|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 192 Records
-
1993 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Betel nuts ... ... ... ... ..... he Plant Quarantine authority who have held that the goods are not fit for human consumption and the goods should be destroyed. To a specific query in this regard the learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has no objection to the goods being destroyed and is not questioning that part of the impugned order. It was submitted that the appellant is restricting the appeal only to the limited issue with reference to permissibility of goods which are otherwise fit for consumption like Areca nuts under the Exim Scrips. I therefore uphold that part of the impugned order absolutely confiscating the goods and directing its destruction as the same is not fit for human consumption. In regard to the permissibility of the import of goods such as dry betel nuts, for the reasons stated above I hold that goods fit for human consumption would be permissible for import under Exim Scrips under the relevant licensing policy. The impugned order would, therefore, stand modified to this extent.
-
1993 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Calcium Carbide - Valuation of inputs ... ... ... ... ..... acture of the appellants rsquo factory. But there is no controversy that what was removed from the appellants rsquo factory were not the goods as these were brought in i.e. Calcium Carbide filled in the drums but only empty drums. The empty drums, therefore, cleared from the appellants rsquo factory cannot be taken to be goods cleared as such in terms of Rule 57F(2) from the appellants rsquo factory. However, we observe that the Calcium Carbide drums for the purpose of taking the Calcium Carbide into use had to be opened and the remaining empty drums can be taken to be scrap which arose in the preparatory stages of the manufacturing process. In that view of the matter we hold that the drums can be considered as scrap in terms of Rule 57F(4) and duty on the same can be demanded under the Tariff heading and the rate applicable to the scrap as such i.e. the rate applicable to the drums as such in the form these are cleared. The appeal is therefore disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Argon gas ... ... ... ... ..... ty and obviously without providing the inert atmosphere the work pieces would not acquire the necessary properties as pleaded by the appellant. In view of this we hold that the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of Argon gas has to be allowed. 5. emsp In regard to the use of Freon T-DA 35-X, it is clearly set out in the literature that it is used as a drying agent and for taking away the moisture from the surfaces of the work pieces before the same can be put in the market stream. We observe the appellant is manufacturing high quality tools and any moisture on these may ultimately result in some damage to the pieces. In as much as the drying has to be done before the finished product is put in the market stream the use of the item in question, therefore, has to be taken to be in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product. In view of the above we hold that the appellant rsquo s plea has to be allowed with consequential relief. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 156 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Magnesite Bricks, Magnesite Powder, Ramming Mass ... ... ... ... ..... ised as a protective refractory and not as a raw material, consumable or such item which could be deemed to be directly utilised in the manufacture of finished product, viz., Ferro Alloys. As explained by the party, during the process of manufacture these materials which will be used as a protective refractory gets consumed over a period of time with the result a part of the compounds contained in them gets transferred into the finished product. But, the fact remains that these are used as a protective refractory only, and the consumption of these items in due course is only incidental to the process of manufacture and hence the usage of these items in the manufacture of Ferro Chrome does not make them a part of the raw materials and therefore, the party is not eligible to take credit on these goods. rdquo The ruling of the Calcutta High Court is distinguishable on facts in regard to the nature and use of the input. Appeals E/154/1991 and E/224/1991 are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 155 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ion of the duty amount has to be done by the person adjudicating the case after receiving the representation and cannot be left to the Investigating officer. Though in this case certain guidelines have been given for determining the duty amount, the statutory function of final determination of the duty amount has not been done. It was however open to the Collector, to allow certain deductions from the amount of duty already specified in the show cause notice but here the order indicates that the final quantificatin of duty would have to be determined, has been left in the hands of the Investigating officer and he seeks to confirm this in advance. In this view of the matter, on this short ground, we set aside the order, but remand the case back to the Collector for final determination of the duty payable by the appellant and pass orders in confirmity with the provisions of law. The appeal is allowed by way of remand and hence the stay application was not separately considered.
-
1993 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund claim - Limitation - Relevant date ... ... ... ... ..... ench appeal have held that the period commences from the date of payment of duty reversing their earlier decision that the limitation will start from the end of the financial year - vide 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2156. However, the Bombay High Court in the case of Weikfield Products reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 323 (Bom.) have held that the end of the financial year is the relevant date. In view of the conflicting decisions of the High Court and also the decision of this Tribunal, the matter calls for reference to the Larger Bench and hence I would direct the Registry to place the papers before the President for constituting a Larger Bench so that a final decision on the precise question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the benefit of Notification 80/80 is to be extended, the relevant date for the purpose of computing the time limit for claiming refund would be the close of the financial year or the date of payment of duty as laid down under Section 11B.
-
1993 (12) TMI 153 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Recovery of duty demanded and penalty imposed in the event of remand ... ... ... ... ..... the department has construed that there is no stay in operation against the demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector and hence they were directed to pay up the amount, failing which coercive action would be taken. In this context, Shri M.H. Patil, the Ld. Advocate referred to the Supdt rsquo s letter dated 24-11-1993. 2. emsp After hearing both the sides, when the appeal itself has been disposed of by way of remand with a direction to the Collector (Appeals) for deciding on the stay application and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits, the question of resorting to any coercive action for recovery of the duty amount adjudicated by the Assistant Collector does not arise. The Department has to wait for the outcome of the order of the Collector (Appeals). It is needless to tell these basic factors to the department, but, any how, since the applicant is put to a hardship, we are clarifying the above position. 3. Miscellaneous application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Remand - Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... an of the Company and the Chief Executive has since left the job. An affidavit to this effect has been filed by the Managing Director of the Company. There is no counter affidavit by the respondent. 16. emsp In view of the above discussion and the fact that a copy of the investigation report was not supplied to the appellant, I am of the view that there was denial of principles of natural justice and the matter needs to be remanded as ordered by Member (Judicial). The point of difference is answered accordingly. Registry is directed to place the matter before the regular Bench for passing appropriate orders. Sd./- (Harish Chander) President FINAL ORDER In view of the majority decision, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue in accordance with law and after affording another opportunity of being heard. Dated 8-11-1994 Sd./- (S. Kalyanam) Member (J) now Vice President Sd./- (V.P. Gulati) Member (T)
-
1993 (12) TMI 151 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Rollers ... ... ... ... ..... as the grooved rollers fall under the same Tariff Heading 84.55, it is clear that at the time of clearance of these rollers from the factory on payment of duty, they have been treated as having acquired the essential character ready for direct use on the machine and hence subjecting the same roller to further duty under the same heading does not prima facie appeal to us. Moreover there are grounds of time bar and also the availability of the Modvat credit. In the circumstances, we direct the applicants to furnish only a personal bond covering the duty amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order and reporting compliance within 5 weeks failing which their appeal is liable to be dismissed. On furnishing the personal bond, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the duty and penalty amounts. The plant and machinery ordered confiscation should not be disposed of by the department and the normal process of production should not be disturbed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 150 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... no warrant to thrust Modvat benefit on them. Under Rule 173L, the respondents can receive duty paid goods cleared from their factory within one year of their clearance for reprocessing etc. and if such reprocessed goods are again cleared on payment of duty, refund of duty under Rule 173L is admissible to the extent not exceeding the duty earlier paid. Hence, in these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Collector (A). Moreover, we are shown by Shri Rangwani a copy of Bombay-I Collectorate Trade Notice No. 89/89 dated 3-11-1989, wherein the Dept. allows removal of such defective inputs on payment of duty under Rule 57F(3)(ii) and such goods after reprocessing can be cleared on payment of duty under Rule 173L. This Trade Notice reiterates the view taken by the Collector (A). Hence we find no merit in the appeal from the revenue. We direct the Asstt. Collector to consider the refund claim under Rule 173L and sanction the refund in accordance with law.
-
1993 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... produced in this case. This shows the value of US 3.50 per kg. Hence the value of US 4/- per kg. in respect of the same consignment received and supplied by Hongkong suppliers has been correctly accepted by the Collector (Appeals) and hence stay should not be granted. 4. emsp After hearing both sides, at the prima facie stage we may not be able to disturb the order of the Collector (Appeals) by granting a stay. We also find that M/s. Bharat Pulverising Mills are exporting consignments regularly and they are reportedly paying considerable revenue to the extent of Rs. 5 crores per annum and they are also income tax assesses. In the circumstances, having regard to the revenue interest and also the nature of the issue involved, which is triable, we would deem it proper to direct both the sides to treat the assessment on a provisional basis, accepting a personal bond from the respondents covering the differential duty amount. The stay application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (12) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Black Pepper and Black Pepper Powder ... ... ... ... ..... recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others - reported at JT 1993 (5) SC 138 - holding that wheat rsquo and Flour rsquo Maida rsquo and Suji rsquo produced therefrom by grinding the wheat are separate commodities. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the findings of the learned Adjudicating Authority. 6. emsp Considered. It is well settled that in interpreting the entries in the tax schedule, it is not the technical meaning of the entry but the meaning given to the same in the commercial parlance is the deciding factor. In view of the certificates of Agmark, Spices Board and of India Spices Exporter Forum etc. it is seen that ldquo Black Pepper rdquo and ldquo Black Pepper Powder rdquo or ldquo Ground Black Pepper rdquo are separate commodities. This view is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra. 7. On this view of the matter, the appeal of the Department is rejected.
-
1993 (12) TMI 147 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... he same duty twice over from both Personal Ledger Account as well as from RG 23 Account. In that event, the amount of Credit restored to RG 23 Account would have been available for being utilised for clearance of the regular products, viz. Seamless Tubes and Pipes for the manufacture of which the materials in question, duty paid on which had been taken as Credit, were received by the respondents. The Credit had been rightly earned. The utilisation of the same for payment of duty on the waste products had not led to any undue benefit for the respondents as the Credit amount in dispute could have been utilised by them for the payment of duty on their main product, Seamless Pipes and Tubes and the waste products which would have been of a small quantity compared to the main product, could have been cleared on payment of duty through Personal Ledger Account. In view of the said position, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the impugned order-in-appeal on the grounds discussed above.
-
1993 (12) TMI 146 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
... ...
... ... ..... f the day rdquo . In the case of the appellant also single gate-passes were issued at the end of the day. This is borne out by the observations of the Hon rsquo ble High Court in the judgment dated 23-9-1993. 11. In view of the above discussion and the observations of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Calcutta the orders of the Assistant Collector are not sustainable and liable to be rejected and the appellant is eligible to avail the benefit under Notification No. 28/89, dated 1-3-1989. 12. However, no relief can be granted against Order-in-Original No. DIV/DB/REF/2/90, dated 25-10-1990, as the relevant refund claim has been submitted after the lapse of six months from the date of payment of duty and is therefore, barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 13. I therefore, set aside the Order-in-Original No. DIV/DB/35/LBHS/ 90, dated 25-10-1990 and allow the appeal but reject the appeal against Order No. DIV/DB/REF/2/90, dated 25-10-1990.
-
1993 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit - Exemption to final product granted later ... ... ... ... ..... arged to duty as if the same are the manufacture of the said respondents rsquo manufacturing unit. Under Rule 49 consumption of the goods in the factory has to be deemed to be as if these goods have been issued out or removed from the factory place or premises for home consumption. In our view, provisions of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 will continue to operate in respect of the inputs on which Modvat credit has been taken. The only course open to the revenue is to demand duty in respect of the goods when these are taken and utilised in the said factory. What we are saying is that so far as the Modvat credit is concerned, the same has been utilised and taken correctly and therefore, there is no question of the same being held as not having been utilised or taken correctly. The revenue should in our view demand duty on these inputs which are lying in stock on the date these were taken in use. rdquo We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with the above observations.
-
1993 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal not maintainable ordinarily against an interim order ... ... ... ... ..... d role of the appellant is that of an abetter, and could be ascertained only on further investigation and due scrutiny of the evidence gathered. The time lag between seizure and suspension of the licence, on the contrary is indicative of the fact that the Collector has not taken any hasty action, and has used restraint and passed the same after prima facie satisfying himself of the involvement of the appellants. 16. The order is not challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, and even if that was done, the same could have stood negatived, as no hearing is contemplated under the subject sub-regulation. 17. The impugned order therefore appears to be just and proper and no interference is called for. However, it is observed that the concerned authority should not unduly delay initiation of enquiry proceedings, and commence the same within reasonable time, preferably within a period of six months and also conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
-
1993 (12) TMI 143 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Demand - Chapter X Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... cation was very much in force when the goods were received under Chapter X procedure. Therefore, the allegation cannot be sustained. Once, the goods have been received as per the provisions of the Rules and the Notification during the relevant time, the only other requirement is whether the goods are used for the purposes indicated in the Notification. Even though, the said Notification was rescinded, the benefit already allowed earlier cannot be withdrawn, since there is no such provision in the law. Moreover, as the appellants have rightly pointed out, a parallel Notification No. 217/86, dt. 2-4-1986, came to be issued restoring the benefit that existed in the Notification No. 118/75. This notification was given retrospective effect under the Central Excise Duties (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. Thus, this notification took care of the cases hit by withdrawal of the Notification No. 118/75 after 1-3-1986. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1993 (12) TMI 142 - IN THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ntury Steel Balls Ltd. In the case of M/s. Century Steel Balls Ltd. also, I have held that their product merits consideration for classification under Heading 87.14. However, the Asstt. Collector was directed to examine the process carried out by the appellant on the steel balls and to see whether the appellants in that case are carrying out lapping process on the said product. If such process is not undertaken by them, they would not be covered under Ch. H. 84.82. In that case, as per their end-use as cycle parts, they will have to be classified under Chapter Heading 87.14. In this case also, the Asstt. Collector is directed to examine the processes undertaken by the appellants in the same way as discussed above and then he should decide about the classification of the steel balls manufactured by the appellants and also about admissibility of the exemption Notification No. 62/86. With this direction, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Asstt. Collector.
-
1993 (12) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cement - ‘Factory’ ... ... ... ... ..... f Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. As observed by us earlier for the purpose of determining the eligibility to exemption under a notification issued under the Central Excise Rules, the question whether two factories owned or controlled by a manufacturer could be deemed as a single or composite factory will have to be decided only with reference to the provisions of Section 2(e) and other relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Hence, in our view, the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellants can also not be of any assistance of them. 12. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the two factories of the appellants being separate and distinct and lsquo clinker rsquo used for the production of cement was not being manufactured in the same factory and therefore they were not eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 124/87. 13. In view of the foregoing the appeal is rejected. The Cross Objection is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (12) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Precedent - Principles of Judicial Discipline ... ... ... ... ..... x x x x x 4. emsp The Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nemichand Bhikamchand Jain v. Collector of Customs (P), reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 12 (Bom.) has held as under - x x x x x 5. emsp The Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay and Another, reported in 1990 (30) ECR 484 (Bombay) has held as under - x x x x x 6. The Revenue authorities take the orders passed by the Tribunal in a too casual manner. Whenever any order is passed by a superior court, lower authorities are duty bound to obey the orders passed by the superior court. We shall appreciate that in future Revenue authorities are prompt enough to give consequential effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the sides, the Revenue Secretary (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt of India) and also to Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs.
........
|
