|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 291 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Furnace parts - Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 155/86-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... parts in this case were not for the initial setting up, assembly or manufacture of a furnace the modernisation of the already existing furnace will not amount to the assembly of a furnace for the purposes of the treatment of such parts as at par with the complete furnace, had the complete furnace been imported (in place of the parts). The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had observed that modernisation and assembly for the purposes of Notification No. 155/86-Cus. were two different things and that in case of assembly an entire new product emerges whereas in case of modernisation certain alterations and modifications are made increasing production efficiency and reducing costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of our above discussion we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay in these proceedings. 11. emsp As a result we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (1) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... he penalty imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A we find that the SCN has not set out specific allegations against each of them. The Collector rsquo s reasoning in this regard is somewhat cryptic by merely saying that the ten appellants knowingly dealt with excisable goods which were undervalued. There is no elaboration as to how this conclusion is arrived at and how the ingredients of Rule 209A are satisfied. Therefore we hold that penalty on these appellants is not sustainable, and it is accordingly set aside. 12. emsp In view of the findings partially in favour of appellants in respect of limitation and on certain aspects of valuation as above, we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 75,000/- and the penalty on them under Rule 173Q from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-. 13. emsp It is also directed that the duty demand be redetermined in the light of our findings as above. 14. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (1) TMI 283 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ted that this could not be substantiated because the books of accounts of the applicant had been seized by the department in 1995 and hence balance sheet could not be prepared. The Departmental Representative contends that at least rough balance sheet certified by a Chartered Accountant could have been produced, in the absence of which financial hardship cannot be accepted. We are unable to understand why, even if the books of accounts were taken away at least a rough balance sheet showing approximate position could not have been made. After all it is impossible to believe that a manufacturer or trader could not know where he stands solely because the books of accounts for the past year had been taken away. Taking all these facts into account we direct that applicant GSP to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs within 2 months from today, upon which we waive deposit of remaining amount of duty and penalty and stay its recovery. We waive deposit of duty and penalty on the other two applicants.
-
1998 (1) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... 4, it would be denial of justice if the benefit of Rule 57Q of the Rules, is denied to a person like the appellant. In these peculiar circumstances, we hold this to be a fit case to hold that the declaration must be regarded as filed in time. The jurisdictional officer will pass a consequential order. The appeal thus allowed. rdquo 3. emsp Heard the learned JDR. He could not distinguish the decision. 4. emsp I have considered the submissions. The period involved in that decision is April, 1994, so is the period in this case. Following the above said decision of this Bench of the Tribunal, I am of the view that it would be denial of justice if the benefit of Rule 57Q is denied to a person like the appellant. 5. emsp Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, which is identical to the above said case decided by this Bench of the Tribunal, I hold that this is a fit case to hold that the declaration is filed in time. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1998 (1) TMI 281 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Car ... ... ... ... ..... able to show the actual condition of the car. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that giving a depreciation of 20 on the available evidence is not warranted and we reduce the same to 10 depreciation. To this extent, the department rsquo s appeal in this regard is allowed. 10. emsp As far as the freight is concerned, the Collector (Appeals) has taken into consideration that the expression used is average freight rsquo and this is to be arrived at on the basis of ordinary mode of transport and he had held that notional freight to be added and we find no reason to interfere with this finding of the Collector (Appeals). Accordingly, the department rsquo s appeal is partially allowed holding that the depreciation over and above 46 is restricted to another 10 . With this modification the appeal is partially allowed and the car may be valued accordingly. 11. emsp The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
-
1998 (1) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... owever, if the import of the goods could be made by the publications concerned, to say that it was illegal if it was made by a person who was not the agent of the publication when the goods were shipped, but was an agent before their clearance. There is no dispute that the newsprint was meant for and was to be consumed by the publications in question. In fact the representative of the appellant had undertaken before the Commissioner that the goods would be delivered to the actual users. That the objection that the department was raised is technical is in fact admitted by the Commissioner itself when he took a lenient view in view of the facts of the case. 7. emsp The situation in my view deserves greater leniency than the Commissioner has shown. I do not think that this is a fit case for confiscation and imposition of penalty. A warning to the importer will suffice. 9. emsp I, therefore, set aside the confiscation and penalty. Appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1998 (1) TMI 279 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... not be sustainable. 4.2 emsp As regards the reasoning of the lower authorities, that the appellant gave an information relating to production and clearance of the aforesaid two products as late as 31-12-1988. We may mention that this information was asked for the first time by the Department only in late in November, 1988. In other words, the appellant gave the information promptly in about a month. Therefore, no blame as such can be put against the appellant on this score for which reason alone the concerned Collector appears to have invoked the larger period of limitation of five years against the appellant. 4.3 emsp In the circumstances above, the question of imposition of penalty does not arise. It is set aside. We order accordingly. 4.4 emsp In view of the foregoing, we allow the Appeal on the question of limitation. 4.5 emsp Since Appeal has been disposed of on available materials, Miscellaneous Application for additional evidence, also gets disposed of as uncalled for.
-
1998 (1) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ther words, the bill of entry is specified in Rule 57G as a document evidencing payment of duty for the purpose of taking credit. By the mere fact of endorsement being put on the bill of entry, it does not cease to be such bill of entry and therefore does not cease to be duty paying document specified in that sub-rule. Therefore, the point in the application that the Tribunal has extended the meaning of the relaxation given by the Board with regard to acceptance of endorsed bills of entry is not correct. The position might have been different if the documents specified in sub-rule to what was mentioned was not, as was, gives a bill of entry but a bill of entry on which no endorsement have been made. The Tribunal therefore has gone by the meaning of the word bill of entry rsquo occurring in the rule. It has not gone or sought to go beyond the provisions of the rule. The application as framed therefore does not arise out of the order of the bench. 4. emsp Application dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... old kitchenware use which are classified under Chapter 3924.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. emsp We have heard Shri D. Gurnani, the ld. DR who has no objection for early hearing of the appeal. We find that the stay application has become infructuous because the duty demand has been debited in their PL Account. We are also inclined to grant the plea for early hearing considering that the matter relates to valuation of their excisable goods manufactured by the applicant which has a recurring revenue effect. Therefore it is directed that the appeal be posted in the month of March, 1998.
-
1998 (1) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... rom the impugned order that there was written submissions filed by the Respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) which ought to have been recorded and dealt with by that authority and in the absence of such an exercise, the ld. DR would plead for remand of the case as prayed for in the grounds of appeal. We are inclined to accept this plea for the reason that before the Assistant Commissioner there was no response at all from the Respondents in which situation the Assistant Commissioner was constrained to drop the proceedings. Apparently before the Commissioner (Appeals) the Respondents have put forth, certain submissions which may be of relevant to the case of the Department and which will have to be dealt with and in this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing orders de novo to set out the respondents submission before him and disposal according to law. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
1998 (1) TMI 275 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hat the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has gone into the merits of the case and has expressed his clear findings that the machine imported would be more appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.79 and not as conventional sewing machine under Heading 84.52 of CTA. Having come to such a conclusion after application of mind to the issue, we find that the remand of the issue to the AC will not serve any purpose. In such a situation, when the matter on classification has been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), and is now before the Tribunal, we agree with the applicant that it will be inappropriate for the AC to proceed with the de novo adjudication directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). We therefore in the peculiar facts of this case, order that this de novo adjudication may be held in abeyance until the matter is pronounced upon by the Tribunal which is seized of the issue by way of the applicant rsquo s appeal before it. The application is accordingly disposed off.
-
1998 (1) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... for leniency in the matter on quantum of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant. He also referred to the precedent order of this Bench in Wimpex International v. Commissioner in the Final Order No. 608/97-WZB, dated 14-2-1997 wherein the Bench has while upholding the confiscation of the goods and penalty in similar circumstances reduced the fine and penalty to about 20 . 3. emsp We have heard Shri Gurnani the ld. Departmental Representative. 4. emsp The appellants are not contesting the impugned order on merits. The Bench has already granted in similar circumstances relief in the matter of redemption fine and penalty and broadly following the precedent order we hold that the order of confiscation and penalty on the appellant is correct in law but we grant relief in the matter of penalty and fine and reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 1.25 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh and the penalty is reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/-. The appeals is disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (1) TMI 273 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ition would of course be different in cases where there is an intention to take credit of the duty not paid, or on inputs not received. There is however no such allegation against the assessee in the present case. The fact that we are dealing with declarations made in 1986, the first as early as March 1986, very shortly after the Modvat procedure was introduced can also not be overlooked. This Tribunal has taken the view that, in such cases of declaration shortly following the introduction of the scheme, imperfection of the declaration had to be condoned. This has been recognised by the Board which has issued a circular to say that if the tariff heading is furnished in the declaration in the earlier days of Modvat it would suffice for the purpose of taking credit. On consideration of these aspects leads us to conclude that this was not a case where penalty was justified. We therefore set aside the penalty. 6. emsp Appeal E/214/92-Bom allowed and appeal E/244/92-Bom dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... efore us that Di-Ethyl-Phthalate is both their input as well as their final product. Another aspect in this case which shows that Rule 57F(2) will have no application at all to this situation is the fact on record by both the lower authorities that the respondent are clearing Di-Ethyl-Phthalate on payment of duty to the other factory. This by itself will be contra to the provisions envisaged under that rule. The Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the Denatured Alcohol received from the other factory is in the status of an intermediate product. In such a situation the respondent should only seek to take duty credit, if any, on such product received by them from the other factory but it would appear that the product received is exempted from duty. Therefore we are of the view that the Asstt. Commissioner was right in holding that the respondent application for permission to remove Di-Ethyl-Phthalate under Rule 57F(2) is not acceptable. The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import trade control ... ... ... ... ..... nistry of Commerce dated 13/92-97, dated 30-8-1996 wherein it is clearly mentioned that it is clarified that as a result of rationalisation exercise and does not involve any change in policy, it was decided to extend the provisions of notification dated 21-8-1996 to consignments which have already been shipped but not cleared so far by the Customs Authorities. Therefore, the circular itself goes to show that it is prospective in operation. In other words, the clarificatory circular did not indicate that the notification should be given retrospective effect. On the contrary, it is specifically stated that it is only prospective in nature. This being so, the arguments of the ld. Consultant cannot be accepted. The confiscation of the goods are therefore proper. However, in the circumstances of the case, the redemption fine of Rs. 85,000/- is further reduced to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only). But for this modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 270 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... llants had withheld information from the department with an intention to evade duty. It would also appear that there were representations to the Finance Ministry on the issue of non-availability of exemption to the parts and accessories of Air Guns and Air Rifles and it has noted that the Notification No. 182/89, dated 3-10-1989 had been issued for exempting parts and accessories of Air Guns and Air Rifles from duty when captively used in the factory of production for manufacture of Air Guns. However, as pointed out by the ld. Counsel, the fact that the Commissioner has not found it a fit case for imposing personal penalty would also be a factor in favour of the appellants. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we hold that the longer period for demanding duty in this case under Section 11A cannot be invoked and as such the appellants succeed on grounds of limitation. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed in the above terms.
-
1998 (1) TMI 269 - CEGAT, DELHI
Manufacturer - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... se of goods of first class. Any product except the seconds supplied to the buyer and which are defective in workmanship or materials and is not in accordance with the specifications may, within six months from the date of the manufacture, be returned to DIL and the buyer shall be credited therefor at the current price on the date of return and the manufacturer may dispose of such products as seconds subject to the conditions agreed to. This would mean that DIL bears the risk of the defective goods by getting less price for such goods. The terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties are similar to the terms of the agreement in Cibatul Ltd. case. 7. emsp In these circumstances, we have to hold that the appellant cannot be regarded as the person who engages in production on its own account through DIL. In this view, the appellant cannot be treated as the manufacturer and the demand must fail. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... T. 184 (Tribunal) and also by the decision reported in 1997 (22) RLT 928. He submits that no point of law arises in the instant case and, therefore, prays that the reference application may be rejected. 4. emsp Heard the submissions of the both sides. Perused the case law. We find that Modvat credit is admissible to the respondents under the Central Excise Rules whereas the duty of customs is leviable under the Customs Act. We also note that the two Acts are distinguishable and self-contained. We also note that the Notification in this regard does not make Modvat credit provisions of Central Excise Rules applicable to such cases. We also find that a correct view has been taken by the Tribunal on the applicability of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the issue has been correctly decided on the point of law, we, therefore, hold that no point of law arises for reference in the present reference application. In the result, the reference application is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Revenue that the very same question has already been directed to be referred to the Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case No. 2/95 vide High Court order dated April 19, 1996. Since the very same question has been directed to be referred for consideration by the High Court, this reference application of the Revenue on the same issue is allowed and the question as framed in the reference application is forwarded to the Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Registry to draw up a statement of case.
-
1998 (1) TMI 266 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... differential duty is that the duty should have been paid by the applicant on the intrinsic value of the floor plate i.e. the duty should have been paid including the value of the components supplied by TELCO. 2. emsp We have heard both sides. We observe that there is no controversy on the floor plate manufactured by the applicant/appellant and supplied back to TELCO have been utilised in the assembly and manufacture of excavator cleared on payment of duty by TELCO. TELCO is taking the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid by the appellant/applicant on floor plates and would have taken credit of the differential duty, had it been charged from the appellant. The same duty would have been taken as Modvat credit by TELCO. We are, therefore, of the view that in the scheme of things as adopted by the appellant, there is no loss of revenue to the department. Consequently, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the stay petition un- conditionally.
............
|
