|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 324 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... ioner on 15-6-1998 in Form RG 23A, Part-II and had intimated the same to the Range Superintendent. However, it appears that the Commissioner has dismissed the appeal without giving an opportunity of hearing also and without taking into consideration the debits made in terms of the interim order. Therefore, the prayer for early hearing of the appeal is justified and the Miscellaneous application is allowed, and the appeal is taken up today itself as the matter lies in a short compass. On further consideration, we notice that the appellants having complied with the Interim Order of the Commissioner, therefore Order of the Commissioner dismissing the appeal under Section 35F of the Act is not justified and also the appellants had not been given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
-
1999 (3) TMI 323 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Abatement ... ... ... ... ..... commenced and in terms of Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules where an application has not been made by the Official liquidator for its continuation, then in such circumstances the appeal would abate. Both sides submits that the Rule 22 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is clear that when a Company is being wound up, then the appeal shall abate unless an application is filed. 3. emsp Taking into consideration the letter filed by the Company that the Company is under liquidation and as no application has been filed by the Official Liquidator, therefore the Stay application and the appeal is dismissed as abated in terms of Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
-
1999 (3) TMI 322 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... the learned JDR who submits that there is no infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal. He further submits that the matter has been remanded to the Original authority for re-consideration with clear-cut directions. Therefore, it is surprising as to why the appellants have come in appeal even against such a remand order. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We find that the issues of classification and valuation, etc., of similar goods namely cable jointing kits have since been considered in the two decisions cited supra. In these also mostly bought out items have been packed together in unit packing. Therefore while we do not wish to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal as such, we feel it would be sufficient to direct the Original authority that while considering the issue on de novo basis, in terms of the said Order-in-Appeal, he shall also take into consideration the two case laws on cable jointing kits cited supra. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (3) TMI 321 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... rity shall consider the pleas raised by the learned Consultant that the aspect pertaining to Draw Frame has already been accepted by the department as in the case of Vijalakshmi Mills Pvt. Ltd. The further contention of the Revenue with regard, to receipt of goods prior to 21-10-1994 not being eligible for credit in terms of citation referred should also be considered including the counter argument of the Consultant with regard to utilisation subsequently be reconsidered in the light of the Judgments cited by both the sides. The original authority shall reconsider the aspect pertaining to all the three items being capital goods or not in the light of the submissions made by the assessee. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand to the original authority for de novo consideration. rdquo 5. emsp Following the ratio thereof, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration to decide the matter in terms of the findings above.
-
1999 (3) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tional machinery, referred to as a ldquo non-woven line rdquo . The statements of E.R.G. Menon, Purchase Manager Import, S.V. Patkar, Chief Engineer when investigation were going on only indicate that they were not aware of the details of the machinery. This lack of information by itself would not have any significance if one considers that in 1979, when the notice alleged that the spares were imported, Patkar was not even with the respondent rsquo s company and Menon was not concerned with the purchase. Even if we attribute deliberate evasion to the statements of the officers of the company, the appeal is not able to overcome the point made by the Collector that, in the absence of the goods in question being notified either under Section 123 or Chapter IV-A of the Act, the burden of proving illegal importation was on the department and that this has not been discharged. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... welding them together to bring them to different shapes as mentioned above. They still remain pipes, pipe joints or pipe fittings of different shapes. They do not change the character of the pipes and no new products will come into existence. This finding is fortified by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Forge and Press Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.) where in it has been held the pipe fittings remain classifiable under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff as pipes. It has been held by the Apex Court that cutting of pipes to specific sizes and shapes does not bring into existence a new commodity calling for a new duty liability under Tariff Heading 68. Following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal holding that the process undertaken by the appellants herein does not amount to manufacture of new commodity. In short appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (3) TMI 305 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Scanner - Notification No. 279/83-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... nts have complied with the condition of the notification even subsequent to the issue of show cause notice is a question for consideration. Obviously, the chart placed before the Tribunal was not before the adjudicating authority for verification. In view of this, we are of the view that entire issue requires to be examined by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner to examine whether on an average at least 40 of their outdoor patients were treated free out of total patients and whether such free treatment was provided to the poor and needy people as specified in the notification. On examining the facts and evidence in detail, he may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellants. The appellants may make use of this opportunity and substantiate their claim during the readjudication proceedings. Thus, these appeal are allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (3) TMI 304 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Smuggling - Attempt to smuggle goods ... ... ... ... ..... nly kept the bags on roof of the bus which showed his bona fides. The goods were intercepted by the Border Security Force Officers and that there was no ground for confiscation of the goods. 5. emsp I find that the appellate authority had rejected the appeal mainly on the ground that there was some contradiction in the statements of the appellant. I find that there is no dispute that the goods were kept on the roof of a bus which was going to the Indian town of Bahrampur. I do not consider that in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that the goods were in the process of smuggling to a foreign country. 6. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account I agree with the contentions of the appellant and Order for the release of the goods confiscated. If the goods had already been disposed of then as per rules and subject to the provisions regarding return of the sale proceeds the same be refunded to the appellant. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Flavouring substances ... ... ... ... ..... at credit in respect of those items. Instead, they should have availed of exemption under Notification No. 217/86. 2. emsp Arguing the appeal, learned counsel, Shri D.B. Shroff submits that the impugned order is contrary to law. He refers us to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 wherein it was held that plastic granules used in the manufacture of plastic bottles (used in the packing of the final product) were eligible for Modvat credit. Shri Shroff submits that this decision clearly covers the issue in favour of the appellants. 3. emsp Heard Shri S.P. Rao for the Revenue. 4. emsp We have gone through the records of the case and have considered the submissions. We find that the issue remains covered in favour of the appellants vide the aforesaid judgment of the Madras High Court. The appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1999 (3) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... illegal activities of K.P. Tibriwala. 3. emsp We do not know whether any appeal has been filed by K.P. Tibriwala or not. We are here concerned with the appeal of appellant who is merely an owner of the premises where the alleged illegal activities leading to alleged evasion of duty have been carried out in the said premises. There is no other evidence on record to indicate that the appellant herein in any way was concerned with these illegal activities except that he was the owner of the premises. We are afraid that the lower authorities had given two wide a meaning to the provisions of Rule 209A merely by connecting the owner of the premises to the illegal activities without any further evidence that these activities were carried out with his knowledge. We are, therefore of the view that there is no substance for imposing any penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. In the circumstances, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant herein. To this extent the impugned order is set aside.
-
1999 (3) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Cement - Notification No. 24/91-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... exemption contained in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 175/86-Central Excises, dated the 1st March, 1986. ......... rdquo 6. emsp We observe that when two notifications covering either the same product or the same class or category of manufacturer, or covering similar situations are issued and are in force during the same financial year and one of them incorporates a condition that its benefit would be available only if the benefit of other notification(s), named therein, was not availed, it can only be inferred that the Government had given choice to the assessee to choose between one of them for that financial year or the period, if any, specified therein. In view of this position, we observe that the interpretation taken by the ld. Collector (Appeals) and pleaded by the ld. DR is correct. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). Consequently, this appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 300 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... lable and they are eligible to remove the goods at nil rate of duty under Clause 1(a)(ii) of the Notification and in support of the submissions, he relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Sul Engineering Works reported in 1998 (29) RLT 536 (Tribunal) 5. emsp We heard Shri S. Nunthuk, ld. JDR. 6. emsp We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision in Sul Engineering Works in which it was held that mere filing of the declaration under Rule 57G of CE Rules, cannot take away a benefit if otherwise admissible under the notification. If the benefit of concessional rate of duty was not available and the appellant did not avail of Modvat credit, the question of charging duty at full rate does not arise as they will be covered by Clause 1(a)(ii) of Notification No. 175/86. 7. emsp In view of the above facts and following the ratio of the case of Sul Engineering Works, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1999 (3) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Chemical Examiner’s Report - Dutiability - Inference ... ... ... ... ..... an intermediary stage in the manufacture of their final product is a goods which is marketable or is known as Petroleum Jelly in commercial parlance. The test report also does not certify that Petroleum Jelly comes into existence at an intermediary stage as it merely says that ldquo the simple answers the test for lanolin and soft paraffin (Petroleum Jelly) rdquo . Obviously the result of test will show presence of soft paraffin as the final product Boroquien Antispetic Cream was manufactured by using, amongst others, liquid paraffin oil, paraffin wax and Micro wax. Accordingly, we hold that the Department has not been successful in substantiating their case that Petroleum Jelly came into existence as an identiable product at an intermediary stage of the manufacture of the final product. In view of this we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals, without considering the question of time limit for demanding the duty under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act.
-
1999 (3) TMI 298 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Manufacture - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e used in the construction of the bridges and to comply with various rules relating to this. Appellant failed to do so. The appellant rsquo s sole business appears to be (from its name) building of bridges and it must have been fully aware of the legal obligation in this regard. It is not possible to accept that there was a practice in Goa in not levying duty on such goods. On the contrary, the fact stated in the appeal that the Board declined to issue a notification under Section 11C of the Act for the period when the goods were fabricated shows that it was not a practice not to levy duty on such goods. We therefore hold that the duty has been rightly demanded. 4. emsp Penalties were also imposable on the appellant for failure to pay duty and to comply with the provisions of the Act. Rs. 20,000/- (in Appeal E/4388/95) and Rs. 30,000/- (in Appeal E/4393/95) are not incommensurate with the duty involved of Rs. 4.72 lacs and Rs. 3.63 lacs approx respectively. Appeals dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nd of the adjudication. This order of the Assistant Collector had not been challenged by the Central Excise Authorities and had, therefore, become final. We find great force in the appellants rsquo submission that such a procedure could not be later on held to be retrospectively not valid and duty demanded. We also find that the aforesaid decisions of the CEGAT and the Supreme Court support this contention of the appellants. We also find that the entire movement of chassis and the FRP body was covered by Modvat procedure and reassessment of the goods, apart from being a breach of the procedure approved by the Department during the relevant period, may be Revenue neutral as duty paid at intermediate stages would have been available as Modvat credit. In the circumstances, we find merit in the appellants rsquo submissions and set aside the duty demand. The changes in procedure in a case of this type have to be prospective and may be made so. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 287 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... the Asstt. Commissioner has already passed a reasonable and clear order explaining all the points raised by the appellant in support of their defence. I also find that there is no merit in the appellant rsquo s contention, and no evidence has been produced to prove their submissions, in spite of having been given an opportunity to do so at the time of personal hearing rdquo . This is too bad. The Order does not mention or discuss the matters in dispute, and the explanation offered by the appellants as also the findings given by the Assistant Commissioner, observing how the appellate authority considers those findings to be reasonable. Therefore, the grievance of the appellants that the Order does not consider their defence, is genuine. The matter is, therefore, required to be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand for reconsideration and passing of an Order after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case.
-
1999 (3) TMI 286 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... g remanded to the Commissioner. 3. emsp Although the case is posted for hearing today for consideration of stay application, in the instant case, it is appropriate that the appeal itself is disposed of at this stage after waiving the pre-deposit. Accordingly, this order dispose of the appeal itself. The appeal has been rejected in the instant case for non-deposit of the amount ordered to be deposited in the stay application. From the appellant rsquo s letters dated 16-7-1997 and 19-7-1997, it is observed that he had sought variation of the terms of the stay order. This variation application has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter is, therefore, required to go back to him for fresh consideration. The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall consider the application for reduction of pre-deposit and pass an order on the same. Appeal is restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-consideration on the above lines.
-
1999 (3) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... 86 does not arise. He referred to one of the reply dated 23-2-1991 of the respondents in which they had clearly mentioned that M/s. Wellcare Laboratories were only marketing the goods. 4. emsp After considering the submissions of the ld. DR and perusing the records, we agree with him that M/s. Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., being not a manufacturer, cannot be considered to be eligible for the benefit of Notification 175/86. The mischief of paragraph 7 of the notification is attracted as it provided that the benefit of notification would not be available if the specified goods are affixed with the brand name or trade name of any other person who is not eligible for the benefit of the notification. As it is not in dispute that monogram of another person was affixed on the cartons and labels of the medicine and they, being the dealer, were not entitled for the benefit of notification. The exemption was not available to the impugned goods. All the appeals are therefore allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... personal hearing, which resulted in Order-in-Original No. 67/AC/D/93, dated 30-7-1993. He submits that granting of personal hearing is the mandatory requirement under the Central Excise Rules. Breach of that leads to infirmity in the order and therefore, entire proceedings are not at all sustainable. 2. emsp We have also heard Shri Udhoji, ld. DR. 3. emsp We agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate Shri J.P. Kaushik that order-in-original in the present case leading to the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the entire proceedings get vitiated. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and set aside the order-in-original dated 14-2-1994 and remand the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 4. emsp Since the appeal itself has been allowed by way of remand, stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
1999 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Cable making machinery - Hot melt equipment ... ... ... ... ..... trical appliance. However, the electricity is being used in this apparatus basically for heating and maintaining temperature of the material only and Heading 84.24 covers mechanical appliances and classification under this heading is no longer a matter of dispute. Hence insofar as the claim for benefit of the entry 17 of the Notification 59/87 (as amended) is concerned, the Department has not been able to show that it is hit by any exclusion whereas the appellants have been able to show that this Notification specifically covers the items such as spray appliances (a description found appropriate by the Department itself) and it is not hit by any excluded material. 18. emsp In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Department was justified in classifying the item under Heading 8424.20 but the appellants have succeeded in their claim for the benefit of Notification No. 59/87 (as amended). The appeal is therefore, partially allowed as already announced in the open Court.
............
|
