|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 278 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 322 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... be usefully referred to especially when the matter involves technical interpretation, one can safely come to the conclusion that the products merit classification under T.I. 34A. 12. emsp We may also add that in regard to Brake Valves-EI Single Circuit Brake System, the operation is described as follows - ldquo By operating the Treadle, the Plunger (i) transmits the force on to the graduating Piston (ii) through the graduating Spring (iii) The Graduating Piston moves down closing the Exhaust Valve (iv) On the Valve Seat in the Graduating Piston (v) Opening the Inlet Valve (vi) Pressure builds up due to air pressure, the Spring balances, the piston moves upwards closing the Inlet Valve and the Valve balances. rdquo In view of this description, it is clear that the product is only a piston. We do not accept the contentions that the term ldquo piston rdquo in Item 34A would apply only to pistons in the I.C. engines. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal
-
1987 (4) TMI 321 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e Tariff Schedule. 5. emsp Once the above position is reached, it follows that Customs Notification No. 240/78 has no application to the resent goods because that notification provides for concessional rate of duty in respect of watch parts etc. which fall under sub-heading (2) of Heading 91.01/11, only. Such not being the case here, the concessional rate of duty in terms of the said notification is not applicable. 6. emsp In these circumstances, we hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the so-called watch glasses made of acrylic material would come under Heading No. 39.07 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and that Notification No. 240/78 had no application to the present case and the appellants were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty in terms of that notification. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The Assistant Collector is directed to reassess the goods accordingly and grant consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
1987 (4) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Controlled drill - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... one in 1984-E.C.R. - 98 (supra). But that alone will not suffice to resolve the dispute. We have to consider whether ldquo printed drill rdquo satisfied the definition of ldquo drill rdquo by the Textile Commissioner. As earlier noted, the definition was ldquo any type of grey, bleached or piece-dyed cloth, whether or not mercerised or pre-shrunk rdquo . The appellants rsquo contention is that drill, for the reason it is printed, does not cease to be drill as defined above. The department rsquo s contention, on the other hand, is that it does. Evidently, printed drill is not ldquo grey rdquo drill nor is it ldquo bleached rdquo drill. There is no contention from the appellants that the subject drill is ldquo piece-dyed rdquo . The averment is that it is printed. If so, we have to hold that it did not conform to the above definition. In this view, the impugned order is upheld as correct. Appeal No. 2170 is also dismissed. The result is all the 3 appeals fail and are dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ch the value cannot be taken on the basis of the price list for the period commencing from October 1983 and the appellant has filed certificate from Mazda, Japan to the effect that the CIF price for export is offered by Sumitomo Corporation in India and Sumitomo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. In the certificate they have clearly mentioned that the car was sold to the appellant against order No. BYFORD/MAZDA/131 and Invoice No. UAE-83-0114 at a price of US 3638.00 CIF. It is surprising that the appellant, who is an individual and is not carrying on any business activity, the Customs Authorities are asking him to supply the price list etc. We hold that the lower authorities were not correct in adopting the value on the basis of October 1983 price list of Byford Ltd. The value declared by the appellant at US 3638.00 CIF Bombay is correct. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1987 (4) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... material constituted only 10 -15 of the product, it did not constitute the principal ingredient of the tiles and acted only as a binding agent. 10. emsp In the present case, it is true, the mineral binder constitutes the major component but the cellulose fibre component is only 9 and, therefore, the principle of Gujarat High Court rsquo s decision would still apply. 11. emsp However, Heading 68.01/16 of the Customs Tariff Schedule has also an entry reading ldquo articles of other mineral substances, not elsewhere specified or included rdquo and this fits the present goods. Heading 38.01/19 is a residuary heading. Apart from the issue whether at all the subject goods can be properly described as ldquo chemical products or preparations or residual products of the chemical or allied industries rdquo , the question of considering the said heading would not arise since we have found that the goods fall under Heading 68.01/16(1). 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1987 (4) TMI 317 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ifiable under Item 52 CET. No material has been placed before us by the appellants which would warrant out coming to a contrary conclusion. 5. emsp This Tribunal had, on several previous occasions, considered the classification of Bolts, nuts and screws specially made for motor vehicles and the like but came to the conclusion that notwithstanding that they were made specially for motor vehicles and the like such bolts, nuts and screws would be classifiable under Item No. 52 CET. The Tribunal rsquo s decision in Kwality Sales Corporation, Ludhiana v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh -1986 (23) E.L.T. 137 discusses the matter at great length. Following the ratio of the previous decisions of the Tribunal, we have to hold that the three articles in dispute before us were also correctly classifiable under Item No. 52 CET. 6. emsp In the result, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we uphold the Collector rsquo s order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e effect that ammonia compressors working in the air and gas fractionation plant are for process in the fertiliser plant and is not a part of refrigeration and air-conditioning machinery and is not connected with the refrigeration and air-conditioning plant. There is no dispute as to the facts of the case that the main business of the appellant is generation of electricity and one factory of the appellant also manufactures fertilizer and the cylinder was imported for use in the fertilizer plant. We feel that the lower authorities were not correct in holding that the imported item falls under sub-heading (3) of Heading 84.11 of CTA 75. We set aside the impugned order and hold that spares for fertilizer plant viz. cylinder for compressor imported by the appellant falls under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.11 of CTA 75. Accordingly we allow the appeal. The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order within four months from the receipt of the order.
-
1987 (4) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cinematograph films ... ... ... ... ..... re the Collector (Appeals) mainly raised two contentions i.e.(1) The order made by Asstt. Collector of Central Excise is misconceived. (2) Unless duty was levied against the Black and White Prints, Patch Prints would not be liable for duty. They never claimed the benefit of Notification 112/75 at all. While so, there is considerable force in the contention of the SDR that the benefit of Notification 112/75 would not be applicable to the present case. Even otherwise, the Collector (Appeals) has extracted the notification in question. It applies only to films made in Black and White other than advertisement shots. It is significant to note that Patch Prints have not been specified in the notification. The Patch Print is a replacement of fragment of a complete feature film. It cannot be said to be a feature film. The duty liability would, therefore, arise under Tariff Item 37(II)(2)-CET. We do not accept the findings of the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
classification ... ... ... ... ..... he Consultant for the Respondents, submitted that on the question of classification the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/43/83-B1 (Order No.106/86, dated 20-2-1987) had held that the GM bars produced by casting should be assessed under T.I. 26AA(ia). He urged that as the Respondents rsquo contention regarding the classification has been accepted by the Tribunal, there is no question of differential duty, much less for an extended period. He emphasized that the Appeal has to be dismissed in view of the decision on the classification. 5. Shri H.L.Venna, S.D.R., stated that in view of the decision of the Tribunal he had nothing further to add. 6. The present Appeal is only in regard to the demand for differential duty for the extended period. But the basis for the demand of the duty has been held against the Revenue in the order of the Tribunal cited supra. Hence the question of differential duty does not arise, much less a demand for the extended period. Hence this Appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 300 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... cessory, but an important component. 2. The learned Counsel for the department however said that the items came as separate items and are separately invoiced it is therefore not possible to assess this at the same rate as the main machine. 3. For our part, we note that in their revision application dated 12-8-1982, M/s. Vaz Forwarding made no mention of the item in the bill of entry which covers band pass filters. This is Item II to the bill of entry they claim reassessment for Items III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII. It is clear therefore that there is no ground before us for this appeal in respect of band pass filter which, according to Mr. Ram is the only item whose reassessment they seek now. 4. Accordingly we reject this appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty premature if assessment not finalised ... ... ... ... ..... at this Tribunal is not precluded from deciding this appeal although dispute of classification is pending in the High Court. 2. We have, therefore, heard both sides for deciding this appeal. Admittedly, the classification of the goods and the assessment have not yet been finalised. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the appellants under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. For imposing penalty under this Rule, it is necessary that the goods should be excisable. As the assessment has not yet been finalised, the question of excisability of the goods is to be treated as still open. Imposition of penalty at this stage is premature. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Digboi to decide the question of excisability of the goods, finalise the provisional assessment and then impose penalty, if any, warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case according to the provisons of law.
-
1987 (4) TMI 298 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... sical form and substance capable of being rolled are used for melting. In their appeal, the department, contends that the appellants never contended that these scraps could not be used for production of any other iron and steel products falling under Tariff Item 26AA. 4. Sh. H.L. Verma, SDR submitted that the issue involved has been considered in Order No. III and 112/86, dated 28-2-1986 M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur v. C.C.E., Calcutta (A. No. ED/142/76 and ED/1844/85) . 5. Sh. P.K. Ram, Advocate, submitted that the order of the Appellate Collector has considered the issue on all aspects. 6. The ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Order No. 111-112/86, dated 24-2-1986 directly applies to the facts of the case. The Tribunal has held that such scrap is re-rollable scrap and the same is applicable to the facts in issue. Following the earlier Ruling of the Tribunal, we hold that there is no force in the contention of the respondents and the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... that in the said case also the claim for re-assessment was rejected on the basis of the grammage of the paper imported which was 210 grams per square metre, the same being the grammage in the instant appeals also. The Tribunal had held, after a discussion of all relevant material including technical literature, that the goods imported were properly classifiable under heading 48.01/21(3)CTA. Shri Vineet Kumar conceded that the facts of the present appeals are exactly similar to the facts in the cited case. But he submitted that he would reiterate all the arguments as advanced for the Department in the cited case. 4. Following the decision in the Sunrise Agency rsquo s case we hold that the goods involved in the present appeals were also properly classifiable under heading 48.01/21(3) CTA. These appeals are accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside, the goods being ordered to be classified under heading 48.01/21(3) CTA with consequential relief.
-
1987 (4) TMI 296 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... parts would not make it different from the coil. He, therefore, upheld the Assistant Collector rsquo s order. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We heard Shri K.K. Koshy, who in support of his pleas relied upon the Orders of the Tribunal (Order Nos. 1041/86-B2 and 1042/86-B2, dated 16-10-1986). Shri J. Gopinath, ld. S.D.R. confirmed the factual position. He further agreed that pot cores are invariably made of ferrits and that they are part of inductors and are not inductors by themselves. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and also perused Tribunal rsquo s Orders Nos. 1041/86-B2 and 1042/86-B2, dated 16-10-1986. In fact there is no dispute that goods covered under this appeal are made of ferrite. As such neither from their nature nor on the basis of the materials of which they were composed of can these goods be excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 172/77-Cus., dated 8-8-1977. Keeping in view the position, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1987 (4) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Weighing machines ... ... ... ... ..... e Supdt., we notice that he has referred to the function of an electronic b E.L.T. weigher. Though the appellants urged before the Appellate Authority that they manufactured only the components, the Appellate Authority has stated that all modes of weighment are included in this Tariff Item. The authorities below appear to have been influenced by the Brochure produced by the party in regard to the belt weigher. We are not concerned with the belt weigher or weigh feeder but components parts thereof. Each of the component part has to be examined and we have to find out whether these parts would attract duty under TI 45. It was also pointed out that no show cause notice was issued to the appellants before the classification was determined. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay for de novo adjudication in the light of observations contained in this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (4) TMI 294 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... might be disposed of on merits on the basis of the record. We have, therefore, heard Shri K.C. Sachar, for the department and perused the records. In the memo of appeal, the appellants have relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in another appeal involving a similar issue which is reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1182. In that order, the appellants rsquo claim for classification of the goods under heading No. 84.65 was upheld. 2. However, Shri Sachar draws our attention to Order No. 276-277/85-D, dated 30-8-1985 in another appeal of the same appellants involving the same issue. This appeal which has disposed of by a 5 Member Bench of this Tribunal over-ruled the decision reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1182 and held that the correct classification of carbon rings was under heading No. 68.01/16(1) and not 84.65. Following this decision, we hold that the classification adopted by the lower authorities in the present case was correct. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... order dated 25-1-1984. This appeal is by the Collector of Central Excise against the said order. 2. Shri Madhav Rao, Advocate for the respondents points out that the classification of such stop light switches came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd., 1987 (31) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.), and that the High Court had accepted that these switches cannot be classified under Item 61-CET and would, therefore, fall under Item 68-CET. He further pointed out that this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Automotive Ancillary Services, 1987 (32) E.L.T. 735 (Tribunal) followed the Bombay High Court judgment though not with reference to stop light switches but other similar switches. Smt. Zutshi for the Department confirms that the said decisions cover the present dispute and has, therefore, nothing further to add except reiterating the submissions in the appeal memorandum. 3. Respectfully following the decisions cited we dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s for classification of goods under Heading 84.45/48 cannot be accepted as according to Section Note 2(a) and 2(b) to Section XVI, Clutches are classifiable under Heading 84.63 being specifically covered by that Heading. Parts of clutches would also fall under the same way by virtue of Sec. Note 2(b) to Section XVI. Shri Ray has nothing to say in this regard as this is the position according to the Tariff classification. 5. After considering the submissions made by both sides and persuing the drawings, invoice and Tariff, we accept the arguments of the ld. SDR regarding classification. We accept the appellants claim that the imported goods are parts of a Turret Lathe and order that the goods covered by invoice should be considered to be part of vertical lathe. In view of what the ld. SDR submitted, we find that the goods are classifiable under Heading 84.63-CTA. We order accordingly, and direct that consequential relief be given to the appellants. 6. Pronounced in open Court.
-
1987 (4) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Extra packing charges ... ... ... ... ..... e, not. (6) Service charges. - It is not clear from the record as to for what service these charges were realised. We are, therefore, not in a position to say definitely as to whether they would be deductible or not deductible. The lower authority may ascertain the true nature of the service charges and then decide their admissibilily or otherwise in the light of the Supreme Court judgments. 6. Brake-up of the admissible and inadmissible elements of cost, as per our observations above, is not available on the record. The appellants are directed to furnish such break-up to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Thereupon, the Assistant Collector should re-quantify the amount of the demands in the light of our above observations. 7. Accordingly, we allow the ten appeals, set aside the lower orders and remand all the matters to the Assistant Collector for a fresh adjudication in the light of our observations above.
-
1987 (4) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Trade discount ... ... ... ... ..... and credit notes. In respect of vehicles supplied to Civilian Indentors, the invoices included an amount of Rs. 1,000/- over and above the price declared in the price lists. This amount appears as an item in the invoices. We also note that the appellants issued credit notes to the dealer for Rs. 1,000/- with reference to the invoice under which the vehicles sold to the Civilian Indentors. On these clear facts it has to be held that at the time and place of sale, the amount received by the appellants as consideration for the sale included the amount of Rs. 1,000. The fact that at a subsequent point the same amount was given to the dealer does not alter this fact. The provisions of Section 4 are quite clear in this regard. The item deductable from the price are defined therein. Therefore there is no question of exclusion of this amount from the sale price. In the circumstances we hold that the order passed by authorities below are correct in law. We therefore reject the appeal.
........
|
