Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 403 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 273 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court - Cess ... ... ... ... ..... y Co. etc. v. Inspector of Central Excise on Jute Manufactures, after considering all the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. rdquo 2. emsp Question involved before the Tribunal was whether cess was collectible for the period from 1-7-1983 to 31-10-1983 on jute bags again under Serial No. 7 of the Table to the Order dated 1-7-1983 under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, after payment of cess on Hessians/Sacking from which those bags were made continuous process. In other words, the question was whether jute bags were to be classified as Hessians/Sacking as they were known in the Trade or they were to be classified as different jute manufactures falling under the residuary item of Schedule. The question involved in the ultimate analysis is the rate of cess. In view of that, the Reference Application filed by the Revenue is not maintainable in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is, therefore, dismissed as such.
-
1997 (4) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim filed on RT 12 Return ... ... ... ... ..... under Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 173-I is a self-contained provision. rdquo 8. emsp We also note that Rule 173-I(2) is very clear on the subject where such duty is less, the assessee shall take credit in the account-current for the excess on receipt of the assessment order in the copy of the return duly countersigned by the Superintendent of Central Excise. We note that Rule provides for taking credit of duty excess paid. We also note that this issue was fully discussed and covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the two cases cited above. 9. emsp Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decisions in the above two cases cited and relied upon by the appellants, we hold that refund is admissible to the appellants. We also hold that the claim made in the RT 12 return is refund claim and also that this claim was made within time permitted under Section 113 of the Central Excise Act. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Deemed Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... under Rule 57G(2) to deem the materials as duty paid is issued and the intention, the Larger Bench held, is not to deem that inputs which actually did not suffer duty are inputs which suffered duty. The Larger Bench further observed that if duty need not be paid and has not been paid, the question of duty paid being earned as credit does not arise. Applying the ratio of the Larger Bench decision to the facts of the case as noted above the material received by the Respondents are Bazar scrap being broken and worn out articles which could not have suffered duty they are not in the nature of clearances of scrap by a manufacturer of lead articles, the scrap arising in the course of manufacture of other articles, in which case the question of applying the exemption Notification would only arise only then will the need arise for verification. In such a view of the matter, the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. It is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 270 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e decision of this Bench in the case of Roche Products (supra). There also the product was held dutiable as per the order of the Asstt. Collector. The Tribunal held that Modvat benefit could be extended. Here also since the respondents had all along been contesting the classification and had also succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals), hence at this stage when the Commissioner (Appeals) order is upset and Asstt. Commissioner rsquo s classification is upheld, the peculiar circumstances of the case would warrant acceding to their plea for Modvat credit. It is therefore, directed that the Asstt. Commissioner may consider extending Modvat credit subject to his being satisfied about the use of inputs concerned in the manufacture of the final product and of their duty paid character. 9. emsp The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The impugned order is set aside with the direction to the Asstt. Commissioner to consider whether Modvat credit could be extended to the respondents.
-
1997 (4) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
S.S.I. Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... e of raw materials were at a single point. The purchase bills were found on investigation to be fake. In the Supreme Engineering Works case concerning two firms and a company the circumstances were sales among the units at prices lower than those charged to outsiders, manipulation of accounts, common control of production and sales and special financial relationship not on principal to principal basis and accordingly the units were treated as one entity and the value of their clearances were clubbed. Such circumstances are not present in the case at hand. We accordingly hold that the Collector erred in clubbing the clearances of the three units. It will, therefore, be unnecessary to deal with the plea that the Collector had not considered the question of exclusion of freight and duty from the prices charged by Vir Techniques as well as the discount of 27 frac12 allowed by them while arriving at the assessable value. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Bills/invoices issued by the manufacturers - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Heading 74.01 of the Schedule was chargeable at Rs. 3300/- PMT while duty at the second stage i.e. on copper wire rods other than of brass was chargeable Rs. 2900/- PMT in terms of Notification 149/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In the case of Hindustan Wire Products v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 377 (T), 1995 (6) RLT 727, it has been held that the assessees are entitled to take Modvat credit of additional duty of customs Rs. 2900/- paid on copper bars purchased from MMTC together with credit of excise duty Rs. 3300/- PMT i.e. the assessees are entitled to take credit to the extent of Rs. 6200/-. Following the ratio of this order which applies on all fours to the facts of this case, I hold that the assessees have rightly taken the credit on copper wires. 5. emsp In the result, the demand of Rs. 2739.56 on steel strips and wires for the period from October 86 to January 87 is upheld and rest of the demand is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... sub-section (1) of Section 11B along with the definition of the relevant date, there is no room for any apprehension of the kind expressed by the Ld. Counsel rdquo . Here the duty was paid without any protest and the refund claim was filed beyond six months from the date of payment of duty. No dispute arose because of payment of duty because the assessee did not filed any appeal within 3 months from the date of payment of duty and therefore payment of duty was not a result of any dispute. The dispute arose only when the refund claim was rejected. Thus this is a clear case covered in favour of the Department. Since in the Rules 192 to 196 as also in Rule 173N there is no time frame prescribed by the relevant scheme, therefore, the time frame prescribed for the refund claims under Section 11B will be applicable and will prevail. In this view of the matter we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned Order and hence the impugned order is upheld and the Appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... we notice that the papers produced by the appellants are not readable at all and they are merely black sheets. Be that as it may, the appellants have not produced required exemption certificate as well as the examination report and the duplicate bill of entry. They have also not produced catalogue and other evidence in support of their contention. What has been produced is Chartered Engineers certificate which, only certifies that there are two types of Motors and it does not certify that the impugned goods in fact were internal gear motors. The diagram produced by them from the suppliers and it cannot be gathered that the goods are internal gear motors. In the diagram, there are certain linings which are totally illigible and it cannot be read at all. In any case the goods have left the Customs charge and the same cannot be examined by the department. The fact remains that the appellants have not substantiated their case. Therefore the appeal is dismissed as unsubstantiated.
-
1997 (4) TMI 265 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... the grinding wheels cannot by itself be used, and can only be used as part of a larger machinery, was not disputed by the Departmental Representative. The Assistant Collector himself has noted that it is part of grinding machinery. Since the grinding wheel is only a part of a tool, it will not be hit by the exclusion clause in Rule 57A. This follows from the decision of this Tribunal in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) 1996 (66) ECR 172 (Tribunal). The goods therefore entitled to credit.
-
1997 (4) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... alty of Rs. 800/- has been borne on these goods in terms of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The imposition of such a low redemption fine and personal penalty by the lower appellate authority will not neutralise the margin of profit on these items, submits the DR thereby defeating the very purpose of restriction of import of these items. The Department has not made out a case for justifying enhancement in the redemption fine and penalty particularly having regard to the fact that the Assistant Commissioner himself has recognised in his order that the import of these items is for use as crude drugs for the manufacture of Unani/Ayurvedic drugs. I am of the view that the lower appellate authority has exercised his discretion correctly while reducing the quantum of redemption fine and penalty and fine no strong reason for interfering with his order which is otherwise correct in law. Therefore, I uphold the orders of the lower appellate authority and reject these appeals.
-
1997 (4) TMI 263 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Import ... ... ... ... ..... within the meaning of Sl. No. 30 of Appendix XXXV of the said import licence. This in our view is a matter wherein the mixed question of law as well as facts are involved. In view of the above statement of facts as well as points involved as discussed above, we are of the view that a question of law does arise for reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. In this view of the matter, we refer the following question of law to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for their valuable advice in the above said matter - ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the lead acid battery which was imported by the appellant is covered by the said Import Licence of the Respondent rdquo . 9. emsp The Registry is directed to submit the above statement of facts along with the question of law to the Registrar, Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madras for being placed before the Hon rsquo ble High Court for their valued advice in the above said matter.
-
1997 (4) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... . They have placed full and complete information in the hands of the authorities and there was nothing wanting to be furnished so far as their availment of Modvat credit was concerned. In this view of the matter, we hold that the declaration as filed by the respondents can be taken to have been in conformity with the requirement under Rule 57G as held by the learned appellate authorities. rdquo 10. emsp Having regard to the above finding we find that the ratio of this judgment clearly covers the case of the appellants. The ratio of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Paro Food Products will not be applicable to the present case. 11. emsp On careful consideration of the above findings and case law relied upon by the appellants we hold that the Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs shall be admissible to the appellants for making debit entry while clearing mixtures of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... has been examined by the Board. To have uniformity in the matter, it has been decided that show cause notices under Rule 57-I for wrong availment of Modvat credit due to suppression of facts, wilful mis-statements, collusion etc. invoking 5 years period should be issued and decided by the Collector only. In all other cases of wrong availment of Modvat credit, respective adjudicating officers should issue and decide the show cause notice. 6. emsp In view of the above, submissions of the appellants that the proper officer for the purpose of invoking the proviso to Rule 57-I is the Collector of Central Excise is correct. Accordingly, I hold that the show cause notice and demand also suffers from lack of jurisdiction. Since I have already held that the appellants are not guilty of suppression with intent to avail payment of duty, the penalty is also liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned order confirming duty and imposing penalty is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Misdeclaration of description - Natural Justice - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... d to grounds referred to in clauses (g) to (i) para 6 of the order. Regarding each of the grounds referred to in clauses (a) to (f) of paragraph 6 of the order, we notice that appellant has offered explanation but the explanation has not been considered by the Commissioner. The Commissioner did not provide any good reason to conclude that lower price was a market promotion strategy. In these circumstances, the case deserves fresh consideration at the hands of the adjudicating authority. In so considering the matter, it shall be open to the authority to consider the data and grounds referred to in clauses (g) to (i) of para (6) of the order in the light of any new documents and explanations to be submitted by the appellant. 11. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations contained in this order. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Removal of goods, finished and recorded in RG 1 Register for reprocessing/re-cycling
-
1997 (4) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... cuments is that according to the Department they were not issued by the persons authorised to issue such documents. 5. emsp In response to queries from the Bench, learned Counsel reiterated that the appellant was a dealer but could not show, at this stage, any document which would indicate whether he had been appointed or treated as a wholesale dealer by the SAIL. 6. emsp Learned DR stated that there is no possibility of appointing any person as such as SAIL has a depot. However, he has no serious objection to grant of stay at this stage. 7. emsp I have considered the above submissions. In view of the fact that a challan-cum-invoice of the SAIL has also been filed and appropriate endorsement has been made thereon and that it was verifiable whether he was appointed as a wholesale distributor or a dealer by SAIL and the Deptt. has no serious objection to grant stay at this stage, I grant stay and waive the pre-deposit of the amount in question during the pendency of the appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 257 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Imported goods - Restoration of goods - Adjudication - Rectification of mistake - Appeal - Compensation
-
1997 (4) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Chapter X Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... raised against the appellants. 12. emsp In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we consider that the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was not correct. As the goods had been cleared by the appellants on the strength of valid CT 2 certificates, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they could not be held liable to the duty demanded in these proceedings. Warehousing provisions were not applicable to the non-specified motor vehicle parts when exempted from duty under Chapter X Procedure read with exemption notifications goods falling under the then Item No. 68 covered a wide area and the applicability of warehousing provisions to Item No. 68 goods does mean that even when Chapter X Procedure applicable, the rewarehousing certificate was necessarily required in all cases. In view of the above discussion, we consider that these all the four appeals merit acceptance. 13. emsp Accordingly, all the four appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... r case the situation was identical to the present case inasmuch as plastic granules were imported/procured locally and were sent for conversion into containers and these containers were used for packing cosmetics. Now that duplex boards were sent for conversion and printed cartons and printed cartons were used for packing torches/miniature bulbs thus the position is identical. We find that the ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Court clearly covers the case before us. We also note that the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court has been followed subsequently by this Tribunal in a number of cases. One of such cases is the appellants case which was reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 399 and subsequently in other decisions. Following the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on duplex board used for packing torches and miniature bulbs. 6. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Penalty - Import Policy - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... ines imported should be less than 7 years old (in addition to the further condition that they should have a residuary life of not less than 5 years). 10. emsp Therefore, the confiscation of one machine imported M/s. Rajah Hosiery and three machines imported by M/s. Lalsons is upheld and the confiscation of second machine imported by M/s. Rajah Hosiery and three other machines imported by M/s. Lalsons is set aside. The redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- on each of the appellants. The personal penalties on both the appellants are set aside, having regard to the detailed findings of the Adjudicating authority that the burden of proving understanding or knowledge or reasonable belief by the appellants that the imported machines were liable to confiscation, has not been discharged by the department. In the result, the confiscation is upheld in part. Redemption find is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and penalties in both cases are set aside. Appeals are disposed of in these terms.
............
|