|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 155 Records
-
1994 (6) TMI 98 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appellate order - Compliance of within time bound frame ... ... ... ... ..... ities take the orders passed by the Tribunal in a too casual manner. Whenever any order is passed by a superior court, lower authorities are duty bound to obey the orders passed by the superior court. We shall appreciate that in future Revenue authorities are prompt enough to give consequential effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the sides, the Revenue Secretary (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of India) and also to Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs. 5. emsp In view of the above-cited decisions it is seen that the Order of the Tribunal has to be respected by the Collector and therefore, we order that in terms of our Order dated 13-2-1994 the amounts in question be released in favour of the applicant Company forthwith and at any rate not later than 27-6-1994. Let a copy of this order be served on the Revenue, applicant and others concerned expeditiously without any delay.
-
1994 (6) TMI 97 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machine parts - Machining of forgings ... ... ... ... ..... in terms of Rule 10 or Section 11A would arise. For these reasons in my view the case law cited by the learned Consultant on behalf of the appellants cannot be of any assistance to them. 32. Hence, I hold that the demand for the period 1-3-1975 to 25-11-1975 and 2-8-1980 to 26-7-1985 cannot be deemed as time barred as held by the learned Member (Technical). Sd/- (P.K. Kapoor) Member (T) Dated 10th June, 1994 FINAL ORDER 33. In view of the majority opinion as above, it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the goods shown against Srl. No. 2(b), (c) and (d) and 4 (b), (c) and (d) of the Classification List filed in 1975 by the appellants would be classifiable under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff. 34. It is also held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the demand for the period 1-3-1975 to 25-11-1975 and from 2-8-1980 to 26-7-1985 is valid and is not time-barred. Date 23-6-1994 Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) Member (T) Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (J)
-
1994 (6) TMI 96 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on the view taken by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Panaji that as the softwares were classifiable separately, their value could not be clubbed for arriving at the assessable value of computer system, is not well founded. We agree with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who has observed that the software supplied by the appellants was the systems software, which was indispensable to the computer system and that this systems software controlled the functions of the computer system, and has held that in this case the value of the computer system would include the value of the systems software also. 22. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we uphold the impugned order, reject the appeal and order accordingly. (In terms of the orders of the Hon. Bombay High Court the appellants are required to make good the entire levy along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent within four weeks from the date of this order subject to any statutory remedy).
-
1994 (6) TMI 95 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption under two alternative notifications available ... ... ... ... ..... t of duty on the clearances effected during the period 1-3-1986 to 23-4-1986 on the ground that the respondents were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was uncalled for and the Department could have challenged the right of the respondents to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 138/86 from 24-4-1986 onwards in view of the amended Proviso to Notification No. 138/86, dated 1-3-1986 by issuing the appropriate Show Cause Notice according to law. However, these observations of ours are in passing and would not prejudice the right of the respondents in any way even remotely. 12. emsp That apart on merits we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the ld. SDR in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Balraj Paper and Straw Board Mills (P) Ltd., supra. 13. In the result, the appeal is rejected being devoid of any merit. Cross Objections also stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (6) TMI 94 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Readjudication on remand ... ... ... ... ..... on the Assistant Collector concerned while deciding the case afresh as has been done by the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector concerned should be asked to adjudicate the case afresh according to law after giving full opportunity to the respondents to put forth their claim. In other words, while deciding the issue afresh the Assistant Collector would not be bound by any opinion expressed by the Collector (Appeals) in his impugned Order-in-Appeal on the merits of the case. 7. emsp In the result, we allow the appeal and modify the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) to the extent that the Assistant Collector while examining the issue afresh would not feel bound by any opinion expressed by the Collector (Appeals) in his impugned Order. On receipt of the papers, he would adjudicate the case afresh in accordance with law and would keep in mind the ratio of the case law cited before us. 8. In the result, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (6) TMI 93 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... llant, I find that theft was unavoidable. Had theft been avoidable, the appellant would have taken all precautions because loss to the appellant was much more than the loss to the Revenue. I am also satisfied that sufficient reasons existed there during the material time when terrorism was at its height in the area which prevented the appellant from ensuring that FIR was lodged in time and thus the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained by the appellant. In regard to filing an intimation with the department, I find that there is a mention in the letter of the Superintendent about submission of a letter dated 4-7-1987 by the appellant. So on all the three counts on which the refund claim was rejected by the Collector (Appeals), I find from the records that all the three counts have been properly explained by the appellant. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. However, refund of the amount shall be admissible in accordance with the law.
-
1994 (6) TMI 92 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... y of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi for the goods. 3. emsp The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in addition, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate and Shri K.N. Gupta, learned SDR. 5. emsp The argument of the learned Counsel that the goods were supplied by mistake due to some confusion at consignor rsquo s end is not acceptable, in the absence of any proof of bona fide mistake. The order, indent and acceptance between the importer and the supplier are not before us. The goods have undoubtedly been imported without cover of a valid Licence and till date, no licence issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. JCCIE, is available. Therefore, the goods have been rightly confiscated and penalty is also warranted. Accordingly we confirm the impugned order and reject the appeal as already announced in open court.
-
1994 (6) TMI 91 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... a 100 Export Oriented Unit), which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to rdquo Nil rate of duty . In the instant case duty has been demanded on the clearance of 120.70 M.T. of Oleum 65 without payment of Central Excise Duty to KFTZ Kandla and 100 export oriented unit for the period from 10/91 to 11/91. Therefore, the findings of the authorities below that Sulphuric Acid in the instant case used captively in the manufacture of the final product, namely, Oleum was not entitled for the benefit of the said Notification No. 217/86-C.E. as the final product has been cleared without payment of central excise duty cannot be assailed. The contention of the appellants that the benefit of the said Notification is not made dependent upon clearance of excisable goods leads nowhere and to be recorded only to be rejected. No other point was urged. 7. In the result, we uphold the impugned Orders and reject the appeal being devoid of any merit.
-
1994 (6) TMI 90 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ball bearings ... ... ... ... ..... of being polished and (ii) of measurements of maximum and minimum diameters. For this reason as well as the steel balls cycle grade would not fall under Tariff Heading 84.82 and they would be classifiable under Heading 73.26 (w.e.f. 1-3-1988) and under Tariff Heading 73.08 (prior to 1-3-1988). Consequently, the steel balls would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 62/86 or 162/86. The judgment of the Tribunal (supra) applies squarely to the facts of this case in which the steel balls are of the same size as those manufactured by the assessees in the National Engineering case and the Notification No. 234/82 is worded in similar terms to Notification 62/86 and 162/86. According, following the ratio thereof, we held that the steel balls manufactured by the respondents herein are entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 234/82. In the result we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue and grant consequential relief to the respondents.
-
1994 (6) TMI 89 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... by the Courts on the question whether the activity of crushing of limestone into powder amounted to manufacture and whether crushed limestone attracted Central Excise duty, there was a bona fide belief in the minds of manufacturers that the process of crushing of limestone did not amount to manufacture. For this reason, and on the ratio of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise (Supra), we are inclined to agree with the appellants that Collector rsquo s order invoking the extended period for confirming the demand in terms of proviso to Section 11A on the grounds of suppression of facts with the intent to evade the duty would not be sustainable. 8. emsp In view of the above discussions, we modify the impugned order to the extent that duty on the goods in question would be recoverable within the normal period of six months of the date of demand/Show Cause Notice. 9. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (6) TMI 88 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... by duty-paying documents. The difference between the actual duty paid and the deemed credit amount originally taken has been taken by the Respondents. This cannot be denied to them if the same is supported by valid documents, in the absence of a provision excluding normal credit if deemed credit had already been taken. Credit equal to the duty paid on the inputs is what is permissible as credit. Deemed credit is an exceptional facility to get over the difficulty of non-availability of duty-paying documents. If such documents are available and can be correlated to the inputs in question, there is nothing in the Rules or Orders issued under Rule 57G to deny them the benefit of actual duty paid on the inputs. The fact that the Mysore Lac decision related to notional credit and not deemed credit is not relevant in this context. In that case also, it was a case of taking short credit which was rectified by them by taking the additional entitled amount. 10. The Appeal is dismissed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 87 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... or not in coils, at Sl. No. 4 of the earlier notification. Therefore, the applicants cannot prima facie be said to be guilty of suppression of any material facts warranting application of extended period of limitation against them. Further we are also of the prima facie view that the benefit of Notification 150/86 is available to the applicants for statutory supplies. Also Section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 is prima facie not attracted to the facts of this case in view of the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Ess Ess Metals (supra) paragraph 4 of the order at pages 393-394 of the paper book wherein it has been held that Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 applies only to imposition or increase in duty and in this case, the rate of duty has remained unchanged even after 1-3-1988. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.
-
1994 (6) TMI 86 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... orsed in its registration certificate in order to get the SSI exemption for all the items manufactured by it. In the present case, the registration certificate contains the endorsement ldquo Additions made on 14-6-1993 . . . . washer, with effect from 6/86 as per excise returns. The Certificate under which the appellant has been registered as a small scale industry is applicable to them for all their products manufactured by them and not with reference to particular products only. It is nobody rsquo s case that by manufacturing items not mentioned in the Registration Certificate originally issued to them, they have graduated from a Small scale industry to a large scale unit not eligible for the small scale industry exemption. In the circumstances, we accept the submissions raised by the learned Consultant Shri Chopra about their eligibility for small scale exemption and allow the appeal. The operative portion of the appeal was announced in the Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1994 (6) TMI 85 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cigarettes - Determination of Price ... ... ... ... ..... ctical problems, their representation, the permission granted by the Collector, and admitted strict adherence with the procedure prescribed by Collector, the appellant rsquo s action amounted to sufficient although not literal, compliance with the basic requirements of the Notification. 13. emsp We are aware that an exemption notification is required to be construed strictly but that does not mean that such practical considerations should not weigh in judging its application and effective compliance. 14. emsp Furthermore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Counsel was justified in his plea that minor procedural infraction, if any, should not be allowed to come in the way of extending the intended benefit. It was indeed not proper to be hypertechnical in such cases and substantial compliance shown should be considered sufficient. As such the demand of the duty at the tariff rate was not justified. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.
-
1994 (6) TMI 84 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
P.U. Cement when not excisable ... ... ... ... ..... 11. emsp I am therefore of the opinion that no new commodity emerges as a result of the process undertaken by the appellants. But even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that a new product was formed, again the department has not produced any evidence to show that it specifically answers any of the criteria or description specifically mentioned in Tariff item 15-A read with the explanations thereunder. However, it is not necessary to labour the point of classification further in view of our observations in Paras (1) and (2) above which go to show that the material was not excisable. Hence, in my opinion it was not necessary to remand the matter and the appeal can be accepted straightaway. 12. It is allowed accordingly. 13. emsp Order per G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) . - On going through the orders written by my learned Brothers, I agree with the Hon rsquo ble Vice President in allowing the appeal straightaway without remand in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
1994 (6) TMI 83 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cess - Exemption from excise duty does not mean exemption from Cess ... ... ... ... ..... ould also be classifiable accordingly. 15. emsp Following the ratio of the above order, the Hessian Cloth/Sheets and Bags would be classifiable under S. No. 2 as both will be covered by the term lsquo Hessian rsquo . 16. emsp Learned D.R. is correct in pointing out that Jute Yarn or Stitching Twines was a different article and, therefore, it was not covered by the Tribunal rsquo s order in the above case. At the same time, S. No. 10 - lsquo Any other article of Jute manufacture rsquo is a residuary entry and therefore, it can be invoked only if the article is not covered by any other S. No. whereas the Cess Schedule shows that Yarn and Twine have been specifically mentioned under Heading (S. No. 4) and are classifiable accordingly. 17. emsp In view of this position, the matter is required to be remanded to the lower authorities for redetermination of actual liability in the light of above observations and findings and the Law. 18. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (6) TMI 82 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... classified by the Collector (Appeals) by rejecting the entry set out in the show cause notice and duty can be demanded for the relevant period from the assessee on the basis of the classification determined by the Tribunal. 5. emsp Having regard to the Tribunal rsquo s order discussed above and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we order that the error of not passing any orders in regard to the demand confirmed by the lower authority and penalty imposed on the appellants shall be rectified in the following manner - (i) After the existing para 4 following new paragraph 5, shall be added. ldquo 5. emsp In view of the above discussion, we hold that duty shall be recoverable on the goods in question under Heading 38.23 instead of Heading 2807.00. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order imposing penalty on the appellants. The order appealed against is modified to this extent. rdquo (ii) Renumber the existing paragraph 5 as 6.
-
1994 (6) TMI 81 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ove. Manufacturing process, as pointed out by the learned Advocate, has been fully set out in the impugned order at page 27 thereof. This process of manufacture has not been rebutted, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate. Manufacture of specific power-take off device by the appellants has also not been denied by the adjudicating authority. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we agree with the learned advocate for the appellants that the motor vehicle chassis on which the drilling rig is mounted are so integrated that the chassis cannot be separately used as a motor vehicle. Therefore, we hold that the goods are correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.30. Classification under Chapter Heading 87.05, as made by the adjudicating authority is not correct. Hence, following the ratio of the above order, we hold that the goods are classifiable under Heading 84.30, set aside the impugned order and allow the (Operative part of the order announced in open court).
-
1994 (6) TMI 80 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... herefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for consideration of the issue for giving opinion in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending since the year 1979 onwards the learned adjudicating authority is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. emsp Assent per V.P. Gulati, Member (T) . - I observe that all issues are open for consideration by the learned lower authority and the appellant is free to urge all points in regard to his eligibility for redemption of the vessel on payment of fine. It is observed that the learned lower authority has confiscated the vessel under Section 115(1)(a) of the Act, without putting the appellant on notice and for this reason the confiscability of the vessel under this Section cannot be upheld. It is open to the learned lower authority to issue a notice under Section 115(1)(a), if it is permissible under the law.
-
1994 (6) TMI 79 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... et of documents for one period and reject that set of documents for another period and depend on another set of documents merely because that set is more beneficial particularly when there is no corroborative evidence to support during that period. We therefore, hold that duty can be demanded only on 3901.196 MT of cement. 5.3. emsp In regard to appellants other than first and seventh, we find that there is no direct evidence to attract Rule 229(A) and we are, therefore, not inclined to uphold penalties on them. Accordingly we pass the following order - 1. Duty demand on 3901.196 MT cement only is confirmed. 2. Penalty on M/s. Shree Nath Cement Industries is reduced to Rs. 65,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226 is set aside. 3. Penalty on M/s. Ambica Goods Transport Company is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. 4. Penalty on other appellants i.e. M/s. Shree Kishan and Co., Kailash Cement Works, R.K. Timber Mart, Mukesh Kumar and Co. and Bhupat Ram Ramachander, are set aside.
|
