|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 422
Cement - Benefit of Notification No. 24/91-C.E. not to be denied.
... ... ... ... ..... ready been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Karnataka Minerals and Manufacturing Co v. CCE Bangalore reported in 2000 (36) RLT 939 (CEGAT) wherein the benefit of notification was not denied because certificate specifying the annual capacity of the plant was countersigned by Director. Heard Smt. Radha Arun appearing for the revenue. On a careful consideration, we find that the issue involved herein has already been considered in the aforesaid case. Following the decision of the aforesaid case, this appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 421
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ermitted under the Import Policy and in the DEEC Notification condition rdquo . It is not the function of the Customs Department to enforce contravention of the import policy per se. The eligibility to the notification does not arise for the reason that it had not been claimed. There is therefore no case for penalty on any of the brokers. This conclusion is on the assumption that they were given notice for penalty which does not appear to be fully justified. The appeals are dismissed rdquo . 5. emsp The facts being the same, I follow the order of the two Member Bench and dismiss the appeals filed by the Department, where the respondents are M/s. Amichand Shantilal and Co. , Shri Rajesh Damani and Shri Rajesh Desai. Since it is the claim of the Customs that M/s. Relaxo Plastics did not exist the question of grant of prayer of imposition of penalty upon them does not arise. Therefor the appeal filed by the revenue where M/s. Relaxo Plastics are the respondent is also dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 420
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. rdquo We therefore, would find that this case requires to be re-considered by the Commissioner as regards valuation and for that purpose, we set aside the order and remand the same to the Commissioner to decide whether the transaction value can be disturbed and whether this case would fall under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, rendering the goods liable for confiscation under that Section, even if value is required to be altered and thereafter determine the penalty as per law. 4. emsp In view of our findings, the order is set aside. As regards liability for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, appeal is allowed and as regards liability of confiscation under Section 111(m) and thereafter penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appeal is allowed as Demand for de novo adjudication. Appeal disposed of in the above terms. 5. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 419
Confiscation of car - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... ent and Regulation) Act, 1962 and an offence under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Commissioner. The Commissioner determined the value under Section 14 of the Customs Act to be Rs. 12,66,772/- and ordered the confiscation of the car under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 but gave an option of redemption on payment of Rs. 10 lakhs only. The order does not give any finding as to how the redemption fine has been arrived at. Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that the ldquo Market Price rdquo of the goods under import has to be determined only thereafter the redemption fine as per the formula provided therein can be determined. Since this has not been done, we cannot uphold the order. The same is therefore set aside and matter remanded back for de novo adjudication. Since goods are under clearance, we direct the proceedings to be taken up by the Commissioner and completed as soon as possible. Appeal is allowed as remanded for de novo adjudication.
-
2001 (3) TMI 418
Import - Consumer goods ... ... ... ... ..... gate the car. He found the goods to be consumer goods. He therefore ordered their confiscation, permitting redemption on payment of fine. 3. emsp The contention in the appeal is that by application of the policy which came into effect on 16-10-1995, import of the goods is permissible. I have not examined tins contention that the goods are importable after October, 1995. Even on the assumption that they were, this does not help the appellant rsquo s case, because they were imported in August, 1995. It is not claimed that the subsequent policy would have retrospective application I therefore see no reason to interfere. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 417
... ...
... ... ..... he appeal (i) 1993 (63) E.L.T. 167 (Tribunal) (ii) 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.) (iii) 1992 (60) E.L.T. 512 (Tribunal) Against this order the present appeal has been filed by Revenue. 3. emsp In the grounds of appeal the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner are sought to be justified and upheld. Although the appeal papers do not contain the relevant papers, we have seen the copy of the show cause notice available with the respondents. The notice makes a bare allegation on the perusal of the invoices at the time of finalisation of RT 12 returns. There is nothing to indicate as to the location at which the expenses or part thereof was incurred. These details were later filled in by the Assistant Collector which the assessee refuted at each stage and even before us. The Commissioner was right in holding that such arbitrary and baseless inclusion could not be upheld. 4. emsp We find nothing of substance in the appeal. We uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 416
Modvat - Repeal of rules ... ... ... ... ..... pearing for the respective parties submitted that they have nothing to add further in view of the aforesaid decision. Few of them requested for an adjournment in view of the proposal made in the Finance Bill 2001. Their request is not acceded to and accordingly request for an adjournment has been rejected. Shri Shiva Kumar appearing for the appellants in Appeal No. E/2918/98 submitted that other modvat rules were substituted by CENVAT Rules and as such old Modvat Rules were not omitted. This point has also been dealt with in our earlier Order. In our Order, it was clearly held that in the absence of the saving clause all the proceedings initiated under the old repealed rules would simply lapse and accordingly appeals are not maintainable following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kholapur Cane Sugar Works v. Union of India reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). Following our earlier decision, all these appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2001 (3) TMI 415
Oil rigs spare parts - benefit of exemption under Notification No. 196/89-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... tay applications and appeals are taken up and disposed of by way of remand with a direction that appellants in both the matters together shall pre-deposit Rs. 17,12,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs twelve thousand only) and produce the proof of their deposit before the original authority. The original authority on verification of the deposits made shall take up the matter for de novo consideration and decide the case after observing the principles of natural justice. The appellants shall proceed with the case in the light of the findings recorded supra. 7. emsp At this stage, both sides seek for a direction to the original authority to decide the matter expeditiously as the Revenue involvement is very high in the matter. The prayer is accepted. The original authority shall expeditiously take up the matter after expiry of three months from the receipt of the order. They shall call upon the appellants to produce proof of pre- deposit and grant them a hearing and decide the matter.
-
2001 (3) TMI 414
Demand and penalty - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... ewhere, there cannot be two removals for the purposes of determination of the duty under the excise law. The Collector has also not considered whether the use outside was for a process ancillary to manufacture or for a full manufacture outside. Therefore on the basis of material on record the demand cannot be upheld, because, if the use was for a process ancillary to manufacture, then it would be in completion of the manufacture by the present appellant and eligible for benefit. Only if the use outside tile factory on job work amounts to manufacture, it would be held that the job worker is the manufacturer and then the goods have not been used by the manufacturer in the factory where they were manufactured. In absence of these vital issues which were required to be determined, we cannot uphold the demand. (c) emsp Once we cannot uphold the demand of duty, the reason to uphold the penalty do not exist. 4. emsp In view of our findings, the order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 413
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... ter to be remanded for de novo consideration. We order accordingly. The Commissioner shall have all the records verified before the hearing them. At this stage, the learned DR prays for a direction by the Tribunal that the pre-deposit which is already made should not be returned to the appellants till the adjudication of the case to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. The Counsels Shri V. Sreedharan along with Shri Sankararaman who are present in the Court submit that this prayer is required to be rejected as, as per law it is their right to have the deposit returned and the learned Counsels pray for a direction to the authorities to return the amounts. We are of the view that the Commissioner shall deal with this aspect of the matter in terms of Section 35F of the CE Act, 1944. The DR prays for a direction to the lower authority fro expeditious disposal of the matter as the matter is old. The Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
-
2001 (3) TMI 412
Custom House Agent’s licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... or immediacy. It also pre-supposes that an inquiry against the agent has been commenced. Such inquiry in terms of Regulation 23 commences with the issue of a notice to the CHA. In the Commissioner rsquo s order it is stated that there was a case under investigation against the appellants. Shri V.M. Doiphode submits that the investigation might relate to the import of Mobile Phones, but do not refer to the inquiry under Regulation 23. In reply to a direct query he clarified that no such notice under Regulation 23 had been issued to the appellant. 6. emsp In these circumstances we find that the Commissioner had erred in making the order under Regulation 21(2), when the requirements of the sub-regulations were not fulfilled. This order does not sustain and is set aside. 7. emsp It is made clear that the Commissioner is free to institute such proceedings under Regulations 21 and 23 as he deems warranted following the requirements of the Regulations. 8. emsp The appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 398
Custom House Agent’s licence - Suspension of - Seizure of mobile phones ... ... ... ... ..... or immediacy. It also pre-supposes that an inquiry against the agent has been commenced. Such inquiry in terms of Regulation 23 commences with the issue of a notice to the CHA. In the Commissioner rsquo s order it is stated that there was a case under investigation against the appellants. Shri V.M. Doiphode submits that the investigation might relate to the import of Mobile Phones, but do not refer to the inquiry under Regulation 23. In reply to a direct query he clarified that no such notice under Regulation 23 had been issued to the appellant. 6. emsp In these circumstances we find that the Commissioner had erred in making the order under Regulation 21(2), when the requirements of the sub-regulations were not fulfilled. This order does not sustain and is set aside. 7. emsp It is made clear that the Commissioner is free to institute such proceedings under Regulations 21 and 23 as he deems warranted following the requirements of the Regulations. 8. emsp The appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 379
... ...
... ... ..... r ash under Heading 26.21 as it was residue of coal distinguishable from mere ash. Ld. Advocate, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order which was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by relying on the Board s circular. Ld. SDR could not cite any better authority on the issue of classification of the impugned goods. 5. emsp The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) totally on the basis of the Board s Circular. But, the said circular was quashed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company (supra). The Hon ble High Court held that coal cinder was not a manufactured product, though it might be marketable. The Court categorically held that it was not excisable. Thus the issue of excisability of coal ash/cinder stands settled in favour of the assessees in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company (supra). In view of this position, the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same are set aside. The appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 378
... ...
... ... ..... to or through two persons alone, it has not been shown that the buyers and the seller are related. The fact that these goods were sold to or through these persons does not necessarily make them related to the seller. The Commissioner obviously relies on the definition of ldquo related person rdquo occurring in Section 4 of the Act, which provides that such a related person includes a distributor. The Commissioner has however wrongly read to mean that every distributor is related to the manufacturer. The Supreme Court clarified this in its judgment in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) saying in paragraph 44. ldquo ...A relative and a distributor of the assessee should be understood to mean a distributor who is a relative of the assessee. rdquo The demand for duty therefore is not sustainable and consequently penalties imposed on the appellants are also not sustainable. 7. emsp All the appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (3) TMI 377
Drawback - Market enquiries - Adjudication - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... of which is less than the amount of drawback due thereon. It is clear from the facts of this case that quantum of drawback would not have exceeded the market value of any of the goods. 7. emsp From what has been stated above, it is clear that the finding regarding value as reached in the adjudication order has no basis. The investigation itself was not warranted according to the guidelines on the subject issued by the Department of Revenue. The proceedings have already led to unintended difficulties to the export of the goods. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. Accordingly, we set it aside in its entirety with consequential relief to the appellants. We also make it clear that the appellants rsquo export prices shall be accepted and full drawback as permissibale at the declared export prices should be made available to them, without restricting it to the market prices determined through enquiry. 8. emsp The appeal is allowed on these terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 376
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hapter sub-heading 7308.90 and 7413.90 respectively and accordingly modified the classification list filed for the relevant period. This classification dispute has since been settled by the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. E/200/89-SB and E/2698/99-B as per Final Order No. 1247-1248/2000-B, dated 14-8-2000 2001 (130) E.L.T. 173 (T) whereby the classification proposed by the assessees has been accepted. It is agreed by both sides that, as per the classification as upheld by the Tribunal, the demands for duty in question cannot stand. 2. emsp After considering the decision of the Tribunal contained in the final order ibid and the submissions made before me on the basis of such decision, I find that the demand for duty confirmed in the Additional Collector rsquo s order impugned in Appeal No. E/3012/89 and the demand as upheld in the order of the Collector (Appeals) impugned in Appeal No. E/524/89 require to be set aside. Accordingly I set aside both these orders and allow these appeals.
-
2001 (3) TMI 375
... ...
... ... ..... duty which is equal to the additional duty leviable on like goods under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975....... paid on such inputs. In the present case, additional duty leviable has not been paid. Hence no Modvat credit is admissible. This view is supported by the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Presto Industries reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 321 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the additional duty is in addition to customs duty leviable under the Customs Act, and not a countervailing duty and since the additional duties of customs were not paid on waste and scrap of imported cellulose accetate sheets under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, benefit of exemption under Notification 16/83-C.E. dated 11-2-1983 is not available since the condition of the Notification has not been fulfilled. 4. emsp Following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment cited supra, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 374
Nylon monofilament manufactured and captively consumed in the manufacture of nylon tufts ... ... ... ... ..... on already stands settled by Tribunal rsquo s Final Order No. 725-727/99-D, dated 13-8-1999 2000 (125) E.L.T. 740 (Tribunal) , wherein it has been held that synthetic monofilament of 60 deniers or more and of which no cross sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm falls for classification under CET Sub Heading 5406.19. 2. emsp We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We note that the Assistant Collector had relied upon Order-in-appeal KVV-491/91-B1 to hold that duty is payable on synthetic monofilament when used in the manufacture of nylon tufts. The above mentioned order-in-appeal is one of the 3 orders which forms the subject matter of Tribunal rsquo s Final Order No. 725-727/99-D, 2000 (125) E.L.T. 740 (Tribunal) wherein the order-in-appeal No. 491/91-B1 has been upheld. 3. emsp Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order cited supra, we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the present impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 373
Import - Consumer goods - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... under OGL and have rightly held the same to be liable to confiscation. However, as regards valuation of the goods, we find that no reason whatsoever has been stated by any of the lower authorities for enhancing the value of the goods to Rs. 38,000/-. Such unreasonable enhancement of value has had an obvious impact on the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation. We find that, though the charge of mis-description levelled against the importer stands proved, there is no evidence on record to establish the charge of under-valuation. In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed on the appellants is also excessive. 5. emsp In view of our findings recorded above, we uphold confiscation of the goods, but reduce the quanta of redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 8,000/-and Rs. 2,000/- respectively in the facts and circumstances of the case. The orders of the lower authorities will stand modified to this effect. 6. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 371
Appeal - Abatement of ... ... ... ... ..... tors would also abet. Shri Patil mainly relies upon the order of the Kerala High Court dated 7-3-2000 in O.P. No. 16334 of 1999 (T.K. Thomas v. UOI). This judgment was followed by the Tribunal in Order No. C-I/196-197/WZB/2001, dated 23-1-2001 (Appeals E/2293-2294/98-Bom). This was also followed in appeal No. C/92-96/99. 3. emsp In the cited order, the High Court held that where the case was lying in appeal, the expression ldquo is pending adjudication rdquo would be applicable. Therefore, the Court did not find favour with the stand taken by the Government that where adjudication proceedings were over, the benefit of the satisfaction achieved by the principal noticee was not available to the co-noticees. 4. emsp This judgment thus covering the present appeals, we hold that the benefit would extend to the two appellants. Consequently, the proceedings would abet. The appeals would become infructuous and are dismissed as withdrawn. 5. emsp Consequential relief according to law.
............
|
9911796707
