|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 568 Records
-
2003 (10) TMI 538 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Dutiability - Words and Phrases - Designated area ... ... ... ... ..... oved by the ONGC to show that out of 30,127 metres line pipes only 10,387 metres line pipes and accessories valued at 2,148,054.71 are liable for customs duty since only these line pipes are required to be installed in the designated area. Balance quantity of 19739.50 metres of line pipes is required to be installed in the non-designated area. The Commissioner rsquo s Order whereby no duty was demanded in respect of line pipes used in non-designated area is not challenged by the Revenue meaning thereby the order is accepted in respect to the extent of line pipes which is used in the non-designated area is not liable for customs duty. The same analogy will apply to the remaining line pipes. Therefore, we find merits in the argument of the appellants that they are liable to duty only in respect of line pipes which are used in the designated area and not for length of line pipes which are used in the non-designated area. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 537 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... arges etc. which could be related to the items manufactured and supplied by the appellant in addition to what has been already added by it. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to direct the appellant for pre-deposit at this stage. The condition of pre-deposit is, therefore, exempted from collection of the demand.
-
2003 (10) TMI 536 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appealable order ... ... ... ... ..... r alternative but to have further correspondence with the Commissioner and ultimately, the Commissioner himself has issued a letter dtd. 25-6-2002 rejecting the claim. 6. emsp I have carefully considered the matter. On going through the submissions made by both sides with reference to the facts and circumstances, particularly on perusal of the order dtd. 13-12-2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, I find lot of force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue that order dtd. 13-12-2001 is an appealable order. In this case, instead of filing an appeal against the said order, the party has chosen to enter into further correspondence with the Commissioner. He should have filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Instead he has chosen to file an appeal against the letter issued by the Commissioner and in these circumstances, the said letter is not an appealable order. In the view I have taken, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable.
-
2003 (10) TMI 534 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Dismissal for non-compliance with direction of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... o Unit No. II, it is open to the Unit No. II to take Modvat credit of the same amount. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have insisted on pre-deposit. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeals on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) will pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 3. emsp The appeals stand disposed of by way of remand.
-
2003 (10) TMI 533 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... s, however, been stated that, the CEGAT vide its order No. A/912/98-NB and S/344/98-NB 1999 (108) E.L.T. 741 (Tribunal) , in the case of M/s. Akanksha Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II, has held that procedural conditions laid down by way of notification are mandatory in nature and as such binding. 4. emsp Considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that, the goods are duty paid, they have used in the manufacture of finished goods, and the only lapse on the part of the respondents is that instead of taking credit on 8-4-1994 the credit was taken on 6-4-1994. It is nobody rsquo s case that, had the credit been taken on 8-4-1994, the same could be held as inadmissible. It is also not brought on record that this credit was utilised before 8-4-1994. Therefore on considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the credit could not be denied and for this lapse there is no case for imposing penalty. 5. emsp Revenue rsquo s appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
2003 (10) TMI 532 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... appellants were to be made aware of this ineligibility, the appellants could have then, obtained the invoice for the despatched quantity from M/s. IPCL themselves. I also note that, in terms of amendment to Modvat rules, made through Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-2-99 any deficiency in the duty paying documents has to be ignored provided the duty paying nature of the goods and their utilisation for manufacture of finished goods is satisfied. There is no dispute in this case about these aspects. Therefore, the credit on the basis of subsidiary gate passes cannot be disallowed. The said documents were available with the appellants at the point of taking credit and only during the subsequent litigation process these have been allegedly stolen from car parking. Since the contents of the documents was not in dispute during the adjudication proceedings the credit is permissible. 4. emsp Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
-
2003 (10) TMI 531 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal before Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... rder like any order on the original stay application. In the instant case, no such order was passed by the lower appellate authority. What was done was issuance of a letter by the Superintendent to the party intimating that the Misc. application filed by the latter had been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Such a proceeding cannot be sustained. I am of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter must go back to the Commissioner (Appeals). He shall re-consider the appellants rsquo stay application as well as modification application on their merits and dispose of them in the first instance by a speaking order after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal will then be disposed of on its merits in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, subject, of course, to the decision on the stay and modification applications. 6. emsp The impugned order is set aside and the present appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2003 (10) TMI 530 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hence scrap must be removed to the job worker only on payment of duty. 5. emsp On this ground the demand was confirmed against the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) s order reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 6. emsp During the hearing, the appellants placed reliance on Board rsquo s Circular No. 15/89. The said circular permits the manufacture to send the scrap to a job worker even under Rule 57F(2). From the above it is apparent that, despatch of aluminium scrap can either be under Rule 57F(2) (subject to compliance of procedure as prescribed there under) or also could be under Rule 57F(5) (which is specifically applicable to removal of scrap), on payment of duty. The manufacturer has an option to work under either scheme. 7. emsp Accordingly, I hold that, there is no case for demanding duty from the appellants for despatch of aluminum scrap, during the period involved. The appeal succeeds and the same is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside.
-
2003 (10) TMI 529 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund claim - Limitation - Protest ... ... ... ... ..... respondent. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the effect of which would be that the writ petition filed by the Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. stands dismissed. Writ Petition (C) No. 189 of 1993 filed by M/s. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. in this Court also stands dismissed. No costs. Civil Appeal No. 4381 of 1999. rdquo In the judgment, the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court has distinguished their earlier judgment in the case of Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 290 (S.C.). Further, in the instant case, it is not the case of the assessee that they have produced proof that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers. 8. emsp In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate authority and I uphold the impugned order. In the result, the appeal filed by the party and the Revenue are rejected as being devoid of merits.
-
2003 (10) TMI 528 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Invoice - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... true. That is certainly not the same to take Modvat credit is absolutely and unconditionally where any restriction by any requirement or condition of procedure. It is something like saying that there is a vested right to property in person disregard of the law recovered his property from a person wrongly holds by use of force and without regard. 4. emsp I am therefore satisfied that there is no ground for interference with the finding. 5. emsp Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the appellant. The contention of bona fide that the counsel for the appellant advances is again difficult to accept. It is to be noted that the appellant scored of the existing address on the invoice and substituted in its place its current address. The contention that it did so with the departmental officers rsquo knowledge, who failed to substantiate. In these circumstances, penalty was imposable. Having regard to the facts of the case, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.
-
2003 (10) TMI 527 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ocess work rolls get rough and to get better finish these rolls are prepared by grinding so that finishing of strips is maintained. This item is used for maintained of machine which is used for finishing of final product and hence credit is not admissible on this item rdquo . (c) As the admitted use of the entity in question is in maintenance of Capital goods used in the manufacture of Steel Coils then such use cannot be by any stretch be used for manufacture of the Coils. Modvat credit on maintenance equipment has not been upheld by the Larger Bench in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE, Raipur 2003 (159) E.L.T. 553 (T - LB) 2003 (57) RLT 739 (LB) . Following the same this appeal is required to be dismissed. 2. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 526 - CESTAT,MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ction of each of the machines. The electro pneumatic special purpose machine checks the design parameters of clutch cover assemblies, the balancing machine checks the proper balance of the clutch the gauges used to measure the dimensions of the teeth splined hubs which form part of the clutch assembly the load cell checks the load clutch cover could take. 4. emsp It cannot be disputed that these machines are required for ensuring the correct dimensions and other parameters of the components of the clutch assembly that the appellant manufactures. It would be fair to say that the goods cannot be manufactured without such items. They are thus clearly covered by the definition of the term ldquo capital goods rdquo contained in Rule 57Q. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Jawahar Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 would also apply to the appellant rsquo s case. The goods were therefore clearly capital goods. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (10) TMI 525 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... nd unrepresented. I have heard the departmental representative and read the memorandum of appeal. 3. emsp In its decision, the Larger Bench has held that the requirement that credit must be taken on no other copy than the duplicate was a substantive requirement and in the event that this has been lost in transit it could be taken on the basis of the original only if the Asstt. Commissioner is satisfied about the loss of the duplicate in the transit. The Asstt. Collector in his order has clearly expressed his lack of satisfaction in this regard. He has pointed out that the assessee only approached the Asstt. Collector regarding to report the loss of the original only eight months after the credit was taken and there was no document in support of the contention. I am therefore satisfied that the requirement set out in Avis Electronics has not been complied with. 4. emsp The appeal is therefore allowed and the impugned order set aside. The order of the Asstt. Collector restored.
-
2003 (10) TMI 524 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... otice is barred by limitation as the entire duty demand confirmed against them was available by way of Modvat credit to their unit at Daman, namely, recipient unit, in the light of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Jay Yuhshin Limited v. CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 where in the Tribunal has held that the Revenue neutrality situation by way of availability of Modvat credit to an assessee rsquo s unit would make the extended period inapplicable as suppression cannot be alleged in such circumstances, is acceptable prima facie in the facts of this case. We also note that the recipient unit at Daman paid duty over and above the amount of duty confirmed against the applicant rsquo s Borivli unit and in these circumstances the Supreme Court decision in the case of Amco Batteries Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) is also applicable. We, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.
-
2003 (10) TMI 523 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Maintainability of - Production capacity based duty ... ... ... ... ..... oner under sub-section (2) of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was not an appealable order. In para 2 of the said decision it was observed that ldquo we are not inclined to agree with the direction of the Commissioner through the Assistant Commissioner, P and V that the order passed by the CCE under sub-section (2) of Section 3A is an appealable order rdquo . However, it was observed therein that he is bound to redetermine the capacities in terms of Section 3A(4), if there is a request for redetermination. In this case also, we find that with or without making observations when there was a request he is duty bound to redetermine the capacities in terms of Section 3A(4). Concerned authorities are directed to take note of the plea made by the party before us in this regard. Be that as it may, we make it clear that no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the provisional order passed by the Commissioner. In the view we have taken, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2003 (10) TMI 522 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty - Abatement of duty - Closure of factory ... ... ... ... ..... the learned JDR for the appellants that the reading of the electricity meter was not furnished by the respondents on the date of closure of their factory as well as on the date of re-start of the factory, and as such they could not be said to have fulfilled the requirement of Rule 96 ZO(2), cannot be accepted in the face of the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Department. The learned Commissioner has recorded detailed reasons in the impugned order and also discussed each and every ground put forth in the show cause notice for denying the abatement claim of the respondents, by the Department. He has arrived at a definite conclusion that the respondents had met with the requirement of Rule 96ZO(2) in every respect. I do not find any sufficient material to disturb these findings of fact, of the Commissioner. Therefore, in my view, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is perfectly valid and is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 521 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Recovery of wrongly availed credit ... ... ... ... ..... completion would be used to store sugar manufactured in the mill. It is possible to construe these goods to be component of the sugar mill. However, the definition of capital goods contained in the explanation below Rule 57Q(1), that ldquo they must be used for producing or processing any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in the manufacture of the final product rdquo does not provide for consideration as capital goods of items of components which are being put to use for manufacture of anything which is to be used in the future for producing or processing any goods. The expression ldquo used for producing or processing any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in the manufacture of the final products rdquo contained in Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) does not in my view take into its scope such goods used for initial construction. These goods therefore would not qualify as capital goods. 5. emsp Appeal 96/97 allowed. Appeal 97/97 dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 520 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Registration - Single Registration ... ... ... ... ..... d by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad. It is based on the premis that the Sugar and Distillery units of M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. are separate for Central Excise purposes. It is not in dispute that if the two units are treated as one factory there can be no such demand of duty on the Sugar unit as raised in the impugned order, nor any such penalty on the two units as imposed under the said order. We have already held that the two units are entitled to single registration with the Central Excise Department. Accordingly, for the periods relevant to the instant appeal, the two units will be treated as one and the same factory and consequently the demand of duty raised on the company requires to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the demand raised on the Sugar unit of company as also the mandatory penalty imposed on that unit. Further the penalty imposed on the Distillery unit is also vacated. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 519 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
EOU - DTA sale of rejects ... ... ... ... ..... year as they have removed the goods as per the permission granted by the Development Commissioner. Regarding clearance of rejects, the Department has not rebutted the submissions made by the Appellants that rejects were removed by them as per permission granted by the Development Commissioner only. Para 9.9(a) of the Policy provides that unless specifically prohibited in the LOP/LOI, rejects may be sold in the Domestic Tariff Area on the basis of records maintained by the unit and on prior intimation to the Customs Authority. Such sale above 5 of the FOB value of the export shall be accounted against DTA sales entitlement under Paras 9.9(b) and (d) of the Policy. It is apparent from this Para that only sale of rejects above 5 of the FOB value of exports shall be accounted against DTA sales. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellants have removed rejects more than 5 of the FOB value of exports. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow all the Appeals.
-
2003 (10) TMI 518 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine and penalty - Imposition of - EOU ... ... ... ... ..... t adversely affect the powers of the Commissioner to impose penalty as held by the Tribunal in the case of Perfect Embroidery v. C.C.E., Mumbai-VII, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 752 (Tribunal). 5. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The appellants have not disputed that the goods were lying in their factory premises unaccounted in the prescribed records. They have also not challenged the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is upheld by us. In view of the fact that the goods were lying in the factory premises unaccounted, the same are liable for confiscation and the appellants are liable to pay penalty. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be met if the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs. one lakh and the redemption fine is also reduced to Rs. one lakh. We order accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
............
|
