|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 286 Records
-
1999 (6) TMI 308 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Duty liability - Manufacture - Registration certificate - Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... credit on capital goods. This is not a ground for denial of licence or non-levy of duty. In case the processes have resulted in emergence of goods, can the department refuse to collect duty on the same on the ground that the assessee is required to be granted the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods? Such a plea is frivolous and does not meet the eye of the law. The authorities are required to consider as to whether the process carried out by the respondents had resulted in manufacture of excisable and specified goods in terms of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and if so then the respondents are required to be issued with licence and the goods be cleared on payment of duty in terms of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to re-examine all the issues in the light of the observations noted above after granting fair opportunity of hearing to the respondents in the matter.
-
1999 (6) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - Iron and steel products - Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... billets were manufactured by M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd. and were non-duty paid. Since non-duty paid character of the M.S. Billets in the instant case was established, we, therefore, hold that deemed Modvat credit was wrongly taken by the appellants. In this view of the matter, the appeal on this count falls. 13. emsp In so far as imposition of penalty is concerned we find that the appellants had wrongly taken Deemed Modvat credit knowing fully that no duty was paid on these goods, therefore, penalty is imposable. However, looking to the facts of the case as held above, we find that the penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- is too harsh, the same is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. 14. emsp Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the above discussions, we hold that confiscation of land, plant, building and machinery is not justifiable and the order of confiscation of land, plant, building and machinery is, therefore, set aside. 15. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (6) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... and these appeals to the original adjudicating authority to examine the question whether the appellants had disclosed the manufacturing process to the excise authorities at the relevant time and also to see whether any report of Chemical Examiner of the samples taken at the relevant time in 1987 is available. The classification issue has to be decided on the basis of examination of the said material. In other words the limitation issue and the classification issue have to be gone into de novo. The adjudicating authority would therefore, readjudicate the matter after affording an opportunity to the appellants herein to make their submissions and produce all the relevant evidence at the de novo proceedings. 4. emsp As a result, we remand these three appeals to the adjudicating authority to decide the classification as well as the limitation issue afresh on the basis of evidence that may be submitted. 5. emsp We allow the Appeals by remand after setting aside the impugned order.
-
1999 (6) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... als (P) Ltd. to deposit Rs. 2,00,00,000- (Rupees Two crores only) towards the duty confirmed. We also direct S/Shri Sohail Iqbal and Sameer Iqbal to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs only) each. The part played by the other noticees is relatively minor. The condition of pre-deposit of the penalty imposed upon them is, therefore, waived in toto. 17. emsp On the sum directed to be deposited above, there shall be waiver and stay of penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- . (Rupees thirty lakhs only) imposed upon M/s. Myco Electricals (P) Ltd. 18. emsp The sums are required to deposited within two months of the receipt of this order. 19. emsp We permit the assessees to utilise the plant, building etc. on their giving an undertaking to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to the effect that during the pendency and until the completion of the proceedings, they shall not sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise part with any land, plant, building etc. or any part thereof.
-
1999 (6) TMI 301 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ollector has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before issuing the show cause notice. His purpose of writing the aforesaid letter appears to be to merely save the proceedings initiated by the Superintendent which was ab initio untenable. On this short ground alone, the appellants succeed and the impugned Order deserves to be set aside. 9. emsp However, we find even on merits regarding the clandestine removal of MRN the Revenue does not have a good case inasmuch as it is merely based on unreasonable inferences drawn from alleged insufficient explanation given by the appellants. As rightly pointed by the Ld. Representative the case of clandestine removal has to be based on positive evidence. Such an evidence is lacking in the present case. Therefore the demand of duty would not be sustainable even on merits. 10. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned Order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (6) TMI 300 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Valuation - Mis-declaration ... ... ... ... ..... basis for arriving at the factory gate price in Metal Box case (as the price lists were filed in Part-II of the price lists proforma) the same is not the case here. 34. emsp After taking into account all the relevant facts and considerations, I agree with the Order proposed by the ld. Member (J). Sd/- Lajja Ram Member (T) FINAL ORDER (i) Demand of duty of Rs. 7,05,95,368.00 (Rupees seven crore five lakh ninety-five thousand three hundred sixty-eight) only is set aside (ii) Demand of duty of Rs. 48,48,500.00 (Rupees forty-eight lakh forty-eight thousand five hundred) only is set aside (iii) Demand of duty of Rs. 58,96,580.00 (Rupees fifty-eight lakh ninety-six thousand five hundred eighty) only is confirmed (iv) Penalty on M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd. is reduced to Rs. 10,00,000.00 (Rupees ten lakh) only (v) Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh) only imposed on Shri P.K. Goenka is set aside. Sd/- emsp emsp (Archana Wadhwa) Member (J) emsp Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Vice President
-
1999 (6) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ed either in the manner of production or otherwise. In these circumstances, the decision of the Appellate Collector rendered in the appeal, which was a judicial one cannot be changed by the second respondent in the subsequent year without any change of circumstances. Hence it follows that the present impugned order is wholly unsustainable and it has to be quashed rdquo . 7. emsp The ratio extracted above, in our view, clearly applies to the present case inasmuch as in that case also the Appellate Collector had decided the matter judicially as regards the classification of the goods and that order had become final. It was held by the Hon rsquo ble High Court that it was not open to a Coordinate authority to pass an order entirely contrary to the earlier order as regards classification when there was no change of circumstances. 8. emsp Following the ratio of the said judgment, we allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned order as already announced in open court on 10-6-1999.
-
1999 (6) TMI 298 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... rectly arrived at. 10. emsp In view of the aforesaid findings, we set aside that part of the Order-in-Original impugned, which confirms demand for duty under proviso to Section 11A amounting to Rs. 3,40,38,111.19. However, we uphold the Order-in-Original impugned wherein it has demanded recovery of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,26,622.93 under Rule 57(I), as the same is correctly done under law. 11. emsp The only matter now left for consideration is the quantum of penalty imposed Rs. 1,50,00,000/- We find that since the major quantum of demand does not survive being time barred, therefore, this penalty amount needs to be reduced accordingly. Since the demand now confirmed is only under Rule 57(I) is of Rs. 1,26,622.93. Therefore, taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the order-in-original impugned is modified to the extent that the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). 12. emsp The appeal is partly allowed, as per the above orders.
-
1999 (6) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rolling - not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 281/86-C.E. - Interpretation of Statutes
-
1999 (6) TMI 296 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... as includible in the assessable value of bilingual typewriters. 12. emsp Other issues have also been discussed in the Order-in-Original and in the Order-in-Appeal and we do not find any infirmity in the views taken therein. 13. emsp As regards the plea of the Modvat credit, the appellants had not brought the second language daisy wheel in their factory premises. This plea had not been raised earlier and had not been discussed by the lower authorities. They may however, raise this plea before the proper officers, who will examine the plea on merits under the relevant provisions of the law. We make it clear that the benefit of the Modvat credit if otherwise admissible under the law, will not be denied only on the sole ground that the required declaration had not been filed by the appellants before the supply of the second language daisy wheels to the customers of the bilingual electronic typewriters. With these observations, all the 12 appeals are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (6) TMI 277 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ery clear that the appellant was not at all aware of the fact that she was in knowledge of the fact that her friend was carrying the hashish across the border. This is a simple case of young girl following into the hands of a bad character. Merely because, the appellant talked to Mr. Karma Dorjee in Nepal when he was staying there and went to receive him on the Customs border are not indicative of the fact that she was assisting the smuggling activities of Mr. Karma Dorjee. There is no evidence against the appellant to arrive at such a finding. On the contrary, the evidences on record clearly establish her innocence. As such, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold the appellant rsquo s guilty and to impose personal penalty upon her. As such, the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is set aside. The impugned order, in so far as the same relates to the appellant, is modified as indicated above and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief to her.
-
1999 (6) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may believe in the existence of the facts in issue. Perhaps in this case this could have been done by establishing as far as possible, the source of acquisition of the machines so as to establish, or at least attempt to establish the legal sources of import. An obvious method to proceed would have been to pursue the matter by confronting C.U. Shah with the claim of the person who returned to him, and with the bank accounts. This has also not been done and it has not been shown only it could not be done. There is a difference between the extent of probability in proving the case, and not in attempting to prove it at all. 10. emsp Despite strong ground for suspicion, we do not find a basis for the finding that the goods were smuggled. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into other aspect of the case. Confiscation of the goods therefore is not sustainable and therefore penalty not imposable. Appeals allowed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ower Industries Ltd. to deposit Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) towards the duty confirmed. We also direct Shri Sohail Iqbal to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). The part played by the other noticees is relatively minor. The condition of pre-deposit of the penalty imposed upon them is, therefore, waived in toto. 16. emsp On the sums directed to be deposited above, there shall be waiver and stay of penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs only) imposed upon M/s. Continental Telepower Industries Ltd. 17. emsp The sums are required to be deposited within two months of the receipt of this order. 18. emsp We permit the assessees to utilise the plant, building etc. on their giving an undertaking to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to the effect that during the pendency and until the completion of the proceedings, they shall not sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise part with any land, plant, building etc. or any part thereof.
-
1999 (6) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... t been manufactured cannot be included. As there is no examination of this issue done correctly by the authorities, therefore we are of the considered opinion that the matter has to go back to the original authority for de novo consideration and for verification of the evidence on record with regard to those resultant products which have been manufactured in terms of debit notes which were seized by the Department. The Department cannot raise demands in respect of debit notes towards mould development charges for the respective periods on which no resultant product has been manufactured. Therefore, we remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration by setting aside the impugned order in terms of the findings arrived at by us and in view of the judgment cited supra. Appellants are required to be given an opportunity of hearing to put forth their case and explain the evidence on record. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority.
-
1999 (6) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods - Clay Graphite Stopper Head ... ... ... ... ..... ligible to Modvat credit or not. This credit may be admissible as inputs on certain items and as capital goods in respect of other items. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the issue decided by this Tribunal in its various decisions, we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on all the items except CTD Bars, Rough Forged Blank and Patra Line Metal. Ld. JDR had serious objection about admissibility of Modvat credit on Clay Graphite Stopper Head. We note that a laddle is used for carrying metal mould, thus it is part of the handling equipment. This Tribunal in a number of cases has held that the material handling equipment is capital goods and is admissible to Modvat credit. We do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of this Tribunal. Recently, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd. case 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 examined this issue and supports our finding in respect of above items. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (6) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty for special industrial purposes - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... mission of the proper Officer as such. The wording used in the said letters only show the intention of the appellants to divert part of the cut tobacco for manufacture of items meant for export. The letters only conveyed their said intention to the Superintendent of C.E. Mere conveying of such intention is not proper compliance of the requirement of Rule 196A, as has been rightly held by the Collector (Appeals). We also do not accept the argument of the appellants rsquo Counsel that the lapse, if any, on appellants rsquo part was only procedural and not substantive. We hold that the requirement of obtaining previous approval of proper Officer under Rule 196A (which is very much part of Chapter X) is not a mere technical formality non-compliance of which can be treated as a mere procedural lapse. 4. emsp In the above view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned order. The same is confirmed. 5. emsp This appeal is, as a result, dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 258 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... (131) ITR 59 , Sole Trustee Lokikshan Trust, 1976 TLR - page 1, CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra reported in 1983 (4) SCC 392 are relevant in the instant case wherein the Supreme Court laid down that if any amendment was being brought forward by the Finance Minister, his speech justifying the amendment would be relevant as it would throw considerable light on the budget and the purpose of amendment and his speech would be a proper aid to as correct interpretation of the words in this amendment. 7. emsp I find that the adjudicating authority allowed the credit of Rs. 5,59,360/- on Electric Motors and Diesel generating Sets, and disallowed the credit of Rs. 2,76,167/- on UPS System, Boost charges, Batteries and Capacitors. 8. emsp In view of the above discussion, I set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the lower authority and allow the credit on UPS System and its components namely boost charges and batteries and capacitors. 9. emsp The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
-
1999 (6) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Static Converter - Additional function ... ... ... ... ..... ated. It is under that the primary function is converting and not control over the electric motor. The simultaneous actor of transformer of electrical value in order to ensure its supply is not significant so far as the classification under consideration is done are classifiable under 85.04. A reading of the literature makes it clear that the motor converter function of this apparatus are clearly subsidiary and follow upon the primary function of static converters. 7. As the advocate for the respondent points out, the Collector (Appeals) has by a process of careful reasoning and after considering the evidence of technically competent personnel of the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute, Mumbai, an institute as of great repute, and the Department of Electronics of the Government of India. There is neither reasoning nor technical evidence in the department rsquo s appeal which impel us to conclude that he was in error. We therefore see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Return of defective goods in the factory - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... appellants that the price declared in Part II of the price list included the future repairs during the warranty period, is not sustainable in law. Thus the appellants fail on merits of the case. 8. emsp Ld.Counsel submits that the demand is hit by limitation. In the instant case the SCN was issued 18 months after last date of demand. We note that the goods received under provisions of Rule 173H are required to be entered among other records in Form-V. Categorical findings are there in the order that the relevant entries in Form-V register were left blank. Though different SCNs were being issued from time to time but those SCNs are not relevant for the present enquiry. Thus there was suppression and mis-statement. There is force in the contention of the ld. SDR that there was intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore plea of the appellants on limitation fails. 9. emsp Having regard to the above discussions and findings, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (6) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tmental contention. 4. emsp On a careful consideration, we notice that the item in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. is same as the one in the present case. The Tribunal after considering all the material evidence including the HSN tariff notes, disagreed with the department rsquo s view of classifying the product under sub-heading 34.04 including the claim for classification under 34.03, the Tribunal after detailed consideration held that the product. ldquo ALUSIL SOLUTION rdquo prepared by dispersion of Match Wax in water with the addition of few other items is excisable and dutiable and that it is required to be classified only under sub-heading 3809 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. We notice that the facts being the same, the judgment of the Tribunal applies to the facts of the present case. As the item in the present case which is ALUSIL SOLUTION which is classifiable only under sub-heading 3809.00 of Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the appellant, the appeal is allowed.
........
|
