|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 516 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 321
Demand - Removal ... ... ... ... ..... . 90/94-C.E., dated 25-4-1994. The duty demands against them were dropped by the Commissioner. This fact is quite evident from the copy of the order placed on record by the respondents. The order of the Commissioner passed in those cases was never challenged by the Revenue. 14. emsp It is well settled that the law has to be administered with even handed, amongst the persons evenly placed. Therefore, there exists in our view no sufficient cause or ground for the Revenue when they had already allowed the benefit of the above referred Trade Notices and the Exemption Notification, to other 23 manufacturers of the woollen yarn, placed in similar circumstances, to discriminate with the respondents and to deny the benefit of the same to them. 15. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals of the Revenue and the same are dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 320
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ed to in their submissions, we are of the view that the item under dispute would be more appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 9027.30 under Spectrometers, Spectrophotometers and Spectrographs using optical radiations (UV, visible IR) . We find that the letter dated 10-2-1998 written by the International Sales Engineer of the foreign manufacturers (referred to at Para 5 above) clinches the issue inasmuch as the said Engineer has clearly brought out the reasons for not considering the item as a Camera. In fact, he has stated that calling the system a lsquo Camera would be a misnomer. He has drawn attention to the fact that the Thermacham system does not use films or flash lamps to give a print out as in the case of a normal Camera. 10. emsp In the above view of the matter, the Appeal suceeds. Accordingly, we uphold the classification of lsquo SC 1000 Thermacham IR Focal Plane Array Radiometer SN-17 rsquo under Chapter Heading 9027.30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
-
2000 (3) TMI 319
Valuation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... /inspecting was being borne by the customers. The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 2465 of 1992 filed by the CCE against the aforesaid Tribunal s decision as reported in the Court Room Highlights at page A-51 in 1992 (62) E.L.T. Thus, we hold that the cost of galvanisation and that of the sockets and the service charges were includible in the value of the pipes and tubes, while the cost of rubber/plastic rings and the inspection charges were not includible in the assessable value of the pipes and tubes. The demand of duty as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise is to be worked out in the light of our above order. 9. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of penalty from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 7.5 lakh (rupees seven lakh and fifty thousand only). In the facts and circumstances, we waive the payment of interest in terms of Section 11-AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 318
Oil - Benefit of the notification No. 75/94-CX dated 29-3-1994 not available. ... ... ... ... ..... sultant s pleas to accept their contention and to reject the Revenue appeal. The other contentions of the Ld. Consultant that the authorisation is not proper, and on this count, appeal is required to be dismissed is also not sustainable. We have examined the authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and we find that the authorisation has been properly issued in terms of the Sub-Section 2 of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act and he has clearly given his opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A) Madras under Section 35A is not legal and proper and therefore this is sufficient to hold that the Commissioner has applied his mind in expressing his opinion. Hence the plea taken by the Consultant which is supported by same judgments has been given in cases, where there are no such words legal and proper in the authorisation ,which is not so in the present case. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 317
... ...
... ... ..... ge and nothing thereof was known to the buyers in advance or at the time of removal of goods. In view of the analysis above, these are not the facts in this case and hence this judgment stands distinguished. 12. emsp We have also considered learned Advocates submission that the nature of this discount can never be regarded as bonus because a bonus arises out of sharing of profits made by the manufacturer. There is nothing on record to show that the turnover discount was in any way related with me event of the manufacturer making any profit. The sole relationship was with the value of the goods cleared over a period of time. Therefore, we find great force in this submission that it cannot be regarded as a bonus. 13. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, we do not find any infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal impunged which compels us to interfere with the same and hence the revenue appeal is rejected. The respondent s cross objection is also disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 316
Import Policy - Consumer goods ... ... ... ... ..... f the obligation imposed on such person in charge occurring in sub-section (2) is of significant. If the appellant had not acted as agent of the master in respect of filing the manifest, it would not be possible, in our view to visit upon that agent the consequence which would otherwise have fallen upon the person in charge of the conveyance. The manifest was signed by the master of the vessel. This appellant has not signed any documents relating to the Customs department. The contention of the departmental representative that it held itself out to be an agent and was accepted by the Customs does not answer this point. An arrangement for the general facilities, which is what this appellant was apparently doing would not amount, on the facts of this case, to this appellant being an agent in respect of the ship or cattle feed in terms of section 148. Penalty was not imposable on this appellant. 8. emsp Both appeals are allowed and impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
2000 (3) TMI 315
... ...
... ... ..... ransfer of the goods to the Parishad. We find that the transactions have not been examined from this aspect in the impugned order. In any case, as the price paid by Parishad included many elements other than the ex-factory value of the goods, it was required that suitable deductions are allowed from the purchase price of Parishad while fixing the assessable value. Duty paid by the appellant manufacturer could be a part of the price paid by the Parishad. We, therefore, feel that this part of the demand is required to be reconsidered after taking into account all the relevant factors and materials. This part of the demand is, therefore, remanded for fresh consideration and adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case during the adjudication proceedings. In the facts of this case, imposition of penalties on the appellants and other parties was not justified. Accordingly, penalties imposed are set aside. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 314
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... iculture or forestry. The shallow pans are used in the agriculture, horticulture as well as forestry. The Asstt. Collector has rightly classified the product under this heading keeping in view the Explanatory Notes under HSN. Being an implement of a kind used in the agriculture, Heading No. 73.26 of the Tariff as contended by the SDR, is not at all attracted in this case, as the same relates only to the other articles of iron and steel, forged or stamped, but not further worked. Keeping in mind the use of the product in question, and taking into consideration the HSN Explanatory Notes, the view taken by the Asstt. Collector as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the product (shallow pans) under Heading No. 82.01 of the Tariff cannot be said in any manner errorneous so as to call for any interference in the appeal before us. 5. emsp In the light of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and thus, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 298
... ...
... ... ..... credit utilization of such credit after the change in the classification of HDPE Tapes, and sacks should not be denied on mere procedural grounds and the appeal was allowed rdquo . The subject matter involved in this case is also the same. The impugned order discussing under Rule 57H in para 6 and 7 does not hold good in view of the above orders of the Tribunal. As contended by the appellant this case is covered by the said ruling. According to the appellant there is no one to one correlation between the inputs in the final products under Modvat scheme. So the credit cannot be denied as per the decision 1992 (57) E.L.T. 659 (Tribunal) which has considered proforma credit under Rule 56A and Modvat account in respect of final product. In view of the above Bench order, the appellant is entitled to succeed. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief according to law, and the impugned order is set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 297
Manufacture - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... as the manufacture of the same was completed rdquo . The steel plates have been mentioned in Item 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. I am therefore of the view there has been a manufacturing activity. In this case a reference to Aruna Industries Visakhapatnam and Others - 1988 (25) E.L.T. 580 and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 316 are not applicable to the facts of the case. In my view, I am therefore of the view the appeal is devoid of merits. 5. emsp In this case invocation of the larger period is rightly taken. It is not the case of the assessee that they had taken out any Central Excise licence. Once licence was not taken, then the nature of activity of the appellant would not be known to the department. Apart from that they have not filed any classification list or price list. Therefore no enquiry could have been made by the department. Hence invocation of the larger period is upheld. Hence the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence it is dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 296
Smuggling - Proof ... ... ... ... ..... establishment by the department. In this case it has to be held that the department has failed to establish a prima facie case of illegal importation. The orders of confiscation therefore do not survive. 10. emsp As regards the penalty we would refer to the Tribunal Judgment in the case of M/s. Choudhary International v. Commissioner of Customs, 1999 (109) E.L.T. 371. In this judgment, the Tribunal held that where penalties were proposed to be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden was on the department to show that the charged person was one, who had rendered the goods liable to confiscation having the knowledge that the goods were smuggled. Where the fact of illegal importation itself is not established, even without application of this particular case law, the orders of imposition of penalty would not survive. 12. emsp The appeals succeed. The orders of confiscation and penalty are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.
-
2000 (3) TMI 295
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... or trade name of goods manufactured and cleared by an assessee. The use of IRD Mechanalysis on the goods of the appellants links them with the goods of the other person (American Company) which are not entitled to the benefit of notification and hence we hold that the bar contained in para 7 of the Notification 175/86 is attracted in the present case. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that lsquo IRD Mechanalysis rsquo is not a brand name or trade name but only a house mark, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that its use links the appellants goods with the goods of the American company, which is not entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86 and in view of the fact that the agreement of November 1979 itself clearly provides that ldquo IRD rdquo and lsquo Mechanalysis rsquo are the trade marks of the American Company. We hold that the goods in dispute are not eligible to the benefit of SSI exemption, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 294
Export - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... und there is some merit in the plea of reduction of penalty on the firm M/s. Sima Exports in Appeal No. C/345/95-Bom. 10. emsp Shri Patel here submits that subsequently these goods were exported and remittance was received. 11. emsp In both cases the fine prescribed ranges from 10 to 15 which is reasonable. The plea of very high demurrage does not make for a reduction in this quantum. 12. emsp I do not find any reason to accede to the plea of reduction in the penalties imposed upon Mukesh Mehta and Jayantilal Mehta inasmuch as their guilty mind is very clearly shown on the record. While I find no reason to reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed by the Commissioner in his order, dated 17-4-1995, on the basis of my observations above I deem it proper to reduce the penalty imposed upon M/s. Sima Exports in the order, dated 21-7-1995 of the Commissioner, Nhava Sheva, from Rs. 8,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Subject to this modification the appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 293
Value of Clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... e been given has already been dealt with. It is not possible to say there was common control of production and sales or common management. We have preferred in this regard to the statements of Sridevi Hegde and Jyoti Shetty. Thus, it is not possible to say that the crucial requirement, which has to be satisfied, exist. 18. emsp The case of Colorica, has in addition to be considered separately. It is this. The activities carried out by Colorica consist of developing photographic plates required for offset printing. Such development of plates by itself does not amount to manufacture nor is that the allegation in the notice or the finding in the Commissioner s order that it is manufacture irrespective of the other considerations. There will be no value of clearances of dutiable goods of this firm, which could be included in the clearance of Surface Graphics. 19. emsp We therefore hold that the clubbing could not be established, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (3) TMI 292
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... application of mind will result in a situation where an order which could be confirmed in favour of the department on merits is not so confirmed. Such disposal in short, serves no purpose except for purposes of statistics. It must be emphasised that the office of Commissioner (Appeals) is one of great importance and significance and when assessees approach the Commissioner (Appeals), they come with the expectation of being heard with reasonable attention and patience and the matter dealt with by application of mind. It is to be hoped that this will be done when the matter goes back to the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. emsp The Commissioner shall give the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard and dispose of the appeal within three months from the receipt of this order. 11. emsp This being the position, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned orders set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall dispose of the appeal before him on merits without insisting on any deposit.
-
2000 (3) TMI 291
Order - Appealable order ... ... ... ... ..... rcumspection. If it were not so even the decision to issue a show cause notice can become the subject matter of an appeal where the assessee may claim that in deciding to issue the show cause notice, he had not been heard and therefore natural justice was denied. It is our considered opinion that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was not an appealable order. 5. emsp We also find that the ld. Commissioner did not understand the propriety of Rule 173C at all. He had without reason considered the amendment to Rule 173C of the rule, when he was not required to do so. He forgot that he was a creature of statute and took up upon himself to remedy the inconvenience caused to the assessee by having been made to wait. In the process he conveniently forgot that the assessee had to wait because of their failure to submit the necessary documents. We find no merit in the various unnecessary observation made by the Collector. We allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (3) TMI 290
Valuation
... ... ... ... ..... sser amount compared to the original demand which has been confirmed, by the impugned order. Since the entire facts were not properly taken into consideration and the correct law applied, we do not find any justification for upholding the penalties imposed by the impugned orders. The penalties imposed are set aside and the matter is remanded back for de novo decision in the light of the observations made earlier in this order for computation of the differential duty payable by M/s. Onida Savak Ltd. Since this matter is long pending one, the entire exercise must be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that before passing order, a reasonable opportunity of being heard may be extended to the appellants. 6. emsp Depending upon the final assessment of the differential duty payable by M/s. Onida Savak Ltd., the amount deposited pursuant to order of this Tribunal may be adjusted.
-
2000 (3) TMI 289
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the inclusion of the cost of packing materials supplied by the buyer in the assessable value of adhesives manufactured, the invocation of the extended period of limitation, the relationship between the manufacturer and the purchaser as 'related persons,' and the challenge to the decision of the Commissioner based on principles of res judicata and limitation.
Inclusion of Packing Materials Cost in Assessable Value:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the inclusion of the cost of packing materials supplied by the buyer in the assessable value of adhesives manufactured. The manufacturer contended that the cost of packing materials cannot be added as they were supplied free to the purchaser. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the cost of packing materials cannot be included in the assessable value.
Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
Another show cause notice was issued for a different period, and it was held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable since nothing was suppressed from the Department. The proceedings were dropped, and the order attained finality as Revenue did not appeal. Subsequently, a third show cause notice was issued, alleging the manufacturer and purchaser as 'related persons.' The Commissioner dropped the proceedings based on principles of res judicata and limitation.
Relationship Between Manufacturer and Purchaser:
The relationship between the manufacturer of adhesives and the purchaser was governed by an agreement known to the Department. Previous show cause notices were issued and adjudicated upon, ending in favor of the manufacturer. The Department's attempt to revisit the same agreement for new material was deemed impermissible based on earlier orders and Tribunal decisions.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's attempt to reopen a concluded issue was not tenable, especially considering the inconvenience caused to a small-scale industrial unit. It was noted that the appellate power should not be used to unnecessarily harass manufacturers. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 288
Confiscation and Redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... This fact would also be taken in judging the adequacy or excess of the penalties. 14. emsp We summarise our order as below (1) emsp The orders of the confiscation of the goods and their redemption on payment of fine as well as the quantum of fine are upheld. (2) emsp The orders of confirmation of duty on the goods earlier imported and cleared without payment of duty are also upheld. (3) emsp The penalty imposed upon M/s. L.D. Textiles Ind. Ltd. is upheld. (4) emsp The penalty imposed upon M/s. Obron Impex Pvt. Ltd. is remitted in full. (5) emsp The penalties imposed upon the following persons are reduced emsp to the following amounts From emsp emsp emsp To emsp emsp emsp (i) T.K. Mehra (ii) V.K. Mehra (iii) J.N. Mehra (iv) Ajay Mehra (v) Sachin Mehra Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 25,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/- RS. 10,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs. 15,00,000/- 15. emsp Subject to these modifications, the appeals stand dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 287
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... dispute that the inputs in question were received and utilised by the respondents in the manufacture of their final products. There is no dispute regarding payment of duty on such goods, either. The only dispute is with regard to Modvat declaration. The earlier declaration dated 14-9-1995 declared the inputs are steel sheets . There is no dispute of the fact that the goods in question were strips made out of such steel sheets. There is also a revised declaration filed by the party on 19-6-1996. The delay in the filing of such revised declaration (declaring the goods as C.R. Steel Strips) is of a few days only. In the circumstances, the requirement of declaration has to be held to have been substantially complied with by the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents should be held to be entitled to the Modvat credit, following the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Department s appeal and I reject the same.
............
|
9911796707
