|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 426 Records
-
1997 (11) TMI 376 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... he suction intake of a centrifugal dredge pump. The cutterhead is mounted at the extremity of a fabricated steel structure, termed the lsquo ladder rsquo , which also supports the suction pipe. The technical and practical requirement of disposal of the dredged material makes the Pipelines a part of the main Dredger. We find that the evidence relied upon by the appellant firm in the shape of the British Standard Specification, strongly favour their case. Accordingly, we hold that the various types of Pipelines are a part of the Dredger itself, qualifying for their classification under Chapter 8905.00 as Dredgers and therefore, they are entitled to the exemption Notification No. 133/87-Cus., dated 19-3-87. As we have held Pipelines as a part of the Dredger enjoying exemption under Notification No. 133/87, the appellants rsquo further claim of exemption under Notification No. 106/92 dated 1-3-92, in the alternative, does not require any consideration. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ice should be taken as the price inclusive of Central Excise duty and that Central Excise duty should be excluded in terms of Section 4 to arrive at the assessable value. Similar view has been taken in various other appeals by the Tribunal applying the aforesaid statutory provision. In the circumstances, I respectfully agree with the order proposed by the learned Judicial Member. 30. emsp The papers may be placed before the Bench which passed the earlier order giving rise to this reference to me as third Member or a suitable reconstituted Bench nominated by the Honourable President for passing the order in accordance with the majority view. Sd/- (K. Sankararaman) Member (T) MAJORITY DECISION 31.In view of the majority decision, it is held that emsp duty liability of the appellants rsquo company is to be calculated by treating the prices as cum duty price. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- emsp emsp emsp (Archana Wadhwa) Member (J) emsp emsp Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T)
-
1997 (11) TMI 363 - SC ORDER
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... pondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding. 3. emsp We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
-
1997 (11) TMI 357 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ns put up for retail sale as glues or adhesives, not exceeding a net weight of 1 Kg. rdquo Furthermore, Heading 35.06 of HSN covers Prepared glues and other prepared adhesives, not elsewhere specified or included Products suitable for use as glues or adhesives, put up for retail sale as glues or adhesives, not exceeding a net weight of 1 Kg. 8. emsp Since our tariff does not incorporate the conditions of the weight of the packing meant for retail sale or otherwise and the entry takes use into consideration and the product is apparently used as adhesives for retreading purposes, therefore, the order of the Collector (Appeals) which relies upon the aforesaid order of the Tribunal for reasons mentioned therein is required to be upheld. 9. emsp Insofar as the question of exemption notification is concerned, since the matter has only been remanded for verification of facts, there was no reason to interfere. The appeal is, therefore, rejected as already announced in the open Court.
-
1997 (11) TMI 354 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 1987 (30) E.L.T. 71 we held that since the purchase orders contain price variation clause and copies of the purchase orders and contracts were submitted along with the price lists and the prices declared were provisional inasmuch as they were subject to the price variation clause, provisionality also attaches to the approval granted to the price lists and the assessment also must be treated as provisional and the provision of limitation contained in Section 11-B will not be attracted. The facts of the present case are identical. Therefore, following the above dictum we hold that the refund claims are not barred by limitation. The lower authorities had not gone into the merits of claims. 4. emsp We set aside the impugned orders and remand the claims to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh on merits after giving appellant an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. emsp Appeal is allowed. Cross objection being supportive of the impugned orders is dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 353 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Glass fibre under Notification No. 52/86-C.E. will cover non-woven fabrics also ... ... ... ... ..... o. 10 of the Notification No. 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. 5. emsp We find that the issue is coverd by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the appellants rsquo own case in Appeal No. E/2993/90-D, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. E/309/91-D, dated 4-7-1991 held that since serial No. 10 of the Notification No. 52/86-C.E. does not differentiate between woven and non-woven fabrics, the exemption granted under the said notification will be applicable equally to non-woven fabrics also. 6. emsp The appeal filed by the Revenue against this order was dismissed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. A-141. Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 7. emsp Consequential relief, if any will be subject to the provisions of unjust enrichment as interpreted by the Hon rsquo le Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247.
-
1997 (11) TMI 350 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Motor vehicle parts - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... produced by the appellants in respect of allegation either to prove or disprove the same is not adequate on which any conclusion can be reached. It appears that the lower appellate-authority has not applied its mind to all the possible evidence which can be brought on record. In fact, we are of the view that proper investigation also has not been done by the original authority into the allegation made by the appellants which to our mind are of a very serious nature. A proper investigation was, therefore, called for not only for bringing on record all the possible relevant documentary evidences but also for recording an oral statements of the persons concerned. We are, therefore, of the view that the matter is fit for remand to the original authority for re-inquiry and re-adjudication by examining and cross-examining of the concerned person. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the Appeal by remand to the original authority in terms of the above observations.
-
1997 (11) TMI 348 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Waste paper ... ... ... ... ..... factory may perhaps see some of the material on these covers. But this would also be the case if the goods were exported and the workers in the docks would be exposed to them. In fact some of the workers would already have been exposed to them in the course of examination of the cassettes etc. Collector (Appeals) has noted that the importers request to have the covers shredded in the docks could not be accepted only because the Port Trust refused to allow the machine into the docks. We therefore see no reason to interfere, except to its following extent. In order to ensure that the goods are in fact disposed of we modify the Commissioner (Appeals) order that the actual utilisation of the goods in the respondents rsquo factory shall be under the supervision of the local Customs. The expenses in this behalf will be borne by the respondent as has been agreed to by its advocate. 6. emsp Subject to this modification the order of the Collector is confirmed and the appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 347 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Duplicity of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... per even when the price-lists have been approved on a subsequent date as the approval was in pursuance of the earlier order dated 6-7-1993. 6. emsp Without going into the other aspects of the matter, we consider that the second appeal against the same Order-in-Original dated 6-7-1993 was not maintainable. To repeat the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 6-7-1993 had been dismissed by the Commr., C. Ex. (Appeals) while the appeal against the same order even when filed subsequently had been disposed of on merits. We consider that even when the approval of the price-lists was on a subsequent date, for the purpose of limitation, the date of the original order alone in pursuance of which the approval was subsequently accorded will be material inasmuch as in the approval itself, it has been remarked - ldquo Approved as per Adj. Order No. 39/93 dated 6-7-1993 . In view of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and as a result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 346 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... ys of the impugned order. They have to explain the delay only from the expiry of 90 days onwards. I have seen the application and I am of the view that most of the time the Managing Directors were away (even during the 90 days). It will be difficult sometime in the working of the organisation to meet and discuss and take a decision to file any appeal. It is easy for anybody to comment that the firm being a small one they could have taken a decision as to filing of an appeal especially as the amount involved is nearly Rs. 3 lakhs. But it is easily said than following the same. In running of a business sometime the litigation matters may be given last priority than to run the business, especially in respect of the day to day affairs. I would therefore feel in the interest of justice, in this case there is sufficient cause for the Appellant in not filing an appeal in time. I excuse the delay in filing the appeal and the application for the same is allowed. The delay is condoned.
-
1997 (11) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... itten by Ram Baran of production of sandalwood oil in 201 letters tallied exactly with the production figures recorded by the appellant in excise records. These circumstances clearly show that the letters written by Ram Baran relate to the production in the factory of the appellant. There is no motive suggested for Ram Baran to incorporate higher production figures, which would have been to his own detriment since he would be responsible for the stock so far as his employer was concerned. 12. emsp On a consideration of these circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority that the quantity in question, that is, 719.500 Kg. sandalwood oil was manufactured by the appellant over and above the quantities declared in the excise records and clandestinely removed without payment of duty. Therefore, confirmation of demand has to be sustained. However, in the circumstances the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- and the appeal disposed of.
-
1997 (11) TMI 344 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Chemicals - Not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 32/94-C.E. amended by Notification No. 142/94-C.E.
-
1997 (11) TMI 343 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Export Oriented Unit - Notification No. 13/81-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... we hold that the case law cited by the respondents is distinguishable and plea of the respondents that duty should be paid under the provision to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable. We, therefore, allow the plea of the department for levy of duty in terms of the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. emsp However, the learned Counsel for the respondents made an alternative plea that their contention for benefit of Notification No. 97/91 should be considered and also for valuation aspect and the levy of additional customs duty would also required to be considered. We observe that the learned lower appellate authority has not examined these pleas of the assessee when he allowed the appeal of the respondents. This in our view was also required to be considered and for this limited purpose, we remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for de novo consideration. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore allowed in the above terms.
-
1997 (11) TMI 342 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... tement that the goods were meant for sale to Coal India Limited or for any Government Company. The Excise Officer was right in calculating the price which would have been payable by an ordinary customer as the rdquo normal price of these goods. 6. emsp Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, it is seen that when the goods are removed, the sale price at the factory gate will be the normal price. But at the time of removal, it was not known as to where it was being removed for a particular class of buyer. In the absence of such knowledge, the price has to be calculated as if the goods have been removed from the factory gate for sale in the open market. These are the principles laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision and the same applies to the facts of this case. This being the position, the impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the ld. Asst. Collector is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... the Notification and would be eligible. 6. emsp We observe that the ld. Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding the respondents eligible in the above facts and circumstances. Once the SSI registration certificate had been cancelled and it was neither renewed nor amended, the benefit of exemption Notification 175/86, which was available only to SSI units, could not be extended. 7. emsp Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that even after amalgamation, the new unit continued to fall under small scale category and was eligible to the benefit on its own merits. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the renewal or amendment could not be considered as a mere formality. 8. emsp Since a substantive requirement of the Notification was not fulfilled the A.C. was justified in confirming the demand. 9. emsp We, therefore, set aside the impugned order (Collector rsquo s Appeal) and allow the Department rsquo s appeal as already announced in the open Court.
-
1997 (11) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal/Stay application - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... f this plea, they have filed the affidavit. The Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants has also filed an affidavit. They had not received the hearing notice and therefore, the stay application was disposed of without effective hearing. 2. emsp We have heard the learned DR. 3. emsp On a careful consideration of the submission and on perusal of the affidavit, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented from appearing on the date of hearing, which resulted in passing of the order. Hence, we recall the stay order which directed them to deposit the duty and penalty and direct the registry to list the stay application today itself for hearing.
-
1997 (11) TMI 339 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Sodium sulphate, a by-product emerging during manufacture of viscose staple fibre ... ... ... ... ..... ecified final product, under Rule 57A, the rules will have to be interpreted with reference to their product and the benefit of the Modvat credit will have to be considered in the context of appellants rsquo manufacturing the VSF and the status of the Sodium Sulphate produced has to be reckoned with reference to the manufacture of VSF. Admittedly, the same is only a by-product. That benefit of Modvat credit was given to the by-product earlier in no way affects the appellants rsquo right to claim the full benefit and utilisation of the Modvat credit on the inputs when VSF came to be notified. 27. emsp In view of the above, we hold that the appellants rsquo plea for the benefit of Modvat credit has to be allowed. The ld. Lower Authority rsquo s orders are therefore set aside and appeals of the appellants are allowed. 28. emsp Inasmuch as we have allowed the plea of the appellants, the department appeals automatically based on the ratio of the decision above has to be dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 338 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Menthol I.P. - Concessional rate under Notification 31/88-C.E. not available ... ... ... ... ..... bulk drugs. In the present case admittedly the menthol I.P. cleared by the appellants is not being used as such, or as an ingredient in any of the formulation mentioned under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the cases relied upon by the appellants. 10. emsp In view of the facts as discussed above, we find that menthol I.P. cleared by the appellants is not used as such, or as an ingredient in any of the formulation as provided under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. 11. emsp The Collector, Central Excise in the impugned order held that the extended period of limitation is invokable in this case and the appellants had made no arguments challenging this finding. 12. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 337 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Credit originally taken reversed on manufacturer opting full exemption ... ... ... ... ..... d in the previous year i.e. 30-6-1995. This very credit had been taken by them again apparently because the subject inputs were in stock at the time of their entering the duty payment period on 31-5-1995. As there is no valid order denying the request for taking of credit under Rule 57H made by them in the year 1994, the decision by the authorities below for disallowing of credit on the score that the documents in question had been defaced cannot be supported. The eligibility for such credit under Rule 57H for the years 1994 as well as 1995 at the time of their going out of the exemption phase has to be decided with reference to the documents evidencing the existence of these stocks of the subject inputs as such or in a converted form on the respective dates. For this purpose, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner for de novo decision after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant for making submissions in the matter.
-
1997 (11) TMI 336 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... o that extent the show cause notice proceeded on completely different set of facts. Apart from this, we notice that classification list pertains to 1986 which was in the name of Monga Industries P. Ltd. and there was no reference to the new unit. It is clear that the department knew that the unit was Monga Industries Pvt. Ltd. and not Monga Industries and in spite of this the show cause notice dated 1-2-1987 and May 1987 had been issued to Monga Industries. It is only in the 1988 on the remand directions the show cause notice was issued to Monga Industries on a new set of facts different from those alleging in the earlier show cause notice. On a careful consideration from all those angles, therefore, we are of the view that the demands are clearly time barred. Without going into the merits of the case, we hold that the show cause notice is not sustainable and demand is hit by time bar. In that view of the matter this appeal is allowed on the limited question of time bar only.
........
|
