9911796707
Advanced Search 
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 61 to 80 of 505 Records Search Text: 63 rlt 1 |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (504) Circulars (1) |
|
2010 (7) TMI 332 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the show-cause notice for duty demand was time-barred as the relevant information was disclosed in their returns. The Tribunal also agreed with the appellant's interpretation that used machinery sold after use should not be considered "as such" for duty purposes, citing relevant precedents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the original order confirming the duty demand, interest, and penalty was set aside on 7-7-2010.
2009 (2) TMI 156 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the 100% EOUs manufacturing Terry Towels for export, as they did not meet the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 15/02-C.E. The appellants' use of duty-free inputs did not align with the requirement of manufacturing from duty paid fabrics as per the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that goods made from inputs exempted from excise duty or subject to nil rate of excise duty would not qualify for the exemption under the notification. Consequently, the duty demands were upheld, and the penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside.
2008 (4) TMI 167 - CESTAT Bangalore The Tribunal held that the services provided by the appellant did not qualify as "clearing and forwarding agents service," rejected the inclusion of "Port fee" in the taxable value, and deemed the extended period of limitation for issuing Show Cause Notices as unjustified. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
2007 (10) TMI 460 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellants for clandestine removal of goods, citing mens rea and a Supreme Court precedent. However, the redemption fine was set aside as the goods were not available for redemption. The demand for interest on duty was rejected based on the timeline of payment. The penalty on the Managing Director was overturned due to lack of evidence establishing his personal involvement. The judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, offers a detailed analysis of penalty imposition, redemption fine, interest on duty, and Managing Director's liability.
2005 (9) TMI 15 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal concluded that the carpets manufactured by the appellants should be classified under Chapter sub-heading No. 5703.20 as 'Jute carpets,' rejecting the Revenue's argument for classification under 5703.90 as 'Polypropylene carpets.' The Tribunal emphasized the predominance of jute in the carpets and the historical encouragement of jute products, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants.
2005 (9) TMI 468 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, upholding findings of mis-declaration, non-compliance with the Public Notice, and denial of duty exemption. The request for mutilation was rejected, and the imposition of duty, fine, and penalties was upheld, with a directive for recalculating amounts based on modified valuation.
2005 (7) TMI 61 - RAJASTHAN High Court The court held that blending different grades of tea does not constitute the manufacture or production of a new article or thing under Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As a result, the assessee was found ineligible for the deduction under this provision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
2004 (5) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the classification of the 'Plastic Satranj' product under Chapter 46, confirming duty demand due to incorrect duty exemption claims by the appellants. The case was remanded for a fresh decision on duty calculation, instructing consideration of Modvat credit and the cum-duty price principle, granting the appellants a hearing opportunity.
2002 (7) TMI 147 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of interest on advances and inspection charges in the assessable value, invoking a longer period of limitation due to non-disclosure. It found no fraudulent intent in non-payment of differential duty and reduced penalties imposed under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC. Member (J) dissented, arguing against the inclusion of inspection charges and time-barred demand. The matter was referred to a Third Member, who agreed with Member (J) on the time bar issue, leading to the appeal's allowance on both merits and time bar.
2007 (5) TMI 74 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal allowed both appeals, determining that the appellants did not provide taxable services under the categorized service types. Consequently, the demands for service tax, interest, and penalties were dismissed. The Tribunal stressed the need to view the contract holistically rather than dissecting it for tax purposes, highlighting the appellants' primary function of generating electricity.
2006 (10) TMI 39 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The Tribunal reclassified the hammer assembly, determining it should not be classified under Chapter Heading 82.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. It held that job workers, not the appellants, were the manufacturers of various parts of the assembly. The Tribunal justified the issuance of a second Show Cause Notice and upheld the duty demand on waste and scrap. Seized cash was confiscated due to evidence of goods clearance without duty payment. Penalties and interest were modified, resulting in a re-computed duty liability of Rs. 18,73,745/-, with SSI exemption granted. The confiscation of seized cash was upheld.
2003 (12) TMI 190 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the Commissioner's order imposing duty demand and penalties under Sections 28 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the duty was paid via demand drafts, absolving the appellants of liability for the clearing agent's fraudulent activities and Customs officers' negligence. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty was considered paid when the demand drafts were deposited, and the appellants were not responsible for the agent's misconduct.
2002 (12) TMI 397 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI The appellate authority classified the product "Tampcol Herbal Hair Tonic" as a Siddha medicament under heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The initial classification as a cosmetic under heading 3305.10 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief.
2000 (11) TMI 986 - CEGAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal held that M/s. R.S. Graphics was liable for a penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for clearing printed cartons without following procedures and paying duty. Despite the appellants' bona fide belief that the cartons were not excisable, the Tribunal found them liable for the penalty due to their failure to register, account for goods, and pay duty. The penalty was initially set at Rs. 3 lakhs but reduced to Rs. 50,000 considering immediate compliance. The majority view set aside the penalty, while a dissenting opinion suggested reducing the penalty to Rs. 50,000. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and no penalty was imposed on M/s. R.S. Graphics.
2019 (5) TMI 369 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The tribunal found that the revenue failed to provide substantial evidence linking LTCPL to the alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of cigarettes. The evidence presented, such as railway receipts and third-party statements, did not directly connect LTCPL to the illicit activities. Due to procedural lapses, lack of corroborative evidence, and denial of cross-examination, the tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on LTCPL, its directors, and employees. The appeals were allowed, granting consequential benefits to LTCPL.
2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Tribunal set aside all duty demands against Nova due to lack of concrete evidence and reliance on assumptions. The rejection of Nova's request for cross-examination of witnesses was deemed a violation of natural justice principles. The demands were based on insufficient evidence, such as diaries and statements, without tangible proof of clandestine activities. Penalties imposed on Nova and directors, as well as EOUs, were also overturned. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of tangible evidence to prove clandestine activities and upheld the importance of the right to cross-examine witnesses.
2006 (6) TMI 11 - Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a dispute over Modvat credit based on supplementary invoices by a job worker. The appellant's actions to rectify the situation voluntarily, coupled with no evidence of duty non-payment due to fraud or suppression, led to the Tribunal overturning lower orders. The judgment clarifies the need for evidence of fraud or suppression to deny credit, emphasizing the importance of intent in duty-related lapses and placing the burden of proof on the Revenue in alleging misconduct.
2004 (10) TMI 135 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal allowed the re-export of goods, permitting the appellants to pay a reduced redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- without the obligation to pay duty. It distinguished the case from others cited by the Commissioner, recognizing the appellants' bona fide actions in addressing the shipment issue. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's plea for duty payment on the re-exported goods, thereby overturning the Commissioner's decision.
2000 (9) TMI 698 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, finding that the extended period of limitation was not justified due to M/s. Kapoor's compliance with duty payments and filing requirements. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalty was set aside, granting M/s. Kapoor the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 80/90-C.E. The appeal was accepted, and M/s. Kapoor received consequential benefits according to law.
1999 (8) TMI 374 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, affirming the right to claim exemption for two products while opting to pay duty for the third product, as per Notification No. 1/93. The Tribunal clarified that the non obstante clause in the notification does not restrict selective availing of exemption for specific products, emphasizing that each product should be considered separately. The decision overturned the lower authorities' denial and upheld the appellant's ability to choose differential treatment for the products in question.
|
