Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 582 Records
-
2006 (9) TMI 482 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing, condonation of ... ... ... ... ..... 1-2-2006 of the Government of India and the papers were returned to the applicant for filing the appeal before the CESTAT. It appears from the record that, the applicants were misled by the note on the first page of the Order-in-Appeal, which stated that, appeal against the order lies to the Joint Secretary (Revision Application), Government of India. The applicants have, therefore, made out a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The applications is accordingly allowed and the delay is condoned. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 26-9-2006)
-
2006 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... idence of duty has not been passed on to the customers or the evidence already produced is to be treated as sufficient evidence. There is no finding by the Deputy Commissioner as to whether he satisfies about production of evidence by the evidence or not. There is no indication in the impugned order what is required to be produced. The order-in-appeal also simply follows the order-in-original and applying the ratio of (1) CCE v. Allied Photographics Limited - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (2) Mafatlal Industries Limited - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) (3) SRF Limited v. CCE - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) and (4) Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE and C - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C) denied the refund to the appellants. After examining all these aspects, I am convinced that the refund claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The refund is to be sanctioned to the party but not to be transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund. Hence the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 480 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... same got damaged for which a claim for insurance was made. They received a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- on the deteriorated value of damaged gear box. He further states that they have neither removed the gear box nor have they used them in any other manner than in the production of goods in their factory. 2. emsp The learned SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. emsp Having heard both the sides and perused the record, we find much life in the applicant rsquo s contention that the claim of insurance received cannot be equated with the sale proceeds of the gear box and that too in a damaged condition after long use in the factory. We therefore, direct that there will be an interim stay of the impugned order till the matter is finally taken up for final hearing. The requirement of pre-deposit is accordingly waived. The appeal will come in its own turn. The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 29-9-2006)
-
2006 (9) TMI 479 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ever, the Department has taken the view that different MRPs cannot be applied to the goods sold in the same area. In other words the Department has taken a view that no two MRP can be adopted for the same area. Prima facie the view of the Department appears to be correct and, therefore, their stay petition is disposed on the following terms (a) The appellant will deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance by 1-11-2006. (b) Subject to above, the stay is granted and pre-deposit waived in respect of balance duty amount demanded and the penalty imposed. In the event of non-compliance, the case will be dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
-
2006 (9) TMI 478 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Nickel Alloy bars - Customs exemption ... ... ... ... ..... , the goods, admittedly, conforms to the said parameters vide chemical test report. It is also pertinent to note that no specific heading applicable to nickel or to its alloys was used in the Notification, against Sl. No. 438 ibid. Only the chapters were mentioned, which included Chapter 75 covering nickel and alloys of that metal. The intent underlying Sl. No. 438 ibid was, clearly, to allow concessional rate (5 ) of duty in respect of nickel and its alloys answering the parameters laid down under Section Note 5 and articles thereof, falling under Chapter 75 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The goods imported by the respondents very much fits in this description of goods given at Sl. No. 438 of the Table annexed to the above Notification and, therefore, the concessional rate of duty was rightly allowed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4. emsp In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 477 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Interest on delayed grant ... ... ... ... ..... C. Ex., Bhandara Division with directions to dispose of the refund claim under the provisions of Section 11B of CEA, 1944. rdquo 4. emsp It is to be noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) have not sanctioned the refund but he has only ordered for de novo consideration of the refund claim already filed. In pursuance of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) refund has been sanctioned. The appellant claimed interest for the delayed refund from 9-9-1997. The interest was not paid on the ground that the refund has been sanctioned within 3 months from the date of order-in-appeal. 5. emsp Since the Commissioner (Appeals) did not sanction the refund but merely ordered for de novo consideration. The relevant date for interest purpose should be treated as three months after the date of originally filing of their refund claim, namely, 9-9-1997. Accordingly the appellant is eligible for payment of Rs. 2,973/- as interest. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 21-9-2006)
-
2006 (9) TMI 476 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... . There is no dispute over the fact that the inputs had been actually used in the manufacture of the final products. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, therefore, rightly held that Modvat credit was admissible for the cap (plastic closure), which was a part of blown bottle ldquo pet preform rdquo which was not complete without the cap. 5. emsp On the question of the sub-heading in the declaration dated 11-3-1999, in respect of the products shrink sleeves, the Appellate Commissioner has correctly held that there was no sub-heading 3910.39 in the tariff at the relevant time which position was clarified by the assessee by their letter dated 8-12-1999, and that in view of the circular dated 23-2-1999 of the Board, Modvat credit could not be disallowed on the ground of such technical error. There is, therefore, no warrant for interference with the impugned order which has been passed for cogent reasons. The appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 21-9-2006)
-
2006 (9) TMI 475 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of seized goods - Non-accountal in statutory records ... ... ... ... ..... gal remedies available to him in case witnesses deny their presence during Panchanama proceedings. It was open for the adjudicating authority to take this matter in a different way i.e. asking for cross-examination of the witnesses to counter the affidavits and bringing the truth on record. Instead of this the adjudicating authority simply brushed aside the affidavits, summararily. 6. emsp Since the proceedings in Panchnama are in itself doubtful, any confiscation order relying on such panchnama would be incorrect, as the seizure of the goods is in itself is clouded, further proceedings on such seizure would also get vitiated. 7. emsp Without going into the merits and the other arguments made by both sides, I find that on this issue itself the orders of the lower authorities are unsustainable. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2006 (9) TMI 474 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Appeal by Department - Delay in filing - Condonation of - Review - Committee of Commissioners
-
2006 (9) TMI 473 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Gold - Possession whether conscious ... ... ... ... ..... d possession of this quantity of gold was not unnatural for them. We further note that the intelligence in this case was not specific as the location of quantity was not indicated in the information and it was a part of series of raids carried out at the premises of various persons. In view of this we find no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the CJM holding that the primary gold in the form of 12 gold slabs and 13 gold rods were not in the conscious possession of the appellant. In view of the same, they are not liable for confiscation and the confiscation thereof is accordingly set aside. We, however, uphold the confiscation of 18 gold foils weighing 49.300 g. allowed to be cleared on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 500/-. The penalty is however reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs imposed by the Collector (which was reduced to Rs. 30,000/- by the earlier order of the tribunal which has now been set aside by the High Court) to Rs. 500/- only. (Pronounced on 19-9-2006)
-
2006 (9) TMI 472 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ... ... ... ..... ts transportation from the supplier rsquo s premises to the job worker rsquo s factory. In this case, the supplier rsquo s premises is Katpadi Railway station, from where the cost of transportation incurred by the job worker was reimbursed by the Railways. 3. emsp The order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) viz. No. 103/99 dated 31-5-99 demanding duty of Rs. 1,29,522/- from the assessee on the above cost of transportation of cement has only to be sustained. Order-in-Appeal No. 119/99 was not passed on merits but on the sole ground of non-compliance with Section 35F of C. Ex. Act. At this distant point of time, we are not inclined to make any order of remand. Applying the view taken by us in relation to Order-in-Appeal No. 103/99, we sustain the original authority rsquo s order demanding differential duty of Rs. 11,478/- for the period April to September, 1992. 4. emsp In the result, both these appeals stand dismissed on merits. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 471 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... uty under the Central Excise Act cannot be disputed now. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions. We find that admittedly the matter relates to demand of duty for non-fulfilment of conditions of Notification No. 83/90-Cus., dated 20-3-90 prescribing concessional rate of duty for scrap of iron and steel imported and, therefore, the demand if any could have been raised under the Customs Act only and not under the Central Excise Act. A mere remand of the matter to Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who also has jurisdiction over customs matter decided by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise does not mean that the tribunal has upheld that the demand can be made under the Central Excise Act. In view of the same, we find that the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour so as to completely waive the pre-deposit of duty and, accordingly, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending disposal of the appeal.
-
2006 (9) TMI 470 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ch of the Tribunal in the case of Goenka Woolen Mills is clearly held that the authorities have not disallow the credit of inputs lying stock as on date of clearing the stock of the final product. The appellants are entitled for credit in respect of the inputs received till 5-6-1997 whether utilized and cleared in the shape of final product or not. 9. emsp It appears that the adjudicating authority has wrongly applied the decision of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), since same has been considered in Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators and held to be not applicable. Thus my considered view is that proposed recovery of duty and penalty are not sustainable in view of the judgment of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 280 (Tri. - LB). Wherein it is held that the Modvat credit taken can be reversed, but not recovered. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. In the result, appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 469 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Appeal by Department - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... R reiterates the above explanation. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that sufficient cause has not been shown by the appellant. 3. emsp After considering the submissions, we can hardly persuade ourselves to accept the above explanation offered by the department. They say that the issue required detailed examination, but they do not say how much time was required for such examination. The officers involved are said to have been on election duty, deputation etc. Which officer was on election duty and, if so, duty relating to which election, duration of election duty etc. are relevant questions left unanswered. The situation is no different in regard to lsquo deputation. rsquo Hence we have to accept learned counsel rsquo s submission that the delay of appeal has not been explained at all, let alone to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. 4. emsp In the result, the COD application is dismissed. Consequently, appeal also gets dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 468 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Exemption - Ready to eat food products ... ... ... ... ..... ng the same under Chapter 20 CCE, Bangalore v. Anitha Sausages and Foods (P) Ltd. - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 410 which deals with classification of vegetable burger, South Indian sambhar, vegetable cutlets, vegetable stems under Chapter sub-heading 2001.01. Further reliance is also placed on Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Maharshi Ayurveda Corpn. Ltd. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) which deals with herbonic tonic, a mixture of assorted vegetation and dry fruits and seeds which can be considered under Chapter 20. A copy of the explanatory note is also filed. The Commissioner shall take all the citations and material placed by the appellants to reconsider the entire matter afresh. The matter shall be re-adjudicated within four months from the receipt of this order and the Commissioner shall pass a speaking order by following the principles of natural justice. Thus, appeal is allowed by remand to the Original Authority. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 467 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - By-product ... ... ... ... ..... es Ltd v. CCE, Final Order No. C-11/1921/2001-WZB, dated 20-7-2001 2001 (138) E.L.T. 94 (Tribunal) . 2.8 emsp There was no machinery provision to demand 8 of the sale price under Rule 57CC(1) and hence the demand raised and confirmed is entirely without any legal basis. The CEGAT in the following decisions in the case of demand under Rule 57CC(1) was there is no machinery provision and hence the demand is to be set aside. 2.9 emsp Since super-heated steam has been used in the generation of electricity and it is spent or exhausted product that is being utilised not wasted not suitable for the purpose for which it was generated i.e. electricity the subsequent utilisation of exhausted steam could not be a reason to deny the credits as availed which would be eligible, on use of super-heat steam has been used as electricity was generated. 3.1 emsp In the view, we are taking, we found no reason to uphold the order. The same is set aside and the appeal allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 465 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... issed the appeal of the assessees. 3. emsp We find that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out for the reason that in the case of same assessees in the same proceedings the predecessor Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the amendment to Rule 57D(2) w.e.f. 18-5-1995 was only clarificatory and therefore retrospective while after remand of the same proceedings the present Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a diametrically opposite view while dismissing the application for modification, which lead to the dismissal of the appeal. Since no findings on the merits of the issue namely eligibility to credit has been recorded by the lower appellate authority, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence, without insisting on any pre-deposit. 4. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by remand. (Dictated in Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 464 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... issed the appeal of the assessees. 3. emsp We find that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out for the reason that in the case of same assessees in the same proceedings the predecessor Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the amendment to Rule 57D(2) w.e.f. 18-5-1995 was only clarificatory and therefore retrospective while after remand of the same proceedings the present Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a diametrically opposite view while dismissing the application for modification, which lead to the dismissal of the appeal. Since no findings on the merits of the issue namely eligibility to credit has been recorded by the lower appellate authority, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence, without insisting on any pre-deposit. 4. emsp The appeal is thus allowed by remand. (Dictated in Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 463 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ng the passenger capacity of their vehicles to be above 16. In the circumstances, it is contended that the assessee rsquo s claim for exemption from payment of NCCD cannot be sustained. 4. emsp After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find force in the case made out by learned SDR. A mere lsquo job work statement rsquo of the appellants cannot be relied on to record a finding that the motor vehicles cleared by them during the period of dispute had passenger capacity of over 16. Certificates of RTO as well as the statements of the appellants rsquo own functionaries (Accountant and Asst. Accountant) are evidences in favour of the department. Prima facie, the appellants were liable to pay NCCD 1 ad valorem. Hence they shall pre-deposit the duty amount within 4 weeks and report compliance on 12-10-2006. In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amount. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2006 (9) TMI 462 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the party. As the demand was beyond the period of five years and, therefore, clearly barred by limitation of time under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the date of detection of the case was not relevant for this purpose. Thus the demand is barred by limitation of time and, therefore, no penalty or demand of interest on duty alleged to have been evaded is imposable or demandable rdquo . 2. emsp The revenue in their memo of appeal have contended that the date of detection of the clandestine removal should be taken as the relevant date. However, I do not find any merit in the above plea, inasmuch as there is no definition of relevant date relatable to the date of detection of the offence. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the demand having been raised even after the maximum period of five years provided under law, is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly, I find no merits in the revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same. (Dictated in Court)
............
|