|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 746 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and penalty - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... vidence of Shri B.M. Gupta for proving the alleged clandestine sale and purchase of the goods between the two companies, HPL and GSL, based on his private diary and the loose sheets, as observed above, carried no legal value being inadmissible in evidence. No excess or unaccounted goods were found lying in the factory premises of either of these two companies. No seizure of the goods was made from the factory premises of company, GSL. No incriminating document was also recovered showing clandestine sale/purchase of the raw material/finished goods between the two companies. 11. emsp In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner confirming the duty and penalty on the appellant no. 1 and imposing penalty on other appellants under Rule 209A of the Rules, cannot be legally sustained and the same is ordered to be set aside. 12. emsp As a result, all the appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 745 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration, delay in filing - Declaration, delay in - Jurisdiction - Show Cause Notice
-
2002 (9) TMI 744 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... under Rule 52A invoice as if they were manufacturers of the inputs. Subsequently, they took Modvat credit of duty on those goods in their capacity as manufacturers of VHP tuner, for which the said goods were admittedly inputs. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in this action of the appellants. The clarification offered by the Board is consistent with this position of law and the same is binding on the departmental authorities. The provisions of Rule 57F(1) require to be read with those of Rule 57A. When the provisions are read together, the appellants are eligible for the credited. Ld. DR has also raised a time-bar issue. He has submitted that the credit was taken after a lapse of one year from the date of issue of the invoices. I find that the time-bar issue has not been raised by the department to deny the Modvat credit. 5. emsp In view of the findings recorded above, I hold that the Modvat credit in question is admissible to the appellants. The appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 743 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Invoice of unregistered dealer ... ... ... ... ..... taken. 3. emsp In its decision in C.C.E. v. Uttam Ind. Engg. P. Ltd - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 87, a single member of the Tribunal has held that in the absence of any requirement that the dealer who issued invoices must be appointed by the manufacturer, the credit can be denied on the ground that such authorisation was not shown, and that the person who sells excisable goods to wholesale dealer for purposes of trade or manufacture could be a dealer. 4. emsp It is to be noted that Notification 15/94, which permitted acceptance of invoices by dealers, refers to wholesale dealers or distributors of the manufacturer. Therefore any person who distributed or dealt with any wholesale goods made by a particular manufacturer could be such a wholesale dealer or distributor. The notification does not stipulate that there must be any specific appointment by such manufacturer. The invoices were therefore acceptable for taking credit. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (9) TMI 742 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... s regarding discrepancy in the Bill of Lading. The receipt of this letter, was admitted by Shri Deepak Sharma, employee of the Customs department in his cross-examination. In this letter, Shri P.K. Jain mentioned that the supplier of the goods had applied for amendment in Bill of Lading and IGM. The Commissioner of Customs, in the impugned order, also gave a finding of fact that supplier of the goods, vide letters dt. 29-7-99 and 9-8-99, addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Import), asked for amendment in IGMS. The Commissioner of Customs gave a finding that in this situation, the importer had initiated steps necessary to get the wrong corrected. The necessary request for amendment in IGM and Bill of Lading was received by the Customs authorities prior to seizure of goods. In this situation, I find no infirmity in the impugned order where the Commissioner of Customs held that allegation of misdeclaration by the importer, is not sustainable. The appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 741 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Comparable goods - Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts ... ... ... ... ..... e two types of PCBs could not be compared and the value of one adopted for the other. There is also merit in the appellants submission that spare parts supplies invariably are at a higher price than original equipment supplies. 9. emsp The appellants submission that this is not a case involving suppression of facts with intent to evade duty also merits acceptance. Both the varieties of PCBs were being cleared under approved central excise documents and the appellants had not suppressed the fact of variation between sale price and cost of production. Reasonable diligence on the part of the department would have enabled them to take remedial action to recover short-levy, if any, during the normal period stipulated in Section 11A. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that extended period under the proviso to Section 11A was not available to the department. 10. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed, with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2002 (9) TMI 740 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation, fine and penalty - Import without licence ... ... ... ... ..... d not chosen to contest the report by filing their rebuttal evidence or by even cross-examining the Chartered Engineer. They have not produced any other evidence from the supplier or from the manufacturer to show that the second hand machinery imported by them was not more than 10 years old. Therefore, the Commissioner rsquo s order in the light of the Para 5.3 of the Export and Import Policy valid from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-2002 is correct and a proper order. We notice that the goods have become confiscable as the goods have contravened the provisions of the Import Policy and has become liable for confiscation. The fine imposed is reasonable and cannot be said to be exorbitant, taking into consideration the value of the goods declared by the appellants. The appellants have not seriously contested the value also before us. Therefore, the fine and penalty imposed cannot be said to be exorbitant calling for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 739 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Coke vis-a-vis semi coke - Exemption - Practice - Past practice ... ... ... ... ..... that it is possible that there were some technical characteristics of the goods that were imported that should then to be seen coke. The importer shown that the presence of technical characteristics which justified their entitlement could have to exemption or produce material to show that what were imported was semi coke. He emphasised that the appellant before us who imported the goods seven years ago and could not produce such material. The second answer he gives is that it cannot be ruled out that the two cases that were cited the exemption has been wrongly given. That does not create right for the appellant to claim the exemption. We see justice on both the points. Nothing other than the bill of entry has been produced, in both cases, in one case the composition is also not known. It is settled law that the presence of a wrong practice by the department cannot give rise to a claim for the classification wrongly arrived at, or, exemption wrongly. 10. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 738 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Baggage - Transfer of residence - Car - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... s view of the matter, I agree with the remand order passed by Ld. Member (Judicial). 24. emsp In the result, it is ordered that the adjudicating authority shall examine the redeemability of the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act and re-examine the liability of the appellants to penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 25. emsp The matter shall be placed before the regular Bench for formalising and pronouncing the majority decision in the case. Sd/- (P.G. Chacko) Member (J) MAJORITY ORDER In terms of the majority order, the impugned order is set aside in so far as the absolute confiscation of the goods in question is concerned and the matter is remanded back for de novo consideration to grant redemption of the confiscated goods, after affording an opportunity of the appellants and fix the fine and penalty appropriately after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. Sd/- (Jeet Ram Kait) Member (T) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J)
-
2002 (9) TMI 737 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ng with the permission of the Central Government for the change of the name. There are no contrary findings in the order of the Original Authority to these averments of the appellants. Since this is only a case of change of the name of the party with no shifting of the factory, no change in the machinery or constitution of the company, they could continue functioning with the same statutory records even after the change of the name. The case of the appellants is not governed by the restrictions specified under Rule 57F(7) or 57F(20). The same observations hold good in respect of the availment of the Modvat credit on the strength of the invoices issued in the name of the erstwhile company. So long as the goods are meant for the same factory and they are duly duty paid, merely not mentioning the new name of the firm in the invoices, in-itself could not be the ground to deny them the Modvat credit, I therefore find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 736 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Recovery of credit ... ... ... ... ..... by them. I find contradiction in the findings recorded by the original authority wherein he himself has held that it is inconceivable that anyone would send the original pacol catalyst as reflected in the entries for recovery of platinum instead of using it at the manufacturing process. It is an admitted fact that HPL are only recovering platinum and are not manufacturing any other product. Therefore what has been sent and used by HPL is only spent pacol catalyst and not pacol catalyst as such. I am of the considered opinion that it is only an accounting mistake and there is no evidence whatsoever for removal of the input namely pacol catalyst. As such for removing the input clandestinely, there is no documentary evidence to that effect. In view of the above facts and circumstances the impugned order which are based entirely on the basis of finding in the order-in-original, passed by the original authority is, therefore, set aside and appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 735 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... cision in their own case decided by the learned Single Member is not applicable as the aspect whether the dealer had issued modvatable invoice without having in his possession the original invoices along with which the goods were received was not considered in that matter. A person cannot pass a title better than the title he has. As the dealer in the present matter is not eligible to take the credit for want of specified duty paying documents, he cannot issue the modvatable invoices. Further, we agree that the action should have also been initiated against the dealer for issuing the invoices without having in possession any duty paying documents. However, we are of the view that not taking of any action against the dealer cannot make an invalid invoice a valid one. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are not eligible for the Modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by the dealer without having in its possession duty paying documents. The appeal is thus rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 734 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... ithout undergoing the process of melting in the manufacture of goods fall under Chapter 72 or 73 of Central Excise Tariff was allowable Rs. 920/MT. without the production of document evidencing the payment of duty. As the deemed credit order provides facility to take credit without producing any documents only to the manufacturer availed the exemption under Notification 1/93 and when the manufacturer crossed the limit of clearance, as provided under Notification, is no more working under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. In this situation, the law point, as formulated by the Revenue, requires reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for their valuable opinion ldquo Whether the Hon ble CEGAT is correct in extending the deemed credit benefit under Ministry s Order No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-94 to a unit availing of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 even after it crosses the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lacs and starts paying duty at the normal rate? rdquo
-
2002 (9) TMI 718 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ appeal ... ... ... ... ..... d the reward which is claimed may even run as Rs. 30 lakhs. 4. emsp Having heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants Central Government and Mr. R. Sudhakar, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and balance of convenience, we direct the sixth respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the writ petitioner, namely Mr. R.K. Ranganathan, on his furnishing a bank guarantee to the said sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. 5. emsp We make it clear that in the event of the writ appeal being allowed then the above amount of Rs. 10 lakhs shall be refunded without interest.
-
2002 (9) TMI 717 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Valuation - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... the goods with the brand name lsquo OPEX rsquo , which requires verification. Therefore, the matter regarding demand of duty in respect of generating sets is remanded to the adjudicating authority. 8. emsp Appellants are entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product on production of duty-paying documents in respect of the goods on which the duty is confirmed. Appellants are also entitled for the abatement of duty element from the price to arrive at the assessable value for central excise duty subsequent to the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra). 9. emsp Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in respect of redemption fine, we find that the redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- will meet ends of justice, therefore, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 75,000/-, otherwise the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2002 (9) TMI 714 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Warehousing licence - Private Bonded Warehouse licence - Cancellation of - Penalty - Confiscation of conveyance
-
2002 (9) TMI 713 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay Order - Modification of - Financial hardship - Strictures, Chartered Accountants conduct - Balance Sheet
-
2002 (9) TMI 712 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate for the respondent. 3. emsp In the instant case we note that the respondent herein had imported Acrylic Staple Fibre with intention to convert it into final product and export the same. We further note that the respondent could not meet his export obligation because of number of circumstances. He, therefore, paid duty and interest on the goods. 4. emsp We note further that the goods under import were not prohibited goods and could be imported under the OGL. In the instant case the respondent paid duty and interest thereon. The contention of the revenue that penalty should have been imposed is not acceptable in view of the fact that the goods under import were not prohibited goods and their import was normally permitted since the import of the goods was not normally permitted, therefore, we agree with the finding of the learned Commissioner that no penalty was warranted in the instant case. In view of the above, the appeal of revenue is rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 711 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M
Settlement Commission - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... applicant shall pay the admitted duty liability of Rs. 62,58,173/- (Rupees sixty two lakhs fifty eight thousand one hundred seventy three only) within 30 days of receipt of this order as required under sub-section (3) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962. 21. emsp The applicant shall also execute a bond equal to the full value of the seized goods as appearing in the panchnama along with Bank Guarantee of Rs. 16 lakhs. On payment of admitted liability of Customs duty, execution of Bond with Bank Guarantee of Rs. 16 lakhs, the seized goods may be released to the applicant. The plea of the applicant to allow the goods to be sold is not accepted. The seized goods are released only for proper upkeep. 22. emsp This order is in relation to 5 seized cars imported through Nhava Sheva Port and covered under the instant application filed for settlement. 23. emsp Attention of all concerned is drawn to sub-section (2) of Section 127F ibid. All concerned shall be informed accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 702 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Special Additional Duty - Customs Exemption - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ith the learned Counsel for the appellant that the duty demand has been made on erroneous understanding of the legal position. We are not able to accept the contention raised by the learned SDR as it is common that exemptions have been given under the Sales tax Act in respect of certain transactions and such exemptions for specified cases would not make the place ldquo an area where no duty is chargeable on sale and purchase of goods rdquo . We do not find any merit in the finding of excess quantity also. The quantity itself is very negligible. Further, this has been arrived at by comparing the sales quantity with the imported quantity. The difference is only notional as and no excess quantity was found on weighment of goods at the time of clearance. The demand on this count is therefore, not sustainable. 9. emsp In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any.
............
|
