|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 516 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 428
... ...
... ... ..... ment would not, for deciding the adjustment of credits, themselves be concerned with who supplied the goods. All that is required or determined is that the duty has been paid on the goods which is proposed to be taken as credit, and to ensure that the goods have been received for utilising in manufacture. To deny credit therefore it has to be shown that the goods which has been received were not the ones specified in the subsidiary gate passes. There is no attempt to do so. 3. emsp The Commissioner in coming to this conclusion, has utterly disregarded the common commercial practice that the person on whom the order is placed for supply of goods may in turn pass on the orders to other person to fulfil the supplier while maintaining his relationship for purpose of payment to his customers who has placed the order on him. Therefore, there is no basis for denying the credit and it has to be held that credit has been rightly taken. 4. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 427
SSI Exemption - Dummy units ... ... ... ... ..... ld Industries lived along with Power of Attorney Holder of appellants unit, which cannot be construed to be one and the same unit. For the purpose of clubbing a unit, it has to be shown that there is financial flow back and the present appellant is controlling the entire function and all the activities of M/s. Polymould Industries. Hence, clearances cannot be clubbed in the facts alleged in the show cause notice. Therefore, the ratio of Alpha Toyo Ltd. (supra) and that of Mico Industries Ltd. referred to above would apply to the facts of this case. It is also seen that both the units were in existence and working independently and in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that Polymould Industries is a dummy unit and the appellant being supplier of raw materials should be taxed to excise duty in the present case. 7. emsp In that view of the matter and in view of infirmity noticed, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief as per law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 426
Reference to High Court - Demand - Shortage ... ... ... ... ..... Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.). Therefore, the first question framed in the light of settled position, does not merit a reference. Further in respect of the second proposition also the Tribunal in its decision has observed that the state of evidence does not establish any clandes tine removal. In this the Tribunal has relied on the decision in the case of Leather Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 1984 (15) E.L.T. 451 (Trib.) which held that the charge of clandestine removal without proof or evidence is arbitrary. As per the CEGAT order, since the production itself has not been established, the question of its accountal would not arise. The non establishment of production is a finding of fact and not a question of law, therefore there is no warrant for referring this question to the High Court. 4. emsp In view of the above, the Revenue petition fails and the same is accordingly rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 425
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... proof of such a flowback of profits. (c) The agreement between buyers and M/s. Spencer and Co. Ltd. on hiring charges of bottles and security deposit were on principal to principal basis and had no legal connection with the appellants. (d) There is great force in Ld. Advocate s submissions that the glass bottles were durable and returnable containers. Appellants sold their goods on condition that buyers supply the containers for filling and same would be returned to them. (e) Since appellants did not provide the transport facilities to the buyers, the goods were sold on FOB ex-factory gate basis. Therefore, the question of transport charges being included does not arise in the normal price at the factory gate. 6. emsp Since the appeal is allowable on merits, there is no need to examine the rival submissions on limitation of time bar. In view of the aforesaid findings and analysis, the order impugned is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 424
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ors which are generally used in electronic gadgets. They were using the goods imported in the manufacture of micro motors and as such by virtue of the Chapter Notes had sought classification along with the DC motors as they were specially designed parts of such micro motors. The Revenue had classified them under sub-heading 8483.20 on the ground that they were specifically mentioned in the Tariff. 4. emsp We find that it is the settled position in Law that the parts of the machine which are specifically described in the Tariff are classified under those Headings and only when they are not so specifically described their classification under Chapter/Section Notes, has to be resorted to. As it is an admitted position that the sintered bush and ferrite permanent magnet were specifically described in the Customs Tariff we consider that the view taken by the departmental authorities was correct. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 423
Appellate Tribunal’s order - Implementation of ... ... ... ... ..... also find that vide Reference Order No. 35/99, dated 16-6-1999 2000 (117) E.L.T. 694 (Tri.) , the revenue rsquo s reference application had also been rejected. 5. emsp On a careful consideration, we find that even if the revenue has filed any appeal/petition before the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madras, judicial discipline requires that unless revenue has obtained a stay from the Hon rsquo ble High Court against the Final Order of this Tribunal, the same has to be implemented. Since there is no such stay order on record, therefore, we direct the learned Commissioner of Customs to implement our final order noted above with immediate effect. In view of the fact that the implementation of this final order has been already delayed by more than one year, therefore, the learned Commissioner is required to implement the said order and report compliance threof to this Tribunal within two weeks of the date of receipt of this order. 6. emsp Call on 10-4-2000 for reporting compliance.
-
2000 (3) TMI 422
Adjudication - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... before dismissal of the appeal for failure to comply with the directions earlier made. On this ground I find that this appeal succeeds. 4. emsp I find that the two Commissioners (Appeals) did not apply their mind to the facts before them. Shri Patil demonstrates that the documents required by the department in the first named show cause notice were supplied on 22-9-1995 which were not taken cognizance of by the Assistant Commissioner. I also find that the Assistant Commissioner did not pay any heed to the citations made before him as regards the defects pointed out in the second named show cause notice. Even then the learned Commissioner in his said order directed pre-deposit. It appears that neither of the authorities in this case applied their mind fully to the facts before them. 5. emsp This appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the directions that he shall hear the assessees on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit.
-
2000 (3) TMI 421
Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... covered under annexure B thereto, was limited to the non-declaration alone and that the assessees were not put to notice to justify the eligibility thereof under Rule 57Q. In proceeding to examine the eligibility the Assistant Commissioner clearly transgressed beyond the Jurisdiction. In such a situation the citation made by the Counsel of Tribunal s Judgment in the case of Scientific Compounds and Processes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Bangalore - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 609 (Tribunal) and Godrej Soaps Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 473 (Tribunal) become relevant. In these Judgments the decisions arrived at in excess of the allegations made were held to be unsustainable. We therefore allow this appeal and modify the Commissioner s order to the extent that the Assistant Commissioner shall not examine the eligibility of the goods mentioned in annexure B , but shall forthwith grant consequential relief. 6. emsp The stay application also stands disposed of.
-
2000 (3) TMI 420
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... he Order-in-Original impugned, we find that the Commissioner has not adverted to a detailed consideration of these evidences at all. He has merely concluded that pressure regulating devices and converter devices were installed by the present appellants. In view of this we find that the Order-in-Original is a non-speaking order having not considered in detail these evidences on record. The question of facts vis-a-vis the technical literature on record has necessarily to be considered in detail and findings recorded by the original authority. The Tribunal cannot be expected to do this exercise, which is to be done by the original authority. Therefore, we have no other alternative but to set aside the Order-in-Original impugned and remand the matter for de novo consideration of the entire issue by the learned Commissioner in terms of directions noted above. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand accordingly and the stay application is also disposed of as per above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 419
... ...
... ... ..... s are for the convenience of the user of the injections and are definitely accessories to the injections. Accordingly, for the period 29-6-1995 to 31-10-1997, I hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on disposable syringes and needles. However, for the period 1-1-1995 to 28-6-1995, the CEGAT Order referred to above is squarely applicable and going by the ratio of this Order, Modvat credit on these two items is not admissible. I dispose off the appeal accordingly with partial relief as above. rdquo 9. emsp On going through the facts and circumstances particularly in view of the introduction of clause (e) wherein it was clearly mentioned that the accessories of the final product cleared alongwith the final product are to be considered as inputs and there was no justification to deny the Modavt credit on accessories as it was clearly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order. I do not find any infirmity on this issue. In the result, these appeals are dismissed as such.
-
2000 (3) TMI 418
Warehoused goods - Rate of customs Duty ... ... ... ... ..... 18-2-1992 had remanded the matter to the Department with two directions ndash (i) The appellants to produce the original copy of the DGTD certificate for the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector and (ii) The Assistant Collector, thereafter would work out the duty as under Notification No. 155/86 as interpreted by the Collector (Appeals). 6. emsp We are of the view that non-filing of appeal against the said Order is not relevant as the Revenue is not challenging the implementation of Orders. The Revenue had only challenged the assessment before the Collector (Appeals) as the assessment was done on the basis of rates of duty introduced by Budget of 1992 with effect from 1-3-1992. As the goods were deemed to have been removed under Section 72 of the Customs Act on the date the warehousing period came to end, the rate of duty effective from a subsequent date cannot be applied. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly reject the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 417
Appeal by Department - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... bmits that in these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. emsp We have carefully considered these submissions. We note that S/Shri Kuldeep Singh, Balwinder Singh and Gursharan Singh Sodhi had filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had remanded these appeals for de novo adjudication after setting aside the order against which these appeals were filed. Since the order in question was set aside, we agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that that order did no longer exist and in the fresh order the learned Commissioner would have been then right even to drop proceedings. In this view of the matter, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order in so far as the case of S/Shri Kuldeep Singh, Balwinder Singh and Gursharan Singh is concerned. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned order in regard the above 3 respondents and reject the 3 appeals filed by Revenue.
-
2000 (3) TMI 416
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Limitation - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ppears to be the same product and it is not unreasonable to say that the assessee could have been led to believe that the products were classifiable under chapter 76. The classification of similar products of other manufacturers under this heading, prima facie, would lend support to this believe. Further the classification list of the applicant having been approved, it would appear at this stage that Supreme Court judgment in Cotspun will apply to negate the demand for prior to the issue of show-cause notice. We also note section 11AC of the Act has no application prior to 28-9-1996. Taking all these aspects into account we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed. 7. emsp Having regard to the quantum of penalty imposed and the fact that the issue being one of classification dispute, would be continuing, leading to repetitive litigation, we accept the prayer of the advocate for the applicant for out of turn hearing and direct the appeal to be listed on 3-5-2000.
-
2000 (3) TMI 415
Penalty on agent of foreign manufacturer of printing machines ... ... ... ... ..... t with each bills of entry, the importer filed a copy of the purchase order placed on the appellant, according to which the importer was to pay Rs. 4.10 lakhs to the appellant towards commission, installation and technical advice. The break-up is Rs. 1,06,790/- being towards commission and the remaining towards installation and technical advice. In that situation, it cannot be said that the appellant had fabricated any documents subsequent to the investigation being taken up nor is there anything to show mat the appellant and the importer acted in prior consent in order to not to pay duty on the commission. Further the Collector himself records in his order that the appellant was to carry out installation and commissioning of the machine and provide technical support. 7. emsp In these circumstances and noting the earlier order of the Tribunal in identical circumstances we hold that the appellant was not liable to penalty. 8. emsp Appeals are allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 414
Valuation - Car ... ... ... ... ..... e assessable value can be arrived at on the basis of wholesale price, but in reality it is not so as that section contains no such provision. That order of the Commissioner runs contrary to the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 794. The case of the appellants is squarely covered by the above referred judgment wherein it has been specifically ruled ldquo that no discount at the rate of 15 can be allowed on a manufacturers rsquo invoice. It can be allowed where the price is to be assessed on the strength of world car catalogue. rdquo Therefore, this claim of the appellants cannot be accepted. 10. emsp Resultantly, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified to the extent that the appellants will be given allowance of Rs. 40,000/- while assessing the price of the car and the duty payable thereon with a further consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law. 11. emsp Appeal of the appellants accordingly stands disposed of, in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 413
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... and duty is payable only by them. That unit is not working from 1996 and is without any capacity to pay the duty demand and penalty. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case for waiver of duty and penalty on M/s. J. Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Milkfood Ltd. are only buyers of the goods and had no responsibility towards central excise authorities with regard to the correct payment of duty on the goods manufactured by their job worker. As the correctness of the demand itself would clear only after detailed hearing of both sides, insistence on pre-deposit of penalty by M/s. Milkfood Ltd. would be undue hardship to them. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where pre-deposit of penalty by them also is required to be waived. Accordingly, pre-deposit of duty and penalties under the impugned order are waived and the recovery of the amounts stayed pending the hearing of the appeals. The appeals themselves to come up in due course for hearing.
-
2000 (3) TMI 412
Reference to High Court - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of the fact that under Rule 173H no time limit is fixed within which duty paid goods could be returned to the factory and within which such duty paid goods could be removed from the factory after reprocessing. (3) Whether if the Tribunal s view is held to be correct, then no duty could be demanded in this case of any contravention under Rule 173H if duty paid goods are returned after 6 months from the date of payment of duty? Such a situation will obviously be not tenable. 9. emsp None of these questions arise in this case and as seen from question No. 2, the High Court was considering a situation where a Rule did not incorporate any time limit. The other decision in the case of Saharanpur Engg. Works does not advance the case of the applicants as the decision does not cite the factual position for us to consider whether the facts were similar to the facts of the present appeal. We therefore, hold that no question of law arises for reference and hence reject the application.
-
2000 (3) TMI 411
Demand for money credit - Limitation - Appeal - Rehearing ... ... ... ... ..... isable goods. There is specific provision in the rules relating to such credit for recovery of wrongly taken credit. Similarly the provision of section 11A are specifically relating to recovery of duty including duty refunded. We do not see how the decision in CCE v. Rasoi Ltd. - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 180 helps the department s case. That decision took the view that in the absence of any time limit provided in rule 57P, a reasonable period can be read into that rule, as was done by the Tribunal in rule 57-I and therefore confirmed the Collector (Appeals) s view holding the demand beyond six months to be barred by limitation. These considerations may apply if the demand were made under rule 57P. That, as we have noted, is not the case. Neither rule 57-I nor Section 11A, which were cited, could be invoked to recover money credit under rule 57K. 8. emsp On this ground, we have to hold that the notices were not maintainable and hence set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
-
2000 (3) TMI 410
Demand - Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... d of which they have paid duty only at the rate of 5 . The differential duty demanded by issuing the show cause notice was neither by way of revising the classification list nor by way of denying the exemption to the appellants. The differential duty was demanded as the rate of duty was wrongly mentioned in the classification list i.e. instead of 10 it was mentioned as 5 . Putting of correct rate of duty applicable under the notification does not amount to revision or modification of the classification list. The ratio of the decision in the case of Cotspun is applicable when the correctness of the approval of the classification list is questioned by issuance of a show cause notice. As in the present matter neither the classification of the product nor availability of the exemption notification is questioned, the ratio of Cotpsun will not be applicable. In view of this there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be rejected. Hence appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 409
Valuation - Contemporaneous Import ... ... ... ... ..... corresponding parts of similar other vehicle. Nor are we able to find correspondence in model numbers. All of them bear 0301, which from the catalogue appear to refer to headlamp generally. Parts of headlamps bear other numbers of 300 series. 5. emsp Apart from this we do not see how the invoice of Sahil Investments for goods imported a year ago by itself affords evidence to increase value. The Collector after saying that this has no evidential value accepts it as sole evidence of value and has applied it. The fact that the valuation was under rule 8 does not make a difference. The rule provides that the value under rule 8 value should be arrived at by reasonable means consistent with the general provisions of the rules and section 14(1). We are not satisfied that in determining the value solely by accepting the invoice a year earlier and that for a different model, this criterion has been complied with. 6. emsp We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
............
|
9911796707
