|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 286 Records
-
1999 (6) TMI 249 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal-Restoration of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... and Chemicals Ltd. directly apply to the facts of the present case. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court had clearly noted that there has to be justification for restoration of appeal and if the party has not exercised the diligence, then the litigant should suffer, therefore, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of High Court and dismissed the Writ Petition for default. The said judgement of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court clearly applies to the facts of the present case including the Tribunal rsquo s judgement rendered in the case of GTC Industries and Standard Audio and Video Pvt. Ltd., as there are no bona fides by the appellants and deliberately they have not pre-deposited the amounts from 1993 to 1998 and as the Tribunal had already rejected their appeal and refused to restore their appeal earlier, hence it is not proper for the Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction to restore the appeal in this case. Hence, the restoration application is rejected.
-
1999 (6) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... hat this was the submission made by the counsel for M/s. Lumel Shades (P) Ltd. and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had not agreed with this view of the assessee. On the other hand, he had relied upon the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Premier Rubber and Trades v. C.C.E. - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal), where the Tribunal had held that exemption to the goods of one heading was restricted to Rs. 15 lakhs. We do not consider that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken the view as has been ascribed to him in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. He has only made general observations that the provisions of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. will be applicable and the benefit will be governed by the principles as laid-down by the Tribunal in the order referred to above. 4. emsp Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (6) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... for the party in the matter. After going through the records both have stated that vide reference Order No. 96/96, dated 15-7-1996 passed by the Tribunal on the reference application filed by the Revenue in Appeal No. E/477/95, the earlier order of the Tribunal was recalled for re-hearing vide Order No. 96/96, dated 15-7-1996 and the matter was re-heard and the appeal was dismissed by Tribunal Order No. 2022/96, dated 12-9-1996. 4. emsp On consideration of the submissions made, we notice that the single Member Bench had passed an order bearing No. 15/95, dated 20-10-1995 in Appeal No. E/477/95. However, this order has been re-called by the Bench on the reference application filed by the Revenue vide Order No. 96/96, dated 15-7-1996 and Appeal No. E/477/95 was re-heard on 12-9-1996 and the party rsquo s appeal has been dismissed vide Order No. 2022/96, dated 12-9-1996. Therefore, we clarify these facts by allowing the Rectification of Mistake application filed by the Revenue.
-
1999 (6) TMI 246 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... tems are not capital goods within the meaning of Explanation 1(a) under Rule 57Q as it stood during the relevant period. 5. Following the ratio of this decision, the capital goods credit is available to the appellants in respect of Frequency converter and Motor protection switches as these are necessary goods for the appellants to carry on production. I observe that the function performed by ACB 2500 Amp has not been brought on record clearly as it is only mentioned that it was used for protecting the electrical circuit. It is, therefore, necessary to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to verify the use of ACB 25000 Amp and, applying the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills Ltd. case, decide its eligibility to the capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rule. In view of these facts and circumstances the penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed on the appellants is also set aside. 6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1999 (6) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of vehicle ... ... ... ... ..... for fresh consideration to enable the appellant to explain the position before the adjudicating authority. 3. emsp Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to support the contention of the appellant, a borne out in the telegram, dated 25-10-1997, that they have not received notice of hearing. 4. emsp We have heard the rival submissions and perused the evidence. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had been sent notice of hearing which reached one day later than the date fixed for hearing, and thereby the appellant were deprived of an opportunity to explain their case that they were legal owner of the vehicle, we set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to confiscation and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication on this aspect, after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard in person. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (6) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Job worker - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... lable to him, cannot be denied merely because the buyer is a person who is not capable of benefitting under that Notification. Notification No. 175/86 does not say this except where the goods bear brand name of the buyer who is not eligible to the benefit of that notification. This is not the charge as per the show cause notice which relies upon a trade notice, contents of which do not follow the Supreme Court rsquo s cited judgment. It is futile for the Collector to have gone into the Rule 57F(2) which permitted only processing to be undertaken by the job worker and not complete manufacture of any goods. His hypothetical examples are equally of no relevance. On perusal of the orders and the case law, it is clear that the orders do not sustain and, therefore, are to be set aside. We do so and allow this appeal. Directions are made for consequential relief. rdquo 5. emsp Following the aforesaid Tribunal rsquo s decision, all these five appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (6) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he issue of this clarification by way of trade notice, there was genuine doubt regarding the classification of the poultry cages, the adjudicating authority had extended the benefit of doubt with regard to the demand prior to 8-10-1990 and against the demand of Rs. 9,52,633.50 as made in the show cause notice dated 19-2-1992, he had confirmed only a demand of Rs. 64,330.20. 4. emsp Other issues raised by the appellants had also been discussed by the adjudicating authority in paras 13 to 16 of the order. 5. emsp After going through the facts on record, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore. However, keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Subject to this reduction in the amount of penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (6) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Maintainability of ... ... ... ... ..... 35B which provides that ldquo the Tribunal has discretion to refuse to admit an appeal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A or an order passed by the CBEC... or an order passed by the Board or the Commissioner of Central Excise.... in any disputed case where the difference in duty involved or the duty or the amount of fine or the penalty determined by such order does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. rdquo Since the Tribunal rsquo s final order is not an order passed under Section 35C, Reference application is not maintainable since an application for reference can be filed under the provisions of Section 35G only against an order passed under Section 35C (not being an order relating among other things to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for purposes of assessment). I, therefore, uphold the objection of the respondents and reject the Reference Application as not maintainable.
-
1999 (6) TMI 241 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Reference Application signed by Asstt. Commissioner duly authorised by Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... at reference application having been signed by the AC should be accepted as the Commissioner has powers to authorise the Asst. Commissioner to file reference application. 6. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions, and on perusal of the Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, we notice that the Section does not grant power to the Commissioner to delegate his powers to any other officers to file reference application. This position is available in so far as filing of the appeals are concerned, under Section 129A of the Customs Act. 7. emsp However, as regards the reference application, the application has to be filed only by the Commissioner alone and not by the delegated officer. The citations referred to apply to the facts of the present case and this has been also applied by this Bench in the case of C.C., Cochin v. Motisons International in Reference Order No. 17/99, dated 30-3-1999 . In view of this position, this reference application is rejected as not maintainable.
-
1999 (6) TMI 240 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Departmental clarification ... ... ... ... ..... vision Bench. Furthermore, as rightly distinguished by the Id. Consultant that no manufacturing process took place in the Krishna Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. case. The facts are not at all four corners of the present case where the defective final product received back by the respondents was remelted along with other inputs and was re-manufactured into fresh final product. Shri Roy, ld. JDR at this stage, points that there is a Board rsquo s Circular relied upon by the adjudicating authority as well as in the grounds of appeal. However, in view of the settled position of law by way of various judicial pronouncements, there is no occasion to go into the Board rsquo s Circular inasmuch as it is a settled law that the Board rsquo s Circular cannot be a substitute for the legal precedents. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject both the appeals filed by the Revenue. Cross-objection filed by the respondents is also disposed of.
-
1999 (6) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Documents ... ... ... ... ..... ter showing details of Debit and Credit entries 3. emsp File containing invoices (1995-96) 4. emsp File containing invoices of M/s. Shyam Ravinder 5. emsp Sales Tax File 6. emsp File containing details of Banks Statement of Account and other Misc. papers. 7. emsp The letter dated 17-11-1997 produced by the Revenue shows that all the record taken into possession vide Annexure lsquo B rsquo have not been returned even on the request of the appellants to prepre the defence. The letter dated 17-11-1997 shows only file containing invoices and file containing details of Bank Statements were given to Shri Sapra. Therefore, in these circumstances prima facie I find the balance of convenience is in favour of the appellants. Therefore, the application is allowed. Deposit of total duty demand and penalty is waived for the hearing of the appeal and the recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 8. emsp Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing on 6-8-1999.
-
1999 (6) TMI 226 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... pugned. 8. emsp On a careful consideration of the rival submissions and records of the case, we find that the matter is no longer res integra, as this issue has been decided under the citations noted supra. We find in this case a perusal of the label shows that the words ldquo Ameron U.S.A. rdquo pertained to name of the company, which has supplied the technology and has licenced the present appellants to manufacture the same in accordance with the technology. This is the name of the company i.e. lsquo house mark rsquo , and not a brand name. Similarly, the product is being marketed by Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., which is also name of the company and can by no stretch of imagination be called as brand name. Therefore, applying the ratio of the above cited decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that there is a great merit in this appeal and the Order-in-Appeal impugned is, therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
1999 (6) TMI 225 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... as to what goods are to be treated as capital goods have been dealt in these cases. The ratio applies to the present case. The Tribunal in the present type of cases has been dismissing revenue appeals pertaining to this item including the item of lubricating oil which has been treated as capital goods in the judgments noted supra. Therefore, the issue is conclusive in nature and it is not possible to again refer the matter to the Larger Bench as three Larger Bench have considered and all dealt with the issues in one way or the other. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment of NGEF Ltd. cited supra is over-ruled by subsequent Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal rsquo s following subsequent judgment vide final order No. 1305 and 1306/99, dated 4-6-1999 is required again to be applied in batch of these cases. 8. emsp By such application, I find there is no merit in the appeals of the revenue and hence all the three appeals are rejected.
-
1999 (6) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal against provisional assessment of RT 12 returns ... ... ... ... ..... 12 returns. For this, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 688. We have perused the decision of the Tribunal. The facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case. In the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., the Tribunal held that the appeal against the provisional approval of the price list is maintainable, whereas in the present case, the Supdt. (C.E.) provisionally assessed the RT 12 returns. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order, further, directed the Supdt. to decide the case finally or to put the matter to the Assistant Collector for passing a speaking order on the issue in dispute. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order simply has given direction to the lower authorities to decide the issue as early as possible. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (6) TMI 223 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appellate Tribunal - Powers of ... ... ... ... ..... e appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. emsp We have considered the submissions of both sides. The question of the provisions of Section 9 of I.D.R.A. being ultra vires the Constitution cannot be agitated before the Tribunal and we are not competent to give any finding thereon. 6. emsp As regards the question whether the Jute Cess is leviable on jute products/manufactures used captively, is now settled by Apex Court Judgment in the case of Baranagar Jute Factory (supra). This question, therefore, is already settled against the appellants. We also observe, as rightly pointed out by the learned J.D.R., Shri R.K. Roy that there is no Stay Order against the Tribunal for proceeding with the appeal filed before us. In the circumstances, following respectfully the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Baranagar Jute Factory, we hold that the Cess is leviable on jute fabrics used captively in the manufacture of jute bags. In this view, we reject the appeal of the appellants herein.
-
1999 (6) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ng of refractory bricks and this material is dug out before relining of the furnace is carried out and this is not a manufactured item. There is no material change in the definition of manufacture as contained in Section 2(f) prior to 1-3-1986 and thereafter and Heading 26.20 covers Ash residues rsquo other than from the manufacture of iron and steel containing metals or metallic compounds is not per se sufficient for determining the excisability without determining whether the items came into existence as a result of manufacture. Therefore, ratio of the Supreme Court judgment delivered in Indian Aluminium Co. applies to this case. Criteria of marketability, an essential ingredient for dutiability is also not satisfied. Therefore, the items are not goods rsquo within the meaning of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 5. emsp Following the ratio of the Tribunal decision which is based on Supreme Court decision in Indian Aluminium case, rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1999 (6) TMI 221 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ision cited supra however, I do not agree that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills alters the position that tungsten wire is to be regarded as an input within the meaning of Rule 57A and is not one of the items falling in the excluded category. The Plea of the DR for reference to a Larger Bench on the issue whether the terms machines/machinery/plant, etc., used together should be considered as ejusdem generis or be given a wide connotation and whether any distinction can and should be made in interpreting the words ldquo inputs used in or in relation to manufacture rdquo and lsquo capital goods used in the factory for producing or processing etc. , in view of the exclusion clause in Rule 57A is also not accepted in view of the direct decision in the case of ECE Industries. I, therefore, hold that tungsten wire is entitled to input credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
-
1999 (6) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... 379 (CEGAT-Larger Bench). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be rejected. 4. emsp In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of starter coil and coils are allowed by the learned Commissioner and in the impugned order learned Commissioner held that starter coil and coils are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q even prior to 16-3-1995 and the contention of the Revenue in the appeal is that prior to 16-3-1995 these items are not covered under the definition of capital goods. 5. emsp The Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondents held that the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q includes machines, plants, tools and appliances used for producing or processing any goods for manufacture of final product even prior to Notification No. 11/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 and Notification No. 14/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. In view of the decisions of the Tribunal, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (6) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classifcation ... ... ... ... ..... he necessary arrangement for holding silver and releasing the same for spinning etc. they could not be considered as items of machinery. 6. emsp Learned Departmental Representative had referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes under Heading No. 84.48 where it had been mentioned that the roving or silver cans were to be classified according to their constituent material (Refer Page 1253 of the HSN Explanatory Notes Vol. 3). 7. emsp The Tribunal in the case of Unipol Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 372 (Tribunal) had observed that the Card cans did not satisfy the criteria of machinery parts and were basically the articles of plastics. 8. emsp Keeping in view the nature of the products, their usage and their constituent material, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Ahmedabad. We do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (6) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ut on Shri Narendra Mahajan (employee). G.C. Sacheti is stated to have appeared on behalf of all three. Elementary care was not taken on serving the summon on the proprietrix and getting the proper authority from G.C. Sancheti for stating on behalf of the appellant. 3.4 emsp Another feature of G.C. Sancheti rsquo s statement is that he exculpates his own firm M/s. Mool Chand Sujanmal regarding use of power but inculpates the appellant. Such a statement, on basic principles, cannot be admitted against the appellant. 3.5 emsp On the above grounds, Sancheti rsquo s statement cannot be relied upon to indict the appellant. Once this statement goes away, there is no evidence worth the name against the appellant. There is no eye-witness account on the days of raids for processing with the aid of power by the appellant. 3.6 emsp Thus the impugned order is not sustainable for lack of evidence. Hence, it is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
........
|
