|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 383 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Benefit of Notification No. 281/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... in the appellant rsquo s own case reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 409 as not relating to smaller place called lsquo tool room rsquo but applicable to the entire factory. As such, it was held in that case that the goods which were manufactured in a factory and used for repair of maintenance within the factory would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification. Even though, the goods cannot strictly speaking were manufactured in a workshop within the factory. Accordingly, by following the ratio of the said judgment in the appellants rsquo own case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (1) TMI 382 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Manufacture - Demand - Penalty - Remand - Non-speaking order ... ... ... ... ..... n available is to set aside the order impugned and to remand the case for de novo consideration to the learned Original Adjudicating authority with the directions that firstly, he shall re-evaluate all the evidences on record which the appellants have submitted towards their claim that they have bought out computer systems and merely added peripherals and software which does not amount to manufacture to it, instead amounts to trading and secondly, while appreciating the said evidences and claim of the appellants that they have only engaged in trading activity, the learned Original Adjudicating authority shall also keep in view the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court rsquo s latest judgment in the case of O.R.G. Systems Ltd., supra which will help him in considering the issue vis-a-vis the minimum basic configuration of a computer system already outlined in the said judgment. 9. emsp The appeals are allowed by way of remand and the stay applications are therefore disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 381 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 120/75-C.E. available. ... ... ... ... ..... ationship, the department has to establish that the invoice price has been influenced by that relationship. In the present case, the department has not done that. rdquo 7. emsp In the case before the Supreme Court (Union of India v. Atic Industries reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.), the Court observed that it failed to see how it would be said that a Limited Company has any interest direct or indirect, in the business carried on by one of its shareholders even though the share holding of such shareholder may be 50 . Following the ratio of the Apex Court the Tribunal in the case of Graphite India Ltd. (supra) held that even if for argument rsquo s sake, it is to be assumed that there exists a financial relationship, the department has to establish invoice price has been influenced by that relationship. In the present case, since the department has not done that, and the following the aforesaid decisions, we set aside the impugned order and accordingly, appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 361 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Exemption to SSI units ... ... ... ... ..... rdquo therefore, the lower authorities had rightly denied the appellants the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 inasmuch as this trademark was owned by M/s. I.P.C.L. and M/s. I.P.C.L. were not themselves eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. On careful consideration of the submissions, we find that there were exceptions where the mark as affixed on the container for obvious reasons. However, this cannot be applicable universally. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that plastic films were not capable of being embossed with the trademark. Since the trademark was not embossed on the goods (L.D.P.E. Films), but was embossed only on the container, we hold that L.D.P.E. films packed in the plastic films were not bearing the trade-mark on behalf of M/s. I.P.C.L. In this view of the matter, they were entitled to the exemption Notification No. 175/86. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, in accordance with law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 352 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ation under Chapter 73 and not under Chapter 84 or 85 as the case may be. We find that under Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 in Serial No. (1) thereof casting articles of iron falling under Chapter Heading 7325.10 are fully exempted from duty, therefore the exemption contained therein is clearly applicable to the goods in question. Once the applicability of the Notification 202/88 is not excluded, then the choice between this notification and Notification No. 223/88 clearly lies with the assessee and the assessee has clearly chosen the Notification 202/88. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in this choice as per the legal position analysed above. Similarly, for the subsequent period, the matter is already under remand to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and therefore, no views are need to be expressed by us at this stage. 5. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that there is no merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 344 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
High Court Order - Stay/Dispensation of Pre-deposit, dismissal of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ore it. In terms of this judgment, the Tribunal is competent to take a decision following the practice adopted by it, in spite of the High Court rsquo s earlier Order and the fact that the assessees had flouted it by circumvention. 22. emsp During the proceedings, Counsel for the appellants mentioned that for this action a contempt notice had been issued by the Hon rsquo ble High Court to them. 23. emsp On the analysis above I concur with the findings of the ld. Member (Technical) made in para 15 of his Order and direct the appellants to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs against the demand of Rs. 1,03,63,709.24. 24. emsp These papers may now be placed before the original Bench for their Orders. Sd/- (J.H. Joglekar) Member (Technical) Dated 31-12-98 In view of the majority judgement, the Stay Petitions are conditionally allowed subject to compliance with the direction given by Member (Technical). Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (J) Dated 28-1-1999 Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Member (T)
-
1999 (1) TMI 337 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ower authorities had not given any finding that the appellants are manufacturing other products in the course of which scrap arises and which scrap has also been sold along with the scrap arising in the course of manufacture of points and crossings. We are, therefore, constrained to remand the matter on the second issue to the lower authorities to determine the quantum of duty. In case the appellants generate the scrap in the course of manufacture of other products, then, naturally value of that scrap cannot be included in determining the value of points and crossings. Accordingly, we remand the matter for determination of the quantum of duty. Since it is not denied by the Revenue authorities that only 5 extra is obtained by way of raw material, the scrap in any case generated in the course of manufacture of points and crossings cannot exceed 5 of the weight of points and crossings retained by the appellants after job work. 5. emsp Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (1) TMI 336 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rned Commissioner. Apart from this reasoning to which we cannot subscribe, there is no other finding as to why the larger period has been invoked in this case. Therefore we find that the Order impugned is not a speaking order with respect to the invokation of the larger period and the same needs to be set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration by the learned Commissioner after hearing the parties concerned and also after giving a detailed reason as to why extended period is justified. In view of the fact that the matter is being remanded on the issue of limitation itself, no directions or conclusions are expressed in this order on the question of merits which is left open and may be re-heared during the de novo proceedings on the basis of submissions made by the various appellants concerned. The appeal succeeds by way of remand. Since the matter lay on a short compass, we have proceeded to deal with the appeals themselves after giving waiver and stay thereof.
-
1999 (1) TMI 335 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... k to the original authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellants for a de novo consideration of the entire issue. We also direct that while doing so, the determination of the assessable value of their product manufactured and captively consumed cannot be done on the basis of the value of job work carried out in 1992 much before the period in question in all concern. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to consider all the issues raised before him in this de novo proceedings after hearing the appellants and then pass a speaking order. While doing so the provisions of Valuation Rule 6 (b) should also be kept in mind. Since the matter is involving substantial Revenue and appellants had already pre-deposited an amount of Rs. 1 crore before the first appellate authority, it goes without saying that the matter requires expeditious disposal at the original authority level. Appeal succeeds by way of remand accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... t the approved classification list. We find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of CCE, Madras v. Tube Investment of India Ltd., 1994 (71) E.L.T. 291 (T), wherein the Tribunal had observed that the sections not further worked out by assessee after cold-forming were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7216.20 of the tariff and M/s. Unitech Metals Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal had observed that the angles, shapes and sections cold formed for use in structures, if not prepared for use in these structures by further working, were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7216.20 and not under Heading No. 7308 of the Central Excise Tariff. 6. emsp As the matter is already covered and the case has been decided on the basis of the facts on record, we do not find any material to disturb the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... s. 23. emsp The 11C Notification (41/90) referred to in the paper book is also of no help as it covers a period subsequent to the period in dispute before us (Collector having already extended the benefit due for the period March, 1986 to June, 1987). 24. emsp At the same time, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as described at length by the learned Counsel and taken note of by my learned colleague it appears that the appellants had reasons to entertain a belief that their product was laminated paper and not merely coated paper and, in any case, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. 25. emsp Since the Department has not been able to establish the mala fides beyond doubt, only normal period of time was available to the Department. As the show cause notice was issued on 11-10-1989 for the period November, 1985 to 4-6-1987, the entire demand was time barred. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Sd./- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1999 (1) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and fine - Mutilation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... bility to penalty, the ld. Collector has observed as under - ldquo In this case, the Deputy Collector, Customs, Kandla had ordered mutilation of the old pipes. Had they been properly mutilated, they would have been cleared in view of Deputy Collector rsquo s order. rdquo On this observation, he refrained from imposing penalty. 9. emsp From the evidence on record, I find that the goods were properly mutilated and thereafter only they were cleared by the Customs. The situation being thus, there were no cause to hold that the goods were imported in contravention of the provisions of the Imports and Exports Control Order. I hold this because, in spite of the charges of misdeclaration etc. alleged in the show cause notice, the Collector has confined himself to order confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) alone. 10. emsp I, therefore, find that the case made out by the importers is strong. I accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit.
-
1999 (1) TMI 312 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Natural justice - Adjudication order - Evidence - Remand - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... .20 on the DHCR yarn cleared as DHPR during the period 5-3-1987 to 24-4-1987 is required to be remanded for de novo consideration for the reasons already indicated above. 14. emsp As regards the combined penalty imposed, the same is required to be re-determined along with the readjudication. The Collector has imposed a combined penalty without bifurcating the penalty for the attempt made in clearing 16,633 kgs of 31s SF DHCR yarn as plain yarn. Therefore, this aspect is left open for re-adjudication. Thus except for the order of confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of redemption fine, the rest of the matter is remanded for de novo consideration. 15. emsp The Collector shall decide the case in the light of the observations made above. As the matter pertains to the seizure made in 1987, the Collector shall take up this matter expeditiously and decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The appellants shall also cooperate.
-
1999 (1) TMI 311 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... facts and hence larger period is invokable. It is also seen that the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay, passed a detailed stay order vide No. 250/94 dated 29-1-1992 on this aspect. By a Majority Order, the Tribunal also expressed the view that there was no suppression in the matter and in this regard, the Bench noted the judgment of Tribunal rendered in the case of M/s. Filtronics Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 457 and that of C.C.E. v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.). This view expressed by the Majority, in the present matter at the time of hearing the stay, the stay order is required to be confirmed and there is no need to take a different view than already expressed at the time of passing the stay order. 6. emsp In that view of the matter, it is held that the demands are barred by time and as such penalty imposed is not sustainable. 7. emsp The appellant succeeds in this appeal and hence the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 310 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Limitation - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... facts and hence larger period is invokable. It is also seen that the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay, passed a detailed stay order vide No. 250/94 dated 29-1-1992 on this aspect. By a Majority Order, the Tribunal also expressed the view that there was no suppression in the matter and in this regard, the Bench noted the judgment of Tribunal rendered in the case of M/s. Filtronics Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 457 and that of C.C.E. v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.). This view expressed by the Majority, in the present matter at the time of hearing the stay, the stay order is required to be confirmed and there is no need to take a different view than already expressed at the time of passing the stay order. 6. emsp In that view of the matter, it is held that the demands are barred by time and as such penalty imposed is not sustainable. 7. emsp The appellant succeeds in this appeal and hence the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 296 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Short landing ... ... ... ... ..... ance thereof, in the Landing Tally always does not mean that the goods have not landed, is again assumptive in nature. It may be true, but the same has not been proved by the learned SDR. The said certificate makes it clear that the short items do not appear in the Landing Tally. The Survey Report of the independent surveyor also goes in favour of the appellants. We find that the duty was deposited by the appellants on the basis of assessed bill of entry filed on prior entry basis. The refund claim has also been filed within a period of six months from the date of depositing of the duty. The various judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate strengthens their case. In the circumstances, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the refund of duty paid by them in respect of the goods which were short-landed and as such were never received by the appellants. The impugned order passed by the authorities are, therefore, set aside with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1999 (1) TMI 295 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... at be so, then the compilation of the said South Indian Sugar Mills Association is nothing but a price enquiry of various sugar mills in that region in the State of Andhra Pradesh. We have no doubt about the authenticity or the genuineness of the price reported therein as the said association is a neutral body. In fact the work which would have been done by the department, showing the price, is readily available as neutral evidence on record in this behalf. 8. emsp Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings, we do not find any infirmity in the Order-in Appeal impugned before us in accepting the price of Rs. 500/- per MT which very closely approximates the average price of Rs. 567.83 and is equivalent to the price of two public sector units of about Rs. 500/- per MT i.e. units at Hindupur and Metpally. 9. emsp In view of this, we find no merit in the revenue appeals which compel us to interfere with the Order-in-appeal impugned and the said appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 294 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand for interest on warehoused goods - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... erefore uphold the order of the lower authority and dismiss the appeals. We observe that the relevant date for demand of duty would be date on which goods were allowed clearance from the warehouse as the interest is required to be paid till the date of clearance in terms of Rule 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The department recovered at the time of clearance the duty as well as interest as held payable at that time and cancelled the bonds. Taking into consideration the relevant date the demand have been clearly raised much after the period of six months. The Appeals of the Revenue are therefore dismissed. 9. emsp In view of this issue having been decided and the Tribunal holding that Section 28 would apply even in the present case, therefore, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demands are barred by time are sustainable and on this ground alone these appeals are rejected. 10. The stay application are disposed of as the main appeals themselves are dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 293 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Mounted Piezo electric crystal - Customs exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ufacturing sound producing devices namely Buzzers (Loud Hailers/Sirens). The Buzzer will produce sound output with Electricity input. The above brief description is for Piezo Effect. We request you to contact undersigned for any more information on Piezo Effect. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Thulasi Systems (T.S. Srinivasa) 7. emsp Therefore, the absence of lead wire will not make the product as incomplete one and therefore there is no infirmity in the findings arrived by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order is required to be confirmed. Revenue has confused the absence of lead wire with the item to be equipped with electrodes or electric connections. They are two different aspects of the matter. There is no denial that electrical connections being present but only lead wire has not been fitted which is the necessity for supply of power. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and same is rejected. 8. emsp Operative portion of the order was dictated in open court.
-
1999 (1) TMI 292 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Samples - Test report ... ... ... ... ..... garding the case laws, even if the contention of appellant is upheld, only the case of M/s. Madhu Woollen Spinning Mills v. Union of India - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2200 (Bom.) 1985 (25) ECR 531 cannot be applied as it differs on facts as contended. But, decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Standard Dye Chem in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 181 helps in this case, regarding SGS reports, which is brushed aside in the order-in-original arbitrarly as held in the impugned order. The contention of appellant that such a view may be come precedent in future cannot be upheld, as each case depends upon the facts and circumstances prevailing there. So the appeal grounds are not convincing to set under the impugned order for the reasons discussed above. Point raised is answered in the negative. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the appeal cannot be allowed, and it is rejected. Sd/- emsp emsp J.N. Srinivasa Murthy Member (J) emsp Sd/- Gowri Shankar Member (T)
........
|
