|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 165
... ...
... ... ..... issue has been disposed off by this Bench in its Order No. 1338/96-WRB, dated 16-4-1996 1997 (91) E.L.T. 597 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has held that the motor vehicle parts have to be subjected to phosphate coating in the painting shop for ensuring their quality and hence held that chemicals used in such process cannot be dismissed as not used in the process of manufacture of the final products and hence the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Order in that case allowing Modvat credit. Following the Tribunal decision, in the present case, we uphold the impugned order and reject the Department rsquo s appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 164
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... in question, it cannot be regarded as being within time. However, his notice indicated that it was in continuation of the first notice issued by the Superintendent. So far as the period within six months prior to the first notice is concerned, the Superintendent was competent to issue the notice and the claim would be within time. The competency of the Commissioner, as a superior authority to call for any adjudication proceedings before the inferior authority and take up the adjudication himself cannot be doubted or disputed. That being so, the adjudication order must be regarded as an order passed pursuant to the first show cause notice dated 30-9-1985, corridgendum dated 10-12-1985 and the show cause notice dated 11-4-1989. Since the first show cause notice was within time in relation to a part of the demand, we do not agree that entire claim would be barred by time. 12. emsp In the light of what we have indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 163
... ...
... ... ..... fers to Notifications issued under Rule 8(1) and the duty on inputs paid under such notifications. Paragraph 5 of Notification 175/86 itself starts with a non-obstante clause in relation to the exemptions referred to in the preceding paragraph and provides that the credit in respect of the inputs covered by the preceding paragraphs shall be allowed under Rule 57B at the rate of duty applicable under the notification plus an amount calculated at the rate of 5 per cent ad valorem or at the rate otherwise applicable but for the said notification, whichever was less. We find that the appellants in this case had taken notional higher credit at full rate of duty which was not permissible under Notification 175/86 as amended. Having regard to the view we have taken that the non-obstante clause in Rule 57B does not extend to notifications issued under Rule 8, we find no infirmity in the impunged order. 6. emsp In the result we uphold the Order-in-Appeal and reject the present appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 162
... ...
... ... ..... st was included the first time that the boxes could be used but said that the cost should be included every time. He set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal. 4. emsp We have heard both sides. 5. emsp In his order, the Collector accepts that cartons are put to use more than once. He says ldquo The respondent reuse such corrugated boxes again until they become unfit for further use. rdquo If this is correct, it follows that the boxes were capable of repeated use. We do not see how it can then be said that they are not durable. The sentence quoted above also indicates that the boxes were returned to the appellant they could not otherwise be reused. According to Section 4(4)(a)(i) of the Act, cost of packing of excisable goods be included in its assessable value, except where such packings were durable and returnable in nature. The cost of the packing would not therefore be included. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (1) TMI 161
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... that the Department rsquo s appeal is only with regard to Plugs and Push Rods for which the amount is less than Rs. 2,359.48 and the duty involved in Push Rod and Plug are much less than that. 3. emsp We have considered these submissions. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the broad description of the inputs as Turned Parts should cover Push Rods. This finding is reasonable and has to be accepted. It is also found on record that the input Plug has been included in the declaration on 9-10-1986. The input Turned Parts is included in the declaration of 24-11-1986, and this being the case, it is reasonable to hold that the Respondents will be eligible for Modvat credit on the input Plugs from 9-10-1986 and not prior to that date. Similarly the Respondents will be eligible for credit on Push Rods on and from 24-11-1986 which is the date when they were included in the declaration under the broad description Turned Parts. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1998 (1) TMI 160
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... declared Aluminium foil as packing material - both printed and plain. It is the appellants case that Resteclin Tablets 500 mg. cannot be cleared without the Aluminium foil packing and the manufacture itself would not be completed till this packing is done. There is considerable force in the appellants submission. Aluminium foil packing material being common, for both Resteclin Tablets 250 as well as 500 mg. and the appellants having declared Aluminium printed and plain foil in their declaration and the appellants having accounted for the inputs in the statutory registers, on which there is no dispute, a liberal view is called for in holding that the appellants have declared aluminium foil as an input and have rightly availed of the Modvat credit on this input. rdquo 2. emsp We have heard the ld. DR Shri D. Gurnani. We find that the reasoning in the Commissioner (Appeals) is well founded and as such we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 159
Appeal - Unsigned appeal ... ... ... ... ..... nd so it cannot be considered as an appeal. The ld. Counsel has cited the case law 1992 (62) E.L.T. 738 (Tribunal) in the case of Sharda Anand v. Collector of Customs, according to which failure to sign memo of appeal by the party is a curable irregularity and appeal not to be dismissed on this ground, when appeal accepted and number also given after registering it. Papers to be returned for rectification of defects. In view of this precedent decision, the appeal is allowed by remand to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.
-
1998 (1) TMI 158
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the classification of products under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the rejection of exemption claim under Notification No. 179/77, the refund claims filed by the Appellants, the time-barred nature of the refund claims, the applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the concept of unjust enrichment.
Classification of Products and Exemption Claim:
The Appellants, an SSI unit manufacturing Electronic Transmitters, claimed exemption under Notification No. 179/77 but were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. They later classified their product under Chapter 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and paid duty under protest. The appeal against the classification order was allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), leading to refund claims by the Appellants.
Refund Claims and Time-Barred Nature:
The Appellants filed refund claims for specific periods, which were initially sanctioned but later reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Departmental appeals raised concerns about the time-barred nature of the claims and the applicability of different notifications for the refunds. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that certain refund claims were time-barred and subject to recovery due to unjust enrichment.
Applicability of Section 11A and Unjust Enrichment:
The Collector sought a review of the Commissioner's order, arguing that the recovery of erroneous refunds should be made under Section 11A and not through review proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that recovery of refunds is subject to a demand notice under Section 11A and that the recovery process is time-barred without such notice.
Supreme Court Judgment and Conclusion:
The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector v. Re Rolling Mills, which clarified the necessity of issuing a notice under Section 11A for recovery of erroneous refunds. As no such notice was issued in the present case, the recovery of refunds was deemed time-barred. Consequently, the Appellants succeeded on the point of limitation, and the appeal was allowed based on the Supreme Court's ruling.
This comprehensive summary outlines the issues involved in the judgment, including the classification of products, refund claims, the applicability of Section 11A, and the concept of unjust enrichment, leading to the final decision based on the Supreme Court's interpretation.
-
1998 (1) TMI 157
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... Jain, learned SDR for the Revenue and Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant for the respondents. 3. emsp We have examined the point of law stated to be arising out the order of this Tribunal. On close examination of the submissions made and the case law applicable to the facts clearly bring out that to examine whether the goods are not duty paid or duty paid it is only a question of facts. Once a stand was taken by the assessee that the goods were duty paid, it is for the department to prove that the goods claimed to be duty paid, actually had not borne the incidence of duty. Thus, it is the question of facts. On examination of the facts, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion which is now required to be referred to the High Court. On examination of the evidence, we find that it was only an appreciation of facts and since it was only a question of facts, therefore, no question of law arises out of the order of this Tribunal. In the result, the reference application is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 156
Modvat - `Consumable tools’ ... ... ... ... ..... lector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 that parts of machines, machinery, plant equipment, tools or appliances do not fall within the excluded category of goods because such parts are not specifically excluded in the explanation. It is only the machines or machinery etc. which are excluded. However it is not correct to consider these goods as parts of tools. The goods in question such as drill are complete without the presence of the interchangeable tools. The drill does not cease to be a drill, between the period when the old bit with it is removed and the new one is substituted. The tariff describes them in Heading 82.07 as for interchangeable tools for hand tools, machine tools etc. Therefore these goods, while they qualify to be considered as tools, fall in the excluded category of tools because they are not capable by themselves of producing or processing any goods or bringing about any change in substance. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (1) TMI 155
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t to say that, advice these fabrics under Heading 59.01 will not necessarily be stiffened. 9. emsp The appellant has also a strong case on limitation. Notice was issued to it to classify the goods covered by classification list in 1988 under Heading 59.01. This notice however was vacated by the order of the Assistant Collector. The fact that order has been appealed is no answer to the point made by the appellant that the department was aware that the goods could alternatively be classified under Heading 59.01. In addition, the statement made in the classification list that the appellant was only engaged in processing fabrics does not constitute suppression or misdeclaration. The appellant has nowhere stated that it did not undertake processes which would result in the fabrics which would classify under Heading 59.01. The appellant has therefore not suppressed any facts and extended period will not apply. 10. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (1) TMI 154
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... he status as an SSI Unit. In the instant case, the SSI unit character of the unit is not in dispute. The unit was undoubtedly availing the benefit of an exempted unit under Notification No. 1/93. Therefore, the status of the unit even after crossing the aggregate value of clearances of Rs. 75 lacs does not change. Since the benefit under the Government of India rsquo s order dated 1-3-1994 was restricted to such units, therefore, the word entitled to avail the benefit of deemed credit, even after crossing the value limit of Rs. 75 lacs will be available. This view is fully supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Venkateshwara Steel Industries. 6. emsp Having regard to the above findings and also following the ratio of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case cited above, we hold that the deemed Modvat credit was rightly availed by the unit even after crossing the aggregate value of clearances limit of Rs. 75 lacs. In the result, the appeals are rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 153
Valuation - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 declaring the cost of raw materials, labour charges and the appellants margin of profit. Assistant Collector passed order approving the price list after including 10 of the cost of raw materials supplied by the assessee as margin of profit. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the assessee has filed the present appeal. 3. emsp If Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules is applicable, assessable value should comprise of cost of raw materials, labour charges and margin of profit of the manufacturer. Margin of profit of the buyer on any count cannot be included in the assessable value. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 152
... ...
... ... ..... cannot be collected from the buyers and therefore should not form part of assessable value for the purpose of quantifying duty. This is clearly a case where the respondent has paid excess duty and the claim for refund is legitimate. Shri K. Srivastava points out that out of the 12 refund claims referred to in the last paragraph of the order of the Assistant Collector, claims numbers 1 to 8 and 10 are clearly barred by limitation and part of the remaining claims may be barred. This aspect was not considered by either of the lower authorities and require consideration with reference to factual position. It is also for consideration to what extent Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has an impact on the claims. 4. emsp For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh in accordance with law and the observation in this order, after giving the respondent an opportunity of hearing.
-
1998 (1) TMI 151
... ...
... ... ..... inst those products, though the input duty paid by SSI unit would be lower as per exemption notification. Hence the facility under Rule 57B is designed as an incentive for manufacturers of final products to purchase inputs from SSI units. Such being the objective of the Rule 57B, the higher notional credit will be available only ldquo in respect of inputs obtained from small scale manufacturers rdquo , as the heading to the Rule 57B indicates. In the present case the appellants, who are SSI unit, did not obtain the drums from another small scale manufacturer, but themselves manufactured them. In view of the foregoing discussion regarding the objective behind the Rule, its purpose will not be achieved in such a case of captive consumption. It may also be noted that the Modvat scheme provides for other reliefs in such situation of inputs produced and captively consumed. 5. emsp In the result the findings of the lower authorities call for no interference. The appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (1) TMI 150
Valuation - Transportation expenses ... ... ... ... ..... ansportation. It appears that the claim of deduction of salaries and wages on the one hand and administrative expenses on the other was a duplication. Since deduction was allowed on account of salaries and wages, deduction cannot be allowed on the same amount under the heading lsquo administrative expenses rsquo . Thus, we agree that the refund should not have been allowed on the element of administrative expenses. The exact quantum of duty to be refunded has to be worked out afresh in the light of these findings. 10. emsp It is also necessary to mention that the refund would be subject to the provisions of Section 11B(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with the findings recorded by us and after considering the impact of the provisions of Section 11B(ii) of the Act. Appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 149
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... made by both the sides. The question of eligibility of the chlorine cylinders for capital goods Modvat credit under Rule 57Q will have to be determined with reference to a detailed study of the design of the cylinders in relation to the role that they perform in the manufacturing process which exercise cannot be carried out at this stage, so as to find out whether the cylinders would satisfy the definition of capital goods as materials used for producing or processing of the final product. The decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur is not binding on the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal cited is not on Rule 57Q. Therefore for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits we direct that the applicant should deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on or before 28th February, 1998 subject to which the balance amount of duty and penalty is dispensed with and recovery stayed. The matter will come up for ascertaining compliance with this order on 4th March, 1998.
-
1998 (1) TMI 148
Valuation - Expired goods ... ... ... ... ..... ides have told us that there is no reported decision of the Tribunal in this regard. Goods are sold by the manufacturer to the wholesalers and delivery is effected to the wholesaler subject to receipt of the price and title in the goods would pass to the wholesaler. If therefore, the goods loose their value on account of crossing of the expiry date, the loss would be that of the wholesaler and not of the manufacturer. If in such circumstances the manufacturer gives a discount on that account to the wholesaler, that has to be regarded as part of sales promotion activity. In this view no deduction could be allowed on this count. 6. emsp For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order to the extent it disallowed deduction of interest on receivables, quantity or turnover discount in kind and discount on breakages. Disallowance of deduction on interest on finished goods and the discount on expiry date stands confirmed. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed in part as indicated.
-
1998 (1) TMI 147
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... and the manufacturer. 9. emsp Therefore, I am of the view that the Department rsquo s case has remained unsubstantiated. There is no dispute that the names of the medicines have been indicated by the appellants as Povidone - Iodine Ointment USP rsquo and Povidone - Iodine Solution USP rsquo and these are mentioned in the United States Pharmacopoeia which is one of the recognised Pharmacopoeia mentioned in Chapter Note 2(ii). In the above circumstances, it will only be appropriate to hold that the Department has not been able to prove that the items in question were patent or proprietary medicaments although they were allopathic medicines classifiable under Chapter 30. Therefore, the appellants rsquo contention that they were classifiable under Chapter 30.03. Sub-heading 20 was correct and the classification proposed by the appellants was required to be accepted. The appeal is allowed in view of the above position with consequential relief, if any due, in accordance with law.
-
1998 (1) TMI 146
... ...
... ... ..... the figures of production of transformers by the appellants during the relevant period would show that the impugned quantity of aluminium rod had been used in the manufacture of the final products or that the appellants had no mala fide intention of availing of impermissible Modvat credit does not carry conviction. As was submitted by ld. SDR relying on AIR 1977 SC 2271 in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, in cases where an assessee fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the law, especially in a taxing statute, the requirement of establishing mala fide intention does not arise. Having regard to these facts we find that the case law relied on by the appellants is not of much help to the appellants. We also observe that the Collector (Appeals) has already reduced the penalty from Rs. 3 to 2.5 lakhs. 9. emsp Taking all the relevant factors into consideration we do not feel that any interferance in the impugned order is called for. The same is upheld and the appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
