|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 358 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation - Import - Machinery - Remand - Interim order ... ... ... ... ..... of the Orders to be passed by us and thereafter, the machines be allowed to be operated by the applicants/appellants herein during the pendency of the de novo adjudication. 9. emsp After having discussed with both the sides, we are of the view that the prayer is reasonable and therefore, we direct that the Commissioner of Customs will make suitable arrangements in the light of the aforesaid directions for getting the machines examined within a period of not exceeding two months from the date of receipt of this Order by him. Thereafter, the machines be released to the applicants/appellants for operation by them, subject to the undertaking that they will not alienate or place any encumbrances over the machines during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs. 10. emsp In view of the above directions, the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner of Customs. Since the appeals themselves are decided, the Stay Petitions also get disposed of.
-
1997 (1) TMI 357 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Registration ... ... ... ... ..... any other condition prescribed in the notification including that of the aggregate value and the specified goods. 18. emsp In these circumstances, apart from other cases, we find that it is the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Accura Industries (supra) which covers a similar situation inasmuch as it is an order relating to a manufacturer rsquo s unit which was earlier at Andheri but was sold out and subsequently, the benefit was allowed for their unit at Lower Parel even though they had not obtained the SSI registration certificate. We also note the learned Counsel rsquo s contention that it is not the Department rsquo s contention that they had exceeded the prescribed clearances limit. 19. emsp In these circumstances, we feel that the learned Collector (Appeals) rsquo order was right and there is no reason to interfere with the same. We, therefore, reject all the three Department rsquo s appeals which cover the same issue and uphold the Collector (Appeals) rsquo order.
-
1997 (1) TMI 352 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... he clearance of the Flexible Tubing of Base Metal under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. Therefore, we are of view that the plea of the learned Advocate for the applicant company that for the clearances after 15-1-1992, the demands are barred by time since the show cause notice has been issued on 7-7-1994, is on a strong ground. Therefore, bulk of the demand of duty will be barred by time. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we direct the applicants to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 15,000.00 within a period of four weeks from today. In case of compliance with the aforesaid direction, the balance amounts of duty and penalty shall stand waived and the Revenue shall be debarred from recovering the same during the pendency of the appeal. In case of non-compliance with the aforesaid direction, the Order shall automatically stand vacated and the appeal is liable to be dismissed without any reference to the applicants/appellants. Case to come up for ascertaining compliance on 6-3-1997.
-
1997 (1) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Adjudication and prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ion 112 of the Act. As for the second question, the Adjudication Authorities discharging powers under Section 112 or under Section 111 of the Act are not disabled by the verdict of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused and that too when the same has been by extending benefit of doubt from proceeding in the matter under Sections 111 and 112 of the Act. As for the third question, we are of the view, that since the quantum, nature and character of proof required before the criminal court in a prosecution under Section 135 of the Act being wholly distinct, different and altogether separate from the one required and the manner of consideration in the adjudication proceedings under Sections 111 or 112 of the Act and they substantially and totally differ in character and contents, the Adjudicating Authorities are not disabled from independently adjudicating the matter under Sections 111 and 112 of the Act on the basis of the materials available on record before them. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 350 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... e inputs received by them had not been cleared by the manufacturers of the same on payment of necessary duty. If that be so, the duty liability should have been directed towards the manufacturers of the inputs in question. The provisions of Section 11A read with Rule 9(2) are very clear in this respect and do not confer any power on the Excise Authorities to demand and recover from the receiver of the non-duty paid goods. I also agree with the learned Advocate that in case the duty is confirmed against them, they would become entitled to the Modvat credit of the same amount in terms of the provisions of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as there is no doubt that the said inputs had been used by them for the manufacture of their final product, which has ultimately been cleared on payment of duty and as such, there would be no loss of revenue. In view of my findings above, I set aside the impugned Orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
1997 (1) TMI 349 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... it would be covered by the provision of Rule 173L. This is the result of a harmonious construction of Rule 173H and 173L which otherwise appear to overlap some extent. Now, Rule 173L is not a charging section. That is Rule 9. Rule 173L only provides a relaxation or concession to the manufacturer to the extent that when the same goods come back for reprocessing amounting to manufacture and therefore are liable to pay the duty again, the duty paid initially can be refunded. Therefore, the restriction that the amount of such refund will be limited to the duty payable second time is logical and reasonable. The provisions of Rule 173L are thus in the nature of a relaxation to the principle that when the goods are manufactured duty is to be paid. If the legislature chose to restrict the relaxation, the fact that the manufacturer suffers in consequence some incidence of duty is inescapable it does not justify the view that the provisions have been wrongly applied. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 348 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Yarn - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... appellant that yarn from spindles is taken by them first on the bobbins, it becomes marketable and hence dutiable. Since these are taken for beaming/warping, duty on yarn gets deferred from this stage subject to its utilisation in fabric. If any unutilised bobbin yarn is taken and converted to a straight reel hanks, it must discharge its yarn duty because deferment under Rule 49A would not apply to such yarn. 4.2 emsp As regards the point of discrimination raised by them is concerned, the appellants have not produced any evidences that in purely spinning units, yarn is taken first on bobbin rsquo in the so-called preparatory sections rsquo of such spinning units and then converted to straight reel hanks as is done by the appellants. 4.3 emsp Apart from the lack of evidence, question of discrimination cannot be raised before the Tribunal. 4.4 emsp In view of foregoing discussions, I do not find any substance in the appeal of the appellants herein. It is dismissed accordingly.
-
1997 (1) TMI 347 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Adjustment in duty credit ... ... ... ... ..... e contends that reliance by the Commissioner on the decision of this Tribunal is misplaced, because there are other decisions to say that Rule 57E, as it stood before its amendment, did not permit credit to be taken on differential duty paid subsequent to clearance of the goods. 3. emsp I have heard both sides. 4. emsp The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Tata Locomotive v. C.C.E., Mumbai 1996 (87) E.L.T. 157 has held that Rule 57E is procedural in nature the amendment introduced in this rule intended to further clarify the position and to indicate the procedure to be followed the amended provision would apply to all situations of adjustment, recovery for refund which would not be collected before 15-4-1987. In the present case credit was taken only after 15-4-1987 and credit would not have been taken prior to this date. Therefore credit could not be denied on the duty paid. Hence the manufacturer was entitled to the certificate that he had asked for. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 346 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... 7Q. In the other case, pipe fittings, air compressor, tank antifoam storage and like materials have similarly been denied Modvat credit. The issue, to us appears arguable and it cannot be held that prima facie case for totally dispensing with the pre-deposit and granting stay has been made. The ld. Counsel however, has referred to certain decisions if the Tribunal which according to them support their case for availing Modvat credit on the same equipments as in this case. This is also debatable. Therefore, the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits, we direct that the applicants herein should pre-deposit totally an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs in their capital goods on Modvat account on both the appeals taken together and this must be effected on or before 31st January, 1997. On compliance with this direction the balance amount of duty and the penalty is dispensed with and recovery stayed. The matter will come up to ascertain the compliance within this order on or before 2-2-1997.
-
1997 (1) TMI 345 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ual position regarding any absence of discussions by the Collector on limitation. The adjudicating authority in a sentence before passing the final order on the last page of the adjudication order has held that the appellant Company has evaded the Central Excise duty. Ld. JDR, Shri Roy, therefore, submits that the findings of the adjudicating authority, therefore, is that the larger period of limitation is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the submissions of the ld. Consultant that the demand is time barred because it cannot be said that the process of manufacture of bare copper wire of 14 S.W.G. or thicker was not known to the department. Accordingly, the demand is set aside as barred by time because the show cause notice has been issued well beyond the period of six months. Consequently, without looking into the merits of the demand, we set it aside as barred by time.
-
1997 (1) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption when dependent on classification ... ... ... ... ..... rred the claim on the ground that they are an electronic industry and since Notification No. 232/83 provided concessional rate of duty on the imported goods, and, therefore, they were claiming benefit of this Notification. There is not even the slightest hint in this that they were agitating the classification of the goods under Chapter 91 as against their claim of assessment under Chapter 85. Thus we find that the appellants had not agitated the classification of the product imported by them under Chapter 91. In this view of the matter, we find that there is sufficient force in the finding of the learned Collector (Appeals) holding that Chapter 91 is not covered by Notification 232/83 and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 232/83. In this view of the matter, we find that the rejection of the appeal and the refund claim was valid and justified and hold accordingly. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (1) TMI 343 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Duty paid on exempted goods and Modvat availed ... ... ... ... ..... he Tribunal rsquo s final order. 7. emsp I have considered the submissions of both the sides. I find that the question that arises for consideration is whether the embargo laid down by Rule 57C is attracted even in cases where the final product is actually cleared only on payment of duty of excise. This is a question of law on which there is no pronouncement by any High Court and therefore, I am satisfied that a question of law requiring reference to the High Court arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. According to me, the following questions arise (1) emsp Whether the provisions of Rule 57C are attracted in cases where the final products are cleared without availing of exemption from whole of duty of excise ? (2) emsp Whether the provisions of Explanatory notes appended to the Finance Bill, 1994 are applicable to unregistered units ? The above draft statement of reference may be circulated to both the sides and placed before the Bench for finalisation on 24-2-1997.
-
1997 (1) TMI 342 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... Notification No. 178/85-C.E. The benefit of Exemption Notification could not be extended on assumptions or presumptions. The benefit involving Revenue sacrifice had to be applied for and when the requisite conditions are fulfilled, they are extended. In this case on the presumption that the appellants should have been considered to be working under Notification No. 77/85-C.E. when at no stage, they had either filed any declaration for the availment of the benefit under that Notification, or had actually availed of the said benefit, the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be extended in their favour. The exemption under that Notification among others was subject to the conditions in Para 4 of the Notification, which the appellants have not fulfilled. 7. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result, the appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (1) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Protest - Method of protest ... ... ... ... ..... s no reference to any Central Excise Tariff Item. There is a reference only to the machining apparatus. As we find that in the refund claim no details whatsoever about the nature of the products or the processes undertaken by the appellant has been given, the said letter of the protest which is extracted above cannot make the refund claim valid and in our view is not relevant. 11. emsp Ld. Advocate has also referred to earlier show cause notices and the adjudication order and had pleaded that a dispute was going on for the same products. As we have noted above, there is no reference to any goods or process of manufacture as to any protest whatsoever in the refund claim as well as in the appeal filed before the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) in this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector Central Excise (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal and therefore, it is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (1) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional evidence - Air Conditioner ... ... ... ... ..... as placed on the supplier to provide an equipment specifically designed for their purpose and it is only on the basis of catalogue/certificate of the manufacturer read with the order placed on them that it could be determined whether the item was tailor made and specially designed for the customer Normally, we are reluctant to admit the post-importation documents but in the above circumstances, such a certificate could be relied upon in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary. Therefore, while this certificate is admitted, the Voltas rsquo certificate which is in a different category is not admitted. 22. emsp To conclude, in view of the order placed by the appellants, the catalogue and the certificate of the manufacturer/supplier, the balance tilts in the favour of the appellants and it can only be said that this equipment is not merely essential but is one which is required to be considered as integral part of the SCP machine. 23. emsp Hence, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of M/s. Ravindra Steel Ltd., Nagpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 413 (Tribunal) 1983 ECR 294 (Tribunal), where the Tribunal had observed that the two products, steel ingot and the steel melting scrap were not the same and were known to the trade and commerce by distinct names and nomenclatures and that the steel ingots would not include the steel melting scrap. As we have discussed above, the tariff entry under sub-item (6) of Item No. 25 not only covers ingots, but also blocks and lumps and other similar forms of iron and steel. We have also discussed above that all types of steel melting scrap is not fit only for the recovery of the metal and could be used for other purposes, such as, rolling. 12. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As a result, the appeal filed by M/s. FACT is allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 338 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Return of deteriorated goods to appellant’s factory ... ... ... ... ..... reasonable and acceptable data to determine the value. It was suggested that proforma offer for purchase of damaged goods could provide reasonable data for determination of value. On the facts it was held that there was no sale of damaged cigarettes and there was only reimbursement for loss in storage and accordingly the contention that amount covered by credit note represented transaction value for repurchase was rejected. On the facts of the present case, we have construed the transaction as resale and the amount covered by credit note as sale price, but we have held that this sale price did not represent the value or market value. 7. emsp In view of the failure of the respondent to establish the condition prescribed in Rules 97(1)(vi) and 173L(3)(v) of the Rules, the refund claims are not sustainable. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is erroneous. We set aside the same and restore the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 337 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... enough to see if the time of delivery alone was contemporaneous. A perusal of the invoice of M/s. AEY Gee Bros. shows that the import was indented on 14-7-1988 whereas the import by the respondents were indented on 7-9-1988. He further held that letter of credit was opened on 7-9-1988 in case of M/s. AEY Gee Bros. and in the case of respondent letter of credit was opened on 29-11-1988. On the basis of these facts, the Collector held that there is significant time difference both in terms of date of indent and date of L/C and the Collector had held that declared invoice price of the appellant (now respondent) cannot be rejected in terms of an invoice does not reflect contemporary import. 6. emsp In view of the fact that the goods imported by the respondents are of different grade from the goods imported by M/s. AEY Gee Bros. and the import by M/s. AEY Gee Bros. cannot be held to be contemporary import, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed
-
1997 (1) TMI 336 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... description given is of copper and copper alloy wire rsquo without any description of the cross-sectional diameter. It could, therefore, mean that copper and copper alloy wire of cross-sectional diameter both exceeding 6 mm and less than 6 mm could be obtained by the appellants as their input. Therefo- re, there is no mistake on the part of the appellants in the statutory declaration of the input filed by them. 4.2 emsp Even on limitation, I find that there is no good case for the Revenue. Plain reading of Rule 57-I stipulates that the show cause notice is required to be issued within six months of the date of taking the credit. This is the consistent view being taken by this Bench. We are aware of the contrary judgments of the W.R.B. but I respectfully differ in view of the plain language of Rule 57-I as it existed before 26-5-1995. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Since Appeal has been allowed, Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
1997 (1) TMI 335 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal of biris ... ... ... ... ..... pecially on the monsoon season would deteriorate in quality and become unconsumable. The proceedings also show that the stock shown in the duty paid register matches the physical stock. The claim that 50,000 biris were duty paid, therefore, does not sustain. The Assistant Collector has recorded that the duty paid register itself was not authenticated by the proper officer and, therefore, no reliance could be placed thereupon. The Tobacco Excise Manual requires authentication of statutory registers to be kept by a tobacco licencee and thus, the Assistant Collector was right in not placing reliance on the unauthenticated register. The only other submission made by the appellant is that the sale bill was there which had been dismissed by the Assistant Collector as of no consequence. We observe that a sale bill cannot substitute the documents like GP 1 which alone can indicate the fact of payment of duty. 5. emsp In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
............
|
