Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 200 Records
-
1992 (4) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to S.S.I. units. ... ... ... ... ..... le us to come to a conclusion that the appellants are eligible to the benefit thereof. We, therefore, remand the issue of determining their eligibility to the benefit of Notification 74/78 upon satisfaction of the conditions contained in the provisos 1 and 2 thereto, to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who shall decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. 7. In the result we hold as follows (a) the benefit of exemption under Notification 83/83 is not available to the appellants (b) the demand is sustainable only for the period June-November 1984 (c) proviso 3 to the Notification 74/78 does not operate against the appellants (d) the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of Notification 74/78 is to be determined afresh by the Assistant Collector who shall satisfy himself as to the fulfilment by the appellants of the conditions set out in provisos 1 and 2 thereof. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... of earlier. In this view of the matter, in so far as the issue before us is concerned, we do not find justifiable ground calling for interference. 8. Now, a point is made that they have received inputs on G.P. 1s evidencing payment of duty at the rate of Rs. 500/- per M.T. If that were so, there was no need for the appellants to have gone in for deemed credit. They could have taken the credit of actual duty paid on the inputs as evidenced from G.P. 1s in terms of Rule 57G(2). If they had erroneously taken the deemed credit at the lower rate, they are to approach the concerned authorities with documentary evidences and claim for restoration of credit of the actual duty paid on the inputs. Such a request may have to be considered by the authorities in accordance with law and suitable order passed thereon. Since this point is not the subject matter of the orders appealed against, we cannot give any findings either on facts or on their admissibility. Appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1992 (4) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... as plausible and also noted that the department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all goods manufactured by the respondent when the declaration was filed by the respondent. The respondent did not include the value of the product other man those falling under Tariff Item 14E manufactured by the respondent and this was in the knowledge, according to the Tribunal, of the authorities. These findings of the Tribunal have not been challenged before us or before the Tribunal itself as being based on no evidence. It has been held by us on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the charge of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts is not sustainable against the appellants. Hence, on the ratio of the Supreme Court decision quoted above we hold that the demand issued to the appellants was barred by limitation. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order confirming the demand issued to the appellants. 10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (4) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation for Cess Duty ... ... ... ... ..... Besides, Rule 3 of the Automobile Cess Rules makes it clear the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act are to be applied for the levy and collection of Cess. Besides, in this context, reading the word lsquo duty rsquo as lsquo Cess rsquo will lead to an anomalous situation inasmuch as if Cess is to be calculated on the wholesale price (less discount) there is no question again of deducting Cess for the purpose of calculating Cess. In this view, we hold that for the purpose of calculating Cess, the Central Excise duty and Sales-tax, if leviable and included in wholesale cash price should be deducted. As a result, the appellants rsquo pleas are accepted. In view of this finding, we need not go into other case law cited as the said judgments are not relevant to the present issue. We have referred to the cases Which have a bearing on the question. rdquo 5. We follow the decision of the Tribunal quoted above and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (4) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Compressed wood and articles ... ... ... ... ..... ariff sub-item, 33B(ii). lsquo All others rsquo it was not permissible for the department to collect and retain the full duty twice under the same sub-item. On the ratio of these decisions it has to be held that conductors manufactured by the respondents, no duty was recoverable on aluminium wires manufactured and removed for captive consumption for the manufacture of conductors. rdquo 6. Since both Compressed Wood and articles thereof were covered by the Central Excise Tariff Item 16-B to which the procedure under Rule 56A was applicable and duty was paid by the applicants on the final products we hold that on the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision quoted above no duty was recoverable on the Compressed Wood used captively during the relevant period by the appellants. . 7. In view of the above discussion we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. The cross-objection filed by the respondents is disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (4) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Globe being maps represented on surface of sphere ... ... ... ... ..... esented on the surface of a sphere. Cartography is the art and science of making maps and charts. rdquo The meaning of globe, as given in Encyclopaedia Britannica is also reproduced below ldquo Globe - sphere or ball that bears a map of earth on its surface and is mounted on an axis that permits rotation. The ancient Greeks who knew the Earth to be a sphere first to use globes to represent the surface of the Earth. rdquo 6. In view of these dictionary meanings, we are satisfied that globe or map represented on the surface of a sphere. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 112/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. It is also a settled law that while interpreting a Notification, the intention of the legislature in the issue of the Notification should not be ignored. 7. In view of these observations, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Revenue Authorities are directed to give a consequential effect to this order.
-
1992 (4) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... ut in this case. The decision reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 744, Icem Engineering Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise relates to a case where the claim had been rejected on the ground that the appellants had failed to observe the proper procedure laid down under Rule 223-B even though the appellants had marked lsquo paid under protest rsquo on the duty-paying documents and the protest was a valid one. Similar thereto is the case of Andhra Cement Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 553 where the protest was a valid one as duty was paid under protest after approval of the price list. The facts of all the above cases are entirely different from the facts herein namely that the protest in this case was based upon a false declaration that an appeal for exemption by the appellants was pending. 5. In the light of the above reasons we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly confirm the same and dismiss the appeal.
-
1992 (4) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ad interim stay against the recovery of interest at 17.5 be granted pending hearing of the appeal against the order passed by the Principal Collector. 2. On behalf of the Revenue the learned SDR Shri G. Bhushan, contended that the letter issued by the Supdt. to the Principal Collector, Central Excise, Vadodara against which the applicants had come up before the Tribunal was not an appealable order and no appeal could lie against the said order to the Tribunal. He prayed for the rejection of the application for stay and also the appeal. 3. We have examined the record of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The impugned order reproduced above is merely a communication by the Supdt. to the Principal Collector of Customs, Central Excise, Vadodara to the Collector of Customs and Central Excise. In our view no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the said communication. Accordingly, the application for stay and the appeal are disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (4) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Photocomposing machine with an integrated keyboard ... ... ... ... ..... 962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in the table below and falling within Chapter LXXXIV or Chapter XC of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), and are designed for use in the printing industry, when imported into India, from so much of that portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule, as is in excess of 25 per cent ad valorem Sl. No. Description. 1. xx emsp xx emsp xx 2. Photocomposing machines with keyboards. 3. xx emsp xx emsp xx 4. xx emsp xx emsp xx 5. xx rdquo emsp xx emsp xx Since we have taken the view that imported item is a photocomposing machine with an integrated keyboard, we do not find any justification in rejecting the benefit as envisaged in the above notification. 6. In the view we have taken, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1992 (4) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appealable Order ... ... ... ... ..... t the stage of seizure, the only requirement being the satisfaction of the concerned officer that there are reasons to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation by reason of the illegal importation. It is, therefore, clear that in view of words lsquo sufficient cause being shown rsquo in Section 110(2), the legislature did not intend to give the Collector the same power for extension of time. (para 13). Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision we are of the view that the impugned order in question is appealable order and, accordingly, the appeal is maintainable. We also take note of the decision in the case of K.S. Diesels Ltd., (supra) cited by the appellants rsquo counsel wherein it was held that order passed under Sections 59, 61 and 72 of the Customs Act are appealable. 6. In the view we have taken that the appeal is maintainable. The Registry is directed to post the case for hearing COD application by issuing notices to both sides. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1992 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... rate the grounds on which the adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of the goods. 6. We have carefully considered the appeal, the rival submissions and have perused the case records. The position is well-settled in law that in respect of goods which are not notified under Section 123 or to which the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act are not applicable, the burden of proof that they are not smuggled is on the Customs Authorities. The appellant, in this case had produced bills in respect of purchase of spectacle frames, and for as many as 393 pcs., the Additional Collector has accepted those bills as genuine. If particulars did not tally in respect of the others, it did not mean that such goods became liable to confiscation or that it was for the appellant to prove their lawful possession. Thus following the well-settled position in law as cited in the cases referred to by Shri Asthana before us, we set aside the order of confiscation and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (4) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... trolling system. But the question is merely because it is a part of glass level instrument, should it be classified under 90.28(1) relying on Note 2 of Chapter 90, irrespective of the system of operation. In this context, Note 5 of Chapter 90 says that instruments falling under 90.24, the tariff of which depends on electrical phenomenon should be classified under 90.28. The function of the impugned goods is reliable operation, measurement and precise recording/indicating of any variable that can be transmitted into voltage. In other words, it operates on electrical phenomenon as it records any variable that can be transmitted into voltage. Therefore, applying Note 5(b), though the circular chart recorder is a part of glass level measuring and controlling system since it operates on electrical phenomenon, it should be classified under 90.28(4) in view of Note 5(b) of Chapter 90. 11. In view of the foregoing, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the lower authorities.
-
1992 (4) TMI 147 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS (
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... vat credit of steel shots would defeat the very purpose of the introduction of modvat scheme. I have gone through the oral and written submission. I cannot agree with the appellants rsquo contention that Plant/equipment/Machinery etc. should fall under the category of lsquo Capital Goods rsquo to be excluded from availment of Modvat credit. This is evident from the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 598 (SRB) wherein it is held that lsquo Interleaving Kraft Paper being more in the nature of equipment or appliance in the manufacture of steel sheets/coils, cannot be considered as input for the manufacture of finished product. Hence not eligible for modvat credit. Now Steel Shots are used for cleaning the surface and are therefore used as a tool. They therefore, get identified with tools/appliances and are hit by the exclusion clause to Rule 57A. The appeal has no merits and is therefore rejected.
-
1992 (4) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI units and Modvat benefit ... ... ... ... ..... TR 37 and in the case of Abilash Rubber Products and Another v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 168 (Tri.) 1991 (36) ECR 553 (CEGAT SRB), the department should have allowed their request. The Collector (Appeals) has, therefore, erred in rejecting their appeal. 5. The learned D.R. stated that the department has taken a correct stand in view of the language of the Notification No. 175/86 which refers to the goods specified therein. Further the facts were different in cases of those parties which had availed Modvat benefit and these judgments cited by the ld. Counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover the Tribunal has taken different view in different cases. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that learned counsel is correct. The matters are apparently covered by the two judgments cited by him above. Hence, in view of the ratio thereof we set aside the impugned orders and accept the appeals.
-
1992 (4) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... e of Notification 172/84 in the absence of any restriction in the said Notification. The Tribunal observed ldquo On going through these notifications, we cannot see how a prohibition or restriction of the aforesaid nature can be imported into Notifications 172/84 and 182/84. Any attempt to do so, in view of the provision of Rule 57F(4)(a) is, in our opinion, not permissible. According to Rule 57F(4)(a), the waste is to be removed on payment of duty only if it is otherwise dutiable. Dutiability has always to be seen not only with reference to the Tariff Item, but also with reference to an exemption Notification under Rule 8(1) rdquo . The Tribunal rsquo s decision is also given on taking note of the various clarifications given by the Board. The facts of the present case are parallel to the case decided by the Tribunal and the ratio of that decision is, therefore, applicable to the facts of the present case and applying it, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (4) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ndings recorded by the Additional Collector, it is clear that, he confirmed the demand holding that the appellants had fabricated the Oil Refinery Section in their premises by giving a contract on job charges basis to M/s. Vikas Welding Works. From paragraph 4 of his impugned Order, it is also clear that, the raw material required for the manufacture of the Refinery Section was purchased by the appellants from the open market. Thus, applying the ratio of the said decision rendered in the case of Partap Steel Rolling Mills, supra, we hold that the fabrication of the Oil Refinery Section by the appellants in their own factory premises by giving a contract on job charges basis to M/s. Vikas Welding Works did not amount to manufacture and further that these are immovables and not excisable goods. Consequently, not liable to excise duty. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, if any. Cross objection also stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (4) TMI 143 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Return of duty paid goods for repair, reconditioning etc. ... ... ... ... ..... e-made, refined, re-conditioned or subjected to any other process in the factory may make the manufacturers hesitant to opt for Rule 173L but opt for the alternative procedure of Rule 173H, and deny them the benefit of refund of the larger amount of duty paid originally and payment of the reduced amount of duty on the clearance of the reconditioned goods, such a restriction was not there at the material time and the refund cannot be denied. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants. In fact, during the arguments in the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants mentioned that they had neither received the refund of the duty paid by them originally nor the refund limited to the amount paid by them subsequently at the time of clearance of the reconditioned goods. As we have held now, the refund under Rule 173L would be admissible to them and that would be the amount of duty paid by them originally. Sd/- 6-4-1992 (K. SANKARARAMAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
-
1992 (4) TMI 142 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... that particular order under Section 35E(2) but without doing that they cannot say, while the letter dated l7-7-l987 was correct so far as the appropriation of the refund amount was concerned, yet the same could not be considered as a proper order so far as the refund of the amount is concerned. As mentioned earlier, issue of the letter dated 22-9-1987 giving reasons for sanctioning lesser amount of refund than claimed only confers the benefit on the respondents for the purpose of limitation for filing the appeal from that date and it does not confer any corresponding right on the Department for the purpose of reckoning the limitation for raising the demand. The demand can be raised only with reference to the date on which the refund is made. In file present case, as mentioned above, appropriation of the amount can be the date of the refund and, therefore, the limitation has to necessarily run from that date. In view of the above I hold that the demand is barred by limitation.
-
1992 (4) TMI 141 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... or ready-to-use packages or containers but the expression packaging materials, simpliciter, would cover materials used for packaging a final product. In other words, while ready-to-use, complete containers like boxes, pouches, bags etc. are packaging materials, the converse position that packaging materials are such containers, the whole containers and nothing but the containers is not true. No exemption is also available for Iron Hoop used for packaging Plywood to attract the exclusion provision-(ii) under the Explanation Clause of Rule 57A. Likewise, Clause-(iii) of the exclusion provision ibid, is also not attracted as the cost of the same had not been excluded by the appellants in the assessable value of their final product. Hence, the appeal succeeds on all these counts I, accordingly, allow the appeal. The appellants would be entitled to consequential reliefs. 7. The two appeals are disposed of as above at the end of the hearing. The orders were announced in the Court.
-
1992 (4) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal in customs baggage case - Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... om the clear wording of the Proviso to Section 129A, does not extend to orders relating to any goods imported as baggage. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. Khalil Kecherim of Teheran (supra) is not applicable to decide the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which was set up much after the above decision had been rendered. 21. In view of the above, I agree with the order proposed by the learned Member (Technical) that the appeals are not maintainable before this Tribunal. The file may be placed before the original Bench for passing suitable orders. 23-3-1992 Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Judicial Member 22. Final Order . - In accordance with the opinion of the majority it is held that all the present appeals are not maintainable before this Tribunal. 23. In the result, all the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. The Misc. Application also stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (N.K. Bajpai) Member (Technical) 22-4-1991 Sd/- (G.P. Agarwal) Member (J)
........
|