|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 189 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 346 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... nnection with foreign based person. The identity of foreign based person is not mentioned either in the show cause notice or in the impugned Order. The Department has thus not succeeded in showing that the brand name in question belongs to another person. There is no force in the submissions of the learned SDR also that the direction of the Trade Mark Registry to delete the words ldquo of London rdquo from the brand name indicates that the brand name does not belong to them. The deletion may be suggested by the Trade Mark Registry for a number of reasons. The reason in the present matter is apparent from the disclaimer clause which provides that ldquo registration of this trade mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of device of Deer and word ldquo London rdquo . In the absence of any material to show that the brand name belongs to another person the benefit of SSI notification cannot be denied to the Appellants. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the Appellants.
-
2003 (8) TMI 345 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Physician’s samples - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd. remains affirmed by the Apex Court 2003 (154) E.L.T. 10 . Thus, the appellants have no case on this score. However, they are right in their contention that further addition of 10 to the sale price of medicines was not justified. The goods are required to be subjected to duty based on their normal value. In the present case, same medicine is disposed of both by sale and through free distribution. The sale price has also been accepted as normal value and approved as assessable value and the appellants have been paying duty on the sale price. There is no reason to hold that free supply medicines would fetch a higher price, in case they were sold. Therefore, freely supplied medicines are also required to be assessed at the value at which goods sold in ordinary course of trade were assessed. Both sides agree that the amount of duty payable on such assessment would be Rs. 4,24,263/-. Duty demand to this extent is confirmed. Subject to this relief, the impugned order is upheld.
-
2003 (8) TMI 343 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... cases arising under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, held that any payment of duty was provisional where a decision on classification list/price list was pending. 3. emsp I have examined the submissions in the light of the Larger Bench decision. In the instant case, admittedly, price lists in respect of the goods cleared by the respondents on 12-1-83 and 11-2-83 were approved only on 6-5-83. The refund claim was filed on 13-9-83 within the period of six months prescribed under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act. Till 6-5-83, the payment of duty was provisional. During that period, the provisions of Section 11-B were not applicable. The limitation provision of Section 11-B, in the instant case, operated only from 6-5-83, and the subject refund claim was filed within the prescribed period of six months from the said date. Hence the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the refund claim. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
-
2003 (8) TMI 342 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Shortages of inputs ... ... ... ... ..... quantum of plastic granules of various sizes, grades and variety. Shortages so detected by the Revenue on their visit in the godown are in respect of four such varieties of the granules and in each variety have been found to be less than 1 MT. However, compared to the overall stock position of each and every variety, such shortages would be negligible and hence ignorable. I have also taken into consideration the appellants rsquo stand that they are issuing non-cenvatable also. As such earning of credit on the basis of manufacturers rsquo invoice without actually having receipt the goods in their godown is not going to be any benefit to the appellants. I also note that the stock was also lying in the third godown which was not put to verification so as to arrive at the correct stock position. 5. emsp By taking all the facts into consideration, I extend the benefit of doubt and allow their appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
2003 (8) TMI 341 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Metal boxes - Geometrical/Mathematical boxes - Classification of goods - Demand - Limitation - Suppression
-
2003 (8) TMI 339 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... this case is whether issuance of credit notes or cheques by the assessee who is claiming refund, to buyer of the goods, taking back the burden of duty on the goods, would help the assessee to get over the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 2. emsp When these matters were called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. Radha Arun appearing for the Revenue submitted that the issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of S. Kumar rsquo s Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 217 (T-LB) 2003 (55) RLT 399 holding lsquo that the provisions of unjust enrichment are attracted even where the collected amount of excise duty has been paid back to the buyer subsequently. 3. emsp Taking into consideration the fact that the issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal, following the same, we accept the plea of the Revenue and accordingly, these two appeals are disposed off in the above terms.
-
2003 (8) TMI 338 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... at the issue involved herein has been squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills v. CCE, Jaipur 1999 (105) E.L.T. 317 (Tri.). In that case, it was held that the soft waste arising in the manufacture of yarn from non- duty paid fibre at mixing stage of simplex stage and not arising in or in relation to the manufacture of man-made staple fibre, not classifiable under sub-heading 5503.19/ 5503.20. 3. emsp Heard Shri Narasimha Murthy for the Revenue, who re-iterated the findings of the Commissioner. According to him, the Commissioner has held that the activity amounts to manufacture. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. On going through the findings given by the Commissioner and taking into consideration of the submissions and case law referred to by the Counsel, we are of the view that this issue has been clearly considered by the aforesaid decision referred to above. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 337 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... he Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and that it is not for the authority designated under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme to go into the extraneous matters and his function was to determine the declaration filed was qualified for acceptance. 2. emsp In its order, the Tribunal had noted of these points. Further, the Tribunal cannot go into the exemption and decide upon the action of a designated authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Based upon this prima facie view of the matter, the Tribunal had asked for some deposit and after hearing the representative of the applicant on the application, we do not find it possible to repart from the earlier prima facie view. Therefore, except for extending the time for compliance by a month from the receipt of this order, we decline to modify the Tribunal rsquo s earlier order. If compliance with the Tribunal rsquo s order is not reported on or before 30-9-2003 when the matter will come up, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 336 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Production capacity based duty ... ... ... ... ..... the facts of the present case. We find that after determination of Annual Capacity by the Commissioner of Central Excise, there is no change in the parameters of the Company. Therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal is not applicable on the facts of present case. We find, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of the duty. The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs (Rupees Seven lakhs only) in addition to the amount already deposited within six weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, the remaining amount of duty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Adjourned to 9th October, 2003 for reporting compliance.
-
2003 (8) TMI 335 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... h, 2000. For a mere delay of 15 days the Appellant has been visited with a 100 penalty of Rs. 3,33,333.50 and interest of Rs. 2,166/-. But it is not in dispute that the Commissioner rsquo s order determining the duty liability was issued on 1-4-2000 only, whereas the appellant has discharged the liability on 30-3-2000 itself. The Hon rsquo ble CEGAT decision in the case of Silvester Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 119 (T) is relevant. The Lower Authority is not even able to write one line as to why he is imposing such a disproportionate penalty. This is nothing but an egregious abuse of quasi judicial power. The lines of William Shakespeare resonate in my mind ldquo O Justice, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and, man have lost their reason. rdquo 3. emsp I rsquo m appalled at the degradation in the quality of justice delivered by the system. What is grossly unreasonable is wholly unsustainable. The penalty imposed is vacated. 4. emsp Appeal allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 333 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Caustic soda and chlorine ... ... ... ... ..... ds used captively for the manufacture of ldquo wood pulp and pulp of other fibrous cellulosic materials rdquo vide item No. 10 in the Table annexed to Notification No. 10/96-C.E. ibid. In this case, there is no dispute of the fact that the Caustic soda and Chlorine were captively used for the manufacture of pulp of the said description. Accordingly, the appellants were entitled to duty-free captive clearance of caustic soda and chlorine during the relevant period. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is that the benefit of Notification 67/95-C.E. is not available to the party. Notification No. 10/96-C.E. stood on a different footing and the same exempted caustic soda and chlorine captively consumed for the manufacture of pulp of the above description, from payment of duty as we have already noted. This benefit cannot be denied to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner to the extent it is under challenge in this appeal. The appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 330 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand once set aside by Apex Court ... ... ... ... ..... ma facie, Revenue cannot raise the demand for the same period in view of the amended provisions of Section 110 of Finance Act, 2000. The applicant had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of Appeal. Adjourned to 20-10-03 for arguments.
-
2003 (8) TMI 329 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... provided for in accordance with normal commercial practice. rdquo The above clause prescribed a supplementary invoice like the one issued by M/s. Hydraulics Ltd. for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit of any additional amount of excise duty paid on the inputs. The above provision was in force on 19-1-2001, the date on which the credit in question was taken. An exception was added to the above clause w.e.f. 1-3-2001 by Notification No. 6/2001 ibid. Had the credit in question been taken on or after 1-3-2001, it would have been hit by that exception. The amended provision had no retrospective effect. The unamended clause (i) undisputedly entitled the appellants to take Cenvat credit of the differential amount of duty on the strength of the supplementary invoice. The credit was lawfully taken by the appellants. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The amount pre-deposited in this appeal shall be refunded to the appellants without delay.
-
2003 (8) TMI 328 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Original packing - Penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... cords and after having taken the credit in respect of the same is duty-bound to utilise the same in their own factory for the manufacture of the final product. There is no provision for clearance of the inputs on loan basis to another outside parties without making any entries in RG-23A part-I and without reversing the Modvat credit in their part-II. As such the clearance of the goods to M/s. Sonal Poly-plast was clearly without any authority of law. The appellants have also admitted the shortage of the balance 2.5 (approx.) M.T. and has not been able to explain the same. Accordingly, I am of the view that the duty in respect of 11.57566 M.T. of granules is required to be confirmed against the appellant. I order accordingly. 13. emsp As regards the personal penalty I find that only an amount of Rs. 1,03,758/- remains confirmed against the appellant by this order. The penalty is accordingly reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). Appeal is disposed of in above manner.
-
2003 (8) TMI 327 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... -7-2000 we find that the issue involved relates to the quantum of the duty liability of the assessee. The contention raised by the assessee on the issue of incentive scheme was accepted. Thus by Final Order of this Tribunal the quantum of duty due from the assessee was finally decided. Thereafter it is not open to the Revenue to file an appeal from the Order-in-Original in respect of a different item of deduction claimed by the assessee which would affect the quantum of duty due from it. We, therefore, hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the light of the Final Order passed by this Tribunal dated 26-7-2000. We are also of the view that in the light of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Oripol Industries - 2002 (155) E.L.T. 278 the Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the original authority. We set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 326 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Duty liability - Compounded levy scheme - Embroidered fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... been disputed by the Revenue that the Board under Circular, dated 2-9-69 has clarified that the duty liability of the manufacturer is to be computed on the basis of length of one roller or frame of the Embroidery machine. The period involved in the present appeal is from April, 1997 to 1st June, 1998. With effect from 2nd June, 1998 in sub-rule (6) of Rule 96Z(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the definition of ldquo metre length rdquo was substituted, according to which length in relation to machine means distance between the points provided for the first needle and the last needle of only one roller of such machine. This amendment was considered by the South Zonal Bench at Bangalore in the case of Maruti Embroderies (supra) as clarificatory and having retrospective effect. The West Zonal Bench also in the case of Doshi Industrial Corporation has allowed the appeal following the Board rsquo s Circular. In view of this we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 325 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Undervaluation - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... Department sought to place reliance on two letters of State Bank of India informing the excise authorities that the appellant had obtained cash credit limit of Rs. 50,000/-, that loan amount was sanctioned for manufacture of electric wires and cables and as per stock statement received from the appellants manufacturing of cable was done by them. The bank had forwarded 12 stock statements submitted by the assessee. The assessee had denied manufacture of wires and cables. Tribunal took the view that letters received from the bank cannot be relied on to come to the conclusion that the assessee had manufactured wires and cables without any corroborating evidence. In the light of the above authorities we hold that the Commissioner was justified in taking the view that undervaluation cannot be found against the assessees on the basis of bank statements. 8. emsp In the light of the above, we affirm the finding of the learned Commissioner and dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue.
-
2003 (8) TMI 324 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Review by Board - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Filing by department ... ... ... ... ..... the two assessees against a common order dated 28-9-2001 passed by the adjudicating authority, registry took objection. Thereafter, the appellant filed two separate applications which were beyond the time prescribed under sub-section (4). It is Explanation (2) to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 which provides for separate appeal. Explanation (2) reads as follows ldquo In case an impugned order is in respect of more than one persons, each aggrieved person will be required to file a separate appeal (and common appeals or joint appeals shall not be entertained). rdquo When the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise is the appellant we do not think it is necessary that two separate appeals need be filed by him even though the respondents are different assessees. Going by the date of the initial application there is no delay. Under these circumstances we hold that the COD is unnecessary and it is therefore dismissed. Appeals are heard along with connected matters.
-
2003 (8) TMI 323 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Return of defective goods for reprocessing ... ... ... ... ..... perate prejudicially to the assessees. rdquo 9. emsp In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that when the refund claim under Rule 173L of the Rules was rejected on the ground that the process of re-making or refining to which returned goods were to be subjected were not disclosed, otherwise, the manufacturer had complied with the provisions of Rule 173L of the Rules, in such a situation, the refund claim cannot be denied only on the ground that the processes of remaking were not explained by the manufacturer. 10. emsp In the present case, appellants had complied with the provisions of Rule 173L of the Rules by filing D-3 intimations regarding receipt of the defective goods and by maintaining a record which was duly authenticated by the revenue officer, in respect of the movement of the goods in the factory and their clearance on payment of duty. In such a situation, the impugned orders are not sustainable, hence set aside. The appeals are allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 322 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rought any material on record to connect the appellant with the illegal activities going on in the company for evasion of Central Excise duty. Shri Prem Shankar Gupta had connection with Sh. A.K. Tantia only to the extent of production pattern and not to the extent of clearance pattern of the goods from the factory. It is settled law that before the penalty can be imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Department has to prove that the person concerned was dealing with the goods with the knowledge that the goods are liable to confiscation. In absence of any such evidence brought on record, no penalty can be imposed on him. The Tribunal in the case of Autolite (India) Ltd. (supra), has set aside the penalty imposed on the Director after observing that there is no finding that he was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company or dealing with the goods, in question. I, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and allow his appeal.
........
|
