|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods and penalty - Accountal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... remove the goods without payment of duty was made by the assessee, in that case the confiscation of the goods is not justified. Following the ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of confiscation in respect of the turbine. 6. emsp In respect of the scrap, the scrap was found lying in the factory and whose actual weighment was admitted by Shri Anil Gupta, authorised signatory of the appellant, no record is maintained by the appellant in respect of this scrap. The scrap was also found lying outside the factory building. Therefore the scrap was removed from the factory without entering in the statutory record, and without payment of Central Excise duty, therefore we uphold the order of confiscation in respect of the scrap. 7. emsp In this case the turbine and the scrap was not entered in the statutory record, therefore we also uphold the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
1998 (1) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Custom House Agent licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... ctor. Further, Rule 23 providing for the procedure applies both to suspension and revocation. Since a certain discretion has been rested in the Collector under Regulation 21(2), unless it is shown that the discretion has been exercised without application of mind or without disclosing the reasons for immediate action an appellate authority cannot interfere with a suspension order, especially when it is of an interlocutory nature. 5. emsp In view of the above, we do not find any justification for quashing the impugned order or ordering the restoration of the applicant rsquo s licence. However, having regard to his submissions made by the ld. Counsel that suspension of a CHA licence directly affects the livelihood of the concerned individual and his employees, we direct the ld. Commissioner of Customs concerned to complete the proceedings involving the applicant as expeditiously as possible but in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1998 (1) TMI 243 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Rate of duty - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... in para 5 thereof, he has very clearly submitted that the sum receivable by them by way of refund was not collected by them from the persons who purchased the subject bearings from them. However, we observe that the authorities below have not considered this plea of the appellants and have not given any finding, presumably on the ground that they have rejected the refund claim on merits itself. Consequently, this aspect will have to be considered by the authorities below while implementing the present order as directed above. Since the importation was made as per B/E in 1989 ld. Advocate submits that a time limit be given for granting the refund claim to the appellants in terms of the order. We agree with him and, therefore, we direct the Assistant Collector to grant the refund subject to production of the evidence by the appellants regarding the passing of burden of higher rate of duty to the customers after production of evidence to that effect, within fifteen days thereof.
-
1998 (1) TMI 242 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... retrospective in nature. 5. emsp I have heard both the sides. In view of the above said decision of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 361 in the case of Marvewl Vinyls Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, wherein it is held that this introduction is retrospective in nature the benefit has to be extended to the appellants and I order accordingly. 6. emsp The next item is PH Meter. The learned Consultant stated that the benefit is disallowed on the ground that this is used in the laboratory for testing the PH of water. He stated that the PH Meter is used to test the viscocity of the water and aerated water and this is used for testing the quality of the goods produced. Therefore, it is used in relation to the manufacture of the goods. This item is also covered by the subsequent clarification issued under Rule 57Q. Therefore, the item is entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1998 (1) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... The appellants have not denied that they have manufactured the doubled yarn from staple fibre and filament yarn in which the staple fibre predominated. 8. emsp On going through the material on record, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in this case. 9. emsp As regards the plea of time bar he had rightly observed that the relevant date will be taken from the date of filing of the RT 12 return. He had observed that the relevant date in this case was 7-6-1986 for the month of May, 1986 whereas the show cause had been issued on 19-11-1986 and had been received by the appellants on 20-11-1986 within the period of 6 months as applicable at that time. 10. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations taken into account we do not find any material to interfere with the view already taken by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) in this case. As a result there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Repacking is not manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... material into small containers in which they are marketed under the trade name Teepol rsquo was also required to be included for the purpose of determining the assessable value, that was an entirely different matter and if such processes were undertaken and charges were incurred by or on behalf of M/s. Agarwal Organics, it was for the Department to issue a show cause notice to them but, they have not even been impleded in this case and the order passed by the Collector with reference to adjustment to be made is not clear. 14. emsp The Collector has also ordered re-valuation on the basis of prices approved within the jurisdiction of the A.C. It is, therefore, not clear as to how he has arrived at the duty liability in anticipation of such an action by the Assistant Collector. 15. emsp However, since the very basis of the Department rsquo s case is not correct, the order of the Collector is required to be set aside and the appeal accepted with consequential relief, if any due.
-
1998 (1) TMI 239 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the department rsquo s appeal. The cross-objection filed by the respondent is allowed on the question of non- inclusion of the amount of duty paid on the input in the cost thereof for arriving at the assessable value of the final product subject to our observations in paragraph 10 supra and the non-addition of the freight expenses on the inputs. The cost of wastage of inputs is to be calculated afresh as indicated by us and such cost will be added to the cum-duty price and the duty involved should be calculated from such cum-duty price. We accordingly remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for such recalculation of duty. The order of the Collector is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision on the aforesaid limited question after granting hearing to the appellant. The quantum of penalty may be decided by the adjudicating authority commensurate with the redetermined quantum of duty. The cross-objection is allowed as above.
-
1998 (1) TMI 238 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... much as it only describes ldquo not exceeding 5 mm. in length (flock) rdquo . The only requirement in the said Heading is that the flocks should not increase 5 mm. length. As we have already held in the other case referred to above that subsequent processes do not amount to manufacture, we hold in this case that the RG 1 stage is arrived at after the waste is cut into requisite sizes not exceeding 5 mm. in length. The reasoning of the authorities below that the RG 1 stage should be fixed after storage in the air-conditioned room, in spite of admitting that the processes carried out by the appellants do not amount to manufacture, is thus contradictory. If all these processes do not amount to a manufacture, then the irresistible conclusion is that flocks are completed at the cut-stage. Accordingly, we hold that RG 1 stage for the ldquo flocks rdquo is the point at which they are cut into lengths not exceeding 5 mm. The appeal is thus allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
-
1998 (1) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the value as proposed and demanded duty accordingly. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 2. emsp The two invoices relied on by the Department show the price as US 1500.00 per metric tonne CIF, but the quantity covered by the invoices was 5 metric tonnes and 3 metric tonnes respectively. The quantity imported by the appellant was 30 metric tonnes. The price declared by the appellant was 5 less than the price shown in the invoices relied on by the Department. This difference could reasonably be attributed to quantity discount. Therefore, there was no justification to enhance the price. 3. emsp We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... that the matter should have reverted back to the jurisdictional officer to ascertain the factual position even at the stage of adjudication but the matter was not remanded to the jurisdictional officer, therefore, I find force in the arguments of the appellants that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh. 6. emsp In respect of denial of Modvat credit on the capital goods such as conveyor belts, welding electrodes and M.S. Rounds, no finding was given by the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate Authority also have not given any finding on the capital goods in dispute in the present case though the demand was confirmed. 7. emsp In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and to pass a speaking order. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
1998 (1) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Penalty - Exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... eals) in this order has followed the logic of the jurisdictional Collector in his order dated 23-6-1994 which was under challenge before the CEGAT. We have decided the Revenue rsquo s appeal in the first part of this order and we have found that the logic of the Collector in his Order-in-Original was correct. This is the only ground in the appeal memorandum. We, however, note that where there are two notifications one of which is more beneficial to the assessees, it is for the assessees to decide as to which notification he should avail of. This is the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Foam reported at 1996 (85) E.L.T. 157. Therefore the findings of the Asstt. Collector on this count also sustain and are upheld. Since no contest is made on that portion where the refund is ordered, we do not go into that aspect. 15. emsp On the basis of above findings, we uphold the order of Collector (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal. These two appeals are so decided.
-
1998 (1) TMI 234 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of clerical error of having wrongly taken lesser duty was noticed immediately. These are not allowed by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner but on appeal the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by the impugned order dated 27-1-1992 allowed taking of the credit. In doing so he followed the Tribunal decision in the case of Mysore Lac and Paint Works v. Collector - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 590 (Tribunal) 1991 (33) ECR 329 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal laid down that such subsequent credit on inputs received can be taken and as permissible provided it is taken within a reasonable period of 6 months. 2. emsp We have heard Shri D. Gurnani, the ld. DR for the appellant Commissioner and Shri D.I. Dave, Excise Officer of the Respondents. We find that the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Mysore Lac and Paint Works has received the approval of the Gujarat High Court also and in such a situation we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Special Excise Duty - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... duction of Special Excise duty, on an application of the judgment of the Apex Court cited (supra) which squarely applies in the present case. On the aspect of limitation, we see great force in the appellants rsquo contention that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against them because for the immediate prior period, from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay by order dated 24-2-1992, has dropped the proceedings initiated by show cause notice of 16th April, 1984 holding that there was no ground to invoke the proviso to Section 11A. In the result, the demand is confirmed but confined to a period of six months from the relevant date. The appeal is therefore, partially allowed. 3. emsp We record that the name of the appellant Company has changed from M/s. Hoechst India Limited to M/s. Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited with effect from 1st January, 1996, as seen from the Certificate of Change of Name issued by Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra.
-
1998 (1) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ey are registered SSI units. In order to deny the benefit of the notification, the Department would have to show that the brand name holders are not eligible for the grant of exemption. This, however, is not the case as, the brand name owners have already been found to be eligible for the grant of exemption by virtue of their registration as SSI units by the Directorate of Industries. Therefore, there is no warrant for denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty under this notification only for the reason that the brand name is being used by another person whose clearances exceed two crores of rupees. The Revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that the brand name owners, namely, Har Karan Dass Deep Chand and Deep Chand Arya are not registered SSI units and not eligible, therefore, for the grant of exemption. 4. emsp In the above circumstances, we see no warrant for interfering with the impugned orders and accordingly, uphold the same and reject the Revenue Appeals.
-
1998 (1) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ore us. As regards second point i.e., of necessity to add Rs. 1/- per bottle the claim made is that what has been given by the assessee are only expenses on account of pay rolls and administrative expenses which would not include expenses incurred on filling of the bottles. Shri Nambhirajan submits that issue is entirely irrelevant and it was not posed in the show cause notice at all. The price lists proposed for approval in the contract price lists include all element of costs as also their profit. The break up shown in the order-in-original was not relevant to the issue at all. We see merit in this plea. Where a single price was given as contract price it is not necessary to go into the break up and certainly not valid to make an allegation that particular charges did not stand therein. In our opinion, the Collector was right in accepting this plea made by the assessees. 4. emsp We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Collector (appeals) and reject this appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... that ceramic products fired after shaping - facing tiles, flooring tiles and split flooring tiles are classifiable under Heading 69.05. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The decisions referred to by the DR in the case of Baliapatam Tile Works Ltd., (supra) is with reference to the different product and, accordingly, the ratio of that decision not applicable to this case as it was rightly pointed out by the respondents. Further, we find that the issue in their own case has been considered by the Tribunal for the earlier period and the order passed by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the appeal. In the facts and circumstances and since the issue has already been considered and covered by the earlier decision in the very party rsquo s case, following the precedent, we accept the contentions of the respondents and, accordingly, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Seizure of documents ... ... ... ... ..... d Rubber Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 654 (Tribunal). In the similar circumstances the matter was remanded during the stay matter. In that case also ex parte order was issued before inspection of record was over and reply to show cause notice could be given. It was observed therein that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and order is not sustainable. In the facts and circumstances taking into consideration that effective hearing had not taken place, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner for de novo adjudication. The party also should co-operate with the department for early disposal. The party is directed to file a reply within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and on filing such reply the department may fix a date for personal hearing and afterward suitable order may be passed by the Commissioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, these two appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
1998 (1) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... returnable in this sense, deductibility is not affected by the circumstance that, as a matter of fact, no buyer had actually returned the packing material. On the question of durability, there is also the assertion of the Assistant Collector one way and the assertion of the Collector (Appeals) the other way. We feel that the matter requires fresh consideration on the aspect of durability by examining similar packing material and other evidence and the aspect of returnability from the point of view of agreement or understanding or trade practice. 7. emsp In the result, we dispose of the above appeals and cross-objection holding that interest on credit allowed to customers is deductible from the assessable value and setting aside the findings recorded by the Collector (Appeals) regarding deductibility of cost of caps and caping charges and cost of corrugated boxes and partitions and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision on these two aspects.
-
1998 (1) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... T 12 is filed. It was in appreciation of this position that the Tribunal took the view in the present case that the time limit started from the date of filing RT 12 when the department came to know about the applicant having been taken Modvat credit wrongly. The plea by the applicant in the course of arguing the appeal that the time limit would start from the date of credit was not accepted as the provision making such a date relevant for reckoning time limit came to be incorporated only later i.e., w.e.f. 6-10-1988. It was held that this amendment would not apply to cases prior thereto. Since on the actual question decided there is no authoritative decision of any High Court or Supreme Court, it is deemed appropriate that the question of law as to the starting point of limitation during the period prior to 6-10-1988 has arisen. The reference application is allowed. Registry to prepare a Statement of the case and frame the question of law for being referred to the High Court.
-
1998 (1) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tablished. Further, in CCE, Coimbatore v. Carborundum Universal Ltd., supra, the Tribunal had held that the omission of the name of the consignee and his address, though not a minor omission, such omission should not disentitle a manufacturer from the benefit of Modvat credit so long as the goods in question had been ordered by the manufacturer had been received by him. We find from the aforesaid decisions not the Tribunal has been consistently taking view that wrong mention of the address of the consignee or other similar mistakes in the duty paying documents would not stand in the way of allowing Modvat credit to a manufacturer so long as it is not in dispute that the goods have been received and utilised for the manufacture of the final product. Following the above views we are inclined to allow the present appeal. 6. emsp Accordingly, we allow the instant appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential benefits, if any, to the appellants in accordance with law.
............
|
