|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 268 Records
-
1994 (2) TMI 197 - CEGAT,BOMBAY
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... d relied on the judgment in the case of T.T. Blades, Bombay v. Union of India reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 231 (Bom.) 1989 (20) ECR 485 (Bombay). Para Nos. 7 and 8 are reproduced below - The learned advocate had cited many decisions in support of his arguments. The facts of the case are very different and the judgments cited by the learned advocate do not help him and are not applicable to the present matter. 35. emsp Keeping in view the above observations, the points of difference (i) (ii) and (iii) are answered in negative. In view of these observations, I agree with the views of my learned brother Shri R. Jayaraman, Member (Technical) and I direct the Registry to place the matter before the regular Bench for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (Harish Chander) Dated 31-1-1994 President Order per R. Jayaraman, Member (T) . - In view of the majority opinion, we dismiss the appeal. Sd/- Sd/- (P.K. Desai) (R. Jayaraman) Dated 9-2-1994 Member (J) Member (T)
-
1994 (2) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... we dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 4,63,403/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the condition that Shri Sukumaran should deposit Rs.60,000/- ( Rupees Sixty thousand only) within 3 months from today. We are also of the view that if Shri Hirusah is desired to deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- it will amount to undue hardship. Our view is fortified by the earlier proceedings in Shri Hirusah rsquo s case in appeal No. E.659/93-A. Accordingly, we dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs.10,000/-. We further direct that during the course of pendency of appeals, the Revenue authorities shall not pursue for recovery of the balance amount of duty and penalty. In case the appellants fail to comply with the terms of this order, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. The matters to come up for mention on 1st June, 1994. In the result, stay application No. E.1714/93-A is partly allowed and stay application No. E.1715/-93-A is allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import Policy - Additional licences to Export Houses ... ... ... ... ..... e taken to be covered within the ambit of the description under para 215 of the policy and when no other conditions can be read into the same. We, confess, it is not clear to us as to why the licensing authorities chose to delete these conditions. To us it appears one of the rare cases where this has been done. We, are not called upon to pronounce on the endorsement made in regard to the deletion of the conditions (i) to (iii) on the back of the licences. We therefore, hold that but for this deletion of the conditions, the Fax machines could not have been imported against the licences produced. Inasmuch as these conditions (i) to (iii) have been deleted all the goods which are falling within the ambit of the Policy covered by Appendices 1 Part A and B can be imported and since Fax machines are non-OGL capital goods, the same can also be imported. The appeals of M/s. Agro Impex and M/s. M.B. Impex therefore have to be allowed with consequential relief and we order accordingly.
-
1994 (2) TMI 194 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand for shortage in stock - Stock taking ... ... ... ... ..... the certain clerical errors in the bank rsquo s statement furnished during the earlier months, which was carried forward. That explanation is required to be considered and cannot be dismissed. In any case the figures given for purpose of the bank may be taken as a corroboratory factor for assessing the production recorded in the statutory records and that cannot be taken as a conclusive proof. Investigations are called for not only with the bank but also with the only customer namely, the Railways, as to whether any goods have been received by them without payment of duty. Moreover, when explanation is forthcoming for a major quantity that has to be considered for acceptance .In these circumstances, I would consider that the entire demand based only on the discrepancy of the bank rsquo s statement and the recording of the RG 1, especially when a major quantity is accounted for, cannot be sustained. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Addl. Collector.
-
1994 (2) TMI 193 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Penalty - Token penalty ... ... ... ... ..... i Ravinder Jain, the ld. JDR, however, contended that considering the duty involved in this case, the penalty of Rs. one lakh is a token one and hence the penalty should not be disturbed. 5. emsp After hearing both the sides, we find that the factual position is not disputed. The appellants, because of the paucity of space, have sought for permission to store the modvat inputs in their own premises outside the factory. The Range Supdt. does not seem to have responded to their request. All the same, because of the constraints in space, they appear to have stored the modvat inputs outside their factory. There is no allegation of double credit having been taken. Moreover, the amount was paid within 4 days when it was pointed out to the appellants. Having regard to this, we consider the penalty of Rs. one lakh cannot be construed to be a token one and hence we reduce the same to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and dispose of both the stay application as well as the appeal.
-
1994 (2) TMI 192 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... Additional Duty of Excise in lieu of sale tax. The Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills have held that penal provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act are not attracted for levy and collection of Additional Duty of Excise. 3. emsp After hearing both the sides, in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills cited by the learned consultant, we grant stay and waiver of penalties of Rs. 1.00 lac imposed on M/s. Arvind Silk Mills. Rs. 75,000/- imposed on Shri Mukeshbhai A. Vakharia, and Rs. 5,000/- each on S/Shri Nikhilkumar Chauvan, Arvindbhai Kathiwala and Bharatkumar Solanki.
-
1994 (2) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Lime - ‘Quick lime’ and ‘Hydrated lime’ ... ... ... ... ..... not an excisable commodity. The same view was reiterated in the case of M/s. Himalaya Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh ( Final Order No. 444 and 445/91-C, dated 16-5-1991). In view of this he did not argue on the other grounds taken up in the Memorandum of Appeal. 3. emsp In reply Shri Arora, Ld. JDR faced with the said view of the Tribunal reiterated the submissions which were made on behalf of the Revenue in those cases. 4. emsp Considered. Following the ratio of the said decisions we hold that hydrated/slaked lime is not an excisable commodity. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, according to law.
-
1994 (2) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... the Member (Technical) in his order, the appellant has given plausible explanation of the acquisition of property by his brother and the resources at his command. In such a situation on an overall consideration of the circumstances in this case prima facie, it would appear that balance for convenience in this case will be to dispose of the stay application as proposed by the Hon rsquo ble Member (Technical) whose order is, therefore, concurred with. Dated 7-9-1994 Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 16. In terms of the majority order, the pre-deposit of penalty amount is waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 17. emsp The Registry to list the case before the Bench within two weeks from today with notice to the advocate for the appellant, for the purpose of fixing the date of final hearing as noted in para 12 page 9 of the order prepared by Member (T) Shri P.C. Jain. Dated 15-9-1994 Sd/- (P.K. Kapoor) Member (T) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J)
-
1994 (2) TMI 189 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Locus standi - Aggrieved person ... ... ... ... ..... ubmissions made by the learned SDR and in the light of the findings in the impugned order hold that the appeal preferred as such is not maintainable in law inasmuch as the appellant/petitioner cannot be said to be prima facie an aggrieved person and therefore, we dismiss the appeal along with the stay petition. We make it clear that by reason of this dismissal, the appellant/ petitioner shall not suffer any prejudice or injury or loss in the event of the authorities taking a view in the pending penalty proceedings that the appellant/petitioner would be liable to penalty on grounds of misdeclaration based on the findings in the impugned order and it would be open to the appellant/petitioner to seek revival of this appeal for consideration of this impugned order in accordance with law. We make it clear that in the event of revival of the appeal in the circumstances aforesaid, it should be done within three months from the date of receipt of the order in the penalty proceedings.
-
1994 (2) TMI 188 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation by appellate authority ... ... ... ... ..... rcee Exports. Interest is payable, when the duty is payable. Here, when the request is for reshipment, the question of paying the interest by the foreign supplier does not arise. In any case, if the Department is concerned with the recovery of interest, they have to proceed against the importer M/s. Arcee Exports in accordance with law and that cannot be a ground for refusing reshipment to the foreign supplier, who has shipped the goods in the normal course of international trade to an eligible importer and not contrary to any prohibition or restriction. We therefore, set aside the order and allow reshipment, subject to the appellants producing the approval from the Reserve Bank of India regarding foreign exchange remittance aspect in respect of the goods. The option for reshipment should be exercised within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Department is at liberty to take action to dispose of the goods in accordance with law.
-
1994 (2) TMI 187 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit- Penalty - Quantum of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to this course of action when the law did not provide for the same. The appellant rsquo s plea is that the appellant informed the Supdt. of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the sister concern functions about what the appellant was doing. This does not in any way clothe the appellant rsquo s action with any legality. It is not clear to us as to under what provisions of law their other Unit can take MODVAT Credit by transfer of inputs which had been purchased by the appellant and which had been utilised in their own unit for manufacture of Tyre cord warp. It is for the concerned Central Excise authorities to look into this aspect of the matter. I find that the appellant deliberately gone about creating records indicating as if the inputs had been transferred from their unit to their sister concern. In view of above, I hold that while the action of the appellant is reprehensible, interests of justice would be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh).
-
1994 (2) TMI 186 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... 7G. This admittedly had not been done. We observe that a strict view has to be taken in regard to the documents under the cover of which the goods are brought in a factory for Modvat purposes. The documents as have been prescribed are with a view to ensure that duty-paid goods alone are received in the factory and it is obligatory that statutory documents as set out under Rule 57G alone are taken into consideration for the purpose of Modvat Credit. There is possibility of misuse in case consignees on their own are allowed to endorse the gate-pass after the goods have been cleared from the factory and received by them and a part of the same are resold. It would be difficult to verify the identity of the goods after the original consignment is broken up for sale. In this view of the matter, we hold that the learned lower appellate authority has been in error in allowing the appeal of the Respondents. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the Departmental Appeal.
-
1994 (2) TMI 185 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... l to us because the penal liability is not a vicarious one. In this case, when the entry in the log book shows that as per the direction of the master, various places in the ship were searched by the officers and they could not recover anything and the rummaging party only recovered these goods, this could only indicates that the officers of the ship, who were deputed for such work could not carry out the search effectively. On account of this, the master could not be held liable to penalty, unless there is a positive evidence of his involvement in bringing the goods on the vessel or to the effect that he was in the know of the crew members concealing the goods. In the circumstances, we could not find any reason to sustain the penalty, especially when the vessel is big one, having many crew members, who can bring any goods without any knowledge of the Captain and conceal them in various places in the vessel. 4. n the result, we allow the appeal and grant consequential relief.
-
1994 (2) TMI 184 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold - No allegation about smuggled nature of the gold ... ... ... ... ..... with the plea that those guineas were inherited by them from their ancestors. There is no evidence to show that they were new one. In that case, the benefit of doubt has to go to the appellants in view of the fact that such guineas were printed during King George VI. Giving the benefit of doubt, guineas are also not held liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. 9. emsp So far as the personal penalties imposed are concerned, Smt. Sheelaben is related only to the possession of guineas. In view of the findings as above, the penalty imposed on her is set aside. As regards the penalty imposed on Shri Ketan, he admits to have purchased foreign marked gold and he is therefore liable to imposition of penalty under Sec. 112(b)(i). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, while sustaining the penalty imposed on Shri Ketan, the same is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only). 10. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (2) TMI 183 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit - Goods rejected during testing and inspection are waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... g followed in Madras and Hyderabad Collectorates for a similar situation is correct, in our view. The cases cited by the learned Senior Departmental Representative while opposing the appeal are to be understood in the context in which they were rendered. The present case has to be decided with specific reference to the provisions of Rule 57D(1). It extends to Waste arising during the manufacture of the final product. The expression, ldquo during manufacture rdquo , does not get restricted to the process when Dry Cells come out of the machine. They have to be tested and approved and then only, they reach the RG 1 stage. Till they cross that stage, manufacture is not completed. Accordingly, we hold that the Collector rsquo s direction for the reversal of Modvat Credit on the duty-paid inputs contained in the rejects of Dry Battery Cells is not in line with Rule 57D(1). We, therefore, set it aside and allow the appeal. The appellants would be eligible for consequential benefits.
-
1994 (2) TMI 182 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... n 3 of the Act reads as under ldquo Duties specified in the First Schedule to be levied - (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in India and a duty on salt manufactured in, or imported by land into, any part of India as, and at the rates set forth in the First Schedule rdquo We, therefore, feel that Special Excise duty cannot in the above context be read into the scheme of exemption so far as Special Excise duty is concerned. Therefore, the question of giving notional credit would not also consequently be available in the context of Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification No. 136/88. In our view clarification dated 14-6-1988 issued by the Tax Research Unit of the Government of India reflects the correct position of law. In this view of the matter we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal . 3. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 181 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... nt of wrong debit in RG 23A Part II, the full facts are not reflected either in the order of the Assistant Collector or in the order of the Collector (Appeals). We are to observe that if the duty demand is in respect of the same issue of reversal of modvat credit for the same reason, then the same is not sustainable. But if the duty demand is on account of irregular credit and debit in the modvat account not pertaining to this issue, it has to be considered de novo by the Assistant Collector. In any case, when there is no cross appeal from the respondents on this de novo consideration, we cannot disturb de novo consideration ordered by the Collector. 6. emsp As regards penalty, there is a clear admission that they have violated the provisions of Rule 57F(2). Hence, the respondents are required to pay the penalty. Accordingly, we restore the penalty ordered by the Assistant Collector, which is not unreasonably high. 7. Appeal from the Revenue is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (2) TMI 180 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Export - Cash Compensatory Support Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... re, provided the cash assistance. The promise of the Govt. to provide the assistance led the petitioners to enter into firm commitments which otherwise they would not have made. Based on the promise the petitioners have altered their position. The Govt. cannot be allowed to go back on its promise. The arguments on behalf of the Govt. fails. 5. emsp This brings us to the last point urged by the appellant rsquo s learned Counsel. It was not disputed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that the Govt. has a right to change its policy. But the right is to be exercised for valid reasons. Except making a bald assertion of the right nothing is said to justify the action. Change of policy cannot be arbitrary or as per whims and fancy. In fact as noticed earlier the reason for withdrawal of the cash compensatory support justifies that for the period of the operation of the Scheme it should have been continued. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (2) TMI 179 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ected against the imposition of penalty, we have to take note of the submissions in this regard. It was contended that the amount of penalty imposed has been fixed at a level corresponding to the duty amount in question and that no penalty was really called for. The legal position being clear from the plain wording of Rule 57F(1)(ii) the appellants should have paid duty on the inputs cleared by them in accordance with that provision. As, however, they did not do so but only reversed the amount of Credit that they had taken, they had not complied with the relevant provisions and they are liable to penalty. We, however, feel that in the circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty equal to the duty involved is not called for. We, therefore, reduce the penalty imposed by the Collector to a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand only) and allow the appeal partially to that extent modifying the impugned order correspondingly to that extent. The appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1994 (2) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Advertisement charges includible ... ... ... ... ..... is clearly distinguishable on facts as it was rightly argued by the Senior Departmental Representative. Concurring with the findings given by the Collector on this issue and following the ratio of the decision in the case of Bombay Tyre International 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (SC) and the decisions cited above by the Senior Departmental Representative, we hold that advertisement charges form part of the assessable value for the purpose of excise duty. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions made by the party with reference to case law we set aside the penalty imposed on them. Accordingly we direct the adjudicating authority to determine the assessalble value as indicated above and exact duty payable by the party may be worked out on the modified assessable value after hearing them since some discrepancies have been pointed out by them during the course of arguments with reference to calculation. Thus appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
........
|
