Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-04-2003
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC798
..... excise, pune, 1997 (91) elt 540 (sc). it is also submitted that m/s. papl will not come within the definition of 'related person' in terms of section 4(4)(c) of the central excise act, 1944. in union of india v. bombay tyre international ltd., '1984 (2) ecc 102 (sc) : 1983 elt 1896 the supreme court has held that on a ..... proper interpretation of the definition of 'related person' in sub-section (4)(c) of section 4, the words 'a relative and distributor of the assessee' do not refer to any distributor but they are limited only to a distributor who is a relative of the assessee within the meaning of the companies act, 1856.in the present case since the revenue has not ..... been able to establish that m/s. papl is a relative, the fact that it is a distributor or a dealer will not bring it under the definition in sub-section (4)(c) of section 4. the appellant further pointed out that it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-04-2003
Reported in : (2003)LC611Tri(Delhi)
..... under challenge in the present appeal.4. the very first contention of the appellant is that the order of valuation is contrary to the legal provisions contained in section 14 of the customs act and rule 4 of the customs valuation rules as interpreted by the apex court. it is further contended that the finding regarding age of machine is incorrect and ..... the basis for comparison. not another transaction in respect of new machinery, several years back. time is the essence in business transaction. and valuation provisions in customs law stress this.section 14 specifically states that value for "delivery at the time and place of importation" is to take for the purpose of valuation of imported goods. we also observe that in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-22-2003
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC648
..... , accordantly, uphold the demand of duty.12. we, however, agree with the learned advocate that confiscation of the seized goods is not warranted as the duty under section 3a of the central excise act is payable on the basis of the annual capacity of production as determined by the commissioner. we, therefore, set aside the confiscation ordered by the commissioner. for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-14-2003
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC615
..... cannot be claimed by revenue that duty was not paid /short paid by reasons of fraud, suppression etc. we, therefore, set aside the demand for interest under section 11ab of the act. as the amount of duty involved is more than rs. 1 lakh, land building, plant and machinery used in the factory is confiscatable. we, however, reduce ..... those show cause notices involved in these proceedings are for the subsequent period within six months time limit. we reduce the same as under:- interest under section 11ab of the act is not demandable as these show cause notices were issued after issue of show cause notice dated 28.2.97 and that too for subsequent period ..... both the assessee and the buyer. when it is the same person the authorities can certainly fall back on the third proviso to clause (a) of section 4(1) of the act, to arrive at the value of the excisable goods." he contended that considering all the circumstances cumulatively, shahnaz ayurvedics and shaherb cosmetics are related persons inasmuch .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-14-2003
Reported in : (2003)(162)ELT626TriDel
..... has held that rules of interpretation are applicable to exemption notification as well.8. the learned senior counsel finally submitted that the provisions of section 11ac of the act are invokable for imposition of penalty as they had wilfully mis stated the facts to evade payment of duty; that both the plants apart ..... mere filing the declaration on 6-3-2000 and claiming benefit of exemption notification cannot amount to wilful misstatement warranting imposition of penalty under section 11ac of the central excise act. it has been also the consistent view of the tribunal that when classification list/declaration has been filed by the manufacturer, extended period ..... the learned advocate has emphasised that as there was no suppression or wilfull misstatement on their part, imposition of penalty on the appellants under section 11ac of the central excise act is not warranted and if their this contention is accepted they would not challenge the demand of duty confirmed against them. we, therefore, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-07-2003
Reported in : (2003)(90)ECC117
..... appellant no. 1 was suppressed by them from the department; that the commissioner has given his findings in the impugned order for invoking the provisions of proviso to section 11a(1) of the act; that penalty is thus imposable on both the appellants.7.1. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. notification no. 175/86-c.e. ( ..... and clearance of product was known to the revenue all the time; that none of the ingredients such as suppression, wilful mis-statement, etc., mentioned in proviso to section 11a(1) of the act exists in the instant case. reliance has been placed on the decision in tata iron & steel co.ltd. v. uoi, 1987 (32) e.l.t. 676 (pat ..... (p) ltd. are bearing the brand name "anand" belonging to m/s. bec fertilisers ltd. and whether both of them are 'related persons' in terms of section 4 of the central excise act.2.1 shri l.p. asthana, learned advocate, submitted that m/s. beco chemicals (p) ltd., appellant no. 1 are a small-scale unit manufacturing plant growth .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-2003
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC643
..... to evade payment of duty does not arise. he also mentioned that the quantification of demand, if any, should be done in terms of provisions of section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the central excise act. reliance has been placed on the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of srichakra tyres ltd. v. commissioner of central ..... of such a letter, it cannot be claimed by the revenue that "sundar" was a brand name registered in favour of m/s. srs under the trade and merchandise marks act. the revenue has also not brought on record any registration certificate issued by the competent authority registering 'sundar' as a brand name in favour of m/s. srs. it ..... .3. the learned advocate, further, submitted that the name 'sundar' is not registered brand name of srs; that it is only registered for its artistic work under the copyright act; that the department has proceeded on the erroneous premise that 'sundar' is a registered brand name of srs for foot wear; that registration under the copyright .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-2003
Reported in : (2003)(110)LC126Tri(Delhi)
..... process undertaken by them on the raw materials do not amount to manufacture. once the process of manufacture takes place. central excise duty is leviable under section 3 of the act irrespective of the fact that the goods after being manufactured fall in the same heading. in fact, the learned advocate himself mentioned that under the ..... decision in the case of madras petro chem ltd. v. commissioner of central excise wherein the supreme court has upheld the invocation of proviso to section 11a of the central excise act as under the self removal procedure, the primary obligation of an assessee is to make proper declarations and entries in rgi, fate passes and ..... the board that quite a lot of unnecessary litigation and avoidable work is created by indiscriminate issue of show cause notices invoking the proviso to section 11a of the central excise act even when there is no fraud or misdeclaration, etc., for example where there has been an established practice well within the knowledge of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2003
Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT534TriDel
..... proposition that the board's circular should also be taken to have ruled out the molybdenum wire being considered as an 'appliance'. the instruction of the board under section stb of the central excise act is binding on the revenue as held by the apex court in the judgments cited by the id. counsel. the ruling given by the constitution bench of ..... language as well as in s.b. sarkar's book "words and phrases of excise & customs" 3rd edition. the dr also referred to the meaning of the term 'tools' under section 60(1)(b) of the code of civil procedure as interpreted by the madras high court in the case of t.r. punnavanam pillai v. v. muthuswami achari [air 1962 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-2003
Reported in : (2003)(87)ECC638
..... disposed of by the hon'ble high court on 27.8.2001. relevant portion of the order is extracted below: "notice issued under section 28 and section 111 of the customs act, 1962 (in short the act) is assailed in this writ petition. learned solicitor general, on instructions submits that the notice may be treated to be one for the ..... purpose of finalisation of the assessment in terms of section 18(2) of the act." the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the above submission made by the learned solicitor general.6. in the meantime, a second show ..... they were importing goods from joseph e seagram & sons, scotland, a related party. the goods were cleared on the basis of provisional assessment in terms of section 18 of the customs act, 1962. thereafter the dri conducted certain inquiries and a show cause notice dated 19.12.2000 was issued covering 186 bills of entry during the period january .....
Tag this Judgment!