Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 228 Records
-
1983 (12) TMI 291 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... . Besides, even if goods be held scrap and waste (and not only waste), it is well to remember that these even according to Shri Laxmi Kumaran at the material time were Aluminium in crude form. They were produced from duty paid Aluminium ingots, billets and scrap which according to Shri Laxmi Kumaran would be Aluminium in crude form. Thus from Aluminium in crude form what arose was Aluminium incrude form. This can hardly be called “manufacture”. 8. As a result of aforesaid discussion we find that lower authorities were in error in holding that recycling of the waste as a raw material for the same end product in the same factory amounted to removal within the meaning of Rule 56A(3)(iv)(a) or for the purpose relying on newly added explanations to Rules 9 and 49. This provision as to waste could only be attracted when there was removal from the factory in accordance with the provision of Rule 56A. 9. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the demand.
-
1983 (12) TMI 290 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... appeal before us, the appellants have stated that tubes in question were meant for use in the H.P. Heaters and having been got manufactured according to the prescribed specification namely; DIN 17135 A.S.T. 35 which shows that the tubes under consideration are of Boiler specifications. 4. The Bench noted that the appellants have produced end-use affidavit to the effect that the tubes in question have actually been used in the manufacture/assembly of High Pressure Heaters for the Boilers. The technical write-up and the drawings explained by their representative Sh. V.P. Gupta, Sr. Engineer clearly showed that the tubes in question are of special quality and specification and have actually been so used in the assembly of H.P. Heaters (i.e. heat exchanger) which fall under Heading 84.17(1) of C.T.A., 1975. We find these goods were qualified for exemption under Notification No. 350-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, the appeal is thus allowed with consequential refund to the appellants.
-
1983 (12) TMI 289 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... t forms is only to set at rest any doubt that may arise when resins that normally are presented in one form are presented in another, or to prevent people from saying that their resin is usually a solid and when it is in emulsion or paste etc. it does not attract duty. It attracts duty in any form but not in every one of the specified forms it may be reduced to or brought to after first payment of duty. Whether the first levy was a countervailing customs duty or a levy under Central Excise, this reasoning holds true the goods cannot be made to pay the same duty a second time. 34. At the hearing the appellants were not able to tell the bench whether the product imported was a lubricating mixture containing silicone greases or oil. Such lubricating preparations are sometimes referred to as silicone oils, though this is not, strictly speaking, accurate. 35. The action of the lower authorities was not correct and so their orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... rketed and have been produced only for captive consumption is also of no avail. In 1978 E.L.T. (J 653), the Madras High Court held that Section 3 of the Act does not make a distinction between goods manufactured for one’s own consumption and those for sale and that in the matter of levy of excise duty, the notion of trade or commerce cannot be imported. 10. We have thus seen that the subject goods are Organic Surface Active Agents, falling under Item No. 15AA of the CET, that the question of “manufacture” is not relevant and that the goods do not cease to be liable to excise duty on the ground that they are produced not for sale but for captive consumption. In this view of the matter, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills case, - 1977 E.L.T. J 199 and South Bihar Sugar Mills case, - (1968 AIR 922) has no application to the facts of the present case. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected.
-
1983 (12) TMI 287 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ns they would have seen that the product is mentioned as “reversible mill ends” for the identical gate pass. Hence the rejection of the claim of the assessee on the ground that the gate pass did not show the clearance of “reversible mill ends” cannot be approved. It is not the case of the Department that there was surreptitious removal of some other product in the guise of irregulars. Hence interest of justice require that the Department should come to a conclusion on the basis of the contemporaneous documentry evidence one way or the other. 5. In the result we set aside the Appellate Collector’s order and direct that the matter be re-examined de-novo in the light of the other contemporaneous documents such as challans, registers and other statutory maintained records produced by the appellant to substantiate their plea. 6. Since this is a very old matter, we direct that the case be decided within three months on receipt of this order.
-
1983 (12) TMI 286 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... p;Afro-Asian Association, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 E.L.T. 372 (CEGAT) (ii) Miles India Ltd., Baroda v. Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 E.L.T. 1026 (CEGAT). The Tribunal held in these and several other decisions that the time-limit laid down in Section 27(1) of the Act would apply to claims for refund of duty made under the provisions of the Act before the departmental quasi-judicial authorities. 15. In the above two decisions, several judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court have been discussed and we do not, therefore, consider it necessary to traverse the same ground in this Order. 16. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The Appellate Collectors’ order is set aside. The amount erroneously refunded to the appellant in pursuance of the Appellate Collectors’ order shall be paid back by them to the Collector of Customs, Bombay within three months from the date of communication of this Order.
-
1983 (12) TMI 285 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... cability of Rule 9(2) and Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules has been upheld. According to his Lordship, Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules will apply, if demand notice was issued after assessment and if there was no assessment Rule 9(2) will apply. 17. As the goods have been removed without payment of Central Excise duty, the Collector was right in demanding duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the plea of time limit cannot be accepted. 18. In view of our discussion above, we find no reason to interfere with the judicious findings of the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs. He has already taken a lenient view so far as the penalty is concerned and the penalty amount was reduced to ₹ 1000/- under each of the two Rules 52A and 226. The appellant is bound to pay duty on the excisable goods manufactured without compliance of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore, we uphold the findings of the authority below and dismiss this appeal.
-
1983 (12) TMI 284 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... enter them in other records and the material placed before us shows that the Excise authorities were aware of the production of these demo records. It was not for the first time that the appellants produced these demo records but it would appear that this production had continued for quite some time and was in the knowledge of the Excise authorities. The removal of records from the factory to the head office, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and other records maintained by the appellants, which were produced by them before the Excise authorities, cannot be said to have been with intent to evade payment of excise duty. On the facts and circumstances, we do not think that imposition of penalty on the appellants is justified. It is therefore, set aside. As a result, the penalty imposed against the appellants is set aside and the demand of duty is restricted to a period of 6 months preceding the date of show cause notice. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 283 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ller cut pieces were also fabric pieces used for trade sample purposes. The Tariff or the Act does not prescribe any minimum length of the man-made fabric. A piece cut from a running length fabric is still known as fabric in the trade. The appellants are well aware that even much smaller pieces called as rags and chindies are also known in the trade as fabrics and the Central Excise Tariff deals with them accordingly. We, therefore, hold that since handloom cess was payable on processed man-made fabrics, it was also payable on trade samples of such fabrics. 5. Accordingly, we reject this appeal. However, we may observe that our order is based strictly, as it should be, on the evidence laid before us and the legal position in the matter but if as a matter of actual practice the Department adopted a different approach to other art silk mills in the country, we leave it to the Department to see that the present appellants are not singled out for a discriminatory treatment.
-
1983 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... unnakulam, 1983 E.L.T. 2156 (Ker.) cited by Shri Tayal, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reversed its original judgment in the case of T.T. Pylunny Royal Smiths, Kunnakulam v. Union of India and others, 1978 E.L.T. (J 705) (Ker.) cited by Shri Khaitan. The substance of the Division Bench judgment has already been set out in paragraph 11. As regards the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Rubber Limited, we observe that Shri Khaitan had relied upon it for the proposition that a notification must be construed in accordance with its words and not by going into the object which the authority had in mind. This is a general proposition which will not assist the appellants in this case, since our conclusions are based on the wording of the relevant notification and the Central Excise Rules and not on the basis of any assumed intention. 17. In the result, we find that the orders of the authorities below were correct. We accordingly reject the appeal.
-
1983 (12) TMI 281 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ch amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case and do not prejudice the interest of the opposite party. 7. In this case, the entire case of the appellants is based on the interpretation of Notification No. 46/71, dated 24-4-1971 and the Tariff Item No. 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and these are important questions of law involved in this appeal. No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party, if the applicant is allowed to amend the memorandum of appeal by specifically incorporating these legal aspects. 8. Regarding the mentioning of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur as a respondent instead of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, no prejudice would also be caused to the respondent as this amendment is only with respect to the procedural matter based on the jurisdiction. 9. Under these circumstances, we allow the application filed by the applicant. The supplementary memorandum of appeal may be filed accordingly.
-
1983 (12) TMI 280 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... to be so because of its grammage. We would understand it if the assessing officers had found that the paper was not map-litho paper. The Appellate Collector says that map-litho paper is indistinguishable from cartridge paper and has thus to be assessed only under 17(2). This means that no map-litho paper can ever be assessed as a printing paper, which is an absurd situation to put it mildly. To assess map-litho paper under 17(2) because of its grammage and because of its supposed indistinguishability from cartridge paper is wrong and we cannot permit it, certainly not in the way the lower authorities have done. A declaration given by an assessee must be examined, and declared to be false if it is false; but it cannot be changed simply because of a putative similarity to some other goods or because of a factor like weight or substance which does not and has not been shown to be a determinants. 6. The appeal is allowed and refund of the duty shall be given expeditiously.
-
1983 (12) TMI 279 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ed on the market, as a guarantee that the product stamped conforms to specifications laid down by it, for the safety or satisfaction of customers. It does not mean that the goods not so stamped are not goods of the same generic description. Indeed, there are goods that bear no Indian Standards marks. But whether stamped or not, all the goods are equally liable to Central Excise levy. 11. There appears to be more than a grain of truth in the charge that Assam Oil Co. stopped using this condensate in its engines only when the Central Excise came round to investigate and when the demand for duty was issued. There is good reason for thinking that but for this demand, the Assam Oil Co. would have continued to use the condensate in their tractor engines. We, therefore, are of the opinion that from all points of view, both legal as well as technological, the assessment of the condensate as motor spirit was correct and should not be interfered. We accordingly reject the appeal.
-
1983 (12) TMI 278 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... classification list approved from 1-3-1973, map-litho paper of 85 gsm and above was classified as cartridge paper assessable under 17(2). A dispassionate view would have told him that this was a claim for refund and that it was in time. We do not know the authority for saying that map-litho paper of 85 gsm and above is indistinguishable from cartridge paper. A map-litho paper is a paper generally used in printing maps, one of whose characteristics is foldability i.e., they should have good folding qualities and must fold without tearing; they are frequently given animal sizing. Sometimes they are imparted high west strength, meaning that they retain much of their original strength even when wet. They are not the same thing as cartridge paper and are never known to have been understood or accepted to be indistinguishable or interchangeable with cartridge paper. We accordingly set aside the order and direct consequential re-assessment and refund of the duty wrongly recovered.
-
1983 (12) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... o the imported machine certifies that it is an automatic cloth cutting machine. The Clothing Manufacturers’ Association of India, who represent the Trade, in respect of the machine, also say the same thing. The Manufacturers’ Eastman Export Corporation also certifies about the automatic nature of the machine. There is no evidence in rebuttal. On the other hand, the Customs Houses themselves have been classifying the machine as an automatic cloth cutting machine and the matter was referred to the Collectors’ Conference because of doubt and difference in classification. We have already said that cloth cutting part of the machine is automatic and does not require and manual help and that the article is not a tool. The irresistible conclusion is that the machine in question is an automatic cloth cutting machine, coming under Tariff entry 84.40(1) with the benefit of the Notification No. 41-Cus/78, dated 1-3-1978. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1983 (12) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... e appeal has not expired and the appellant has filed another appeal on 3-11-1983, presumably after complying with the requirement of Section 35E. 6. As a result of foregoing discussion we hold that appeal dated 9-5-1983 was incompetent and was not maintainable for non-compliance with the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 35E of the Act. It is therefore, filed as infrectuous. Notice if taken of the appeal filed subsequently on 3-11-1983. This appeal is to be treated as newly filed and should be assigned a new number by the Registry. Shri Khaitan, learned Counsel for the Respondent orally informed that he had taken notice of this appeal filed on 3-11-1983. Both Shri Khader for the Appellant and Shri Khaitan for the Respondents requested that the matter should be posted for early hearing as huge sum of money is involved. Accepting this request we direct that the matter be listed for hearing on 11-1-1984 and shall be number one on the regular list.
-
1983 (12) TMI 275 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... hedule appended to the Notification are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise. Item No. 30 of the C.E.T. covers computers, so far as the Computers are concerned, there can be no doubt they were not exempt from duty of excise. It would follow that it would be liable to countervailing duty. As to Voltage stabiliser, it is an item of goods in its own right. It would not be appropriate to classify the same along with the computers with which it is to be worked. It cannot be said that the Notification was applicable to the Voltage stabiliser. It is not shown that at the material time Voltage stabiliser fell under any tariff item of the C.E.T., therefore, it should be held not chargeable to countervailing duty. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed. Voltage stabiliser at the relevant time is held not chargeable to countervailing duty and computer is held correctly chargeable to countervailing duty. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the light of observations aforesaid.
-
1983 (12) TMI 274 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ministrative instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, we hold that insurance charges cannot be added to the invoice value for purposes of assessment of Customs duty. 8. We further notice from a perusal of the revision application and the Order-in-Appeal that at the time of the refund claim the appellants showed the CandF value as JY 1,00,900. It is only at the revision stage that the appellants have worked out the CandF value at JY 98,870. Grant of refund is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act and this section provides a limitation period. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the applicants cannot claim a higher refund at this stage as compared to what they claimed before the Assistant Collector. 9. We, therefore, order that the goods be re-assessed excluding the addition made on account of insurance charges and consequential refund granted subject to the observations made by us in the previous paragraph. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
-
1983 (12) TMI 273 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... he gold. Even when it ultimately transpired that there was a will, and the ownership of the gold was of the minors, there was, in our opinion, sufficient compliance of Section 79 when notice was issued under Section 79 to Nemkumar and his mother. Nemkumar, as guardian, and his mother, as a trustee of the gold, were certainly persons concerned under Section 79 and notice could be given either to the owner of the gold or to the persons concerned with the gold. In any case, notice to the minors had to be given through their guardian who alone was competent to act on their behalf. In the present case it must be held that there was sufficient compliance of Section 79 as notice was in fact issued to Nemkumar, the guardian of the minors. 37. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. The appellants would be entitled to costs. Counsel’s fee ₹ 550.
-
1983 (12) TMI 272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal in M.T.A. No. 444 of 1982 indicates that Jacob s registration certificate stood cancelled in the year 1980-81 and it is because of the cancellation of the registration certificate he was not in a position to actually deal with the goods and he was only acting as a bill trader. Indeed for the assessment year 1978-79 there is no such evidence and it has been specifically found even by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the registration certificates of both Thompson and Jacob have not been cancelled and that they were in fact licensed to deal in rubber by the Rubber Board and they have also registered themselves in the Rubber Board as dealers. On the materials on record available for the year 1978-79, it is not possible to hold that either Thompson or Jacob was a bill trader and they did not actually deal in rubber. In this view of the matter, we are not in a position to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. The tax revision cases are, therefore, dismissed.
........
|