Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad on 14 February, 1989
Again in the case of Collector of C. Excise v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276, the Supreme Court has held that "in order to make the demand of duty sustainable beyond a period of six months and upto a period of 5 years in view of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, it has to be established that the duty of excise has not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of either fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder, with the intent to evade payment of duty. Something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before he is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months".
Jagraon Machine Tools vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 September, 1992
15. In view of our finding that old and unserviceable railway materials used as inputs by the appellants were treatable only as "old and unserviceable scrap" which, during the relevant period, was not one of the specified inputs in Notification No. 202/88, duty would be recoverable on the clearances of the final products in question that may have been cleared by the appellants within a period of six months of the date of the show cause notice. The appellants have argued that even if it is held that during the relevant period the final products were dutiable on account of the inputs used in the manufacture thereof not being specified in the Notification 202/88, on the ratio of the Tribunal's Final Order E/161/94-B1, dated 9-3-1994 in the case of Chamundi Steels Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore and the decision in the case of Jagraon Machine Tools v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 300 (Trib.), they would be entitled to Modvat credit that might have been admissible in respect of "re-rollable scrap" in terms of the relevant order of the Ministry. In this regard it is seen that in Final Order E/161/94-B1, dated 9-3-1994, the Tribunal having regard to the appellants contention that if benefit of Notification No. 202/88 is disallowed they would be entitled to Modvat credit in terms of Notification No. 177/86 read with Rules 57A to 57J of the Central Excise Rules, had remanded the matter to the Collector for consideration of the following issues :-
Collector Of Customs vs O.E.N. India Ltd. on 5 October, 1987
12. We find that the appellants contention that the question whether the used and unserviceable Railway materials used as inputs could be deemed as angles, shapes and sections has to be determined with reference to Note l(n) of Chapter 72 of the Tariff Schedule has no force at all. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. O.E.N. India Ltd., reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 235 that Interpretative Rules, Section Notes etc. governing the tariff are not relevant for the purpose of interpreting notifications.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Alco Industries on 7 February, 1991
As held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Collector of C. Excise v. Alco Industries, reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 184 in interpreting a taxing statute the words used therein have to be construed in their own context and in the sense as ordinarily understood by people usually conversant and dealing in such goods and scientific, technical or dictionary meaning should not be mechanically adopted.
Padmini Products vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 18 August, 1989
In the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that mere failure or negligence on the part of the manufacturer to take out a licence or not to pay duty in case where there was scope for doubt as to whether goods were dutiable or not would not attract the extended limitation.
Glindia Ltd. vs Union Of India on 19 April, 1988
3. Appearing on behalf of M/s. Vivek Re-rolling Mills, M/s. Bajrang Steel Rolling Mills, M/s. Bhartiya Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Vishal Steel Rolling Mills, Shri R. Santhanam, Learned Advocate stated that the show cause notice as well as the adjudication order clearly ignored the prevailing practice in respect of similar finished product as specifically approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs who had issued circulars from time to time to the effect that the inputs consisting of rejected railway material etc. could be treated as angles, shapes and sections specified in Column 2 against Serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988. He submitted that such inputs had always been regarded as duty paid and therefore the product manufactured therefrom had to be deemed as exempt from the payment of duty. He referred to the letter F. No. 139/40/87-CX4 dated 27-8-1987 issued by the Board in reply to the letter dated 29/30-4-1987 of the Central Excise Collectorate, Indore, wherein it was clarified that unserviceable railway material must be treated as angles, shapes and sections falling under Heading No. 7210.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that whether old used and unserviceable rails purchased by re-rollers for cutting and rolling into various other products could be considered as material for railway track came up for consideration earlier when the Central Board of Excise and Customs had clarified by a letter F. No. B/28/8/83-TRU dated 8-9-1983 that all these materials would be treatable as railway material under Item 25(11) of the erstwhile Tariff and not under Tariff Item 25(10) since they were to be regarded as shapes and sections and it was further clarified that in all such cases the benefit of the exemption Notification 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 would be admissible. He also referred to the Trade Notice No. 31/CE/83 (3-TI 25) dated 14-9-1983 issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate wherein it was accepted that used railway materials are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83. He contended that clarifications and circulars issued by the Board from time to time not having been withdrawn or modified during the period of demand, there was no justification for the Department to take a contrary view. He submitted that rejected railway materials were nothing but rollable or re-rollable materials which had been specifically included as inputs in Column 2 at Serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 33/92 dated 1-3-1992 and the amending notification being clarificatory in nature it must be regarded as having retrospective effect as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Glindia Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 479 and by CEGAT in a number of cases.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 3 September, 1991
In support of his contention he cited the decision in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 76 and Metal Fabric, reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 70.
Nagpur Engg. Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 12 October, 1992
Nagpur Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 699.