|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 587 Records
-
2006 (9) TMI 446
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are misdeclaration of material particulars in the Bill of Entry, confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Customs Act, imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, denial of benefit of duty exemption, differential duty payment, redemption of goods, and comparison of fines imposed on different parties.
Misdeclaration of Material Particulars in the Bill of Entry:
M/s. Sandip Exports Ltd. imported "Mulberry Raw Silk" and misdeclared material particulars in the Bill of Entry by mentioning an invalid advance license and nonexistent manufacturing facility. This led to the goods being liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Customs Act, with the importer facing penalties under Section 112(a) of the Act.
Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:
A show-cause notice was issued to M/s. Sandip Exports Ltd. for recovering duty, confiscating the goods, and imposing penalties under the Customs Act due to misdeclaration and non-compliance with regulations. The Commissioner ordered the denial of duty exemption, demanded differential duty payment, confiscated the goods, imposed a penalty, and repudiated the claim for a change of title made by another party.
Redemption of Goods and Comparison of Fines:
M/s. Ishwar Impex, seeking to redeem the goods, filed a representation stating they had become owners of the goods and were willing to pay duty and fines. The High Court directed the Commissioner to allow participation in adjudication proceedings. The appellants were allowed to redeem the goods by paying differential duty, interest, and a redemption fine. The appellants successfully argued for a reduction in the fine amount, citing a similar case where a lower fine was imposed for goods of higher value.
Comparison of Fines Imposed on Different Parties:
The appellants compared their situation to that of M/s. Adani Exports Ltd., who had obtained a favorable order from the High Court for the release of goods on payment of a lower fine. The appellants argued that the fine imposed on them was disproportionate to the value of the goods. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' claim, reduced the fine amount, and directed the release of goods upon payment of specified amounts.
This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration in import documents, the consequences of non-compliance with customs regulations, and the process of redeeming goods through payment of duties and fines as per legal provisions.
-
2006 (9) TMI 445
Penalty on Appraisers - charge of abetment with the importer - Customs and Inspector of ICD - HELD THAT:- We notice that the ingredients for proving the charge of abetment as required u/s 112(a) has not been brought out in the show cause notice. There is no admission made by the Customs Officers in abetting in the offence charged. The importer and the CHA have not involved the officers. The officers have not been benefited in any way. The lapse on their part in not scrutinising the documents would at best be dereliction of duty, for which they can be proceeded in terms of CCR Rules. The act of offence is not a penal offence committed by them for involving them along with the offence of the importer and the CHA.
The ruling rendered in the case of A.P. Sales [2006 (2) TMI 328 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] is exhaustive and deals with the present situation, while the situation in the case of Zaki Anwarv [2005 (10) TMI 159 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] is different and the facts are clearly distinguishable. The judgment rendered in the case of CC, New Delhi v. M.I. Khan [2000 (6) TMI 64 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] is not distinguishable in the present case.
Thus, it is also seen that Revenue has not brought out any cogent evidence in the show cause notice nor in the grounds of appeal to implicate the Customs Officers in the offences charged. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner dropping the charges against these officers is justified and requires to be upheld.
There is no merit in these appeals and the same are rejected.
-
2006 (9) TMI 444
Issues:
1. Correct classification of the product 'Jelly-Belly' under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Reopening of classification and recovery of short levied duty.
3. Application of Section 11A for recovery of duty.
4. Legal principles regarding finality of earlier order on classification.
Issue 1: Correct classification of 'Jelly-Belly' under Central Excise Tariff:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing edible products, filed declarations seeking classification of 'Jelly-Belly' under different headings. The Jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner classified it under heading 2001.10, which became final as no appeal was filed. The revenue later alleged short levy based on a different classification under heading 17, which was rejected by the Dy. Commissioner. The Commissioner upheld the original classification under 2001.10, demanding duty payment and interest. The appellant argued that the matter was settled after the earlier classification order, citing the principle of res judicata.
Issue 2: Reopening of classification and recovery of short levied duty:
Subsequent investigations led to show cause notices alleging short levy of duty on 'Jelly-Belly' due to wrong classification. The Commissioner, in the adjudication order, demanded duty payment and interest, rejecting the appellant's defense based on the finality of the earlier classification order. The appellant contended that the revenue authorities were changing classifications to impose higher duty rates, contrary to legal principles.
Issue 3: Application of Section 11A for recovery of duty:
The revenue argued that an earlier classification order did not bar reopening the classification and recovering short levied duty under Section 11A. However, the appellant maintained that once a classification was adjudicated and became final, Section 11A did not apply, citing judgments supporting their position.
Issue 4: Legal principles regarding finality of earlier order on classification:
The Commissioner's observation emphasized that reopening the classification after a final order would violate the principles of res judicata. The appellant's argument, supported by Supreme Court judgments, highlighted that revenue authorities should not change classifications arbitrarily for higher duty rates, especially after a classification order has attained finality.
In conclusion, the appeals succeeded as the impugned order was set aside based on the legal principles discussed regarding the finality of the earlier classification order and the improper application of Section 11A for recovery of duty.
-
2006 (9) TMI 443
Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of LSHS used as a secondary fuel in start-up of boilers and flame stabilization for exemption under relevant Notifications. 2. Eligibility of LSHS used for generation of electricity consumed in plant/mine, i.e., not sold by NLC, for the above exemption. 3. Applicability of extended period of limitation for demanding duty. Summary:Issue 1: Eligibility of LSHS used as a secondary fuel in start-up of boilers and flame stabilization for exemption under relevant Notifications.The Tribunal examined whether LSHS used in start-up operation and flame stabilization can be said to be "intended for use as fuel for the generation of electricity." It was noted that the Notification uses the term "fuel" without specifying 'primary' or 'secondary,' thus including secondary fuel within its ambit. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v Collector of Central Excise, which held that the exemption Notification required proof that the fuel was intended for use in the manufacture, not necessarily that it resulted in the manufacture. Applying this rationale, the Tribunal concluded that LSHS used as secondary fuel in start-up of boilers and flame stabilization was indeed intended for use as fuel for the generation of electricity and thus eligible for exemption. Accordingly, this issue was held in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Eligibility of LSHS used for generation of electricity consumed in plant/mine, i.e., not sold by NLC, for the above exemption.The Tribunal noted that the relevant Notifications clearly stated that the exemption was not available to LSHS "intended for use as fuel for the generation of electrical energy" by an Electricity Undertaking of the Central Government which produced electrical energy not for sale but for their own consumption or for supply to their own Undertakings. Since a portion of the electricity was used in the plant and mine and not sold, the Tribunal held that the benefit of the exemption Notifications was not admissible to that quantity of LSHS. This issue was held against the appellants. Issue 3: Applicability of extended period of limitation for demanding duty.The Tribunal found that the appellants had disclosed the use of LSHS as secondary fuel to the department at the initial stage of taking the L-6 licence. The Commissioner's finding of 'non-disclosure of facts with intent to evade duty' was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal also noted that the use of electricity in the plant and mine was covered by "industrial use" mentioned in the application for the licence. Consequently, the extended period of limitation was not applicable. The demand of duty for the period August 1998 to October 2002 was set aside partly on merits and partly on the ground of limitation. The connected penalty was also set aside. For the period March 2003 to January 2004, the demand of duty on the quantity of LSHS used for electricity not sold but used in the plant and lignite mine during the normal period of limitation was upheld, and the rest of the demand was set aside. The adjudicating authority was directed to quantify the amount of duty recoverable after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Conclusion:Appeal No. 503/2004 was allowed, and Appeal No. 171/2005 was partly allowed. (Pronounced in open Court on 28-9-2006)
-
2006 (9) TMI 442
Issues:
1. Liability for duty on seized sandalwood oil.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Seizure of goods by State Forest Department and its impact on excise duty liability.
Analysis:
1. Liability for duty on seized sandalwood oil:
The case involved a dispute regarding the liability for duty on 16.1 kg of sandalwood oil seized by the State Forest Department from the stock of excisable goods of the appellants. The Revenue sought to demand duty on the seized goods, while the appellants argued that since they had not removed the goods from the factory, no liability for duty arises on them. The Order-in-Original favored the appellants, emphasizing that the seizure by the State Forest Department cannot be considered as removal under Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Despite a similar favorable order by the Commissioner (A) in a previous case, the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order accepted the Revenue's Review Petition, leading to the appeal.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules to determine the applicability of duty liability in the case of seized goods. It was observed that the goods in question were within the factory premises, not removed, and no attempt was made for their removal. The Tribunal concluded that the seizure of goods by the State Forest Department, despite being entered in the RG-I Register, does not constitute removal under Rule 9(1). The Tribunal highlighted that the previous favorable orders by the Order-in-Original and the Commissioner (A) were legally sound, emphasizing that the confirmation of demands by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order was incorrect in law.
3. Seizure of goods by State Forest Department and its impact on excise duty liability:
The key issue revolved around whether the seizure of goods by the State Forest Department, which were duly entered in the RG-I Register, should trigger excise duty liability. The Tribunal clarified that such seizure, when the goods were not removed or attempted to be removed by the appellants, does not fall under the purview of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules. By setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s confirmation of demands and allowing the appeal, the Tribunal affirmed that the seizure of goods by the State Forest Department within the factory premises does not attract excise duty liability, as per the legal provisions and precedents cited in the case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis reaffirmed the appellants' position regarding the non-liability for duty on the seized sandalwood oil, emphasizing the legal interpretation of Rule 9(1) and the impact of goods seizure by the State Forest Department on excise duty liability.
-
2006 (9) TMI 441
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties u/s Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. on two factories belonging to M/s. AST Paper Mills and M/s. B.K. Krafts Ltd., the interpretation of the notification regarding separate entitlement for exemption, and the impact of demerger on factory status and eligibility for benefits.
Confirmation of Demand and Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant filed appeals against the adjudication order confirming a demand of Rs. 1,99,25,965/- on M/s. AST Paper Mills and imposing penalties on the firm and individuals. The demand was based on the assertion that both factories were considered as one entity, thus not entitled to separate benefits under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E.
Interpretation of Notification and Separate Entitlement for Exemption:
The appellant argued that both factories were independent entities run by separate private limited companies, each eligible for exemption under the notification. They contended that the notification provides factory-wise exemption, even for one manufacturer with two separate factories. Citing relevant legal precedents, the appellant emphasized the distinct nature of the factories, separate registrations post-demerger, and compliance with the conditions of the notification.
Impact of Demerger on Factory Status and Eligibility for Benefits:
Post-demerger approved by the High Court, M/s. B.K. Krafts Ltd. obtained separate registrations under the Excise Act and Factory Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court precedent highlighted that even if factories are owned by one company, they can be entitled to benefits separately if the notification conditions are met. The Tribunal's decision, later overturned by the Supreme Court, was cited to support the appellant's position. Consequently, the demand and penalties were deemed unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed.
-
2006 (9) TMI 440
Issues involved: Determination of whether the amount collected by the appellants from their dealers towards 'Service Station Licence Fee' (SSLF) is to be included in the assessable value of petroleum products supplied to such dealers during a specific period.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, in the case represented by Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri B.L. Meena, SDR for the Respondent, with the order pronounced by P.G. Chacko, Member (J), found that the appeal could be disposed of at the current stage after dispensing with pre-deposit.
The central issue in this appeal was whether the SSLF collected by the appellants from their dealers should be included in the assessable value of petroleum products supplied during a specific period. The SSLF was considered as a rental for land, tanks, pumps, and kiosks provided by the appellants to their dealers. Reference was made to a similar fee collected by another entity, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), which was held to be not includible in the assessable value of petroleum products supplied to their dealers. The department had accepted an order-in-appeal in a similar case, and the appeal they filed against it was later withdrawn. Given this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the similar order accepted by the department in a related case, upheld the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
2006 (9) TMI 439
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty for the appellant as a strong prima facie case was made that the demand arising from deputation charges is not sustainable. The charges for erection and installation were not includible in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the appellant. Recovery of duty and penalty was stayed pending the appeal.
-
2006 (9) TMI 438
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002 regarding simultaneous availment of exemptions under Sl. No. 86 and 86A in the same financial year.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the simultaneous availment of benefits under Sl. No. 86 and 86A of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 in the same financial year. Sl. No. 86 provided a clearance-based exemption up to 3,500 MT of production, beyond which a tariff rate of 16% would be applicable. On the other hand, Sl. No. 86A offered an exemption by fixing the effective rate at 12%, irrespective of the quantity of clearance. The appellants had crossed the 3,500 MT limit and availed exemption under Sl. No. 86A, which was challenged by the Department, arguing that the notifications were mutually exclusive, and both exemptions could not be claimed in the same financial year.
The learned Counsel representing the appellants contended that there was no explicit prohibition in the notification against availing exemptions under both Sl. No. 86 and 86A in the same financial year. The Commissioner (Appeal) had interpreted the notification to impose such a restriction, which, according to the Counsel, was beyond the terms of the notification itself. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal examined the terms of the notification and found no explicit bar on availing exemptions under both Sl. No. 86 and 86A concurrently in the same financial year. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had a strong prima facie case in their favor based on the notification's language.
Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay application by waiving the pre-deposit of the duty amount and suspending its recovery until the appeal's final disposal. The appeal was scheduled for a final hearing in due course. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of any specific prohibition in the notification against simultaneously availing exemptions under Sl. No. 86 and 86A in the same financial year, leading to a favorable ruling for the appellants in this case.
-
2006 (9) TMI 437
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Rs. 68 lakhs received by the appellants in the shape of two bank drafts from TTC.
2. Confiscation of Rs. 23 lakhs adjusted by the appellants from the security deposit given by TTC.
3. Imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs upon the appellants.
4. Locus standi of the appellants to maintain the appeal.
Detailed Analysis:
Confiscation of Rs. 68 Lakhs:
The appellants, a Full Fledged Money Changer (FFMC), sold VISA Brand Travellers' Cheques (TCs) to TTC, another FFMC, under a legal agreement. The TCs were sold in the normal course of business, and TTC paid the appellants Rs. 68 lakhs through two pay orders. The Customs authorities confiscated this amount, alleging it was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal held that the act of smuggling must precede the sale of the goods for the sale proceeds to be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act. Since the TCs were sold legally within India and the appellants received the payment before the TCs were smuggled out, the amount could not be considered as sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal referenced the case of B.P. Nayak v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai [2001 (136) E.L.T. 604 (Tri.)] to support this position.
Confiscation of Rs. 23 Lakhs:
The appellants had adjusted Rs. 23 lakhs from the security deposit given by TTC. The Tribunal found that this amount could not be considered as sale proceeds of smuggled goods either, as it was part of a legal transaction and security deposit. The Tribunal reiterated that the Indian currency received by the appellants as consideration for the sale of TCs to another FFMC, in accordance with the law, could not be held to be the sale proceeds of smuggled TCs.
Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The Commissioner of Customs imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the appellants. The Tribunal set aside this penalty, noting that the appellants had conducted their business legally and there was no evidence of their involvement in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal also referenced another adjudication order dated 25-5-2003, where penal charges against the appellants were dropped, further supporting the decision to set aside the penalty.
Locus Standi:
The initial appeal was rejected by the Tribunal on the grounds that the appellants had no locus standi. However, the High Court of Mumbai, in Writ Petition No. 493/00 [2006 (202) E.L.T. 776 (Bom.)], held that the appellants did have the locus standi to maintain the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged this directive and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of Rs. 68 lakhs and Rs. 23 lakhs, as well as the personal penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs, holding that the amounts were not sale proceeds of smuggled goods and that the appellants had conducted their business legally. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the sequence of events, noting that the legal sale of TCs and receipt of payment by the appellants occurred before any smuggling activities took place.
-
2006 (9) TMI 436
Issues:
Violation of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004 regarding duty and penalty pre-deposit requirement.
Analysis:
The appellant was required to pre-deposit a substantial duty amount and penalty due to an alleged violation of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004. The notification granted benefits for yarns procured from outside and subjected to specific processes, excluding texturising, by manufacturers lacking the necessary facilities for yarn or textured yarn manufacture. The appellant contended they were not engaged in texturising and highlighted two unused machineries in their factory without power connection. The appellant argued that the mere presence of these machines should not disqualify them from the notification's benefits. They emphasized the lack of facilities for yarn or texturising yarn production, asserting a misapplication of the notification's terms by the Commissioner. The appellant's position was that the notification only pertained to yarns subjected to processes, which they were not equipped to carry out, rendering the Commissioner's findings legally unsustainable.
The learned DR, representing the respondent, contended that the mere presence of two unused machines without power connection was sufficient grounds to deny the notification's benefits to the appellant.
Upon thorough consideration and scrutiny of the notification's provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had misinterpreted the notification. It was established that the appellant lacked the necessary facilities for yarn or texturising yarn production in their factory and had only manufactured textured yarn. The Tribunal emphasized that the presence of two unused machines was not a valid reason to reject the exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the appellant's stay application by waiving the pre-deposit requirement for duty and penalty amounts and suspending their recovery until the appeal's resolution. Given the substantial amount involved in the case, the appeal was scheduled for an expedited out-of-turn hearing on 17th November 2006.
-
2006 (9) TMI 435
Issues: Classification of Pressure Pans without Lid under different headings, Departmental challenge against earlier orders, Benefit of Notifications 41/94 and 180/88, Preclusion from taking a different stand, Stay order by High Court.
In this case, the Department appealed against the classification of Pressure Pans without Lid made by the Commissioner (Appeals) under different headings. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had followed earlier orders on the same issue, which the Department had not appealed against, leading to the application of the principle that the Revenue cannot take a different stand for a subsequent appeal when an earlier decision has attained finality. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that for want of Departmental challenge against previous orders, the Department was precluded from filing the present appeal. The Tribunal highlighted the decisions in Commissioner v. Bigen Industries Limited and Commissioner v. Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. to support the respondents' case.
Moreover, the Department relied on a decision by the Tribunal in another case involving classification of Pressure Pans with Lid, which was different from the classification in the present case. The Tribunal pointed out that the benefit of Notification No. 41/94-C.E. was not available to the assessee based on this previous decision. However, the Counsel for the Respondent mentioned a stay order by the High Court regarding the decision in the other case but failed to produce a copy of the stay order. Despite having the opportunity to obtain instructions, the Department could not confirm whether the decision in the other case had been stayed by the High Court.
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Department's appeal based on the reasons discussed, including the preclusion from taking a different stand due to the finality of earlier decisions and the lack of confirmation regarding the stay order by the High Court. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, concluding the judgment on the classification of Pressure Pans without Lid under different headings and the application of relevant legal principles.
-
2006 (9) TMI 434
Issues: Application for rectification of mistake regarding the Tribunal's order.
In this case, the applicant filed an application for rectification of mistake against the Tribunal's order dated 16-10-2003. The Technical Officer initially rejected the application as belated. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat directed the Tribunal to hear the application and dispose of it on merits. The matter was brought before the Tribunal for consideration.
Upon reviewing the submissions from both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appeal had been disposed of ex-parte, with only one ground of appeal being considered out of all the grounds filed by the applicant. Specifically, ground No. 3 challenging the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the function of the product to commercial nomenclature was not addressed in the Tribunal's decision.
Given that a significant contention of the applicant was overlooked in the ex-parte order, the Tribunal identified an apparent error in the order dated 10-10-2003. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to recall the previous order and restore the appeal to its original number. The registry was directed to list the appeal for hearing in its turn, ensuring that all grounds of appeal are duly considered and addressed.
The Tribunal pronounced this order in open court on 29-9-2006, rectifying the mistake in the previous decision and providing the applicant with the opportunity for a fair hearing on all grounds of appeal.
-
2006 (9) TMI 433
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for an amount of Rs. 1.43 crores.
2. Appropriation of refund amount towards the demand.
3. Invocation of Rule 57CC or Rule 57AD.
4. Nature of demand under Rule 57AH of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/02.
5. Validity of appropriation without legal sanction.
Analysis:
1. The application sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for an amount of Rs. 1.43 crores quantified by the Asst. Commissioner following the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The party claimed that a refund amount of Rs. 40 lakhs previously allowed by the same authority was utilized towards the current demand. The counsel cited decisions from co-ordinate benches to argue against invoking Rule 57CC or Rule 57AD for recovery.
2. The original authority's order indicated utilization of over Rs. 1.75 crores from the Cenvat account for payment related to exempted goods cleared to Indian Railways. However, the demand was made under Rule 57AH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/02, different from cases cited by the counsel. The Asst. Commissioner's appropriation of the Rs. 40 lakhs refund towards the Rs. 1.43 crores demand was questioned, as it lacked legal sanction.
3. The learned SDR clarified that Rule 57CC or Rule 57AD was not invoked in the subject Show Cause Notice (SCN), which was confirmed by the records. Despite the utilization of funds from the Cenvat account, the demand was made under a different rule, raising questions about the appropriateness of the demand and the Asst. Commissioner's actions.
4. The judgment highlighted the distinction in the nature of the demand made under Rule 57AH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/02 compared to previous cases. The Tribunal considered the appropriateness of the demand and the validity of the Asst. Commissioner's decision to appropriate the refund amount towards the new demand.
5. The Tribunal held that the appropriation of the refund amount without legal sanction was not permissible. It was determined that the department could retain the amount until the final disposal of the appeal, in compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was granted for the remaining balance amount pending the appeal's outcome.
-
2006 (9) TMI 432
Issues involved: Appeal against Order of Commissioner of Central Excise confirming duty demand, penalty, and interest u/s 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary:
The appellants, manufacturers of Alloy Steel Rolled products, appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise's order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 30,03,576.00 and imposing penalties and interest. The dispute arose from the transfer of goods from the Dankuni factory to the Howrah Unit between May 1995 and May 1998, with duty paid based on a cost construction method.
The appellants argued that the duty paid at the Dankuni factory was eligible for MODVAT Credit during the relevant period. They believed duty was payable on cost of production plus profit margin, and the sales from Dankuni to Howrah should not be considered comparable goods for valuation purposes. They contended that any procedural mistakes should not lead to penalties, citing relevant case law.
The Department claimed non-compliance with Section 173C and argued against applying the concept of class of buyers, stating it was a transfer between the appellants' units.
The Tribunal found the transfer to be revenue-neutral, with no intention to evade duty. They set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellants and granting consequential reliefs.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the demand unsustainable for the period in question and determining that penal action was unwarranted due to the revenue-neutrality of the transfer.
-
2006 (9) TMI 431
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled that the waiver of pre-deposit of interest charged from the applicant cannot be granted as per Section 35-F. The appellant must deposit the entire interest amount within six weeks for the appeal to proceed. Compliance to be reported by 22nd November, 2006.
-
2006 (9) TMI 430
Issues involved: Demand of duty for not exporting goods within stipulated time u/s 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue 1: Demand of duty for not exporting goods within stipulated time
The appeal concerned the demand of duty for not exporting goods cleared under ARE-1 within the stipulated time of six months and even within the extended period. The exporter, M/s. Rahul Computex Pvt. Ltd., cleared goods without payment of duty but failed to export them within the required timeframe, leading to a dispute with the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, citing procedural lapses and revenue neutrality. The exporter's contentions included unforeseen client actions affecting export formalities and subsequent compliance under the supervision of Chennai Customs authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on precedent to rule in favor of the exporter, prompting the Revenue to appeal the decision.
Issue 2: Validity of bond and conditions for export
The Department argued that the exporters failed to meet the conditions of Rule 19(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, regarding the execution of a bond and timely export of goods cleared under ARE-1. The absence of a valid bond at the time of export and the failure to export within the extended period were highlighted as key points. The Department contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction by waiving statutory provisions. In response, the Respondent's advocate emphasized that non-production of ARE-1 should not be fatal, citing relevant case law. The advocate argued that the conditions for export within six months were not rigid and that the Maritime Commissioner had discretionary power to extend the time limit, referencing legal precedents and principles established by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata.
Separate Judgement:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was not sustainable, as the B-l bond could not be used to recover duty on goods exported after the stipulated six-month period. The Tribunal affirmed that the impugned order was not erroneous, as the demand was deemed unsustainable under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the ruling in favor of the exporter, M/s. Rahul Computex Pvt. Ltd.
-
2006 (9) TMI 429
Issues: Export clearance procedure, Applicability of exemption, Imposition of duty and penalties, Limitation period for demand.
Export Clearance Procedure: The case involved an applicant engaged in manufacturing stainless steel utensils and availing SSI exemption, exporting products through a sister concern and merchant-exporters. The issue arose when the exports were not directly from the manufacturing unit but from the premises of the merchant-exporter/sister concern. A show cause notice was issued, alleging such sales to be domestic, crossing the exemption limit, leading to a demand for duty and penalties.
Applicability of Exemption: The Board's circular clarified that the simplified export procedure was available only for units undertaking exports themselves or through merchant-exporters directly from the units. The applicant's exports were not directly from the units, leading to the demand for duty and penalties. The applicant argued that the circular was not in existence for a period, and the extended period for demand was not valid due to no suppression of facts.
Imposition of Duty and Penalties: The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties under Section 11AC and Central Excise Rules on the applicant and the director of the company. The applicant contended that the exports were in line with the simplified procedure prescribed by the Board and that the demand for duty beyond a certain period was time-barred.
Limitation Period for Demand: The applicant argued that the extended period for demand could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts from their end. The Department maintained that the statements and summons were part of an ongoing enquiry, justifying the invocation of the extended period. The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case in their favor on merits and limitation, directing them to deposit a specific sum towards duty within a stipulated period to avoid pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalties. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of appeals without further notice.
-
2006 (9) TMI 428
Issues: Extension of stay order, attachment of excisable goods, pre-deposit requirement
Extension of Stay Order:
The case involved an application for the extension of a stay order granted to the appellants, which did not have a time fixation. The Central Excise authority had attached excisable goods worth Rs. 24.00 lakhs belonging to the appellants' unit after the expiry of six months from the date of the initial stay order. The appellants sought an extension of the stay order and requested the lifting of the attachment on the goods.
Attachment of Excisable Goods:
The appellants cited relevant case laws to support their argument for extending the stay and lifting the attachment on the goods. They referred to a decision of the Gujarat High Court and a case law where in similar circumstances, the stay had been extended, and the attachment on goods was lifted, with directions to re-deposit the encashed Bank Guarantee. The legal position clarified that when a stay is granted in an appeal, it is deemed to be pending until the appeal is disposed of.
Pre-Deposit Requirement:
Considering the legal position and the facts of the case, the Tribunal extended the stay from the date of its expiry in the earlier order. The appellants were directed to make a further pre-deposit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to safeguard the interest of revenue and ensure the smooth functioning of the appellants' unit. This pre-deposit was necessary for raising the attachment on the excisable goods. The Tribunal ordered the deposit to be made within four weeks and compliance to be reported by a specified date. Upon the deposit and compliance report, the attachment on the excisable goods would be lifted, allowing the appellants to dispose of the goods as per the law.
This detailed judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA addressed the issues of extending the stay order, dealing with the attachment of excisable goods, and imposing a pre-deposit requirement in a comprehensive manner, ensuring the interests of both the revenue and the appellants were considered and balanced effectively.
-
2006 (9) TMI 427
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi condoned a delay of 41 days in filing an appeal due to non-receipt of Order-in-Original. The Tribunal waived pre-deposit of duty and stayed recovery pending appeal, as a similar issue was pending before the Larger Bench. The decision was based on the affidavit filed by the proprietor indicating the order was handed over to an employee.
............
|
9911796707
