|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 516 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 377
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ourt. However, we find that the said judgment was considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Products Ltd. v. C.C.E., Surat - 2000 (37) RLT 30 (CEGAT) and it was held that where the facts were suppressed and the lists got approved from the department by suppression of facts, the department will be justified invoking extended period of limitation and the decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Cotspun will not be of any assistance to the assessee. We accordingly observe that as in the present case the classification lists were got approved by the appellants by not disclosing the fact of his being registered with DGTD and by not declaring his status in the classification lists, the ratio of the Cotspon does not apply. Accordingly we hold that the longer period of limitation was available to the department and has been rightly invoked. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject all the three appeals filed by the appellants.
-
2000 (3) TMI 376
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ble under Chapter 84 or 85 of the Tariff. Accordingly the impugned product can not be classified under Heading No. 85.04 as it is not a part of the transformer. The Assistant Commissioner has given his clear findings in the Adjudication Order while classifying the impugned product under Heading 86.07 and we do not find any reason to differ with the same. There is no substance in the contention of the Learned Advocate that no Tariff heading was mentioned in the Show cause notice as the Appellants were put on notice about classifying the impunged product under Heading 86.07 as the assesee rsquo s Advocate made the submissions at the time of hearing on 13-10-1995 before the Assistant Collector as to how the impugned goods cannot be classified under Heading 86.07. The ratio of the Cotspun rsquo s case is not applicable as the classification list from 1-3-1993 was not approved by the proper officer. In view of these facts all the three appeals filed by the Appellants are rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 375
Confiscation for import of goods for violation of Customs law ... ... ... ... ..... under OGL. At the point of import, the import was found to be authorised. The goods had been shipped to eligible importers. The importers on 4.7.1992 surrendered the bill of entry which they had filed on 31-3-1992 to the Customs. The foreign suppliers redrew the documents in favour of another party. The permission for re-shipment was made on 5-7-1993 before the goods had been proceeded against. The request was made before the adjudicating authority and the request was rejected. No orders with regard to the confiscation of the goods had been passed in that case. We find that the facts are clearly distinguishable and have no application to the present proceedings. 11. emsp From the facts on record, it is clear that the present appeals had been filed in an attempt to defeat the due process of law. 12. emsp In view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in both these appeals and the same are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 374
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... . 2. The delay in filing the appeal, as explained by the applicant, has occurred on account of illness of the applicant and subsequent eye-fleu of the advocate to whom papers were given for filing the appeal. Medical certificates have been placed on record. Keeping in view the circumstances, we condone the delay and allow the Miscellaneous Application.
-
2000 (3) TMI 373
Cross-objection - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... d as such there was no ocassion for the respondents to file any Cross Objection and consequent condonation of delay application. Accordingly, we hold that the Cross Objection filed by the respondents be treated as their written submissions. As there is no time limit prescribed under the law for filing the written submissions, we hold that the Miscellaneous Application praying for condonation of delay, is not maintainable. We dismiss the same accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 372
... ...
... ... ..... by way of credit notes. Further, noticee submitted minutes of the meeting held with the dealer in the month of Jan. 94 wherein it was agreed that M/s. CBPL shall allow a minimum discount of Rs.10/-per crate but the actual amount of discount may vary from Rs. 11/- to Rs. 20/- depending upon the market situation. 11. emsp On going through the facts and circumstances and submissions made by the Counsel, we find that Commissioner was right in observing that discount was known to the buyers before removal of the goods. On this point also the Department fails. 12. emsp Shri K.K. Anand with reference to the appeal filed by the assessee submitted that part of the demand was barred by time inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 4-8-1995 raising the demand for the period 1-3-1994 to 31-3-1995. Since we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner, Commissioner may look into this aspect also in deciding the issue. Thus these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 371
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... receipt in the factory could not be considered as final. 10. emsp Nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the pleas of the financial hardship. 11. emsp As we are presently concerned with the disposal of the stay application, any further observations on the merits of the case may not be proper. Suffice it to say that the prima facie case is in favour of the Revenue. 12. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we direct the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Only) within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of that order. It is made clear that if the amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Only) as ordered to be paid above, is not pre-deposited within the period stipulated above then this stay order will be automatically vacated and appeal will be liable for dismissal without any further reference to the appellants. 13. emsp To come-up for nothing the compliance and further orders on 2-6-2000.
-
2000 (3) TMI 370
Cess on the jute ... ... ... ... ..... rned Advocate that it has been held by a Bench of three Members that the term sacking includes jute bags for levy of cess. In that judgment also differential amount of cess was demanded from the appellants by applying the rate as per serial No. 7 of the Notification whereas the appellants had discharged cess under serial No. 3 of the Notification. The Bench observed that the jute bags were covered by the expression lsquo sacking rsquo and hence were chargeable to cess as such. We do not find any reason to differ with the above decision of the Tribunal or to take a different view than the one taken in the Calcutta-II Commissionerate Trade Notice. Accordingly we hold that appellants were liable to pay cess on hessian and sacking bags in terms of serial No. 2 and 3 of the relevant Notification and not in terms of serial No. 7 of the said Notification. With these observations the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for quantification of the cess accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 369
Jute - Cess - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... so note that the demand in question is for the period 1-1-1995 to 15-3-1995 and the show-cause notice was issued on 2-8-1995. It is also on record that before clearing jute products to their another factory the appellants had filed C/Lists showing that cess on jute will be paid at the time of final removal by M/s Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. who were also informed by the Department vide their letter dated 5-3-1994 that payment of cess on jute should be made by them at the time of removal of final products. In these circumstances we also direct the Asstt. Commr. to look into the aspect of the demand being barred by limitation. However, we feel that there being no suppression etc. penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Asstt. Commr. is not justified. Accordingly we direct the Assistant Commissioner not to impose any penalty upon the appellants during de novo proceedings. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above.
-
2000 (3) TMI 368
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... er these goods to the Liaison Officer, Royal Government of Bhutan posted at Calcutta for such further action as may be deemed fit by the said Govt. of Bhutan. In a nutshell it was the view of the Tribunal that flight having landed at Calcutta under unforeseen circumstances the seizure and confiscation of the watch movements under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 was not available to the Customs Authorities at Calcutta. We do not find any question raised by the Revenue arising out of the above findings of the Tribunal. All the questions raised are on the issues which have not been directly decided by the Tribunal. As such we hold that same are not arising out of the Tribunal s orders. In any case we find that the Tribunal has given a decision on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As such no question of law arises from the Tribunal s order requiring reference to the High Court. Accordingly we reject the reference applications filed by the Revenue.
-
2000 (3) TMI 367
Reference Application - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... time chart the file was placed before the Additional Director General, D.R.I., who was on tour and returned to Calcutta only on 15-10-99 when he gave an opinion for preferring the reference applications before the Tribunal. Thereafter the office was closed from 6-10-1999 to 19-10-1999 on account of puja holidays. On opening the office on 20-10-1999 the order was passed by the appropriate authority for filing the reference application along with the application for condonation of delay which was subsequently filed on 25-10-1999. 2. emsp We have heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue and Shri K.K. Banerjee with Shri K.P. Dey, Advocate for the respondents. 3. emsp After hearing both the sides we find that there was sufficient cause on account of the concerned officer being away on tour and the subsequent four holidays on account of puja holidays. As such we condone the delay in filing the reference applications. Both Miscellaneous Applications are accordingly allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 366
Stay order - Modification of ... ... ... ... ..... t. We have heard Shri K.L. Ramteke, ld. DR for the Revenue. 2. emsp Application for stay cannot be argued in instalments. These facts could have been mentioned to us earlier. A balance sheet ought to have been given to us earlier which is sought to be given only at the time of modification application. We note that appellant is financially too weak. By way of compassion, we allow the applicant to furnish bank guarantee for the said sum of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) within four weeks from the receipt of this order. On such furnishing the bank guarantee there will be waiver on payment of remaining amount of duty and penalty and stay their recovery there of during the pendency of the appeal. Compliance to be reported on 24-3-2000.
-
2000 (3) TMI 346
Modvat credit - Departmental clarification ... ... ... ... ..... tained in the Trade Notice are as good as rules is also not acceptable since the settled position of law on the point is to the contrary. 8. emsp The ld. DR has, further, drawn my attention to Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules wherein certain conditions to be fulfilled by the assessees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner has been laid down. He has, further, referred to Rule 173A which says that the provisions of Chapter VII-A (which includes Rule 173H) would prevail over rules in other Chapters of the Central Excise Rules in case of any conflict between the two. The tenor of the ld. DR rsquo s submission is that the conditions stipulated under Rule 173H should also be read into Modvat rules. I am unable to accept this proposition for reasons already discussed. 9. emsp In view of the above observations and findings, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department s appeals are devoid of merit and are therefore rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 345
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... f, even after adjustment of duty in terms of section 18(2), the importer considers that a further amount is due to be refunded in which event he has to make a claim as enjoined in Section 27. rdquo Accordingly there is no substance in the submission of the learned D.R. that the said Explanation was not considered in that decision. Further the decision in the case of Alcatel Mode Net Works System v. C.C., New Delhi, 2000 (117) E.L.T. 522 (T) 1999 (32) RLT 195 (CEGAT) was brought to our notice wherein the Tribunal held that Refund of duty or recovery of duty as a result of the finalisation of provisional assessment has to be given suo-motu by the concerned authorities. There is no limitation involved in either making recovery or giving refund as a result of finalisation of assessment. In view of these decisions, the refund claim in Appeal No. C/257/94-B2 is not hit by time limit. 9. emsp Accordingly the appeal in C/257/94-B2 is allowed and the appeal in C/258/94-B2 is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 344
SSI exemption ... ... ... ... ..... f the Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-86, to the appellants for the intervening period in question. Their registration as SSI unit got made vide certificate dated 14-9-1990 in the name of the firm M/s. Shiv Engineering Industries, continued to be valid even after the change in its constitution which was notified by the Directorate of Industries on 8-3-1991 in the record. The certificate dated 29-4-1991 issued by the Directorate of Industries regarding the validity of their registration as SSI unit, had been wrongly ignored by the authorities below. 11. emsp The appellants being entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986 for the period in question the duty demand raised from them must be held to be illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 12. emsp Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is accepted and the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 343
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... respect of specified goods. In other words if the brand name or, trade name is of his own the benefit of exemption cannot be denied. Trade name of another person refers to Trade name belonging to another. Of , as meaning belonging to as per the dictionary meaning as given in the Stroud s Judicial Dictionary. Since ownership is the criteria to determine the eligibility of exemption with reference to Para 7 of the Notification and in view of the fact that trade mark belongs to appellants M/s. Opus India, we do not find any justification to deny the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. In the view we have taken, all these appeals are allowed with consequential relief rdquo . 7. emsp Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we hold that the appellants are entitled to benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-CE in respect of the goods cleared under Brand name COSMOS w.e.f. 1-8-1993. 8. emsp Thus, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 332
Refund of pre-deposit - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 177 (Bom.) as also that of Tribunal - vide General Engineering Works reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 86 (Tribunal) 1999 (31) RLT 488 (T) are clearly supportive of the above view. As pointed out by the appellants, para 146 of Mafatlal rsquo s judgment applies here and not para 83. In this para it is stated that even duty paid in cases which finally ended in decrees or judgments of the courts must be deemed to have been paid under protest. When this is the position for the duty paid, obviously it will all the more apply to pre-deposit of duty. In the light of the above discussions, the appellants are entitled for the return of the amount which was originally debited in their PLA account. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the claim as time-barred is not correct and has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed with the direction that the lower authority may deal with the refund claim on merits as per law. 6. emsp For the above reasons the appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 331
Manufacture - Dobby cards ... ... ... ... ..... ers the period from 1987-88 to 1994-95 up to May 1994), the Assistant Collector shall satisfy himself on the basis of records that credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the body punched dobby cards has not been availed of under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in view of the fact that Notification 15/94 dated 1-3-1994 contains only the condition against Sl. No. 21 of the table annexed thereto (relevant Sl. No.) that no credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such goods should have been availed of under Rule 57A. 4. emsp In the result, we hold that the body punched dobby cards of plastic manufactured by the appellants herein are excisable goods classifiable under CET Sub-heading 3926.90 and remand the matter of eligibility to the benefit of Notifications claimed by the assessees to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall act according to the guidelines set out in the preceding paragraph. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 330
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s. Since Heading 25.04 covers marble which is a mineral product, in our view the classification of agglomerated marble which is manufactured out of marble cement, resin and other materials under the said heading has to be ruled out and as an article produced mainly out of crushed marble, which is a hard calcarious stone, it would be specifically covered by Heading 68.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. We find that Note 2 to Chapter 25 which was referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents relates only to Heading Nos. 25.01, 25.03 and 25.05. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the findings that agglomerated marble blocks/tiles are classifiable under Heading 68.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. rdquo 8. emsp Since, this issue has already been considered and decided by the three members bench, holding that item in question is classifiable under heading 68.07, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 9. emsp Accordignly all these appeals are dismissed as such.
-
2000 (3) TMI 322
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ards the prayer of the appellants for a direction to permit sale of goods to another buyer for clearance for home consumption in accordance with law, we direct the Commissioner concerned to allow the appellants to find an Indian buyer who would be willing to clear the goods for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty and on the basis of a valid licence to cover the goods and after completing the other necessary formalities and procedures under the law. A time of three months from the date of receipt of this order may be given to the appellants for the purpose. 18. emsp In case the appellants are not able to find another buyer for clearance of the goods in India in accordance with law within the aforesaid period of three months they may be allowed to re-export the goods thereafter, after completion of the procedure, if any, for such re-export. No fine or penalty shall be imposed on them for allowing such re-export. 19. emsp The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
............
|
9911796707
