|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 265 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... find that the matter now stands settled by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India v. Collector - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613. The Larger Bench has held after considering several judgments of Supreme Court, High Court and the Tribunal that the expression in relation to manufacture rsquo used by the Rule 57A is of wide amplitude and such wide scope is given with the purpose 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 held in the same decision that parts of machinery will not fall within the excluded category of the inputs. Following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision the grinding wheels used in the manufacture of gear mechanism in the present case will be eligible inputs under Rule 57A and are not covered by the exclusion from the definition of the term inputs under Rule 57A. The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 264 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Machinery parts made of artificial graphite ... ... ... ... ..... he opportunity to the appellant to take this plea. 9. emsp As regards the second plea of the learned SDR that the Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 84 would become redundant we do not agree with him, because that note only obviously applies to the goods falling under Chapter 68. The goods fall under Chapter 68, if the goods are made of natural graphite, so far as the Tariff sub-heading 6815.10 is concerned. This is well settled, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, from the 3 decisions of the Tribunal cited supra. 10. emsp In view of these decisions, we are of the view that the matter is fit for remand to the original authority to prove before the said authority that the goods imported are made of artificial graphite. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand, to be decided in the light of the observations by the Bench as above. The original authority should decide the case de novo, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
-
1998 (1) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 986 to 22-8-1988 on the ground that the protest letter related to earlier Price Lists and did not relate to latter price lists. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order stating that the protest letter covered all price lists filed subsequently and allowed refund of the part rejected by the Assistant Collector. The department being aggrieved has filed the present appeal. 2. emsp Copies of all relevant price lists are seen at pages 19 and 21 of the Paper Book submitted by the respondent. Each of the price lists contained specific endorsement that duty on the element of separate margin of profit of 10 is being paid under protest. It is, therefore, clear that the price list itself has been filed under protest and duty was paid under protest, therefore, bar of limitation alleged by the Assistant collector is not sustainable. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is correct. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. The cross objection, being merely supportive is also dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he classification was different from the classification given in the Modvat declaration. The Assistant Commissioner rsquo s order was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to the present appeal. 2. emsp None is present for the appellants and the Consultant Shri P.S. Kalve has sought adjournment and earlier Counsel on record has now withdrawn. 3. emsp We have heard Shri V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR for the revenue. It is now well settled by series decisions of the Tribunal that Modvat credit taken on declared inputs which are admittedly used in the manufacture of declared final product should not be denied merely because the Tariff heading as declared in the Rule 57G declaration does not tally with the Tariff heading found in the duty paying documents under cover of it the inputs are received. In view of this well settled position, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the duty credit in this case. It should be granted to them. 4. emsp The appeals are allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 261 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Value of clearances - Clubbing of - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ch were supplied to them by M/s. Aarem Chemicals are sold by them to the other parties. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that adding the value of Rs. 18,24,075.02, for the year 1985-86, is not proper and the duty demand in this regard is required to be reduced to this extent. For this purpose, we remand the matter for quantification of the correct duty, after giving deduction of the above said amount of Rs. 18,24,075/-. 9. emsp As far as the penalty is concerned, we are of the view that the amount of Rs.1 Lakh imposed on the firm, need not be interfered with and we confirm the same. As far as the penalty on the partners are concerned, we are of the view that since the firm is already imposed with penalty and in the light of the arguments adduced by the learned Advocate, no separate penalty need to be imposed on the 3 partners. We set aside the penalties imposed on S/Shri Sri Ram, Rathnasamy and Malaikutty. 10. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... cussed the items in different paragraphs of its order. We also note that one of the conditions of the Government of India order permitting deemed Modvat credit was that the goods should be clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. In the instant case, the respondents had submitted all the documents concerning the goods. It was for the Department to verify the facts and then conclude. The question whether the goods are clearly recognisable as duty paid is a matter of fact or law. We note that this is a question which can be decided by investigations and enquiries. Investigations and enquiries only collect facts. Thus the sole question involved was based on facts and no point of law was involved. It was the question of appreciation of facts and evidence based on facts. For coming to a decision whether the goods are clearly recognisable as duty paid or not is, thus, a question of fact and no point of law is involved. In the circumstances, we reject all the 4 Reference applications.
-
1998 (1) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... invoice is also not tallied with the machines imported by the appellants. The appellants admitted the fact that they have made import of three machines of Model No. 220-90-350 in excess to their import licence. The only plea raised by them is that, in fact, the manufacturer has supplied these machines instead of Model No. 170-90-200 as the manufacturing of this model was stopped by the manufacturer. In view of the fact that, the model number of the machines imported were not correctly mentioned in the invoice and also in the bill of entry, we find no force in this argument of the appellants. The Controller of Import and Export granted licence to import 1 number of Injection Moulding Machine of Model No. 220-90-350 and the appellants, in fact, imported 4 machines of this model, therefore, we find that the appellants have made import of 3 machines excess in respect of this model. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Disk drives with controller not simple disk drives - Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 281/84-Cus. not available.
-
1998 (1) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clearance of machinery from parent factory for installation within one year required in terms of Notification No. 93/76-C.E.
-
1998 (1) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... of silver slabs and gold biscuits have not been established, we set aside the penalty on Md. Imtyaz also. Re ensp emsp Appeal No. C/26/96-NB (Shri Abdul Rehman v. CC Jaipur) 16. emsp We find from paragraph 17 of the impugned order that the Commissioner has referred to letter dated 7-3-1995 from Shri Abdul Rehman stating that he (Abdul Rehman) did not know any one of the other notices viz. S/Shri Anis Mohammed, Moosa, Imtyaz and Nadeem Bhai and that he was not at all concerned with the seized silver/gold. We observe that no separate finding has been rendered by the Commissioner about the involvement of Abdul Rehman. Having regard to the discussions in the preceding paragraphs as well as the further ground that no connection has been established between the seized goods and Shri Abdul Rehman, we set aside the penalty imposed on Shri Abdul Rehman. 17. emsp In the result, all the five appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside. These are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (1) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nths from the date of such credits. 5. emsp One point to be noted would be the effect of the Ahmedabad High Court. No doubt the ld. single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the above case has referred in the earlier portion of the judgment has stated that there is unjust enrichment. But even then can the department claim in the same beyond the period of limitation? All authorities have to act within the four corners of law and in the Allahabad High Court judgment the limitation was never discussed. I therefore, hold that the Modvat credit can be reversed provided this claim by the Department within six months from the date of taking of such credit. I would therefore hold that while the Modvat credit availed by the assessee was wrong after the notification dated 25th July, 1991 yet, the Government cannot claim it because Show Cause Notice was not issued strictly in terms of Rule 57-I as it then stood. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Appeal of the department is dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... price 185 US worked out on prepage 2 under Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 1988 is admissible and accordingly the assessable value of the consignment of Rs. 4,59,602/- worked out under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 is fair and acceptable. rdquo 6. emsp A perusal of this order goes to show that he has taken into consideration the pricing schedule of the same supplier of identical goods from the same country and the unit price, wherein, was mentioned as US 185 to the quantity of 100 Units. Therefore, when he has taken into consideration the price of similar goods from the same origin and when this fact was not disputed specifically in the appeal grounds and in the absence of mentioning anything in the appeal grounds as to what is the parameter which is required to be taken in this case, to make a fair value of the goods, we are of the view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the orders passed by the adjudicating authority. 7. emsp Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... re of gravity for ease of handling. Hence, he reiterates the item correctly falls under Tariff Heading 85.08. He also submits that it is a specific entry. 4. emsp On the other hand, Shri S. Venkatesan, Deputy Manager of the respondents, reiterates the reasonings in the impugned order. 5. emsp We have considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. The first plea regarding the leaflet referred to in the grounds of appeal as mentioned above, leaflet has not been produced before the Tribunal. We also observe that there is no rebuttal of the findings of the learned lower appellate authority that the machines weight is 15 kgs. In the absence of rebuttal of this fact the further finding of the lower appellate authority that it cannot be handled in hand while working, is well founded. Accordingly, the rejection of Tariff Heading 85.08 for its classification cannot be interfered with. 6. emsp In the circumstances, we reject the appeal of the revenue and confirm the impugned order.
-
1998 (1) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... unal had taken cognisance of the fact that subsequent to the emergence of the castings from the mould a number of processes had to be undertaken. Quite a few of the very same processes were enumerated before us by the ld. Advocate as undertaken and goods. The Tribunal also went into the application of Interpretative Rule 2A and held that the presence of this rule does not justify classification of the castings as identifiable parts of machinery. The Tribunal made a distinction in this case between the castings and motor vehicles part which were ready for use in a particular motor vehicle. Following the ratio of the judgments, we hold that the Collector was in error in having (sic) the goods to be meriting the classification under Heading 84. The ratio of the judgment would continue to apply irrespective of the constituent metal of which castings were made. Holding this, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct consequential relief to the extent warranted.
-
1998 (1) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the above rule clearly goes to show that the Collector may permit such manufacturer to transfer the credit of duty paid on the said materials or component parts received by that manufacturer lying unutilised before such commencement. It was, therefore, contended that the unutilised credit could be permitted to be utilised by the Collector. 4. emsp The learned JDR, Shri Ravinder Saroop, stated that the same refers to the stock lying on 28-2-1986 in the RG 23A Register and he, therefore, justified the impugned order. 5. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. A perusal of the above rules clearly goes to show that the Collector can permit the manufacturer to transmit the credit of duty paid on the said materials which were lying unutilised before such commencement. 6. emsp In view of the clear wording mentioned in the abovesaid rules, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled for taking the credit in question and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Appeal - New plea ... ... ... ... ..... 3 of Part B of Appendix 2. Therefore, this being more specific items to the goods in question, the licence is necessary and that the provisions of OGL cannot override the specific provisions of Policy. 6. emsp For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. emsp The learned Advocate, also raised the question of assessment of the goods that instead of assessing under Chapter 84, they should have been assessed under Chapter 85 of the First Proviso to the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. 8. emsp We observe from a reading of the 2 orders i.e. Order-in-Original and impugned order, that this was never an issue before the lower authorities. Hence, we cannot take-up this plea for the first time at this stage. Even though this plea might have been taken before the lower authority, so far as the assessment is concerned, the appellant may resume this point before the original authority as it is advised in law. 9. emsp Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... the covers with the mark. During that examination the Asstt. Collector will also verify the assessee rsquo s claim that the embossing was confined to the top covers only and was not put on the bottom covers. 6. emsp As regards the circular of the Board cited, we observe that although the clarification pertains to a later notification, the two notifications are identical in their purpose and in the manner in which the benefit is extended to the assessee. Therefore the logic given by the Board in the clarificatory circular would certainly apply to the disputes arising out of the earlier notification also. The Asstt. Collector in his examination should take cognizance of this circular especially paras 7 and 8 thereof to determine whether the benefit of this clarification is available to the assessees in this case. 7. emsp With these directions, we set aside both the lower orders and remand the proceedings back to the Asstt. Collector for re-determination in de novo proceedings.
-
1998 (1) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand on average weight - Non-accountal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ting and trimming was being accounted in record by them. They have shown the sale of scrap of tin plates after 30-6-1989 as 11,000 kg. and also shown the balance of credit in stock as 4,992 kg. The contention of the appellant is that a slight portion of the scrap which cannot be recovered from the production floor and the same was not accounted for by them. The duty was demanded from the period from 5/87 to 30-6-1989. The average weight of the finished tin containers was arrived at by taking into consideration the 100 metal containers and the Additional Commissioner in the order also noticed that the weight of the tin containers is ranged from 970 to 990 gm. Therefore we find that quantity of scrap not accounted for is arrived at only on assumed weight of container. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant removed the scrap without payment of duty from the factory. 4. emsp In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... enue and set aside the order of the learned lower appellate authority. rdquo 6. emsp It is, therefore, seen from the Tribunal rsquo s decision that the plea of the learned representative that the drug could not be manufactured unless the airconditioner was fitted, was taken note of by the Tribunal and after taking note of that argument of the assessee, the above said decision was rendered by the Tribunal. 7. emsp Since there are 2 decisions passed by the Tribunal, sitting as a Single Member, I follow these decisions and allow the appeals of the revenue and set aside the orders of the lower authority. 8. emsp So far as the penalty is concerned, the penalty imposed is Rs. 25,000/- in A. No. E/716/97 and Rs. 1,000/- in A. No. E/715/97. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- reduced to Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred). 9. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (1) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 30 Oscilloscopes, spectrum analysers and other instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking electrical quantities, excluding meters of heading No. 90.28 instruments and apparatus for measuring or detecting alpha, beta, gamma, x-ray, cosmis or other ionising radiations 9030.10 - Instruments and apparatus for measuring or detecting ionising radiations 3. emsp From a reading of Tariff Heading 90.22, there is no doubt that the goods will fall under this heading, because undoubtedly as given in the appellants own technical write-up to the effect that ldquo In tis technique X-ray beam is focussed to strike on the material and the diffracted ray are analysed to get different informations about the solid rdquo it is, clear that the impugned apparatus is based on use of X-rays and would, therefore, be covered by Tariff Heading 90.22, adopted by the revenue. 4. emsp We, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the appellants. Consequently, we dismiss the same.
............
|
