|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 280 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Stainless steel balls ... ... ... ... ..... pens and therefore, their exclusion from the Notification does not arise. Although they may be parts of ball point pens, they have been considered separately as goods falling under Chapter 73 as ldquo other articles of iron and steel rdquo . However, the fact remains that they are specifically manufactured as per ISI Specifications for use only as parts of ball point pens. Therefore, the denial of benefit of Notification for CVD purpose does not arise and the importers are entitled for the benefit of the Notification for the CVD purpose. In that view of the matter, the Revenue appeal in the case of M/s. Sanghvi Swiss Refills Pvt. Ltd. on the point of classification is allowed subject to grant of Notification to the importers and the importers rsquo appeal in the case of M/s. Chandra Industries is rejected insofar as the classification is concerned, but however, the claim of the benefit of Notification is allowed. 15. emsp Thus, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (6) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron/Steel products - Semi-finished ... ... ... ... ..... ices describe the goods as semi-finished and the certificates produced before us show that after clearance they were actually used in the importer rsquo s factory and were subjected to re-rolling, therefore, the ld. Collector was justified in holding that in view of Chapter Note l(k) and the evidence produced before him the goods were correctly classifiable under 73.08 and eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification. Since the documents produced show that all the conditions prescribed have been satisfied therefore there was no need for keeping the assessment provisional. Hence we modify the order of the Collector (A) to the extent of converting his order of provisional assessment into one of final assessment of the disputed goods as already observed by my ld. colleague with whose conclusions I agree for the above reasons. 25. emsp Hence, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the respondents allowed as already announced in the open court.
-
1997 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electric Resistance Alloy (Ferrous Base) Strips ... ... ... ... ..... ng to stainless steel as stated in Chapter Note 1 are satisfied, we have to hold that the goods are only stainless steel products. Chapter Note 1 category lays down specific conditions and goods have to be classified in accordance with those notes only and, how these products are otherwise considered, is not material for the purpose of classification. Whether or not aluminium has been added to the impugned goods, is not determinative of the issue since Chapter Note 1 refers in no uncertain terms to percentage of carbon and chromium contents with or without other elements. Second argument about carbon being only an impurity again cannot be accepted as it is the carbon percentage that largely determines the quality of the steel. 5. emsp In view of what we have mentioned herein before we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by Collector that Chapter Notes indicate correct classification only as 7220.90. Accordingly we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1997 (6) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... 00 carbon sheets are packed in kraft paper and such packages are put in gunny bags. Goods are despatched to zonal offices at Ahmedabad, Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. Gunny bags despatched to Ahmedabad are not packed in wooden boxes, while gunny bags despatched to other four centres are packed in wooden boxes. According to the explanation of the appellant since other four centres are far away from the factory at Rajkot, wooden boxes are used merely for the purpose of safeguarding the goods. It is clear from the fact that goods despatched to Ahmedabad are packed only in kraft paper and gunny bags and are not packed in wooden boxes that packing in wooden boxes is not necessary for the purpose of wholesale trade at the factory gate. In this view, the lower authorities were in error in refusing deduction of the cost of wooden boxes. The appellant is entitled to deduction of such cost. Impugned orders are set aside to the extent indicated above. 4. emsp The appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal in the case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 658 wherein the Tribunal had held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 84.59(2) and not under 73.15(2) of the erstwhile Customs Tariff. The case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. was confirmed by the Supreme Court as can be seen from the Court-room Highlights published in 1992 (57) E.L.T. A139. He also submits that in terms of this judgment, the appeal is required to be allowed. The ld. DR reiterates the department rsquo s stand taken in the order. 3. emsp We have considered the case-record and have also perused the judgments cited by the ld. Counsel for the appellants. As the goods are identical, the claim of the appellants is required to be accepted for classification of the goods moulds rsquo under sub-heading 8480.79. In that view of the matter and respectfully following the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the period from 1980-81 to 1984-85 it is not shown that Advisor (Cost) had given any margin on this account. It is unlikely that he had given any margin since he went by the average. This is sufficient reason not to act on the costing data prepared by the Advisor (Cost). 9. emsp What we have indicated above, will be sufficient to show that there was no justification to reject the value of ammonia compressor declared by the appellant during the period in question or to follow the costing data prepared by the Advisor (Cost). Therefore, the demand confirmed is not sustainable. Even going by the costing data, the value of clearances of the appellant during the period 1982 to 1983 did not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs and there was exemption available up to this limit. This will also take care of the major part of the demand confirmed. 10. emsp in view of what have indicated above, the imposition of penalty also was not justified. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ifically exempts goods not manufactured in a factory, the benefit of this notification should be denied. It is his claim that since explanation is part of notification, interpretation as made by the lower authorities is correct. We observe that definition of a factory made in Section 2(e) of the Act, does not exclude therefrom a unit which was not recognised as a factory in terms of the definition in the Factories Act. In fact, Notification No. 46/81 seeks to exempt those factories which were not in terms of definition of the term factory rsquo under the Factories Act. Although this has not been made clear in the body of the notification, once it is accepted that definition of factory in Notification No. 77/85 should be in terms of Central Excises and Salt Act and not in terms of the Factories Act, the objection of Shri Sharma lacks merits. On these observations, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector and direct consequential relief to the extent warranted.
-
1997 (6) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... apter 70. In this appeal filed by the Revenue it has been claimed that there was a misprint in this Chapter Note whereby the correct word between ldquo fittings rdquo and ldquo insulating material rdquo should have been ldquo of rdquo instead of ldquo or rdquo . It is claimed that the Collector continued to read the misprinted Chapter Note and thus arrived at the wrong conclusion. 2. emsp We have heard Shri G.D. Sharma, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The respondents were not present in spite notice of hearing have been sent. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the concerned Chapter Note. As per the corrected note it is not insulating material but fittings of insulating material that would stand excluded from Chapter 70. It appeared that the Collector did not take into consideration the clarification of the mistake given in the cited instructions. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the Collector rsquo s order.
-
1997 (6) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... . (N.T.) whereas the present case relates prior to 16-3-1995. rdquo 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. On going through the impugned order we find that there is some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants that admittedly the Switch Board have taken a main role with reference to the process of manufacture of the finished goods. The conception that it must be used directly in connection with the finished products is no longer good law as it was urged on behalf of the applicants relying upon the series of decisions. We are of the view that Modvat credit cannot be denied if the item has been used indirectly, and since denial of Modvat credit on that ground is not correct in our view and in the view we have taken in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the prima facie case is in favour of the party. With this view Stay application is allowed unconditionally. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - credit ... ... ... ... ..... and indicates evaporation by resistance heating or touching and also mentions that simplest vapour sources are resistance heated wires and metals foils of various types, and it does, to an extent support, that even otherwise the technical aspects explained by the ld. Counsel were correct and in view of the fact that the item is consumed during the process and is required to be replaced every time indicates that it is a consumable item used during the course of manufacture of the final product. Therefore, this item is also eligible for the benefit of the Modvat claim. Looking it the other way round the A.C rsquo s findings as part or accessory does not seem to have any basis in view of the above technical position. Therefore, I hold it eligible for the benefit claim. The case law cited by the ld. Counsel is not relevant for our purposes. However, in view of the above position, the impugned order is set aside insofar as they relate to the above items and the appeal is accepted.
-
1997 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ication of continuous computer stationary, whether plain or inter-leaved with carbon and whether plain or printed with EZR lines name or logo of company or format of bills, order forms, gate pass, etc. would be classifiable under Chapter heading 48.20 or 48.23. 3. emsp The applicants, in this respect, referred to Ministry rsquo s letter F.No. 61/32/90-CX-4. Circular No. 11/91-CX-4, dated 15-10-1991 to the effect that this type of product would be classifiable under Heading 48.20 and exempt under Notification No. 43/86-C.E. and prayed for waiver of pre-deposit and operation of the stay order on the above ground. 4. emsp Learned DR, in this respect, draws attention to the letter of the A.C., dt. 27-5-1992/2-6-1992 in which also this Ministry rsquo s letter has been referred to. 5. emsp In view of the above position, we waive the pre-deposit of the amount in question and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal is fixed for hearing on 24-6-1997. No notice.
-
1997 (6) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Order - Binding effect ... ... ... ... ..... lue of sub-frame and body the Collector (Appeals) followed the view taken by the Patna High Court in the case of the respondent. The only answer in this behalf of the Department is that the Department has filed SLP against the decision of the Court and the same is pending. The fact that SLP has been filed will not render the decision of the High Court not binding on the parties. 3. emsp The only other contention urged is that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in directing that excise duty paid on hydraulic kit has to be deducted from the assessable value. Collector (Appeals) held that cost of hydraulic kit cannot be deducted from assessable value. If that be so, duty paid thereon also cannot be deducted from the assessable value. The impugned order is set aside to the extent the Collector (Appeals) directed deduction from the assessable value of the truck the duty paid on the hydraulic kit. This deduction stands disallowed. 4. emsp The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
1997 (6) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Orthopaedic/Surgical implants and instruments ... ... ... ... ..... fication, it was for them to establish that they satisfied the terms of the Notification. It was held by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 1996 (77) E.L.T. 474 that where assessee claims the benefit of an exemption Notification he has to establish that the goods in question come within the ambit of the Notification and that there was no question of any liberal construction to extend the term and the scope of the exemption Notification. Such exemption notifications must be strictly construed and the assessee should bring himself squarely within the ambit of the notification. No extended meaning can be given to the exempted item to enlarge the scope of the exemption granted by the notification. 7. emsp We are of the view that the application of this test would keep the appellants outside the purview of the subject exemption notification for the reasons discussed earlier. We accordingly uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Res judicata ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal that value of cabin and rear platform should be included in the value of Aquadrill and Compressor. Copy of Memo of Appeal filed before the Tribunal is not before us. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had decided any such aspect. Of course, the Collector (Appeals) had decided the aspect and against the department. The question of res judicata would not arise though, ordinarily the statutory authority may not take a view contrary to the view taken earlier unless the previous order was not supported by cogent reason or unless there are cogent reasons warranting a different view being taken. We have considered the matter on merits and recorded our finding. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go further into the matter. 10. emsp Appellant had urged plea of limitation also. Since we have taken a view in favour of the appellant on merits, we find it unnecessary to consider this contention. 11. emsp Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeals by public sector undertakings before the Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... of Secretaries is essential. No copy of the permission so granted has been placed in the records. In the circumstances, the 49 appeals are dismissed. However the appellant shall have the liberty to apply for restoration of the appeals as and when such permission of Committee of Secretaries is obtained.
-
1997 (6) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Animal feed supplements ... ... ... ... ..... contained proteins. From the technical literature furnished by the manufacturer, we find that the product is meant for dogs and cats. Now examining whether in terms of Note 5 to Chapter 21, this product qualifies for classification under Chapter Heading 21.07, we find that the product becomes qualified for classification under Chapter 21.07 if it contains protein concentrates and textured protein substances. Simply because protein pre- dominating in the product, it cannot be termed as the product of protein con- centrates. The product is used as animal feed supplements for cats and dogs. There is a specific entry for this product under Chapter Heading 23.02. We also note that for classification of the product a specific entry prevails over a general entry. Having regard to the above discussions and clarification given by the Board, we hold that the product shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 23.02. In the result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (6) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... fied by the fact that the sole user of the goods is Indian Railways which, by its variousthe supply of the goods, have indicated the excise duty to be nil but have accepted the liability for payment of such duty if it became leviable. Facts of the present case are more or less similar to the facts of the case of Nagpur Alloy Castings Ltd. as indicated above. The reasons which weighed with the Tribunal in holding that the appellant entertained a bona fide belief as indicated above and, therefore, larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would, with equal force, apply to the situation arising in the appeal under consideration. We, therefore, hold that the larger period of limitation would not be available and the claim for demand fails. Consequently, other actions initiated in the show cause notice and finalisation thereof must fail. 8. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 135 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Eligible for Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... uipment. 2. emsp Shri J.R. Cama the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter is now covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal), in which the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that the wording of Rule 57A is couched in wide terms and the words in relation to manufacture rsquo are wide in their ambit so as to attract also goods which do not enter directly or indirectly into the finished product but are used in any activity concerned with or pertaining to the manufacture of finished goods. The Larger Bench also observed that the goods to be regarded as raw materials need not necessarily in all cases go into and be found in the final product. 3. emsp After hearing the ld. JDR, Shri D. Gurnani, we find that the case is fully covered by the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, and following that ratio we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
-
1997 (6) TMI 134 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Blood pressure measuring instrument - Use of power - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s an independent job worker. It is also true in this context that the position in law relating to the interpretation of the term manufacture without the aid of power rsquo became clear only when the law was laid down by the Supreme Court in Standard Fireworks (supra). Therefore, on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances in this case, it will be reasonable to hold that the demand of duty for the period beyond the normal period of six months in this case will not be justified. 6. emsp Therefore, it is held that on merits the final products manufactured by the appellant will have to be considered as goods produced with the aid of power. But as regards the limitation, the demand for duty will have to be confined to the normal period of six months under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the invoking of the longer period under the proviso to that section. The appeal is finally disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (6) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... dditional duty of Excise payable under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and sub-section (3) of the Section 3 of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, but for the said practice shall not be required to be paid in respect of such cotton fabrics and man-made factories on which the said basic excise duty and additional excise duty was short levied during the period 28-2-1986 to 12-5-1986 in accordance with the said practice. 2. emsp We find that the Notification is very clear and unambiguous. It clearly exempts the difference in duty if the goods were classifiable under different heading but during the material period were being assessed to Basic/Additional Excise Duty under a different chapter heading. In view of this we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals). In the circumstances the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. Cross objections are also disposed of in the above terms.
............
|
