|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 363 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 586 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... owing Redemption Fine of Rs. 7 lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) and without interfering with the Penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs already imposed. The appeal is allowed partially in above terms. rdquo 6. emsp Since the import in the present case was of same goods and on the same date at the same port of import, therefore the margin of profit, on which the redemption fine normally would depend also, would be same. Therefore, the ratio of our earlier decision would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Applying the ratio thereof, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only). Since the redemption fine has already been reduced substantially from about 99 to about 22 , it necessarily follows that interest of justice requires certain reduction in the penalty also. Therefore, the penalty is also reduced from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
2000 (6) TMI 585 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal - Limitation - Delay of 15 days ... ... ... ... ..... son given that the delay was due to reconsideration of the review subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment reported in newspaper on 13-2-2000 is not a ground to be accepted. In the light of Hon rsquo ble Apex Court judgment rendered in U.O.I. v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra) on identical grounds, the Tribunal also rejected similar application on same prayer made in Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries by Larger Bench as in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 650. The said ground was also rejected in another Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s appeal in C.C.E. v. Carborandun Ltd. by another Larger Bench as in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 61. In view of this ground having been held to be not a sufficient ground, the number of days of delay is immaterial in this application, therefore applying the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in Tata Yodogawa Ltd (supra) and the cited Tribunal decision in C.C.E. v. Moon Impex, the COD application is rejected and as a consequence, the stay application and the appeal are rejected.
-
2000 (6) TMI 582 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ue. However, it is not in dispute that the entire consigment was sold to the applicant, and transferred to it in instalments (this was explained due to lack of storage capacity in the applicant rsquo s plant). The contention that there is no out of charge order on the bill of entry is obviously unacceptable. The triplicate copy of the bill of entry does not appear that evidence of duty is clear on the bill of entry. The failure to comply with the trade notice at the most constitutes a contravention as technical and procedure in the extreme. 3. emsp I, accordingly, waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery.
-
2000 (6) TMI 581 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Waiver of penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs each on K. K. Agrawal and the Company was granted subject to the company depositing Rs. 27.00 lacs towards duty and penalty. 4. emsp The two applicants now before us say that they were, at the relevant time, employees of Nandesari Rasaynee in their capacity as clerks. Financial hardship is also pleaded on the ground that they have left the company rsquo s employment and there is no means to deposit the amounts . 5. emsp Taking note of our earlier order, and these submissions, we waive deposit of the penalties imposed on each of them and stay their recovery.
-
2000 (6) TMI 579 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... was taken on 31-12-93 on the basis of the invoices issued by the original manufacturer. The ld. Counsel Shri V.K. Gaikwad placed on record photocopies of the invoices in which the challan numbers under which the consignment agents had despatched the consignments had been shown. The stamp there shows date of credit taken as on 31-12-93. The same date is shown in the show cause notice, also. Therefore it is clear that the credit was taken on the manufacturers invoice and not merely on the challans issued by the consignment agents. This claim does not seem to have been advanced before the lower authorities. In the face of this invoice No. 309, dated 31-12-93 which is admittedly a modvatable document, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 577 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sent appeal. 2. emsp Shri V.B. Gaikwad, ld. Advocate relies upon Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench judgment in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) . Shri K.M. Patwari relies upon single Member judgment in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 1998 (98) E.L.T. 166 (Tribunal) . I find that the ratio of the cited judgment in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE would apply to the facts of this case. The appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief.
-
2000 (6) TMI 576 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ocate relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE, Patna v. Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. 1997 (92) E.L.T. 107 (Tribunal) , in which it was held in identical circumstances that Argon Gas qualified as input. Shri K.M. Patwari relies upon Tribunal judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Kunal Engineering Co. Ltd. 1992 (62) E.L.T. 560 (Tribunal) . I find that the ratio of the judgment in the case of CCE v. TELCO will apply in this case. Following the said judgment, these two appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
2000 (6) TMI 573 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... speaking, is in accordance with law. When the goods were shipped the policy in force did not permit a letter of authority holder to import the goods on licences issued to the principal. However, it is not disputed that in the earlier policy, which was in force up to 31-3-1994 and therefore in force when the order for goods was placed on (February), import could be made by the letter of authority holder. The letter dated 1-8-1994 of the Joint Director of Foreign Trade at Madras to the Collector of Customs at Madras indicating this position and requesting such letter of authority holders be permitted to import the goods, supports this view. Therefore, while the goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant to penalty the facts of the case justify a more lenient treatment. 4. emsp Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 2.15 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh and penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Consequential relief according to law. 5. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2000 (6) TMI 544 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Removal of inputs from RG 23A stock ... ... ... ... ..... it of Rs. 117/-, I hold that the appellants are eligible to the remaining amount of Rs. 57,873.41. This appeal is partly allowed. 6. emsp Appeal No. E/2689/99 relates to denial of credit of Rs. 80,141/- availed during the month of October, 1994 on sweep waste granules on the ground that they had cleared 8,250 Kgs of LDPE granules vide invoice dated 29-10-1994 in the garb of sweep waste granules on the value of Rs. 1.93 per Kg by debiting duty of Rs. 4,777/-, whereas they availed credit Rs. 34.31 per Kg. The appellants rsquo contend that the quantity of 8,250 Kgs. is out of the stock on which Modvat credit has not been availed and thus they are not required to reverse the credit. They are, however, unable to substantiate this contention. The above mentioned quantity is shown in the RG 23A Part II and they are required to enter in this register, inputs on which credit has been availed. I, therefore, uphold the denial of credit of Rs. 80,141/- and reject Appeal No. E/2689/99-NB.
-
2000 (6) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... er of these stay applications, the duty already having been paid. The goods would in any case be imported under an import licence. The provision of Clause (d) of Section 111 prima facie will not apply. We are also not able to find any misdeclaration in the bill of entry attracting the provisions of Clause (m) of Section 111. The date shown on this document of the bill of lading of 15-7-1999 tallies with the date on that document. Prima facie therefore the liability to confiscation of the goods is doubtful. In the circumstances, we accept the offer made by the advocate for the applicant to deposit in cash Rs. 3.5 lakhs and safeguard the remaining amount of redemption fine by way of bank guarantee. On this being done, we waive deposit of the penalty on the applicant and stay its recovery. 6. emsp Having regard to the observations, which is in the above paragraphs, we order that the goods may be cleared on deposit of the amount and execution of bank guarantee as indicated above.
-
2000 (6) TMI 542 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ble as provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises Act had been amended after passing of the Budget of 2000. By virtue of the amendment notwithstanding any approval of assessment relating to the rate of duty or value of the excisable goods by any Central Excise Officer, still notice can be served on the assessee for recovery of short payment of duty amount. 6. emsp The right of the competent officer to review the classification list after approval of any assessment can hardly be disputed as the law is well setteled that the approved classification list can be reviewed if earlier was erroneously approved on account of error of fact or law. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had confirmed the order in original of the Assistant Collector reviewing the classification lists of the appellants. 7. emsp Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 541 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - “Lubricating oil” is input, eligible for Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ssee in terms of Rule 57Q was sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on glass bottles which were inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A. We also note that similar view in the instant case and sustain the appellants rsquo challenge against the impugned order of the Commissioner denying Modvat credit on the ground that the declaration was not in terms of Rule 57A. rdquo He, therefore submits that in view of the above submissions, the appeal may be allowed. 6. emsp Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 7. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel. We have also perused the case law cited by him. We have also perused the findings of the authorities below. We note that the ld. Counsel for the appellants has cited the case law in support of each contention. We do not see anything to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal in the cases cited above by the ld. Counsel. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 540 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Billets of brass arising during manufacture of brass rods from duty paid waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... in terms of the provisions of the 3 aforesaid notifications (149/86, 98/88, and 178/88). The Collector has not extended the benefit of notification as the appellants had already claimed and availed of the benefit of the 3 notifications in respect of brass rods. We also observe that in the impugned order the Collector has given his finding that the duty paid nature of waste and scrap is not in dispute. In the light of these findings of the Collector which have not been challenged by the Revenue by way of filing cross objection and also in view of the decision in the case of Variety Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the benefit of which was not available to the adjudicating authority at the time of adjudicating the present matter, we remand all the 3 matters to the Commissioner of Central Excise for considering the availability of notification Nos. 149/86 and 178/88 in respect of brass billets manufactured by the appellants. Accordingly, all the 3 appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
2000 (6) TMI 539 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in Stay Petition No. 490/99 in Appeal No. C-66/99 heard by this Bench on 17-5-2000 2001 (136) E.L.T. 567 (Tribunal) , it was held that there cannot be absolute confiscation when the goods are not prohibited. Learned Consultant also pleads that the seized Cellular Phones being under OGL as per the Policy, 1997-2002, the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was illegal and as such, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR, reiterates the order impugned. 4. emsp I have heard both sides. It is observed that this Tribunal has been consistently taking a view that when the goods are neither prohibited nor notified ones, absolute confiscation is bad in law. Following the decisions of this Tribunal in all the earlier cases including those cited by the learned Consultant, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be granted unconditional waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire amount involved in this case. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 510 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Erroneous refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rger Bench), be allowed. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal had held that the excise duty held payable subsequently was to be abated from total sale price for purpose of determination of the assessable value, the quantum of duty demand payable. The Tribunal had relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pravara Pulp and Paper Mills v. CCE - 1997 (23) R.L.T. 890 (SC), and had referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Express Rubber Products v. CCE - 1998 (24) R.L.T. 482 (T). After observing as above, the benefit of modvat credit duty deduction was allowed. 12. emsp Accordingly, following the ratio of the same we hold that the demand for the period in question is required to be re-calculated by the authorities below in the light of the observations made by us as above. Subject to extention of benefit on above two points, the duty demand is otherwise confirmed. 13. emsp As a result Appeal No. 127/96 is allowed in toto and Appeal No. 128/96 is allowed partially.
-
2000 (6) TMI 509 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Import - Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger ... ... ... ... ..... Regional Bench in the case of Boskalis Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the appellants, wherein it has been clearly held that Cutter Suction Dredger includes pipes c/w flanges rings, nuts and bolts anchors, pontoons, delivery valves, spuds, cutter heads, truck tyres for use as fenders. The Tribunal has held that all are classifiable under sub-heading 8905.10 and the benefit of Notification in question is required to be extended to the same. Therefore, this ratio of the judgement would also apply to the facts of the present case and on such applicability, the Revenue rsquo s case for re-opening of classification would have been negatived. On considering of all other arguments made by the Additional Solicitor General in the matter, we do not find the same are acceptable including the case law cited, which has no relevance to the facts of the case. 21. emsp In the view of the matter, the appellant succeeds and the order impugned is set aside. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 507 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Parts of Parts covered by Notification No. 64/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... ontention of the learned Advocate that availability of exemption Notification is not squarely dependent upon the same being claimed in the Classification List. The appellants claimed the Notification No. 217/86 in their Classification List which was denied to them and it was in the alernative, that they staked their claim for exemption in respect of the said Notification No. 64/86. Reliance by the learned Advocate on the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Kopran Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 569 (Tribunal), holding that the exemption benefit is to be given even if not claimed in the Classification List, is appropriate. As such, we hold that the appellants rsquo claim to the benefit of the said Notification is sustainable. 5. emsp As the appeal is allowed on merits, no orders are required to be passed on the point of limitation, as agitated before us. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2000 (6) TMI 506 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nal in the case of the appellants themselves reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 236 (T-LB) 2000 (38) RLT 424 and that the Larger Bench has held that the refund claim should be filed within six months from the date of purchase even where duty had been paid by the manufacturer under protest. 4. emsp We have perused the Larger Bench decision in this case. In view of the fact that the Larger Bench examined the evidence in the case similar to the one before us and held as indicated above. We have nothing but to agree with the decision of the Larger Bench. There is no other issue contested before us. In the circumstances, following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench as indicated above, we hold that purchaser of goods is required to file the refund claim within six months from the date of purchase even where the duty had been paid by the manufacturer under protest. In this view of the matter, the appeal is rejected. The cross objections are also disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (6) TMI 503 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... y received and duly utilised in the manufacture of the finished goods, the procedural lapses by the assessees with no mala fides need to be condoned or overlooked. Even non-endorsement of invoice by the head office or branch office, according to me, could be construed as a procedural lapse provided the inputs mentioned in the concerned invoice are duly received in the factory and properly utilised in the manufacture of the finished goods. In the instant case the fact of receipt of the inputs and utilisation of the same in the manufacture of the finished goods has not been disputed. Hence, Modvat credit in respect of such inputs is permissible. In this view of the matter, the invoice in question cannot be construed as an ineligible document for taking Modvat credit. 7. emsp In view of the above discussion, the order impugned deserves to be set aside with consequential relief, if any. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the stay petition stands disposed of along with the appeal.
-
2000 (6) TMI 477 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay order - Modification of ... ... ... ... ..... vident that the stay application cannot be heard in piece-meal and in any event cannot be heard on a second time on a ground that does not even contained in the stay application. The attempt by the advocate for the applicant to say hardship of loss, finance were known to the applicant on the day they filed the application and in any event when they argued it. We cannot therefore now entertain the request for modification on this score. 4. emsp We therefore dismiss the application but extend the time to deposit the amount up to 31st July, 2000. 5. emsp Compliance to be reported on 8th August, 2000.
........
|
