|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 611 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... new product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would be a process in relation to the manufacture CCE v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.) . Besides, he has also contended that the Tribunal has already in a number of judgments held that Modvat is to be allowed irrespective of the fact whether input is essential or not, so long as the item is used as input in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product in the factory, the Modvat is not to be denied on it. He also contended that the Trade Notices are not binding on the assessing authority as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engg. v. Union of India reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 479 (S.C.). Besides, he has also referred to many cases of Tribunal which I have carefully gone into. 4. emsp I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 610 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Penalty - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... the person who is liable to pay the amount equivalent to the credit disallowed as determined under clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the credit so disallowed. rdquo He has fairly conceded that no doubt there is a contravention on the part of the appellant but in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat and Others, the penalty amount may be set aside. 3. emsp Shri A.K. Jain, ld. SDR has opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and has pleaded that the impugned order is perfectly in order and he has supported the observations as contained in the said impugned order. 4. emsp I have carefully considered the rival submissions and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is force in the contention raised by the ld. Counsel that when there are differing views of the Tribunal, the penalty may not be imposable. Accordingly, the penalty amount is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 609 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Clandestine removal - Quantum of production - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal we find that there is some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee that the direction of the Tribunal has not been complied with. It was also submitted, assuming that the figures in RG 1 exceeds norms for the two years, there was no justification for not taking the electricity figures for the remaining years. Since cogent reasons are not forthcoming for rejecting the electricity consumption as basis in determining the quantum of production, we are of the view that this matter will have to go back for reconsideration. In the view we have taken we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner to decide the issue afresh and to follow the directions of the Tribunal in passing the order in accordance with law. Since the matter being an old one, Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible time preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Thus, these five appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
2001 (6) TMI 606 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Tank - Dutiability - Marketability - Immovable goods ... ... ... ... ..... oncrete base and a foundation, piece-by-piece by welding bringing into existence a huge metallic tank of the size noted will amount to manufacture of goods or emergence of an immovable property. In the light of the Test and ratio laid down in the case of Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. and also in view of the Board rsquo s Circular which clearly state that it brought into existence an immovable property, therefore, the provisions of the Central Excise Act cannot be enforced to levy duty. In that view of the matter, we respectfully follow the judgment in the case of Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. and Beam Engineering (P) Ltd. in the present case by setting aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any. We find that there is no necessity to go into the question of suppression and extension of larger period as we have held that the item itself is not excisable. Thus, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders.
-
2001 (6) TMI 602 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of Export goods - Valuation - Under-valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ly when the said opinion was contested by the appellant, the Commissioner ought to have obtained opinion of an expert such as Export Inspection Agency for Exports whose report/opinion is generally accepted by the customs. No such thing was done. We consider it as a serious infirmity in the impugned order. As regards valuation, we find that the Commissioner has heavily relied upon the MMTC rsquo s price for similar goods. The appellant rsquo s contention is that the MMTC rsquo s price is a monopoly price because MMTC is the canalizing agency for the export of the said goods and moreover they load their commission charges as a result of which their price is certainly on a higher side. We find force in the appellant rsquo s argument in this regard. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
2001 (6) TMI 601 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n of the machine or plant e.g. machines for coating biscuits, etc. with chocolate, and conches rdquo . From the description of the machine in question and the scheme of the Tariff, it is clear that for its classification, the appropriate Heading was Heading No. 84.79 sub-heading No. 8479.89 as decided by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 9. emsp The appellants have referred to the certificates given by the experts. We have gone through them and we find that while the product description has been correctly given by them, the scheme of the Tariff has not been applied correctly. We, therefore, do not consider that these certificates by the experts in any way help the appellants. 10. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). We confirm the classification of the subject machines under sub-heading No. 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 600 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... the inputs have not been specifically mentioned but only a broad heading like flat rolled steel product was mentioned. I find that in the appellant rsquo s own case the Tribunal vide its order S-160/A-162, dt. 18-2-2000 has held that the description flat rolled products of steel is sufficient to cover HR coils/sheets and CR coils/sheets. As such applying the ratio of the earlier decision to the facts of the present case, which are identical. I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2001 (6) TMI 599 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Remission of duty - Packing loss ... ... ... ... ..... ed by the party. 7. emsp Further, he said that the very issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal as per Order No. 168/2000, dated 5-1-2000 holding that loss is permissible. He also cited the decisions in the case of U.P. State Cements Corporation Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 482 (All.) as well as Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 597 (T) in support of his contention. 8. emsp Smt. Radha Arun appearing for the Revenue justified the findings of the authorities below in disallowing the loss. 9. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides we do not find any justification to disallow the loss. We also take note of the fact that very issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very appellants case referred to above. Following the ratio of the same. We accept the contention of the party and accordingly these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.
-
2001 (6) TMI 598 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... that the Modvat Credit has been disallowed on the short ground of non-mentioning of one of the manufacturer rsquo s invoice in the dealer rsquo s invoice. I have seen the invoice issued by the dealer. The quantum of duty paid under the second invoice has been reflected therein. The only lapse is that the manufacturer rsquo s invoice number has not been mentioned. The dealer in the subsequent letter shown to me has given the Invoice Number of the manufacturer as B/961/90636, dated 21-9-1994. The introduction of this invoice number in the earlier invoice would correct the mistake in invoice issued by him. As such, I am of the view that the said letter of the dealer should have been taken into consideration by the authorities below. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo decision after taking into consideration the said clarificatory letter of the dealer and after making necessary verification relating thereto.
-
2001 (6) TMI 597 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... applicable to the factory the provisions of the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 1966. It is therefore not possible for us to conclude that illicit removal of fabrics have been established. However the liability to confiscation of the goods under clause (o) of Section 111 cannot be questioned. Whether their illicit removal is established or not in effect they were not utilised for the purpose they were exempted. Having regard to this fact, we reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 2.5 lakhs. 9. emsp We do not find it possible to agree that penalty was not imposable on Abubakar. However there is no doubt, no detail allegation against him in the notice or in the order. We asked the counsel for the appellant who was responsible for the general policies of the company and who supervised the day today functioning. The answer was that it was Abubakar. This, we think, clearly established his liability to penalty. 10 emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2001 (6) TMI 596 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... sediments of insoluble salt, on the ground that it is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product, the refined glycerine. 3. emsp The contention of the Counsel for the applicant, that the insoluble salt consists of waste, refuse or by product and therefore is covered by Rule 57D(1), cannot be accepted at this stage for want of evidence. Apart from the fact that there is no ground in the appeal that such salt consists of waste, refuse of by product which the Counsel for the applicant, after going through the documents, does not dispute, there is nothing to show that this salt is in fact disposed of as such waste, refuse or by product, and is not used in the manufacture of any other product. 4. emsp Accordingly, I direct deposit of the entire duty demanded by reversal in the Modvat account of the applicant. Compliance to be shown within a month from today, thereupon I waive deposit of the penalty and stay its recovery. 5. emsp Compliance on 15-6-2001.
-
2001 (6) TMI 595 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... earance of the other excisable goods. The appellants had not produced any evidence to show that the inputs in respect of which the credit has been disallowed are also inputs which are used for the manufacture of other excisable products. Therefore, I find no force in the arguments of the appellants that credit can be utilised for payment of duty of other excisable goods. The credit was disallowed on the inputs which are to be used in the manufacture of Vegetable products and the Vegetable products are exempted from duty w.e.f. 23-7-1996. The Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (supra) held that Modvat credit taken in respect of inputs which are in stock as well as in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final product which have become exempted, would be inadmissible and will have to be reversed. In view of the above decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (6) TMI 593 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... i J.M. George, JDR, for the Revenue. 5. emsp A boiler would be made of a number of component parts. It would require steel sheets, screws, bolts, nuts, rivets, hoops, and a number of other products even for the basic shell construction. It would also require pipes, joints, bends etc. When it is put to shape it would need conveyors to feed it and panels to control it. All these parts would doubtlessly fall under a number of headings. The entry at Sr. No. 18 in the notification is deliberately generally worded so as to enable anything used in the construction of the boilers to be covered thereunder. The original and the appellate authorities clearly made an error in interpreting the entry in the notification in a narrow and restrictive manner. The entry as it is worded will embrace every single thing used in the construction of the boiler, irrespective of its classification. 6. emsp The impugned orders therefore do not sustain. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
2001 (6) TMI 590 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... mitted that the only Rule under which the assessable value could be determined, was Rule 6(b)(ii). Thus, we find that the issue is debatable. In the instant case we note that major part of the demand is beyond a period of six months. 9. emsp On financial side, we find that the appellants have suffered a loss and were in some financial difficulty. 10. emsp Having regard to the facts of the case and looking to the case in its entirety and the financial condition of the company, we direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore towards duty within eight weeks from today. On deposit of this amount, deposit of the balance amount of duty and total amount of penalty shall be dispensed with and recovery thereof shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 11. emsp Failure to comply with the above directions, the stay shall get vacated and the appeal shall be dismissed without any further notice. 12. emsp The matter should come up for reporting compliance on 23-8-2001.
-
2001 (6) TMI 589 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Order-in-Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ircumstances, the Apex Court dismissed the Revenue appeal in the case of CCE v. Electrolytic Foils Ltd. reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 543 (S.C.). Appeals cannot be pursued in view of directions given by the Supreme Court that once the company is defunct appeals cannot be sustained. 3. emsp A direction was also given in this case to the Commissioner to serve copy of hearing. The Commissioner has made efforts but could not serve the notice as they are not in existence. No report is available from the Commissioner in this regard. In view of Apex Court judgment, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 555 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Penalty - Quantum ... ... ... ... ..... n view that no direct knowledge or act of/or pre-concert, with the misdeclaration was established by the adjudicator as regards Shri N.M. Mehta who was not at the scene of Export. As regards Shri Himanshu N. Gandhi, we find that he has admitted to have knowledge and was actively involved and responsible for the attempt to export misdeclared goods while he was responsible to ensure that the export of correct goods should take place. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on him is found to be adequate and justified as imposed and confirmed. 4. emsp In view of our findings, the appeal of Shri N.M. Mehta is partly allowed by reducing the penalty imposed on him under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 to Rs. 1.5 lakh. The confiscation of the goods and redemption fine on the goods belonging to his firm which was not contested before us is confirmed. The appeal of Shri Himanshu Gandhi is dismissed, as we find no reason to interfere with the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on him.
-
2001 (6) TMI 554 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Books - Paper Back Bound Book - Words and phrases ... ... ... ... ..... otional material would be for restricted audiences, as in this case. It could be therefore, considered more appropriately, as promotional material and may be appropriately classified under 4903. When we find the heading note of HSN under Heading 4901 to exclude lsquo publicity material and matter more specifically covered by Heading 4902. rsquo We cannot therefore, find the same to be covered under Heading 4901, as claimed by the appellants or under 4911.99 as classified by the lower authorities. (d) Since we do not find Heading 4911.20 as confirmed by the lower authorities nor Heading 4901.99 as claimed by the appellants to be correct but Heading 4902.90 to be more appropriate, for Journals of this kind, we would remand the matter back to the Original Authority, to consider the issue of classification under 4902.90 after placing the appellants on notice and hearing them on this issue. 3. emsp In view of our findings, the appeal is allowed for de novo decision in above terms.
-
2001 (6) TMI 553 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand for short levy ... ... ... ... ..... ing cases (i) Universal Electronics v. C.C.E. - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 134 (ii) Ekon Chemicals - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 46 (iii) C.C.E. v. Alfa Engineers - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 157 5. emsp We are of the considered opinion that the issue is now fully settled in terms of the afore noted judgments. In so far as proceedings under the Central Excise Act is concerned that it is basic and fundamental for issue of show cause notice for raising demands for confirmation purpose. If it has not done, then it is fundamental error, which is not curable and such proceedings are not sustainable. The fact that party has waived the show cause notice will not absolve the Department rsquo s statutory responsibility to issue show cause notice under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act. In that view of the settled position of law the appellants succeeded on this preliminary point raised by them itself. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (6) TMI 551 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Quantity discount ... ... ... ... ..... view the clarificatory order in UOI v. Bombay Tyre International - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) this claim has been rightly allowed by the Assistant Collector in favour of the assessee. This observation of the Supreme Court in para 58 has been followed by the Tribunal in the assessee rsquo s own case reported in 1998 (27) RLT 581 at para 3 thereof. Hence we hold this point in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. emsp As far as the second and third points are concerned, namely handling expenses and interest on finished goods in stock, it is conceded by Shri Patil that the same has been decided against the assessee in a number of decisions, namely GOI v. MRF - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 and the assessee rsquo s own case reported in 1998 (27) RLT 581. Hence this is decided in favour of the department. 5. emsp The appeal is disposed of accordingly and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional assessing authority for re-quantification on the basis of the above order.
-
2001 (6) TMI 549 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat on Capital goods - Documents ... ... ... ... ..... s are satisfied, the conditional notification has or has not been availed of. 4. emsp The ratio of this decision therefore would apply unless the existence of circumstances not warranting its application is shown. The Departmental Representative rsquo s contention that the appellant knew that the goods were exempted, since it purchased the goods from their manufacturer, is clearly unacceptable in a situation where the requirement of the law, as clarified in the Tribunal rsquo s decision, that it must be shown by the department that the goods were cleared by their manufacturer under an exemption, have not been satisfied. The aluminium was supplied to the appellant by Shreeji Metal Industries, Baroda, who has not been shown to be their manufacturer. Such is also not the allegation in the show cause notice or a finding in the impugned order. Therefore, there is no reason not to apply the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
........
|
