Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 213 Records
-
1993 (6) TMI 179
Tyres - Exemption - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... m 16(3) or Notification No. 20/84-C.E. under reference. Tariff Item 16(3) is coached in plain and meaningful language and so is the exemption Notification under reference. Sub-heading 1(1)(b)(i) of Sl. No. 5 of the Notification No. 20/84-C.E. under reference provides for concessional rate of duty if the tyres imported are Motor Vehicle tyres. It does not provide for concessional rate of duty for tyres designed for multiple uses. It is settled law that the principle of beneficial construction is inapplicable to exemption from tax, see Inder Singh v. Sales Tax Officer, 1961 (12) STC 557 and if the language of an exemption Notification is deficient it is not for the Court to supply the deficiency. See The Assistant Collector v. New Horizon Sugar Mills, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 10 (Madras). 9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the benefit of the Notification No. 20/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 was rightly denied by the authorities below. Consequently, we reject the appeal.
-
1993 (6) TMI 178
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ld have insisted on provisional clearances, and raised the demand periodically, even if quantification is not possible. Moreover, the excisability of these goods also is required to be gone into and on merits, they may be having an arguable case. The applicants are a public limited company controlled by the Government of Gujarat. Having regard to all these factors, we direct the applicants to furnish a personal bond covering the entire duty amount and on furnishing the same, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of duty and penalty amounts. Their plant and machinery ordered confiscation should not be disposed of by the Department or by the applicants, and the normal process of manufacture need not be interfered with by the department till the disposal of the appeal. The applicants are granted four weeks time from the date of communication of this order to furnish the personal bond, and report compliance within 5 weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected.
-
1993 (6) TMI 177
Stay/ Dispensation of pre-deposit grantable ... ... ... ... ..... mitation, the appellants rsquo plea has to be allowed. The lower authority rsquo s order in this regard is therefore set aside. 8. emsp Since the demand in respect of Fibre Reinforced Plastic Sheet (FRP) is not contested, the same is upheld. Inasmuch as the FRP sheets have been captively consumed without payment of duty and without observing any Central Excise formalities we hold that ends of justice will be served by levy of a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and we order accordingly. 9. emsp So far as the decision on the merits of the case regarding the pressure vessels considering the future ramifications, we observe that the learned lower authority has not examined the issue in depth and we direct that on merits the learned lower authority should examine the issue in the light of the observation made above and also the case law cited before us. 9. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms.
-
1993 (6) TMI 176
Proforma Credit - Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... in the 1978 letters can certainly be taken to be an application for continuation of the permission already granted to the partnership firm for availment of Proforma Credit. The conduct of the department during the long period from 1978 to 1984 when the notice was issued was one of acquiescence as the conduct of the appellants all along was on their understanding that their availment of the said facility was in accordance with their request already made. If the department rsquo s conclusion that there was no valid application and the availment of Credit was irregular and justified the recovery of such irregularly availed Credit which amounted to a hefty Rs. 50 lakhs for the period of six months preceding the show cause notice, then the total irregularity for the entire period from 1978 would have been a whopping figure of some crores. In our view the whole exercise of the Department is misplaced - much ado about nothing. The appeal is allowed and the impunged order set aside.
-
1993 (6) TMI 175
S.S.I. Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... ent has invoked larger period. However, it has come on record through the cross examination of departmental officers that facts pertaining to use of Logo of M/s. AOL was clearly within the knowledge of the department. Hence larger period cannot be invoked in this case. Both the ratio of the rulings of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s. Padmini Products and Chemphar Drugs and Liniments are applicable to the facts of this case. The ld. DR relied on the ruling of M/s. British India Corpn. and that of Jaishree Inds. case. In those cases, the facts were different, the department had been clearly misled and the knowledge of department of use of logo of other manufacturer was not the point in these cases and hence, these rulings are clearly distinguishable. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of the demands to be restricted only to a period of six months prior to the date of Show Cause Notice. Otherwise the impugned order is confirmed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 174
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... inion the Appellate Tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. This is particularly so when Section 220(6) deals expressly with a situation when an appeal is pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Act is silent in that behalf when an appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. It could well be said that when Section 254 confers appellate jurisdiction, it impliedly grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution and that the statutory power carries with it the duty in proper cases to make such orders for staying proceeding as will prevent the appeal if successful from being rendered nugatory. rdquo 6. emsp In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our inherent powers for granting stay to the revenue. Both the stay applications filed by the revenue are rejected.
-
1993 (6) TMI 173
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hence would like to return the licence. The department could have made proper check and verification before accepting the return of licence. The view expressed on a similar facts and circumstances in the case of Bi-Metal Bearing Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.) 1989 (22) ECR 417 is also applicable to the facts of the case on the question of limitation. It has been held in the cited case (supra) that extended period is not applicable where the fact of raw materials made in one unit, and used in final product in another unit under the same Collectorate was known to the department. Applying this ratio, we hold that there is no clandestine removal in this case. 14. emsp Ld. JDR relied on the ruling of Interarch Building Products (P) Ltd. This case deals about the classification of aluminium strips under T.I. 27(3) and is not all applicable to the facts of this case. 15. In the result the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
1993 (6) TMI 172
Appellate Tribunal if seized of the matter and passed order ... ... ... ... ..... t to appeal against it to the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 60. emsp In that case revenue had re-adjudicated the issue involved in the appeal which had already been decided by the Tribunal in the Appellant rsquo s favour. 61. emsp The Tribunal observed that the case has been re-adjudicated ldquo in an ingenious manner that has in effect, if not in law, nullified the Tribunal rsquo s order rdquo . The Tribunal held that ldquo this is impermissible under law and it, apart from being subversive of judicial discipline will bring the rule of law and administration of justice into ridicule and contempt rdquo . 62. emsp In the light of foregoing discussions we, while allowing the appeal and the misc. applications as observed in paragraph No.53 supra, direct the Collector, Customs, Kandla to implement the said final Order No. 773/91-A, dated 30-9-1991 forthwith and also grant consequential relief to the appellant flowing out of this order.
-
1993 (6) TMI 171
Valuation - Additional consideration ... ... ... ... ..... r they have affected the price/prices. In no case, when such amounts represented the transfer of funds for ldquo activity of manufacture rdquo (Indian Oxygen case supra) and/or those who deposited/advanced the amounts are in the nature of ldquo carved out buyers rdquo , the notional or real interest payable or paid in respect of such deposits/advances could be deducted from the normal price to arrive at the assessable value. 71. In the present case, no nexus has been established between security/advance deposits, and the ultimate price of the goods. The interest element did not influence the price of the goods. In the circumstances, these deposits/advances could not be considered as an ldquo additional consideration rdquo , for the purposes of Section 4 of the Act. 72. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals, and set aside the Order-in-Appeals and order accordingly, with consequential relief to the appellant, keeping in view the provisions of Section 11B of the Act as amended.
-
1993 (6) TMI 170
Steel Ingots ... ... ... ... ..... mity in the Collector rsquo s (Appeals) finding that the inputs used by the appellants for the manufacture of steel ingots were lsquo Waste and Scrap of iron and steel rsquo covered by sub-item (3) of Item 25, which was not specified in column 2 of Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1-8-1983. In view of the findings that the various materials purchased by the appellants for being used for melting for the production of lsquo Steel Ingots rsquo were in the nature of lsquo Waste and Scrap rsquo and not lsquo pieces roughly shaped by process of rolling or forging falling under T.I. 25(8), we find no force in the appellants rsquo argument that the Collector (Appeals) finding in regard to the nature and classification of goods was not sustainable since the lower authorities had not carried out any verification of the relevant records maintainable in the appellants rsquo factory or of the actual raw material that was utilised. 8. In view of the discussion above the appeal is rejected.
-
1993 (6) TMI 169
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... s are dismissed, as not maintainable under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act and hence stay applications also do not call for our consideration. If the appeals sought to be filed on the basis of Collector rsquo s direction, are not sound on merits, the appellants can make their submission to the Collector (Appeals) in their cross-objections. That does not justify them to come before the Tribunal, with orders, which are not appealable before the Tribunal. 7. Before parting, a word about Mr. Mondal terming these appeals as lsquo frivolous rsquo . Some propositions, on the face of them, may look to be odd and we might agree in private. But, when these issues are presented to us for a judicial decision, there is a process of lsquo adjudication rsquo , where we cannot discard the principles of natural justice, nor can we refrain from a careful scrutiny and passing a speaking order on the submissions made. Hence this detailed order has become inevitable for stating the obvious.
-
1993 (6) TMI 168
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... er scrap is being disposed of at the Ammunition Depot, it is not possible to conclude that the scrap received from the Ammunition Depots is ldquo clearly recognisable as non duty paid rdquo or is exempted so as to deny the benefit of ldquo deemed Credit rdquo . 7.2 The contracts referred to by the ld. JDR, are of general nature and as has been rightly concluded by the ld. Adjudicating Authority, would not by themselves provide any evidence to establish non duty paid character. The statements of the officials at MSSIDC and NSIC also would not provide any substantive evidence to establish the same, particularly, in view of what has been discussed earlier. 6. In the result, the order disallowing of the credit to the extent of Rs. 2,66,805/- on the ground that the scrap is clearly recognisable as non duty paid, cannot be sustained. 9. The appeal, under the circumstances, is allowed and the order passed by the authority below is set aside. Consequential reliefs, if any, to follow.
-
1993 (6) TMI 167
Refund - Protest ... ... ... ... ..... ase for suo motu refund as a result of the appellate order favouring Steelage Industries. The refund claim has to be decided on merits for the period within the permissible period of six months. I do not agree with the contention raised by Shri Biswas, learned S.D.R. that this is a new claim or new ground raised in the appeal. They had filed a claim for the entire amount and their claim has not been considered on merits even in respect of the period of six months preceding the date of claim. Their claim itself having been filed there is no question of pressing a new ground in that regard. The said claim has to be considered on merits. In the circumstances, the refund claim for the six months period prior to the filing of the claim has to be considered by the Assistant Collector on merits taking into account the provisions of the amended Section 11 (B) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, relating to unjust enrichment. 10. The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
-
1993 (6) TMI 166
Demand whether adjustable against refund ... ... ... ... ..... e respondent Company has filed a Cross Objection No. ED (SB)/A.No. 319/84 in response to the present appeal. It has been urged therein that they had disputed the amount of duty demanded from them and that matter is still sub judice. When the matter is sub judice, the Department had erred in adjusting the amount demanded by them from a refund sanctioned to them in another matter. It has, therefore, been pleaded that the Collector (Appeals) rsquo order dated 5-9-1983 is correct in law and quite in spirit of the provisions of Section 10 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 7. This Cross Objection is not really in the nature of a Cross Objection as no additional relief against that order-in-appeal has been sought. That order was wholly in their favour. What has been sought is that the said order should be sustained and implemented. As we have passed orders on the Collector rsquo s appeal setting aside the order-in-appeal dated 5-9-1983, the Cross Objection gets disposed of.
-
1993 (6) TMI 165
Proforma credit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... e totalling mistakes. Even if it was only a series of totalling mistakes in showing the closing balance, the short accounting of materials becomes apparent when we go by the quantity issued for manufacture. It is in this area that there is shortage of material which has had its effect on the closing balance. The department could have built their case on the short issue of the input material for manufacture of the final products, which did not fully account for the quantity of materials received after considering the closing balance also. If the short-accounting had been arrived at on the basis of quantity issued for manufacture, the plea of a simple clerical mistake in totalling may not have been available to the appellants. But as the case has been decided on the question of time bar, even the short accounting arrived at on the basis of the quantity issued for manufacture does not become all that relevant. 9. The Appeal is allowed on grounds of time bar as already indicated.
-
1993 (6) TMI 164
Export control - Sandalwood chips and powder ... ... ... ... ..... B and respondent No. 2 failed to exercise discretion conferred on him in spite of the direction. The second case deals with the unauthorised import of goods and confiscation of such goods. The above said decisions do not help the case of the respondents. 21. Thus, in the result, for the reasons stated above, I pass the following order (1) The Writ Petition is allowed. (2) The impugned order Annexure N dated 12-8-1992, passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. (3) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to issue necessary permission/licence in favour of the petitioner to export sandalwood chips and powder in order to fulfil the seven contracts as per Annexures F and F-1 to F-6 giving relaxation under Clause 21 of new Policy Annexure B confining it to the extent of material purchased from the Forest Departments of various States prior to 1-4-1992 and subject to satisfying all other conditions and requirements under the old Policy Annexure A. (4) No costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 163
Modvat Scheme - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... on vis-a-vis Section 11A inasmuch as the relevant date for the start of the limitation period is the date of such credit and not the one of its utilisation for payment of duty or the date of the submission of the RT-12 return which will be subsequent to the date of credit. When the credit is utilised it becomes a case of payment of duty and normally the provisions of Section 11A should come into play in the matter of relevant date and the time limit factor, but the comprehensive amendment of Rule 57-1 appears to have displaced it. The order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot v. Jaswandamal Dhannamal 1990 (49) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.) 1991 (33) ECR 388 does not advance the case of the Department as that decision was rendered in the context of Rule 57-1 as it stood prior to its amendment on 6-10-1988, while in these appeals, the period in dispute is post amendment. 4. In the result, the impugned orders are confirmed and the appeals dismissed as already announced in open court.
-
1993 (6) TMI 162
Modvat Scheme - Defective goods ... ... ... ... ..... e v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 369 . The finding that only the provisions of Rule 173L or 173H would be applicable to this case is totally against the provisions of those Rules, since what is contemplated in these rules is that returned goods should not be subjected to a process which would amount to manufacture. In the present case the goods cleared by the customers of the appellants on payment of duty in terms of Rule 57F(l)(ii) are undisputedly subjected to process of manufacture of final products. The appellants, therefore, could not have followed the procedures laid down in Rule 173L or 173H. The procedure availed of by the appellants in taking the Modvat Credit of duty paid on the defective goods cleared by the customers is, therefore, proper in law. Further, there is undisputedly no net loss to Revenue. 7. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1993 (6) TMI 161
Adjudication - Magnetic Heads for sound recording and reproducing systems ... ... ... ... ..... porated alongwith it. The learned lower appellate authority has stated that the respondents have produced evidence before it and this evidence has not either been brought on record or dealt with by the learned lower appellate authority nor the Department has been made aware of the same to be able to put forth the point of view of the Customs authorities. In the above view of the matter we hold that the learned lower appellate authority rsquo s order is not proper inasmuch as it has not been passed after taking into account all the relevant facts and also for the reason that the order has been passed taking into consideration certain evidence not discussed in the order and also for not having put the Department on notice in regard to that. We, therefore, set aside the learned Collector rsquo s (Appeals) order and remand the matter to the learned Collector (Appeals) for passing de novo orders in the light of our observations above. In the result the appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1993 (6) TMI 160
Modvat Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ottles after printing/decoration through a job worker are not received in the factory in original packing. Circular No. 19/92 dated 3-9-1992 has also been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to the same effect. The circular also states that the procedure prescribed under Notification 351 /86 can be extended in such cases so as to cover the job work activities under Notification 214/86. 4. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that M/s. Amritsar Bottling Co. and Amritsar Crown Caps Pvt. Ltd. are eligible to Modvat Credit, which is admissible in respect of duty paid on the glass bottles used as packaging material in the manufacture of aerated water, held in stock on 1-3-1987 and received after that date. 5. In the result, we set aside the impugned order dated 28-4-1989 in the case of M/s. Amritsar Bottling Company and allow the appeal with consequential relief. As a consequence the appeals bearing Nos. E/2962-2964/91-NRB filed by the Revenue are rejected.
........
|