Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.33 seconds)Tata Yodogawa Limited And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 September, 1986
The Tribunal decision following the decisions reported in Tata Yodogawa Ltd. v. Union of India -1987 (32) E.L.T. 521 and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1984 ECR 1336 was that the manufacturer was eligible for the concession of Notification 206/63, dated 30-11-1963 even if the raw material was exempt from duty.
Sulekh Ram And Sons vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1971
Taking note of this clarification as well as a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sulekh Ram & Sons v. Union of India -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 525), and Supreme Court judgment in N.B. Sanjana v. The Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 399) and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 416) it was held by their Lordships of the Patna High Court in the Tata Yodogawa case that the term "the duty already paid" used in Notification No. 66/73 must mean the duty contracted to have been paid and the instructions issued by the Board for the purpose of Notification 150/77 for the grant of exemption to goods made from exempted material would equally apply to Notification 66/73 also. The Collector has sought to distinguish these cases from the present one by stating that the Notification in question here contains a proviso that the exemption shall apply only if no credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules has been taken on the input from which such scrap has been generated or if such credit had been taken, an amount equivalent to such credit taken on such inputs from which the scrap has been generated should be debited back in the relevant account of the assessee. He has, therefore, observed that since the non-taking of credit of duty paid on the inputs is provided for, there should be payment of duty on the inputs and that if the inputs are exempted from duty such a condition will become irrelevant and hence not applicable. We find that though this argument is attractive, it cannot be accepted as the Notification 66/73 dealt with in the Tata Yodogaiua judgment also contained a similar provision that no set off or proforma credit had been availed of in respect of the duty paid on the steel melting scrap used in the manufacture of steel ingots. But there is an important additional provision in the present Notification with which we are concerned, which was referred to by the learned Senior Departmental Representative during his argument. He referred to the Explanation in the Notification which excludes stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non duty paid from the stocks in the country which are deemed to be goods on which duty has already been paid. The submission is valid. Such an exclusion was not there in the notifications considered in the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants. Hence it is necessary to look into this question.
N.B. Sanjana, Assistant Collector Of ... vs Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 22 January, 1971
Taking note of this clarification as well as a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sulekh Ram & Sons v. Union of India -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 525), and Supreme Court judgment in N.B. Sanjana v. The Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 399) and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 416) it was held by their Lordships of the Patna High Court in the Tata Yodogawa case that the term "the duty already paid" used in Notification No. 66/73 must mean the duty contracted to have been paid and the instructions issued by the Board for the purpose of Notification 150/77 for the grant of exemption to goods made from exempted material would equally apply to Notification 66/73 also. The Collector has sought to distinguish these cases from the present one by stating that the Notification in question here contains a proviso that the exemption shall apply only if no credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules has been taken on the input from which such scrap has been generated or if such credit had been taken, an amount equivalent to such credit taken on such inputs from which the scrap has been generated should be debited back in the relevant account of the assessee. He has, therefore, observed that since the non-taking of credit of duty paid on the inputs is provided for, there should be payment of duty on the inputs and that if the inputs are exempted from duty such a condition will become irrelevant and hence not applicable. We find that though this argument is attractive, it cannot be accepted as the Notification 66/73 dealt with in the Tata Yodogaiua judgment also contained a similar provision that no set off or proforma credit had been availed of in respect of the duty paid on the steel melting scrap used in the manufacture of steel ingots. But there is an important additional provision in the present Notification with which we are concerned, which was referred to by the learned Senior Departmental Representative during his argument. He referred to the Explanation in the Notification which excludes stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non duty paid from the stocks in the country which are deemed to be goods on which duty has already been paid. The submission is valid. Such an exclusion was not there in the notifications considered in the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants. Hence it is necessary to look into this question.
Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 23 July, 1996
In a number of Tribunal decisions which had followed the Patna High Court judgment in Tata Yodogaiva Ltd. v. Union of India -1987 (32) E.L.T. 521, it has been held that where the raw material is covered by an exemption Notification it is to be treated as having paid the appropriate duty leviable thereon and exemption on the finished product made from materials on which the duty of excise or additional duty of customs has already been paid will be admissible to such products made from exempted materials. He also referred to clarificatory instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance, to that effect. Shri Sridharan then submitted that, without prejudice to his aforesaid contention on merits, the show cause notice was entirely barred by limitation. There was no suppression or wilful mis-statement. They had submitted their invoices covering the goods in question along with their RT 12 returns and there was in fact no evasion at all. The decisions referred to by him and the Ministry's instructions will clearly justify department's understanding that exemption under such notification was available even when the product is made from material exempted from duty. The longer time limit applied by the Collector was not justified, he contended. After his arguments on merits and on limitation, Shri Sridharan submitted that the Collector was in error in applying the provisions of Section 12D of Central Excises and Salt Act to their case. This provision lays down that every person who has collected any amount from the buyer of any goods as representing duty of excise shall pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. This was not applicable in their case at all as they had not collected any amount as excise duty from their customers. Moreover, this section came into effect only in September, 1991 and does not apply to assessments already completed by them. He cited Calcutta High Court judgment in Gopal Hosiery - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 542. Moreover, this provision applies only where any amount is collected as duty of excise. They had not collected any amount as excise duty and hence there is no liability under Section 11D cast on them. The learned Counsel pleaded in conclusion that the appeal be allowed.
Machine Builders vs Collector Of Central Excise on 2 February, 1996
6. We find that this question has been considered by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Machine Builder and Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur and Ors. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 576. It was held therein that the words '"inputs clearly recognisable as being non duty paid' comprehends all inputs on which it is patent that duty has actually not been paid for any reason i.e. rate of duty is stated to be nil rate in the Schedule to the Tariff Act or the inputs are wholly exempt from duty or for any reason". This view would point to the possibility of the exemption under the subject Notification not being admissible to Aluminium waste and scrap manufactured from wholly exempted Aluminium falling under 76.01 to 76.08 and 7616.90.
Andhra Re-Rolling Works, Hyderabad vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 1986
- Re-Rolling Works, Hyderabad v. U.O.I. and Ors., the appeal is admitted and it is referred to a Large Bench of at least three judges."
Union Of India And Others vs Jain Spinners Ltd. And Another on 10 September, 1992
10. The contention was raised by the appellants that no amount had actually been collected by them as duty from their customers. The Collectors has disputed this claim made before him. The purchase orders placed on them by their customers showed that the price was inclusive of duty. The Collector has referred to one Gate pass, namely GP 1 No. 36, dated 31-3-1993 for goods cleared. The Collector had held that the violation of Section 1 ID is obvious and the amount of duty recovered from the buyers is recoverable under that Section and that it can be recovered even if it pertained to the period prior to introduction of Section 11D on 19-9-1991. He has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Jain Spinners -1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 for his finding that Section 3 of Central Excise & Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 through which Section 11D was introduced has got retrospective effect. On a perusal of the said judgment we find that the question decided therein was the amended provisions of Section 11B. It was observed by the Supreme Court that on 20-9-1991, the Central Excise & Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 came into operation making the amended provisions of Section 11B applicable with retrospective effect to all pending applications for refund of duty. Such retrospective applicability of Section 11D in the manner held by the Collector is not apparent from a perusal of that Section. Even going by the department's allegation that the appellants had recovered certain sums as duty from their buyers, they could not be expected to make the payment of such sum to the Government before the coming into force of Section 11D(1). Obviously, such a requirement is capable of compliance only where such collection of any amount as duty takes place after the introduction of the said Section. There is no express provision in the Section as to what the Central Excise officers are to do by way of notice, adjudication etc. when the payment is not made by the concerned person as required thereunder. The show cause notice as well as the impugned order refer to certain Gate Passes and invoices as illustrations which, as pointed out in the appeal, are of a date (30-6-1993) not covered in the period relating to the show cause notice. The appellants have contended that they are charging the same price from their customers for waste and scrap manufactured from duty paid indigenous Aluminium rods as well as from imported rods which are exempted from duty. The Collector has referred to certain invoices and Gate Passes to reach a finding that the appellants had in fact recovered a higher price as excise duty. But, as pointed out in the appeal these are stray documents numbering one or two which relate to a period not covered in the notice. Moreover, the "order" portion in the impugned order only seeks to confirm the demand of Rs. 7,74,792.08, under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. This demand has been held by us to be barred by limitation. No order has been passed under Section 11D of the Act. No order thereunder is also called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The same will hold good for the penalty also. Accordingly, the impugned order demanding duty and imposing penalty is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Section 1 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Assistant Collector Of Central ... vs National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd on 9 August, 1972
Taking note of this clarification as well as a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sulekh Ram & Sons v. Union of India -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 525), and Supreme Court judgment in N.B. Sanjana v. The Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 399) and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 416) it was held by their Lordships of the Patna High Court in the Tata Yodogawa case that the term "the duty already paid" used in Notification No. 66/73 must mean the duty contracted to have been paid and the instructions issued by the Board for the purpose of Notification 150/77 for the grant of exemption to goods made from exempted material would equally apply to Notification 66/73 also. The Collector has sought to distinguish these cases from the present one by stating that the Notification in question here contains a proviso that the exemption shall apply only if no credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules has been taken on the input from which such scrap has been generated or if such credit had been taken, an amount equivalent to such credit taken on such inputs from which the scrap has been generated should be debited back in the relevant account of the assessee. He has, therefore, observed that since the non-taking of credit of duty paid on the inputs is provided for, there should be payment of duty on the inputs and that if the inputs are exempted from duty such a condition will become irrelevant and hence not applicable. We find that though this argument is attractive, it cannot be accepted as the Notification 66/73 dealt with in the Tata Yodogaiua judgment also contained a similar provision that no set off or proforma credit had been availed of in respect of the duty paid on the steel melting scrap used in the manufacture of steel ingots. But there is an important additional provision in the present Notification with which we are concerned, which was referred to by the learned Senior Departmental Representative during his argument. He referred to the Explanation in the Notification which excludes stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non duty paid from the stocks in the country which are deemed to be goods on which duty has already been paid. The submission is valid. Such an exclusion was not there in the notifications considered in the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants. Hence it is necessary to look into this question.