|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 675 Records
-
2000 (11) TMI 967 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Animal feed supplement ... ... ... ... ..... d more generally ensure that the animal makes good use of the feed to safeguard its health. 5. emsp The reason advanced by the Collector, that the product is essentially a preparations of Tylosin which an active antibiotic is supplemented by the departmental representative, who says that M/s Eli Lilly Corporation is part of M/s Eli Corporation who is a well known manufacturer of antibiotic. This alone is not enough to classify the product as medicaments. The requirements in the tariff must be satisfied. 6. emsp Accordingly we allow this appeal holding that if the product is shown to have been used in making complete animal feed supplement it would be eligible for classification under the heading claimed by the appellant. The advocate for the appellant undertakes to produce before the Commissioner evidence to this effect within two months from the receipt of this order. The Commissioner shall, after considering the evidence, pass appropriate orders in accordance with our view.
-
2000 (11) TMI 964 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rom the date of the impugned order. This delay of three months can always be condoned by the Appellate Authority. Simply because there could be and there may be a delay in filing the appeal of 91 days, the appeal cannot be dismissed as time-barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellate Authority has erred in law in dismissing the appeals. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for considering the case in accordance with law on merits. 2. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The stay applications also stand disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 963 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Demand - 100% EOU ... ... ... ... ..... sioner had been informed regarding confirmation of duty demand as the demand of duty should be confirmed only after a definite conclusion has been arrived at by the Development Commissioner as regards extension of the export period as in the present case as prescribed by the Board also. Export period has been subsequently extended by the Development Commissioner up to 4/2000. Therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order following the earlier ratio of our decision, as cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants and decide stay applications and the appeals, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals as remand for re-consideration of the entire matter afresh in the light of the Board rsquo s instructions and the export which the appellants might have effected in and/or extension of the export period granted to them. 6. emsp In view of our findings above, the appeals are allowed as remand. The stay applications stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (11) TMI 962 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Input ... ... ... ... ..... oride which was used as a catalyst. After its usage spent palladium catalyst was obtained. They were clearing the said palladium catalyst under Rule 57F(2) for recovery of palladium chloride. The spent palladium catalyst was neither an input nor was it obtained while processing the input. It was considered as waste by the Asstt. Commissioner which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present appeal. 3. emsp Shri Sheth, Counsel appeared for the appellants and Shri Choubey, JDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. emsp The matter is not res integra. The Larger Bench in respect of the same appellants in Appeal Nos. E/733/97 in Final Order No. A/605-10/2000 NB(DB) dated 21-7-2000 reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 218 (T-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 745 has held in favour of the appellants. Hence, following the said judgment, we allow the appeal of the appellants and set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A) with consequential relief, if any, according to law.
-
2000 (11) TMI 961 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... -statement or suppression of facts to invoke the larger period under Section 11A of the Act. On going through the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that detailed figures were given in RT-12 returns from time to time and throughout the period it was exempted and since the proper officer has not verified but issued notice after two years we are of the view that demand was barred by time as it was rightly urged by the appellants in their memo of appeal. In view we have taken, we hold that the demand was barred by time. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed accordingly. rdquo 5. emsp As the Tribunal in same set of facts and circumstances, has taken a view that omission to give progressive total of the clearances will not amount to suppression, by following the ratio of the said decision, we hold the demand to be barred by limitation. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants on the point of limitation.
-
2000 (11) TMI 960 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... d stand lapsed. 3. emsp After hearing Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the Revenue I find that the dispute does not relate to the availing of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted items. The appellants are availing the exemption in respect of unbranded goods and the Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of branded goods. They are free to do so and the benefit of the credit cannot be denied to them on the ground that a part of their final product is being cleared without payment of duty. In fact the law itself would compel them to such a situation, as small scale manufacturers are not eligible for exemption in respect of branded goods manufactured and sold by them under the brand name of another person. Accordingly I find that the stand taken by the Revenue is not correct, impugned orders are set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (11) TMI 956 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nfirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 2. emsp The reason advanced by the Commissioner for applying the extended period is that by describing the product differently in the earlier classification list, the appellant attempted to mislead the department. We are not able to accept this view. The department would not have been aware that the appellant did not manufacture the chassis. Manufacture of chassis is limited to a few large manufacturers. It would have been evident to the department that the appellant fabricated tanks for carrying milk and mounted them on the truck chassis. That is what the appellant had made more explicit in the later classification list. However, in our view, the description earlier furnished was sufficient to enable the department to determine the nature of the appellant rsquo s manufacturing activities. We do not find the existence of a situation justifying invoking the extended period on this ground. 3. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (11) TMI 955 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Unused Rolling Mill -Containers, old and used ... ... ... ... ..... sted that import licence should include old and used containers. The licence, which was used for the import of the plant, accordingly contained the condition that machinery would be imported in old and used container, subject to the condition that these containers would not be disposed of. This correspondence indicates two things firstly, it was the intention of the importer not to pay additionally for these containers, secondly that they were so old and used to such an extent that they could not be used as marine containers. This second factor supports the view that they were thrown in by the supplier at no additional cost. There is not the slightest material to show that any remittance over and above US 13.875 million has been made in other words there is no additional payment for the containers. The Collector himself agrees that this is the case. The cost of the containers was thus included in the contracted price. 10. emsp Appeal C/4159/92 allowed and C/1627/92 dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 952 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Copper complex - Expert’s opinion ... ... ... ... ..... t appeal by way of remand, directing the Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate afresh the question whether the impugned product is classifiable under TSH 3204.29 or under TSH 2922.00 in relation to the period of dispute. In such adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner shall duly consider the Chief Chemist rsquo s and other expert rsquo s opinions already on record and any further chemical literature/opinion of experts which he (the A.C.) may like to call for or the assessees may like to bring on record in support of their case. Since we have noted that the exact chemical formula and structure of the impugned product are not forthcoming from the records, we make it clear that the assessees shall provide the same to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority shall also provide opportunity for examination of any expert, if required. A speaking order shall be passed on the classification issue after giving a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the assessees.
-
2000 (11) TMI 915 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Import - OGL - Homoeopathic medicine ... ... ... ... ..... ds can be made under OGL. A careful examination of the Exim Code Nos. 12119026, 12119026.10 and 12119029.90 reveals that the subject crude drugs do not fit into the category of goods specified against the Exim Code Nos. 12119026 and 12119026.10 as these two code numbers relate to Ayurvedic and Unani herbs and crude drugs as per list of Appendix XLVIII and required for the manufacture of Ayurvedic and Unani medicine. Hence, the appropriate Exim Code numbers applicable to the subject goods is 12119026.90 which fall in the restricted category. The condition stipulated in respect of this Exim Code is ldquo Import permitted against a licence or in accordance with a Public Notice issued in this behalf rdquo . In view of this, we agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hold it to be legally correct and proper. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference and as such we uphold the said order in toto. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (11) TMI 914 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ition of Capital Goods in Rule 57Q and the same are not eligible Capital Goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed that the said Chapter Heading is not one of the specified Headings in the Table to the List of Capital Goods under Rule 57Q. 2. emsp The applicants/appellants duly represented by Shri P.S. Mahapatra, learned Advocate do not dispute the above use of Ceramic Tiles in the factory for flooring purposes, but submit that the same should be considered as refractory materials and the Credit of duty paid on the same should be allowed to them. 3. emsp We are not convinced with the above contention of the applicants/appellants. Admittedly, when the Ceramic Tiles are used for flooring or on the walls in the factory, it is not understood as to how they can be considered as refractory materials. Accordingly, we reject the appeal and direct the appellants to pay back the amount of Rs. 95,135.20 taken on the said Ceramic Tiles. Stay Petition also gets disposed of also.
-
2000 (11) TMI 913 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Marketability - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... ugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for de novo adjudication to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority will, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appellants as well as the revenue are at liberty to induce evidence in support of their claims. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. rdquo 5. emsp Inasmuch as the Commissioner has thrown the appellants on the question of marketability on the threshold itself, holding that the same is not relevant, and has not gone into the question of marketability of the item in question, and by following the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Commissioner with directions to decide about the marketability of the alleged parts of the wagons in question, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 912 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Pumps - Power Driven Pumps - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ra inasmuch as the identical issue in respect of the same appellants but for different period has already been decided by this Tribunal holding that the appellants have no case on merits. We do not find any reason to disagree with the said decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants have no case on merits in the present appeal also. 3. emsp As regards limitation aspect, it is observed that the period covered was October, 1991 to April, 1992 and the show-cause notice was issued on 5-8-92. As such, the entire period is not hit by time-bar. Hence, the matter has to go back to the Adjudicating authority to requantify the demand for the period that is not hit by time-bar. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order for the said limited purpose. In de novo proceedings, the appellants shall be afforded reasonable opportunity in the matter of requantification of the demand for the period not hit by time-bar. 4. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (11) TMI 911 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation - Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... the Classification List. It is now well-settled that before approving the Classification List, the proper officer is supposed to have made necessary verifications and conducted requisite checks so as to satisfy himself about the product being classified under a particular heading to which he is granting approval. Not only the Classification List was approved as per the appellants rsquo contention by the proper officer, but the RT-12 returns filed by them were fully assessed by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers also. Apart from that, Gate Passes are clearly mentioning - ldquo Transfer Trollys rdquo - and as such, it cannot be inferred that the appellants have indulged in suppression or misstatement with an intent to evade duty. As such, without deciding the correct classification of the product in question, we hold the demand of duty is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2000 (11) TMI 904 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Clandestine removal - Adjudication - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... such the contention of the appellant in this regard is devoid of merit. 6. emsp Regarding penalty the appellants have contended that it is disproportionate to the amount of duty involved. The novel modus operandi adopted by the appellants in evading duty certainly calls for a severe penalty viewed from this angle. I do not consider the penalty imposed in any disproportionate to the confirmed duty demand. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, the order impugned is partially set aside for the limited purpose of readjudication on the points discussed in para 5.1 supra. In doing so, if the total demand gets reduced, the Adjudicating authority shall be at liberty to redetermine appropriate penalty notwithstanding what has been observed in para 6 supra. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to put forth their pleas. 8. emsp In the result, the appeal is partially rejected and partially allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (11) TMI 903 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Smuggling - Confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... d to miscarriage of justice on one hand and unavoidabale harassment to the innocent persons on the other. With respect to the change of contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in respect of the Indian currency in 500 Rupee denomination, there is no evidence to show that he carried the same from Nepal. His explanation that he exchanged the said notes with his friend at Naxalbari being reasonable is acceptable. Hence, this charge also falls to the ground. As regards the 100 gms. of cardamom seized from the person of the appellant, I accept the explanation of the appellant that he carried the same as a mouth freshener in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary. 6. emsp The aforesaid discussion points to the fact that there is much ado about nothing. As such, the order impugned is required to be set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. Accordingly, I do so. 7. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2000 (11) TMI 900 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of goods and penalty - Benefit of Doubt ... ... ... ... ..... plywood was found in the premises of the respondents at the time of visit of the officers without any corresponding ready Central Excise documents. The goods so found on 6-3-1997 were also not entered in the RG-1 register. The appellate authority has accepted the respondents rsquo contention that the goods were the produce of 4th and 5th March, 1987 and were not entered in the RG-1 register because the concerned person was on leave. As such, by accepting the respondents rsquo stand that the goods which were still within the factory premises, cannot be confiscated, he set aside the impugned Order relatable to confiscation and penalty. 3. emsp After hearing Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R. and going through the memo of appeal filed by the Revenue, I do not find any infirmity in the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Revenue rsquo s appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
2000 (11) TMI 898 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Appeal - Memorandum of appeal - Amendment ... ... ... ... ..... issioner (Appeals) but he has not discussed the same. However, he fairly agrees that a specific ground to that effect could not be taken in the memo. of appeal filed before the Tribunal. In any case submits the learned Consultant that time-bar being essentially a mixed question of fact and law the appellant should be allowed to raise the same. 2. emsp After hearing the learned SDR we allow both the Miscellaneous Applications.
-
2000 (11) TMI 894 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... bmits that there is no case for grant of stay. He also submits that the facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient enough to impose penalties on the appellants/applicants and accordingly, the Commissioner has imposed reasonable amount of penalty. 4. emsp I have heard both sides. On going through the Order-in-Original, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that the appellants/applicants must have knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods. This reasoning is purely based upon the presumption and assumption of the circumstances but without any evidence. Moreover, the ld. advocate has also pleaded the financial hardship. I am of the view that the applicants/appellants have made out a strong case for grant of unconditional stay. In view of this, I waive the condition of pre-deposit of the entire penalty amounts. The aforementioned penalties should not be recovered during the pendency of the appeals. The main appeals be heard on 11-12-2000.
-
2000 (11) TMI 891 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Ors v. Union of India - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) 2000 (37) RLT 1 the Supreme Court held that proceedings under Rule 10 which was omitted on 6-8-1977 could not continue thereafter. It said that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will not apply in a case where a rule is omitted in the absence of a saving clause in the enactment by which the rule was omitted, or in the enactment by which the fresh rule was inserted, proceedings under the old Rule 10 would lapse on its omission. 3. emsp The same position holds true of the omission made of Rule 10 in 1980. The amending Act by which the rule was omitted contains no saving provision. The Act by which the Section 11A was inserted in the Central Excises and Salt Act also contains no clause saving the proceedings already initiated. The show-cause notice issued to the appellant therefore lapses on the omission of Rule 10 on 17-11-1980. 4. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and impugned order set aside.
............
|
