Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2002 2002 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 656 Records

• 2002 (2) TMI 1134
  
  The appeal was filed against the order disallowing Modvat credit of Rs. 1,71,856 and Rs. 2,686. The Tribunal found that the credit could not be legally denied as the invoices contained necessary details and inputs were duly duty paid. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellants were allowed the Modvat credit for both amounts.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1133
  
  The appeal was filed against the disallowance of Modvat credit. The appellants were allowed to take credit of Rs. 62,775 but not the remaining Rs. 1,37,853. The judgment set aside the order and sent the matter back for re-consideration, as the registration status of the company issuing the invoices was not verified. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1131
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by the respondents regarding Modvat credit on certain items. The penalty imposed on the party was also set aside. The Revenue's appeal against this decision was dismissed as the definition of capital goods for Modvat credit was considered wide by the Apex Court.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1130
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants regarding denial of Modvat credit for V.P. Sugar and Molasses due to missing declaration under Rule 57G, as evidence showed declaration sent by post was received by the Asst. Commissioner. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1128
  
  Issues:
  - Pre-deposit requirement under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944
  - Modvat credit on duty paid on inputs
  - Applicability of Rule 57F(4) and Rule 57F(6) of Central Excise Rules, 1944
  - Job worker's duty payment and principal manufacturer's credit entitlement
  - Tribunal decisions on Modvat credit and duty payment scenarios
  
  Pre-deposit Requirement:
  The appellants were directed to pre-deposit a specific sum demanded under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with a penalty amount. However, due to the straightforward nature of the issue, the waiver of pre-deposit was granted, and the appeal proceeded for final disposal.
  
  Modvat Credit on Duty Paid Inputs:
  The appellants claimed Modvat credit on duty paid for inputs such as Woven Fabrics of Cotton Grey and Woven Fabrics of Synthetic Yarn Grey. These inputs were sent for further processing to a job worker under Rule 57F(4). The appellants also debited the duty amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the partially processed intermediate product sent to the job worker. The consultant argued that they had not taken double credit, as alleged, and had correctly availed Modvat credit on the inputs and the duty paid by the job worker.
  
  Applicability of Rule 57F(4) and Rule 57F(6):
  The appellants utilized Rule 57F(4) for sending inputs to the job worker for processing and Rule 57F(6) for debiting the duty amount before clearing goods to the job worker. The Tribunal found that the appellants had followed the necessary procedures and had not taken any double credit.
  
  Job Worker's Duty Payment and Principal Manufacturer's Credit Entitlement:
  The job worker paid the duty on the processed goods, which the principal manufacturer claimed as credit. Citing relevant Tribunal decisions, the consultant argued that the principal manufacturer was entitled to the credit when the job worker paid the duty, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
  
  Tribunal Decisions on Modvat Credit and Duty Payment Scenarios:
  The Tribunal referenced previous cases where it was held that when job workers paid duty, the principal manufacturer could claim credit. These decisions supported the appellants' claim for Modvat credit on duty paid by both themselves and the job worker. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellants had correctly taken Modvat credit and had not availed double credit.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1104
  

  In terms of the High Court judgment in that it provided for detention of goods at check point but without investing in the officer concerned the power of confiscating the same. It seems to us, in these circumstances, unnecessary to go into the question whether section 29(3), (4) and (5), as originally enacted, was not violative of the aforementioned articles.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1101
  

  Once the old rule has been deleted or repealed and substituted by a new rule, whether the old rule would revive when the substituted rule ceased to be operative?

  Whether the 1952 rule had revived after the 1955 rule was struck down?

  Held that:- Appeal allowed. A perusal of section 20 shows that several provisions of Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act have been made applicable in relation to statutory instruments including the statutory rules issued under the Uttar Pradesh Act. However, section 6-C does not find place in sub-section (2) of section 20 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. In absence of application of section 6-C to the statutory instrument, including the statutory rule, which is the case before us, the contention of the respondents deserves to be rejected. Since section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act has not been applied to the statutory rule framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the substituted rule after it became inoperative, old rule 49 would not revive.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1094
  
  The appellate tribunal considered the validity of a show cause notice proposing duty recovery on Flucort-C-skin ointment due to multiple active ingredients. The appellant argued that the exemption was extended despite awareness of the ingredients, making the appeal time-barred. The tribunal found that the notice was based on confusion between different ointments and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1093
  
  The case involved duty and penalty amounts imposed on the appellants. The appellants failed to appear despite multiple adjournments. The duty amount and penalty were upheld by the authorities. The appeal was dismissed as no merits were found.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1092
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed a miscellaneous application for amendment to treat an appeal as arising from an order dated 29-7-1999. The delay of 418 days in filing the appeal was not condoned due to lack of satisfactory explanation, leading to dismissal of the stay application and appeal as time-barred.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1091
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata rejected the Revenue's Reference Application regarding jurisdiction issues in a case involving misdeclaration, fraud, and smuggling. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the adjudicating authority due to lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that jurisdiction is a fundamental issue. The Tribunal allowed for re-adjudication by the competent authority with fresh show cause notices within a month, following principles of natural justice. The Reference Application was rejected.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1088
  
  Issues:
  Eligibility to duty under Section 116 of the Act on quantities of Corn Soya Milk (CSM) and bulgur wheat found to be short landed.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment addresses the common issue in five appeals regarding the eligibility to duty under Section 116 of the Act on Corn Soya Milk (CSM) and bulgur wheat found to be short landed. The Additional Collector of Customs imposed a penalty on the duty leviable on the goods that were not properly accounted for. Despite the appellant's absence and lack of representation, the tribunal proceeded to decide the appeals based on the appeal memorandums and hearing the departmental representative.
  
  The appellants claimed no short landing occurred as the goods were not found landed elsewhere or any claim received from the consignees. However, the tribunal found this ground unacceptable. Section 116 of the Act imposes a penalty if imported goods are not unloaded at the destination or the quantity unloaded is less than loaded, and the deficiency is not accounted for. The burden to prove compliance lies with the person in charge, and mere assertions of short landing are insufficient. The reliance on the port out turn report and tally sheets was deemed inadequate to support the appellant's case.
  
  Regarding bulgur wheat, no duty is leviable as per the Customs Tariff of 1983-84, making any penalty under Section 116 inapplicable. On the other hand, CSM is duty-exempt under Notification 143/76 if imported under the World Food Programme. Since the goods were not imported under this program, duty is leviable on general import without any exemption. The tribunal allowed appeals C/104 & 188/87, set aside the impugned orders, partially allowed appeal C/92/87 concerning duty on bulgur wheat, and dismissed appeals C/147 and 148/87.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the application of Section 116 of the Act regarding duty eligibility on short landed goods, emphasizing the burden of proof on the person in charge and the specific conditions for duty exemptions on different goods like bulgur wheat and CSM.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1087
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) for levy of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
  2. Claim of abatement from payment of duty due to a breakdown of one furnace.
  3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) for short payment of duty.
  
  Issue 1: Determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP)
  The appellants, manufacturers of non-alloy steel ingots, challenged the ACP fixed by the Commissioner at 14,400 MT, leading to a monthly duty payment of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The appellants argued that due to a breakdown of one furnace, their duty liability should be restricted to the operational furnace's capacity of 3 MT. The Commissioner rejected this claim, emphasizing that ACP determination was based on factory capacity, not individual furnaces. The Commissioner found the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim, such as a Chartered Engineer's certificate. The Commissioner held that the appellants must pay duty as per the ACP fixed.
  
  Issue 2: Claim of Abatement from Duty Payment
  The appellants sought abatement from duty payment under Section 3A(3) due to the non-operation of one furnace. They provided several pieces of evidence, including letters informing about the breakdown, but the Commissioner did not consider these in his decision. The Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to verify the non-operational furnace's status and fix ACP accordingly. The Commissioner's failure to re-examine the evidence and fix ACP only for the operational furnace led to the order's setting aside. The matter was remanded for a new decision.
  
  Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty
  The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) for short payment of duty and confirmed a demand of Rs. 75 lakhs. However, due to the setting aside of the ACP determination, the penalty and duty demand were also set aside. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
  
  In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by remand for a de novo consideration of the ACP determination, abatement claim, and penalty imposition, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1086
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal regarding deemed Modvat credit denial due to non-payment of interest on delayed Central Excise duty by the supplier. The decision was based on a previous case where non-payment of interest was not considered as non-payment of appropriate duty on inputs. The impugned order was set aside.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1084
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 60,92,604 and penalty of equal amount. The Tribunal found that the electric cables cleared by the applicants were integrated parts of wind mills, qualifying for exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. The Tribunal granted the waiver and directed stay of duty recovery until the appeal is disposed off.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1083
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by M/s. S.S. Jain & Company due to a 23-day delay in filing, which was explained as a mistake by the applicant's assistant. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision. (2002 (2) TMI 1083 - CEGAT, Mumbai)

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1082
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal of the appellant, who manufactures EOT cranes, regarding the classification of inputs. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's claim that minor variations in classification should not deny benefits. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1080
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,72,824/- and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs in an appeal where the delay in filing was due to waiting for direction from the Head Office. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider the case, emphasizing the need to condone delays when they are not substantial.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1079
  
  Issues:
  
  1. Admissibility of Modvat credit on defective re-rollable material.
  2. Interpretation of Board's instructions on deemed credit eligibility.
  3. Validity of penalties imposed under Rule 173Q(bb).
  
  Issue 1: Admissibility of Modvat credit on defective re-rollable material
  
  The case involved M/s. Atam Concast Steels (P) Ltd. and M/s. Kalyan Agro Industries Corporation availing Modvat credit on defective re-rollable material for manufacturing steel ingots. The Central Excise authorities observed that deemed credit was admissible only to re-rollers using the material without melting for goods under Chapters 72 and 73. The appellants were issued show cause notices for disallowing Modvat credit and imposing penalties. The Deputy Collector directed them to reverse the credits and imposed penalties, which were upheld in subsequent appeals.
  
  Issue 2: Interpretation of Board's instructions on deemed credit eligibility
  
  The Board's instructions specified that deemed credit on iron and steel material was admissible to re-rollers using the material without melting for specific goods. In this case, re-rollers passed on ineligible Modvat credit to the appellants, who could only use the material by melting in induction furnaces. The appellants argued that Rule 57F(1)(ii) allowed clearance for home consumption from Modvat credit account. However, the Tribunal found that the re-rollers not entitled to deemed credit couldn't pass it on, as the consignee cannot have a better title than the consignor. Thus, the appellants were not eligible for the credit.
  
  Issue 3: Validity of penalties imposed under Rule 173Q(bb)
  
  Penalties were imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q(bb) for the disallowed Modvat credit. The Tribunal upheld the penalties as the appellants received ineligible credit through re-rollers who were not entitled to it. The dismissal of appeals affirmed the penalties and the reversal of Modvat credits, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specific conditions for availing deemed credit as per the Board's instructions.
  
  This judgment clarifies the strict conditions for availing Modvat credit on iron and steel material, emphasizing the need for compliance with the Board's instructions to prevent misuse of deemed credit. The decision highlights the consequences of passing on ineligible credits and affirms the authority of the Central Excise authorities to disallow such credits and impose penalties under relevant rules.

  ---

• 2002 (2) TMI 1078
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai dismissed the Revenue appeal seeking further enhancement of redemption fine and penalty for imported goods of Chinese origin. The Tribunal had already reduced the redemption fine to 75% of the CIF value in a previous order. The penalty imposed at 10% of the CIF value was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 33