|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 577 Records
-
1999 (8) TMI 663
Issues:
1. Demand of duty on levy sugar received as subsidy.
2. Invocation of provisions of Rule 9(2) and Sec. 11A(1) for demanding duty.
3. Application of limitation specified under Sec. 11A(1).
4. Interpretation of the term "intent to evade payment of duty" as per legal precedents.
5. Analysis of the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) and its application.
6. Examination of the Commissioner's authority to redefine terms under Sec. 11A(1).
Analysis:
1. The case involved sugar manufacturers who had received subsidy from the Ministry of Food following the Supreme Court's direction to refix the price of levy sugar retrospectively. The Central Excise Commissioner issued show-cause notices to recover duty on the subsidy received, terming it as additional consideration. The demands were confirmed, but penalties and interest were not imposed.
2. The Tribunal examined the invocation of Rule 9(2) for demanding differential duty. It was noted that the sugar was not surreptitiously removed, and duty was paid openly. Citing legal precedents, the demand under Rule 9(2) was deemed unsustainable.
3. The application of Sec. 11A(1) was scrutinized concerning the limitation period calculated from the date of the show-cause notice. Legal judgments were referenced to establish that the existence of suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty must be proven by the Revenue, with specific definitions provided by the Supreme Court.
4. The term "intent to evade payment of duty" was elaborated upon, emphasizing that mere failure to pay duty is insufficient. The deliberate avoidance of duty payment with awareness of its leviability constitutes evasion, as defined by legal precedents.
5. The proviso to Sec. 11A(1) was invoked, but the conscious act of planning to evade duty was not explicitly outlined in the notices. The Commissioner's attempt to justify the demand based on the extended period was deemed illegitimate as the terms defined in the section could not be redefined.
6. The Tribunal concluded that there was no valid basis for sustaining the demands as per the show-cause notices. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, highlighting the Commissioner's lack of authority to redefine terms under Sec. 11A(1) beyond the defined scope.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues raised in the case concerning duty demands on levy sugar subsidy and the application of relevant legal provisions and precedents.
-
1999 (8) TMI 661
Issues Involved:
Classification of the impugned product under sub-heading 3214.00 or 3200.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
Analysis:
1. The appeal raised the issue of classifying the impugned product under sub-heading 3214.00 or 3200.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant initially described the product as paints and varnishes under sub-heading 3209.90 but later as non-refractory preparations for facades under sub-heading 3214.00. The Assistant Collector classified it under sub-heading 3209.90, upheld by the Collector (Appeals) after remand. The appellant argued that the show cause notice lacked evidentiary basis and reasons for classification under 3209.90, emphasizing the need for disclosure of test reports or commercial enquiry. They contended that the impugned product did not meet the criteria for paints and varnishes, citing its properties and trade recognition. Reference was made to relevant case law and definitions to support their position.
2. The Department, represented by the ld. DR, justified reliance on the Chemical Examiner's report for classification under sub-heading 3209.90, as directed by the Collector (Appeals). It was noted that the appellant did not request a retest of the samples. The Tribunal considered both arguments, acknowledging the Collector (Appeals) initial acceptance of the appellant's natural justice violation claim due to non-disclosure of the test report. However, after disclosure and subsequent adjudication, the Collector (Appeals) passed an order within the given directions. The test report indicated the product's composition and properties resembling distemper, with no retest request from the appellant. The Tribunal found the legal advice provided by a consultant insufficient compared to the Chemical Examiner's report, leading to the classification under sub-heading 3209.90.
3. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' classification under sub-heading 3209.90, rejecting the appellant's argument for classification under Heading 32.14. The penalty imposed was set aside as the issue focused on product classification, not warranting penal action. The judgment concluded that the test report, proper examination, and adherence to directions justified the classification decision, emphasizing the importance of expert opinions over legal advice in such matters.
4. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of based on the above analysis, affirming the classification under sub-heading 3209.90 and removing the penalty, as the issue primarily revolved around the correct classification of the impugned product under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
-
1999 (8) TMI 658
Issues:
1. Allegations of illegal import and export of diamonds
2. Validity of statements made by individuals
3. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act
4. Evidence presented by the Department
5. Analysis of the Commissioner's order
6. Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Act
7. Timing and validity of show cause notice amendment
Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of illegal import and export of diamonds based on a statement by Ashok V. Shah. The show cause notice alleged illegal import and export of diamonds, leading to confiscation and penalties against certain individuals. The Collector upheld the allegations, ordering confiscation of the diamonds with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The appeal challenged this order.
2. The appellant's advocate argued that all export documentation was in order, with evidence of lawful possession and acquisition of the goods. He claimed that Ashok V. Shah's statement was made under duress and coercion, later retracted in an affidavit. However, the DRI failed to produce this affidavit despite requests, leading to doubts about the validity of the statement.
3. The issue of burden of proof under Section 123 of the Act was raised, with the appellant claiming that the burden shifted back to the Department due to amendments excluding diamonds from the section's provisions. The appellant provided evidence of legal acquisition, challenging the Department's reliance on Ashok V. Shah's statement.
4. The evidence presented by the Department primarily relied on Ashok V. Shah's statement, which did not conclusively prove illegal importation of the diamonds. The Department failed to establish the unlawful source of the diamonds or their smuggled nature, casting doubt on the basis of the allegations.
5. The Commissioner's order was criticized for lacking analysis on crucial points, such as the failure to interrogate Arvind Shah and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of illegal import and export. The proceedings did not provide sufficient justification for the decision to confiscate the diamonds.
6. The issue of confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Act was raised without clear evidence or analysis supporting the claim. The lack of connection between illegal import and export further weakened the Department's case for confiscation under the relevant sections.
7. The timing and validity of the show cause notice amendment invoking Section 123 were questioned, as it was made nearly a year after the initial notice. This delay raised concerns about the legality of the amendment and the potential limitation of the show cause notice itself.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the proceedings lacked substantial evidence to prove the diamonds were smuggled or illegally exported. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1999 (8) TMI 656
Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit order by the appellants.
2. Consideration of financial hardship and prima facie case on merits.
3. Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) orders and appeals filed by the assessees.
4. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Act and related Supreme Court judgments.
Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order:
The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the disputed amount as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act within 15 days. Failure to comply led to dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance. Despite a subsequent personal hearing, where no proof of payment was presented, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.
Financial Hardship and Prima Facie Case on Merits:
The appellants claimed strong prima facie cases on merits and severe financial crisis due to weak market conditions. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for dismissing the appeals without considering submissions, leading to multiple appeals and stay applications. However, the Tribunal observed that no documents were supplied to support the claim of financial hardship, and the appellate authority is required to form a prima facie impression at the stay application stage.
Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) Orders and Appeals:
The Tribunal analyzed judgments citing unreasoned orders and the need for reasons in decisions. It was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered issues and financial hardship before passing the order. The Tribunal found no merit in the plea that the orders were unreasoned or made without considering submissions, leading to the rejection of the prayer for unconditional stay and waiver.
Interpretation of Section 35F and Supreme Court Judgments:
The Tribunal discussed the provisions of Section 35F requiring deposit before appeal hearing and related Supreme Court judgments emphasizing compliance with such provisions. The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the appellate authority were not bad in law and must be complied with. The appellants were directed to file a bank guarantee for 50% of the confirmed duty, waiving the pre-condition of penalty deposit.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the pre-deposit order, emphasized compliance with legal provisions, and directed the appellants to file a bank guarantee to secure the revenue, allowing for the appeal to be heard promptly.
-
1999 (8) TMI 638
Issues:
1. Extended time limit under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Remission of duty on exported goods.
Extended Time Limit under Section 11A:
The appeal was against Order-in-original No. 13/97, where the Commissioner held that the extended time limit for demand of duty under Section 11A was applicable as a letter dated 17-5-1983 of the appellant was not found in the Central Excise record. The Commissioner also noted that the letter was not mentioned by the Director of the appellant in his statement and appeared to be tampered with. The appellants argued that the letter had been acknowledged by the Inspector and requested examination of the officer during proceedings. The appellants contended that their activity did not amount to manufacture based on previous orders. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' plea, ordering the demand to be worked out for a period of six months preceding the show cause notice, emphasizing discrepancies in the Commissioner's observations on the letter's authenticity.
Remission of Duty on Exported Goods:
Regarding remission of duty on exported goods, the appellants stated that they could not produce documentary evidence as the documents were seized by Central Excise authorities. They requested access to the seized documents to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal found that the remission of duty for exported goods was not implemented, as the relevant documents were in custody of authorities. It directed the department to provide copies of the seized files to the appellants for substantiating their claim and ordered a fresh decision on duty liability within the normal six-month period under Section 11A. The Tribunal emphasized the need for natural justice principles in the final order, disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellants.
This judgment primarily dealt with the application of the extended time limit for demand of duty under Section 11A and the remission of duty on exported goods. The Tribunal scrutinized the Commissioner's findings, highlighting discrepancies and lack of proper verification in determining the duty liability. The decision emphasized the importance of examining evidence thoroughly and ensuring access to necessary documents for substantiating claims. Ultimately, the Tribunal sided with the appellants, ordering a reevaluation of duty liability within the standard time frame and stressing the adherence to principles of natural justice in the final order.
-
1999 (8) TMI 637
Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Rules.
2. Determination of whether certain items constitute furniture.
3. Time-barred demands and suppression of facts.
Classification of goods under Central Excise Rules:
The appeal stemmed from an order confirming a duty demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with a penalty imposed on the appellants. The dispute arose from the classification of goods manufactured by the appellants, including steel furniture and parts thereof, wooden furniture, slotted angles, and other items. The Addl. Collector held that various items like slotted angles, steel panels, partition plates, and others were parts of furniture classifiable under Chapter 94. The appellants argued that these items did not qualify as furniture, citing precedents and trade parlance. They contended that the goods did not assume the shape of furniture and were not excisable as furniture. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not cleared the goods as furniture but as specific items like slotted angles and racks, emphasizing the need to consider the condition of the goods when removed from the factory for taxability.
Determination of whether certain items constitute furniture:
The appellants relied on previous judgments to support their claim that the items in question were not furniture. They argued that the goods did not meet the criteria for classification as furniture based on their use in dwelling houses, places of business, or public buildings. They also highlighted cases where similar items were not considered furniture under the Central Excise Tariff. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative cited cases where items like racks were classified as furniture. The Tribunal observed a need for a detailed examination of tariff notes and explanatory notes to determine the classification of the items, remanding the matter for reconsideration by the original authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of assessing whether the goods cleared were indeed furniture and directed a fresh examination in light of the observations made.
Time-barred demands and suppression of facts:
The appellants contended that the demands were time-barred as there was no evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. They argued that they had maintained all required registers and had a bona fide belief that the items were not marketable or excisable as furniture. The Tribunal noted the need to examine this aspect of the case, along with the classification issue, directing the Addl. Collector to reconsider the matter in light of the observations and submissions. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for de novo consideration, setting aside the impugned order for further examination.
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai delved into the classification of goods under Central Excise Rules, the determination of whether certain items constituted furniture, and the consideration of time-barred demands and suppression of facts. The detailed analysis provided insights into the arguments presented by the parties, the application of legal precedents, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh examination based on the observations made.
-
1999 (8) TMI 636
Issues: Valuation of imported goods, misdeclaration of value, confiscation of goods, personal penalty under Customs Act.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur regarding the import of rough synthetic emerald. The appellant imported the goods, declared as "free trade sample of no commercial value," with a declared value of 36.51 US $ @ 0.16 US $ per ct. Customs found the declared value too low and obtained expert opinions valuing the goods at 18 US $ per ct. and 16 US $ per ct. The Commissioner accepted the lower value, leading to confiscation of the goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine and imposition of a personal penalty.
During the appeal, the appellant argued that the valuation was incorrect, the experts were not qualified for synthetic emeralds, and the goods were unsolicited trade samples. They requested a remand for fresh valuation by proper experts or return of the consignment. The departmental representative defended the valuation process, citing the lower value compared to a previous import and the appellant's awareness and participation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal examined the record and noted the appellant's admission of importation, participation in valuation proceedings, and lack of request for return of goods. They upheld the valuation based on expert opinions and previous imports, rejecting the appellant's claims. The Tribunal confirmed the order on valuation, duty demand, confiscation, and redemption fine, but reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 25,000 considering all circumstances of the case.
-
1999 (8) TMI 635
Issues:
1. Assessment of imported goods consisting of hardware and software at different duty rates.
2. Compliance with Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding separate assessment of goods.
3. Confiscation and redemption of imported goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Initiation of proceedings against appellants for misdeclaration of imported goods' value.
Analysis:
Assessment of Imported Goods:
The case involved the import of a design workstation with hardware and software. The Commissioner enhanced the value of the goods and assessed them at the highest duty rate applicable to hardware, contrary to the distinction in duty rates for hardware and software. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision and noted that software's value should not be included in the assessable value of hardware for duty purposes. The Commissioner's decision to assess the entire goods at the hardware duty rate was deemed erroneous and a failure to acknowledge binding legal precedents.
Compliance with Section 19 of the Customs Act:
The Commissioner's decision to assess the goods at the highest duty rate due to the absence of separate values for software was challenged. Section 19 of the Customs Act allows for separate assessment if the importer provides evidence of different values for items subject to varying duty rates. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient material to determine the separate values of hardware and software, but the Commissioner failed to consider this evidence, violating the provisions of Section 19.
Confiscation and Redemption of Imported Goods:
The imported goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. However, it was revealed that the goods had already been sold to third parties, indicating a violation of customs provisions. The Tribunal highlighted this discrepancy as evidence of mishandling by the authorities responsible for upholding customs regulations.
Misdeclaration of Imported Goods' Value:
The appellants faced proceedings for allegedly misdeclaring the value of the imported goods. The discrepancy arose from a discount shown in the proforma invoice, leading to confusion regarding the actual value. The Tribunal concluded that the discount should have been considered in the assessment, rendering the confiscation unnecessary. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, as there were no grounds to uphold it based on the issues identified and analyzed in the judgment.
-
1999 (8) TMI 634
The dispute was about the valuation of Polyacetal Resin imported by M/s. Dupont South Asia Ltd. The appellants declared a value of US $1,750 per M.T., but it was rejected and assessed at $2,050 per M.T. The Commissioner confirmed the enhancement of value. The appellants argued that they were not given a copy of the computer print out of contemporary imports used to determine the higher value, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision, instructing to provide the appellants with a copy of the computer print out for a fair proceeding.
-
1999 (8) TMI 633
The judgment considers whether a waste water clarification plant is eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The appellant argues that the plant is essential for manufacturing granite, while the respondent disagrees. The Tribunal finds in favor of the appellant, stating that the plant is eligible for Modvat credit as it is installed to prevent pollution. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 632
The appeal was against the rejection of a request for exemption under Notification No. 239/86 for parts used in manufacturing starters, motors, etc. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, stating that the exemption applied only to the final products, not the inputs used in manufacturing them. The appeal was dismissed as the facts were identical to a previous case.
-
1999 (8) TMI 631
Issues Involved:
1. Availability of benefit under Notification No. 202/88 for Bars and Rods manufactured from old railway materials.
2. Time limit specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for raising demands.
Analysis:
1. Availability of Benefit under Notification No. 202/88:
The appeal revolved around whether the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 applied to Bars and Rods produced by the Appellants using old railway materials. The Tribunal noted that a previous decision (Vivek Re-Rolling Mills v. C.C.E., Chandigarh) had held that the input material constituted old and unserviceable re-rollable scrap, not eligible under the notification. The Appellants conceded this point but argued that the duty raised was time-barred. They cited a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs that classified old used rails as falling under Chapter 72, similar to angles, shapes, and sections. This led to a bona fide belief among traders that the notification applied, as supported by a Supreme Court judgment (Padmini Products v. C.C.E.). The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants' belief, setting aside the demand for central excise duty based on the availability of Notification No. 202/88.
2. Time Limit under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act:
The Revenue argued for an extended period of limitation due to lack of records showing the Department's knowledge during the relevant period and the Appellants' failure to seek approval for duty clearance. However, the Tribunal, referring to the Vivek Re-Rolling Mills case, considered the departmental practice of treating old railway materials as eligible inputs under the notification. This practice led the Appellants to genuinely believe in the exemption from duty. Citing the Supreme Court's stance, the Tribunal held that the demand could only be enforced for a period of six months from the show cause notice date. Consequently, the extended period of limitation invoked by the Collector was deemed unsustainable. As a result, the demand for central excise duty against the Appellants was overturned, and the appeal was allowed based on the time limit issue.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.
-
1999 (8) TMI 628
Issues:
1. Duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants.
2. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of high carbon chrome ingots.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice during adjudication proceedings.
4. Grievances regarding retesting of samples and cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner.
5. Non-release of unrelied documents to the appellants.
6. Capacity of the appellants to manufacture ferro alloys.
7. Time-barred demand and manufacturing process of ferro alloy ingots.
Analysis:
1. The impugned order confirmed a duty demand of approximately Rs. 43 lakhs on the appellants and imposed penalties on them and their General Manager. The advocate for the appellant argued that there was no factual basis for the duty demand and that the adjudication proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. The main dispute was regarding the alleged clandestine manufacture of high carbon chrome ingots, which the appellants claimed they did not have the capacity to produce, supported by technical literature and a metallurgist's certificate. The advocate also raised concerns about the test report ambiguity, lack of retesting of samples, and denial of cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner.
2. The Revenue argued that the adjudication proceedings were not conducted in violation of natural justice as the appellants were given the opportunity to produce their expert witness. However, upon reviewing the records and submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' grievances. They ordered the release of unrelied documents to the appellants, emphasized the need for retesting of samples, and criticized the lack of cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner. The Tribunal agreed that the capacity of the appellants to manufacture ferro alloys was a crucial issue that had not been adequately addressed in the proceedings.
3. The Tribunal concluded that the case needed to be remanded to the original authority for readjudication. They instructed the release of unrelied documents, retesting of all samples, and cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner if necessary. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider and make a finding on the appellants' claim of lacking the machinery for manufacturing ferro alloys. The appellants were granted the opportunity to present all relevant submissions in the remand proceedings.
This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment and provides a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and directives for further proceedings.
-
1999 (8) TMI 594
Issues:
Determination of duty liability on recovered tartaric acid, whether a new product emerged, limitation of demand, applicability of specific notifications, marketability of product, process of recovery vs. manufacture.
Analysis:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue regarding the duty liability on tartaric acid recovered by a third party from two drug manufacturers. The Revenue argued that the recovered tartaric acid was a new product, thus attracting duty liability. On the other hand, the respondents contended that it was merely a recovery process with no new product emerging. The Adjudicating Authority found that no new product had been created, and the recovered tartaric acid remained the same commercially. The Authority cited the judgment in Alladi Venkateshwarulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh to support this finding.
The Revenue further argued that the recovered tartaric acid was a distinct product subject to duty, not covered by specific notifications exempting certain products. The Revenue contended that the recovered tartaric acid was a new commodity, attracting duty liability. However, the respondents argued that the recovered tartaric acid was non-marketable and merely a recovery process. They presented expert affidavits supporting their position.
The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that the process undertaken by the respondents was a recovery of tartaric acid, not manufacturing a new product. The Tribunal emphasized that the test for determining manufacture under Central Excise Law is whether a new product with different characteristics has emerged. As no new product had been created, the duty liability did not apply. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals based on this ground, rejecting the arguments regarding the applicability of specific notifications and marketability of the product.
In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the recovered tartaric acid was not a new product, and the process undertaken was a recovery, not manufacturing. The duty liability did not devolve on the respondents, and the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal clarified that the judgment in Apar Private Ltd. regarding the purification process of transformer oil base stock did not apply to the present case. The decision focused on whether a new product had emerged, emphasizing the commercial identity of the product before and after the process.
-
1999 (8) TMI 593
Issues:
Whether rental charges for crate and bottles for packing aerated water are to be included in the assessable value of the aerated water.
Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi arose from a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, regarding the inclusion of rental charges for crate and bottles in the assessable value of aerated water. The primary issue involved was whether these rental charges should be considered in the calculation of the assessable value.
The appellant's representative argued that the demand confirmed by the Commissioner was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the stipulated time limit. The appellant had previously informed the authorities about their intention to engage in the business of renting bottles and crates, citing a relevant circular. It was contended that since the rental charges were disclosed, they should not be included in the assessable value. The advocate further relied on legal precedents to support the argument that charges for activities not related to manufacturing should not be included in the assessable value.
On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that the rental charges were excessive compared to the actual cost of the crates and bottles, alleging that it was a disguised way of charging for the aerated water itself. The respondent also raised concerns about the extended time limit for issuing the show cause notice, suggesting that the rental charges were willfully misrepresented to the Department.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had already allowed a deduction for the rental charges, indicating that the cost of the durable and returnable crates and bottles should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's stance that any profit from renting out these items should not factor into the assessable value, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the rental charges had been disclosed earlier, and if the Department had doubts, they could have sought clarification. Consequently, the appeals were allowed on both merit and time limit grounds.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified that rental charges for crate and bottles used for packing aerated water should not be included in the assessable value of the aerated water, as long as any profit from such activities is not considered part of the assessable value. The decision underscored the importance of transparency in disclosing such charges and the need for authorities to verify information before raising demands.
-
1999 (8) TMI 582
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case of Revenue vs. Respondents, determined that processes like bavelling, sand blasting, etching, and frosting on duty paid glass and mirror do not amount to manufacture. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected as previous orders had already set aside the classification of these processes as manufacturing activities.
-
1999 (8) TMI 575
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed against the order-in-original dated 30-10-1992, which held Hypo solution as an excisable commodity. The decision was based on a previous case and the appeal was allowed as per the Tribunal's decision.
-
1999 (8) TMI 574
The appeal involved whether certain processes on duty-paid mirrors and glass amount to manufacture. The tribunal held that the processes did not change the nature of the products significantly, as they remained the same and could be used without the processes. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross objections by the respondents were disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (8) TMI 573
The case discusses whether spot welding electrodes are eligible for Modvat credit as input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Division Bench held that Modvat credit is available on spot welding electrodes, disagreeing with the Single Member's judgment. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed based on the Division Bench's decision.
-
1999 (8) TMI 572
The appeal was against an Order-in-Original confiscating wheel alignment equipment imported by the appellants. The Collector allowed redemption on payment of a fine but denied duty exemption. The tribunal found that the equipment could not be denied import under OGL for testing rear wheels in addition to front wheels. However, the benefit of exemption was rightly denied as the equipment was not a noise and vibration measuring system. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the confiscation and redemption fine but confirming the denial of duty exemption.
............
|
9911796707
