|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 1133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents - Invoice ... ... ... ... ..... ces did possess the Central Excise Registration at the Head Office, but this has not been considered by both the authorities below. If the registration of the company who issued the invoices at the Head Office is proved, this will have material bearing on the right of the appellants to claim the Modvat credit. This aspect having been not gone into by both the authorities, below has resulted in the mis-carriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside and the matter must be sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the claim of the appellants for Modvat credit afresh, in the light of the observations made above, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing. 5. emsp In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. 6. emsp As a result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... at scheme for capital goods underwent a change and the definition of the capital goods was modified by issue of Notification No. 14/97-C.E., dt. 23-7-97. It is contended that this notification which made substantive change under Rule 57Q will be effective from 23-7-97 and cannot be given retrospective effect and the benefit under this notification will be entitled from 23-7-97 and not prior to this. I find no merit in this contention. The Apex Court in their judgment in CCE v. Jawahar Mills Limited - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) have observed that the definition of capital goods is very wide and any of the goods if used for producing or processing of the goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for manufacture of the final products would be capital goods and therefore would qualify for availing the Modvat credit. This being the legal position laid down by the Apex Court on the subject, the Revenue contention cannot be accepted. The appeal is, therefore dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Declaration by post ... ... ... ... ..... e his Order dated 28-10-98. I have heard Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.C. Varma, JDR for the respondents. It is an admitted fact on record which is also mentioned in the Order-in-Original that the party sent the declaration under consideration on 10-4-95 from New Delhi to the office of the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Varanasi which is received by the latter on 17-4-95. There is nothing in the provisions of Rule 57G which would mandate against filing the declaration by post. The appellants have the evidence of sending the declaration by post and the postal authorities have also confirmed that the same has been duly delivered in the office of the Asst. Commissioner, Varanasi on 17-4-95. In view of these facts, I am of the view that the provisions relating to Rule 57G are duly complied with by them in the present case and there is no ground to deny them the Modvat credit. Consequently, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1128 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... find that the appellants have taken Modvat credit of the duty paid by them on the inputs woven fabrics of cotton grey and woven fabrics of Synthetic Yarn grey, which is not in dispute. They have taken that amount as credit under RG 23A was paid at 10 and which was paid before clearing the goods to the job workers under Rule 57F(6). They have also taken Modvat credit of the duty paid by the job workers which is also available to them in view of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Fact Asia Ltd. (supra) and CEE, Vadodara v. Dinesh Pharmaceuticals (supra) and CCE v. Konark Wires (P) Ltd. (supra). The department has also clarified that the job worker has not taken Modvat credit on the goods which were received by them for processing further. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion, that they have not taken any double credit and the Modvat credit have been correctly taken by them. The appeal is therefore allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT
In terms of the High Court judgment in that it provided for detention of goods at check point but without investing in the officer concerned the power of confiscating the same. It seems to us, in these circumstances, unnecessary to go into the question whether section 29(3), (4) and (5), as originally enacted, was not violative of the aforementioned articles.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1101 - SUPREME COURT
Once the old rule has been deleted or repealed and substituted by a new rule, whether the old rule would revive when the substituted rule ceased to be operative?
Whether the 1952 rule had revived after the 1955 rule was struck down?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. A perusal of section 20 shows that several provisions of Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act have been made applicable in relation to statutory instruments including the statutory rules issued under the Uttar Pradesh Act. However, section 6-C does not find place in sub-section (2) of section 20 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. In absence of application of section 6-C to the statutory instrument, including the statutory rule, which is the case before us, the contention of the respondents deserves to be rejected. Since section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act has not been applied to the statutory rule framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the substituted rule after it became inoperative, old rule 49 would not revive.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1094 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... s shown in the classification list to contain only one ingredient, fluocinolone acetonide. 4. emsp In this portion of the order, the Commissioner reproduces the description contained of Flucort skin ointment and Flucort-C-skin ointment. The first only contains fluocinolone acetonide and the second contains fluocinolone acetonide and cliquinol. The notice issued to the appellant was concerned not with flucort skin ointment but flucort-C-skin ointment. Even by the Commissioner rsquo s opinion, it contained more than one ingredient. Classification showed the two ingredients to be fluocinolone acetonide B.P. 0.025 w/v and chinoform I.P. 3 w/v. The Commissioner has obviously confused himself with flucort skin ointment and flucort-C-skin ointment. As far as latter is concerned, the presence of two ingredients has been shown in the classification list. The extended period of limitation will not be available. 5. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1093 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ver of a gate pass, etc., evidencing payment of duty on such inputs. In the instant case, the gate pass produced by the appellant does not pertain to the inputs in stock as the marks, and Nos., etc., mentioned on the gate pass were not found on the bags. Thus the conclusion arrived at by the adjudicating authority that the subject inputs had not been received under the cover of gate pass produced by the appellants is correct. Once it is established that the duty paying documents produced by them does not pertain to the consignment of inputs in question, the appellants rsquo plea that there was no charge that the subject inputs were not duty paid, etc., is meaningless. The Commissioner has accordingly held that the adjudicating authority has correctly disallowed the Modvat credit in respect of the consignment covered by GP-1 No. 393997. 3. emsp After hearing the learned DR and perusal of the records, I do not find any merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1092 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... the applicants from exchanging prolonged correspondence between the department and therefore this is not a ground for condonation of the delay. He further submits that the absence of any pre-amble to the impugned order does not absolve the assessee from taking appropriate action before the next higher forum. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the submission of both sides and noting that the applicants have been writing repeatedly letters to the adjudicating authority we are of the view that the ground made out in the application is not sufficient to hold that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. We therefore dismiss the COD application. As a result the stay application and the appeal are dismissed as time barred.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1091 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... of any powers vested in him to do so. The Revenue in the first question has contended that the impugned order has been set aside on the point of jurisdiction without going to the merits of the case. This point is almost settled that jurisdiction is the prime and the basic issue to be decided in a case where the same is challenged and if it is found that the impugned orders are passed without jurisdiction, they can be set aside on this sole ground without deciding on the merits or demerits of the case. We also note that the Tribunal while setting aside the impugned orders passed by CC (P), Calcutta also gave liberty to the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta or any other competent officer having jurisdiction to decide, to re-adjudicate the matters after issuing fresh show cause notices within a month of the said show cause notice and in view of the principles of natural justice. In view of the foregoing we do not find any merits in the Reference Application and reject the same.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1088 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Short-landing ... ... ... ... ..... assifiable under Heading 1101 duty free. It is also exempted from auxiliary duty. The question of additional duty does not arise. Therefore, there could be no penalty. 6. emsp So far as CSM is concerned, it is exempted from duty by Notification 143/76. This exemption is conditional on the import being made under the World Food Programme. The goods were admittedly not imported under the World Food Programme. In such a situation, what is to be considered is the duty that is payable on the goods, if they were imported by any one and not by person or a group of persons subject to any condition. On such general import without any condition, duty is leviable and no exemption is available. This contention is therefore not acceptable. 7. emsp In the result therefore, appeals C/104 and 188/87 are allowed and the impugned orders set aside. Appeal C/92/87 is allowed to the extent that duty has been demanded on bulgur wheat but otherwise dismissed. Appeals C/147 and 148/87 are dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1087 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Production capacity based duty - Closure of one furnace - Strictures against Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... der of the Tribunal. The order of the Commissioner, therefore cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded again to the Commissioner for passing a de novo speaking order in view of our above observations. 7. emsp Our present order further disposes off the appeal against the order-in-original No. 98-100/Commr./2000, dt. 24-11-2000 of the Commissioner. Since confirmation of a duty of Rs. 96,50,000/- and equal amount of penalty for the period from July, 1999 to March, 2000 in this order is also a sequal to the above fixation of the ACP at 14,400 MT - which is being set aside - demand of duty and penalty vide the order dated 24-11-2000 also cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. This matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. The Commissioner shall pass an order afresh on affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 8. emsp The appeals are thus allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1086 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Non-payment of duty - Interest ... ... ... ... ..... SDR for the respondents. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jagan Tubes Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1152 (T) 2001 (47) RLT 43 (T) in which it is held that where the manufacturers had paid the duty in respect of the inputs and only interest remains to be paid, non-payment of interest by them could not be interpreted as non-payment of appropriate duty on the inputs. Following the ratio of this decision, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1084 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Electric cables - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... before the Tribunal in the cited case of M/s. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. 1998 (103) E.L.T. 395 . 4. emsp We have heard both sides and have also seen the schematic design of the wind mill. The rotation vanes move a shaft which is linked to the generator. The electricity produced in the generator is transported to a transformer for further distribution. The design shows that the generator is an integrated part of the wind mill and prima facie the ratio of the cited judgment would apply. 5. emsp Shri Nankani also informed us that the applicant has reversed a sum of Rs. 16,14,088 taken as input stage credit, when the contested goods were cleared without payment of duty. If the exemption is denied, the assessee would again be eligible to claim the benefit. To that extent the revenue is safeguarded. 6. emsp On consideration to the above submissions, we allow the application and waive the pre-deposit of the duty and direct stay of its recovery until the appeal is disposed off.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1083 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... duty confirmed against them by the adjudicating authority, namely, Dy. Commissioner. 2. emsp The delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellants and further the extent of delay was within the period which the Commissioner (Appeals) was empowered to condone. We are therefore of the view that this is a fit case for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision, first on the application filed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, and thereafter on the appeal itself. We order accordingly. 3. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1082 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... to the classification of the casting. It was claimed that the Chapter heading of the goods in the declaration and in the invoices was the same and that the minor variation should not be held against them. 4. emsp I find that the Tribunal in number of judgments has accepted the claim made by the appellant before the original authority. In the decision reproduced in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 578 the Tribunal held that use of interchangeable terms should not deny the benefit. In the case of Delta Fabricators, 1996 (84) E.L.T. 151 it was held that when the identity of the goods were persistent with the inputs the variation in tariff classification should not be held against the assessee. It is also true that for quite sometime that there were classification difficulties as regards iron and steel castings. On perusal of the facts I am satisfied that the variations pointed out were not such as to deny the benefit. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1080 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... delay. 3. emsp The power to condone the delay of three months is given to the Commissioner (Appeals). Where the delay is not very substantial, there is no need to dismiss the appeal on that ground. The Commissioner must keep in mind that it is not in the interest of the appellant to commit any technical error whereby the possibility of their securing relief would be lost. The reason placed by the appellant before him was genuine. 4. emsp The appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who will proceed to hear first on the stay application and thereafter, subject to his satisfaction, on the issue on merits.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1079 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... at credit in the given situation. I find no force in this contention. As per the facts obtaining in the present case, the re-rollers who had obtained the deemed Modvat credit on the goods received by them for re-rolling were not entitled to such deemed credit since they did not use such material for the purpose of re-rolling in clear violation of the conditions of the aforestated Board rsquo s instructions in which it was laid that the deemed Modvat credit was admissible only when such material was subjected to re-rolling without any melting. Further, they passed on the ineligible Modvat credit to the present appellants under their own GP1s. It is well settled that a consignee of the goods cannot have a better title than what it is with the consignor. When the first stage re-rollers themselves are not entitled to the deemed credit, the question of their passing on of the same to others would not arise. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1078 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Order - Res-judicata - Penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... hey have already paid the duty and a very high redemption fine. He further submits that in similar cases, the quantum of penalty imposed was only 10 and the penalty now fixed is also 10 . He therefore, seeks for rejection of the Revenue appeal. 5. emsp We have considered submissions made by both the sides. We notice that the impugned order was challenged by the Respondents and the Tribunal by order dated 15-6-99 has already reduced the redemption fine to 75 of the CIF value. Therefore, the prayer to still enhance the redemption fine does not arise in view of the matter having been finally decided on the issue. As regards prayer for enhancement of penalty, we agree with the learned Counsel that this Bench has been consistently fixing penalty in similar cases at 10 of the CIF value. In this case the Commissioner has fixed penalty at 10 of the CIF value. There is therefore, no ground for further enhancement of penalty. In this view of the matter, the Revenue appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1077 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... hnical pamphlet in which the specifications of the two models were separately given on the front page and on the reverse, a model of the spraying machine was shown fitted with Greaves L-34 model engine. This technical literature was produced to demonstrate the model of the engine which is fitted in the power sprayer. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly analysed and discussed every point along with the case law which has been fully extracted. We are, therefore, in agreement with the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that these two engines are liable to be classified under Chapter sub-heading 8424.91 as parts of power sprayer as they are specifically designed for use in power sprayer and the same cannot be used for any other use without further modification of the engine. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected by confirming the impugned order. Ordered accordingly.
............
|
