Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 150 Records
-
1992 (6) TMI 129 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Revision - Review - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... judicially. Consequently, it ceases to be a decision. At the most it may be an executive decision which is not appealable under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Act. 6. The facts of that case are very similar to the facts of this case. The real test is whether there is a duty cast on the Collector to decide judicially. The second requirement is that the decision requires communication. The Collector should decide the matter judicially and the mere affixing of the signature by the Collector on a note made by the lower authorities seeking approval of the proposal does not amount to taking a decision judicially. It ceases to be a decision and at the most it may be an executive decision which is not appealable under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In that view of the matter also, this appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, we uphold the preliminary contention raised by the learned Advocate, Shri Nankani and consequently, this appeal is dismissed as being not maintainable.
-
1992 (6) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Testing charges ... ... ... ... ..... practice at least from October, 1983 when it had raised demands in RT-12 for the months of October, 1983 to March, 1984 and May, 1984 in the said adjudication order dated 25-8-1984 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. It cannot therefore be said, as contended by the department and found by the adjudicating authority that the department was not aware of the practice of collection of charges for special tests by the appellants. The demand of duty therefore, for the period October, 1983 onwards is wholly time-barred, the show cause notice having been issued for the period beyond six months. The demand of duty for the period November, 1982 to July, 1983 is in any case time-barred, the period being beyond five years. The demand of duty only for the period from 8-7-1983 to September, 1983 alone would be within time. This finding is, however, only of academic interest, in view of our finding on the first issue. 6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (6) TMI 127 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... ar as the lorry owner is concerned, he had taken adequate precautions to see that the goods had suffered duty and the fact that the gate pass did not bear the lorry number or correct date on which duty had been paid may not by itself justify confiscation of the lorry in terms of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 made applicable under Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Notification 68/63 dated 4-5-1963. The proceedings being penal in nature, the appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstance of the case particularly when there is nothing on record to indicate either knowledge or mens rea in regard to the commission of any offence on the part of the appellant more so when the goods bad been found to be admittedly duty paid. Even otherwise, the lapse at the manufacturer rsquo s end was technical in nature. Keeping all these factors in mind we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1992 (6) TMI 126 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay - Predeposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... The Chairman, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board, Bangalore. On going through the above order and other facts and circumstances and the various correspondence set out above, prima facie we are inclined to think that the ad hoc exemption order would take within its ambit the project of the petitioner taken on job work basis so as to exempt the same from the levy of excise duty. We also take note of the fact that even otherwise prima facie there is force in the contention of the learned counsel with reference to the applicability of bar of limitation in the context of the admitted facts and circumstances in the case. We, therefore, for the above reasons on prima facie grounds grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending disposal of the appeals. We also grant stay of recovery of the duty and penalty in question pending disposal of the appeals. 6. The appeals being Special Bench appeals, the papers are directed to be transmitted to CEGAT, New Delhi, for disposal.
-
1992 (6) TMI 125 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Import Policy - Conflict in provisions ... ... ... ... ..... g on the part of the Government for permitting the import of such like goods in modernised society and as such, the Public Notice dated 28-11-1991 was issued removing all doubts, specifically in view of the fact that the bracketted portion of para-220(3)(iii), i.e. ldquo (excluding office machines) rdquo , was deleted. In that view of the matter, we are of opinion that the import of the subject goods is in accordance with the para-195A of the Import Policy, 1990-93 and it cannot be said that there is any violation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. In that view of the matter, the confiscation of the goods in question and the order of redemption on payment of a Redemption Fine and the imposition of penalty, are not in accordance with law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods in question and the imposition of penalty on the appellants are hereby set aside. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1992 (6) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Precedents and Practices ... ... ... ... ..... e implementation of Tribunal rsquo s order. Whether this is done by reconstruction of file or by obtaining original and duplicate Bill of Entry from M.C.D. or otherwise and/or taking suitable precautions and orders of the proper higher executive authorities, it is for them to solve their problem but in so far as Tribunal is concerned, the order of the Tribunal is required to be complied with promptly in the normal course. More than one year has passed in this case and we cannot allow this game of pingpong to go on ad infinitum. We will not allow the very purpose of the appeal to be defeated and the order of the Tribunal to be rendered ineffective. 6. Hence, the Department may note that if full compliance is not reported by the next date of hearing, the Tribunal may take more serious view of the matter and we may be constrained to issue notice for contempt. A copy of this order may be sent direct to the Collector by name. To come up for mention and further orders on 27-8-1992.
-
1992 (6) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI units ... ... ... ... ..... benefit of full exemption or concessional rate in terms of paras 1(a) and 1(b) of the notification. And in terms of para 7 of the Notification the goods which are manufactured in an SSI Unit and affixed with brand name of another person who himself is not eligible to SSI exemption are chargeable to normal rate of duty, because such goods are not entitled for SSI exemption. In this view of the matter such goods are, however, to be treated as goods cleared not in terms of paras 1(a) and 1(b) of the said Notification. In this backdrop we are of the view that the Collector (Appeals) was right in holding that the value of such goods, namely, the goods cleared with the brand name lsquo Bajaj rsquo on payment of duty by the appellants need not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing aggregate value of first clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs. 7. In the result, we uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal and reject the appeal with consequential relief to the respondents, if any.
-
1992 (6) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability of intermediate products ... ... ... ... ..... cess is leviable. 3. When the case was called Shri K.K. Bhatia, learned JCDR, at the outset, drew the attention of the Bench to the aforesaid case, namely, Barnagore Jute Factory Co. and Others v. Inspector of Central Excise and Others, supra, decided by the Apex Court and submitted that cess is leviable. Faced with the aforesaid pronouncement of the Apex Court, Shri Naveen Ravindranath, learned counsel for the appellants, had no comments to offer except to say that whatever was contended by the assessee, namely, Barnagore Jute Factory Co. and Others, in the aforesaid case before the Apex Court may be treated as his arguments for the purpose of present appeal. 4. Considered. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Barnagore Jute Factory Co. and Others v. Inspector of Central Excise and Others, supra, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the orders passed by the authorities below. Cross Objection also stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (6) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Imports - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... licence held by them after establishing that the import was otherwise legal and permissibly. 13. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the party in whose favour the documents have been transferred shall be given an opportunity to file the Bill of Entry for the clearance of goods against a valid licence or OGL after establishing that the import is otherwise legal and permissible. This is without prejudice to the rights of the Department to initiate fresh proceedings for any contravention of the law in respect of the goods or, against the concerned persons. 14. Having regard to the fact that the order confiscating the goods no longer survives and also taking into account the fact that M/s. Savitrl Electronics and Shri O.N. Bhardwaj taken any steps to clear the imported goods, we take a lenient view and set aside the penalties imposed on M/s. Savitri Electronics and Shri O.N. Bhardwaj. 15. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (6) TMI 120 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... nance Ministry rsquo s clarification goes on to explain how Rs. 33.30 litre as a measure of the levy under the notification had been arrived at on a consideration of the various rates prevalent in the states. Further, this Tribunal also had held in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Mis Biria Jute Industries in its order No. C/17-20/92-D dated 14-1-1992 reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 100 (Tri.) relating to levy of cess under Section 5A of Textile Committee (Amendment) Act, 1963 and Cess Rules, 1975, that the authority for collecting the cess as a duty of excise in the case of imported goods is not derived only from the Textile Committee Act but also from Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act which provides for liability to duty (as additional duty). The appellant rsquo s contentions on this aspect are, therefore, not well-founded. In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities and the appeals are, accordingly, rejected.
-
1992 (6) TMI 119 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... amounts and it is only then that the party becomes aware of the reasons for which the lesser amounts had been sanctioned. In the absence of any reason the appellant would be appealing in vacuum as they would not know what plea to take. Therefore, as mentioned by my learned Brother, the subsequent letter in which the reasons were given has to be construed as the appealable order. 6. Before parting with the case, I would like to mention that so far as dispatch of the cheques is concerned, it can have only a bearing from the Department rsquo s point of view in case at a later date they find that the amounts sanctioned were in excess of what should have been sanctioned. The relevant date for recovery would be the date of the issue of the cheque. This is borne out by the wording in Seciton 11A. We have held so in our order in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Cochin v. M/s. B.P.L. Systems and Projects Ltd. in Order No. 225/1992 dated 28-4-1992 1992 (62) E.L.T. 201 (Tri.) .
-
1992 (6) TMI 118 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Strictures against Department ... ... ... ... ..... ity opinion in this matter. 24. Before parting we may mention that the department had claimed a very strange relief as would be evident from column 10 of the E.A. 3 form to the following effect ldquo Order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) may be restored or any such order of the Asstt. Collector may be restored or any such order may be passed as deemed fit . This shows that the concerned officers have not bothered to apply their mind. Indeed it is a height of carelessness and negligence that they are asking for restoration of two opposite orders in the same breath. 25. However, from the memo of Appeal it is apparent that the Deptt. is aggrieved of the order of the Collector (Appeals) by which the Ld. Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector. We, however, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals) in view of our observation and following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s latest order cited above we dismiss the appeal.
-
1992 (6) TMI 117 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... for lsquo finishing rsquo the final product is concerned, this contention does not appear to be well-founded on facts because it is on record that the Lap film is held on the tape spool assembly and polishes and burnishes the magnetic surface of the disks. In view of the foregoing it is evident that the orders of the lower authority have been passed without proper understanding of the Modvat Scheme and the provisions of Rule 57A. 16. The fact that there is a Notification under the Customs Act exempting Lap films when imported into India for the purpose of manufacture of floppy diskettes from part of the duty would further strengthen the appellants rsquo claim in the appeal that Lap films are permissible inputs for manufacture of floppy diskettes under Rule 57A. The Certificate of the Department of Electronics, though issued later, further supports such a view. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (6) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay application - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... has got inherent powers to recall or modify or grant such orders in the interest of justice, keeping in view the requirements of Section 129E of the Customs Act namely, to dispense with such deposits subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of Revenue. 11. In this case, the appellants have filed the Misc. application in response to the show cause notice and has explained that their non-appearance was not deliberate or due to negligence or lapse but as a result of non-appearance of their Consultant who was sick on that date and that the Consultant had been taking adjournments due to personal reasons. The Revenue has not contested this point. The explanation is satisfactory. We are inclined to accept this explanation and recall the order of dismissal on stay application and restore the stay application to file to be disposed of on its merits by hearing the appellants on the date fixed by the Registry and on issue of notice.
-
1992 (6) TMI 115 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay - Predeposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ect from 28-2-1986 seeking for classification under Tariff Heading 8504.00 which was also approved. However, the demand has been made on the basis of allegation of mis-classification. He submitted that the clearance has taken place in accordance with the approved classification list, hence, mis-classification cannot be alleged for invoking the extended period. In respect of the other duty demand, he pleaded that clearance has also taken place under Gate Passes, in respect of which they have filed RT12 returns and there is no suppression of the same. 3. After hearing both the sides, we are prima facie satisfied on the ground of time bar. We, therefore, direct the applicants to furnish a personal bond covering the duty amounts within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and reporting compliance within five weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. On furnishing the personal bond, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the duty amount.
-
1992 (6) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural Justice - Personal hearing incomplete ... ... ... ... ..... ed with the matter, it should be done only after issuing clarifications as sought above. We thank your honour to patiently hearing on the aforesaid preliminary issue today. rdquo 13. The above letter is corroborated by the record of proceedings of the Collector. Therefore, we are satisfied that on 30-12-1991, there was denial of full opportunity of personal hearing and the case was not heard completely. In view of the fact that the Collector has passed the Order on 30-12-1991 without giving the appellants full opportunity of personal hearing and after giving a partial hearing, the Order is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. Further the Collector has also not dealt with the relevant orders relied by the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector and remand the same to him for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellants and after considering the replies filed by them. 14. The appeal is, thus, allowed and remanded to the Collector.
-
1992 (6) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rubber - Natural rubber latex is a form of natural rubber ... ... ... ... ..... sued at two different points of time and while Notification 82/86 covers most of the items falling under Chapter 40, Notification 21/85 gives higher benefit in respect of only one item i.e. natural raw rubber. This item along with rubber latex is covered by Notification 82/86 under description lsquo raw rubber rsquo . The objective and reasons for issue of two notifications have not been placed before us and we have to go by the description as given in the respective Notifications and so long as it can be held that a particular item is covered by a description under a particular Notification, the benefit of that Notification has to be given if claimed. In this case we have held that natural rubber latex is covered by the term natural raw rubber. Therefore, the benefit of Notification 21/85 has to be given to the Respondent. In view of the above we hold that the learned lower appellate authority rsquo s order is maintainable in law and the appeal of the Department is rejected.
-
1992 (6) TMI 112 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... grinding, broaching, group cutting, heat treatment etc. is required to be undertaken before they can be used in the pump. Both the authorities had held that the invoice described Camplates (Bosch Part No. 14 66 11 1033) and (Customer Part No. 1 77 48 76) and there is no indication that these are semi-finished. It was held that Camplates had the essential character of the finished component and further processing is in the nature of finishing processes for the purpose of fitment terms of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rule, the goods are to be considered as Camplates and assessment under sub-heading No. 84.10(3) was maintainable. The reasoning applicable to classification of rocker lever castings is equally applicable to Camplates which are forgings, because the facts in the two cases are the same. Accordingly, the appellants rsquo contentions in this case too are liable to rejection. 16. Thus, upon consideration of all the grounds, all the four appeals fail and are rejected.
-
1992 (6) TMI 111 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... by bolts/nuts would not make them immovable property. It has been set out in the instructions that while adopting this position, the past assessments will not be re-opened. In the case of the petitioner, the goods came into existence before issue of the Circular cited supra and therefore their case is clearly covered by the said Circular. We observe that no authority has been mentioned in this Circular for issue of instructions for not re-opening the past assessments, even though the goods have been held to be dutiable. Prima facie the petitioner rsquo s goods are chargeable to duty. However, inasmuch as the Department has chosen not to collect duty, it would cause hardship to the petitioner in case an exception is made in the case of the petitioner. I therefore, agree with Member (J) that undue hardship will be caused to the petitioner if he is called upon to make the pre-deposit of the amount, and therefore dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty has to be allowed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 110 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seized goods- Return of ... ... ... ... ..... ed the contract price as the market value of the goods. In this particular case, instead of contract price the equivalent price available is the price which was ascertained by the department itself at the time of seizure of the goods. On the same analogy of the principles, laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above said decision, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the market price is to he determined as the price of the goods in question which was determined by the department at the time of seizure itself, which is a sum of Rs. 1,66,170. 14. In view of the above discussions, we hereby order the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, Calcutta as well as the Assistant Collector of Customs, Krishnagar Customs Division to pay an amount of Rs. 1,66,170/- towards the market price of the goods in question as ordered by the Tribunal within 1st September, 1992. This order shall be carried out promptly without any delay in the matter.
........
|