|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 402 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... vailable the extended period of limitation to the department. The Tribunal has held that taking of credit having been noted through RG 23 Part I and Part II statements and RT returns, the extended period of limitation is not available to the department as there has been no suppression in such a situation. This view has been expressed in the case of Vikrant Televisions (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 339. This view has been followed subsequently. Following the ratio of the above appeal which applies on all fours to the facts in the present case, I hold that the extended period of limitation is not available to the department in this case and accordingly set aside the duty demand. In the light of the fact that the show cause notice did not proposed any penalty, therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, due to the appellants, if any.
-
1997 (4) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Penalty - Judicial discipline ... ... ... ... ..... Fifteen Lakhs) on or before 27-11-1997 and report compliance by 28-11-1997 or such further extended time which the Tribunal may allow subject to which the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty shall stand dispensed with. This compliance should be reported to the learned lower authority, since we propose to remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration and to decide the matter afresh in the light of our above observations regarding the points highlighted by us as above, after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. We are constrained to remand the matter to the learned lower authority in view of the basic infirmities pointed out by us which goes to the root of the matter and since these exercises are required to be done by the adjudicating authority with reference to the records, which are not available before us. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits and all issues are left open for consideration.
-
1997 (4) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... However the appellant was entitled to claim the benefit of the notification exemption, even subsequent to assessment. If after payment of duty it had gone in appeal, there is little if any doubt that the Commissioner (Appeals) would have had to order reassessment in order to consider the eligibility of the benefit of the notification claimed. That there is a longstanding practice in the Custom House to permit reassessment in situations before duty is paid was not vigorously contested by the Departmental Representative. The appellant has rightly relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition 2113 of 1995 Pearl Polymers Ltd. v. Union of India where reassessment has been allowed in a similar situation. 5. emsp We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order impugned in appeal. The Assistant Commissioner concerned shall examine the appellant rsquo s claim to the applicability of EPCG licence and consequent eligibility to the benefit of the notification.
-
1997 (4) TMI 249 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... and return them. There is no allegation in the notice that this has not been done and it is reasonable to accept that this would have been done. This was in fact a point specifically raised in the notice. In addition, the appellant has produced before us the copy of the pages of RG1 register which shows that test audit of Central Excise records had been collected by Audit staff for the period from November, 1986 to April, 1990 on various occasions. Such test would have been brought to the notice of the audit staff that appellant was taking credit at least with regard to the documents seized by them, on the certificate of Hindustan Copper Ltd. We are therefore satisfied that the department was aware of the credit being taken on the basis of the sale certificates. In view of this we have not considered it necessary to go through the other arguments of the appellant. There was therefore no basis for invoking the extended period. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sugar - Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... to extend the benefit to the petitioner although the production during the preceding three sugar years was nil. In the facts and circumstances, following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and in view of the amendment to the notification, we accept the contention of the party and, accordingly, party is entitled to get benefit in terms of Notification 132/83 in Appeal No. E/217/89-D. As regards Appeal No. E/218/89-D, it was brought to our notice by both sides that matter has already been remanded to the concerned Assistant Commissioner to calculate the rebate with reference to Notification 135/83. In view of this, we are not disturbing the findings of the Collector (Appeals) in Appeal No. E/218/89-D. Accordingly, we uphold that portion. Accordingly, we allow Appeal No. 217/89-D and Appeal No. E/218/89-D has been remanded to the concerned Assistant Collector for de novo consideration as directed by the Collector (Appeals). These two appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Misdeclaration - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hey have shown plain glass tubes along with laboratory glassware which they have also declared in the classification list. The records indicate that the department detected the wrong classification of the plain glass tubes only on the visit to the factory of the appellants by the Officers of the Central Excise Range concerned. Thereafter, it was found that the plain glass tubes were not laboratory glasswares and these were simple glass tubes. In such an event, the department, in our view is justified in invoking the longer period for demanding duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also now well settled that there is no estoppel in these matters that no department finding the new materials they are entitled to adopt the correct classification of the goods. Previous approval of the classification list will not in such circumstances stand in the way. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... on should not result in denial of the benefit of exemption in terms of the notification. This issue has been covered by the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Laminates Pvt. Ltd. reported at 1995 (79) E.L.T. 147 including in the cases of Himachal Air Products Ltd. v. CCE reported at 1988 (11) ETR 205 and in the case of Hayvolt Electricals v. CCE reported at 1991 (52) E.L.T. 107. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that metal containers is specific goods as envisaged in the Notification No. 83/83 and since the value of clearances of specified goods did not exceed exemption limit as prescribed in the notification, benefit cannot be denied. In view of this position, we hold that benefit in terms of exemption Notification No. 83/83 cannot be denied for non-declaration and we are remanding the matter to the concerned Asstt. Commissioner to extend the benefit of notification subject to verification. Accordingly appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1997 (4) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classifcation ... ... ... ... ..... .L.T. 161 (S.C.) as well as in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.). He submitted that laminated sheets are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 but not under 22F(4) as it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. (supra) and similarly Supreme Court has taken the view that the articles made of glass fibre are classifiable under Item 68 but not under 22F(4) in the case of Mahindra Engg. and Chemical Product Ltd. 3. emsp Shri D.S. Negi, ld. S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue fairly conceded the factual position. 4. emsp We find that the appellants rsquo counsel is right in pointing out that the issue on classification in respect of above items, has already been resolved by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision, we hold that the items, in question, are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 but not under 22F(4). Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Steel Rolls used for cracking seeds - Importation of ... ... ... ... ..... al and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967 to extract refine oil. 2. emsp The appellants desired decision on merits. 3. emsp We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. The appellants, from the Order-in-Appeal, appear to have approached Ministry of Food and Civil supplies for licence. That Ministry informed them that normally A rsquo category licence is issued after the plant is completely installed and ready for commissioning. However, A rsquo category licence would be issued to them on the completion of the plant. Notification categorically lays down, as condition for exemption, that the goods are imported by a person authorised under the Solvent Extracted Oil, De-oiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967 to extract, refine or use solvent extracted oils. Since at the material time they were not authorised persons to import such Rolls, the benefit of exemption has been correctly denied. In view of this, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1997 (4) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Fabrics - CBEC Circular No. 28/MNF/88-CX. I, dated 18-11-1988 ... ... ... ... ..... fabrics had attained the essential character of SDPE (sic) sacks. The learned Advocate referred us to the Circular No. 28/MNF/88-CX. I, dated 18-11-1988 in which it has been ruled that HDPE woven fabrics fell under Heading 63.08 of the Tariff. The Collector when he passed the order on 23-12-1988 was obviously not aware of these instructions by the Board. Even otherwise, we find that his belief that circular fabrics was sacks in unfinished form to be untenable. Such circular fabrics can be used as sleeving or even as dust cyclones. The woven fabrics even without the benefit of this circular would not attract Heading 63.01. Such woven fabrics would be an input in making sacks and if processes such as cutting and stitching for convertion into sacks are undertaken without the aid of power then the benefit of Notification No. 65/87 would not be denied. 5. emsp We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the Collector rsquo s order and restore the order of the Assistant Collector.
-
1997 (4) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - Valuation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... which following the law laid down by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal has remitted penalty. We are not impressed with this argument. The basic duty of excise evaded comes to Rs. 1,24,440/-. In terms of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the maximum penalty leviable is three times the value of the offending goods which in the present case is much higher than the penalty imposed. We, however, take note of the second submission made by the learned Advocate that the appellants had paid the entire duty short levied even before the adjudication, of which a part was paid even before the issue of show cause notice. On this ground alone, we find some justification in awarding marginal reduction in the quantum of penalty. 7. emsp We, accordingly, reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs and direct the Collector to calculate the duty short levied by deducting the element of duty payable. Subject to this modification, the order of the Collector is upheld.
-
1997 (4) TMI 241 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ct, the pigment. The provisions of Rule 57C, therefore, would not stand attracted to the steam in the present case. It is not possible to agree that the amendment to Rule 57D(2) by introducing the last proviso leads to the conclusion that prior to this date, credit would not be available on inputs used in the manufacture of steam used in turn in the manufacture of final product. The third proviso is not limited to steam used in the manufacture of final products. It refers to electricity or steam used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose within the factory of production. Introduction of this amendment, therefore, cannot lead to the inescapable conclusion that prior to its amendment the legislature did not intend to consider steam as an intermediate product. In any event, the question of going into the intention does not arise as the words used are plain enough and can be understood in their ordinary sense. 7. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 240 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... eeds acceptance especially in the absence of denial by the department about the high moisture content of cut HDPE. Yet penalty on the appellants Polycolour Corporation in this regard will be justified for the sending of finished HDPE to job worker, which is outside purview of permission under Rule 57F(2) altogether. 8. emsp Except for the above, the duty demand on other counts has to be upheld in respect of appellants Plasticolour Corpn. as we see no ground to fault the reasoning of the Addl. Commissioner. However, the penalty on this appellant is, in the circumstances of the case, reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. (Rupees Five thousand only). 9. emsp So far as appellants Polymer Alloys are concerned, having regard to their role as job worker for the other appellants, and the nature of the offence vis-a-vis this unit, the penalty on them is also reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only. 10. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 239 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... E.L.T. 269 (Tribunal). In Guru Instruments case there was no relationship on principal to principal basis. Likewise Ld. Collector has differentiated the ratio of the Judgment rendered in the case of Shree Agency 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 168). The Tribunal has noted the Judgment of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Basant Industries (supra) as in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. in its final order referred (supra) and has answered a similar question in the same line upholding the assessee rsquo s contention that the clearances of goods manufactured on principal to principal basis cannot be clubbed with the clearances of supplier of raw material. In view of these facts not having been disputed by the Department, the findings adopted by the Collector is in accordance with the ratio laid down by Hon rsquo ble Court in Basant Industries case. Hence we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Therefore we reject these appeals and confirmed the impugned order.
-
1997 (4) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... re also not available and in the light of the observations above, we refrain from entering any findings with regard to the same also. The matter in our view has to be gone into afresh. 9. emsp We, in the circumstances, set aside the order of the learned lower authority and remand the matter to the learned adjudicating authority for de novo consideration and observations in the light of the observations above. As to the limitation, the question of limitation would also have to be considered in the light of the prevailing understanding of the legal position and the stand of appellants and the authorities in regard to the excisability of the goods more so prima facie when there were divergent decisions in this regard. We, therefore, leave the question of limitation also open. We, therefore, set aside the order of the lower authority and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration and decision after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing.
-
1997 (4) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... quo check valves rdquo . Citing from the Valve Users Manual, Edited by J. Kemphy, he said that check valves are also described as non-return valves. The purpose of check valves was to set the flow in one direction and to prevent it in reverse direction. We find force in the argument of the learned Advocate that aerosol device containing medicament has to prevent contamination of its contents. The check valves or non-return device would check the reverse flow. On perusal of the extract of the technical book, we find that description non-return valve rsquo used in the Notification covers the description or ldquo check valves rdquo in Heading 8481.30. We, therefore, hold that the benefit of Notification is also available to the contested goods. 10. emsp In the result, we allow the Appeal No. C/3828/87-B2 filed by M/s. Cipla Ltd. and dismiss Appeal Nos. C/3829/87-B2 and C/665/93-B2 filed by the Revenue. The consequential relief to the extent warranted is allowed to the assessees.
-
1997 (4) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Damage - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... re is an allegation of mis-statement and suppression of facts. There is no evidence to prove that there was suppression or mis-statement in as much as the goods were actually present in the stock of the appellants and were being shown regularly in their RT 12 returns. Thus on the limitation issue also the appellants have a strong case in as much as show cause notice was issued on 13-7-1992 for the Modvat credit taken before March, 1991 and entry was reversed on 19-4-1991. Thus even if I take the date of reversed entry for counting the period of six months I find that the demand is clearly beyond six months and since there was no mis-statement or suppression therefore, the demand is hit by limitation. In the circumstances the demand is time barred. 9. emsp From the above discussions I find that both on merits as well as limitation the appeal is in favour of the appellants. In the circumstances the impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Computer parts ... ... ... ... ..... cation No. 282/84, dated 19-11-1984 exempts computer falling under sub-heading of Heading 84.51/55 at the material time and under 84.71 after March, 1986. The notification also prescribes a certificate from Jt. Director in the Department of Electronics that the computers of the kind and type in question are not manufactured in India and certifies to this effect and recommends the grant of the above exemption. Both sides agree that what was imported, is not a complete computer. Exemption notification has to be construed strictly but only procedural aspect may be construed liberally after construing the fact of exemption strictly. We have, therefore, to see whether the claim to exemption as such is satisfied here. It is very clear to us that the impugned goods cannot be termed as computers within the meaning of Notification 282/84 and therefore, the impugned goods are not entitled to partial exemption. In view of this, we reject all these appeals and uphold the impugned orders.
-
1997 (4) TMI 234 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... issue demanded that the opinion of a chemical examiner or an expert in the field should have been obtained as to the nature of the product and also to understand the scope of the various chemical terms used in the Chapter Notes and HSN. 7. emsp In the above view of the matter, therefore, we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order are not proper. We, therefore, set aside the same and remand the matters to de novo consideration for re-examining the matter in the light of what is mentioned above and taking into consideration the facts and evidences the lower authority may deem fit to call in and also affording the appellants an opportunity to call in any experts if they so choose. The appellants are entitled to explain their position with regard to any document that the lower authority may rely upon. The appeals are therefore allowed by remand and on the above terms. 8. emsp The cross-objection being in the nature of comments, is misconceived in law and is dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 233 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ctly satisfying human needs without further processing of such goods. At another level, capital goods rsquo are also in contradistinction to raw materials rsquo , and consumables rsquo , even though raw materials rsquo , consumables rsquo are also required for production of other goods. The expression capital goods rsquo would embrace goods which are of more enduring character like plant and machinery rather than the raw materials rsquo and consumables rsquo which get consumed. Switch operating mechanism, being a part of railway track equipment has the character of capital goods rsquo than of raw-materials and consumables rsquo . That being the only point for controversy in respect of switch operating mechanism and the finding being in favour of the Revenue, we uphold the confiscation of switch operating mechanism and consequently, the fine of Rs. 1,95,000/- in lieu of confiscation thereof. 4.4 emsp Appeal disposed of in above terms with consequential relief to the appellant.
............
|
