|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 675 Records
-
2000 (11) TMI 1051 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Natural justice - Non-speaking order - Modvat - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... der impugned is not a speaking order. (iii) The Commissioner has not given any reasons as to why such huge penalties imposed on the appellants? There has to be a clear cut finding as to how Section 173Q(1)(bb) is attracted and as to whether there is an intention to evade duty in the matter and as to whether the provisions of Rule 173Q(1) has been violated or not? Without examining the provisions, and merely proceeded to impose such a huge penalty would call for interference from the Tribunal and for remanding the matter for de novo consideration. 6. emsp In view of the above, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration in the light of the findings recorded above. The appellants shall be given full opportunity of hearing for proper adjudication of the issue in question. A detailed speaking order shall be recorded on all grounds raised by the appellants. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1050 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... ons as contained therein, for the Central Excise authorities to initiate fresh proceedings on this issue, if they so desire, but the same cannot be introduced through a back door method. The learned Advocate, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order. 4. emsp Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates and supports the reasoning of the authorities below. 5. emsp We have heard both sides and have gone through the relevant documents on record. We find that the issues taken up by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) were clearly outside the scope of the Show Cause Notice and as such, the Adjudicating Authority could not and in fact did not deal with the same. As such, Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in his judgment in accepting the application of the Commissioner under Section 35E(2) ibid. We, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the learned Advocate. Accordingly, we set aside the order impugned. 6. emsp The appeal is thus allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1022 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Deductions - Exporters ... ... ... ... ..... ot be presumed to be one covered by Explanation (baa ) to section 80HHC. In fact Assessing Officer was required to obtain further details before he could embark upon to make prima facie adjustments, which is not permissible within the scope of section 143(1)(a). It is settled law, proceedings under section 143(1)(a) insofar as it enabled an Assessing Officer to make prima facie adjustments are not open to decide those issues which are debatable or which require further facts to be investigated. In fact re-calculation of the deduction under section 80HHC on the lines made by the Assessing Officer in any case was not permissible within the meaning of section 143(1)(a). Moreover, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the immediately preceding year also by the Hon ble Tribunal in ITA No. 324/Hyd./96. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by ld. CIT(A) in this year also and accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1021 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Business income ... ... ... ... ..... nnot be decided on the face of the return and it requires production of evidence and long drawn process of reasoning. Therefore, such disallowance can under no circumstances be made within the provisions of section 143(1)(a) which have got limited application. Even on the basis of the logic advanced by the Assessing Officer given in the intimation, prima facie adjustment could not be made because it cannot be said that expenses under the head other sources of income are not allowable. It seems that the Assessing Officer was oblivious to the existance of section 57 on the statute. Therefore, also action of Assessing Officer in making prima facie adjustment for the reason mentioned in the intimation also cannot be upheld. 6. Therefore, we reverse the orders passed by the authorities below and hold that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) were not made in accordance with law, which are accordingly deleted. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1011 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ts pertaining to the property of Shri Deen Dayal Didwania. In fact, the documents bear the title ldquo GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY rdquo . On the other hand, the citations made in the Customs (Appeals) Rules require a specific or Special Power of Attorney. Since the Power of Attorney held by Shri Nitin Didwania does not enable him to file the appeal, it has to be held that the appeal filed by him on behalf of Shri Deen Dayal Didwania are not validly filed. 20. emsp The appeals filed by Shri Nitin Didwania on behalf of Shri Navnit Didwania are in pursuance of similarly worded General Power of Attorney. For that reasons, it is to be held that those appeals are also improperly filed. 21. emsp It is therefore not necessary to dwell on the controversy as to whether the appellants Didwania had ldquo fled the country rdquo or not. 22. emsp These appeals thus merit dismissal at the threshold stage and they are accordingly dismissed. Consequently the applications also stand disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1003 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... at the samples drawn before the RG I stage, are not liable for central excise duty. 2. emsp Heard both sides. 3. emsp The Revenue filed this appeal only on the ground that the appeal has been filed against the earlier decision of the Tribunal, but the Revenue has not produced any order setting aside or modifying the earlier order of the Tribunal. In the absence of any contrary decision, produced by the Revenue, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1002 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... appellant, a steel mill, to the Steel Development Fund, Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund and Joint Plant Committee Cess are includible in the assessable value of the iron and steel products manufactured by the appellant cannot be sustained. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in SAIL v. CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 249 has held these charges not to be includible in the assessable value. 3. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (11) TMI 987 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Restoration of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... e applicant to deposit rupees one lakh as a pre-condition to hearing of the appeal. The date for compliance was 7-12-1998. On 17-11-1999 vide order No. C-I/2950-55/WZB/1999 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to comply with the order. The present application seeks restoration of the appeal. 2. emsp The claim made in the application is that they did not know about the hearing scheduled of their stay application. It is claimed that this failure to deposit is on that ground. 3. emsp Due and sufficient notice was given. The applicant further failed to appear nor was he represented. 4. emsp We observe that the applicant was represented by counsel. The order directing the applicant to deposit the amount was dictated in court in the presence of the counsel. Therefore the applicant rsquo s plea that he was not aware of the hearing is misplaced. We find no merit in this application and dismiss the same.
-
2000 (11) TMI 986 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... conduct of immediate compliance indicating the same lead me to the finding that no penalty is called for. (f) emsp In the present case penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed by the lower authority considering the lenient view taken by him which is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- in the order prepared by learned M (T). However no reasons have been arrived at as to why Rs. 3 lakhs was excessive and Rs. 50,000/- should be justified. To my mind, no imposition of penalty in this case was called for. 25. emsp In view of my findings, I would respectfully agree with the findings of learned M (J) and cannot persuade myself to accept the findings of learned M (T) and consider imposition of penalty in this case under Rule 173Q(1)(a) (b) (c). The matter may be placed before the original Bench for further orders. Sd/- (S.S. Sekhon) Member (T) FINAL ORDER In the light of the majority view, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. Sd/- (V.K. Agrawal) Member (T) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J)
-
2000 (11) TMI 985 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal dismissed without hearing the appellant - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... considered by the authority without passing the order on the stay application. That decision does not hold that the appeal itself could be disposed of. Disposing of an application for stay is entirely different from disposing of an appeal The Gujarat High Court in the case of Ricoh India Ltd. v. UOl 2000 (125) E.L.T. 469 (Guj.) 1999 (34) RLT 231 has held that in disposing of the applications of this nature the adjudicating authority should give a personal hearing. The said decision of the Gujarat High Court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jesus Sales Corporation. This Tribunal in several cases including the case of Entek IRD International (India) Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 515 has followed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. Hence we allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the appellate authority to deal with the entire matter in accordance with law. In view thereof the stay petitions also stand disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 984 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM - DEPB - Connivance - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ons of purchase of duty free goods was deemed to be aware of the fact that he had mis-represented his proprietary unit registered under the SSI and after being eligible user. Shri Phadnis states that the state of evidence does not show that he was aware of the fact that the subject goods were imported under the obligation of fulfilment of post importation conditions. We observe that there is no direct evidence to that effect but that the conduct of the parties is sufficient indication. We also find that in the letter dated 3-5-1990 which is in the nature of confirmation of purchase of goods, a reference is made to the copy of the SSI registration. Such a reference is not required in an ordinary transaction of purchase of imported goods. This statement would establish that the buyers Ganesh Industries were aware of the fact of purchase of duty free goods. 13. emsp In the result the appeal filed by Abhyankar is dismissed. The other appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
2000 (11) TMI 979 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation of goods - Bushellings scrap - Imports - Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, there is no case or cause for determination of penalties under Section 114A and/or 112A as arrived at by the ld. Commissioner. Hence, the penalties imposed are, also required to be set aside. 7. emsp In view of our findings, the Redemption Fine, duty and penalties are set aside and the appeals are allowed subject to mutilation of the serviceable goods as held above. 8. emsp At this stage, ld. Advocate submits to the bench to give a direction to the Commissioner for waiver of demurrage charges in the light of the decision in the case of Sujana Steels 2000 (115) E.L.T. 539 (T) 1999 (34) RLT 672 following the earlier decision in the case of Indian Cable Co. as reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) and Garware Nylon case as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) 1996 (16) RLT 619 (S.C.). Waiver in the facts of this case is recommended to the Collector by issuing necessary certificate to the concerned authority as regards the demurrage.
-
2000 (11) TMI 977 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appellate Tribunal - Inherent powers ... ... ... ... ..... ides. rdquo 5. emsp When the application was called out today Smt. Reena Arya informed us that to her knowledge no submissions were filed by the respondent Commissioner. 6. emsp The Bench is today hearing an appeal involving the issue of the inherent powers of the Tribunal, in making certain orders in furtherance of their orders. On perusal of the facts of the present case we are satisfied that the present application need not await the outcome of the decision. In terms of Rule 40 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, the Tribunal has powers to make directions to the departmental authorities in relation to the matter arriving out of the exercise of the powers of the Tribunal. The first cited order as well as the second cited orders were made in exercise of the powers vested in us, in terms of Section 129B (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. emsp We, therefore, direct the Jurisdictional Commissioner, the Respondent in this case to grant the refund and to report compliance by 25-1-2001.
-
2000 (11) TMI 976 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... ame by the Tribunal. The present application has been filed seeking sympathy of the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal. If such is the position, it need not be mentioned but we are forced to mention that the applicant should be very diligent, careful and industrious in filing the proper application in the proper way and giving copies to the other side. It must be borne in mind that it is not an empty formality to give copy on the other side because the other side has an invaluable right of raising objection if the papers filed are not in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules. It should be borne in mind especially by this Commissionerate that instances have come to the notice of the Tribunal that the Commissionerate is not taking proper care in filing the appeals and applications before this Tribunal. With a heavy heart we are forced to make this observation. For non-compliance of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, we are forced to dismiss the present application.
-
2000 (11) TMI 975 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Bought-out items ... ... ... ... ..... umaran that this issue has also been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of VST Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 395. 6. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Triveni Engineering and Indus. Ltd., we hold that installation or erection of turbo alternator is not excisable goods. As regards interest on advances, also we find that this issue is well covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of VST Industries Ltd. (Supra). 7. emsp Since the matter has already been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) with reference to duty short paid on various individual clearances, that issue may be looked into afresh by the concerned Adjudicating Authority and to determine the value in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the assessee. Thus, all these appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (11) TMI 974 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ove finding, the authorities below have relied upon the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Collector v. Gavs Laboratories (P) Ltd. reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 717 (T). However, it is seen that the facts of the said case are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. On the other hand, I find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Dhayana Electronic Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 905 (T), after considering the above decision in the case of Gavs Laboratories, has observed that the benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the goods have been exported under Bond by merchant exporters. As in the instant case, there is no dispute that the goods have, in fact, been exported, by applying the ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal, I find the denial of Modvat credit to be not justified. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 972 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nputs. One prescribed concessional rate of duty and the other one granted clearance free of duty. The manufacturers of the inputs chose to pay the concessional rate of duty instead of availing of the other notification. When the recipient manufacturer who is the respondent today took the credit, the credit was denied in the impugned proceedings. 4. emsp The Respondent relied upon the Tribunal rsquo s order Nos. C-I/2101-2110, dated 2-6-2000. Paragraph 9 thereof says - ldquo if an assessee choose not to avail of an exemption notification, it cannot be said that he is in effect exercising an option to avail or not to avail the parliamentary will. It is the same legislature which has provided him two rates of duty one of which he is required to follow. rdquo 5. emsp Thus the Revenue cannot force the first manufacturer as to the availment of a particular notification. Consequently, the recipient manufacturer cannot be deprived of the credit. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 971 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 3. emsp Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreign Trade Development Act, 1992 provides for issue of an order prohibiting, restricting or regulating export of goods. Sub-section (3) provides that goods in respect of which an order under sub-section (2) of that section has been issued shall be deemed to be prohibited. The contention of the advocate for the applicant that no order under sub-section (2) of Section (3) has been issued in respect of plastic beads is not challenged by the Departmental Representative. It would then follow that there was no illegality in exporting the goods. 4. emsp On this prima facie view we waive deposit of the penalty imposed on the applicant, and stay its recovery.
-
2000 (11) TMI 970 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Concrete Mix - Ready Mix Concrete - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Board rsquo s Circulars mentioned and extracted in my learned Brother rsquo s order would lead to a firm conclusion, that there was a definite understanding regarding the doubts regarding the excisibility of the process and the product being entertained by the assessees and the department. Data on the pending assessments/disputes was therefore sought and was under collection. That should have been considered under Section 11C of the Act. The Board rsquo s instructions dated 12-8-1996 do not indicate what decision, if any, has been arrived at by the Central Government as regards the data collected on lsquo Ready Mix Concrete rsquo in pursuance of the Circulars in this case. In that case, I would find that there can be no charges of a kind envisaged in the proviso clause to Section 11A(1) which could be invoked, or that demands under Section 11A(1) proviso should at all be determined. 16. emsp Consequently, I would allow both the appeals after setting aside the orders impugned.
-
2000 (11) TMI 969 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... of CCE v The Enfield India Ltd. as reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 654, wherein 20 of the sales was to persons other than related and there was nothing to show that 20 buyers would not have got more than 20 , if they so opted. Such a price to unrelated independent buyer would have to be applied to sales to a related person. In the present case, we have 25 of such sales, with nothing to show that it could not be more than that therefore, we cannot come to a conclusion that goods were generally sold through a related person to attract the proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a). Moreover, mutuality of interest in the business of each other is also required to be established. No contrary decision was shown to us. The normal price is therefore, required to be re-determined in this matter. 3. emsp In this view of the matter, we set aside the order impugned and remand the matter back to the original authority to re-determine the issue as herein above. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
............
|
