|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 359 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 291
Penalty - Licensed unit - RT 12 Returns not filed ... ... ... ... ..... under the Licensing control having taken the licence, hence they should have submitted the RT 12 Returns. Non-submission of RT 12 Returns is therefore considered to be an offence and the penalties have been imposed. 2. After hearing Shri Arya, and perusing the appeal memorandum, it is observed that if the appellants have filed the requisite declaration for exemption, they would have been eligible for the same. Merely because they held the licence, the penalties have been imposed on the ground that they are required to file the RT 12 Returns. I observe that no duty has been demanded and no allegation of evasion is noticed. In the circumstances, especially when the units are otherwise eligible for the exemption, non-submission of RT 12 Returns could have been viewed with leniency and hence I set aside the penalties. The appellants are however warned that unless and until their declarations are accepted for exemption, they should abide by the excise requirements as per the law.
-
1991 (3) TMI 290
Refund of duty paid once again on the same goods - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months. This section does not make any reference as to where the duty payment has taken place nor refers to any erroneous payment. In this case, even admitting the argument of the ld. JDR that the duty has been paid correctly at Gandhidham, when it is established that the same goods have suffered duty again at Jaipur and if the Assistant Collector is satisfied about that, he should have entertained the claim for refund. Since the accepted legal position is that the same goods cannot suffer duty twice. Moreover, in this case, the appellants have approached the authority, where the duty has been paid initially, within the time prescribed under Section 11B. In view of the factual position, I allow the appeal and direct the Assistant Collector to entertain the refund claim and pass orders if he is satisfied that the same quantity has suffered duty again at Jaipur.
-
1991 (3) TMI 289
Modvat Credit - Unit manufacturing final product as well as components ... ... ... ... ..... 73H, it is not even required to be subject to any process it can even be for their own use. 4. emsp After hearing both the sides, I find that the undisputed facts are that the components as well as the final product are covered by Modvat scheme. Duty has been paid on these components. Merely because they have gone outside on payment of duty and returned, they cannot cease to be notified goods eligible for Modvat credit. It is also pleaded that because of the consignee rsquo s refusal to take the delivery of the goods, the ownership continues to rest with them. Explanation to Rule 57A also covers inputs lying within the factory and used by them. Even Rule 173H (as pointed out by Shri Arya) indicates that the goods brought back can be utilised by them for their own use. In view of the facts as above, I do not find any justification in upholding the contention of the authorities below. I, therefore, allow the appeal with consequential relief by way of extension of Modvat credit.
-
1991 (3) TMI 288
Rectification of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ible to accede to the plea that inherent power should be exercised by the Tribunal to stay operation of the show cause notice for recovery of duty as a consequence of the Tribunal rsquo s order in appeal. Further, even admitting that the Tribunal was factually wrong in observing that the plea of non-marketability was made for the first time before it, yet the Tribunal had given detailed finding on this aspect with reference to the material on record. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rsquo s Order is dismissed, and in so doing it will be useful again to recall the Supreme Court observation in the case of T.S. Balram v. Volkart Brothers mdash 1971 (82) ITR 50 (S.C.) as under ldquo A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions...A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. rdquo
-
1991 (3) TMI 287
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... would mean cutting the paper/board to proper size and giving it the required shape. After cutting, the paper/board are converted into cartons so that they can be folded to get the required shape of cartons. The learned Jr. D.R. has stated that the process of manufacture becomes complete after the punching takes place in the appellants rsquo factory. This argument has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellants by producing any material before us. In the circumstances, it is evident that the process undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Consequently, Central Excise duty was payable by the appellants on the cartons manufactured in their factory. The value of clearances of these goods had to be taken into account for the purpose of Exemption Notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983. 7. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1991 (3) TMI 286
... ...
... ... ..... with the Explanation thereto regarding lsquo containers rsquo and held that even without the plastic cap the aluminium collapsible tube remains the same and will satisfy the tariff description lsquo containers rsquo under Item 27 with its Explanation, and that further the caps have to be treated separately while charging duty on aluminium as envisaged under Item 27 C.E.T. We also find that as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. A33 (supra) the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against this decision of the CEGAT observing, ldquo We have considered the facts and heard the Ld. Lawyers. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. rdquo In view of the position so settled, in the present case also, the demand raised against the appellants on the ground that they had discharged duty liability under Item 27 CET only on the aluminium collapsible tubes, and not on the tubes fitted with caps, is not sustainable. The impunged order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 285
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... rs, when added to the paints as such, do not bring into existence any new product but only make the paint dilute to render it usable for the purpose of manufacture of the vacuum cleaners. The question therefore, that arises is that when a particular eligible input is used in conjunction with another input in relation to the manufacture of the finished product, can that particular product be eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit and covered by the expression ldquo used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product rdquo . It is not the case of either side that any intermediate product as such is manufactured by the addition of thinners to the paints. If that be not so then the use of the thinners which even otherwise can be used only in admixture with something else have to be considered as in relation to the manufacture of the finished excisable product in question. In that view of the matter we hold that thinners are eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit.
-
1991 (3) TMI 284
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal also had held that the Transport Corporation was liable for penalty under Rule 52A(5). In the above cited decisions, the Tribunal held that it is not possible to accept the defence of Transport Corporation that the mixing up was done in view of the illiteracy of the labourers. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J159 - Hindusthan Steel is not applicable to the facts of the case as the contravention alleged is not a technical one or a trivial one as held by their Lordships. Taking into consideration these facts, we hereby modify the order of imposition of penalty on M/s. Road Transport Corporation (P) Ltd. by imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) under Rule 52A(5). The penalty imposed on them under Rule 209A to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- is hereby set aside. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. is allowed. The appeal filed by M/s. Road Transport Corpn. (P) Ltd. is partly allowed in the above terms.
-
1991 (3) TMI 283
Confiscation - Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... Office Act - prosecution proving that articles were found in Almirah of house in which accused lived jointly with the father and of which key was furnished by father - Evidence not sufficient to infer exclusive possession of postal articles of accused. Relying on that decision it is seen that merely because the goods were seized from the house it cannot be said that the father of Shri Ranjit Mukherjee i.e. Shri Madhusudan Mukherjee was in joint possession of the same. It was Shri Ranjit Mukherjee who was doing the business. There is no evidence to show that Shri Madhusudan Mukherjee was in joint possession of the goods seized. There is also no evidence to show that he was in any way connected with the business done by Shri Ranjit Mukherjee. Hence, the imposition of penalty on Shri Madhusudan Mukherjee is not in accordance with law. We therefore set aside the order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Madhusudan Mukherjee. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1991 (3) TMI 282
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... classified under Chapter 99 except for Cyclophosphamide for injections which falls under Serial No. 11 of Chapter 99. The grant of exemption by learned Collector in the impugned order to item Cyclophosphamide for injection alone will be entitled for nil rate of duty under Chapter 99 and not the item Cyclophosphamide for tablets which is not covered under Chapter 99. To this extent alone, the Revenue succeeds in this appeal and the order of the Collector (Appeals) stands modified. The relief to item lsquo Cyclophosphamide for injection rsquo being granted not on the reasoning given by the learned Collector in his order but by the fact that the item lsquo Cyclophosphamide for injection rsquo is chargeable with nil rate of duty under Chapter 99. The importer had sought for relief on this ground also as is evident from the reading of the refund claim and the grounds of appeal filed before the Collector which has been produced before us for perusal. The appeals are allowed partly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 281
Adjudication proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... e of crow-fly distance from Bettiah to Indo-Nepal Border. It is no doubt true that the appellant at this appellate stage had produced two certificates to show that the distance is .... 50 kms, but the learned Departmental Representative relied on the following decisions (1)1989 (41) E.L.T. 495 (2) 1989 (44) E.L.T. 661 and contended that such records which were not produced before the original authority cannot be produced at this stage. However, it is not for the appellant to prove that the place of interception is beyond 50 kms, but it is for the department to prove that the place of interception is within 50 kms, and more particularly, when the appellant had contested this fact. Since there is no such material available and produced by the department to prove this factor, the question of violation of Section 113(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 also does not arise in this case. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed. The appellants are entitled for the consequential reliefs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 280
Refund of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ere in the custody of the department elsewhere and were in the process of being transmitted to the office at Ahmedabad and in that case, the Collector (Appeals) ought to have examined this aspect or remanded the matter for re-examination. Rule 186 of the Rules also contemplates that AR 4 form should be sent by one office to other office directly. 6. Considering the evidence now available on records, it appears that the AR 4 forms must have been received by the Ahmedabad office. The orders are therefore set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Assistant Collector for examining the claims on merits by verifying the same from the original AR 4 forms received by them from the concerned excise office. It is also directed that this being the correspondences between the two departments the adjudicating authority, through appropriate channel, may also make reasonable efforts to procure the original AR 4 forms. 7. With this direction the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
1991 (3) TMI 279
Penalty and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... t, 1962, read with Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. But the truck had been released as per the orders of the Hon rsquo ble High Court. There was also no direction by the Hon rsquo ble High Court that the truck should be released with a condition for its production before the learned Collector. Hence, in the absence of any such condition and when the truck is not available for confiscation, the same could not have been confiscated and on that count the redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the appellants, M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. (P) Ltd. is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the imposition of the redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on M/s. Ajanta Transport Co. (P) Ltd. in Appeal No. E-56/87. In Appeal No. E-57/87-Cal filed by M/s. Orissa Transport Service, no such confiscation of the truck and imposition of redemption fine was ordered by the Collector. 17. In the result, these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (3) TMI 278
Return of defective duty paid goods for remaking etc. ... ... ... ... ..... ord Ashok Leyland on the gate pass is a trivial omission. In fact, the appellant claims that they do not show the word Ashok Leyland because it is known that the goods are being consigned to M/s. Ashok Leyland. As regards the second issue the appellant had claimed that they had remade the goods after melting the rejected break drums and supplied it to the same consignee. In any case, this point has been aptly taken care of by the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal who have also referred to a clarification dated 21-2-1980 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and observed that in the case of return of steel castings under Rule 173L for remanufacture, the original identity of the returned goods was not possible to be retained due to their melting and that the provisions of Rule 173L would not be a bar in refund of the duties already paid so long as the other conditions are fulfilled. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Collector is hereby set aside.
-
1991 (3) TMI 277
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ent must be applied to the same words and phrase appearing in rules, regulations, notifications etc. issued under the enactment unless a contrary intention is apparent. In the present instance, we do not see that the notification in question has anything to suggest that the term lsquo printed books rsquo is to be understood differently from its meaning for the purpose of the entry in the Schedule. This view is reinforced by Section 20 of the General Clauses Act which provides that where, by any Central Act or regulation, a power to issue any notification, order, etc. is conferred, then, expressions used in the notification, order, etc., if it is made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act, shall, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, have the same respective meanings as in the Act or Regulation conferring the power. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow consequential benefit to the appellants.
-
1991 (3) TMI 276
Waste cotton yarn arising in the course of weaving of fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... o 3.1 The Tribunal rsquo s decision and the observations made therein, extracted above and relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants do not help them. In that case the Tribunal was concerned only with the waste yarn arising during the process of sizing. It did not consider the waste cotton yarn arising during the process of weaving. Sizing of yarn was merely considered to be a process prior to the stage of weaving and sizing in fact is nothing but a preparation and toughening of the yarn by adding the sizing material to the yarn for the purpose of weaving. The Tribunal rsquo s decision in Shree Yamuna Mills Co. Ltd., Baroda rsquo s case merely allows the waste cotton yarn arising in the sizing section to be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 95/61 and no more. The impugned order also gives that benefit to the appellants. Therefore, in view of the Tribunal rsquo s earlier decisions, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 4. Hence the appeal is rejected.
-
1991 (3) TMI 275
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ellants indicating that they have fulfilled the export obligation and, therefore, their undertaking given to that office has been cancelled. The DEEC forwarded by the appellants to the officer of the JCCI and E was retained in the said office. Copy of the DEC has not been brought on record by the appellants which could substantiate their submission. In any case, as pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative for the Department, this is a new claim which was never before the lower authorities and it would, therefore, not be desirable for us to grant that benefit at this stage which requires enquiry into new facts. The appellants would, however, be at liberty to file their claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act before the concerned Customs authorities who may then decide their claim in accordance with law. 7. In the light of our findings on the main issue involved whether these ceramic seals are entitled to the benefit of Notification 117/78, we reject the appeal.
-
1991 (3) TMI 274
Natural Justice - Issue of show cause notice waived by appellant consciously ... ... ... ... ..... rders as under - ldquo In the result, goods and currency seized from him is ordered to be confiscated absolutely. In view of the consideration urged and the fact that he has been penalised by the court, I take a lenient view and impose on him a nominal penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. rdquo The facts of the present matter are on all force similar to the matter in the case of Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh and Another v. Ajit Singh and Another reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 769 (supra) and in that case the Tribunal had followed the Madras High Court reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 322. Accordingly, I am of the view that while passing the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority should have mentioned whether the penalty is being imposed under Section 112(a) or (b). Accordingly, I agree with the view of the Judicial Member. The matter to be placed before the Bench for passing appropriate orders.
-
1991 (3) TMI 273
Paper - Gummed paper ... ... ... ... ..... learing gummed paper in rolls. It is now claimed before us that the clearance of gummed paper was in the form of reels. This is a question of fact and its determination is relevant to the question whether the subject goods were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 49/87. The material on record is not sufficient to enable us to come to a conclusion on this. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for determination after giving both sides an opportunity to present their case with evidence. If the finding is that gummed paper was being cleared in reels, the appellants would be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 49/87. If, on the other hand, the finding is that the goods were being cleared in roll or strip form, then the appellants would not be eligible for the benefit of the notification. 13. With the above observations and directions, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for de novo determination.
-
1991 (3) TMI 272
Valuation - Handling charges ... ... ... ... ..... bove heads and have it certified by a Chartered Accountant. Once this break-up is submitted by the appellants, the Assistant Collector should finalise the Price Lists, after making such enquiries as he considers necessary, and after hearing the appellants. 12. It is hardly necessary for us to say that the arguments of the learned SDR about the three factors which should be kept in mind get automatically disposed of once the ratio of the two decisions of the Tribunal are applied to the present case. The decisions in Sathe Biscuits as well as Radha Krishaiah rsquo s case are not violated by the application of this principle, because it is clear that cylinders in which liquid Chlorine is supplied are durable and returnable in nature. 13. In view of the above, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise with the directions indicated in para 11 above. The Cross Objection is also disposed of in these terms.
........
|
