Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 516 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 131
... ... ... ... ..... nalises the flow of material on continuous and uniform basis to the grinding mill. Therefore, customerily the equipment is called a Gate Valve. Gravel is the crushed raw material in pieces which is fed in the mill through Valve. The material which is to be grind is brought with the help of belt conveyor and is fed into Gravel Gate Valve. 5.1 It is apparant that the function of the Valve is only to control the flow of the material and to prevent air leakage from opposite direction. These functions cannot be considered to be handling functions and as such impugned product cannot be classified under Heading 84.28. We find that Gravel Gate Valve is a part of the material handling system and Heading 84.31 is specific to the parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30 and as such is classifiable under Heading 84.31 only. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Cross-objection is also disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 128
Paper - First clearances ... ... ... ... ..... earing paper and they had already removed the same availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 139/86 from 1-4-89 that as such they had already exceeded the limit of quantity specified in the first slab of the Table annexed to Notification No. 138/86 (i.e. 3000 Tons) that the notification speaks of first clearance which has already been exceeded by the Appellants. He distinguished the decisions in ESS ESS Engineers and Solar Packaging by submitting that in these cases more than one excisable goods was involved whereas in the present matter only one excisable goods is involved. He relied upon the decision in B.K. Rubber Industries (P) Ltd v. U.O.I. 1993 (68) E.L.T. 575 (MP) and Ramakrishna Engg. Works, supra. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not disputed by the appellants that when they opted for Notification No. 138/86, they had already removed paper exceeding 3000 tons. This notification provides concessional rate of duty as under
-
2000 (3) TMI 125
Refund of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... are binding on the Tribunal as this Bench is directly under the Madras High Court and in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the judgments given by the Apex Court is binding on all the Courts and the Tribunals. Therefore, we cannot take a view as urged by ld. DR that Tribunal does not have inherent powers to order for interest. 7.In view of Apex Court judgment, Madras High Court judgment as well as Bombay High Court judgment directing the Revenue to refund the amounts with interest, therefore following the ratio thereof, we direct the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai to make payment of interest on the amounts from the date of deposit of the amount at the rate of 12 per annum in terms of judgment of Apex Court in Kuil Fire Works (supra). Thus the Misc. application is allowed in the above terms. 8.The Commissioner shall implement this order within three months from the receipt of the same and the matter is to come up for reporting compliance on 26-6-2000.
-
2000 (3) TMI 124
Modvat - Utilisation of credit ... ... ... ... ..... excise duty on any other final product whether or not such inputs have actually been used in the manufacture of such other final product, if the said inputs have been received and used in the factory of production on or after the first day of March, 1997. Examining the facts of the case before us in the light of the requirement of the enacting clause, we find that the credit in the instant case is the credit of Additional Excise Duty paid on tyre cord fabric. The credit so taken of the Additional Excise Duty is utilized towards payment of Basic Excise Duty on tubes. Tyre Cord fabric is not used as an input in the manufacture of tubes. Tyre Cord fabric has been received and used in the factory of production on or after first day of March 97. Thus, we find that all the requirements of enacting clause of Rule 57F(12) are fully complied with. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is erroneous, the same is, therefore, set aside and these appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 121
Valuation (Central Excise) - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... quired to be set aside. However, the figures of duty demand in respect of clearance of the battery and UPS System from M/s. D.B. Electronics and sale of UPS System after addition of battery from Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. are not separately available in the records. The case is, therefore, required to be remanded for correct computation of duty demand. It is accordingly, ordered that Jurisdictional Commissioner shall compute the duty demand in respect of clearances of UPS System along with battery from M/s. D.B. Electronics after including the value of batteries also in the value of UPS System. The demand so computed shall be intimated to M/s. D.B. Electronics and they shall make payment of the same within six weeks of the receipt of such revised duty demand. Appeal is disposed of in these terms. It is also directed that before passing the order of computation of duty the respondent shall be allowed opportunity to submit their case as to the correct amount of duty payable.
-
2000 (3) TMI 119
Issues Involved: 1. Eligibility of various machines and equipment for Modvat credit u/r 57Q. 2. Denial of Modvat credit on specific items like HMT milling machine, high-speed precision lathe, EPBAX system, crane, lighting fittings, air conditioner, M.S. angles, channels, shapes, sections, and cement. 3. Imposition of penalty on the assessee.
Summary:
1. Eligibility of Various Machines and Equipment for Modvat Credit u/r 57Q: The appellants argued that the items on which credit was denied were admissible inputs as per several judgments. The Commissioner believed that only machinery directly involved in production or processing qualified for credit, relying on judgments like TELCO v. CCE and Shanmughraj Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. However, the Tribunal found that the definition of capital goods was extensive and did not require direct participation in production. Citing judgments like Jawahar Mills Ltd., the Tribunal allowed credit for auxiliary equipment like wires, cables, and electric panels.
2. Denial of Modvat Credit on Specific Items: - HMT Milling Machine and High-Speed Precision Lathe: The Commissioner denied credit as these were used for repairing machinery, not in the manufacture of pig iron. The Tribunal upheld this denial. - EPBAX System: Denied as it was a general communication device, not used for producing or processing excisable goods. The Tribunal upheld this denial. - Crane: Credit was denied due to lack of duty-paying documents. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Commissioner for reconsideration upon submission of documents. - Lighting Fittings: Denied as they did not meet the requirement of being used in production or processing. The Tribunal upheld this denial. - Air Conditioner: Denied as it was used for peripheral purposes, not directly in production. The Tribunal upheld this denial. - M.S. Angles, Channels, Shapes, Sections, and Cement: Denied as they were used for construction of the plant, not directly in production. The Tribunal upheld this denial, citing judgments like Malvika Steel Ltd. and J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.
3. Imposition of Penalty: The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, citing the Supreme Court's dictum that penalty is a civil obligation in tax delinquency cases. However, the Tribunal found that the imposition of penalty was not warranted as the assessee had a firm belief in the eligibility of the benefits claimed and there was no prior denial of such benefits. The penalty was remitted in full.
Conclusion: (i) Orders of reversal of credit/confirmation taken on cement, steel, shapes, rounds, channels, EPBAX system, and lighting fittings are upheld. (ii) Credit of duty taken on all other inputs is permitted. (iii) The issue of the crane is remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration. (iv) The assessee is permitted to address the arithmetical mistake amounting to Rs. 6,804/-. (v) The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs is remitted in full. (vi) The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for issues (iii) and (iv).
The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 117
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... tification clearances for home consumption shall also include clearances for export to Bhutan or Nepal . 6. A plain reading of the above explanation makes it explicit that exports value made to Nepal has to be included while computing the clearances for home consumption. No distinction as regards the type of exports to Nepal whether against Rupee payment or against foreign exchange payment has been made out in the said explanation. We fully agree with the submissions of the ld. JDR that where the language used is unambiguous nothing is required to be added or included in the same so as to arrive at the presumed intention of the legislation. The language of the said explanation being clear and not making any distinction between the types of payment received by the exporters against exports to Nepal, we do not find any justification in the distinction drawn by the Commissioner (appeals) in this regard. As such we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2000 (3) TMI 116
... ... ... ... ..... ent of excess payment under Rule 173-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. To the same effect, there is an another decision of the Tribunal reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 151 which has held taking of credit of excess duty without filing a refund application as the correct course. 7. The ratio of the above decision has been that the provisions of Rule 173-I(2) are very clear on the subject. No specific order is required to be made by the Superintendent allowing the assessee to take credit at the time of assessments of RT-12 returns. The issue has been finally discussed by the earlier decision of the Tribunal and there is no reason to take a different view than the one arrived at by the Tribunal in the above referred cases. The case law relied upon by the Revenue in their memo of Appeal is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, following the ratio of the decision cited (supra), we do not find any merits in this appeal of the Revenue and reject the same.
-
2000 (3) TMI 114
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... the case of Saheli Marbles 1999 (106) E.L.T. 48 , the Tribunal held that non-receipt of notice of hearing by the appellant company due to non-forwarding of hearing notice by the Watchman who alone was available at the factory gate, was sufficient ground for non-appearance and hence set aside the dismissal order and restored the appeal. In the case of Punjab Lamination Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh 1999 (106) E.L.T. 199 , the hearing notice was not sent to the Counsel, even though the Appeal Memorandum mentioned that notice of hearing is to be sent both to the assessee and the Advocate. Hence the Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons given for non-appearance and then recalled the dismissal order and restored the appeal for hearing. 6. In the present case, however, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the assessee s Counsel could not appear on 16th June 1999, and non-appearance has not been explained. In the light of the above discussion, we reject the ROA application.
-
2000 (3) TMI 112
Modvat - Input ... ... ... ... ..... ral Excise authority at the consigner s end has accepted/approved the classification of compacted granules as waste and scrap of plastic falling under sub-Heading No. 39.15, whatever be the prescription of Chapter Note 7. It is already settled by the cited cases that the term waste and scrap has a wide ambit. I, therefore find to discripency in appellants taking the credit on impugned goods as per their declaration - waste and scrap of plastics. 5. As regards the plea of difference in the rates of compacted granules and that of ordinary waste and scrap of plastic as raised in the revenue appeal, it is observed that firstly this factor has no relevance to the proposition under consideration and secondly it is not made part of the show cause notice issued to the assesses. Since it is a question of fact which calls for verification, it cannot be allowed to be canvassed at the second appeal stage. 6. In view of above discussion, the revenue appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 110
Hose Assembly ... ... ... ... ..... National Test House cannot be brushed aside lightly merely on the ground that its results were different from that of CRCL. In the instant case we find that the test report has not been assailed on any technical grounds or accuracy of its reports or there being any contra report of any other laboratory, but on the ground that the other manufacturers were clearing the hose pipes under chapter 40. The National Test House is not a private laboratory. It is a Central Govt. organisation employing highly trained technical personnel and is equipped with modern technical equipments. As such as rightly argued by the respondents the test results cannot be taken lightly. We also find that it is not only the National Test House results which has been made the basis for classifying the product under chapter 84, but the Rubber Board has also showed the product to be of hardened rubber. In these circumstances we do not find any merits in the Revenue s appeal and accordingly reject the same.
-
2000 (3) TMI 109
... ... ... ... ..... over, the learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in TISCO s case, Supra in which benefit of the Notification 30/60 C.E. was allowed to steel ingots though manufactured out of duty paid pig iron and non-duty paid materials. The Supreme Court held that if the intention behind the notification was to deny the exemption if duty paid pig iron is mixed with non duty paid material, the notification would have used the word only , exclusively or entirely . In the present notification also these words have not been used and in absence of these words, even if camera can be used for various application, benefit of notification cannot be denied in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court s judgment. We also do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned D.R. that serial Nos. 11 to 13 are to be read together for the purpose of interpreting entry No. 13 in the list 24 of the Notification. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 108
Valuation (Central Excise) - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ence of the contract. In respect of second show cause notice the appellants have not rebutted the findings of the Commissioner to the effect that the goods were cleared without the cover of excise documents and without entering them in the statutory records. In view of non-rebuttal of these findings the very fact of the visit of the officer on 7-3-1987 cannot be a ground for non-invokation of extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. As we are holding that the cost of the disputed item is not to be included in the assessable value, the original adjudicating authority has to rework the assessable value with a view to determine whether any duty is to be demanded from the appellants. If any duty remains to be demanded from the appellants the amount of penalty is left to be imposed to the discretion of the Collector after following the principles of natural justice. 7. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 107
Issues involved: Confiscation of goods, duty demand, penalty imposition, under-valuation of imported goods.
Confiscation of Goods and Under-Valuation Charge: The impugned order confiscated a consignment of "Glass for Corrective Spectacles Lenses" and "Assorted White Optical Blanks," demanded duty on another consignment, and imposed penalties on the importer and their Directors for alleged under-valuation of the imported goods. The goods were purchased from a Hong Kong supplier but shipped directly from China. The Customs authorities relied on an invoice obtained from a third party, alleging that the declared value was lower than the actual price. The importer contested the charge, arguing that the third-party invoice was not genuine. However, the impugned order upheld the under-valuation charge based on Rule 10(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, stating that the importer failed to provide the invoice from the Chinese manufacturer, as required.
Authentication of Invoice and Lack of Credible Evidence: During the hearing, it was revealed that the copy of the invoice relied upon was not authenticated by any Customs officer, contrary to the observations in the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner's letter confirmed the non-availability of the original invoice and acknowledged the lack of credible evidence to substantiate the under-valuation charge. Both parties admitted the absence of permissible evidence, such as pricing of similar goods, to support the allegation. The reliance on Rule 10(1) regarding the invoice of the manufacturer was deemed irrelevant due to the unavailability of the manufacturer's invoice in the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the charge of under-valuation was not proven with credible evidence and set aside the impugned order, providing relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (3) TMI 104
Valuation (Central Excise) - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ral excise duty. We also find that the assessee had been filing price lists from time to time including their prices at depots. These prices had been verified by the Central Excise authorities and thereafter, only, the price at ex-factory stage was fixed as the basis for assessment. Therefore, the appellants cannot be charged with suppression of facts either. Accordingly, the demand of duty for the extended period was clearly beyond the provisions of Section 11A. 6. In view of the above discussions, the order has to be set aside on the basis of the demand being time-barred as well as on merits. We do so. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. 7. In view of the above decision, nothing further remains on the issue raised in appeal No.E/4813/91-A. The order of the Collector remitting the matter to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision is quashed and the order-in-original confirmed. The price lists as originally approved are confirmed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 102
Issues involved: Alleged contravention of condition 5 of notification 203/92, Modvat credit availed, duty demand, penalty imposition, transfer of advance license, compliance with notification conditions, importer's obligation to demonstrate compliance.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved a case where M/s. MSA Exports and Plast Chem Industries were issued a notice by the Commissioner of Customs alleging contravention of condition 5 of notification 203/92 due to Modvat credit being availed. The Commissioner demanded duty from Plast Chem and imposed a penalty on MSA Exports under Section 114A. MSA Exports' appeal was allowed as no duty was demanded from them. Plast Chem argued that as a transferee of the license, they were not required to prove non-availment of Modvat credit. The Tribunal clarified that the importer must demonstrate compliance with notification conditions, regardless of when the import occurred. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that the licensing authority must verify Modvat credit before permiting license transfer. The decision emphasized the importer's obligation to prove compliance and the department's responsibility to establish any misdeclaration or suppression. The Tribunal highlighted the need for clear evidence to invoke extended periods for duty demand, ultimately allowing both appeals and setting aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (3) TMI 101
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Redemption fine - Appellate Tribunal's order ... ... ... ... ..... g the landed cost, margin of profit thereon as per the normal formula. Thus, it appears that there has been no detailed findings as to how the quantum of redemption fine has been arrived at. 6. In view of the fact that the matter lies on a short compass and in view of the above findings, the order impugned appears to be suffering from non-application of mind and being a non-speaking order, therefore, after allowing the waiver and stay, we set aside the order impugned and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration. Learned original authority shall hear the submissions of the importer and deal with each of these submissions extensively in the interest of justice. Since the matter is old and the car is deteriorating being stored in open area under Customs warehousing, therefore, the learned Commissioner of Customs is directed to complete the de novo proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 100
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... national, it is clearly excludible. The claim for this deduction is, therefore, allowed. 2. From the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in the MRF cases and the decision of CEGAT in ICI India Ltd. case, it is clear that for the purpose of deduction of interest on receivables, it is not relevant as to whether the interest is collected separately or forms part of the gross price. This being the correct legal position, the denial of deduction towards interest on receivables in the present case was not justified on the ground that the same was not being charged separately. The matter is, therefore, required to be re-considered by the jurisdictional authorities and suitable deduction allowed. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the case remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for granting necessary relief to the appellants after ascertaining the correct position about the amount of deduction correctly due on account of interest on receivables.
-
2000 (3) TMI 99
Valuation (Central Excise) - Discount ... ... ... ... ..... on 4 is ordinarily determined with reference to the normal price at which such goods are sold, i.e., under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4. From this it is crystal clear that assessment to excise duty must be on the basis of normal price at which such goods are sold to each buyer. Section 4(1)(a) refers to the price at which goods are sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade. The department has no case that price realised by the assessee on sale to dealers is not the actual value. Department has no case that there was some flow back of money from buyer to the assessee. Nor have they an allegation that assessee and buyer are related. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated pursuant to show cause notices are contrary to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In these state of things, the view taken by the Commissioner in the impugned orders are unassailable. We do not find any merit in these appeals. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 98
Annual capacity of production ... ... ... ... ..... tter vide Notification cited by the learned Consultant. Obviously the Govt. of India felt the need for introducing such explanation in the rule in view of the dimension as contained in the order impugned. As against this, a perusal of the order impugned shows that the different structure and role for Hot air chambers and galleries has not been examined and discussed by the Commissioner in the said order. To this extent, it appears that the order is not a speaking order. 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, the order-in-original is set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration of the entire issue after hearing the submissions of the appellants. The learned Commissioner shall also examine the issue of the structure and role of the galleries vis-a-vis that of the hot air chamber stenter machine. The appeal is allowed by way of remand after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amount and stay of recovery of the same in the matter.
............
|