|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 147 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Value of clearances - Clubbing of - Dummy ... ... ... ... ..... the demand upon the so called dummies the adjudicating authority has implicitly recognised their existence would also have to be kept in mind. 11. The demand for duty will fall on limitation. As we have noted that the notice cited two factors - the failure to declare that the investment limit has been exceeded and the failure to indicate the true nature of the relationship between the parties. In his order the Collector has upheld the application of extended period only on the ground of failure to declare the investment in plant and machinery had exceeded Rs. 35 lakhs. There was no requirement for the appellant to declare the extent of investment limit to the department. The notification, as we have noted, did not have any condition with regard to these. Omission to decline a fact which the law does not require to be declared cannot attract the extended period contained in sub-section (1) of Section 11A. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (3) TMI 145 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Betel nut powder ... ... ... ... ..... as Pan Masala. In fact, it became dutiable only subsequent to the period involved in the present dispute i.e. after 16-3-1995. The issue remains covered in favour of the appellants. Since the product was not liable to classification under the tariff during the relevant period, duty demand on the same did not arise. Accordingly, the duty demand is required to be set aside as untenable. We do so. As there was no duty liability, the question of penalty also does not arise and the penalty is also required to be set aside and we order accordingly. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside in its entirety with consequential relief. We are informed that the appellants had deposited Rs. 4 lakhs pursuant to the order on the stay petition passed by the Tribunal earlier. In view of our present order that no duty or penalty is due from the appellants, the Revenue shall return the said deposit without any delay to the appellants.
-
2001 (3) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Baggage - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... onclude that confiscation of the goods which were otherwise freely importable is not called for and set aside the confiscation of such goods valued at Rs 4.24 lakhs. We confirm the confiscation of the spectacle frames as not having challenged. We also confirm the confiscation of other goods valued at Rs 2.76 lakhs under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. 7. We however permit their redemption on payment of fine. Having regard to the fact that the appellant did attempt to import these goods without a licence, and their value and quantity, and since the possibility that it cannot be excluded in the facts of this case, we direct the Commissioner to fix the redemption fine, not, as he may normally do, on the basis of margin of profit but by applying the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Act i.e. on the sale price less duty payable thereon. On the same consideration, we are unable to interfere with the penalty imposed and confirm it. 8. Appeal allowed in part.
-
2001 (3) TMI 141 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Watch straps ... ... ... ... ..... Notification No. 72/86-C.E. (as amended) at Sl. No. 4 exempts all watch components falling under Chapter 91 in excess of 5 of duty. Since watch straps are specifically mentioned under 91.13 of the CET Act, 1985 and are held to be falling in this case under Chapter 91, we cannot find any reason to continue to deny benefit of Notification No. 72/86-C.E. (as amended) on the Leather Watch Straps being manufactured by the appellants, especially on the ground as arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) that watch straps did not form part of the manufacturing process or enters into such process and a watch can be sold even without the strap. Commissioner s further finding If at all it is marketable only with strap there is no evidence placed before me in support of such claim. The appellant only points out that the watch strap attached to it also is no reasons to deny the benefit. 3. In view of our findings, order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
-
2001 (3) TMI 138 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Drawback - Valuation - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... goods. The Commissioner s basis for arriving at the value of the goods, apart from the DEPB scheme is evidently his own subjective view. He has determined the value to be between Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- seeing the quality of the goods . The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner could not substitute his own subjective opinion to determine the value of the shirts has to be accepted. Even going by the reasoning that he has adopted, leading to the conclusion that the shirts have not been shown to be undervalued, his decision to limit their value is arbitrary and irrational. The departmental representative s contention that the appellant has already been given sufficient benefit by the Commissioner is no answer. Since the department, in the Commissioner s own words, has not established undervaluation, the value declared by the appellant is required to be accepted and the drawback calculated upon it paid to it. 6.Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (3) TMI 136 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Vegetable oils - Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... ugned order, without any data. During that period Acid oil was produced and sold. Hence the Commissioner erred in holding that soap stock, a marketable commodity was produced during the relevant period. 6. In view of the findings, the question of limitation raised by the learned Counsel representing the appellant need not be gone into. 7. Before parting with the case we would like to add that the quantity of soap stock has been found out from the quantity of Acid Oil manufactured by the appellant. Roughly it works out to be 5 1 i.e. 5 units of soap stock is required to manufacture with 1 unit of Acid Oil. Acid Oil is not obtained from soap stock. Acid Oil is obtained from soap water. While working backwards the quantity arrived at by the Commissioner in the impugned order was not of soap stock but of soapy water. That quantity of soapy water is not marketable commodity. In the circumstances detailed above, we allow the appeal and set aside the order impugned in its entirety.
-
2001 (3) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... cing proof of payment. In these circumstances, he therefore prays that dismissal order may be set aside and the appeal may be restored and in this connection, he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.T. Texturisers and Another v. Union of India reported in 2000 (39) RLT 1. 2. Shri S.K. Das, ld. JDR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench. 3. We have carefully perused the Hon ble High Court s decision cited by the Counsel wherein the Court has held that once pre-deposit has been made even though belatedly and after the appeal has been dismissed, the Tribunal ought to have restored the appeal and order of the Tribunal dismissing the ROA application was set aside by the High Court. Following the ratio of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision cited (supra), we set aside the dismissal order in the present case and restore the appeal and fix it for regular hearing on 3-4-2001. 4. ROA application is hereby allowed. Dictated in Court.
-
2001 (3) TMI 132 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Wire and cables ... ... ... ... ..... 5) E.L.T. 96 is not applicable to the present matter as the goods involved in the said case were cable terminals. We, therefore, hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in Shakun Products v. CCE, Kanpur in classifying the product wires/cables cut to length and fitted with connectors under Heading 85.44 of the CETA is correct view and the impugnd goods are classifiable under the said heading only. The view taken in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Raj Kumar Engineers, Final Order No. C-II/1339/99-WZB, dated 20-5-1999 1999 (111) E.L.T. 737 (Tribunal) is not correct inasmuch as both Headings 85.22 and 85.29 were excluded from Note 2(a) to Section XVI and the classification could not have been determined under these headings by applying Note 2(a) to Section XVI. 8. We accordingly hold that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 85.44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. As only the issue of classification is involved, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Power supply system - Classification of goods - HSN Explanatory Notes ... ... ... ... ..... the Apex Court in Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566, when an article has, by all standards, a reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated item in the Tariff Schedule, it will be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause . When UPSS falls under 8504 as an enumerated item, it cannot be consigned to an orphanage of the residuary clause 8543. 12. In view of what has been stated above, it is our considered opinion that Uninterrupted Power Supply System is classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 8504 as contended by the manufacturer and not under 8543 as taken by the departmental officers. The result therefore is that the orders impugned in this appeal are set aside in their entirety. Amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order of stay passed should be returned without any delay. 13.The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 130 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Reference to Larger Bench ... ... ... ... ..... question of law referred to by the West Regional Bench, with due respect to the Members, are not to be answered. We decline to answer those questions because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when it is established that the claimants of the benefits under the Notification failed in proving the circumstances warranting its application, this Tribunal is not to go into the hypothetical question of the scope and binding nature of the Notification. The question referred need be answered only in circumstances where assessee establishes the requirements warranting the application of the Notifications. In the instant case, the assessee did not bring out any circumstance to establish that he is entitled the benefits of the Notifications. 2. In view of what has been stated above we do not find any ground to extend the benefit of the Notifications, as claimed by the appellants. Consequently, we confirm the orders passed by the authorities below. Appeals are dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 129 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Provisional assessment
... ... ... ... ..... e conclusion that payment of duty can be provisional only when the procedure prescribed by Rule 9B is strictly followed. 6. From the above discussion, we are clear in our mind that Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. envisages payment of duty on provisional basis pending decision of classification list or price list. For these payments to be treated as provisional, procedure contemplated by Rule 9B is not to be followed. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the observation made by the Larger Bench of five Members that there should be material on record to show that procedure laid down in Rule 9B was followed for the purpose of showing that the assessments are provisional, cannot hold good in the case of payments of duty effected pending finalisation of classification list or price list. Subject to this clarification, we agree with the observations and findings arrived at by the said Bench in Misc. Order No. 47/2000-A. 7. The issue referred is answered in the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Captive consumption - Cost of production ... ... ... ... ..... ount the cost and profit from cement and other divisions while filing the price list in question. The profit declared and included by the appellant in the price list was the profit earned in the previous year from the textile division. The inclusion of profit made in the previous year was in conformity with the instruction on the subject contained in the Circular letter F. No. 6/28/94-CX. I, dated 30th October, 1996 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Circular binds the revenue authorities. They can not demand duty in excess of the duty assessed in accordance with the method of assessment stipulated in the circular. Therefore, the demand made in the adjudication order, cannot be sustained. The penalties imposed are consequent to the duty demand. As the duty demand is not sustainable, penalties can not independently survive. They are also required to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals, with consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (3) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Customs House Agents Licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the impugned order of the Commissioner does not pass the test of the rule of natural justice laid down by the apex Court and, further, that the order was issued in colourable exercise of power. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner of Customs to give personal hearing to the appellants and pass a speaking order under the Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 21 of the CHA Regulations on the question whether the suspension of the licence should continue or not. Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of the Commissioner failing to pass such order within the stipulated period, the impugned order will stand set aside on expiry of the said period. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Commissioner proceeding against the appellants under Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 21. 5.5 We have answered the referred issue and finally disposed of the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 126 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Refund - Re-fixation of anti-dumping duty ... ... ... ... ..... elonging to the importer illegally for more than 7 years, should pay interest to compensate the importer in terms of the principle known as quasi contract. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the importer is entitled to get all his claims of refund which are in consonance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 9A(2) of the Customs Tariff Act together with interest as fixed herein after. He is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per annum for the period starting from the date of expiry of three months from the date of final notification, namely, 18-1-1994 till the date of payment. 10.All the appeals are disposed of in favour of the importer directing the Government of India to refund so much of the anti dumping duty which has been collected as was in excess of the final notification fixing the anti dumping duty at the reduced rate together with interest at the rate of 12 per annum for the period mentioned above.
-
2001 (3) TMI 125 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Revision - Jurisdiction - Drawback - Words and phrases - Corrigendum and amendment ... ... ... ... ..... porter would determine his costing, including his profit, on the basis of the information so provided in this schedule. Any subsequent change in the rate would amount to be an amendment and an amendment, unless specifically made retrospectively applicable, would operate only prospectively. In such a situation, for this corrigendum which is of the nature of an amendment the effective date would be the date when it is made known to the public by its publication in the Gazette or through a Public Notice. Therefore, Govt. would observe that the applicable rate of DBK, in this case, would be the one specified by the aforesaid Notification dated 30-5-1997 and not the one stated in the corrigendum dated 22-6-1997. This being the position, the issue of SCN for recovery of the so-called excess payment become redundant. Accordingly the point raised about limitation regarding issue of demand notice has not been examined. 10.The Revision Application is accordingly allowed. 11.So ordered.
-
2001 (3) TMI 124 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Export - Rebate of duty - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... or of Central Excise was countersigned by the Customs officer (Asstt. Commissioner of Customs in this case). In view of the above overwhelming documentary evidences, Govt. would not be averse to condone the non-submission of proof of exports by way of original AR 4, subject however to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner by comparing the duplicate AR 4 received from Customs and the triplicate AR 4 received from the Central Excise officer who had sealed the goods. If necessary the original authority can call for the EGM from the port of export to satisfy himself regarding the export of the sealed container ex vessel mentioned in the shipping bill, and allow the rebate under Rule 13 in accordance to law. 6.As regards imposition of penalty, as the applicants could not produce the proof of export by way of the original AR 4 bearing the Customs endorsement, it cannot be assailed. 7.The impugned Order-in-Appeal is modified in terms of para 5 supra. So ordered.
-
2001 (3) TMI 123 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... n 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal granted opportunity to the petitioner to seek restoration of the appeal if it deposit Rs. 40,000/- on or before 12-9-99. The petitioner did not deposit the amount in question and has approached this Court. 3. Mrs. Indira Nair, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India has raised preliminary objection with regard to the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. 4. Having heard Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indira Nair, learned Counsel for the respondents. I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner. If the petitioner deposits Rs. 40,000/- by 7-5-2001 the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal shall restore the appeal in question and hear the same on merits. It will be open to the petitioner to seek any other interim relief as may be advised before the Appellate Tribunal. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... lants Agents may have given the classification in accordance with the wishes of the authorities or they may even be under some misapprehension. But when law allows them the right to ask for refund on a proper appraisement and which they actually applied for, we do not attach any significance to this aspect of the matter pointed out by Counsel. 3.It has been argued before me that what the petitioner is claiming is refund of the relevant one year in which the representation in question was made. I am in agreement with the order passed by Appellate Collector of Excise dated 5-7-74. In view of the trade notices of the respondents as well as circulars of the respondents as mentioned above the classification put by the respondent under Tariff Item 26AA(iii) was not proper. The same was to be treated as bars. The order of the Joint Secretary, Government of India is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for the consequential relief. 4.Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
-
2001 (3) TMI 121 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Clandestine production and removal ... ... ... ... ..... as an adjournment which had been sought before the Commissioner on the ground that Counsel had gone to Delhi to argue a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the Kerala High Court which had vacated the interim stay had resulted in prejudice. It is the duty of Counsel to be present when the matter is set down for hearing and in the absence of any restraint on the authority to proceed with the adjudication, parties have no right to keep away, nor do Counsel has such a right when they represent those parties. Moreover, the petitioner had ample opportunity to present its case which it did before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the case on merits and has not found any of the contentions put forth before it by the petitioner to be worthy of acceptance. 8.I therefore do not see any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal calling for interference in exercise of this Court s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ling of watch movements. He is on bail in those cases also and as such, it can be safely presumed that if he is released on bail in this case, he would continue his smuggling activities, which have the effect of eating into the vitals of the economy and retarding the progress of the nation. Such offenders do not deserve any leniency whatsoever and have to be dealt with sternly. 7.In the result, I am of the considered view that the petitioner, who appears to be involved head and shoulders into smuggling of watch movements, in which he trades, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. 8.The trial Court however is directed to proceed with the complaint expeditiously so as to ensure that not more than 15 days adjournment is ever given in the case unless there are vacations and the trial is completed within one year. 9.Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial Court.
............
|
