|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 437 Records
-
1997 (3) TMI 311 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... be manufactured over a period of time. Therefore, what is required under law is that the element of the cost incurred towards master die should be worked out on pro rata basis taking into consideration the normal life span of the master die for the manufacture of certain number of pieces of subsidiary dies or direct use of the die for manufacture of the forgings and thereafter determine the duty liability by adding the element of the cost which may be taken to be rolling over a particular quantum of goods by use of the master die etc. In this view of the matter, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the C.C.E.(A). We also direct the authorities to work out the modalities with the help of the assessee as to the cost which can be taken to be pro rata attributable to the forgings. The assessee should furnish the necessary data in this regard to the authorities and thereafter the goods should be assessed. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1997 (3) TMI 310 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Confiscation - Import - Abandonment by importer ... ... ... ... ..... gn supplier nor any other consignee has claimed the ownership of the goods. We do not therefore find any reason for interfering with the order of confiscation in this case. 13. emsp As regards penalty, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the Appellants that simultaneous penalties on the proprietary concern and its Proprietor is not permissible under law. We therefore set aside the penalty imposed on Shri Laxman Dutt Khanna, the Proprietor of M/s. Geeta Times. 14. emsp Further, taking note of the fact that it is not inconceivable that import orders are placed in anticipation of obtaining licence and the applicant is still unable to obtain one even at the time of arrival of the goods, and the fact that the exporters in this case had sought diversion of the goods to a foreign destination, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs appears to be too harsh. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty on M/s. Geeta Times to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand). 15. emsp The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1997 (3) TMI 309 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dished ends - Dutiability - Demand - Limitation - Excisability - Interpretation of exemption notification
-
1997 (3) TMI 308 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... any benefit which was available to the trade in terms of the earlier order dated 7-4-1986. The finding that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof that the goods were not clearly recognisable as non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty is contrary to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Machine Builders case referred to above. It had been held in the said decision that where conditional exemption Notification is there and where the goods available in the market are a mixture of duty paid and non-duty paid goods the assessee rsquo s claim that they are not recognisable as non-duty has to be rebutted by Revenue and that the assessee cannot be called upon to discharge this burden. The scope of the orders granting deemed credit to manufacturers in respect of the listed items have not been properly appreciated by the Assistant Collector and his orders have been wrongly upheld by the Collector (Appeals). These orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 307 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... mitted under their communication, dated 28.11.1985 and under - ldquo From the above, you will please find the base frame does not form part of the P.D. Pumps, we manufacture, but it is nothing but the additional arrangement made to fit in, the gear boxes and motors, as and when required by the customers. rdquo There is no doubt that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of power driven pumps classifiable under T.I. 30A of the old Central Excise Tariff and the value of the base plate, gear boxes and electric motors had to be taken into account for determining the eligibility to the small scale exemption under Notification No. 85/85-C.E. and to determine the extent of exemption under that Notification. 9. emsp After carefully considering the manufacturing activities of the appellants, we agree with the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (3) TMI 306 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project import - Installed or designed capacity ... ... ... ... ..... icals v. CC reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 355 (Tribunal). In this case the contract specified two dryers whereas the goods actually imported were four dryers. The Tribunal on examination of the issue observed that the appellants had not exceeded the licenced value. The Tribunal observed that since the import was necessitated by design considerations and not by the desire of the appellants to import unauthorisedly, benefit of project importation was available. The variation in the case before us is much less than in the case cited by the ld. Advocate. On examination of the totality of the circumstances, we find that the capacity of the machine should be held to be on two shifts basis and on this consideration there was no warranty for denial of the request for registration of the contract under Project Imports. 5. emsp In the result the appeal succeeds, the lower orders are set aside, directions are given for registration of the contract and attendant benefits to the importers.
-
1997 (3) TMI 305 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... list can modify the value shown in the list so as to bring it to the correct value and if the Rule requires the petitioner to enter the correct price, he would become liable to penalty under Rule 173Q on every occasion that the proper officer modifies the list. The Court held that such a consequence could not have been intended, which supports the view that omission to enter the correct price is not a contravention of Rule 173C within the meaning of Rule 173Q. Applying the ratio of this judgment to the present case, we hold that the omission to indicate the correct rate of duty is not a contravention of Rule 173B within the meaning of Rule 173Q. Same is the position with regard to Rules 173F and 173-I. 5. emsp Following the ratio of the M.P. High Court judgment supra, we hold that the appellants have not contravened any of the provisions of Rule 173 so as to warrant imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and set aside the penalty. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (3) TMI 304 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Evidence - Search and Seizure - Recovery of gold biscuits - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... it can only be said that willing near by persons were requested to sign as witnesses, since, the entire operation has to be completed within a short spell. rdquo This observation of the adjudicating authority, in a way, admits the allegation of the appellant. Place searched was a shop. There must be other shops around. It is difficult to understand as to why two persons from the locality were not chosen rather than two nearby rsquo persons collected to witness the incident. It is not denied by the adjudicating authority that the witnesses chosen did not belong to the locality. It is to be remembered that it was not a search of persons in transit in a deserted area. It was search of a shop and of persons in that shop. Action of the Customs officers, with regard to the manner of search, throws serious doubts on the recovery of gold from the appellant. On both counts, therefore, the appellant succeeds. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on him is set aside. Appeal is thus allowed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... position of penalty, this judgment would establish that where the extended period cannot be invoked, there is no cause or warrant for imposition of penalty. Both the members are unanimous in holding that there was no attempt by the appellants to evade payment of duty which is an essential ingredient in imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. As regards the submissions made by the ld. S.D.R., I find that the job of a Member, sitting in reference, is confined to agreeing with one of the two views projected by the differing Member. It is not within his competence to go into merits of the belief expressed by either of the members. On examination of the issues involved in this case and the judgments cited before me, I am in agreement with the views expressed by the ld. Member (Judicial) that the penalty for the present case is required to be set aside. 19. emsp The papers now may be placed before the original bench for further action. Dated 7-3-1997 Sd/- (J.H. Joglekar) Member (T)
-
1997 (3) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... they are exempted from duty then their value of clearances was not to be taken into account for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The appellate authority had observed that the condition of the exemption Notification No. 208/83-C.E. as amended were not fulfilled in this case because the party had availed Modvat credit for the raw materials used for the manufacture of wires and that once credit of duty paid on the goods had been availed under the Modvat rules, the items manufactured were not to be eligible for exemption. He had further observed that since the assessee had taken the credit on the inputs wires cleared outside the factory went out of the notification. It is seen that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court had held that after the reversal of the Modvat credit it was permissible to avail the exemption. 9. emsp In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur and in the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... med the view taken by the Tribunal that provisions of the Finance Bill will come into force from the date of introduction if there was imposition or increase in duty and no such element has taken place in this case, following the ratio of the said decision, I am also of the view that provisions of the Finance Bill will come into force from the date of assent of the Bill as it was proposed by the Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial). Accordingly the views expressed by the Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) are concurred with on the issues referred to me. With this view, I am returning this file to the original Bench to pass an appropriate order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- G.A. Brahma Deva Member (J) 12-2-1997 FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion the item was classifiable under Heading 7605.11 and the orders of the authorities below are modified to the extent indicated in the order of the Hon. Member (Judicial Sd/- Sd/- Jyoti Balasundaram S.K. Bhatnagar Member (J) Vice President
-
1997 (3) TMI 300 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty-paying document ... ... ... ... ..... much before the issue of Notification No. 2/95, dated 19-1-1995. Therefore, it was not necessary that the duplicate word should figure on the invoice. In the circumstances, I hold that Modvat was rightly taken by the appellants and therefore, the order denying the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 38,250/- is set aside. 8. emsp Insofar as Invoice No. 1138, dated 24-4-1995 is concerned, the only objection of the deptt. was that invoice number was hand-written and not printed. There is no dispute that the goods were not received or the printed number has been changed. This is a minor mistake, the same is condoned. The invoice was issued by registered dealer and therefore, I hold that Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 4897/- was rightly taken by the appellants and is admissible to them. 9. emsp The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (3) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Classification of inputs - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... dditional duty of customs. When these goods were received by the manufacturer, the jurisdictional Central Excise officers sought to re-classify the products. The Tribunal in their cited judgments held that the classification adopted by the Customs authorities had become final and that the Central Excise authorities could not reopen their assessment. Although the facts are slightly different, the ratio of this judgment squarely applies. The Collector did not have any authority to arbitrarily change the classification approved by another Collector, leave alone to demand duty calculated on the change of such classification. We further find that since he has exonerated the supplier of the inputs from the charge of wilfully entering the wrong classification there was no reason for him to impose any penalty on the present appellants. These orders also cannot sustain. In the result the appeal succeeds. The order of the Collector is set aside. Consequential relief, if any is ordered.
-
1997 (3) TMI 298 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLU Process Plant for Steam Blasting - Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... e whole machine. The authorities below have not discussed this basic question before applying the separate tariff headings to the parts. However, we must make it clear that, as pleaded by the Learned DR even though with the help of Section notes and Rules of interpretation such parts put together could be assessed as machine for the purpose of classification. It would not follow that benefit of Notification would be available to them. Admittedly what has been presented for the assessment are separate parts which would form the machine only when they are assembled See. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1996 (16) RLT 646 . We therefore, at this stage leave this question open and remand it to original adjudicating authority for de novo decision through a speaking order to arrive at the classification of the impugned goods. The appellants shall be heard in person and shall be at liberty to produce such additional evidence as they consider would support their case.
-
1997 (3) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Departmental Clarifications - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... Bimal Sethi, ld. JDR. 3. emsp I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 4. emsp Vide Trade Notice dated 12-5-1985, the Bombay Collectorate had announced that where part supplies were made from consignments covered under a gate pass and where no subsidiary gate pass had been issued for such supplies, then the said gate pass could be endorsed to the buyer of the rest of the consignment covered by the said gate pass, specifying the remnant quantity of material sold and duty involved on such parts supplied to buyer. The Bombay Collectorate was speaking as an organ of the department and not as an isolated Collectorate. The facility would clearly apply to assessees at Jaipur also. I further find that the Tribunal in their judgment in the case of HRM Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (16) RLT 57 had held that original gate passes endorsed for part consignment were acceptable as duty paying documents. In view of the analysis, I allow this appeal with consequential relief.
-
1997 (3) TMI 296 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e has strongly urged that once the payment has been made by the importer into the authorised bank the amount is taken into account as part of realisation of customs duty and thereby became part of the revenue fund of the Government. Since the duty in this case has been paid after assessment there is no question of the assessment being provisional. For provisional assessment under Section 18 the Explanation to Section 27(1) clearly provides that the limitation period will be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment. There is no such provision where the duty has been paid after completion of assessment. We find force in the DR rsquo s above contentions. 10. emsp The appellants contention raised in the Grounds of Appeal to the effect that the date of cancellation of the Challan should only be considered at the date on which the payment is established is in view of the above observations, not tenable. 11. emsp As a result the present appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (3) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Notification No. 213/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... e period from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986 is concerned, the appellants were required to pay appropriate duty in terms of Notification No. 213/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 as the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 had been suspended for the period from 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. Their duty liability for the period 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986 had to be determined in terms of Notification No. 213/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. 7. emsp Thus, for the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986, no extra demand could be made against the appellants in terms of Notification No. 213/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 if they were otherwise eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. For the period from 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986, their eligibility to the exemption and the duty liability had to be determined under Notification No. 213/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. 8. emsp The order passed by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is modified accordingly. The appeal is thus, partly allowed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 294 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Runners and Risers - benefit of Notification No. 53/80-C.E. available.
... ... ... ... ..... ers occurring in the ingot moulds would have no other purpose than to be put back into the furnace. The long runners would appear to be identical in use to steel ingots. Therefore, the Collector was quite right in rejecting the belief of the Assistant Collector that these runners and risers were only steel melting scrap. Given the inclusive definitions, these have to be called as steel ingots. 4. emsp The issue now is whether benefit of Notification No. 53/80 was available or not. This notification benefits those still ingots in the manufacture of which one of the inputs is runners and risers. The classification list shows that certain runners and risers were actually used by them for the production of steel ingots. Therefore, these runners and risers can qualify for the benefit of Notification No. 53/80. 5. emsp On perusal of the classification list and the attaining material, we find that the Collector rsquo s order sustains. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal from Revenue.
-
1997 (3) TMI 293 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Vessel ... ... ... ... ..... he date of clearance of the ship the ship was 20 years old. In view of the physical verification by the Excise Officers, it cannot be said that the LDT as recorded 82 originally should be accepted for the purpose of clearance of 20 years later. At the same time there can be no dispute that the weight of the ship on the date of clearance would be something more than the weight of the scrap removed long after the clearance. Considering the age of the ship, attendant circumstances and in the absence of other reliable data, we feel that the weight recorded in the LDT less 20 should be accepted as the weight of the ship on the date of clearance. Adopting this formula the weight would be 11007 MTs. 8. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we modify the impugned orders, determining the weight for the purpose of imposition of customs duty as 11007 MTs. and the duty element will be worked out afresh. The question of consequential relief would be adjudicated by the authority concerned.
-
1997 (3) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Synthetic rubber vinyl pyridine latex is subject to countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... on the basis that like goods as the goods imported are not manufactured in India and hence no CV duty is payable. This contention would have to be rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works v. Union of India 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 . Shri P.K. Ram very fairly drew our attention to another order of this Tribunal in the case of these appellants themselves in Custom Appeal No. 34/82-C under Order No. C-235/85, dated 27-2-1985 where a similar contention had been rejected, the product imported in the said case being synthetic rubber polyster butyl 301. 4. emsp In view of the above this apeal is dismissed.
............
|
