 76 ibid upheld as appellant had not given any substantial cause for delay
-
2006 (6) TMI 48
Issues: Eligibility of excise duty on scrap of glass bottles and scrap of crown corks cleared by the appellants from May 26, 1999, to January 2004.
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal in Bangalore considered the issue of excise duty on scrap items in light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner Vs. Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. The appellants argued that scrap items are not dutiable as no manufacturing process occurs. However, the Revenue demanded duty on the scrap items, leading to the rejection of the appellants' plea and confirmation of the demands.
In a similar case, the Commissioner had granted relief to Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd., which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal applied the ratio of its order in the case of Charminar Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad. Despite the Revenue's appeal, the Apex Court dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.
Given the favorable judgments in the assessee's favor and the precedents set by the Apex Court and the Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal deemed the impugned order as not legal and proper. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals along with the stay applications were allowed. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court.
-
2006 (6) TMI 47
Issues:
1. Addition of 2% service charges in the assessable value for captive consumption.
2. Interpretation of Valuation Rules, 1975 regarding related persons and additional charges.
Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the issue of adding 2% service charges by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., the sole distributor, in the assessable value for captive consumption. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellants were not related persons with M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. during the period of dispute, as confirmed by a Chartered Accountants certificate. The department did not claim that the sales to M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. were to a related person. Relying on a tribunal decision, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower authority's order.
2. The Revenue contested the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the absence of flow back in transactions between M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and the assessee, and the lack of recovery of additional consideration. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision on related persons was not relevant, as comparable prices for the same goods were available at the factory gate. The Revenue contended that the Electrodes were captively consumed by both the assessee and M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., and thus, the 2% service charge should be added according to Rule 6(b) (i) of Valuation Rules, 1975.
3. The tribunal noted that if no 2% charge was collected for the Electrodes captively consumed by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and the assessee, it could not be added. Additionally, the tribunal recognized that the class of buyers for electrodes consumed by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and those sold by the assessee as a distributor/dealer could differ, affecting prices under the Valuation Rules. Consequently, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal to overturn the Commissioner's order.
4. The tribunal ultimately rejected the appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee.
-
2006 (6) TMI 46
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rule.
2. Liability of respondents to pay 8% of price of exempted goods.
3. Reversal of Modvat credit as per CBEC Circular dated 16.10.2001.
4. Applicability of Circular on recovery of credit taken incorrectly.
5. Judicial precedents regarding recovery of 8% of price of final product under Rule 57CC.
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner had relied on a Board's Circular dated 16.10.2001 and a Tribunal's decision in a previous case to rule that recovery of 8% of the price of impugned goods could not be made, but the respondent had to reverse Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing the goods. The Revenue contended that under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rule, the respondents were liable to pay 8% of the price of exempted goods as they were manufacturing and clearing goods both on duty payment and under exemption notification.
The respondents argued that as per the Board's Circular, they were only required to reverse the credit, and the impugned order was in accordance with Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant needed to reverse Modvat credit only to the extent of duty involved on inputs used in manufacturing machines cleared free of duty. The Tribunal, citing various judgments, including Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd. and M/s. SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant, held that recovery of 8% of the price of the final product could not be claimed from the assessee under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules as there was no provision for such recovery under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
The Revenue did not deny the existence of the Circular in the Grounds of Appeal, and no contrary instructions were cited. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order as it was passed in view of the Circular issued by the Board. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the order was dictated and pronounced in open court on 27.6.2006.
-
2006 (6) TMI 44
Central Excise Manifolds Manifolds (Structures) manufactured from iron and brass items, used as stand for gas cylinders which are mounted on chassis of motor vehicle (2) Classification and Valuation (3) Exemption under Notification No. 5/92-CE (4) Demand (5) Natural justice (6) Limitation
-
2006 (6) TMI 43
Customs Recovery of drawback DRI officers are the notified customs officers and can issue show cause notice. Further, in terms of section 5(2) the commissioner can exercise the powers of any other officer subordinate to him. Therefore, the commissioner can adjudicate a case where SCN was issued answerable to addl. Commissioner.
-
2006 (6) TMI 42
Customs Enhancement in transaction value on the basis of photocopies of the documents received from foreign Customs Authorities. These documents do not bear the signature or seal of any authorities. Appellants had submitted enormous evidence to show that value of the similar goods is the same price. Transaction value is to be accepted
-
2006 (6) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Whether amounts equivalent to Basic Customs Duty (BCD) debited in DEPE license should be taken into account for the levy of education cess under Section 84 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004.
Analysis:
The appeals filed by the Department challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the levy of education cess on imported goods. The Department sought to levy the cess at a rate of 2% on the aggregate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Additional Customs Duty (CVD) debited in the DEPB scrips. However, the assessee contended that the debits of BCD and CVD in the DEPB license were not considered a 'levy of the duties,' thus the cess was not applicable. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that education cess was not leviable on amounts debited in DEPB scrips due to full exemption from payment of BCD and CVD. The Tribunal found that Notification No. 96/04-Cus. was similar to the previous notification granting full exemption from these duties. As the imported goods were exempt from these duties, it was concluded that the duties were not 'leviable and recoverable' for the purpose of education cess under Section 84 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. Therefore, the impugned orders were sustained, and the appeals were dismissed.
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the levy of education cess on imported goods where BCD and CVD were debited in DEPB scrips. It establishes that if goods are exempt from these duties, the education cess may not be applicable on the amounts debited in the DEPB license. The decision provides consistency in applying the law across similar notifications and schemes, ensuring that duties exempted from payment are not considered for the purpose of education cess levy.
-
2006 (6) TMI 40
Central Excise Assessable value Advertisement expenses - When advertisement expenses incurred by dealers and there was not any legal enforceable written agreement for reimbursement of advertisement expenses by the appellant, such expenses not to be added to the account of appellant
-
2006 (6) TMI 39
Central Excise Assessable value Textiles fabrics No evidence on record to show that buyers (authorised dealers) were under legal obligation to incur advertisement and sales promotion expenses Not includible in assessable value of fabrics
-
2006 (6) TMI 38
Issues:
1. Discrepancy in Balance Sheet and RG1 Register figures leading to alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty.
Analysis:
The appeal stemmed from an Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner concluded that a mere difference in stock figures between the Balance Sheet and RG1 Register does not automatically imply clandestine activities. The Commissioner highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the claim of intentional evasion of duty or clandestine clearances. The Tribunal referenced previous cases to emphasize that discrepancies in financial records alone are insufficient to establish clandestine removal. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue to provide affirmative evidence, which was found lacking in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence to support allegations of clandestine activities.
The JCDR argued that any discrepancy between the Balance Sheet and RG1 Register indicates clandestine activities, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee. However, the Consultant contended that the Revenue must demonstrate the entire process of production, sale, and fund flow to substantiate claims of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The Consultant supported the Commissioner's decision, highlighting the absence of evidence from the Revenue to prove clandestine activities during the relevant period. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence, such as proof of input purchase, production process, and goods clearance, to establish clandestine activities.
The Tribunal carefully analyzed the case, emphasizing that discrepancies in production figures on the Balance Sheet do not automatically imply evasion of duty. It stressed the importance of thorough investigation and evidence to substantiate claims of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence, such as statements from factory personnel or transporters, to support the Revenue's allegations. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to dismiss the proceedings, citing the need for concrete evidence to establish clandestine activities.
-
2006 (6) TMI 37
The Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai upheld the decision rejecting the appellants' claim for deduction on cheque printing paper, ruling that the discount paid to Himalaya Paper Co. cannot be claimed as a trade discount as it was not known to the actual customer, State Bank of India. The deduction was denied as the discount was not known at the time of clearance of the goods.
-
2006 (6) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Allegation of clandestine removal of goods and valuation of goods.
2. Contention regarding duty payment based on Cost Construction Method and Valuation Rules.
3. Comparison with a similar case of a competitor industry.
4. Escalation charges and assessable value.
5. Application of judgments from previous cases.
Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from an Order-in-Original confirming demands and penalties due to alleged clandestine removal of goods and disputed valuation. The evidence of clandestine removal was based on discrepancies between RG1 Register and Balance Sheet figures. The appellant argued that duty was paid on ex-factory price determined by Cost Construction Method and Valuation Rules, supported by Chartered Accountant certificates. They contended that escalation charges were not solely for manufacturing PSC pipes and should not be included in the value. The Commissioner rejected these arguments, upholding the charges and penalties.
2. The appellant highlighted that a competitor industry faced similar allegations of clandestine removal and valuation issues, referencing a previous case where the Tribunal disagreed with the exclusion of escalation charges from assessable value. The appellant sought the same treatment based on the previous judgment, emphasizing that all details were disclosed to the Department, negating any suppression of facts. The learned Counsel urged for the benefit of the earlier order to be extended to their case.
3. The JCDR supported adding escalation charges to the assessable value and suggested a remand for reconsideration on cum duty treatment, valuation, time bar, and penalty. Referring to the previous case involving the competitor industry, it was argued that demands based solely on Balance Sheet figures for clandestine removal were set aside by the Tribunal.
4. After reviewing the judgments from the previous case involving the competitor industry, the Tribunal found that demands linked to clandestine removal solely on Balance Sheet figures were overturned. However, the inclusion of escalation charges was upheld. The issues related to cum duty treatment, valuation, time bar, and penalty were remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, with instructions to follow relevant judgments and grant benefits as per law. The Commissioner was directed to resolve the matter within four months.
This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of clandestine removal, valuation, application of previous judgments, and the remand for further consideration, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.
....
|
9911796707
