|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 242 Records
-
1993 (4) TMI 175 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exports - Cash Compensatory Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... circular dated 6th January, 1979 w.e.f. 1st January, 1979 so as to effect already confirmed contracts is illegal and in violation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Accordingly, Circular dated 6th January, 1979 insofar as it affects the petitioner in respect of contracts entered into under the Scheme prior to 1st January, 1979 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to examine each of the contracts mentioned in the writ petition and determine within a period of six months whether the said contracts were entered into under the Scheme and whether they were entered prior to 1st January, 1979. In respect of contracts entered into under the Scheme prior to 1st January, 1979, petitioner would be entitled to cash assistance under the Scheme which shall be granted within the period of six months. Civil Writ Petitions 291 and 666 of 1982 are also allowed in the above terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1993 (4) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Bulk drugs ... ... ... ... ..... endent upon production of certificate as stipulated in the notification. 8. emsp The wording of the notification makes it clear that the benefit must be claimed by an assessee at the time of filing of the classification list so as to enable the Assistant Collector to fix a period for production of the certificate from the Drugs Controller of the Government of India to the effect that the drugs claimed for exemption are bulk drugs within the meaning contained in the Explanation to the notification. We see no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below in view of the admitted fact that the notification benefit was not claimed in the relevant classification list. Our view is further strengthened by the fact that the Assistant Collector has admitted the benefit w.e.f. the date of production of the requisite certificate. 9. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly we uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
1993 (4) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Buckles imported being metallic embellishments ... ... ... ... ..... larificatory or not it may be stated that it is not essential that an amendment in the notification should always be interpreted in such a way as to make a material change, or difference in the contents, meaning or effect of the basic notification for, it can be motivated to place the matter beyond any shadow of doubt which was otherwise already settled. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the purpose of the said amending notification was only to place the matter, which was already settled in the Notification No. 224/85-Cus., beyond any shadow of doubt. As such, amending notification does not make any material difference in the contents or effect of the original notification. 12. While taking the aforesaid view, we have kept in mind the ratio of the case law cited at the Bar. 13. In the result, we set aside both the impugned orders-in-appeal and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, according to law.
-
1993 (4) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Blending of wool tops with synthetic fibre ... ... ... ... ..... in paras 14 and 15 of the said report is reproduced below - x x x x x The learned D.R. has relied on several rulings and contended that the emerging product is marketable and exigible. However, it is seen that in all these cases, it has been held that a new product has come into existence as there is a change in name, character and use. In the present case, the facts on record are different. Admittedly, product removed by the assessee has still to undergo processes of machining in their customer rsquo s factory. Therefore, it cannot be said that a new product has emerged in the present case. The ruling of the Tribunal referred in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills (supra) is also relevant in the present case. As we have held that the product removed by the assessee has not emerged as a complete goods by a process of manufacture, the question of its classification does not arise. In the result the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed and the Revenue rsquo s appeal is rejected.
-
1993 (4) TMI 171 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Remission of duty - Theft ... ... ... ... ..... occurrence of theft is not doubted by the adjudicating authority, who himself opines that the occurrence was spread over a period of time and when the Security Officer states that he took all preventive measures and subjected each employee going out, to physical check, the occurrence of the theft has to be taken as an unavoidable accident, which in spite of all reasonable precaution, could not be averted. 15. With the findings as above, the other grounds urged need not be considered. 16. Under the circumstances the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) does not call for any interference and as such the appeal deserves to be rejected. 17. The cross-objections filed by the Respondents are in the nature of reply to the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellants. No counter relief is claimed, and hence with the disposal of the appeal, they are also treated as disposed of. 18. The appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore rejected. The cross objections filed are also disposed of.
-
1993 (4) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit scheme - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has held that non-observance of a procedural condition of a technical nature can be condoned. In the present case, substantive relief of modvat credit is sought to be denied on a technical ground viz. that permission of the Assistant Collector was not specifically sought for removing raw materials directly to Ankleshwar. It is not disputed that such permission is not required to be obtained under any Rule and it is further not disputed that if such permission is applied for, it is by and large granted in view of trade notices, permitting receipt of raw materials directly by job workers to prevent unnecessary cross-movement of goods. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of modvat credit of Rs. 79,38,597.50. For the same reason, we also set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. 22. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief.
-
1993 (4) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 5-1986 since they cannot be deemed as lsquo Kumkum rsquo which is the item specified in the notification. 11. In view of our finding that lsquo Kumkum pencil rsquo is a product which is distinct from the items which over the ages have been commonly known as lsquo Kumkum rsquo and have been used as such by Hindu ladies the appellants rsquo claim that lsquo Kumkum pencil rsquo has to be deemed as a form of Kumkum does not have any force at all. For these reasons in our view the judgment in the case of Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) in which it was held that pipes after conversion into pipe fittings continue to be pipes, cannot be of any assistance to the appellants. For the same reasons the decision in the case of Western India Plywood Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin (supra) is also not relevant to the facts of this case. 12. In view of the above discussion the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... d on the imported inputs i.e. insulating paper. 3. Shri B.D. Bhagat, learned DR contends that the additional duty is nothing but countervailing duty which is equivalent to the duties of excise to be levied on the goods and, therefore, the excess credit availed of has been rightly denied by the Department. 4. On hearing both sides we are of the view that the applicants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in view of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works v. Union of India reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) holding that the Additional Duty of Customs as referred to in Sections 2 and 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is not countervailing duty and in the absence of specific restriction of additional duty of customs to Rs. 800/- PMT in the third proviso to the notification (supra). The requirement of pre-deposit is, therefore, dispensed with and recovery of duties stayed pending the appeals.
-
1993 (4) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Delayed adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... 57D RY/68/73 B 107.5D RY/69/73 C 79.9D The plea for retest was accepted and the result showed A 150.9D B 127.4D D 74.9D In view of this variance, the plea for retest is fully justified. This plea is fully supported by the case law cited by the appellant. The Ld. Collector has relied on the ruling of M/s. Bramee Suri (P) Ltd. rsquo s case. The facts of the case are totally different is clearly distinguishable and so also the facts of the case of Nirlon Synthetic rsquo s relied by Ld. SDR. There has also been a delay of 18 years in adjudication of the case. The Department has also not seized the spinnerette and drawn spot mahazar of the process of manufacture and placed supportive and corroborative evidence. There is also no finding on the various pleas raised by the appellants. In view of all these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and therefore, impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal. Thus appellants succeed in all the appeals.
-
1993 (4) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... mpregnated with a layer of paper with the help of an adhesive is appropriately classifiable under Heading 59.09 of Central Excise Tariff. This Trade Notice also supports the assessee rsquo s claim. 24. The assessee had made a claim of the benefit of Notification No. 5/87-C.E./ dated 15-1-1987 which grants exception to rubberised textile fabrics, putting under Heading No. 59.05 of the Schedule of CET, 1985. As we have held that item does not fall under Heading 59.05, the question of its examination does not arise. 25. In the result the claim of the assessee for classification of their product under chapter Heading 5909.00 of the schedule of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 is allowed. The Revenue rsquo s cross appeal arises from the rejection of larger period for the demand raised as a result of re-classification of the product under chapter sub-heading 5906.90. As we have set aside the classification under this heading, the Revenue cross appeal does not survive and it is rejected.
-
1993 (4) TMI 165 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Small scale exemption ... ... ... ... ..... cation upto the limits as set out in these Paras, as otherwise the implementation of Notification would lead to very anomalous results. All that has to be seen is that when a person avails of the benefit of Notification 175/86 he is given the benefit of the full exemption etc. as set out in para 1(a) within the aggregate limits of Rs. 15 lakhs for individual item of the specified goods within an overall limit of Rs. 30 lakhs and thereafter upto a further amount of value of Rs. 60 lakhs within the overall value of the clearances of specified goods upto Rs. 75 lakhs at the concessional rate. The appellants have cleared the goods at full rate without the benefit of the Notification prior to the availing of the benefit of the said Notification and this cannot be added for arriving at the value of the exempted goods upto Rs. 75 lakhs. We, therefore, hold that the learned lower appellate authority rsquo s order is not maintainable in law and set aside the same and allow the appeal.
-
1993 (4) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ntion of Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act rendering them liable to confiscation, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of this finding we do not consider it necessary to examine whether the imported goods could also be treated as defective/scrap materials in terms of Sr. No. 174 of Appendix 2, Part-B of the Import Policy for the period April-March, 1990-93. 11. It is seen that the appellants had arranged for the substitution of the original import documents which described the imported goods as ldquo Used Lubricating Oil (Waste Oil) rdquo by new documents describing the imported goods only as ldquo Waste Oil rdquo with objective of misdeclaring the goods in the Bill of Entry. Under these circumstances we do not find any force in the appellants rsquo claim that the penalties of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the importer and the agent respectively are unfair and unwarranted. 12. In view of the foregoing the appeals are dismissed.
-
1993 (4) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... mplied with in time. Therefore, the appeal having been restored to file, it follows as a necessary corollary that all the proceedings and orders thereunder including the order passed on the application for stay get automatically restored. We, therefore, clarify that the stay Order No. 16/90-C, dated 5-2-1990 as modified by the order dated 3-4-1991 of the Delhi High Court stands restored and is in operation and recovery proceedings are stayed during the pendency of the appeal. At this stage we are constrained to observe that the stand of the Department that a specific direction is required to be issued staying recovery proceedings even after the appeal has been restored to file is unwarranted and is an academic exercise which has resulted in driving the applicants to the Tribunal once again, thus occasioning unnecessary delay and expenditure. The detention notice No. S/23/116/90-AP(CC) dated 4-5-1992 is also hereby lifted. 7A. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (4) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - The expression “inputs in stock” ... ... ... ... ..... rovision and that too the deleted words. The said deleted provision was reintroduced with effect from 25-7-1991 when the benefit of Modvat credit was reintroduced in respect of aerated waters. If, as contended, the words ldquo inputs in stock rdquo covered inputs present as final products also then there was no necessity to reintroduce the deleted provision viz. sub-clause (ii). This is a deliberate reintroduction of the relevant entry with a view to take care of the need to provide modvat benefit in respect of inputs contained in the final products and not present as such. The plain reading of the expression ldquo inputs in stock rdquo would cover only inputs present as such. Once they are taken into use and get converted into other material, they cannot be said to be in stock. The order of the Assistant Collector has proceeded on a correct appreciation of the facts and the legal position and has been correctly sustained. We accordingly uphold the same and reject the Appeal.
-
1993 (4) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Saddle/Seat - Commercial parlance ... ... ... ... ..... Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Geep Flashlight Industries v. Union of India and Others reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The Tribunal also considered the commercial parlance test for arriving at classification of two wheeler seats under TI 68 holding that the product in question is a saddle or a seat for a scooter/motorcycle in the mind of the trader and it is not an article of polyurethane foam. The Tribunal also distinguished the decision in the case of Apex Rubber Ltd. reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 593 (Tribunal) 1987 (14) ECC 379 on the ground that in the Apex Rubber case, the latex sponge seats required further processing which was not required in the case of two wheeler seats manufactured by single shot injection process, as in the above appeals. 4. Following the ratio of the Polyflex decision (supra) we set aside the impugned orders in E/223/88-C and E/44/89-C and allow these two appeals. Appeal No. E/1291/85-C filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
1993 (4) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e tariff description extracted above makes it very clear that lining has to be only of the critical portion otherwise the meaning of merely lining would not be of any consequence. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the findings of the lower appellate authority that the later portion of the tariff description namely, other valves lined with rubber or other corrosion resisting material would cover lining only of the critical or functional portion of the valve because it is only that portion of the valve which comes into contact with the corrosive gas or fluid. Had the intention been that the lining should be of the entire valve there was no need in our view to bring in the later portion of the tariff description as mentioned above. That would have been covered by the first portion itself, and the second portion would have become redundant. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue. The same is rejected.
-
1993 (4) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... case. The department has not placed any evidence on commercial parlance in this case and from traders to show that the imported wood is not lsquo wood in rough rsquo but sawn wood. It is for the department to have led the evidence on this issue to show that the imported timber cannot be considered as wood in rough. As has been observed, the Inspection report as well as the report of Shri Verghese is clearly in favour of the importer and the report of Shri Reddy also confirms the presence of sap wood and as has been seen from the literature, the presence of sap wood would make the timber as lsquo wood in rough rsquo and therefore, we have no hesitation in upholding the plea of the appellants by allowing the appeal. As we have upheld the appellants rsquo plea, the benefit of Notification No. 107/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 is available to the appellants. Hence the fine and penalty amounts imposed are set aside. The Cross appeals are in the nature of comments and they are rejected.
-
1993 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... that when the exemption is dependent upon the annual turnover, the period of limitation should start from the expiry of the financial year. The distinction of this being a small scale exemption and what is under reference being those for specific goods, would not have any material bearings so far as computing the period of limitation is concerned, when the exemption is based on the annual turnover. Taking the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court which has also been approved by other High Courts, the order of the Collector (Appeals) appears to be correct. 6. The ld. SDR then submitted that in view of the latest amendment of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the decision of the Supreme Court, the issue of unjust enrichment should also be examined. This issue, however, has neither been raised in the appeal memorandum nor at any other stage in the proceedings and therefore, it is not possible to go into the same at this stage. 7. In the result the appeal is rejected.
-
1993 (4) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Advance Licence ... ... ... ... ..... and the correspondence exchanged between the appellants and the licensing authority and without affording them suitable opportunity to get the relevant DEEC Book endorsed by the licensing authority amounted to non-application of mind. 9. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. However, before proceeding with the adjudication of the case he should afford an opportunity to the appellants to get the relevant DEEC Book suitably endorsed by the licensing authority by releasing the relevant DEEC Book if it has been lying in the Custom House and for this purpose the appellants may be given a period of 6 weeks. The matter being quite old the adjudicating authority is further directed to pass the order after hearing the appellants in the case within 4 months of the date of receipt of this order. 10. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by way of remand.
-
1993 (4) TMI 156 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ges as such are subject to customs duty they would be exempt from duty. Even then it is not every packages imported that is exempt, it is only when the goods are imported or exported in packages that such packages are exempt provided they satisfy the other conditions laid down in the notification. It was made clear that the said notification does not permit the valuation of goods in packages split up into principal goods and packages and exempt the packages from duty. In the instant case the authorities below have held that the appellants did not satisfy the conditions of the said notification. The same views were reiterated by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. K. Hargovind Dass Co., M/s. Chhaganlal and Sons and Others - Final Order Nos. 468 to 597/92-A, dated 29-10-1992 (supra). Thus following the ratio of the said decisions we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. Consequently, we uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals.
........
|
