Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
C.C.E. Meerut-Ii vs M /S. Honda Seil Power Products Ltd on 22 April, 2016 cites

C.C.E.,Visakhapatnam vs M/S.Mehta & Co on 10 February, 2011

6. We find that in the product i.e. PVC coated and laminated fabric manufactured, the appellant use the base fabric cotton Hoseiry Cloth(Knitted cloth) falling under chapter 60 as base fabric. From the Tariff entry it is very clear that under chapter heading 5903 the coated fabric of base fabric of cotton of chapter 52 is classifiable under 5903.11 or 5903.19. Coated fabric made of base fabric by Chapter 54 or Chapter 55 are classifiable under chapter sub heading 5903.21 or 5903.25 and other coated fabric are classifiable under Chapter sub heading 5903.91 or 5903.99. In the present case since the coated fabric manufactured by the appellant is not made of base fabric of chapter 52, 54 or 55 therefore is not classifiable either under chapter sub heading 5903.19 or 5903.29. In view of this undisputed fact the product in question is correctly classifiable under chapter 5903.99 and therefore correctly extended the benefit of Notification No. 141/86 CE dated 1/3/1986. under Sr. No 10 of the table and Notification No. 63/86 dated 1/3/1987 under Sr. No. 5 of the table appended thereto. As regard the judgment of Natson Laminates(supra)., Asian Leather Cloth MFG. Co. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 32 - M Sharma - Full Document

Nizam Sugar Factory vs Collector Of Central Excise on 4 October, 1999

4. Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the respondent pleaded that there was absolutely no willful misstatement/ suppression of facts in this case inasmuch as the Respondent had clearly brought to the notice of Revenue vide its letters dated 20.07.1999 and 20.09.1999 intimating that it was bringing pump from outside and the same would be placed in single carton for assembly with Honda Engine at the dealers premises for ultimate use in the manufacture of pump sets under the provisions of interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the payment of duty applicable under Chapter 84.13 with the relvant notification. The SCN raising the imposed demand (which has been dropped by the Commissioner as time barred) was issued for the period September 1999 to February 2002, which makes it obvious that the demand pertains to the period which is after the Revenue was intimated about the practice to be followed by the respondent. The Ld. Advocate cited the judgment of Nizam Sugar Factory vs Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)], Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. vs UOI [2011 (269) E.L.T. 159 (Guj.)]
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007

As may be observed from the above quoted Circular of the Board, the Board clarified as to how the classification of pump set would be dealt with and how they would be eligible for the benefit of the then Notification No. 56/1995 dated 16.03.1995. Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation (supra) has observed that when there was scope for entertaining a bonafide doubt the extended period of limitation was not available. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the suppression of facts/ willful misstatement is a combined question of facts and law, and therefore, precedential value of various judgments on this issue has to be determined in the context of the facts of each case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 182 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M/S. Bhor Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 4 March, 2015

Indeed in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. (supra) the Ld. Tribunal had an occasion to deal with this issue and essentially held that issuance of SCN for normal period is no ground for not invoking extended period of limitation while issuing subsequent Show cause notice for an earlier period if there was willful misstatement/ suppression of facts in relation to the earlier period. Issuance of earlier SCN for normal period does not change nature of suppression etc. Para 6 of the said judgment is this regard is reproduced below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Entremonde Polyecoaters Ltd. on 6 November, 2000

and CCE Vs. Entremonde Polyecoaters Ltd(supra). It is observed that in all these judgment the issue involved was that if the base fabric falls under Chapter 60 whether exemption Notification No. 141/86 CE dated 1/3/1986. and Notification No. 63/86 dated 1/3/1987 can be allowed wherein under column of rate of duty, chapter heading of base fabric is mentioned as 52, 54 or 55. In the present case since in the remand matter this Tribunal has observed that on the basis of base fabric of Chapter 60 used the products correct classification is under 5903.99 and following the same the Ld. Commissioner has correctly come to the conclusion that exemption provided to the goods of Chapter 5903.99 is admissible therefore the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel are distinguished on this ground. As regard the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the show cause notice issued for the period 1/3/86 to 31/1/89 is time barred as appellant had been filing their classification list from time to time and same were approved, hence, there was no suppression of facts and mis-declaration. We observed that in the classification list the appellant admittedly mentioned rate 6 per sq. mtr. plus the duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 52, if not already paid. From this mention it is clear that department is under belief that base fabric used by the appellant is falling under chapter 52 whereas the appellant used the base fabric which is falling under Chapter 60, therefore this is a clear mis-declaration of the fact. As regard submission of Ld. Counsel that stock was verified physically by the departmental officer, we are of the view that though the stock of the goods was verified but from the stock verification officer cannot ascertain whether the base fabric used in the product is falling under Chapter 52 or Chapter 60. Therefore we do not agree with the submission of the Ld. Counsel on this count. We therefore of the view that there is clear suppression of facts and mis-declaration on the part of the appellant therefore extended period was rightly invoked. As regard submission of the Ld. Counsel that show cause notice issued is time barred also on the ground that show cause notice for the extended period i.e. 1/3/86 to 31/1/1989 was issued on 26/2/1991 subsequent to the show cause notice of normal period i.e. 18/7/1989. On this, We are of the view that during the period 1/3/86 to 31/1/89 the appellant has suppressed and mis-declared facts therefore show cause notice for the said period can be issued up to five years. Only because show cause notice for the extended period was issued subsequently, nature of suppression and misdeclaration does not get extinguished. We therefore do not agree with this submission of the Ld. Counsel. In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is sustainable. The appeal is dismissed. The respondent has also cited several judgments on this aspect. However, a detailed and thorough discussion on this point in the light of the judgments cited by the Ld. Advocate for respondent, even if arguably required, is not necessary for the purpose of the present case as would be evident from the following paras.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1