|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 280 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 298
Rotors and stators used in the manufacture of monoblock pumps - Dutiability of ... ... ... ... ..... Collector mentioned in his authorisation letter on the basis of which E.A. 2 has been filed against the Order No. D-15/86 (No. 17/86), dated 21-4-86. rdquo 3. emsp We also find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. M/s. Saga Windel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in Final Order No. E-506/96-B, dated 25-9-96 held that the driving mechanism in a monoblock pump could not be considered as a identifiable electric motors and that while rotors and stators before their use in such driving mechanism has to discharge the duty as parts of the electric motors, no further duty could be charged at the stage of the driving mechanism as electric motors. 4. emsp The Tribunal in another case of Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Bomin (P) Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 163 (Tribunal) had also taken the same view. 5. emsp In view of the above mentioned decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 292
... ...
... ... ..... 07 that Argon gas which was used by the respondents to test samples of in-process material for the manufacture of motor vehicles, was an input used in relation to the final product namely steel castings as testing was an essential process in the activity of manufacture without which the final product could not be manufactured. 4. emsp Since I am satisfied with reference to the technical material placed before me in the form of manufacturer rsquo s catalogue and purchase orders from MRF Ltd. and Goodyear etc., that liquid nitrogen is an essential requirement for testing of the correct grade of silica and for controlling the surface area of the silica, I hold that this item is used in relation to the manufacture of the final product of the appellants and hence entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit and therefore, set aside the impugned order relating both to duty and penalty and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1997 (6) TMI 283
Modvat credit - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... taking of Modvat credit on the basis of the gate passes. I observe that whereas there was a danger of duplicate of Modvat credit on the basis of gate passes which could have been endorsed by the assessee in favour of the 3rd party, there is no such danger to the Revenue in respect of the invoices inasmuch as the system of endorsement of invoices has been done away with after 1994 and as such there is no chance of misutilization of the invoices in question. The invoice being in the name of the appellants, Modvat credit can only be claimed by the appellants and no one else. It is well settled principles of law that substantial benefit of law otherwise flowing to the assessees should not be denied on the basis of some technical procedural lapses. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for verifying the particulars as detailed in ldquo duplicate for transporters rdquo copy produced by the appellants to his satisfaction.
-
1997 (6) TMI 275
Demand - Limitation - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... made by their Lordship in Paragraph 6 of the said judgment fully covers the appellants rsquo case. The Tribunal decisions in the Intercity Cable the appeal against which by the Department has been dismissed by the Supreme Court similar to the facts of the instant case. In the circumstances, there is sufficient reasons for the appellants having entertained the belief on their part that they were entitled to the Notification 175/86 and there was no intention on their part to evade or avoid duty by not disclosing this fact to the Department. In view of my above discussion, the order as proposed by Member (Judicial) is concurred with. 22. emsp File may be placed before the original Bench for passing the final order. Dictated and pronounced in the open court. Dt. 23-5-97 Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) MAJORITY ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation. Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1997 (6) TMI 274
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... was used in the Printing Industries. We observe that Assistant Collector has brought out distinction between plain particle Board and waxed particles Board correctly. We uphold his decision that waxed particle Board is classifiable under Heading 4406.90. 5. emsp At this stage, Shri Agarwal refers us to two letters from the Department dated 2-8-1988 and 12-8-1988 in which following the orders of the Collector (Appeals), the assessees were advised to pay differential duty on the reclassification. He submits that his clients were hard put to meet this demand without issue of any show cause notice. We find from the impugned order before that issue is confined to the classification of plain particle board and does not cover the area of payment of differential duty. We are, therefore, unable to make any observation on these two letters from the Department. 6. emsp In the result, we find no infirmity in the lower orders and these two orders are upheld and the appeals are dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 262
Modvat - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... credit and also utilised it. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner held that this was not permissible for want of fresh declaration from them for the period 1994-95 under Rule 57G for Modvat purposes. The duty demand of Rs. 72, 675/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on the appellants. The appeal against the Assistant Commissioner was rejected leading to the present appeal. We find that the matter is covered by the precedent decision of this Bench of the Tribunal reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 637 (Tribunal) in the case of Wox Coolers v. Collector, wherein on a similar circumstances of availing of Modvat credit by SSI unit on crossing the duty limit under the exemption Notification No. 1/93, the Tribunal had held that fresh declaration need not be insisted upon so long as there is no change in the inputs. Applying the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Consequential relief, if any, according to law to follow.
-
1997 (6) TMI 257
Confiscation for under-valuation - Misdeclaration - Smuggling - Non-notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... was paid by the importer. The allegation is that the documents in respect of the quantity of the material and value thereof were fake and manipulated. However, for examining of this aspect, if we look at the findings of the learned Commissioner in the adjudication order, we find that there is a categorical finding of the adjudicating authority that no documentary evidence was produced by the Department to correlate any fake document regarding value or quantity of the goods. Against this categorical finding, there is no point or evidence brought out either in the Grounds of Appeal or any other evidence which show that this finding has been rebutted by production of documentary evidence. Having regard to the above aspects, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta. In the circumstances, we uphold his order on the issue in respect of release of the non-notified goods. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (6) TMI 253
... ...
... ... ..... nst them. Having already held that M/s. HMP Engineers Ltd. has acted bonafidely and having already set aside the penalty of M/s. HMP Engineers Ltd. I set aside the Penalties on these three appellants also and allow their appeals. 10. emsp As regards the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Rajesh Arora of Exclusive Automobiles, I find he was acting merely as a broker. He in his statement has said that Shri Mohan S. Kalia approached him for sale of his car and he verified the legal character of the car from the registration book and Bill of Entry produced before him. Although, Shri Mohan S. Kalia has been found to be a fictitious person by the adjudicating authority, nevertheless, there is no evidence on record to suggest the involvement of Shri Rajesh Arora. In the circumstances, I extend the benefit of doubt to him also and set aside the personal penalty imposed upon him. 11. emsp In the foregoing, the five appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants if any.
-
1997 (6) TMI 249
Appeal by Department - Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nvolvement in the smuggling of the goods but to matters relating to the ownership of Car No. DNH 1062 or their actual residence or other matters which do not have a direct bearing on the allegation of involvement in smuggling. While the statements given by Yasin and Pawan Kumar relied on by the Department no doubt are self-inculpatory, their statements involving the Respondent do not, in the absence of any corroborative material, go to the extent of showing that the smuggled goods actually belonged to him or that he was engaged in smuggling activity. The Department has not in our view been able to bring any independent corroborative material to show that he had a definite role in the smuggling of the impugned goods warranting imposition of penalty. In the facts of the case we feel that the Respondent is entitled to benefit of doubt. 8. emsp In the premises we do not feel any interference is warranted. We therefore uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Departmental appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 246
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... 7 1998 (102) E.L.T. 459 (T) passed by the Tribunal involving the identical issue. I was also one of the Member in the above order holding that the confiscation of the rails on the ground of its non-registration of the contract was not warranted. Accordingly, confiscation was set aside in the earlier case. Following the same order, I set aside the confiscation of the steel rails in the instant case also and order the release of the same without redemption fine of Rs. 22,000/- and Rs. 1,10,000/- imposed by the Collector of Customs (Judicial). 5. emsp shy As regards the capital goods, it has been held in the earlier order that the same are capital goods and cannot be considered as either lsquo raw materials rsquo or lsquo consumables rsquo . Accordingly, the confiscation of the switch operating mechanism and the consequent fine of Rs. 2,85,000/- in lieu of confiscation is upheld. 6. emsp shy Appeal is disposed of in above terms with consequential relief to the appellants if any.
-
1997 (6) TMI 244
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ion of the party holding that since percentage of plastic is more in the composition of bobbins, it is to be classified as articles of plastic. In this context, Shri Mohideen, ld. DR drew our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Texplas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) where it has been observed that articles made of plastic meaning article made wholly of commodity commercially known as plastics and not articles made from plastic along with other materials. They have also decided the issue with reference to the very Notification 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982. In the instant case, admittedly, ldquo bobbins rdquo is made of plastic and aluminium and not it is exclusively made of plastic. In the facts and circumstances of the case and following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court, referred to above, we accept the contention of the Department and in the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 242
Refund - Limitation - Interpretation of statutes ... ... ... ... ..... the refund claim within six months from the date of payment of duty even during provisional assessment then it would be generally incumbent upon department to decide on that claim before finalisation of the assessment to avoid payment of interest which accrues from the date of filing of refund application. This would lead to anamolous situation. Therefore, it transpires that for all practical purposes, relevant date becomes significant only if the assessment is finalised in terms of Rule 9B(5) and the date of payment of duty in such cases would be the date of final adjustment when the entitlement to refund claim would be known and the count down to the limitation period of six months would start. As in the instant case the assessment was finalised in the month of April, 1994, the refund claim though filed much before the said date is required to be considered as having been filed within time. Accordingly, I allow the appellant rsquo s appeal with consequential relief to them.
-
1997 (6) TMI 240
Modvat - Capital goods vis-a-vis Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... before the lower appellate authority was the one of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Singh Alloys reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594. 5. emsp Even otherwise, ld. Advocate submits that if an alternative plea of Rule 57A is available it should not be denied to the appellants and the matter may be remanded to the original authority for considering this aspect afresh. 6. emsp I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. I agree with the ld. JDR that the claim made by the appellants in r/o Modvat credit was only under Rule 57Q, and not under Rule 57A. Nevertheless, on the basis of available facts, the appellants cannot be denied their alternative plea for their claim of Modvat credit under Rule 57A. Therefore I remand the matter to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for considering the claim of the appellants under Rule 57A. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by remand in terms of the aforesaid directions.
-
1997 (6) TMI 239
Yarn - Cotton yarn - Doubling of - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... ate stage. We note that for arriving at this decision the Tribunal examined the implications of Sections 2(d) and 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We also note that in the case of Jaipur Poly Spin Limited, this Tribunal held that doubling, twisting or multifolding of single ply yarn does not amount to manufacture. All these definitions and findings of the Tribunal are to be viewed in the context that a note comparable to Note 1 in Chapter 52 already existed against Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Following the ratio of the judgments of this Tribunal in the cases cited above and having regard to the fact that the appellants were not clearing any quantity of single ply cotton yarn, we hold that duty in the instant case shall be payable only at the double ply yarn stage. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellant in accordance with law.
-
1997 (6) TMI 238
... ...
... ... ..... -hear and dispose of the appeals of the petitioners. 2. emsp Sr. Counsel for the appellants Shri Arashad Hidayatullah appearing along with ld. Counsel Shri A.Z. Sheerazi took us through the Larger Bench decision as well as the Madras High Court decision in Ponds (India) Ltd. case. The Larger Bench has held that the view taken by this Bench in the case of the present appellant is not correct and that Chemicals used in the preparation of sand moulds for the production of Iron and Steel Casting will be covered by the wider expression used lsquo in relation to the manufacture rsquo of articles which occurs in Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Following the above binding decision of the Larger Bench, and having regard to the observation of the Madras High Court, we hold that the appellants herein will be eligible for Modvat credit on chemicals used in the manufacture of sand moulds which are further used for production of steel casting. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 237
Demand for Modvat - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ded for use in its Kandla Free Trade Zone. Although the application is tilted applicant for removal of excisable goods from a bonded warehouse in India to a place intended for use in Kandla Free Trade Zone. The consignor is also shown to be in Kandla Free Trade Zone. From this form and the GP 2 which accompanied the goods, when they were removed without payment of duty, it would be evident that the goods were cleared without payment of duty for use in the Kandla Free Trade Zone. The contention raised before the adjudicating authority in reply to the notice that the provisions of Rule 57F(3)(iii) would apply to the removal would not be misstatement of facts attracting extended period in Rule 57-I or Section 11A. It could hardly be said that the duty was not paid on account of misstatement when the alleged misstatement is made subsequent to the clearance of the goods and issue of notice. The demand was thus barred by limitation. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (6) TMI 236
... ...
... ... ..... ly rejected the appellants rsquo claim for taking credit on the basis of invoices issued by wholesale dealers, even though they have not been formally appointed as such by the manufacturer or had failed to register as dealers. 8. emsp As regards the four invoices of SAIL, being Invoice Nos. 3, 9, 10 and 321 shown in the annexure of the Show Cause Notice, I remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to verify the same and if found eligible, to allow credit on the basis of the said invoices. I hold that rejection of the same on the ground of the late production was not proper since it has been the consistent view of the Tribunal that where substantial compliance of the Rules is shown, procedural irregularities may be condoned. 9. emsp The Assistant Collector will no doubt observe the principles of natural justice while conducting the proceedings de novo on the question of the eligibility of the aforesaid four invoices. 10. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (6) TMI 235
Modvat - Amalgamation of Company ... ... ... ... ..... icals v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 109 (Tribunal), wherein on the similar facts of amalgamation and the requirement of fresh declaration, Tribunal held that the substantive part of the declaration earlier made by the pre-extending unit is very much available and it is continued and the inputs as well the final products relate to the same factory. The Tribunal therefore, held that there is only a change in the control over the unit consequent on amalgamation, and that in the circumstances, even if a declaration by the new unit is called for, it can be only construed to be a technical requirement and cannot be construed to be a substantive violation of Rule 57G. 3. emsp The ld. JDR Shri S.V. Singh, submits that there is no decision contra. On a consideration of the submission, we hold that the ratio of the Tribunal decision is applicable to the facts of the present case and following it, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 234
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ed. It was found that a part of the production was being sold at higher prices on account of cost of special packing, handling, freight, insurance, service charges, etc. According to the Department, the fact that such extra charges were being collected was suppressed from the knowledge of the Department. It is accepted that these extra charges were not disclosed in the price lists. The assessee contended that these extra charges were disclosed in two separate letters dated 11-10-1974 and 29-10-1974 addressed to the Assistant Collector. Collector (Appeals) who examined these letters found that there was full disclosure of these extra charges collected by the assessee. In the circumstances referred to above, we have no reason to take a different view on facts. That being so, the Collector (Appeals) was justified in holding that the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not made out and the show cause notices were barred by time. Appeals are dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 233
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... case as per order dated 23rd May, 1983 by a Three Member Bench in favour of the assessee holding that the item is classifiable under 26AA upto Aug., 1983 and thereafter under Tariff Item 25(8) upto 1-3-1986 as a forged product and not as an article under Tariff Item 68. 2. emsp Ld. D.R. reiterates the department rsquo s arguments. 3. emsp We have perused the judgement and we notice that this aspect has been gone into in detail by the Tribunal and has been concluded that these items are required to be considered as forged item for classification under the said tariff and not under 68. Respectively following the judgment cited, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
........
|
