|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 339 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 211 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Inspection and testing charges ... ... ... ... ..... in the face of the admitted facts that the goods already stood fully manufactured, ready for delivery in wholesale market and were actually sold to other wholesale customers, that cost of testing/inspection carried out by the DGS and D at the instance of specific customers, namely, PHED, Rajasthan should not be included in the value of the goods. 2. emsp We have also following the ratio of this decision held that optional testing charges incurred by the customers for their requirements are not includible for arriving at the assessable value. Unless it could be shown that the testing done was in lieu of the quality control test to be done by the manufacturer, the charges as incurred cannot be included for arriving at the assessable value. The Ld. JDR in query concedes that this is not the position in the present case. 3. emsp Following therefore the ratio of the decision referred to supra we hold that the charges in question are not includible. Appeal of revenue is dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... s mentioned in that rule. However, sub-rule (3) of Rule 57-S stipulates ldquo (3) no part of the credit of duty allowed shall be utilised save as provided in sub rule (2) or shall be refunded in cash or by cheque. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-S provides that credit of specific duty allowed in respect of any capital goods may be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on any of the final products manufactured, or on the waste, if any, or on the capital goods themselves. In the instant case, we find that it is a pre-deposit of duty and penalty and therefore, does not fall under any of the requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-S. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-S prohibits utilisation of the credit for the purpose other than those stated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-S. The appellants should make the deposit under TR 6 Challan or PLA or only in RG 23A Part II. For this purpose the time for deposit is being extended to 7th February, 1997. Compliance should be reported on 17th February, 1997.
-
1996 (11) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... enefit of additional credit over a couple of months and the appellants in the normal course would have paid interest in case they borrowed the said amount from the Bank. We observe the appellants have enjoyed the benefit of over Rs. 4 lakhs of amount for a couple of months as stated by the learned DR for which benefit they were not entitled. Admittedly, there was a failure in the appellants system. The department has reposed a lot of trust in the assessee under the SRP scheme and for the appellants failure in the matter in not organising their affairs to ensure that these double entries are not made, they are liable to be penalised. We in the circumstances hold that the appellants are liable to penalty. Taking into consideration the amount involved and the period for which they had used this amount, we hold that ends of justice would be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand). But for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 208 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ce, the appellants came up with a Part II price lists and claimed for assessment at the lower price. A substantive benefit provided under the law cannot be denied so long as it could be established that the parameters which entitle the assessment u/s 4(1)(b) are satisfied. In the present case, the sale being to an industrial consumer and so long as this can be shown by the appellants that the sales was in the normal course of business, the lower price agreed to for sale between the appellants and the customers would be acceptable. We are of the view that the appellants will be entitled to the benefit if they are able to satisfy the authorities that they satisfied the criterion for assessment u/s 4(1)(b) notwithstanding the fact that the price in Part II was filed subsequent to the clearance of the goods. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. We make it clear that the grant of refund will be subject to provisions of the amended Section 11B in regard to unjust enrichment.
-
1996 (11) TMI 207 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... ctual users. He could not point out any restrictions having been placed in respect of importation of such goods for actual users. 4. emsp We have considered the pleas made by both sides. Admittedly, the goods are in the nature of agricultural machinery. These are meant to be used in the fields by farmers or rice transplantation. The definition of consumer goods rsquo as set out above would not cover the items of this nature. The position also stands confirmed by the entries as set out under the appendix to the Import and Export Policy which was issued subsequent to the importation of the goods wherein the transplanters have been clearly shown as freely importable. There is no actual user condition set out against that. We hold that the appellant is entitled to import the goods under OGL. The confiscation of the goods is not therefore sustainable. In this view, we set aside the order of levy of penalty and allow the appeal with consequential relief. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 206 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Cess - Paper ... ... ... ... ..... ability of cess is discharged by a particular manufacturer on the goods produced or manufactured, the same thereafter cannot be again subjected to cess for reason of change of form. In the present case wrapping paper is used as a component of other paper as a wrapping material. If the cess liability is discharged before its use, thus there could be no further levy of cess on this quantum of paper which is used as wrapping material. In case the authorities choose to collect cess on this paper after its use as packing material then the cess cannot be charged at the anterior stage. There is nothing in the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act to permit multi point levy of cess in respect of the very same paper. In the circumstances we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is sustainable in law. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 6. emsp The Cross Objection being in the nature of comments is misconceived in law and the same is therefore dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... es above, we are persuaded in the view that the appellants bona fide believed that the operations carried out by them might not amount to manufacture. Even otherwise no circumstances have been brought on record by the learned lower authority to show that the appellants had suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of duty. In view of the above discussion we hold that inasmuch as the learned lower authority has not laid any basis in his order for invoking the longer period of limitation nor was any material before him to come to such a conclusion, we are of the view that the appellants rsquo plea on limitation has to be allowed. In the circumstances, we allow the appellants rsquo plea in regard to suppression of fact and invocation of longer period of limitation. We therefore hold that the demand is barred by limitation. 4. emsp So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the same are left open for consideration and we are not making any observation in this regard.
-
1996 (11) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rds the presence of smoke in an area where the detector is installed. The finding pertaining to the item being a complete instrument has not been challenged by the Revenue and the separate proceedings initiated by the Collector of Customs. Therefore taking into consideration all these material on record it has to be held that the item in question is an instrument and apparatus for measuring or checking the quantities of heat and it is covered under sub-heading 9027.80. 8. emsp In the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 53 (Tribunal) 1988 (18) ECC.T111, the Tribunal held that frame sensing system for measuring the intensity of flame is classifiable under 90.28 of the Customs Tariff and not Chapter Headings 85.17, 85.18/27. The ratio of this judgment is also applicable to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1996 (11) TMI 203 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation of conveyance - Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ies, no indication is available that the said van was used with his concurrence. Therefore it is inferred that Shri V.P. Mansoor has had no role, either directly or indirectly, in the subject smuggling of silver ingots. Therefore, I drop the charges against him. rdquo . It is thus seen that the adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that no specific charges are made against Manzoor the appellant and no charge is proved against him also. However his Driver K.P. Rajesh was in the knowledge of the smuggled character of the goods and actually he has transported the same. Therefore the vehicle though confiscable, the absolute confiscation of the same is not warranted in the circumstances of this case. The value of the tempo in question is Rs. 2,25,000/- and taking into consideration the value of the goods we allow the appellant to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand). The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (11) TMI 202 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Value of clearances - Clubbing of - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... abovesaid notification. A perusal of the reply shows that the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that they have followed the procedure laid down in the above said notification. This aspect of the matter has been clearly discussed by the adjudicating authority in para 7.1 and 7.3 of the impugned order. He has clearly stated that the appellant has not followed the procedure laid down in the notification and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the notification. We therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authority in this regard and we therefore, confirm the finding of the lower authority in this regard. Therefore, this plea of the appellant is rejected. In the result we are of the view that duty demand should be worked out by treating the two units as independent units upto 30-9-1992 and thereafter duty should be worked out. In the circumstances, the penalty on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred).
-
1996 (11) TMI 201 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... on 19-4-1995 that PPE and PPO are one and the same. The goods have been classified under Heading 3909.30 of the Central Excise Tariff for purpose of additional duty. 4. emsp The reading of the materials produced, shows that PPE and PPO are not, in fact, the same product. The HSN explanatory notes indicate that PPE is a group of products, of which PPO is an important member. The Concise Encyclopaedia of Polymer Science and Engineering also confirms this position. The correct position, therefore, (sic.) be that while PPO is ether, not all ether can be considered to be PPO. When the Customs authorities themselves have considered that the commodity is classifiable as PPO under Heading 3909.30, the Central Excise Authorities would not take a different view about the nature of the product in the absence of any allegation. We, therefore, hold that the product conformed to the (sic.) and the credit was rightly taken. 5. emsp The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 200 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ants. On ground of limitation therefore, we hold that the demand after 26-9-1991 would be barred by limitation. 4. emsp The authorities should have been alert and taken steps to issue the demand within a period of 6 months in respect of the clearances made after 26-9-1991. The appellants also, it is seen have manufactured same range of product as they were manufacturing on job work basis for M/s. Micro Lab and the brand name used was in respect of the same range of products which were in different form. In the circumstances in view of the use of the brand name of another person by the appellants and who was not eligible to the benefit of Notification 175/86, the appellants will not be eligible for the benefit of the said Notification for the period prior to 26-9-1991. 5. emsp Penalty of Rs. 20,000/- levied on the appellants cannot be considered as excessive in the facts and circumstances and we uphold the same. But for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1996 (11) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ore, the function of the disc drive it can be considered as a machine for transcribing data onto data media in a coded form. Moreover, we also find similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in case of Infosys Consultants P. Ltd. v. C.C. - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 642 (Tribunal) and Aurelec Data Processing Systems v. C.C. - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 661 (Tribunal). 6. emsp In regard to disc pack as such we agree with the ld. D.R. that considered by itself it is not a machine for transcribing data and therefore is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 40/82-Cus. ld. Counsel also fairly concedes that he is not pressing his claim in regard to disc pack. 7. emsp In the result, we set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to disc drives holding that such disc drives are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 40/82. We uphold that part of the order which denies exemption to disc packs under Notification No. 40/82, dated 28-2-1982. Appeals are disposed of in these terms.
-
1996 (11) TMI 198 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... reasonings in the order under appeal. 5. emsp In Vikram Laminators Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 147 (Tribunal), this Tribunal has, following the view consistently expressed, held that the benefit of Notification cannot be denied because other formalities were not followed. It has extended the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 holding that the eligibility to the Notification is independent of exemption from licensing control for filing of declaration. Following series of decisions of which this is the last one we hold that the appellant rsquo s claim for benefit of the two small scale notifications could not been dismissed only on the ground that the declaration had not been filed. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal. The Commissioner shall consider whether the appellant satisfying the requirement of each of the two notifications in question and thus is entitled to their benefit and shall pass appropriate orders according to law.
-
1996 (11) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... themselves, are classified as parts of relative machines. Suction or Pressure Valves for air or other gas compressors are, among others, specific examples of valves which are classified as parts of such machines. HSN Notes also indicate their classification under Heading 84.14. 6. emsp Since Assistant Collector has rejected the claim as unsubstantiated, and Collector (Appeals) has not at all discussed the character of these goods with reference to HSN Notes, we are of the view that the matter will have to go back by way of remand to determine whether goods are such as would merit classification under 84.81 or are an indeed the type of goods which, according to HSN Notes, would be excluded from 84.81 and would fall under 84.14. 7. emsp We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the case to Assistant Commissioner for de novo decision in the light of our observations. Since the case is being remanded, the Tribunal would appreciate if decision is taken expeditiously.
-
1996 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI exemption - Clubbing of clearances - Dummy Unit ... ... ... ... ..... ng circumstantial evidence showing that the two concerns were part of one show belonging to the father and the sons. The memoranda of appeals refer to a large number of decisions of the Tribunal in respect of other cases. We do not wish to refer each of them separately since we find that the decision in each case rested essentially on the facts and circumstances of the case. They cannot be said to lay down in general principle of law which would be favourable to the respondent. 7. emsp In the light what we have indicated above, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise that the clearances of the two concerns are required to be clubbed for the purposes of the exemption notification. The demand is only consequential to the clubbing. 8. emsp In the nature of the finding and upheld by us we take it that the penalty has been imposed on M/s. Ashok Enterprises. We find no reason to interfere with this part of the order. 9. emsp Appeals are dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 1-8-1983, as amended, was not applicable, we are not able to understand as to why the benefit of Notification No. 209/83-C.E. had not been considered. While we do not agree with the findings of the learned Collector of Central Excise that the inputs were flats, we consider that the benefit of any other applicable Notification should not be denied to them. As the matter has not proceeded in this manner, we consider that the matter had to be remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, who should consider the question of benefit under Notification No. 209/83-C.E. or any other applicable Notification. 7. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we remand this matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for de novo consideration in the light of our above observations. The order passed by the Collector of Central Excise is set aside with the above direction. 8. emsp The appeal of the Revenue is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1996 (11) TMI 194 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Payment of ... ... ... ... ..... ated against the above three appellants which we hold is the due amount and which is not contested before us. This is subject to the condition that the appellants will not press their refund claim which is pending before the AC. In the case of Vijai Industries and Rajhans Enterprises, the confiscation of the goods for the reasons set out in the order of the lower authority, is upheld. As regards penalty, while we hold that the appellants are liable to penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case we observe that the appellants since they had already paid the duty amount before the issue of show cause notice itself and also at the tariff rate, we hold ends of justice would be served if the penalty is reduced in each case as under M/s. Vijay Industries Unit I. emsp 1. Rs. 10,000/- (RupeesTen thousand) Regency Printers emsp 2. Rs. 25,000/- Rs. Twenty five thousand) M/s. Rajhans Enterprises emsp 3. Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand) The appeal are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (11) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... utilised as a part of printing machinery and rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8442.50 which reads as ldquo Printing types, blocks, plates, cylinders and other printing components, blocks, plates, cylinders and lithographic stones, prepared for printing purposes (for example planes, grained or polished). rdquo 3. emsp Ld. DR appearing in these matters reiterates the department rsquo s submissions and submitted that in view of the matter decided by Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, the appeals filed by the revenue x x x does not survive. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions and perused the copy of the judgment in the Court today. On perusal we find that the issue pertaining to classification of the printing plates which is also a subject matter in these appeals have been finally decided by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in favour of the party and applying the ratio of these judgments, we do not find any substance in these appeals and therefore, we dismiss the same.
-
1996 (11) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Surgraphic Recorder - Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 26/88-Cus ... ... ... ... ..... cting lead. It was pleaded before Asstt. Collector that it is essential to locate the defects and for this, surgraphic recorder is essential. The system also includes all the equipments including surgraphic recorder. Revenue had not produced any evidence in rebuttal. It will be clear that in a system where it is essential to have graphic record to measure the accuracy of the results reading the sentence in the catalogue which states the instruments versatility can be further increased by addition of a parameter to hold the impugned goods are optional part is not a correct approach for appreciating the character of the goods. When the catalogue says that where permanent graphs are required, and the appellants have through-out pleaded that for manufacture of bearings, permanent graphs are required of tested profiles, it cannot be held that catalogue indicates that the item is optional. For the reasons mentioned herein-before we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
............
|
