|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 699 Records
-
2004 (3) TMI 672 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MUMBAI-II
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... - Mum.) 2. M/s. New Reshma Dyg. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai as reported in 2004 (60) RLT 813 (CESTAT - Mum.) 13. emsp M/s. FIAPL got licence for manufacturing of various types of licenced products. The goods supplied by M/s. Fiat Auto are bought out and manufactured items. These items were supplied by Fiat Auto to M/s. FIAPL by adding mark up profit. The prices of the goods are as per the Fiat Auto price list which gives the ex-works price and other charges like Carriage to port of shipment, packing charges, handling charges at port of shipment, packing cost, sea freight, insurance, etc. The prices charged by Fiat Auto are fair and reasonable and are genuine commercial prices. The pricing is on negotiation basis. The relationship has not in any way influenced the invoice value. I also find that M/s. Fiat Auto did not pay any commission to M/s. FIAPL for import of items for the manufacture of licenced products. 14. emsp In view of the above, I uphold the order of the lower authority.
-
2004 (3) TMI 671 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... aken by Revenue are - (i) Scheme of VABAL does not permit such refunds/credits. (ii) There is nothing on record to show that no imports in Lic. No. 2137667 were made. (iii) Rely on Clause V(a) of Notification 203/92. 3. emsp Credit cannot be denied and benefit of Modvat Rules, especially Rule 57F(13) cannot be ousted nearly because Lic. No. 2137667 under VABAL has been obtained. The duty free imports under the Lic. could be interdicted as per Clause V(a) of Notification 203/92. The proper course would be to alert the Customs Authority of the fact of availment of credit, rather than deny the same. No merits are found in the appeal the same is therefore dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 670 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Exim - Advance Licence - Export obligation - Abatement claim - Penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... he Notification in exporting the goods. Therefore, they stated that the situation warrants for setting aside the penalty. On a overall consideration, we notice that the appellant has not fulfilled the terms of the Notification but instead they sold the goods without seeking any permission. In the circumstances, there is a violation of law calling for imposition of penalty. However, the penalty imposed is excessive. The duty liability that could work out in the case, as per calculation would be, Rs. 1,05,28,334/-. We note that atleast 10 of penalty would be justified on Raju Bothra and hence, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 50,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The impugned order is modified in so far as penalty on Raju Bothra is concerned, from Rs. 50,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to re-consider the aspect pertaining to abatements claimed on the three Advance Licences noted supra. Thus, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2004 (3) TMI 669 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Natural justice - Documents relied upon, non-furnishing of ... ... ... ... ..... d 27-4-1998 and 28-4-1998 on the very next day, namely, 29-4-1998, but the Commissioner has not considered his retraction. 8. emsp As for Zenith Computers the plea raised before us is that there is no material on record to bring out knowledge on their part that they were purchasing smuggled goods. 9. emsp In the light of the above discussion on non-supply of documents to Deepak Dialani and denial of the right of cross-examination we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs for fresh decision after supply of documents relied upon against Deepak Dialani in the impugned order and supply of 67 documents requested by him and after permitting cross-examination of 17 persons, as per the list given by him, referred to in para 39.1 of the impugned order. Fresh orders shall be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the above named appellants. 10. emsp In the result the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
2004 (3) TMI 668 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... enous manufacture of licensed goods and not to the imported goods, is not addable to the assessable value of the imported goods. Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeal against the appellant, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Essar Gujarat Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) 1996 (17) RLT 587 (SC) . The Larger Bench of the Tribunal after considering the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decision, held that, the issue before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Essar Gujarat Ltd. was regarding the technical know-how fee which is essential for the operation of the plant. The facts of the present case are different. In the present case, royalty is to be paid in respect of goods manufactured. We find that, the ratio of Larger Bench decision of Tribunal is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 667 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat (Duty paying documents) ... ... ... ... ..... ed for the period in dispute. But the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the documents under the cover of which the appellants purchased the material did not contain any reference to the duty element and as such the deemed Modvat credit has been rightly denied to them. No ground for admission of the appeal is made out. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
2004 (3) TMI 666 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
Export Oriented Units - B-17 Bond ... ... ... ... ..... calculated on the duty foregone for non-payment of duty on the capital goods imported or raw material indigenously obtained filed by the appellant-company is accepted by the department, and as the said amount is reduced to 25 of the duty involved, there was no question of again asking the appellant-company to furnish fresh - 17 Bond and the DTA sales Bond for a sum of Rs. 2.50 crore and Rs. 0.50 crore, respectively, with appropriate surety. Thus, the Order F. No. VI (Misc.) 16-BSR-1/23/SUP/03/5447, dated 10-12-2003 passed by the A.C.C. Ex Boisar-I Division is required to be held as legally not proper and correct. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and without going into the correctness of the calculations given in Annexures A and B to the said letter, I set aside the Order F. No. VI (Misc.) 16-BSR-1/23/SUP/03/5447, dated 10-12-2003 passed by the A.C.C. Ex., Boisar-I Division of Thane-II Commissionerate. 13. emsp The appeal petition is disposed off accordingly.
-
2004 (3) TMI 665 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... on/investigation regarding the alleged under-invoicing. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. emsp We have heard Shri S.V. Parelkar, learned DR, and perused the records as none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. 3. emsp We find that the adjudicating authority has applied Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 which is rightly applicable, as contended before us by the department. It was open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to either uphold the loading of value or setting aside the same if he was of the view that the loading was not justifiable. He ought not to have directed provisional assessment of bill of entry which had already been assessed finally. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision on whether enhancement of value is sustainable or not, to the lower appellate authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the importers. 4. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
2004 (3) TMI 664 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... tioned, on sufficient cause being shown. 8. emsp In a situation where the manufacturer has taken the credit, it is for the Assistant Commissioner to come to his conclusive findings to the effect that such credit is not permissible for valid reasons to be recorded. The Assistant Commissioner cannot say that just because the manufacturer had failed to obtain prior permission, the credit is required to be disallowed. 9. emsp In the instant case, I note that the capital goods were installed in the appellant rsquo s factory by M/s. Blue Star Ltd., and the payment of duty thereon is not in dispute as also the fact of their installation. Therefore, I hold that the lower authorities were in error not in denying the credit and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are not sustainable and are required to be set aside. 10. emsp Therefore, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities with consequential relief, in accordance with the law.
-
2004 (3) TMI 663 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing, condonation of ... ... ... ... ..... manner. As per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), has to be filed within 60 days from the receipt of the order. Section, further, provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within 60 days, allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. The appeal, before the Commissioner (Appeals), has to be filed within maximum period of 90 days of the receipt of the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power, under the statute, to condone any delay beyond 30 days after the normal period of 60 days. As in the present matter the appeal has been filed after more than 90 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants before him on the ground of limitation. We find no reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the appeal, filed by the appellants is rejected.
-
2004 (3) TMI 662 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay of order - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... to justify the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents, however, have not cited any case law in support of their contention. On examination of the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue and the written submissions of the respondents, we note that an issue of fundamental nature has been thrown up in this case, which is whether, in respect of imported goods, a price agreed between the foreign supplier and the Indian importer at a point of time posterior to the importation could be accepted as assessable value for purposes of Section 14 of the Customs Act. No judicial authority has been cited before us to justify the view taken by the lower appellate authority on the above issue. On the other hand, the appellant seems to rely on certain decisions of the Tribunal to assail the decision of the lower authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the Revenue has made out a strong prima facie case. 5. emsp Accordingly, we stay the operation of the impugned order.
-
2004 (3) TMI 661 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Review and appeal ... ... ... ... ..... The provision of law which he earlier did not notice and which came to his knowledge later on can be taken to be new material before him apart from the fact that he was statutorily vested with the power and was required to authorize filing of appeal, against any illegal and incorrect order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under Section 35B(2). As such, the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents is rejected. 6. emsp In view of my findings as above, the impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with the legal provisions. It shall be open to the respondents to raise before the Commissioner (Appeals) the question relating to the 11th consignment which according to them was not covered in the show cause notice. The respondents shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order. The department rsquo s appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2004 (3) TMI 660 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ction on the document such as gate passes which have already been declared as valid duty paying document under Rule 57G without any restrictions relating to number of endorsements. Since under the Rule 57G the gate passes and any other documents happen to be prescribed documents, notwithstanding the number of endorsements made thereon, the said documents continue to be valid documents for the purpose of taking duty credit and to that extent the circular issued by the Board being contrary to provisions of Rule 57G, cannot come in the way of permitting the credit. In other words, restriction imposed by the Board can only be confined to documents, which have been authorised by the Board to be duty paying documents and cannot apply to documents specifically listed under the Rule without prescribing any such restrictions, in the rule itself. 7. emsp In view of the above discussion, the appeal succeeds, the same allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.
-
2004 (3) TMI 659 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Air-conditioners ... ... ... ... ..... t time when the credit was taken by the appellants, specifically excluded vide Sr. No. 2 of the table refrigerating and air conditioning appliances and machinery falling under sub-heading 8415.00 from the purview of the capital goods used in the factory of the manufacturer for becoming eligible for credit for manufacture of final products. Thus the lower authorities have correctly denied the credit to the appellants as they were not eligible for credit in view of the Notification No. 6/97, dated 1-3-1997. The ratio of the cases relied upon by the ld. Counsel in cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and JCT Electronics reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 541 is not applicable in this case as in those decisions, definition of capital goods at the relevant period prior to issue of Notification No. 6/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1997 was considered. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.
-
2004 (3) TMI 658 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Undervaluation - Contemporaneous imports - Confiscation of goods - Penalty on de facto and de jure importers
-
2004 (3) TMI 657 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... range that the nomenclature used in the invoices did not match the description of goods made in the declaration made in Rules 57G and T. The learned Counsel also has pointed out that subsequently the items in question had been specifically declared and condonation of delay sought in view of the objection raised by the Central Excise Authorities. 2. emsp We find merit in the appellant rsquo s case. Mere differences in nomenclature between the invoices and description given in Modvat declaration cannot be a ground for denial of Modvat credit. Moreover, the appellant subsequently filed detailed declaration mentioning each of the items by name. It is well settled that a substantial benefit like Modvat credit should not be denied merely because of inaccuracy in description. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants after setting aside the impugned order. The amounts deposited by the appellants during the pendency of the appeals shall be returned to them.
-
2004 (3) TMI 656 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Captive consumption - Comparable price - Penalty - Mandatory penalty ... ... ... ... ..... be believed. In this case, the appropriate adjustment such as the price difference between the inferior and superior quality of raw materials could have been taken into consideration provided the appellants furnished the required data, and also establish conclusively that the containers captively consumed were made from a particular grade of tin plate. Against this background, resort to valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) cannot be supported. 6. emsp In the absence of any worthwhile data to support the claim made by the appellants, we hold that the orders passed by the lower authorities in demanding the duty do not require any interference. 7. emsp However, taking note of the fact that the short-levy occurred on account of the appellant rsquo s misunderstanding of the legal provisions, the penalty imposed calls for reduction. We, accordingly, reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only). But for this modification, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
2004 (3) TMI 655 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... thly as there would be leakage from the pipes. These sheets are used in the pipe which carry sugarcane juice to points for production of sugar in the factory. Therefore, keeping in view the use of these jointing sheets, in my view, Modvat credit has been rightly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and his order finds corroboration from the ratio of law laid down in Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 157 wherein on jointing sheets credit had been allowed. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 654 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Fabrics sent to job work ... ... ... ... ..... Engg. (supra) and Ajay Industrial Corporation (supra) taking a cue from the Apex Court decision in the case of Formica India Division (supra) rendered in the context of Rule 56A procedure where the duty was not paid earlier as the assessee was contesting correctness of the classification and dutiability. To my mind allowing Modvat credit in such situations where the laid down procedure has not been followed and no rules exist to take care of such exigencies, amounts to writing a new rule and filling a legislative vacuum. I am not sure that the Tribunal is vested with legal powers to do so. However, since the Tribunal Benches, on earlier occasions, have allowed Modvat credit in somewhat similar circumstances, following the ratio of the said decisions I also allow Modvat credit of basic and additional excise duty paid on fabrics to be utilised in the prescribed manner for payment of basic and additional excise duty respectively. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
2004 (3) TMI 653 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation & penalty - Non-accountal of goods - Demand & Penalty - Shortage of goods, alleged
............
|
