Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 403 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 297 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Misdeclaration of export goods ... ... ... ... ..... been rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority as major discrepancies had been found by the authorities in respect of the goods which were to be exported. 5. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides. No doubt, that the goods which were to be exported had been found not tallying with the declaration made by the appellants in respect of the quantity and quality. Though no connivance or direct collusion had been brought on record by the Department, neither there was any allegation to that effect, nevertheless, the appellants were liable to penalty because of their negligence. Keeping in view the observations made by the adjudicating authority that the discrepancies occurred definitely owing to the negligence of the exporter or may be due to its collusion/connivance, I find that the penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh is much on the higher side. The same is accordingly reduced to Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) only. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 292 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... added to the assessable value. In the instant case, there is no finding by the Commissioner that there is a nexus between the advance taken and the price at which the goods have been sold which may affect the assessable value under the Central Excise Act. We are of the view that following the judgments of the Tribunal in the said two cases, namely Flex Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. and MIL Control Ltd. (supra) the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. emsp The ld. Departmental Representative cited the case of Resistence Alloy Industries v. C.C.E. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 725. However, we have to state that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Lakshmi Machines Works Ltd. is later in point of time and we would like to follow the said judgment of the High Court. The judgment cited by the ld. Departmental Representative did not to consider the decision in Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, it any.
-
1997 (4) TMI 291 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ctive paints and varnishes were taken for reprocessing after making suitable remark in the RG 1, further correlation sought by the Revenue for receipt of reprocessed goods out of such defective paints and varnishes will be an impractical proposition because it is the case of the respondents, as is normal, that the defective goods were reprocessed along with other fresh materials. There could not be any separate correlation for receipt of the reprocessed goods when the defective goods have been reprocessed along with fresh materials. Therefore, such an expectation of the Revenue, as made by the adjudicating authority, is totally impractical and unwarranted. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the Appeals of the Revenue. We do not see any infirmity in the orders passed by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, we dismiss all the three Appeals of the Revenue. 2.3 emsp Since the Appeals themselves have been disposed of, Stay Petitions also get disposed of.
-
1997 (4) TMI 290 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... msp I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I agree with the submission of the ld. Consultant, Shri K.L. Das that without drawing and designing for the final product, the goods themselves cannot be produced. Further as pointed out by him, the lower appellate authority has also agreed with the appellants that both the items mentioned above are very much essential for the manufacture of the final product. In view of this finding, I am unable to understand as to how the Modvat credit on the said goods can be denied under Rule 57Q. They are clearly capital goods rsquo being machines and machineries for production of the goods inasmuch as no goods can be produced unless drawing and designing is produced in the first instance. I am, therefore, of the view that the goods in question are directly connected with the production of the final product. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1997 (4) TMI 289 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Duty paid ... ... ... ... ..... ill apply to any advance deposit made towards duty on short landed goods as short landed cannot be held to be imported goods. In the instant case, the goods have not at all landed and as such no duty liability can be created in respect of the goods which have not at all arrived. The amount deposited by the appellants is to be considered as an advance deposit with the Government of India convertable into duty of Customs at the time of clearance of the imported goods. When the goods have not at all been imported, the question of their clearance does not arise and as such the question of payment of any duty on the same does not arise. Consequently, the provision of Customs Act would also not apply to the goods which have not been landed. Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of Section 27 are not applicable to the deposit made by the appellants and the limitation will not apply. Consequently, I allow the appeal with consequential relief after setting aside the impugned order.
-
1997 (4) TMI 288 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Utilisation ... ... ... ... ..... d to be wrong or illegal in view of the manner of keeping RG 23A Part II Account. It was fully known to the authority below because the credit account was always sent, as a supposed to be sent, with monthly RT 12 returns. The maintenance of the common credit, I understand, is also according to the Rules because nothing contrary in the Rules has been shown to me, that credit account is required to be maintained input-wise. Consequently, the demand of all the amounts i.e. of Rs. 1,01,715.15 and of Rs. 97.328.23 are set aside since no wrong has been committed. Penalties are also set aside. 5. emsp In short, appeals are allowed with consequential relief. 6. emsp As pointed out by the ld. Consultant they have already pre-deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in pursuance of the Tribunal rsquo s common Stay Order in both the matters. In view of my findings, I direct the Assistant Collector of Central Excise concerned to refund an amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by them as aforesaid.
-
1997 (4) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... the case relating to the nature of the packing and the pattern of sales of the goods which can be culled out from the record. Exercise of applying the ratio of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Geep Industrial Syndicate case can be done only on such a deeper study of the facts of the case. In such a view of the matter, we hold that no prima facie case for total waiver of duty demand for hearing the appeal has been made out. Accordingly, we direct, for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the applicants M/s. Recold appliances to deposit an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs (Rupees twelve lakhs) and the applicants M/s. Recold Electrical Appliances Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs) on or before 30-6-1977, subject to which pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty in the case of both the applicants is dispensed with and its recovery is stayed. 5. emsp The matter to come up for compliance on 1-7-1997.
-
1997 (4) TMI 286 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjournment ... ... ... ... ..... although at that time we did not know that before whom the appearance was required to be made. Certainly, we cannot allow the ld. Advocate or the applicants to give preference to hearing before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise over a hearing before the Tribunal. We do not find that the ground for adjournment sought for was correct and we also do not think that the Miscellaneous Application deserves any consideration. In the circumstances, Miscellaneous Application is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... o the High Court arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The question suggested are not accurate and requires modification. 10. emsp The following question of law which arises out of the order disposing of the appeals requires reference to the High Court - Whether the Appellate Tribunal after having found that Dryer Press Felt, Phosphor Bronze Metallic Wire and Metallic Wire (cloth) are parts of machine and used in relation to the manufacture of specified final products, is correct in holding that these parts of machine are not excluded from the definition of ldquo input rdquo by exclusion clause (i) of the Explanation to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and if so, is correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit in respect of duty of Central Excise paid on such goods? 11. emsp A statement of case shall be drawn up in this case and reference made to the High Court of Bombay. 12. emsp The reference applications are disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 284 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... t the transfer of raw materials was made with the aid of power. 3. emsp We have heard both sides. We are of the view that the applicants, do not have a strong prima facie case. The matter is arguable from both sides, both on the question of law and the question of fact herein. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice at this stage if the applicants are directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh) only within a period of three months from today. In case of compliance with the aforesaid direction, the balance amount of duty shall stand waived and the Revenue shall be debarred from recovering the same, during the pendency of the appeal. In case of non-compliance, this Order shall stand automatically vacated and the appeal of the applicants/appellants will be liable to dismissed without further reference to them. Case to come up for ascertaining the compliance on 25-7-1997.
-
1997 (4) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat vis-a-vis exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... 96 (83) E.L.T. 123 in which the notification in question was Notification 53/88, the same notification involved in the present appeal. In a recent order of the Tribunal in the case of Mechciv Engg. v. C.C.E., New Delhi (Order No. A31/97-NB, dated 18-2-1997), the Tribunal after noting the submissions of the learned DR that the assessee has no such option as held by the Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ganesh Metal Processing Industries 1996 (81) E.L.T. 11 , has held that the option to avail the exemption under Notification 1/93 or to pay on inputs and claim Modvat rests solely with the assessees. Following the ratio of the above order, I hold that M/s. Alok Plastics action in paying duty on polyjars and claiming Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used therein is correct in law and therefore, the action of the other appellant in availing Modvat credit is also permissible in law. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... longing of the goods we shall have to see in whose possession the godown during the material period was. For this there are persons who have testified that the godown was let out to Praveen Juneja and Tony. When letting out to Praveen Juneja and Tony and identification of Praveen Juneja by the two truck drivers and the statement of the two truck drivers that Praveen Juneja was the person receiving the smuggled goods nothing more is left to establish the chain and nexus of the goods. Thus I hold that Praveen Juneja was one of the persons concerned with smuggled goods. In this view of the matter I find that there is adequate evidence on record to prove that Praveen Juneja was concerned with smuggled goods. In the circumstances I set aside the impugned order and restore the order of adjudicating authority in so far as imposing penalty on Praveen Juneja is concerned. In the result the impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n who was in possession of any goods which were liable to confiscation was also liable to penal action. 10. emsp I have considered the submissions made on both sides. As regards the question of raising of a demand of duty on M/s. Tina Overseas the question does not survive in view of the permission already granted to them to transfer the same to the 100 EOU unit. On the question of imposition of penalty on National Polychem I find that the Collector (Appeals) rsquo order does not record any finding as to the acts of commission or omission by the appellants which attracts penal liability. In the face of the latter dated 3-6-1993 from the appellants M/s. National Polychem disclaiming any knowledge of the source of the moulds received by them and about their foreign origin and in the absence of any evidence to impute knowledge on their part, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 11. emsp In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... , plates cannot be grained by use of the grits alone merely pouring the grits or grits suspended in water over the plates will not result in roughening the surfaces of the plates. Something more is required in order to ensure friction between grits and plates. This is achieved by brushing the plates upon which there is a layer of grits with the disc brushes. If anything has to be considered as a tool in the process, it would be the brushes. The slurry containing the grits would be more in the nature of a scouring medium by acting upon which the tool produces the required roughness on the plates. The goods cannot be therefore themselves to be considered to be tools. They would therefore not fall within the excluded category of inputs. Since there is no dispute that the grits are required for manufacturing the plates, they would thus have to be considered as inputs. The credit is therefore available on the duty paid on the same. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 279 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Modvat when declaration not filed ... ... ... ... ..... ew of the fact that the respondent was of the understanding that duty was not payable. The respondent is now called upon to pay the duty at a later date. Therefore, in the impugned order the Tribunal has merely held that subject to the verification of the duty paid character of the inputs, the Modvat credit has to be allowed in accordance with law. The above decision of the Tribunal is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the decision which is relied on by the learned Counsel. In that case the Supreme Court held that since the demand is consequent upon the rejection of claim for non-dutiability benefit of exemption notification, if any, should be given to the assessee, subject to following Rule 56A procedure. 5. emsp The above principles apply to the facts of this case and, therefore, we see no reason to refer the matter to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. 6. emsp In the above view of the matter, the reference application is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 278 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ... ... ... ..... has also been rejected vide Order No. R-1102/Cal/1995, dated 11-10-1995. The relevant paragraph of the above order dated 20-3-1995 allowing the Modvat credit on the polishing bricks rsquo is reproduced below - ldquo 6. emsp I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. Firstly, I would deal with the question of Modvat credit on polishing bricks rsquo . As rightly held by the lower appellate authority and as contended by the learned Consultant, polished granites cannot be manufactured without polished bricks. The polish on the polished granites actually comes from the polishing bricks and from that angle, as rightly held by the lower appellate authority, these are necessary input excluded from the category of inputs in Explanation (1) to Rule 57A. rdquo 3. emsp In view of the above order and in view of the Reference Applications having also been rejected by the Tribunal, I do not find any merits in the department rsquo s case. Accordingly, I reject the same.
-
1997 (4) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... He pointed out this particular point was argued before the Tribunal and which was not considered. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal that this was gone into by the Tribunal and taking note of this point and analysing the scope of the tariff entries, the Tribunal came to a reasoned conclusion that the rupture disc is meant to protect the furnace from overheating and pressure when the temperature exceeds 1200oC and in such circumstances and therefore, the same is classifiable under 84.17 of the Customs Tariff. 5. emsp Applying the principles laid down in the above cited decision and taking into consideration that the functioning of these two rupture discs, we are of the view that the classification is to be made under 8485.90. Accordingly, following the above cited decision of the Tribunal, we allow the appeal of the appellant and classify these goods under 8485.90. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 276 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court - Violation of Tribunal’s order alleged ... ... ... ... ..... rection of the Tribunal under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to direct the Commissioner not to make the assessments as mentioned in the said application for subsequent consignments. The prayer was that the subsequent must also be assessed in accordance with the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. A-414/Cal/96, dated 13-6-1996. That Application No. 152/97 has just been dismissed in the open Court. Following the same reasoning, we do not find that this application which listed similar instances for violation of the Tribunal rsquo s Order dated 13-6-1996 also requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the same.
-
1997 (4) TMI 275 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... of TELCO Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 75, which has been relied upon in the present impugned order by the Commissioner. 7. In the case of Collector v. Nav Bharat Paper Mills - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 501, the Tribunal held that electrical transformers and electric control panel would be covered by the definition capital goods under Rule 57Q as they were essential for proper working of machinery and for production of goods. 8. emsp Similarly, in the case of Jeep Industry v. Commissioner - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 753, the Tribunal held that machines, measuring and testing equipments itself is eligible for capital goods. From the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decisions cited supra, it is clear that all the materials involved in this appeal can be taken to be covered by the definition of capital goods as interpreted by the Tribunal in the above cited decisions. Following the ratio of the decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... , reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 532. The Hon rsquo ble High Court held that body building on duty paid chassis does not amount to manufacture of motor vehicle, hence not dutiable under Heading 87.02 or 87.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, but fall under Heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the assessee. The Hon rsquo ble High Court further held that the assessee whose annual turnover does not exceed the limit prescribed under the exemption notification are not liable to pay excise duty or to get a licence under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Suraj Automobiles v. CCE, Patna supra, relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Following the decision of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh, supra, we allow the appeal and the impugned order is set aside. Ordered accordingly.
............
|