|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 872 Records
-
2009 (4) TMI 603
Issues: Seizure and confiscation of rice bags meant for export due to quality concerns, waiver of pre-deposit during appeal, examination of rice samples by technical expert or laboratory
In this case, the Appellant's rice bags, intended for export, were seized and confiscated by revenue authorities for not meeting exportable quality standards. The Appellant argued that the oversight led to the containers not being filled with exportable quality rice, denying any deliberate attempt to export inferior goods. The Appellant requested the release of the seized goods due to their perishable nature and sought a waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal process. The Appellant's representative highlighted the lack of evidence of mala fide intentions on their part. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the authorities' decision to seize the goods. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had examined the rice but questioned the absence of details regarding the examination process by a technical expert or authentic laboratory in the records. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs to redeem the goods, emphasizing the need for proper examination of rice samples by a technical expert or laboratory for a definitive decision on the quality. The Tribunal, considering the perishable nature of the goods, waived the pre-deposit of penalty during the appeal but instructed the Appellant to make the deposit promptly and provide proof to the adjudicating authority for the release of the seized goods. The Tribunal instructed the Departmental Representative to ensure timely action on the release of goods based on the deposit made by the Appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of a thorough examination by technical experts or authentic laboratories in determining the quality of goods in such cases to ensure fair adjudication.
-
2009 (4) TMI 602
Issues: Restoration of dismissed appeals after non-compliance with stay orders.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the issue revolves around restoration applications filed by the appellant seeking to revive appeals that were dismissed due to non-compliance with stay orders dating back to 1983. The appellant failed to provide a directed bank guarantee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal had previously dismissed restoration applications in 1991, a decision upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court in subsequent legal challenges. The current restoration application, filed around November 2008, aimed to revive the appeals by now complying with the directed amounts. However, the respondent opposed the restoration, arguing that the appellant had exhausted all appellate channels and should not be allowed to revive the appeals after more than 25 years. The Tribunal noted that the High Court and the Supreme Court had not interfered with the dismissal of the appeals in 1992, and the appellant had not deposited the directed amount before filing the restoration application, as required by previous decisions.
Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a previous case, Tin Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, where it was established that restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance could be considered if there existed a reasonable cause. However, in the present case, the Tribunal found the period of four years from the dismissal of the appeal to be unreasonable, leading to the rejection of the restoration application. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the current restoration application, citing the appellant's failure to comply with previous directives and the existence of reasons for rejection upheld by higher courts. The decision underscores the importance of timely compliance with tribunal orders and the limitations on reviving appeals after prolonged periods of non-compliance.
-
2009 (4) TMI 601
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, consisting of Shri M. Veeraiyan, P.K. Das, JJ., heard a stay petition for the second time. The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing monofilament yarn and HDPE ropes. Investigations began with a consignment seizure on 27-3-98, leading to a show cause notice on 29-9-98. The Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) determined the sample as a green polyethylene plastic cord. A subsequent report on 14-3-2000 provided specific gravity data. The Tribunal had previously ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 7 lakh, later reduced to Rs. 5 lakh by the Delhi High Court. The final order demanded Rs. 58,83,002 as duty and imposed an equal penalty.
The consultant argued that the CRCL's revised opinion was inconsistent, and the subsequent show cause notices were time-barred. The appellant faced financial difficulty, supported by an affidavit from the company's director. The consultant cited a Delhi High Court case for financial hardship consideration. The Tribunal found the chemical examiner's report supporting the Department's view, and the limitation argument invalid. The financial hardship claim lacked evidence beyond the director's affidavit. The Tribunal considered the Revenue's interest, requiring a further deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 within 12 weeks. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty was waived, with recovery stayed until the appeal's resolution.
-
2009 (4) TMI 600
Issues:
1. Demand of interest under Section 11AA instead of Section 11AB.
2. Stay of recovery of interest and release of attached goods.
3. Power of Tribunal to grant stay and interim relief.
4. Liability to pay interest under Section 11AA.
5. Release of goods and early hearing of appeal.
Analysis:
1. The appellant sought relief for early hearing of the appeal and stay of recovery of interest under Section 11AA instead of Section 11AB. The contention was that interest under Section 11AA was ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) without a proposal in the original show cause notice. However, the Tribunal found it premature to decide the merits of the case at that stage.
2. The Department argued that failure to mention the correct law provisions in the show cause notice did not prevent them from demanding interest under Section 11AA. The Tribunal had previously concluded on the liability to pay interest during the appeal, and the appellant could not reopen the issue through a miscellaneous application. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no power of review for such orders.
3. The Tribunal discussed the power to grant stay as incidental to its appellate jurisdiction, citing various legal precedents. It highlighted the need to balance granting interim relief with statutory limitations and legal principles. The Delhi High Court's ruling emphasized the appellate authority's inherent power to grant interim relief.
4. The issue of liability to pay interest under Section 11AA due to non-reference in the show cause notice was addressed. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment, stating that the factual foundation for claiming interest was crucial, regardless of the correct procedure's mention. Mere failure to cite the correct law provision did not exempt the assessee from paying interest.
5. Regarding the release of attached goods, the Tribunal noted the delay in approaching for early hearing and seeking release. While granting early hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal rejected the relief for the release of goods and recovery of interest. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing on a specified date.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision balanced the legal arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the importance of following statutory provisions and legal principles while considering the issues of interest recovery, stay applications, and release of attached goods.
-
2009 (4) TMI 598
Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. and Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for exemption from Excise Duty in relation to goods required for setting up a mega power project.
Summary:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. and Notification No. 21/2002-Cus
The appellant contended that goods manufactured by them are entitled to total exemption from Excise Duty u/s Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. as the goods required for setting up a mega power project are exempted from Customs Duty u/s Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. However, the authority insisted on compliance with condition No. 86 under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Tribunal noted that the exemption from Customs Duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for goods for a mega power project is subject to condition No. 86. The Tribunal held that exemption notifications must be read as a whole, and exemptions cannot be granted ignoring the attached conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention for waiver of pre-deposit required in the appeal.
Issue 2: Financial Hardship and Grant of Waiver
The Tribunal found that the appellant did not plead any financial hardship if required to deposit the entire amount demanded under the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no case was made out for granting a waiver of the pre-deposit. The application for stay was disallowed, and the appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount within eight weeks. The application was disposed of, with a compliance reporting scheduled for 30-6-2009.
-
2009 (4) TMI 597
Issues:
1. Failure to follow precedent decisions of the Tribunal due to pending appeals before High Courts.
2. Multiplicity of proceedings due to rejection of remission application by Commissioner.
3. Proper course of action by the Commissioner in light of pending High Court judgments.
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the failure of the Commissioner to follow precedent decisions of the Tribunal based on pending appeals before the High Courts. The Commissioner disregarded the Tribunal's decisions in favor of the appellant, citing that the department had not accepted them and had filed appeals before the High Courts. However, the Commissioner did not provide evidence of any High Court orders staying the operation of the Tribunal's decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere filing of appeals does not justify ignoring precedent decisions. Citing judicial discipline, the Tribunal highlighted that subordinate authorities should unreservedly follow higher appellate authorities' orders unless their operation is suspended by a competent court.
2. The issue of multiplicity of proceedings arose due to the rejection of the remission application by the Commissioner. This rejection led to the initiation of recovery proceedings against the appellant, with the Assistant Commissioner confirming dues of Rs. 1.96 crores. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's decision resulted in facing multiple proceedings at different stages. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner should have kept the proceedings in abeyance until the High Courts' judgments were available to prevent the multiplication of proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the best course of action was to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after the High Courts' decisions, thereby avoiding the burden of multiple proceedings on the appellant.
3. In determining the proper course of action, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration after the High Courts' decisions. By awaiting the High Courts' judgments, the Tribunal aimed to prevent the unnecessary multiplication of proceedings for the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter was based on the principle of judicial discipline and the need to follow higher appellate authorities' orders until their operation is suspended by a competent court. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of avoiding multiple proceedings and awaiting the outcome of the pending High Court judgments.
-
2009 (4) TMI 596
The Revenue's application for early hearing of the appeal was dismissed as the Stay Order was passed on 19-12-2006, and according to Section 35C(2A), if the appeal is not heard in 180 days, the Stay Order stands vacated. Since there is no stay operating in the present case, the application was rejected.
-
2009 (4) TMI 595
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of service tax credit and penalty imposed on the appellants.
Summary:
The appellants filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of an amount related to inadmissible credit of service tax availed during a specific period and a penalty imposed on them. The case involved the erection and commissioning of windmills at Coimbatore, with the power generated being supplied to Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB) under a contract. The lower authorities denied the credit of service tax paid for the windmills based on a previous Tribunal decision. The appellants argued that the power generated was consumed in their factory for manufacturing final products. They also contended that the Show Cause Notice issued was beyond the normal period of limitation. The authorized representative cited a similar case where the Tribunal had allowed credit for input services not rendered within the factory premises. The Tribunal, after considering the case records and submissions, found that the appellants had a prima facie case against the impugned demand and penalty, based on relevant case law. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demand and penalty pending the appeal decision.
-
2009 (4) TMI 594
Issues:
1. Recovery of credit and duty based on show-cause notices.
2. Adjudication by Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. Disallowance of credit by Assistant Commissioner.
4. Appeal by Revenue against dropping of demand.
5. Withdrawal of certificate by Range Superintendent.
6. Finding of suppression and its impact on recovery.
Analysis:
1. The case involved two show-cause notices issued to the respondent, one for the recovery of credit and the other for the recovery of duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated the notices, finding suppression of facts regarding an agreement between the supplier and the buyer for the collection of transfer charges. The Commissioner accepted that no suppression was involved in the remaining amount.
2. A single show-cause notice was issued proposing the recovery of duty based on a certificate issued by the Range Superintendent. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit as the certificate had been withdrawn. The proceedings for the recovery of the remaining amount were dropped due to the absence of suppression during that period.
3. The Revenue appealed against the dropping of the demand for the remaining amount, but the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue then filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the decision.
4. The Tribunal considered the consolidated certificate issued for a specific period covering both amounts. It was noted that the finding of suppression leading to the withdrawal of the certificate was only in relation to one specific duty amount. As the finding of suppression for the remaining period was set aside by the Commissioner, the demand for that amount could not be sustained.
5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the demand for the specific amount could not be maintained against the respondents based on the findings of suppression and withdrawal of the certificate.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI highlights the key issues, adjudication process, findings, and the final decision regarding the recovery of credit and duty based on show-cause notices and the impact of suppression on the demand for specific amounts.
-
2009 (4) TMI 593
Issues:
1. Confiscation of Motor Cycle under Customs Act
2. Reduction of fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals)
3. Revenue's appeal against the impugned order
Confiscation of Motor Cycle under Customs Act:
The respondent brought a Motor Cycle from the USA after a stay of 19 years, requiring an Import Licence under the Exim Policy. The Adjudicating Authority held the Motor Cycle liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, imposing a redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fine and penalty after considering the circumstances, citing precedents like Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Extrusion v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The Commissioner found no intentional violation of laws and exercised discretionary powers to lower the fines. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the legal and proper nature of the decision.
Reduction of fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent for bringing the Motor Cycle without the required Import Licence. Relying on legal precedents, the Commissioner found that the respondent's actions were not intentional infractions of the law. The Commissioner exercised discretionary powers to mitigate the fines, considering the personal use nature of the Motor Cycle purchased in the USA. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, deeming it legal and appropriate.
Revenue's appeal against the impugned order:
The Revenue filed applications for early hearing and stay of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, citing lack of grounds of appeal and authorization by the Committee of Commissioners of Customs and Central Excise. The Tribunal noted the absence of grounds of appeal in the Revenue's petition, criticizing the non-application of mind by the Revenue Authorities. Despite the Revenue's appeal, based solely on the filing of an appeal against the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision as legal and proper. The Tribunal highlighted the need for proper grounds of appeal and dismissed the Revenue's prayer, concluding the case.
-
2009 (4) TMI 592
Issues:
1. Requirement of pre-deposit amounts including duty, interest, penalty, and redemption fine.
2. Discrepancy in the imported item description compared to the DFRC Licence.
3. Interpretation of the DGFT clarification regarding the use of palm oil in the manufacture of biscuits.
4. Transferability of licences and the absence of actual user condition.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, BANGALORE involved several key issues. Firstly, the Tribunal addressed the requirement of pre-deposit amounts, including duty, interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, penalty under Section 112(a), and redemption fine. The applicants were directed to pre-deposit significant sums, totaling to Rs. 1,04,42,556 for duty, Rs. 15,00,000 for penalty, and Rs. 10,00,000 for redemption fine.
Secondly, the Tribunal delved into the discrepancy between the item imported, which was 'Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade),' and the description mentioned in the DFRC Licence. The Revenue contended that the imported item did not align with the DFRC Licence description, leading to proceedings against the applicants.
Thirdly, the Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of a clarification issued by the DGFT regarding the use of palm oil in the manufacture of biscuits. The learned Advocate highlighted the DGFT clarification, the amendment in the Committee meeting minutes, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting benefits for a similar item, Crude Palm Oil. The Departmental representative argued that crude palm oil could not be directly used in biscuit manufacturing under the DFRC Licence.
Lastly, the Tribunal considered the transferability of licences and the absence of an actual user condition. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that palm oil was considered an input for biscuit manufacturing and vegetable fat as per the DGFT clarification. Consequently, the Tribunal leaned towards waiving the pre-deposit of the entire dues demanded in the impugned order due to the strong case presented by the applicants and the absence of an actual user condition in transferable licences. The appeal was scheduled for further hearing on 21st July 2009.
-
2009 (4) TMI 591
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) because the Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise did not form an opinion as required by Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. The appeal was found not maintainable and was therefore dismissed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 590
Issues:
1. Classification of product for duty under Tariff Heading 2833.90
2. Contention of the assessee regarding non-marketability of the product
3. Allegation of duty evasion and penalty imposition by the Revenue
4. Time-barred demand and suppression of intent
Analysis:
1. The Revenue demanded duty for a product classified as sodium bi-sulphate under Tariff Heading 2833.90. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty and penalty, which was challenged by both the assessee and the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand but set aside the penalty. The assessee argued that the product was waste material drained out after treatment, not marketable, and no sale occurred, making the demand unsustainable. The Revenue contended that duty was payable as the goods were drained out without maintaining statutory records.
2. The assessee maintained that they cleared inputs to job workers, received excisable goods, and drained out sodium bi-sulphate as waste without any marketable sale. They argued that the Revenue did not communicate sample results from 1994, and the demand for the period 1999-2000 was time-barred, with no intent to evade duty. They also claimed that remission of duty provisions did not apply. The Revenue's position was that the drained goods were excisable, duty was rightly demanded due to evasion, and penalty was justified for non-compliance with record-keeping.
3. The Tribunal found that the goods in question were indeed sodium bi-sulphate drained out as waste, uncontested by the parties. However, there was no evidence of marketability or sale of the drained material. As no sale occurred, the demand was deemed unsustainable, leading to setting it aside and allowing the assessee's appeal. Consequently, since the demand was not upheld, the question of penalty imposition did not arise, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
4. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the demand for duty on sodium bi-sulphate due to lack of marketability and absence of sale, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal for penalty imposition. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and marketability in determining the sustainability of duty demands, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the assessee.
-
2009 (4) TMI 589
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the Revenue's application despite the challenge of the review order's maintainability due to being time-barred. The appeal was filed based on the review order noted in the file, and no further authorization was necessary as one of the Committee of Commissionerates' Members had already filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
-
2009 (4) TMI 588
Issues involved: Application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of service tax, penalty imposed u/s 78 of the Finance Act '94, charges collected from credit and debit card holders, suppression of facts regarding non-payment of service tax, classification of charges under different service categories, applicability of tax on mark up charges, demand for tax for specific periods, argument against tax liability for services provided outside India, contesting the invocation of larger period for tax demand.
Waiver of Predeposit and Stay of Recovery:
- M/s. Citibank N.A. sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 4,87,83,712/- demanded as service tax, penalty of Rs. 5.15 crores u/s 78 of the Finance Act '94, and applicable interest.
- Commissioner found Citibank charged mark up on credit and debit card transactions abroad, not paying service tax on these charges during 1-7-01 to 30-4-06.
- Citibank suppressed non-payment of service tax on mark up, leading to demand for the larger period from 4/02 to 4/06 for credit cards and 9/04 to 4/06 for debit cards.
Classification of Charges:
- Charges collected for credit card holders were deemed as "Credit Card Service" under "Banking and Other Financial Services" u/s 65(12)(a) of the Act.
- Charges for debit card holders fell under "Operation of Bank Accounts" u/s 65(12) of the Act from 10-9-04.
- Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.15 crores on Citibank u/s 78 of the Act due to suppression of facts.
Tax Liability and Legal Arguments:
- Citibank argued mark up was part of the cost of goods/services purchased abroad, not a consideration for bank account operations.
- Claimed services provided outside India were not taxable, citing case laws to support their position.
- Contested the demand for tax for the specified periods and the invocation of a larger period for tax demand.
Tribunal Decision:
- Tribunal found the charges for credit card services and operation of bank accounts were taxable during the material period.
- Deemed the demand under "Operation of accounts" sustainable for debit card transactions.
- Deferred the limitation issue for final hearing, considering Citibank's communication with the department and the need for further scrutiny.
- Directed Citibank to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1.5 crores from their Cenvat account, with waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the balance dues pending appeal decision.
-
2009 (4) TMI 587
Condonation of delay - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation - Held that: - the person who was responsible to file the appeals had to attend to many pending works which could not be attended to by him due to preoccupations with other urgent works - the non-filing of the appeal within the stipulated period would have had an effect of additional liability on the applicant which no assessee would like to have. We also find that justification given by the Chief Executive Officer of the applicant is justifiable - COD allowed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 586
The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue as the review order supporting it was undated and lacked reasons for finding the original order-in-appeal not legal and proper. The appeal was deemed not maintainable due to the lack of a valid review order.
-
2009 (4) TMI 585
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dismissed an application for adjournment due to lack of a valid reason and absence of the appellant. The application was filed by an advocate citing the need to attend an urgent family function and see his aged mother-in-law. The Tribunal found these reasons insufficient and dismissed the application for default.
-
2009 (4) TMI 584
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai granted relief to the appellant in a case related to duty demanded prior to January 2002. The appellant was asked to deposit Rs. 8,00,000 with the respondent for the release of detained goods. The order of detention was to be revoked upon deposit, pending further decision on the stay application. The application was disposed of.
-
2009 (4) TMI 583
/appeal-tribunal-cestat-new-delhi-citation-2009-4-tmi-583-cestat-new-delhi
Judgement Summary: Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI Citation: 2009 (4) TMI 583 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Judges: S/Shri D.N. Panda, Rakesh Kumar, JJ.
Representatives:
- Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR, for the Respondent.
Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)
Summary:
1. The case revolves around the misuse of Cenvat credit by the Appellant, with the Revenue claiming that the credit was mis-utilized without proper evidence. The Appellant argues that export was made, hence the Cenvat credit is valid.
2. The Revenue presents a detailed investigation report revealing fake and bogus credits availed by the Appellant. The investigation results in a demand for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty from the Appellant due to unjust enrichment.
3. After hearing both sides, the Adjudicating Authority found the Appellant guilty of defrauding Revenue by availing Cenvat credit with ulterior motives. The Appellant failed to reply to show cause notices and provide any credible evidence to counter the charges.
4. The Tribunal orders the Appellant to deposit the entire demanded amount as a pre-deposit during the appeal process. The recovery includes Cenvat credit, penalty, and interest. Another individual involved is directed to deposit a specific penalty amount.
5. The Tribunal's decision is based on the lack of a convincing defense from the Appellant and the failure to follow due process. The judgement emphasizes the need for compliance with the order and reporting by a specified date.
This summary provides an overview of the key issues and outcomes of the judgement, highlighting the misuse of Cenvat credit and the subsequent penalties imposed on the Appellant.
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
