|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 516 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 286
Appeal against order of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... tion of pre-deposit. Commissioner disposed of the appeal by his Order-in-Appeal No. 1385-CE/BPL/99, dated 15-11-1999 on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. Appellate authority did not pronounce on the merits of the contention. 3. emsp Circumstances highlighted do not warrant complete waiver of pre-deposit. On the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the financial condition of the appellant, I direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within six weeks from today. If the deposit is made within the said period and the fact is intimated to the Commissioner, he will take back the appeal filed by the appellant, hear him on merits and pass appropriate orders on merits of the appeal after affording him reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. In case the deposit is not made, as stated above, this appeal will stand dismissed and the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner will stand confirmed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 285
Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... were manufacturing Polyethylene bags using plastic granules as the basic inputs and manufacturing lay flat tubings as intermediate products. In the case under citation, the only difference was that the final products were tarpaulin/protective covers of plastics. The facts being identical, the ratio of the cited judgment will apply. The appeal is allowed therefore with consequential relief. 2. The early hearing application also stands disposed of.
-
2000 (3) TMI 284
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... as accordingly held that the Modvat credit on this item would be admissible by the appellants. 4. emsp I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, ld. DR. The respondents vide their letter, dated 17-2-2000 have requested the case to be decided on merits. 5. emsp The Revenue in they rsquo re written memorandum of appeal and during the course of hearing have reiterated the finding arrived at by the original adjudicating authority. 6. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. The lower appellate authority has relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Uttam Industrial Engg. Ltd. (Supra). The ld. DR is not disputing the applicability, of the ratio of this decision to the facts of the present case. Therefore following this order of the Tribunal, I hold that the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 9,386/- on the air circuit breaker in the facts and circumstances of this case is admissible to the respondents. Consequently the Revenue appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 283
Modvat - Transitional provision ... ... ... ... ..... by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal and prays that the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected. 5. emsp We have heard the rival submissions. We have perused the grounds of appeal, the evidence on record and the case law cited and relied upon by the respondent. We find that Rule 57H is a transitional rule to care for situations not covered by other Rules. It starts with a non obstante clause. The provisions of Rule 57G are excluded and cannot be made applicable in the case of claims under Rule 57H. We find that this Tribunal analysed this requirement of Rule 57H vis-a-vis Rule 57G and came to the conclusion as cited above in the case of Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. We also find that this view is partly supported by other decisions of the Tribunal in the cases cited by the respondent. Following the ratio of the decisions cited by the respondent, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 282
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ed eye obtained by coating substance predominantly with wax and some other chemicals. He points out that the Commissioner, in the impugned order has not found any specific evidence to show that the coating is visible. The opinion of the Dy. Chief Chemist of the department, on which he relies, is silent on this point. As against this, the opinion dated 15th May, 1995 of Dr. D.H. Lokhande, Professor of Chemical Technology, has said that the layer is not visible. 2. emsp The departmental representative is not able to show why the Tribunal rsquo s order, relied upon, would not applied to the facts of the case. In the decision the Tribunal has held that tarpaulin fabric, which are water proof, would be classifiable under 5206, in those cases where the water-proofing layer is not visible to the naked eye. The ratio of the decision prima facie appears to be applicable to the case. 3. emsp Accordingly we modify our earlier order and waive deposit of duty amount and stay its recovery.
-
2000 (3) TMI 281
... ...
... ... ..... achining allowances provided - Bars in random length of 3-4 m, however totally maximum 15 of the material is acceptable in length of minimum 1mm each size. To less in width 2.6/-0 m on thickness 0.7/-0 mm. Bills of entries describe as alloy steel bars showing thickness and width. Customs Tariff is shown as 7229.19. The Annexure lsquo F rsquo letter, dated 7-3-1986 of appellant meeting the direction Calcutta Collectorate rsquo s suggestion, clearly analyses both the Appendix entries and convincingly pointed out the suggestion is not acceptable. Impugned order has not at all referred and discussed in detail to negative the case of appellant. In the light of the case laws referred in para 8(a)(b), the impugned order cannot sustain. The contention of the appellant is proper and correct. It is upheld. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief according to law and the impugned orders are set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 280
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... aragraph 6 has brought out the distinction of the prepared culture media as it is available in the market and that prepared by the present applicant on the criteria of marketability, stability and pharmacopoeial standard. He opined that the contested goods fell below the standard of prepared culture media. He observed that the contested goods were highly susceptible to contamination. Both the experts had categorically opined after a detailed study in the assessee factory the instability of the contested goods. 8. emsp Thus on merits, we find that a prima facie case has been made out by the assessee in support of their plea that the goods were unstable and therefore not marketable and therefore not dutiable. The various case laws will have to be discussed at length at the time of final hearing. At present we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 5,37,74,598.51 and penalty) of Rs. 6 lakhs and stay the recovery thereof pending disposal of the appeals.
-
2000 (3) TMI 279
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... hat the appellant s clearances as on 21-5-1992 were less than Rs. 7.5 lakhs and therefore it cannot be entitled to full exemption of Rs. 30 lakhs for the financial year 1992-93 provided in the notification. We are unable to accept this point. The appellant to avail of the notification all the conditions of the notification will have to be fulfilled. The Commissioner has found that the appellant was restricted by the 2nd proviso under paragraph 4. 9. emsp The final contention is that the order under Section 35B of the Act making a reference of points to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision signed by the Commissioner is identically worded in the appellant s case and in the case of another assessee M/s. Bago Cans Pvt. Ltd., and that therefore null and void. We are unable to see how the fact that same words used in more than one matter or the order is worded similar to another order in any proceedings will render the order invalid. 10. emsp The appeals are therefore dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 278
Penalty on Custom House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... ow statutory obligation, penalty could only be imposed after the involvement of a particular employee was shown. It is evidently for this reason that notice has named the two employees. It would therefore not be proper for the Commissioner to decide the liability to the penalty of the appellant without deciding the liability of the penalty of the two employees. For penalty to be imposed on the appellant, the Commissioner has to show the acts or omissions, which that company was guilty of such acts or omissions, which would call for imposition of penalty, and such acts or omissions are attributable to its individual employees. The order of the Commissioner in fact offers no reason for imposition of penalty except briefly to say that the appellant was aware of these facts. 5. emsp Accordingly the Commissioner rsquo s order imposing penalty on the appellant is set aside. Commissioner shall dispose of the notice relating to this appellant and two employees in accordance with law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 277
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... appellants are right in their contention that when the examination report indicated the consignment as a mixed lot of sheets and strips, there was no justification to treat the entire goods as imported in violation and in confiscating the entire goods and fixing fine and penalty on that basis. The order requires modification for this reason. 5. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, while we uphold the confiscation and imposition of penalty, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) and reduce the penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only). 6. We also make it clear that the goods shall be assessed to duty and allowed clearance on their merits i.e., the quantity of strips shall be assessed under the declared value and at duty applicable to strips and the quantity of sheets contained in the consignment shall be assessed to duty at the floor price as applicable to them. The appeal is disposed of on these terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 276
Valuation - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e end of such video films. The term affix occurring in the notification should be considered in such a manner as to take into account its liberal meaning advanced. Clearly the benefit of the notification was never intended to apply in such a situation where a manufacturer puts the brand name of another person who is not entitled to the benefit of the notification on the products or its contents. The term affix has to be construed, taking into account the process of manufacture. Recording of the brand name of the copyright owner on the video cassettes in question, in our view, would fall within the meaning of the term affix rdquo occurring in paragraph 7 of the notification. 4. emsp However, the appeal does not challenge the Collector rsquo s finding that the extended period contained in the proviso under Section 11A(1) would not be applicable. Therefore, his view that the demand is barred by limitation cannot be interfered with. 5. emsp In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 275
Classiification ... ... ... ... ..... is that the product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 5703.90 of the Tariff Act. While the respondents contention is that it is covered under Chapter sub-heading 5703.20 of the Tariff Act. This issue, in fact, stands already settled between the parties by the decision rendered by the Double Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Uni Products v. CCE, New Delhi, decided vide its final Order 44-47/2000-D, dated 11-2-2000 (Copy placed on record by the respondents) wherein it has been ruled that the product is classifiable under Chapter Sub-Heading 5703.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and not under Chapter Sub-Heading 5703.90. In view of this judgment of the Tribunal, all the present appeals filed by the Revenue have to be dismissed, as the demand was raised by the Revenue against the respondents by classifying the product under Chapter Sub-Heading 5703.90 of the Tariff Act. Resultantly, all the appeals of the Revenue fail and they are dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 250
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ,78,451/-, as per TR-6 Challan No. 76078701, dated 18-12-1996. The said amount is with the Department till date. The entire consignment is also with the Department. The consignment has not been released to the importer, even though they prayed for provisional release of the goods. Thus, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine imposed under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act to Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) and refix the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act at Rs 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). 5. In view of what has been stated above, we modify the order regarding the redemption fine and penalty as indicated above. The authorities below will correctly note the amount of duty deposited by the importer on 18-12-1996. This direction is given only because the statement in the impugned order that duty already paid was Rs. 1,61,278/- while the TR-6 Challan shows remittance of Rs. 1,78,451/-.
-
2000 (3) TMI 249
Benzyl Cyanide - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... 11-1999 wherein the demand covered the period 1-3-1986 to 1-3-1987 and 1-4-1987 to 31-12-1989) the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification 217/86 for that quantity of Benzyl Cyanide which was used in the manufacture of by-product cleared on payment of duty which would clearly show that they were in a position to segregate the quantity of Benzyl Cyanide used in the manufacture of exempt commodity viz. Phenyl Acetic Acid from that quantity used in the manufacture of Aqueous layer which was cleared on payment of duty and therefore, co-relation between the input and the dutiable commodity is possible. 8. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the assessees are not eligible to exemption on the entire quantity of Benzyl Cyanide in terms of Notification 217/86 but that exemption is available to that quantity of Benzyl Cyanide which was used in the manufacture of aqueous layer, which was cleared on payment of duty. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 248
Fabrics containing nylon yarn are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 4/88-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... soning, it is our view that he has misdirected himself as to the scope of the notification. The Collector has in our view heard by deciding that since the weight of the nylon yarn does not predominate the fabric is not nylon and therefore is not entitled to the benefit. That however, is not what the notification provides as we have seen. It is applicable to fabrics containing nylon yarn, and not just fabrics in which the fabric yarn predominates by weight. Hence for the fabric containing nylon yarn, the benefit of notification would be available subject to the condition that paragraph of the notification being complied with. That condition also provides that the fabric contains only those textile material specified in the notification i.e. nylon filament yarn, yarns of cellulosic origin and therefore the percentage of nylon yarn is irrelevant. Hence for fabric containing nylon yarn the benefit of notification is completely available. 6. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 247
Machine tools ... ... ... ... ..... n the appeal is that the goods are more appropriately classifiable as machines and not machine tools. Machine tools are necessarily machines. Machine tools are defined in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, third edition, as ldquo stationary power driven machine for shaping, cutting, turning, boring, drilling, grinding or polishing of solid parts especially metal rdquo . The appeal does not question that the goods are machines tools since they are classifiable either under Heading 8460.00 or 8462.00, which was approved by the Superintendent either in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or in the appeal before us. What was questioned in these proceedings was only the applicability of the notification. We cannot find, how when the department does not dispute the classification of the goods as machine tools, it can claim that the benefit of the notification will not apply for the reason that they are not machine tools. 3. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 246
Demand and penalty - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ely concealed the true composition of the worsted yarn manufactured by them and even supplied to the Govt. Department (OCF) through DGS and D cannot be permitted to take shelter under the umbrella of the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case. They made misdeclaration of their product in the classification lists and also in other record. The fraud played by them on the Revenue department came to the light when the raid was conducted on their factory premises in September 1988 and not earlier to that as the documents seized from the factory premises revealed that they manufactured and supplied the worsted yarn with the composition of 70 wool and 30 nylon to the Government department while they misdeclared the composition of this yarn as 70 wool and 15 nylon in the classification lists and the other documents. 12. emsp In view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 245
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... und of short levy when the duty was levied on the basis of approved classification list. The reclassification of the goods and consequential demand can be effective prospectively from the date of issue of show cause notice. But here the facts are altogether different. There had been no final approval of the classification list of the appellants in respect of the product in question under sub-heading 6301.00 of the schedule to the Tariff. The order of the Assistant Collector dated 31-8-1991 who approved their classification never became final, rather that order became subjudice on filing the review application against the same by the department and the Collector (Appeals) had reversed that order through the impugned order and directed the classification of the product of the appellants under sub-heading 3923.90 of the schedule to the Tariff. 12. emsp In view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 244
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... cation of the inputs, which were shown in the 57G declaration, is different from the declaration in the gate passes. From this it will be clear that the input themselves had been declared in the 57G declaration. The question then is not the one of failure to declare the inputs, but to declare the tariff heading which tally with the heading shown in the declaration and in the gate passes. 4. emsp This should alone be sufficient to dispose of the appeal. Further there are decisions of this Tribunal to the effect that since classification is not always uniform there may be difference in classification of the same product from area to area, and therefore the fact of the input being classified differently in the gate pass from its classification in the 57G declaration should not result in Modvat credit being denied. The description of the commodity had been given and there is no dispute that this was incorrect. 5. emsp I therefore see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 243
Export production ... ... ... ... ..... hout payment of duty such article to the premises of another assessee for completion of manufacturing process and brining back such article to his factory or allow the article to be removed by the manufacturer for export under this rule from the premises of other person to whom such articles have been sent. On careful scrutiny of the notification as well as the rule, we find that the admitted position is that M/s. Modern Suitings is the advance licence holder meaning thereby they are under an obligation to export the goods manufactured out of various goods used in the manufacture of exported products. In this case, the inputs were polyester staple fibre which is a specified item and the yarn is finally converted into the fabric which is exported in discharge of the export obligation. Thus, we do not find any lapse in following the procedure. We, therefore, do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned order. The impugned order is, therefore upheld and the appeal is rejected.
............
|
9911796707
