|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 224 Records
-
1995 (10) TMI 144
The appeal was against the denial of Modvat credit for argon gas used in welding. The Collector of Central Excise denied the credit, stating that argon gas is a consumable and not used in the manufacture of the final product. However, the Tribunal disagreed, ruling that argon gas is essential for welding, not a machinery part, and should be eligible for Modvat credit. The appeal was allowed, directing the restoration of the credit. (Case: 1995 (10) TMI 144 - CEGAT, BOMBAY)
-
1995 (10) TMI 143
Issues Involved:
1. Over-valuation of export goods.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Summary:
1. Over-valuation of Export Goods:
The appellants filed four Shipping Bills for exporting Mulberry Silk Printed Ties, declaring a high value. The Department suspected over-valuation based on local market prices obtained from M/s. Mohan's and M/s. Handloom House, which indicated much lower prices. The Department alleged over-valuation and issued a show cause notice for penalties u/s 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants argued that the valuation method u/s 14 of the Customs Act does not apply as the goods were not dutiable. The Tribunal agreed, citing a previous decision (Collector of Customs, Kandla v. Dimple Overseas Ltd.), which held that Section 14 applies only when customs duty is chargeable. Since the exported goods were not subject to duty, the Department's valuation method was deemed inapplicable.
3. Applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal found that Section 113(d), which deals with the confiscation of goods attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition, was not applicable. The goods were not prohibited, and there was no specific law contravened by their export. The Tribunal noted that the correct section, if any, would be Section 113(i), which pertains to dutiable or prohibited goods entered for exportation under a claim for drawback. However, since the goods were neither dutiable nor prohibited, Section 113(i) was also inapplicable.
4. Imposition of Penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal concluded that penalties u/s 114 could not be imposed as the goods were not liable for confiscation u/s 113. Section 114 penalties apply only if the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 113, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had realized the full export value in foreign exchange through proper legal channels, which further negated the grounds for penalty.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants, allowing the appeals. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 24-10-1995.
-
1995 (10) TMI 142
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of penalty imposed on a Customs House Clearing Agent for negligence in examining goods covered under a shipping bill, leading to misdeclaration of contents.
Summary:
Issue 1: Penalty Imposed on Customs House Clearing Agent
The appeal concerned a penalty of Rs. 25,000 levied on a Customs House Clearing Agent for negligence in examining goods covered under a shipping bill, resulting in misdeclaration of contents. The appellant, a long-standing agent, contended that they were misled by a certificate from the Central Silk Board, a statutory authority, endorsing the goods. The adjudicating authority found the appellant guilty of serious negligence but not culpable negligence. The duty of a customs agent to exercise due care and caution was highlighted, as per the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.
Details:
The appellant, a Customs House Clearing Agent, was penalized for negligence in examining goods sealed by the Central Silk Board, leading to misdeclaration. The appellant's long-standing reputation and the endorsement by the Central Silk Board were cited in defense. The adjudicating authority acknowledged negligence but did not find evidence of mala fide intent or illegal gain. The distinction between negligence per se and culpable negligence was crucial in determining the penalty.
Decision:
Considering the appellant's clean record over two decades and lack of mala fide intent, the penalty was set aside. The Tribunal emphasized the need for greater vigilance by the appellant but deemed a mere admonition sufficient in this case. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper inspection, supervision, and diligence by Customs House Clearing Agents, ultimately letting the appellant off with an admonition due to their clean reputation and lack of prior breaches.
Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by S. Kalyanam, Vice President, without the co-signature of the other Member, raising concerns about the validity of the order as per Rule 26 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Additionally, discrepancies in the date of the order's typing and signing were noted, indicating an unusual delay before the judgment was finalized.
-
1995 (10) TMI 141
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of HCL certified challans for MODVAT Credit.
2. Interpretation of Trade Notices and Board's letters regarding MODVAT Credit.
3. Authority of the Board and Collectors in prescribing documents for MODVAT Credit.
4. Procedural correctness in notifying documents as evidence of payment of duty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of HCL Certified Challans for MODVAT Credit
The appellants were issued a show cause notice alleging that they wrongfully availed MODVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 2,03,506.51 during July 1990 to October 1990 using certified challans from Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL), which were not recognized as valid duty-paying documents under Rule 57G. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) both upheld this view, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
The appellants argued that HCL, being a Government of India Undertaking, issued certificates that should be considered valid for MODVAT Credit as per a Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.) letter cited in a previous Tribunal judgment (Devidayal & Mahendra Corporation v. C.C.Ex., New Delhi).
2. Interpretation of Trade Notices and Board's Letters Regarding MODVAT Credit
The Tribunal examined various Trade Notices and letters issued by the Board. The Assistant Collector relied on Trade Notice No. 93/89, which specified that only certificates from SAIL/TISCO were valid for MODVAT Credit, not those from other Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). The Tribunal noted that earlier Trade Notices (37/88, 21/89, 68/89) suggested that certificates from all PSUs were valid until the issuance of Trade Notice 93/89 on 16-11-1989, which restricted this to SAIL/TISCO.
3. Authority of the Board and Collectors in Prescribing Documents for MODVAT Credit
The Tribunal highlighted that under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the C.B.E.C. has the authority to prescribe documents as evidence of duty payment for MODVAT Credit. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to produce all relevant letters from the Board that led to the issuance of the cited Trade Notices to ensure a correct interpretation and conclusion.
4. Procedural Correctness in Notifying Documents as Evidence of Payment of Duty
The Tribunal criticized the current practice of the Board notifying Collectors through internal letters, leaving it to them to issue trade notices. This method was deemed incorrect and potentially illegal, as it could lead to misinterpretations. The Tribunal suggested that the Board should issue notifications or public notices directly to inform manufacturers and assessees.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a de novo decision, directing them to provide all relevant Board letters to the appellants and to ensure a correct interpretation of these documents. The Tribunal also recommended that the Board should directly notify the public about documents prescribed as evidence of duty payment to avoid misinterpretations by individual Collectorates. A copy of the order was sent to the Chairman of the C.B.E.C. for necessary action.
-
1995 (10) TMI 140
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the determination of assessable value for components of motor cycles under the Customs Act, consideration of technical assistance agreements, application of Customs Valuation Rules, and the relevance of running royalty in pricing.
Assessable Value Determination:
The Assistant Collector determined the assessable value by adding one per cent to the invoice price, which was challenged in the appeal. The Customs Valuation Rules were amended in 1988, leading to a similar order by the Assistant Collector for the subsequent period. The appellate authority in the later case considered the relationship between the parties and concluded that the running royalty is not part of the price for components, contrary to the earlier appeal.
Technical Assistance Agreement:
The agreement between the assessee and M/s. Yamaha Motor Company Ltd. involved the supply of technical information, know-how, and industrial property rights for manufacturing motor cycles. The agreement specified payment terms, including a lump sum amount and running royalty per unit of motor cycle manufactured. Disputes arose regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the inclusion of running royalty in the assessable value of components.
Legal Precedents and Interpretation:
The judgment referred to previous cases such as Collector of Customs v. Maruti Udyog Limited and Union of India v. Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd., where the courts emphasized the separation of technical know-how agreements from the pricing of components. The Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions highlighted the need for a clear nexus between royalty payments and the actual supply of components.
Conclusion:
Based on the terms of the agreement and legal precedents, the appellate tribunal dismissed one appeal and allowed another, setting aside the order that added one per cent to the invoice price for determining the assessable value. The judgment affirmed that the invoice price should be considered as the assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, supporting the assessee's position regarding the pricing of components and the role of running royalty.
-
1995 (10) TMI 139
Issues Involved: Appeal against demand of duty and maintenance expenses, Prima facie case for duty demand, Compliance with deposit order, Interpretation of Section 35F of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Modvat credit adjustment, Statutory deposit requirement vs. Modvat credit.
In the present case, the appeal was filed against a demand of approximately Rs. 53 lakhs for duty and Rs. 3.63 lakhs for maintenance expenses incurred by the dealers of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellants had made out a prima facie case for the duty demand but not for the maintenance expenses. It was noted that directing the appellants to deposit the entire duty amount and penalty would cause undue hardship. Therefore, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 3.63 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance to the Registry. The appellant represented that the amount had been debited and undertook to produce the certificate for complying with the stay order.
The appellant's counsel mentioned approaching the Jurisdictional Superintendent for a certificate of the debit made, which was refused by the Superintendent. The Departmental Representative justified this stance citing Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stating that the requirement of deposit is a statutory one, separate from the Modvat credit. A decision of the Madras High Court was referenced, but it was clarified that it pertained to a different issue. The Tribunal had previously allowed pre-deposit by debiting RG-23A Pt. II and making up any shortfall by cash deposit, recognizing the distinction between statutory deposit and Modvat credit.
The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory provision for deposit existed before the Modvat credit system and should be understood in that context. It was deemed reasonable to allow the appellant to adjust the deposit amount from the Modvat credit account, up to the available credit. The Tribunal's order indicated a willingness to grant this request, considering that the adjustment would be subject to the final order of the appellate authority.
Regarding the pending appeal, it was clarified that payment adjustment would be subject to the final order to be passed. The Department was given an opportunity to confirm or deny whether the appellant had made the required debit in the Modvat account, with an adjournment granted for further information. The Tribunal aimed to ensure that neither party was adversely affected by the direction sought by the appellant.
-
1995 (10) TMI 138
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the Misc. Application stating that the demand for Modvat credit taken in June 1991 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued in 1992, after the credit was taken in 1991. The Tribunal rectified the final order to exclude the demand for June 1991, upholding the rest of the order. (1995 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1995 (10) TMI 137
Issues: Valuation of excisable goods for duty purposes under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Determination of comparable goods for valuation under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975; Exclusion of transportation charges under Section 4(2) of the Act.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the appellant, a manufacturer of Staple Fibre, challenged the valuation of Sulphuric Acid for captive consumption during the period from 10-11-1976 to 31-8-1978. The dispute arose post the removal of tariff value, requiring ad valorem valuation. The Collector adopted the price of Sulphuric Acid produced by another manufacturer at Kota, deducting filling charges, which was contested by the appellant. The appellant raised contentions regarding the method of valuation, consideration of relevant factors for determining comparable goods, and the exclusion of transportation charges under Section 4(2) of the Act.
The judgment delves into the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, which governs the valuation of excisable goods. It outlines two methods for valuation: based on goods actually sold and where normal price is not ascertainable. Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules applies when goods are not sold but used in production. It provides for valuation based on comparable goods' value or cost of production. The term "comparable goods" is not defined, necessitating a case-specific analysis. In this case, Sulphuric Acid produced by the Kota manufacturer was deemed comparable, considering quality and characteristics, despite differences in production volume and usage.
Regarding the determination of comparable goods under Rule 6(b)(i), the judgment emphasizes the need for adjustments based on relevant factors, including material characteristics and differences between goods. The Collector's consideration of adjustments, like a Rs. 5/- per ton deduction, was deemed appropriate. The appellant's argument on production volume differences was considered a factual matter requiring supporting evidence. The Tribunal granted the appellant an opportunity to present relevant materials to the Collector for consideration.
The judgment also addresses the exclusion of transportation charges under Section 4(2) of the Act. It clarifies that this provision applies when the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal is known. In cases of captive consumption without sale or delivery, as in this scenario, the exclusion of transportation charges does not apply. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, directing the Collector to reassess adjustments based solely on production volume differences. The decision allowed the appellant to present relevant evidence while maintaining the finality of other aspects decided by the Collector.
In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, focusing on the reconsideration of adjustments for comparable goods' valuation and clarifying the inapplicability of transportation charge exclusion in cases of captive consumption.
-
1995 (10) TMI 136
The appeal was against the denial of Modvat credit due to issuance of subsidiary gate passes after 1-4-1994. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Collector for reconsideration based on the Board's instructions and invoices obtained by the appellants. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
-
1995 (10) TMI 135
Issues:
1. Determination of ex-factory price for ignition coils sold by the assessee.
2. Whether two specific concerns are related persons.
3. Assessment of assessable value based on ex-factory price.
4. Interpretation of the remand order by the authorities.
5. Validity of extra discount given to main dealers.
Analysis:
1. The dispute in the appeal revolved around establishing the ex-factory price for ignition coils sold by the assessee during 1979-80. The assessee sold goods to two sets of entities at different discounts: 35% to two main concerns and 25% to smaller dealers at depots. Initially, the authorities considered the main concerns as related persons and assessed the value based on the discount available to smaller dealers. However, the Tribunal set aside this finding and remitted the case to the Assistant Collector for a fresh assessment.
2. The Tribunal's remand order specifically highlighted the discounts granted to the main concerns and raised the question of whether these sales should be treated as ex-factory prices. The Tribunal emphasized the need to determine the ex-factory price for all sales, including those to depots and distributors. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that an ascertainable ex-factory price should be the basis for value determination under the relevant Act.
3. Following the remand, the Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice and concluded that the price charged at depots (25% discount) should be considered the ex-factory price. However, the Collector (Appeals) viewed the extra discount to main dealers as discriminatory. Both authorities failed to correctly interpret the Tribunal's direction to determine the ex-factory price as the basis for valuation.
4. The Tribunal observed that the authorities did not properly understand its directive to ascertain the ex-factory price, which should be adopted for valuation. The records indicated two types of sales: one at the factory gate to main dealers at a 35% discount and another to smaller dealers at depots with a 25% discount. As the main dealers were no longer considered related persons, the price list submitted by the assessee showed that the factory gate price was the list price less 35%. Therefore, this factory gate price should be used for valuation purposes for all manufactured goods.
5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the factory gate price charged to the main dealers should be considered the ex-factory price for valuation, based on the observations and directions in the remand order. The Tribunal upheld the validity of offering different discounts to various dealers and concluded that the extra discount given to main dealers did not render the pricing discriminatory.
-
1995 (10) TMI 134
The appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days, which was condoned. The issue was about denial of Modvat credit for gear box and DC drive. The tribunal held that both items were eligible for credit as they were related to speed regulation. The revenue appeal was dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 133
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi granted waiver of pre-deposit and remanded the case to the Commissioner for considering the modification application filed by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to grant the appellant a personal hearing for de novo consideration of the appeal. The case was remanded based on similar facts and circumstances of previous cases.
-
1995 (10) TMI 132
Issues:
1. Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty demanded in the impugned order.
2. Denial of MODVAT Credit in respect of glass bottles and crates.
3. Inclusion of cost of packing materials in the assessable value.
4. Eligibility for MODVAT Credit in respect of bottles and crates.
5. Opportunity to adduce evidence for MODVAT Credit eligibility.
Analysis:
The judgment concerns an application seeking dispensation of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 43,86,814 demanded in the impugned order. The appellants contended that they were denied MODVAT Credit for glass bottles and crates used in manufacturing aerated waters due to the alleged non-inclusion of their value in the assessable value. The appellants provided data and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant indicating the inclusion of the cost of bottles and crates. They argued that the lower appellate authority failed to consider this evidence, leading to a misdirection. The appellants emphasized that the cost of packing materials was factored into the specific duty rate in 1993-94 and cited a circular supporting MODVAT Credit availability for packing materials if their cost was included in the assessable value.
Regarding the eligibility for MODVAT Credit, the appellants highlighted the need to address breakages, depreciation, and the assumption of cost inclusion during the specific duty rate period. The judgment noted the lower authority's reliance on assumptions without sufficient rational basis and failure to delve into the specifics of the issue. The court observed that the lower authority's order lacked depth and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of addressing breakages, depreciation, and the inclusion of packing material costs in the assessable value. The court directed the appellants to be given a fair opportunity to present evidence and address the issues raised.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of thoroughly examining the eligibility for MODVAT Credit, particularly in relation to the inclusion of packing material costs in the assessable value. The court's decision to remand the matter for a reconsideration underscores the need for a detailed analysis and a fair opportunity for the appellants to substantiate their claims.
-
1995 (10) TMI 131
The appeal was made against an order-in-appeal regarding refund claims under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. The Asstt. Collector rejected the refund, stating it was not permissible for rejected goods. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Asstt. Collector for considering the refund claim due to apparent erroneous payment of duty on the same goods. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
1995 (10) TMI 130
The appeal was from the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal allowing the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the demand is time-barred without going into the merits. The ld. JDR argued that the demand was confirmed only for a limited period under the law. The ld. Adv. argued that there was a genuine doubt regarding classification and the appellants had a bona fide belief. The Tribunal found that there was a genuine doubt among officers regarding classification, and the appeal from the Revenue was dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 129
Issues Involved
1. Classification of medicated cough drops and throat drops as Ayurvedic medicaments or patent/proprietary medicaments.
2. Applicability and interpretation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and its rules.
3. Relevance of previous judgments and legal precedents.
4. Examination of the ingredients and manufacturing process.
5. Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff and its sub-headings.
Detailed Analysis
1. Classification of Medicated Cough Drops and Throat Drops
The primary issue was whether the medicated cough drops and throat drops manufactured by the appellants and marketed under the brand "Vicks" should be classified under sub-heading 3003.10 as patent or proprietary medicaments or under sub-heading 3003.30 as Ayurvedic medicaments. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad, confirmed the decision of the Assistant Collector that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 3003.10.
2. Applicability and Interpretation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
The appellants argued that their products were manufactured under a license issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for patent or proprietary Ayurvedic medicine. They contended that this license, granted after due consultation with Ayurvedic experts, should be conclusive for classification purposes. However, the Department argued that Ayurvedic medicine must contain ingredients prescribed in recognized Ayurvedic texts and be manufactured according to those formulas. The presence of synthetic ingredients in the products disqualified them from being considered Ayurvedic medicines.
3. Relevance of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents
The appellants cited several judgments, including those from the Bombay High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court, to support their claim that the products should be classified as Ayurvedic medicines. They argued that the absence of a statutory definition in the Central Excise Tariff should lead to the application of commercial parlance and the provisions of the Drugs Act. The Department countered with judgments from the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the presence of synthetic ingredients and deviation from Ayurvedic formulas should lead to classification under sub-heading 3003.10.
4. Examination of the Ingredients and Manufacturing Process
The Tribunal examined the ingredients and manufacturing process of the products. It was established that while some ingredients were known to Ayurveda, the products were not manufactured according to traditional Ayurvedic methods. The Supreme Court's judgment in the Amrutanjan case was considered, which held that the use of certain ingredients known to Ayurveda did not automatically classify a product as non-Ayurvedic. However, the Tribunal noted that the products in question were marketed and manufactured using Western scientific methods, which disqualified them from being considered exclusively Ayurvedic.
5. Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff and its Sub-headings
The Tribunal analyzed the relevant sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff. It was concluded that the products could not be classified as Ayurvedic medicaments under sub-heading 3003.30 due to the presence of synthetic ingredients and the manufacturing process. The products were deemed patent or proprietary medicaments under sub-heading 3003.10, as they bore a brand name and did not exclusively adhere to Ayurvedic formulas.
Separate Judgments
- Member (T): Concluded that the products should be classified under Heading 3003.10, emphasizing the presence of synthetic ingredients and deviation from Ayurvedic formulas.
- Vice President: Agreed with the classification under Heading 3003.10, highlighting the lack of evidence for exclusive Ayurvedic preparation and the use of Western methods.
- Member (J): Concurred with both opinions, noting that the products were not manufactured according to Ayurvedic principles and were marketed as allopathic medicines globally.
Final Order
In view of the majority opinion, the products were held to be classified under Tariff Heading 3003.10 as patent and proprietary medicaments, not exclusively Ayurvedic preparations. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
-
1995 (10) TMI 128
Issues Involved:
Assessable value determination, applicability of Notification No. 175/86, constitutionality of para 7 of the notification, conflicting views of High Courts, Tribunal's jurisdiction in light of conflicting views.
Assessable Value Determination:
The case involved the assessable value of goods manufactured by the appellant, which were assessed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise. The value was disputed due to the inclusion of the cost of manufacturing metal plates bearing a brand name, leading to excise duty liability and penalties for the manufacturer and another party.
Applicability of Notification No. 175/86:
The department relied on paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86, which restricts exemption if specified goods are affixed with a brand name of another person not eligible for exemption. The constitutionality of this provision was challenged in various High Courts, resulting in conflicting decisions.
Constitutionality of Para 7 of the Notification:
The Tribunal considered conflicting views of High Courts on the constitutionality of para 7 of the notification. It was highlighted that the Tribunal has the judicial freedom to adopt the view considered appropriate, irrespective of High Court decisions, but must adhere to Supreme Court rulings.
Conflicting Views of High Courts and Tribunal's Jurisdiction:
The Tribunal addressed the conflict of views among High Courts regarding the constitutionality of the notification. It emphasized that the Tribunal must follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court unless it has not ruled on the matter. In cases of conflicting interpretations, the Tribunal may formulate its own view.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the manufacturer was not liable for excise duty and penalties as the conditions of para 7 of the notification were not met. The goods did not have the brand name affixed by the manufacturer, entitling the appellant to the benefit of the notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequent relief.
-
1995 (10) TMI 127
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Enzyme Tablets" under Tariff Heading 3402.90.
2. Whether the conversion of enzyme powder into tablets constitutes "manufacture" under Central Excise law.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of "Enzyme Tablets" under Tariff Heading 3402.90:
The appeal challenges the order dated 31-3-1993 by the Collector (Appeals), Bangalore, which classified "Enzyme Tablets" under Tariff Heading 3402.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants did not contest this classification during the hearing, thus it remains unexamined and accepted as correct.
2. Whether the conversion of enzyme powder into tablets constitutes "manufacture" under Central Excise law:
Appellant's Contention:
The appellants argued that converting enzyme powder into tablets without adding new material and merely packaging them for marketability does not amount to manufacture. They claimed that no new goods arise from this process, as there is no change in the name, character, or use of the product. The enzyme powder, imported by M/s. Bausch & Lomb India Ltd., is sent to the appellants for job work to make it into tablets and put them into strips for marketability. They emphasized that the supplier has already paid customs and countervailing duty on the powder, and thus no fresh classification or duty should be imposed on the job worker.
Respondent's Contention:
The respondent argued that the powder form is not marketable and must be converted into tablets and put into strips in specific measures for use in cleaning contact lenses. They relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector of Central Excise v. East End Paper Industries Ltd., which supports the view that such conversion constitutes manufacture.
Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the submissions and the Collector's order. It noted that the enzyme powder becomes marketable only after conversion into tablet form and is sold as tablets in specific measures. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including East End Paper Industries, Eastern Minerals, Associated Soapstone Distributing Company Pvt. Ltd., Kher Stone Crusher, Ajanta Marble & Chemical Industries, and Union of India v. Babubhai Nylchand Mehta, which support the view that such conversions amount to manufacture.
Separate Judgments:
Member (Judicial):
The Member (Judicial) upheld the Collector's order, stating that the conversion of enzyme powder into tablets for marketability constitutes manufacture. The classification under Heading 3402.90 was not challenged and thus sustained. The appeal was rejected.
Vice President:
The Vice President disagreed, finding merit in the appellant's arguments. He emphasized that mere conversion of powder into tablets does not result in a new commodity with a distinct name, properties, and use. He cited the Supreme Court's rulings that not every process amounts to manufacture and referenced the Tribunal's decision in Brook Bond India Ltd., which held that converting coffee powder into tablets does not constitute manufacture. He concluded that the process described does not amount to manufacture and accepted the appeal.
Third Member (Technical):
The Third Member was called upon to resolve the difference of opinion. He examined the arguments and legal principles, including the maxim "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius" and relevant case law. He concluded that the conversion of enzyme powder into tablets does not amount to manufacture, agreeing with the Vice President. The appeal was accepted based on the majority opinion.
Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeal was accepted, concluding that converting enzyme blend powder into tablets does not constitute a process of manufacture under Central Excise law.
-
1995 (10) TMI 126
The Tribunal rejected the stay application as it was not filed against the relevant order and deemed it frivolous. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal must be filed before considering a stay application. The application was rejected, and the assessee was advised to file a proper appeal if aggrieved by the stay order. The appeal against an interim stay order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was deemed not maintainable.
-
1995 (10) TMI 125
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard an appeal regarding waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The appellant argued that the duty demand was based on conjecture and not sustainable. The Departmental Representative defended the Collector's decision to adopt the figure of 1000 units. The Tribunal found that production norms were not fixed and granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal. (Case: 1995 (10) TMI 125 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
........
|
9911796707
