|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 280 Records
-
1996 (6) TMI 151
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard a case where duty on scrap generated during manufacturing was in question. The appellants claimed benefit under Notification No. 54/64, but the department denied it, citing set-off under Notification No. 75/67. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating the issue was settled in a previous case involving similar circumstances. (Case Citation: 1996 (6) TMI 151 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1996 (6) TMI 150
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the classification of carbide tipped circular saw blades imported from Japan. The goods were initially cleared under Heading 82.01/04 but later sought re-assessment under Heading 82.06, which was granted by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal ruled out classification under Heading 82.05 and 82.06, and determined that the most appropriate classification was under Heading 82.01/04, in line with previous precedent orders. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (6) TMI 149
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case of testing charges for transformers, held that charges collected from customers for impulse tests are not to be included in the assessable value. The appellant's appeal was allowed as the testing was conducted at the specific request of the customer and not as part of the manufacturing activity. The impugned orders were set aside. (1996 (6) TMI 149 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1996 (6) TMI 148
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Sulphuric Acid, claimed deduction for servicing/filling charges, which was disallowed by the Department. Refund claims were rejected by Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals). The charges were considered part of assessable value, not post manufacturing expenses. Appeals were dismissed. (1996 (6) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1996 (6) TMI 147
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the appeals regarding the inclusion of the price of rivets in the assessable value of clutch facings and brakelinings. The tribunal held that rivets are not considered a part or component of the manufactured goods and therefore should not be included in the assessable value.
-
1996 (6) TMI 146
Issues:
Refund claim rejection for duty paid on re-glass lining of old equipment, whether re-glass lining amounts to manufacture, applicability of previous judgments on similar cases, time-barred refund claim.
Analysis:
The appeal stemmed from the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay's decision upholding the rejection of a refund claim for Rs. 86,841.26 duty paid on re-glass lining of old and used glass-lined equipment by the appellants, who manufacture glass-lined vessels. The vessels were initially cleared on payment of duty under TI 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. The process involved setting powder glass frit on the vessels, firing them, and using them in industries like chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers. The dispute arose when the vessels were returned to the factory for stripping the old lining and applying fresh glass lining.
The lower authorities deemed glass-lining as essential for the equipment's utility, equating re-glass lining to manufacturing and partially rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. During the hearing, the appellants referenced a Supreme Court decision regarding re-rubbering and re-lining old vessels, arguing that the same principle should apply to their case. However, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision focused on the cut-off date for determining manufacturing processes, not on whether re-rubbering and re-lining constituted manufacturing.
In this case, it was undisputed that glass lining transformed the vessel's name, character, and use, indicating a manufacturing process. The re-glass lining procedure mirrored the initial lining process, involving setting powder glass frit and firing the vessels. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that re-glass lining amounted to manufacturing, dismissing the appeal on both substantive and time limitation grounds, as the appellants did not contest the time bar issue.
Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, rejecting the refund claim due to the manufacturing nature of re-glass lining and the absence of merit in the appellants' arguments.
-
1996 (6) TMI 145
The issue in the appeals was the admissibility of Modvat Credit on flattened metal containers used for packing food products. The Tribunal held that the credit cannot be denied as the containers are reformed in the factory and exempted from duty. The appeals were allowed based on previous decisions supporting this conclusion.
-
1996 (6) TMI 144
Issues: Classification of goods for customs duty and countervailing duty.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the classification of goods held as fungicides for customs duty under Customs Tariff Heading 29.42 and for countervailing duty under Central Excise Tariff Heading 29.42.
2. The appellant argued that while Customs Tariff Heading 29.42 was correct for customs duty, the proper heading for countervailing duty should be 38.08 as it specifically refers to 'fungicides'. The appellant contended that 'Dodine' imported by them is a fungicide and not merely a fungicidal chemical. They cited the Insecticides Act, 1968, to support their claim that Dodine is classified as a fungicide without purity conditions. The appellant highlighted the difference in conditions between Customs Tariff Heading 38.08 and Central Excise Tariff Heading 38.08, asserting that the goods should be classified under the latter for countervailing duty.
3. The purity percentage and dilution were discussed, with references to previous cases and clarifications by CBEC. The appellant argued that purity or packing alone should not determine classification, citing various trade notices and orders. The Tribunal noted that dilution of technical grade pesticides does not amount to manufacture, as clarified by CBEC orders and court judgments. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned goods should be classified under Heading 38.08 for countervailing duty.
4. The Revenue contended that the form in which goods are presented for assessment is crucial for customs duty, and subsequent processes do not affect classification. They highlighted the use of Notification as a guide but not determinative of classification.
5. The Tribunal observed that Customs Tariff Heading 38.08 and Central Excise Tariff Heading 38.08 were not fully aligned. While Customs Tariff Heading 38.08 specifies conditions for fungicides, Central Excise Tariff Heading 38.08 does not, leading to the conclusion that the goods should be classified under Heading 38.08 for countervailing duty.
6. The Tribunal analyzed the Notification exempting goods under Chapter 29 from duty and its relevance to the classification of the impugned goods. They emphasized that dilution does not amount to manufacture and that the exemption Notification cannot determine classification. Various court judgments and CBEC orders were cited to support the classification under Heading 38.08.
7. The Tribunal referenced CBEC orders and trade notices indicating that pesticide chemicals are classifiable under Heading 38.08, irrespective of purity or packing. They highlighted previous cases where dilution of chemicals did not change their classification. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 38.08 for countervailing duty.
8. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, noting the non-speaking nature of the Collector (Appeals) order as an additional ground for setting it aside.
-
1996 (6) TMI 143
The appeals were filed under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against a determination by the designated authority regarding dumping. The Tribunal held that no fee is required for appeals under Section 9C of the Act. Stay applications were scheduled for 16-7-1996. Notices were to be issued to the respondent and the Secretary of Government of India in the Commerce Department.
-
1996 (6) TMI 142
Issues:
Appeal against denial of Modvat credit based on original invoices lost before the introduction of relevant provision - Interpretation of retrospective effect of procedural provision - Consideration of Tribunal's precedent on retrospective nature of procedural changes - Requirement of satisfaction of Assistant Collector for allowing Modvat credit - Waiver of pre-deposit - Clarification on the procedural nature of Rule 57G - Ensuring no misuse of Modvat credit facility.
Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants based on original invoices lost before the introduction of a relevant provision. The appellants had taken the credit on the basis of original invoices as the duplicates were lost. The Assistant Collector had denied the benefit citing that the provision allowing credit on the basis of original invoices in case of duplicate loss was introduced later. The learned counsel argued that the provision was procedural and clarificatory, emphasizing that the items were received when the system was new and not fully understood by all parties involved.
The main contention revolved around the retrospective nature of the procedural provision. The counsel cited a Tribunal's order to support the argument that procedural changes should be deemed retrospective. It was highlighted that the provision allowing credit on the basis of original invoices clarified the alternative course in case of loss and should be considered retrospective. The provision also required satisfaction of the Assistant Collector for availing the credit, and the appellants offered to provide an undertaking to prevent misuse of the facility if the duplicate invoice was subsequently recovered.
The learned DR argued that the denial was justified as the relevant notification was prospective, allowing Modvat credit only on the basis of duplicate invoices from a certain date. However, the Tribunal observed that Rule 57G was procedural in nature and aimed to prevent misuse of the credit facility. The provision requiring satisfaction of the Assistant Collector was seen as a safeguard against misuse. The Tribunal noted that the provision was clarificatory and retrospective in nature, as it explicitly stated a procedure that was already implied.
Considering the arguments and the nature of the provision, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit and proceeded to address the main appeal. It was emphasized that the purpose of the provision was to ensure the correct utilization of Modvat credit and prevent misuse. The Tribunal accepted the appeal, setting aside the previous orders and directing the Assistant Collector to allow the credit after satisfying himself through appropriate means, such as an affidavit, undertaking, or inquiry, to ensure compliance and prevent misuse of the facility.
-
1996 (6) TMI 141
The appeal considered the inclusion of inlet and outlet "dampers" in the assessable value of industrial fans. The Revenue argued for inclusion, but the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that dampers were not essential parts of the industrial fan system and did not regulate the working of the fan. The appeal was rejected.
-
1996 (6) TMI 140
The appeal involved the inclusion of the cost of inlet and outlet "dampers" in the assessable value of industrial fans. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that dampers were not considered essential parts of the industrial fan system and did not regulate the working of the fan.
-
1996 (6) TMI 139
The appeal was regarding the eligibility of Connectors imported by the appellants under Notification No. 232/83 as amended by Notification No. 276/84. The appellants claimed their Connectors were of PCB Type, but the tribunal found the description in the invoice did not match the amended Notification, leading to the rejection of their claim. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 138
The appeal was against the confiscation of imported goods due to lack of import license. The appellant argued lack of awareness and no mala fide intention. The Commissioner allowed redemption of goods with a fine. The Tribunal reduced the fine to Rs. 1,75,000 and penalty to Rs. 5,000, upholding the appeal with modifications.
-
1996 (6) TMI 137
The judgment deals with an application to dispense with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 10,37,606 related to Modvat credit on refractories used in kilns. The Tribunal found that the applicants made a prima facie case for dispensing with pre-deposit as the Commissioner did not consider the plea citing a previous Tribunal decision. Recovery of the amount is stayed pending appeal.
-
1996 (6) TMI 136
The appellants imported welded and rolled tubes in Inconel alloy 601 claiming assessment under Heading 85.11 for Rotary Tube Annealing Furnace spares. Assessment was done under Heading 73.17/19(2) as stainless steel tubes. Refund claim was rejected due to lack of evidence. The appeal was dismissed as appellants failed to provide sufficient proof for reassessment.
-
1996 (6) TMI 135
Issues:
1. Whether the conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind seed powder constitutes a process of manufacture for the purpose of levy to duty as goods.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of tamarind seed powder and the process of converting tamarind seed into powder under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of tamarind seed powder through a specific process involving drying, disintegration, pulverization, sieving, and packing. The Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals) both held that the transformation of tamarind seed into powder resulted in a new product with distinct characteristics and commercial use, meeting the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act.
The appellants challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, arguing that the process did not create a new product as per the analogy of pepper and pepper powder, which are considered the same goods. However, the Tribunal differentiated the case by highlighting that tamarind seed and tamarind seed powder serve different purposes, making them distinct products. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., emphasizing that the key criterion for manufacture is the creation of a new product with unique characteristics and use.
The Tribunal concluded that the conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind seed powder resulted in the production of a distinct product with different characteristics and commercial utility. The Tribunal noted that tamarind seed and tamarind seed powder were sold as separate commodities in the market, further supporting their classification as distinct goods. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, ruling that the process of converting tamarind seed into powder constituted a process of manufacture under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
In light of the above analysis, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, affirming that the conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind seed powder qualifies as a process of manufacture for the purpose of levy to duty as goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
-
1996 (6) TMI 134
The appeal concerned the treatment of engraved rollers and ceramic boards as consumables and inputs for Modvat credit in the manufacture of polyester fibres. The larger Bench held that parts of machines, including these items, are eligible for Modvat credit. The lower authorities' decision was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 132
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that the polishing wheel used in the manufacture of dry cell batteries is considered a tool, not a part of the machine, and therefore not eligible for Modvat credit. The appeal by the manufacturer was dismissed. (Citation: 1996 (6) TMI 132 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1996 (6) TMI 131
The appeal arose from a duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellants for allegedly wrongly utilizing Modvat credit. The appellants used the credit after its withdrawal on HDPE sacks. The tribunal found that the appellants were entitled to use the credit already earned, citing precedents where similar rights were upheld even after the withdrawal of Modvat. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
............
|
9911796707
