|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 630 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 866 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... ed order. The said clause specifically provides for meaning a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other and including the holding company, subsidiary company, a relative, a distributor of the assessee and any sub-distributor of such distributor. The show cause notice does not refer to the existence of any fact, which comes within the ingredient of this sub-section viz. 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of the same, we are afraid we cannot agree to the contentions raised by the department in the Show Cause Notice that there has been any undervaluation. We are therefore of the view that the entire proceedings initiated by the department as reflected in the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are not sustainable in law. Hence, the impugned order is set aside including imposition of penalties. The Appeals are allowed with the consequential reliefs, if any, according to law.
-
2000 (8) TMI 865 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Rebate - Export from sales depot ... ... ... ... ..... he factory premises. He, therefore, submits that the rejection of their rebate claim is irregular. 3. emsp Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR appearing for the appellant Commissioner, reiterates the grounds taken up in the appeal. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides and we are convinced that the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi has clearly permitted grant of rebate of the excise duty even in respect of the goods exported from the place outside the factory premises subject to the satisfaction of the Central Excise Officers. We also find that the violation of the provisions of Section 12 in the instant case is only technical in nature and would not disqualify the respondents from getting the rebate. 5. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the Order impugned. Hence, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is liable for rejection. Accordingly, we do so. Cross Objection also gets disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 863 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... und was also utilised by them for captive consumption in the manufacture of parts, which fact was reflected in the Classification Lists. The enquiries conducted by the Revenue in the year, 1994, which are to the effect that Polyester Moulding Compound cannot be directly used in the manufacture of parts without the Sheet Moulding Compound having come into existence, could have been conducted at the time of granting approval to the Classification Lists. It is now well settled proposition of law that before approving the Classification Lists, the proper officer is required to make necessary verification and is required to satisfy himself about the claim of classification made by the assessees. The approval is not an empty formality As such, we hold that the demand of duty raised in the year, 1995 for the period from June, 1991 to August, 1994, is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2000 (8) TMI 861 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Medicine - Ayurvedic Medicaments - Patent and Proprietary - Valuation Related persons - Demand - Limitation
-
2000 (8) TMI 848 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Confiscation of goods - Mis-declaration - Words and phrases ... ... ... ... ..... to establish whether the quotations in the present case were merely invitation for offers or were made in reply to the request for lowest price lsquo you can make us rsquo for the said quantity of specifically described goods. (c) As regards the mis-declaration, we find that the packing list of declared country of origin is Malaysia and Singapore and these packing lists have been produced to the Customs and since the goods were despatched from Singapore there is no mis-declaration of material particulars by declaring the country of origin in the Bill of Entry as Singapore. Therefore, we are not impressed with the findings of misdeclaration as arrived at by the Collector. (d) As regards the findings on confiscation under Section 111(d) we do not give any finding as we are remanding the matter back to the Collector for de novo adjudication and re-determination of the value. 7. emsp In view of our findings, the order is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication.
-
2000 (8) TMI 843 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Removal of goods - Refund - Duty excess paid ... ... ... ... ..... out mention of central excise duty, element. If excess duty was paid in excess in any consignment, then refund should have been claimed for that, but clearing goods without payment of duty is totally illegal. Further duty on 25-3-1991 and on 4-5-1991. However, the third consignment was sent on 16-12-1992. Thus more than one and half years after the despatch of earlier consignments. Verification of goods after such a long gap is also difficult. The appellants rsquo point is thus not very convincing. rdquo 4. emsp We fully agree with the above reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no justification for clearing the third consignment without payment of duty on the ground that the excess duty has been paid in respect of earlier two consignments. There is a separate procedure for claiming the refund of duty so excess paid instead of adjusting the same against the subsequent clearance. Accordingly, no merits are found in the appellants rsquo appeal. The same is rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 841 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation (Customs) - Undervaluation - Redemption fine and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... y concluded that the import made at the higher price is contemporaneous to the import made by the appellant, justifying enhancement of assessable value. 5. emsp In view of the foregoing, we do not find any justification for setting aside the findings of the Commissioner as regards the under-valuation of the goods or as regards the contravention of import policy provisions. However, the appellant have prayed for reduction in redemption fine and penalty on the ground that they acted bona fide and were under the impression that the betel nuts are importable under OGL It has also been argued that there is nothing to reflect upon the margin of profit in the instant case and redemption fine to the extent of 42 was much more than the profit margin. Taking into account the above pleas of the appellant we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs and personal penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. But for the above modification the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 839 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Waste and Scrap - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ing authority. The Commissioner should have applied his mind on the above facts and should have verified the nature of waste and scrap arising in the appellant/assessee rsquo s factory. As this has not been done by him, we feel that the matters should go back to the Commissioner for further verification of the type and nature of the waste and scrap on which duty is not being demanded by him. With these observations, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeals filed by the appellant/assessee by way of remand. 6. emsp As the appeals filed by M/s. S.A.I.L. have been allowed by setting aside the impugned IOrder, the appeals filed by the Revenue are also disposed of. The question of quantum of penalty be decided by the Commissioner in the Remand Proceedings depending upon the outcome of the same. All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner. Since appeals are disposed of, cross-objections filed by the applicant/appellant firm, M/s. S.A.I.L. also stand disposed of.
-
2000 (8) TMI 837 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... quipments, appliances or tools which are used for producing or processing goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of finish goods. The definition on capital goods also includes any spare parts, components or accessories of such machine, machinery etc. A point of law arises as to whether wires and cables can be considered to be a machine or machinery by themselves or accessories to any machine or machinery for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of finished goods. In view of this I allow the reference application and refer the following question of law to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for consideration ldquo In the facts and circumstances of this case whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the Wire and Cables is a capital goods as defined under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 particularly when these are general purpose electrical items. rdquo
-
2000 (8) TMI 836 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... nnot be availed. Thus the exemption is based on the value of clearances and not based on period of time. rdquo 3. emsp The Ld. D.R. seeks for reference as per the above question of law. On the other hand, the Ld. Consultant for the Respondents submits that no Reference Application lies for interpretation of Notification as it involves rate of duty and availment of benefit of exemption under Notification and such matters are not liable to appeal as per proviso to Section 35G(1). He further submits that reference stipulated in the provision 35L is prevent. 4. emsp After careful consideration we note that the issue in the Tribunal rsquo s final order pertains to rate of duty and availment of benefit of notification. Section is not referred to the High Court in terms of Section 35G itself. The Revenue could not have filed appeal under Section 35L of the Act. Preliminary objection raised by the Ld. Consultant sustains and the reference application is rejected and not maintainable.
-
2000 (8) TMI 835 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation - Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... o the Classification List is required to examine, scrutinise and verify the various aspects and satisfy himself about the particulars of the goods being manufactured. The description of the respondents rsquo product was given in the Classification List including the label on which the product is clearly mentioned as lsquo Rose Water rsquo . If the proper officer, while according approval to the Classification List, required any further particulars, it was open to the Revenue to ask for more information regarding the process of manufacture or any other point. There is no requirement of giving the process of manufacture in the Classification List. It is also seen that the appellants had been clearing the said product at nil rate of duty for a long period of seven years starting from March, 1989 onwards. As such, we feel that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held the demand to be barred by limitation. No merits are found in the Revenue rsquo s appeal. The same is rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 834 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... s decision that the gate pass issued by a manufacturer though after 31-3-1994 would be valid duty paying document for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit in terms of the said Circular. In this regard, it is observed that the said Circular of the Board issued under Rule 57H is spcifically with reference to the category of persons who get themselves registered under Rule-57 GG, consequent to issue of Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 4-7-1994. Further, such documents issued by such person could be accepted only upto 31-12-1994 manifestly for the reason that the documents issued by the persons prior to their registration were validated for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit thereon if such persons got themselves, registered upto 31-12-1994. The facts of the present case are not covered by the provisions of the Board rsquo s said Circular and hence benefit of it cannot be extended to the appellants. 6. emsp The appeal, therefore fails and the same is rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 833 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by Department - Authorisation ... ... ... ... ..... appellant upon himself. The appeal on this ground itself is liable to be dismissed, however, in the absence of contest I direct the appellant to correct this error. Similarly the defects pointed out in the show cause notice dated 4-7-2000 should also be corrected. In the failure to make the correction, the appeal is liable to be dismissed without further notice. 2. emsp The case is posted on 29-9-2000.
-
2000 (8) TMI 832 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... aised the specific query as regards the inclusion or non-inclusion of the same in the assessable value of the final product. The appellants in their declaration also made it clear that the said receipt is not effecting the value of their final product. In these circumstances, we hold that there was no mala-fide intention on the part of the appellants to suppress or misstate the factum of receipt of free-supplied items from their customers. 8. emsp We also find force in the appellants rsquo submission that in any case, the entire exercise was Revenue-neutral. The procedure under Rule 57F(2) was available to M/s. Chloride Industries for sending the Inserts free of duty to the appellants. The duty paid by the appellants would have been available as a Credit to M/s. Chloride Industries Ltd. In these circumstances, we cannot attribute any motive to the appellants to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal on the point of limitation.
-
2000 (8) TMI 830 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Refund - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... was under Rule 173L, but proviso (iv) to the said rule is to effect that refund claim shall in no case be in excess of the duty payable on such goods after being re-made, refined, re-conditioned etc.. Inasmuch as the assessments were provisional, it could not be calculated as to how much duty was payable on the goods. 3. emsp Now we have been informed by the appellant duly represented by Shri R. Banerjee, ld. Manager (Taxation), that the assessments have been finalized in December 1998 but their refunds have not been taken up for sanction by the Asstt. Commr. He submits that they filed the proper refund claims, though pre-mature and in these circumstances it was the duty of the Asstt. Commr. to grant them refund on finalisation as observed by himself in his impugned order. 4. emsp In view of the foregoing we direct the Asstt. Commr. to look into the appellants rsquo claim for refund inasmuch as the assessments are no longer provisional. The appeals are allowed in above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 827 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Imports - Re-imports of items exported under Bond - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... toms Act for waiver of Excise duty at the time of exportation. Apart from that, much more convincing reason which has been advanced by the ld. JDR, is that it will lead to large scale of evasion of Central Excise duty if the contention given by the respondents is accepted. We are convinced by ld. JDR rsquo s reasons. There is another principle of law which in our view would be applicable, for construing legal provisions in a fiscal enactment. It is that the provisions of law should be construed in a manner that it does not promote evasion of tax. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that duty has been correctly charged by the ldquo Customs Authority in this case at the time of reimportation of the goods. rdquo 7. emsp In view of the foregoing, and following the ratio of the orders of Delhi and Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the cases cited supra, we uphold the decision contained in the order impugned. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
-
2000 (8) TMI 826 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... r No. 107/98, dated 21-9-1998 and the allegations made against the appellant in that order. The same very allegations have been made in the present case. From that she observes that ...... ldquo It is apparent that Shri S.S. Sharma was the main organiser of the unauthorised importation rdquo . However, we find that vide the earlier order Commissioner has exonerated the appellant herein and no penalty has been imposed upon him. It is not understood as to in which context reference has been made to the earlier order and as to how the evidences which have not been found to be sufficient by the Commissioner while passing the earlier order can be relied upon in the present impugned order for imposing penalty upon the appellant. In any case we have gone through the entire order and do not find any just and tangible evidence on record so as to conclude against the appellant. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (8) TMI 824 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s apart from clearance for home-consumption. Duty-free clearances for export were being allowed and it is only subsequently on an audit objection that a show cause notice was issued to them on 19-7-1994. 3. emsp After hearing the learned JDR, Shri R.K. Roy for the Revenue, we find sufficient force in the submissions made by the learned Advocate. It is not alleged that the Revenue was not aware of the factum of clearances being made to Nepal without payment of duty. We also find that the total clearances from the appellants rsquo factory were below exemption-limit of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. There was some Board rsquo s Circular referred to by the learned Advocate, which aided in confirmation of their bona fide belief that the export to Nepal would be covered by the Notification No. 175/86. As such, we find that the appellants have been able to make out a case on limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2000 (8) TMI 823 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Warehouse goods - Period of warehousing - Departmental clarification ... ... ... ... ..... not eligible to the benefit of reduced rate of duty under the above mentioned Notifications. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue. 6. emsp The Board rsquo s Circular relied upon by the learned Counsel to support his contention that the provisions of Section 15(1)(c) will apply since the goods kept in a warehouse ceased to be warehoused goods on expiry of warehousing period and, therefore, the rate of duty will be that prevalent on the date of payment of duty, does not advance the importer rsquo s case since it is contrary to the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kesoram Rayons reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.) which was followed by the Larger Bench and the Supreme Court has recently held in the case of Hindustan Aeronaut Ltd. v. Collector of Customs as from 2000 (119) E.L.T. A223 that the Board rsquo s Circular cannot be pressed into service, if it runs contrary to a ruling of a High Court or the Apex Court.
-
2000 (8) TMI 819 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... ith the status of clearances for home consumption, it cannot be said that exports were covered by para 1 of the notification, which only applies to clearances for home consumption. Inasmuch as para 1 does not cover the export goods, the question of opting for payment of duty or for exemption in respect of goods specified in said para 1 for the export to Nepal does not arise. As such we hold that by opting to pay full rate of duty in respect of exports to Nepal, the appellant cannot be said to have exercised their option for payment of full rate of duty in terms of para 4 of Notification No. 1/93 so as to oust them to avail the exemption in terms of the said notification for the subsequent clearances. We do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same. rdquo 3. emsp As the issue is already settled in favour of the respondents we do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject all the three appeals. Cross objections also get disposed of.
............
|
