|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... eas a Trade Notice No. 18/89, dated 6-3-1989 clarified that cutting, slitting and packing shall amount to manufacture. The Tribunal observed that there is nothing in the Trade Notice issued on 16-3-1989 to show that it amends earlier circular retrospectively and the Trade Notice No. 18/89 shall be effective only w.e.f. 16-3-1989. Before this date, the Board rsquo s circular dated 5-9-1988 was also in force. Therefore, packing, slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls will amount to manufacture only from the date when the Trade Notice No. 18/89 was issued. Before this date, the process would not amount to manufacture. In this we find the period is from March, 1986 to 4-2-1988 prior to dated 5-9-1988 and since the issue has been considered and covered by the aforesaid decision, following the precedent, we accept the contention of the respondents that the item, in question, does not amount to manufacture. In the view we have taken, the appeal filed by the Deptt. is, hereby dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... uplicate for transporter rdquo . Invoice copies in respect of Invoice Nos. 695, 931, 1106 and 1678 contained the words ldquo Carrier Copy rdquo . 3. emsp The use of the words ldquo duplicate rdquo or ldquo carrier copy rdquo may not be strictly in accordance with the prescribed proforma but in my opinion, the word or words used would clearly indicate that it was duplicate copy for transporter or carrier. Placing a tick mark ( Agrave ) against the relevant words would also serve the same purpose. The use of the word ldquo carrier copy rdquo instead of ldquo duplicate for transporter rdquo is only a minor departure from the prescribed proforma. It is not possible to agree that on account of these discrepancies the appellant should be deemed to have contravened the Rules so as to be deprived of the benefit of Modvat, as there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the Rules. 4. emsp For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... n the ground that the duty is to be paid on the full value of the goods cleared by the respondents through G.P.I dated 10-6-1988. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) and the Collector (Appeals) also rejected the appeal. 5. emsp Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 provides exemption on the value of the goods cleared. The notification also provides exemption upto the value of Rs. 15 lac from the whole of the duty of excise leviable. The respondents as on 10-6-1988 still had Rs. 17,425/- to cross the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lac. As notification provides exemption on the value of the goods and not the quantum of the goods hence the respondents are entitled for deduction of Rs. 17,425/- from the total value of clearance of GP I dated 10-6-1988. 6. emsp In view of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption notification cannot increase duty liability retrospectively ... ... ... ... ..... Act. It had been provided that the duties of excise which have been collected but which would not so collected if the said notification to whom the retrospective effect had been given had been in force at all material times shall be refunded. For the demand under sub-para (3) already referred to above, the duty was not required to be paid if no extra liability accrued on issuing the notification which had been given retrospective effect. 6. emsp We therefore, consider that any demand issued under Notification No. 212/86-C.E. for the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986 was not maintainable. 7. emsp Insofar as the period from 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986, the duty had to be calculated in terms of this Notification No. 212/86-C.E. 8. emsp Taking all the relevant facts into account while confirming the demand for the period from 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986, we set aside that part of the order which relates to the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (1) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Quantification ... ... ... ... ..... 7. emsp With regard to the Modvat credit also, we find that the appellants had taken a specific plea in their letter dated 11-5-1989 at page 6. The ld. Advocate had referred to the Tribunal rsquo s decisions in this regard also. On this issue also, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had given no findings. 8. emsp The law of valuation has been settled by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). We consider that in the interest of justice both on the question of valuation and the Modvat credit, this matter needs to be remanded back to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority who should re-examine these two aspects of the matter after giving an opportunity to the appellants of being heard and then pass an appealable speaking order as per law. 9. emsp As no other points were raised by the appellants before us, the rest of the order is confirmed. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (1) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... in the gate passes by incorporating ldquo Bar Cutting (steel scrap) rdquo but this cannot mean that gate passes related not to Rounds but to some other goods. The show cause notice also did not aver that gate passes did not really relate to Rounds but to some other goods. In these circumstances, the addition made to the gate passes also do not appear to be significant. 6. emsp Since the appellant did declare the defective Rounds, going by the interpretation placed by the Department on the declaration and Rounds were in fact procured by the appellant and used in the manufacture of ingots, the logical inference is that goods procured by the appellant were really defective Rounds. In this view, it cannot be said that there was any defect in the declaration submitted by the appellant. Hence there was no justification to deny the appellant Modvat credit of duty element on the defective Rounds. 7. emsp For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tion was available. The duty element on these two consignments has been confirmed in this case. 3. emsp The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant relates to the redetermination of the assessable value and recomputation of the duty element. It is pointed out that in respect of the two consignments appellant collected only price and did not separately collect the duty element, though duty was payable and, therefore, the total price realised must be regarded as cum-duty price and duty element has to be deducted. Duty payable has to be deducted, where, in fact, it was paid at the time of clearances or the payment is postponed to a demand stage. Hence, we accept this contention. 4. emsp The impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for treating the price realised for the two consignments as cum-duty price and determine the assessable value on that basis and quantify the demand. The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 218 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Benefit of doubt - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... . In this case it is also relevant that the Commissioner has found that so far as other raw materials are concerned including the base paper they have been duly entered in the account in the raw material register and that the resultant production of laminated sheets also been duly accounted for. In the face of such a finding of the Commissioner, we are of the view that the Department rsquo s case relating to clandestine removal of the goods in question has not been satisfactorily established by sufficient evidence. In any case there are sufficient circumstances in the case to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Therefore on this ground we set aside the duty demand. However, in respect of the penalty on the appellant even according to their own admission there has been non-accountal of the material in their raw material register for which a part of the penalty is to be maintained. Therefore we reduce the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (1) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... the Department. 8. emsp It appears that with effect from 1-4-1994 the appellant was mentioning in Invoices that depot operation charges at Rs. 175/- per Scooter will be charged at the depot on actuals as and when sales take place at the depot. It is contended that at least with effect from 1-4-1994 Department was aware of the stock transfer and collection of extra amounts at the depot. On this basis it appears prima facie that demand for the period 1-4-1994 to July 1995 would be barred. 9. emsp We have indicated that the merits require consideration at the time of hearing the appeal and bar of limitation would apply for about 15 months. 10. emsp Having regard to all the circumstances referred to above, we direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore within three months from today and report compliance. On such deposit, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount and the amount of penalty shall stand waived. 11. emsp For reporting compliance call on 12-5-1998.
-
1998 (1) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Pending proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... which finally ended in orders or decrees or judgments of Courts, must be deemed to have been paid under protest and the procedure and limitation etc. stated in Section 11B(2) read with Section 11B(3) will not apply to such cases. It need hardly be stated, that Section 11B(1), the proviso thereto, Section 11B(2) and Section 11B(3) read together will apply only to (1) refund applications made before the Amendment of the Act and still pending on the date of commencement of Amendment Act, 1991 and (2) applications contemplated under law to obtain refund and filed after the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1991. (Cases dealt within Paras 5 and 29 of this judgment will not be covered by the above, to the extent stated therein). 8. emsp Having regard to the legal position as explained in the aforesaid paragraph, we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The same is as a result set aside and the present appeal allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.
-
1998 (1) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of duty on goods returned to factory ... ... ... ... ..... days in completing the re-processing and clearance should have been taken only as a procedural lapse. Ld. Counsel has also drawn attention to Rule 173L(4) which allows the proper officer to relax the provisions of Rule 173L for reasons to be recorded in writing. Ld. Counsel had contended that this would show that the six month period provided in Rule 173L(3) is not mandatory. I am unable to accept this contention. It is no doubt true Rule 173L(4) provides for a discretionary power for the Commissioner to relax the provisions of six months period provided under Rule 173L(3). However, this does not make the six months period allowed for re-processing less mandatory. I find that the cases relied on by ld. Advocate do not relate to the situation in the instant case, viz. processing and clearing of the goods after a period of six months as required under Rule 173L(3). 6. emsp In the above view of the matter I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t relationship which made them the manufacturers. 28. emsp I, therefore, hold that the demand is sustainable. While I agree that mandatory penalty as provided in Section 11AC is not attracted, I hold that penalty under Rule 173Q would be attracted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) would meet ends of justice. I accordingly uphold order of Commissioner confirming duty demand of Rs. 26,59,620/- but reduce penalty to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). The following difference of opinion is framed for reference by the Hon rsquo ble President to a Third Member - Whether the entire demand is barred by limitation and the penalty in terms of Rule 173Q is required to be set aside as proposed by learned Member (Judicial) OR The extended period of limitation is applicable and the duty demand is sustainable along with reduced penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, as proposed by learned Member (Technical).
-
1998 (1) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... section etc. The Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules provide that inputs includes inputs which are manufactured and used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. 6. emsp In the present case, the final product manufactured by the appellant is sugar and molasses and benefit of Modvat credit was taken on inputs of iron and steel items. 7. emsp The appellant before the adjudicating authority admitted that the goods in question have been used actually within the factory indirectly in the manufacture of final product and without these materials the machines meant for manufacture of sugar would not work and no sugar can be produced. In these circumstances, the adjudicating authority held that goods in question are used for maintenance of machines and are not related to manufacture of final product. 8. emsp In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Acknowledgement - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... liance of Rule 57G(1). He submits that sending of the declaration under UPC is sufficient compliance of Rule 57G(1). 4. emsp Heard the submissions. We note that the mandatory requirement of Rule 57G(1) is not only filing of declaration but also obtaining acknowledgement thereof. We note that the language of the rule is very clear and is not subject to any ambiguity or capable of different two interpretations. It talks of acknowledgement. Acknowledgement means is the receipt and not sending of a declaration through an agency other than the Department. Since the rule is very clear and, therefore, it is only an appreciation of evidence or the facts that have been gone into for coming to the conclusion in the impugned order. Having regard to this aspect that it was only determination of facts and as law on the subject was very clear which led the Tribunal to the present conclusion, we do not see any point of law for reference. In the result, the reference application is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Milk - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... on of India reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 6 (Allahabad). We also find that in the case of the same respondents, the Tribunal by its majority order reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 789 (Tribunal) 1994 (52) ECR 370 has held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked because the assessees had been regularly submitting RT 11 Returns, maintaining RG 16 Register, etc. In this case, we further find that there is no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice and we, therefore, agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority that the demand is barred by limitation. Since the entire period falls beyond a period of six months, the demand in this case cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 4. emsp In the result, while holding that the benefit of Notification 38/78 is not available to the respondents herein, the demand in the present case falls to the ground as it is barred by limitation. 5. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The CO abates.
-
1998 (1) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ions made, the case law and the instructions relied upon as also the evidence available on record. We note that the reliance on the Open House decision as also on the trade notice issued by the New Delhi Collectorate is misplaced and does not help the appellants in their contentions. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Tribunal about substantive compliance and technical lapses. We find that Rule 57G(4) specifically provides that the original documents evidencing payment of duty shall be submitted along with RT 12 Return for finalisation of assessment. Now the question is whether this requirement is procedural and non-observance of this requirement is a technical lapse. We note that the requirement of sub-rule (4) of Rule 57G is a legal and mandatory requirement. Non-observance of this requirement cannot be termed as a technical lapse. Since the requirement was legal and mandatory, therefore, we find no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r item, their logic could not be held to be so unjustified as to raise the inference of fraud or suppression of facts or wilful mis-representation. 38. emsp In their judgments in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. C.C.E. reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.) as also Pushpam Pharma reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401, the Supreme Court had defined the parameters within which the revenue had to operate when invoking the ingredients leading to extended period of demand. In the case of Pushpam, the Supreme Court have ruled that in order to qualify, the act of the assessee must be shown to be deliberate. Such is not the case before us. 39. emsp We, therefore, accept the contention of the ld. Advocate that the demand confirmed by the ld. Collector is hit by limitation. 40. emsp In conclusion, we find that the orders of the Collector do not sustain on merits as well as on the points of limitation. The order is set aside, appeal is allowed and consequential relief, if any, is ordered.
-
1998 (1) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... was enlarged, a copy was not given to the assessee. Before the Adjudicating Authority the assessees justified their classification on the basis of pre-dominance of the acrylic monomer. The Adjudicating Authority, however, conveniently disregarded their claim. The additional information from the test report communicated to the assessee vide Department rsquo s letter dated 8-3-1991 concentrates only on the first information in which it was stated that the contested goods were aqueous emulsion of synthetic resin of the type of styrene-acrylate co-polymer. On perusal of Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 39 it becomes clear that where the question of classification of co-polymer and polymer blend is concerned, the pre-dominance by weight of a particular co-polymer would be determinative factor. On this ground also, the order of the Additional Collector does not sustain. 4. emsp Thus, on both grounds, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and appropriate relief is directed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Confiscation of Truck and redemption on payment of fine ... ... ... ... ..... covered by a decision of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court. 2. emsp Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, the ld. JDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner, submits that there is no question of duty and penalty involved in the instant case and, therefore, the stay application is infructuous and the same may be rejected. 3. emsp Heard the submissions of both sides. I find that the stay petition does not pray for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty. I also note that Section 129E provides for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and not for dispensing with pre-deposit of redemption fine etc. In this view of the matter, I find that there is force in the contention of the ld. JDR. Since no question of duty and penalty is involved in the stay petition, the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous. Since the cases pertaining to 1997 are already being heard, the request for early hearing is granted. The case may now be listed for regular hearing on 10th March, 1998.
-
1998 (1) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... y any such manufacturing process undertaken and such evidence was not produced. 8. emsp We find that the provisions for mandatory penalty came into effect in September, 1996. Therefore, prima facie such penalty could not have been imposed in respect of mis-conduct committed during any precedent period. 9. emsp Having regard to all the circumstances referred to above, we are of opinion that the manufacturer should be required to deposit 25 of the amount of duty demanded and the Director who has been penalised should be required to deposit Rs. 10,000/- towards penalty imposed. 10. emsp The applications are disposed of directing M/s. Pawan Foam Products Pvt. Ltd. to deposit 25 of the amount demanded within three months from today and Shri Amit Kaka, Director to deposit Rs. 10,000/- within three months from today and report compliance on or before 27-4-1998. On such deposit requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount will stand waived. The matter will be called on 27-4-1998.
............
|
