|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 240 Records
-
1993 (1) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... y Shri Dongre and the records made available by him there is nothing to establish clandestine production and removal of biris on which the duty has been confirmed in the-Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Indore. As we have noted above, Shri Dongre had a grudge against the appellant firm and wanted to implicate them for the dispute he had with them. In our considered view, in the circumstances of the case, it is not proper to rely upon the testimony of Shri Dongre, without corroboration. 52. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we consider that the appeal by the appellants merit acceptance and consequently, we set aside the impugned Order with consequential relief to the appellants. 53. As we have accepted the appeal on merits of the case, we do not consider it necessary to discuss the other points raised by the appellants except the question of jurisdiction which we have already discussed above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (1) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is its body-strength near anywhere that of a safe. The thickness of its plates is practically half of those of a safe. It has no safeguard plate and drill-proof layer. Its lock is not burglary resistant. It is neither designed nor recognised in the trade as a safe. rdquo 10. Concurring with the above view and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision we hold that these are filing cabinets and, accordingly, they are classifiable under sub-heading 8304.00 as claimed by the party. Since we are deciding the main issue of classification in favour of the party, we do not feel it necessary to go into other issues raised by both sides and also time-bar issue taken by the learned counsel for the party during the course of arguments relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 349 (S.C.) and Chemphar Drugs and Liniments 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) . 11. These three cases are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (1) TMI 157 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... G-23A accounts in the manner prayed for by them before the authorities is not in ldquo the nature of claiming refund by them as held by the Assistant Collector in his order. As the appellants were eligible to utilise the credit earned by them on the parts of Black and White TV Receivers for the purpose of payment of duty on such TV sets till 25-7-1991 the request made by them during the proceedings before the lower authorities was permissible. As the same had been rejected wrongly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for examining their request for permission to avail the alleged excess utilised credit for payment of duty on Black and White TV sets and adjust the equivalent amount of debit from the PLA utilised for the said sets for the purpose of paying the duty on Colour sets. If the amounts are adjusted in the manner, there will be no case for recovery of duty in pursuance of the demand. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
-
1993 (1) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI units - SSI exemption ... ... ... ... ..... tles breakages Rs. 28,59,000 Rs. 1,34,20,253 The value of clearance would, therefore, be clearly below Rs. 1.50 crores. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to go into the disallowance of freight and transportation of Rs. 15.70 lakhs. 13. In the light of the above discussion we hold that (a) the value of plant and machinery of the appellant company during the relevant period was below Rs. 35 lakhs and, therefore, they were eligible for registration as a small scale industry. (b) the value of clearances of the appellant company during the preceding financial year did not exceed Rs. 1.5 crores and, therefore, they were eligible for exemption under Notification 175/86 dated 1-3- 1986. (c) the appellant company has fulfilled the condition stipulated in Notification 175/86 of registration with the Director of Industries during the relevant period. 14. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1993 (1) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... efore, this clarification does not advance the case of the respondents. Heading 90.09 is not included in the Table annexed to Notification 69/87. Therefore, the goods, consequently, will not be eligible for exemption under that notification. In this view of the matter, there is a lot of force in the appeal filed by the Collector because the Collector (Appeals) has failed to consider the criterion laid down in the Rules for the Interpretation of the Tariff, as noted above, to say that a specific heading is to be preferred. Further, although HSN Explanatory Notes, admittedly, have a persuasive value in determining classification, yet where such classification can be determined with reference to the Rules of Interpretation to the Tariff, Chapter Note and Tariff heading in the CTA rsquo 75 itself, there will be no necessity to rely upon the HSN Notes in the matter as has been done by the Collector (Appeals). The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 154 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjudication Order ... ... ... ... ..... ir application under Rule 57H has to be examined on merits with regard to the identity of the goods used by them in the manufacture of dutiable goods cleared by them after availing full exemption and whether they were the same as what was in stock as on 1-4-1987 as claimed by them. This question has to be looked into afresh with reference to whatever documentary evidence has been submitted by them and any other contemporaneous statements already submitted by them. As the order-in-original has been passed without taking care of this position, the matter requires to be remanded to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for deciding the matter afresh on merits in accordance with the conditions of Rule 57H. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector for de novo decision on merits as indicated above. The disallowance of credit of Rs. 750.72 and Rs. 689.85 has been set aside vide para 4 supra.
-
1993 (1) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to S.S.I. Units and Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... the case of another factory of the same manufacturer where such credit availment does not take place. Sub-clause (ii) of the same provision, as noticed earlier, refers to cases of manufacturers who do not avail of the said facility. This is clear enough and, in our opinion, it cannot be read in such a way that its scope and effect are construed to apply to manufacturers where such availment does not take place though such availment does take place in respect of other factories belonging to the same manufacturer. The notification is to be read as a whole. rsquo 7. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision and particularly taking into consideration that party had availed modvat credit on the common input with reference to both the finished products, we do not find any justification in availing benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86. 8. In the view we have taken we uphold the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the party is hereby dismissed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... egrinding of angles after an edge has become blunt, is only a guide or pointer to classification and cannot be placed at higher pedestal than a decision of the Tribunal on the same items. We may also point out at this stage that the same arguments which were advanced by the respondents before the Assistant Collector herein, were also put forth before the Tribunal in the Indian Tool Manufacturers case and rejected by the Bench. Lastly, even the technical literature produced by the respondents does not, in clear and unequivocal terms, spell out that throwaway or replacement inserts are not tool tips. We, therefore, do not find sufficient reason to take a view different from the earlier view of the Tribunal. 11. Respectfully following the ratio of the Indian Tool Manufacturers order supra, we hold that the items in dispute fall for classification under TI 62 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1993 (1) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ofit of M/s. All Seasons would also have to be deducted from the aforesaid price. All these matters will require re-calculation of the price and the appellants will be required to place the necessary data with the supporting documents. The orders of the lower authorities are, therefore, set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise for fresh adjudication after taking into account the deductions permissible. The appellants are required to furnish the data after which calculations would be made afresh and, after hearing them, the Asstt. Collector should pass the order without delay. 19. In deciding this appeal, we have taken into account the observations of the Supreme Court in Cibatul rsquo s case, Food Specialities case and the Atic Industries case which have been cited before us. We have also taken into account the observations of the Bombay High Court in the Pilky Footwear Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, 1960 (6) E.L.T. 338 (Bom.).
-
1993 (1) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal not maintainable ... ... ... ... ..... RISATION UNDER SEC. 35B(2) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISES AND SALT ACT, 1944. I hereby authorise the Dy. Collector of Central Excise/Assistant Collector of Central Excise to file appeal against O.A. Nos. 585-586-Cal/82 dated 9-8- 1992 relating to Deputy Collector v. Indian Card Board Industries, in the Customs and Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Sd/- (Sunipa Basu) Collector II, Central Excise, Calcutta. Shri Jain, the learned advocate had cited a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Shanker Sugar Mills reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 726. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we hold that since there was no authorisation in terms of provisions of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the appeal filed by the Deputy Collector is incompetent as having been filed by a person who was not competent to file the same. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. Cross-objection is also disposed of.
-
1993 (1) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI exemption - Clubbing of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... en stated that in Para 25 of the reply submitted by the consultant on behalf of the appellants to the Collector on 21-7-1987 it was categorically denied that there was any suppression. 16. It is seen that the Collector has held that the appellants were guilty of misrepresentation and Proviso to Section 11A was invokable on the grounds that both the units were in fact a single entity whereas an attempt had been made to present them as independent. Since the Collector rsquo s finding that M/s. Sri Ranga Industries and M/s. Llasar and Co. were parts of a single unit has not been found by us to be sustainable, we are of the view that the charge that the appellants had knowingly mis-represented facts with the intent to evade duty cannot also survive. It has, therefore, to be held that it was not permissible for the Department to invoke the extended period in terms of the proviso to Section 11A. 17. In view of the above findings we set aside the impugned older and allow the appeal.
-
1993 (1) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... s not there or if it is in the name of dead person, it cannot be considered to be valid and it has to be deemed as void since its inception. It may also be noted that the Bombay High Court in the case of Roche Products v. Shri N.B. Sonavane, Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 547 (Bom.) 1988 (14) ECR 395 (Bom.) had held that confiscation of illegally imported goods after observing there was an unauthorised import under a false declaration of actual use is within the powers of Customs Authorities. Therefore, in this case the Collector was right in holding that the goods imported against actual users license obtained fraudulently by the licensee cannot be allowed clearance to the appellants who are the holders of letter of authority from that licencee and the confiscation of the goods is in order. The appeal is rejected. 6. The Cross Objection by the department is only in the nature of comments on the appeal and as such it is mis-conceived and, therefore, rejected.
-
1993 (1) TMI 147 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ain or interleaved with carbon and whether plain or printed with EZR lines, name or logo of company or format of bills, order forms, gate pass etc., will be classifiable under the heading 4820 and exempt under Notification No. 43/86-C.E. 7. It is therefore clear that the impugned products would be classifiable under Heading 4820 and not under Heading 4823.90 as decided by the Assistant Collector here. It is further seen that Trade Notice No. 93/91 dated 20-11-1991 was issued by the Nagpur Collectorate clarifying the correct position. The Collector, C. Ex., Nagpur also in the cited order dated 26-11-1991 has withdrawn the two show cause notices dated 25-2-1991 and 26-2-1991 issued in respect of the appellant, for recovery of duty during the period 1-3-1986 to 30-6-1990, M/s. Nagpur Business Forms (P) Ltd., for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1990. The impugned order therefore does not survive and has to be set aside. ORDER 8. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 146 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, (APPEALS),
Demand - MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... s received back by them i.e. the originals of the delivery challaris No. 2593 dated 31-3-1990 and other connected documents like the Panchanama which shows that the documents regarding modvat declaration filed RG 23A Pt. I etc. were withdrawn by the Preventive Squad of Hqrs. Office, Nagpur on 8-5-1990. It is thus clear that the appellant were not able to produce these documents to the Assistant Collector for this reason, which was not in their control. The matter could now be re-examined afresh in the light of the original duty paying documents available for inspection. In the interests of justice, therefore I set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo adjudication to the original adjudicating authority in accordance with law. The Assistant Collector is directed to decide the case after due verification of the documents and after grant of an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. ORDER 8. For me reasons discussed above, I allow the appeal by way of remand.
-
1993 (1) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 3. He submitted that the Collector should have accepted the Bank Guarantee. In reply Shri Bhatia, learned Jt. CDR with his usual fairness submitted that in the circumstances the Collector ought to have accepted the Bank Guarantee. 4. Considered, from the stay order the appellants were directed to furnish the security for the balance amount of duty and mentioning of the words ldquo not Bank Guarantee rdquo was indicative of the fact that the security should not necessarily be in the form of Bank Guarantee. However, the appellants have furnished the Bank Guarantee and there was no reason for the Collector not to entertain the same. Accordingly, we direct the Collector concerned to accept the Bank Guarantee if it is found to be in order by 26-2-1993. Copy be given DASTI to both sides during the course of me day. 5. To come up on 19-3-1993, for passing suitable orders after ascertaining the compliance on the stay order as aforesaid. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (1) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... quo s Office (TRU) was to amend such Notifications saying it clearly that parts and spare parts are covered by them, is also of no help to the appellants. Firstly, because it was never amended, as suggested by the conference and secondly, because a statutory Notification is a law and by issuing trade notice, trade circular, the Department cannot add to the terms and conditions to the Notification nor they can change the meaning and scope of the exemption. See Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mangalore, 1986 (23) E.L.T. 48 (Kar). Moreover, the Collectors rsquo Conference view has no binding effect in so far as this Tribunal is concerned. See M/s. Jyoti Limited v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 529 (Tribunal) -1983 ECR 1527 . In fact, on the point of repetition the said Notification was never amended, as suggested by the Tariff Conference. 6. In the result, we find no substance in the appeals and reject the same.
-
1993 (1) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, not relevant. The Tribunal has decided in the Melamine case that laminated paper based sheets, manufactured from paper (in weight over 70 ) and resol were classifiable under residuary Item 68 and not under Item 15A(2) because they were not known in the trade as plastic sheets. What the appellants have been manufacturing are laminated decorative sheets in which the weight of paper predominates in the laminates. No facts have been placed before us which would call for a different view to be taken by us. The main ground of appeal is also for classification under Item 68. This would also remove the discrimination to the appellants. The learned SDR has also conceded this classification. Thus, following the ratio of Tribunal rsquo s decision in the Melamine fibre Board case (supra), we allow the appeal for classification of the subject goods under Item 68 of the erstwhile central excise tariff with such consequential relief as is admissible to the appellants under the law.
-
1993 (1) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... with the pre-deposit of the demand of duty and penalty amounts, he has got no objection to the remand of the matter. Accordingly, we take up the appeal also and having gone into the merits of the same on the point of denial of principles of natural justice, we remand the matter to the Collector of Customs having jurisdiction. We further direct that the appellants, in case they so choose, they will inspect the records or documents on or before 28-2-1993. We further order that Collector shall afford all assistance in the inspection of the records. The appellants are directed to file the reply to the Show Cause Notice on or before 15th day of March, 1993 and the Collector to readjudicate the matter on or before 15th April, 1993. With these observations, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Collector having jurisdiction. The Collector while readjudicating the matter shall observe principles of natural justice and also grant opportunity of personal hearing.
-
1993 (1) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... se cannot be taken as conclusive proof in the absence of positive evidence adduced by the Department. At best it may be an inference but not substantial proof. Further this aspect was not considered by the original authority. Under taxing statute while concluding best judgment assessment it should be based upon facts and circumstances found by the assessing authority himself and he is not entitled to act wholly on the basis of the report made by the other authorities or an admission made by the party before the other authorities. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the ratio of the decisions cited (supra), we hold that the department was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the appellants have clandestinely removed the goods in question based upon the figures furnished to the Department of Industries. 13. In the view, we have taken, we set aside the impugned orders in all these cases and, accordingly, these appeals are allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Non-compliance of stay order ... ... ... ... ..... and Shri M.A. Khan. The Tribunal by its order dated 17th November , 1992 had already given a notice to the aforesaid three appellants for dismissal of their appeals in case of non-compliance with the said stay order dated 30-7-1992 of the Tribunal. In the absence of any receipt of any compliance report from the said appellants, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with the aforesaid stay order in terms of Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
............
|
