|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 386 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 249
Issues:
Manufacturing ceiling fan covers under concessional rates - Interpretation of brand name usage for duty payment - Dismissal of correspondence as fabrication - Embossing of brand name on covers - Application of clarifications to earlier notifications - Re-determination of duty payment by Asstt. Collector.
Analysis:
The case involved the appellants manufacturing ceiling fan covers under concessional rates and supplying them to a company within the Jay Engineering Group. A show cause notice was issued, demanding differential duty payment due to the brand name 'Usha' being embossed on the covers, not entitled to the notification benefit. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand, upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.
The appellant's counsel argued that the brand name 'Usha' was added only from March 1988 at the buyers' insistence, challenging the demand for the prior period. The Asstt. Collector dismissed the claim as fabricated without proper evidence, alleging all covers bore the brand name since October 1987. The counsel contended the embossing was only on top covers, not on bottom covers, thus overstating the duty demand. Referring to a circular, the counsel argued for the benefit of the clarification applying to the case and cited a precedent requiring reference back on such issues.
The department's representative supported the Collector's decision, asserting that clarifications for later notifications might not apply to earlier ones. The Tribunal considered the arguments, noting the lack of substantiation in the Asstt. Collector's rejection of the claim regarding the brand name embossing commencement date. The Tribunal directed a re-determination by the Asstt. Collector to ascertain the exact date of embossing initiation and verify if it was limited to top covers only. The Tribunal also emphasized the applicability of clarifications to earlier notifications with similar provisions, instructing the Asstt. Collector to consider the cited circular for the re-determination process.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower orders and remanded the proceedings to the Asstt. Collector for a fresh determination, directing a thorough examination of the embossing date and brand name usage on the covers, along with considering the clarificatory circular's relevance to the case.
-
1998 (1) TMI 248
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original confirming duty amount and imposing a penalty under Central Excise Act. Duty was demanded on scrap weight not accounted for, based on average weight of tin containers. The Additional Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. (Case: 1998 (1) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1998 (1) TMI 247
Issues:
Eligibility of Modvat credit on air conditioners used for production of capital goods i.e. medicines.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the eligibility of Modvat credit on air conditioners used in the production of medicines. The lower appellate authority had granted the Modvat credit under Rule 57-Q, following the decision of M.M. Forgings. The learned JDR for the Appellant argued that the issue is covered by previous decisions of the Bench, specifically citing the cases of CCE v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and CCE v. Fourts (India) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Advocate for the Respondents highlighted the essential nature of air conditioners in the manufacture of medicines under the Drug Rules, emphasizing that the Tribunal had not considered this aspect in a previous decision. He referred to specific clauses in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules to support his argument.
The Tribunal, in its analysis, referred to the decision in the case of Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills, where it was held that the production process must involve a direct participation in the manufacturing stream to be considered eligible for Modvat credit. The Tribunal found that air conditioning and humidification, in this case, did not meet the criteria as they only created atmosphere without directly participating in the manufacturing process. The Advocate's argument regarding the statutory necessity of air conditioners in drug manufacturing was also addressed by the Tribunal, citing a previous decision that emphasized the need for the goods to satisfy the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q to be eligible for Modvat credit.
The Tribunal acknowledged the argument that the drug manufacturing process required air conditioners but reiterated that mere necessity was not sufficient to grant Modvat credit unless the goods met the defined criteria of capital goods. The Tribunal had considered this argument in a previous decision, ultimately allowing the appeal of the revenue and setting aside the lower appellate authority's order. The judgment highlighted that the Tribunal had considered the necessity of air conditioners in the manufacturing process but found it insufficient to grant Modvat credit based on the defined criteria.
In conclusion, the Tribunal followed its previous decisions delivered by a Single Member and allowed the appeals of the revenue while setting aside the lower authority's orders. Additionally, the judgment addressed the issue of penalties imposed in the cases, reducing the penalties based on the circumstances presented. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, maintaining the decision on Modvat credit eligibility and penalties.
-
1998 (1) TMI 246
The appeal involved the classification of X-ray Diffractometer under Tariff Heading 90.30 and sub-heading 9030.10 by the appellant, while revenue assessed it under Heading 90.22 and sub-heading 9022.90. The Tribunal held that the apparatus falls under Tariff Heading 90.22 as it is based on the use of X-rays. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 245
Issues: Confiscation of seized Turbine and scrap, redemption on payment of fine, imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.
The appellant appealed against the order-in-original by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, which confiscated a seized Turbine and scrap under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Additional Commissioner allowed redemption of the Turbine on payment of Rs. 20,000 and the scrap on payment of Rs. 5,000, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under the same rule. The appellant argued that the Turbine was tested and defects were recorded by an engineer, with no attempt to remove it without paying duty. The scrap was stored outside for segregation, and the appeal should be allowed. The Revenue contended that the Turbine was not entered in the RG 1 registers, and the scrap was removed without proper records, urging dismissal of the appeal.
Upon hearing both parties, it was noted that the Turbine was tested and defects were acknowledged, but there was no attempt to remove it without duty payment. Referring to a precedent, Garden Silk Mills v. CCE, where no removal attempt was made, confiscation was deemed unjustified. Hence, the confiscation of the Turbine was set aside. However, regarding the scrap, it was found outside the factory without proper records or duty payment, leading to the upheld confiscation. As both the Turbine and scrap were not recorded properly, the penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 173Q was upheld. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (1) TMI 244
Issues:
Revocation of Custom House Agent's (CHA) license under Regulation 21(2) of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 without proper justification and procedural fairness.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Revocation of CHA License under Regulation 21(2)
The judgment concerns the revocation of a Custom House Agent's (CHA) license under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984. The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi suspended the CHA license due to alleged involvement in fraudulent drawback claims. The Commissioner invoked Regulation 21(2) based on the power conferred, citing the involvement of the CHA in fraudulent activities related to exporting rejected or cheap semiconductor devices at inflated prices and claiming drawbacks. The suspension was deemed necessary to prevent further misconduct by the CHA.
Issue 2: Lack of Justification and Procedural Fairness
The appellant contended that the Commissioner did not provide sufficient reasons for invoking Regulation 21(2) as there was no urgency in the matter. The appellant argued that Regulation 21(2) should only be used in exceptional and emergent situations where immediate action is necessary. The appellant highlighted that the suspension order was ex parte, denying the affected party the chance to present their case. The appellant supported their argument by referring to relevant case laws emphasizing the need for immediate suspension justification.
Issue 3: Discretion of the Commissioner
The Respondent Commissioner defended the suspension, stating that the Commissioner's satisfaction under Regulation 21(2) is subjective and based on the necessity of immediate action. The Respondent argued that the Commissioner had valid reasons for invoking Regulation 21(2) after discovering the modus operandi of fraudulent claims involving the CHA. The Respondent emphasized that additional information about the CHA's involvement in other enterprises further justified the suspension under Regulation 21(2).
Judgment and Conclusion:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Regulations 21 and 23, highlighting that Regulation 21(2) is exceptional and requires immediate action by the Collector. The Tribunal found that the suspension order was preventive, aiming to stop potential future misconduct rather than penalize past actions. Considering the discretion granted to the Collector under Regulation 21(2, the Tribunal concluded that unless there is a clear lack of application of mind or justification, an appellate authority should not interfere with a suspension order, especially of an interlocutory nature. The Tribunal upheld the suspension order but directed the Commissioner to expedite the proceedings involving the appellant within three months to address the impact on the livelihood of the CHA and its employees.
-
1998 (1) TMI 243
Issues:
1. Dispute over the weight of ball bearings imported by the appellant.
2. Assessment of duty based on the weight of the bearings.
3. Customs authorities' reliance on weight from catalogue and packing list.
4. Appellant's argument regarding the weight of the bearings.
5. Decision on duty rate and additional sum payable.
6. Burden of proof on the appellant regarding passing on the duty burden to customers.
7. Consideration of refund claim and evidence requirement.
Analysis:
The appellate tribunal addressed a controversy concerning the weight of ball bearings imported by the appellant. The duty liability was contingent on whether the weight was below 633 gms, triggering a duty rate of 150% ad valorem as per a specific notification. The authorities initially assessed the duty based on a weight of 635 gms per bearing, leading to the imposition of duty at a higher rate. However, the appellant's representative argued that a customs weight check found the disputed bearings to be 630 gms, which would exempt them from the additional duty charge.
The tribunal emphasized that the weight determined by the customs authorities, a crucial factor in assessing goods, should prevail over catalogues or packing lists. It noted that if there were doubts about weight uniformity, the authorities could have extended their checks to all imported bearings. Since this was not done, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, requiring them to pay only the lower duty rate and not the additional sum per bearing initially charged.
Regarding the burden of proof on the appellant to show they did not pass on the higher duty burden to customers, the tribunal considered the appellant's submission that they did not collect the refundable sum from their buyers. The tribunal directed the authorities to assess this aspect while implementing the order, emphasizing the need for evidence from the appellant regarding the passing on of the duty burden to customers within a specified timeframe for granting the refund.
In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant by reducing the duty liability and directing a review of the burden passing issue for refund consideration. The judgment underscores the importance of customs weight checks in duty assessment and the burden of proof on importers regarding duty pass-through to customers.
-
1998 (1) TMI 242
The appeal was filed against the denial of Modvat credit for specific items. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the clarification on Rule 57Q is retrospective in nature. The benefit of Modvat credit was extended to the appellant for the specified items. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
1998 (1) TMI 241
Issues: Classification of yarn made out of staple fibre and filament yarn, whether doubling of yarn amounts to manufacture under Central Excise Act, applicability of duty on doubled yarn, classification under Central Excise Tariff, time limitation for demand.
In the appeal filed by M/s. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd., the issue revolved around the classification of yarn made from staple fibre and filament yarn where staple fibre did not predominate. The appellants contended that doubling or multi-folding of yarn did not constitute manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. They argued that since the staple fibre and filament yarn were already duty paid, no additional duty could be imposed on the doubled yarn produced. Moreover, they claimed that their product should be classified as twine, not doubled yarn. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had classified the goods under sub-heading No. 5506.29 of the Central Excise Tariff and deemed the demand within the extended period of limitation calculated from the date of filing the RT 12 return.
The appellants sought a decision on the merits of the case. The Respondent, Shri Satnam Singh, argued that the appellants initially classified their goods as doubled yarn but later claimed they were twine to benefit from an exemption. He referenced the Collector's findings and contended that there was no basis for challenging the Appellate Authority's decision.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the classification lists submitted by the appellants, which described the goods under sub-heading No. 5506.29 as yarn of Poly-Vis. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal noted that doubling and twisting two different yarns constituted manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the transformation into a new commodity with distinct characteristics amounted to manufacturing, as per legal precedents cited. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Collector's decision, which classified the goods under the relevant sub-heading and upheld the time limitation for the demand.
The appellants contended that their goods fell under Chapter 56 of the Tariff, covering various textile materials, including twine. However, the classification list described the goods as doubled yarn, not twine. The appellate authority determined that the composition of the yarn did not align with the characteristics of twine, as defined. The distinction between twisting and doubling was crucial in this context.
After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concurred with the Collector's classification and time limitation assessment. It found no errors in the Collector's decision and rejected the appeal, affirming the original classification and duty liability on the doubled yarn manufactured by M/s. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd.
-
1998 (1) TMI 240
Issues:
Appeal against order of Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pune dated 31-8-1989 regarding central excise duty liability on the process of repacking Organic Surface Active Agents (O.S.A.A.) into small containers.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Central Excise Duty Liability:
The appellants, engaged in repacking O.S.A.A. into small containers supplied by NOCIL, argued that duty was paid by the manufacturer on the goods in their original condition at the time of removal from the factory. They contended that repacking did not create a new excisable product and did not fall under the assessable value for duty calculation.
2. Manufacturing Process:
The Department alleged that the repacking process was shifted to the appellants' premises to circumvent a notification. The Department argued that the repacking process was incidental and ancillary to the manufacture of goods, requiring compliance with central excise formalities. The goods were confiscated, duty was demanded, and a fine was imposed.
3. Legal Precedents:
The learned counsel cited various case laws to support the contention that the repacking process did not amount to 'manufacture' and should not be subject to duty liability. The arguments emphasized that the appellants were not the owners of the materials being repacked, and the process did not create a new excisable product.
4. Tribunal's Observations:
The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not own the materials or the packing materials supplied by NOCIL. The Collector acknowledged that the goods were manufactured by another entity based on specifications provided by NOCIL. The Tribunal found that the process of repacking into small containers did not constitute 'manufacture' under the relevant tariff chapters.
5. Duty Liability Clarification:
The Tribunal highlighted that if duty was already paid by the manufacturer on the goods, demanding duty from another entity for the same goods was incorrect. The Tribunal also raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the Collector's order regarding re-valuation and duty liability determination.
6. Decision:
Considering the arguments and the lack of legal basis for duty imposition on the repacking process, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order. The appeal was accepted, and any consequential relief due to the appellants was granted.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the repacking process did not amount to 'manufacture' and that duty liability should not fall on them. The decision highlighted the importance of legal clarity and adherence to established tariff provisions in determining excise duty liability.
-
1998 (1) TMI 239
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the duty demand.
2. Inclusion of Modvat credit in the assessable value.
3. Inclusion of transport cost in the assessable value.
4. Inclusion of cost of raw material wasted during manufacturing.
5. Calculation of assessable value versus cum-duty price.
6. Quantum of penalty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Correctness of the Duty Demand:
The department appealed against the Order-in-Original No. 108/94, dated 14-12-1994, which demanded Rs. 5,35,237.00 in Central Excise duty from the respondent, while the show cause notice proposed Rs. 15,82,986.43. The department sought confirmation of the higher duty demand. The Tribunal found that the department did not provide necessary enclosures to substantiate the higher duty demand. The respondent's submission, accepted by the Collector, showed a duty amount of Rs. 5,35,237.06. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the department's calculations and upheld the lower duty demand confirmed by the Collector.
2. Inclusion of Modvat Credit in the Assessable Value:
The respondent argued that the Modvat credit availed on inputs should be excluded from the assessable value of the final product. The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, which held that duty paid on inputs availed as Modvat credit is not includible in the assessable value. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the Supreme Court decision in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India, noting that the respondent was not selling the goods but performing job work, and the duty was paid using Modvat credit without passing it on to the customer. The Tribunal held that the duty paid on inputs availed as Modvat credit should be excluded in arriving at the cost of inputs for computing the assessable value.
3. Inclusion of Transport Cost in the Assessable Value:
The department argued for the inclusion of transport cost of raw materials in the assessable value. The respondent countered that the transport cost was already included in their job charges. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's plea, noting that the contract specified the respondent bore the transport cost, which was a small part of the job charges.
4. Inclusion of Cost of Raw Material Wasted During Manufacturing:
The department contended that the cost of raw material wasted during manufacturing should be included in the assessable value. The respondent calculated wastage based on the quantity of the final product, not the raw material issued. The Tribunal found this incorrect and stated that the cost of raw material should be based on the quantity issued for manufacture. The Tribunal directed recalculating the cost of wastage based on the correct percentage.
5. Calculation of Assessable Value versus Cum-duty Price:
The Tribunal addressed whether additions should be to the assessable value or cum-duty price. It cited several decisions, including Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar, and Collector of Central Excise v. VST Industries, supporting the view that additions should be to the price, not the assessable value. The Tribunal held that additions should enhance the price, not the assessable value, and the duty should be calculated from the cum-duty price.
6. Quantum of Penalty:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for recalculating the duty and determining the penalty commensurate with the redetermined duty. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order and directed a fresh decision on the limited question of recalculating the cost of wastage and determining the duty from the cum-duty price.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal and allowed the respondent's cross-objection regarding the non-inclusion of Modvat credit and transport cost in the assessable value. The Tribunal remanded the matter for recalculating the cost of wastage and determining the duty from the cum-duty price, directing the adjudicating authority to decide the penalty based on the redetermined duty.
-
1998 (1) TMI 238
Issues:
1. Classification of flocks under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Determination of the RG 1 stage for flocks during the manufacturing process.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the classification of flocks under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing flocked fabrics falling under subheading 56.06, used flocks they manufactured in their factory. These flocks were produced by sorting duty-paid nylon and viscose fiber/waste into lengths not exceeding 2 mm and subjecting them to various processes like washing, drying, dyeing, and sorting. The dispute arose regarding the RG 1 stage of these flocks, with the appellants contending that flocks attain distinct identity upon cutting into microsize fragments not exceeding 5 mm, while the Department argued that further processes were necessary for the flocks to be considered ready-to-use. The judgment delves into whether the flocks are fully manufactured at the cutting stage or require completion of subsequent processes for classification under the Tariff Act.
2. The determination of the RG 1 stage for flocks during the manufacturing process is crucial in this judgment. The appellants argued that cutting the flocks into micro lengths not exceeding 5 mm marked the completion of manufacturing, as subsequent processes were aimed at enhancing utility and serviceability for use in fabrics. They contended that purchasing cut-flocks from the market for further processing demonstrated that the flocks were marketable post-cutting. Conversely, the Department asserted that processes like washing and drying did not create a new product beyond flocks, classifiable under Heading 56.01. The judgment analyzed a previous case involving the same appellants, where it was held that subsequent processes did not constitute manufacturing, indicating that flocks reached a marketable stage pre-processing. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the RG 1 stage for flocks should be fixed at the cutting stage, not after storage in the air-conditioned room, as the processes post-cutting did not amount to manufacturing, aligning with the earlier ruling.
In conclusion, the judgment provides clarity on the classification and manufacturing stage of flocks under the Central Excise Tariff Act, emphasizing that the cutting of flocks into microsize fragments not exceeding 5 mm constitutes the RG 1 stage. The analysis highlights the distinction between preparatory processes and actual manufacturing, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the previous order.
-
1998 (1) TMI 237
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case of an imported Acrylamide, found that the price declared by the appellant was reasonable, considering a quantity discount. The Tribunal set aside the order enhancing the value and allowed the appeal. [1998 (1) TMI 237 - CEGAT, New Delhi]
-
1998 (1) TMI 236
Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I and 57U of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
In this case, the appellants appealed against the order disallowing Modvat credit and imposing a penalty under the Central Excise Rules. The issue revolved around the disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,37,126.20 under Rule 57-I and 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with a penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed under Rule 173Q of the same rules. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the Modvat credit and that the adjudicating authority had not considered crucial evidence, such as the transporter's copy of invoices, before making the decision. They contended that the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
The main contention raised by the appellants was that they had produced the transporter's copy of invoices before the adjudicating authority, but the benefit of Modvat credit was denied on the grounds that these documents were not submitted at the time of defacement. The adjudicating authority did not remand the matter to ascertain the factual position, as directed, leading to a lack of proper consideration of evidence. Therefore, the appellants requested a remand for a fresh decision based on the complete evidence presented.
Regarding the denial of Modvat credit on capital goods like conveyor belts, welding electrodes, and M.S. Rounds, both the adjudicating authority and the Appellate Authority failed to provide any specific findings on these items, despite confirming the demand. The lack of detailed findings on these capital goods raised concerns about the thoroughness of the decision-making process. As a result, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication. The appellants were to be given an opportunity for a personal hearing, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision in the case.
-
1998 (1) TMI 235
Issues:
1. Classification of jute carpets/floor coverings manufactured by the assessee under sub-heading 5702.20 and benefit of Notification No. 50/91.
2. Allegations of deliberate suppression of facts leading to duty evasion and imposition of penalty.
3. Interpretation of test reports, chemical examiner's opinion, and reliance on sales literature in determining classification.
4. Applicability of Notification No. 50/91 and Notification No. 50/90 as amended.
5. Discrepancy in the assessment under Notification No. 91/94 and Notification No. 50/90 as amended.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved two appeals related to the same assessee. In the first appeal (E/1436/95-D), the issue revolved around the classification of jute carpets/floor coverings manufactured by the assessee under sub-heading 5702.20 and the benefit of Notification No. 50/91. The Revenue alleged deliberate suppression of facts leading to duty evasion and imposed a penalty. The Collector examined samples, test reports, and tariff entries, concluding that the classification claimed by the assessees was correct, dropping the demand for differential duty but confirming duty on goods removed without accountal and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Collector's order.
In the second appeal (E/1454/95-D), the issue was the applicability of Notification No. 50/90 as amended and Notification No. 91/94 in assessing the jute carpets/floor coverings. The Asstt. Collector held that the rate prescribed in Notification No. 91/94 should apply, while the Collector (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessees, allowing the benefit of Notification No. 50/90 as amended and ordering a refund of duty paid under protest. The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) order, emphasizing that where two notifications exist, the assessee can choose the more beneficial one. The appeal was dismissed based on these findings.
The Tribunal analyzed test reports, chemical examiner's opinion, and sales literature to determine the classification of the goods. It highlighted the importance of predominant jute content for Notification No. 50/91 eligibility, disregarding the Revenue's arguments against the classification. The judgment emphasized the need for clear assessment under relevant notifications and upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision based on the more beneficial notification for the assessee. The Tribunal's decision in both appeals favored the assessees, emphasizing adherence to the applicable notifications and classification criteria.
-
1998 (1) TMI 234
The appeal addressed whether Modvat credit on inputs can be availed by a manufacturer after the actual date of receipt. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the credit, following a Tribunal decision, as long as it is taken within a reasonable period of 6 months. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing approval from the Gujarat High Court for the decision.
-
1998 (1) TMI 233
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,81,888.02P by holding that Special Excise duty cannot be deducted for arriving at the assessable value. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, limiting the demand to a period of six months. The appellant company changed its name from M/s. Hoechst India Limited to M/s. Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited.
-
1998 (1) TMI 232
Issues: Revenue's appeal against denial of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for detergent products.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the Revenue appealed against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, which held that the respondents were entitled to a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The case involved the manufacturing of detergent powder and cakes under specific brand names. The Revenue challenged the eligibility of the respondents for the concessional rate of duty based on the turnover of a separate unit using the same brand name for a different product. The Department issued Show Cause Notices proposing recovery of duty, which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector but overturned by the Collector (Appeals).
The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 and whether the respondents were entitled to the concessional rate of duty. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the respondents' contentions, emphasizing that the brand name ownership for different products was held by separate entities, and there was no justification for combining turnovers to determine eligibility for the exemption. The Tribunal noted that both brand name owners were registered as small scale industries, making them eligible for the SSI exemption under the notification. The Tribunal highlighted that the exemption did not apply if the brand name was affixed by a manufacturer not eligible for the grant of exemption. Since the brand name owners were eligible SSI units, there was no basis for denying the benefit of the notification based on the turnover of another unit using the same brand name.
Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Collector (Appeals) orders and upheld the decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of eligibility criteria under the notification and the need for the Revenue to demonstrate that the brand name owners were not eligible for the exemption, which was not established in this case.
-
1998 (1) TMI 231
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee, a manufacturer of aerated waters, in a case involving the inclusion of packing charges and filling charges in the assessable value. The Collector (Appeals) approved the price lists as proposed by the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment that packing costs supplied by the buyer should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the contract price lists included all costs and profit elements, and there was no need to scrutinize individual charges separately. The appeal against this decision was rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 230
The case involved the classification of Mossaic Tiles under sub-heading 6807.00 or Chapter 69. A previous Tribunal decision supported classification under 6807.00, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the department, citing precedent.
............
|
9911796707
