|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 516 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 508
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ment of duty. Consequently, Department was clearly in error in invoking the extended period fixed by the proviso to Section 11A. rdquo 7. emsp The situation of the present case is identical to that of R.H. Industries. Therefore, extended period was not liable to be invoked for the demand of differential duty. The demand could have been raised only for a period of six months. Accordingly, we set aside the duty demand raised for the extended period. As the amount of differential duty involved during the period of six months prior to the issue of notice is not available in the record, we remand the case to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner for computing the same. This shall be done after giving the respondents an opportunity to explain as to what is the correct amount of duty leviable in respect of Axle Beam Assemblies cleared during this period. The respondents shall pay the differential duty so worked out. The appeal of the Revenue is disposed on terms as indicated above.
-
2000 (3) TMI 507
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... e C. Shri K. Kumar, Director of Khanna Chemical Industries Ltd. has also accepted that he received Benzene and Toluene from the respondents although orders were placed for Dripolene C. Sh. Rajesh Galhotra, a partner of M/s. Sudarshan Trading Corporation has also stated that he had received Toluene in the guise of Dripolene C. The above oral evidence has not been rebutted by the respondents, either with reference to any test reports to show that what was cleared was in fact Dripolene C, or in any other manner. Therefore, we have no hesitation in upholding the charge that the assessees cleared Benzene and Toluene in the guise of Dripolene C and set aside the Collector s finding on this issue. 6. emsp In the result, we confirm the duty demand of Rs. 75,39,160.63 and also impose a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs. We do not, however, pass any order for confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery, etc. 7. emsp The impugned order is thus set aside and the appeal of the Revenue allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 506
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the submissions made by both sides. We find that the product in question is known commercially as pre-laminated particle board. Pre-laminated particle board is a variety of particle board recognised by the I.S.I. Particle boards do not cease to be particle board after lamination. Even after lamination it continues to be a variety of particle board. It is clear from the reading of Note 5 also that the products included in that Note are the products consisting of inner core surfaced with outer plies. Lamination carried out cannot, at all, be called fixing of outer plies on particle boards. It is only an improvement on a bare particle board. Lamination does not change the basic character of particle board. In these facts and circumstances, we find the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to be fully in conformity with the scheme of classification contained in chapter 44, including note 5. The same is, therefore, confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue has not merit and is dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 505
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ., any dispute relating to Tariff classification must as far as possible be resolved with reference to HSN unless there is an express different intention indicated by the Tariff Act. 6. emsp The Collector has denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as the Heading 87.04 was excluded from the purview of the said Notification, para 4 (iii) of the Annexure to Notification 175/86 mentions that the Notification is available to all other goods specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act other than all goods, inter alia falling under Heading 87.04. Accordingly the duty demanded by the Collector in the impugned Order is upheld. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we reduce the penalty imposed as under M/s. Kay Kay Engineers emsp (i) Rs. 7,000/ from Rs. 10,000/- M/s. Susumo Enginering emsp (ii) Rs. 1,000/- from Rs. 5,000/- Shri K.K. Gupta emsp (iii) Rs. 1,000/- from Rs. 5,000/- 7. emsp The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 501
machine - Offset Rotary printing machine ... ... ... ... ..... to be considered while working out the effective rate of duty on imported parts. Notification No 114/80 dated 19-6-1980 is not included in the explanation to Notification 155/86. Hence the lower authorities have rightly held that the rate of duty applicable to the imported parts will be 35 minus 10 equals to 25 . 6. emsp The case laws cited by the appellants namely the decisions in the case of Vishal Electronics 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 (Bom.) 1993 (47) ECR 536 Bom. , Razdan Group 1998 (75) ECR 731 and Ceat Tyres v. Collector of Customs, Madras 1998 (98) E.L.T. 528 (T) 1997 (71) ECR 593 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The notifications which were interpreted in those cases, did not contain any explanation specifying particular notifications only, as in the present case, where Notification No. 155/86 dated 1-3-1986 specifically mentioned only Notification No. 59/87 dated 1-3-1987 and No. 296/90. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 471
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ocess of cutting of bigger pieces of scrap into small pieces is too remote and indirect to be an integrated process of manufacture of final products that Oxygen/acetylene gas is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and as such the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on such inputs is not admissible under Rule 57A. 2. emsp A question whether a specified input is used in or in relation to manufacture of a product is a legal question and as such the matter is referred to the Hon ble High Court for their consideration. The point of reference is as under ldquo Whether use of Oxygen/acetylene gases in cutting of scrap of Iron and Steel into smaller pieces to be fed into a furnace is a part of integrated process connected with the ultimate production of final products namely steel ingots and other steel castings and is essentially required in process of manufacture of final products and whether oxygen/acetylene gases are eligible inputs for Modvat credit? rdquo
-
2000 (3) TMI 470
Modvat - Steel forgings - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ied items as capital goods, the Modvat credit is not admissible on them. 4. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is observed that the issue of the Modvat credit on steel forgings being considered as inputs under rule 57A in spite of the declaration made under rule 57Q and the application of the provisions of rule 57D(2) is not raised at any stage of these proceedings before the lower authorities. Not only this but the point has not even been mentioned in the written memorandum of appeal filed by the appellants in the CEGAT. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain these submissions. Indeed, it would be very unfair to allow a point to be raised and that too in oral submissions at the second stage of appeal without giving an opportunity to the other side. It is, however, not in dispute that forgings are not one of the specified item on which the Modvat credit is available as capital goods. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 469
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ed as follows - ldquo M/s DJS had not informed the Deptt. about the manufacture of these excisable goods. They had not obtained Central Excise Licence/registration. They had thus deliberately suppressed material information from the Deptt. and cleared the goods clandestinely without payment of duty. Extended period of limitation has therefore, been rightly invoked rdquo . (c) Since the appellants are relying upon the Order No. 812-813/99-C, dated 18-8-1999 and we find that this order can be relied upon for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that in the fact of this case also, is no cause for us to deffer as regards the classification and to find that there are no grounds to invoke the larger period of limitation. 7. emsp In view of our findings the Order-in-Original is therefore, set aside as regards the demand, the classification as determined in this order under heading 3305.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is confirmed. The appeals are allowed in above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 468
Small scale exemptions - Clubbing of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... hartered Accountant in support of their contention. We also find substantial force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants that Appellants No. 1 is a company in existence since 1985 and they have been manufacturing the goods and at that time M/s. Excel Industries was not in existence. It has been emphasised by the Appellants No. 1 that they had two power press which fact is mentioned in the notice itself and these power press are used by them for punching cutting and bending. As per them Appellant No. 2 was using only testing facility available with Appellant No. 1 and they have rightly contended that sending the excisable goods for testing to other unit is not prohibited under Excise law. In view of these facts, we are of the view that Revenue has not substantiated their case that the clearances of Appellants No. 2 are to be clubbed with the clearances of Appellants No. 1. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the four appeals.
-
2000 (3) TMI 467
SSI Exemption - Demand - Limitation - Classification - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... fact of manufacture or filed the required documents as provided by law. 8. emsp The Collector had classified a large number of goods under heading 3926.90 of the Tariff with the benefit of notification 53/88. This is not challenged in the appeal. However, the appeal challenges classification of other goods which have been classified either under heading 85.38 or 85.40. The reason given by the Collector for classification in his view, of the appearance and shape are not part of which was the claimed before him. We are therefore of the view that the classification of the goods are to be determined afresh. We however confirm the penalty imposition for the reason that duty was not paid on them. Accordingly we pass the following order. 9. emsp Appeal E/5920/92C is allowed E/599/91 allowed in part i.e. to the extent that classification of goods other than those under Heading 3926.90 is set aside and classification to be redetermined according to law and thereafter duty quantified.
-
2000 (3) TMI 466
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ble form for the purpose of Modvat Credit under Rule 57A where the issue to be decided is whether the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. In Gramophone Company s case. supra, the Supreme Court held the process of pre-recording of audio cassettes amounting to manufacture as blank audio cassettes and pre recorded cassettes were having different uses. Similarly in Brakes India s case brake lining blanks could not be used by automobile manufactures without process of drilling, trimming and chamfering. 10. emsp In view of this, we hold that the process undertaken by the Appellants do not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly duty of excise is not leviable on stock rails and tongue rails and as such the appeal filed by the Appellants is allowed, as we are allowing the appeals on the aspect of manufacture itself, we are not considering the question whether extended period of limitation is invocable or not.
-
2000 (3) TMI 465
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... It is argued that during the material period i.e. July, 94, only goods falling within clauses (a) to lsquo (c) of the Explanation to Rule M57-Q were entitled for Modvat credit under this Rule. It is stated that scope of Rule 57-Q was restrictive and limited during that period. On careful consideration of the submission made before me, I am of the view that the original authority has gone into the function of each and every item in the manufacturing process and allowed the Modvat credit on them keeping in view the restrictive and limited scope of the then existing definition of capital goods under Rule 57-Q. The appeal of the department has not brought out any basic defect in the findings of the original authority which has also been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) nor has the department controverted the reliance placed by him on the ratio of a number of decided cases. 7. emsp In view of the above findings, there is no force in the Revenue appeal and the same is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 464
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ugh Rule 196 enables the levy of excise duty, Section 11A of the Act creates a rule of limitation and the Excise authorities have to exercise their powers within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11 A of the Act. The normal period of six months will be extended only where there is an allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, etc. In the instant case, we find that out of the total period for which demand has been made, there is only a certain period which falls within six months. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to rework the duty liability within the six months period in accordance with the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble High Court judgment referred to above. Having regard to the reduced duty liability, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- With these observations. Appeal No. E/272/96-NB DB is disposed of. rdquo 7. emsp The appeal allowed by remand. 8. emsp ROM application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 463
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... We agree with the submission of the learned Consultant that capital goods credit cannot be denied as these products have been declared by the Appellants. The contention of the learned S.D.R. that credit in respect of refractories was available only with effect from March 1995 is not acceptable as this was not one of the ground mentioned in the notice for disallowing the credit. 7. emsp Finally the learned Consultant mentioned that though Capital Goods credit has been disallowed in respect of Electric Motor, the Commissioner has not given any specific reason for this in the impugned order. As shown by him, the Appellants had filed declaration in respect of Motor falling under Heading 85.01 at serial No. 173 and as such credit is admissible to them. 8. emsp Accordingly Capital Goods Credit is available to the Appellants in respect of all capital goods in question except lsquo Thermomin rsquo and lsquo Copper Monkeys and Other items rsquo . Appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 462
Casing for Air Handling Unit ... ... ... ... ..... m 29A(3) of the Old Central Excise Tariff. On the other hand the Appellants, besides referring to BTN Explanatory Notes, has referred to General specifications given by CPWD and P and T Department wherein the word lsquo casing rsquo has only been used and has also furnished a number of affidavits in which it has been mentioned that in external casings, fan, cooling coil, filter, etc. are housed and they are not known in the trade as a Cabinet. Thus following the ratio of the decisions referred to above, and in absence of any material evidence, we hold that the casing manufactured by the Appellants cannot be considered to be a cabinet classifiable under Tariff Item, 29A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. As we are allowing the appeal on merit, we are not considering the question whether extended period of limitation is invokable in the facts and the circumstances of the present matter. The impugned order is thus set aside and the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 461
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ctor to distinguish it. The Asstt. Collector held that the process did amount to manufacture. The order having been upheld in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 2. emsp Shri V.S. Nankani, ld. Counsel for the appellants made the same submissions as were made in the earlier proceedings. We find that the issue has now been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. 2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.) . In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that the assessable value of galvanised pipe would also include the cost of galvanisation. Applying the ratio of the said judgment, we dismiss the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 460
Confiscation and penalty - Clandestine removal - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... The order of confiscation is however not addressed to the said notices. For confiscation of the conveyance under Section 115 of the Customs Act 1962 as made applicable to Central Excise Law, a notice to the owner is sine-qua-non and there is no finding that Shri Santokh Singh, Driver of the said truck was the owner. Therefore the confiscation ordered without a notice to the owner and an order thereafter of confiscation not informing the owner would be bad in law and is requested to be set aside. Since a joint redemption fine cannot be imposed for confiscated excisable goods and the conveyance the same is also set aside. Redemption fine are to be related to the seized value, the profit likely to be earned by the evasion and cannot be clubbed, if it is clubbed as in this case, it is to be set aside as bad in law and also that confiscation of the goods is set aside. The confiscation of the truck is therefore also set aside. 7. emsp The appeal allowed as disposed in above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 459
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... g all the particulars. We find that in terms of para 6 of the CBEC circular No. 76/76-94/CX, dt. 8-11-1994 specifically clarified that any document issued by registered person prior to such registration would be acceptable if he is eligible to issue invoice/document under Notification No. 15/94 and Notification No. 21/94. We note in the instant case that challans have been issued by M/s. Hero Cycles and M/s. Munjal Steels. They were registered with the Excise authorities. Therefore, the document described as challans or by any other name issued by M/s. Munjal Steels and M/s. Hero Cycles will be a document prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as the duty paying document and Modvat credit on the strength of this document could be taken. From the above findings, we hold that Modvat credit was correctly taken by the appellant. In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 458
SSI Exemption - Benefit of small-scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... ery of leather footwears duly affixed with the brand name. This fact belies the appellants rsquo stand that the brand name was not being affixed by them. Similarly we do not find any merits in the appellants rsquo contention that as the premises from where the footwears have been recovered was a part of the total premises of the corpn., it should be considered as if the goods were not found in the area which was in exclusive possession of the appellants inasmuch as the recovery/seizure memo clearly show that the goods have been recovered from the premises which was under the control of the appellants. Nothing to the contrary has been shown to us by the appellants. As such we hold that the appellants were manufacturing footwears and were affixing the same with the brand name of M/s. WBSLIDC who were not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption. As such the benefit of notification No. 175/86 was not available to the appellants. We hold accordingly and reject the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 457
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether combining two components of a product constitutes "manufacture" under Section XVI, specifically analyzing the addition of a pre-filter to a water purifier.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Manufacture of Product
The appellant, a company marketing the "Aquaguard" product, combines a water purifier unit with a pre-filter before sale. The Commissioner deemed this activity as manufacturing, creating a new product. The appellant argued that the pre-filter merely enhances the main unit's function of filtration and purification, citing technical reports and brochures. The Tribunal analyzed the utility of the pre-filter and concluded that the Aquaguard unit, as received from the manufacturer, is complete and capable of functioning without the pre-filter. Therefore, the addition of the pre-filter does not amount to manufacturing under Section XVI.
Issue 2: Legal Precedents
The department relied on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, to support the view that the addition of the pre-filter changes the nature of the product. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of those cases from the present situation, emphasizing that the pre-filter's inclusion does not alter the essential function or marketability of the Aquaguard unit.
Issue 3: Classification and Tariff
The Tribunal clarified that for tariff classification purposes, the activity of combining the pre-filter with the water purifier does not meet the criteria for manufacturing. The Tribunal highlighted that the pre-filter does not significantly change the essential function of the Aquaguard unit, which is capable of both filtration and purification without the additional component.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order that considered the combining of the pre-filter with the water purifier as manufacturing. The judgment emphasized that the Aquaguard unit, as received from the manufacturer, is complete and functional without the pre-filter, and therefore, the addition of the pre-filter does not constitute a new commercially distinct product.
............
|
9911796707
