|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 209 Records
-
1983 (4) TMI 263 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rial; their function is confined to lifting, handling, loading, unloading and conveying. Since we hold that the principal function of the blocker is coiling, that is other than mere handling, it cannot be classified under Heading 84.22. As regards the appellants’ alternative prayer, we hold that the blocker is not designed for the production of any commodity nor is to a machinery for treating metals. Its function is just to pick up the long hot rolled sheet, which has already come into existence after the final pass of hot rolling, coil it and unload it on to the conveyor. We hold, therefore, that sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.59 is not the appropriate classification for such a mechanical appliance. Nevertheless, since the blocker is a mechanical appliance having its own individual function of coiling and handling, it falls squarely within the description of Heading 84.59(1) under which it has been assessed by the Department. 6. Accordingly, we reject this appeal.
-
1983 (4) TMI 262 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... able Institution be given if not in general terms to effect that the institution provides treatment facilities without distinction of caste, creed, race, religion or language and it is run on non-profitable basis. The eligibility certificate is not relatable to one invoice or other, but it relates to the institution as such showing that it would qualify as charitable institution. We have carefully gone through the duty exemption certificate also. It contains the item namely, 12 mm Slmln Trocar and Cannula also. perhaps the items being too many the Appellate Collector of Customs might have missed it. As the items as shown in the original Bill of Entry and the items shown in the duty exemption certificate tally, we set aside the Show Cause Notice issued by the Central Government and hold that the entire consignment (including item 12 mm Slmln Trocar and Cannula) should be re-assessed under Notification No. 17-Customs dated 25-1-1979 with consequential relief to the respondent.
-
1983 (4) TMI 261 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... duty being an indirect tax, the ultimate burden would be on the consumer but that does not mean that every consumer of the goods in issue can be treated as an aggrieved person for filing his claim either before the Central Excise authorities or the government or, as the case may be, the Tribunal. In any case, M/s Mahindra and Mahindra are not the affected consumers in this case. They are only an intermediary. Whatever tax they pay in the form of higher price of the name plates, they pass on to their customers of motor vehicles. In view of the purposes and the provisions of the Act, we hold that in this case, the aggrieved persons are the manufacturers, namely, M/s Excel Process Pvt. Ltd. and as such M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., the purchasers of the said goods have no locus standi to file a revision application/appeal. The question of going into the merits of the disputed classification does not, therefore, arise in these proceedings. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
1983 (4) TMI 260 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... bout one-third of total length, is expanded in a mushroom like shape in which the torch bulb, reflector and glass cover are fitted. Only the remaining two-thirds length possesses a uniform diameter. The Department has produced no evidence that these barrels are known in the commercial parlance as pipes or tubes. On the contrary, from whatever evidence has been laid before us, we find that the subject goods are known as torch bodies, torch barrels to torch cans etc. Further, the goods are specially designed to function as a component of torches and not as pipes or tubes. We, therefore, hold that the subject brass barrels or torches cannot be classified as pipes and tubes under Item 26A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. in view of this finding, it is unnecessary for us to go into the alternative pleas of the appellants relating to addition of profit and gross weight for the purpose of set off 7. Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (4) TMI 259 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nace is located. The stipulation is only in relation to the product, and so long as it can be proved that the product was manufactured with the aid of electric furnace and out of specified inputs, the concession given by the proviso is admissible. We hold, therefore, that the appellants’ wire was eligible to the electric furnace concession and since the effective rate of duty chargeable thereon was the same as had already been paid on the wire rods purchased by them from M/s Mukand Iron and Steel Ltd., they were, in terms of Notification No. 75/67-C.E., not liable to pay any further duty. In view of this, it is unnecessary for us to go into the other pleas of the appellants relating to time bar and to the question whether making of wires out of wire rods amounted to manufacture or not. 5. Accordingly, we allow this appeal. The demand served on the appellants is set aside. In case they have paid the demand already, the consequential refund shall be granted to them.
-
1983 (4) TMI 258 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... aler sells split quantities from the bulk pack. Quite evidently, the mark up is intended to be a compensation for the extra costs incurred by the dealer in selling split quantities. Whatever mark up he charges, whether the full 5 per cent or less, he retains it with himself. No part of it accrues to the manufacturer, that is, the appellants. What the Department seems to have done is to have the marked up retail price of split quantities and apply it for the assessment of bulk packs. We find no authority for doing so in Notification No. 161/66-C.E. or in any other provision of the Central Excise Law. Quite simply, split quantities cannot be placed on par with bulk packs for the purpose of valuation. We hold that since the subject goods cleared from the factory are in bulk packs, they have to be valued according to the listed retail price at which they would be sold in the bulk pack as such. 7. Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (4) TMI 257 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... .61(2) as parts of pressure reducing valves. The Department’s objection to their request is that heading 84.61 covers Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, boiler shells, tanks, vats and the like, including pressure reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves " which means valves for use on stationary appliances and machines while the subject goods were parts of valves of motor vehicles. On careful consideration of the matter, we agree with the Department’s point and hold that the goods were correctly assessed under heading 87.04/06 as parts of motor vehicles. Accordingly, we reject this appeal.
-
1983 (4) TMI 256 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ct wires since they were a drawn material. 4. The Department’s representative made two objections - first the appellants had not produced the specification of the goods etc. before the lower authorities and secondly the specification showed that the goods predominantly contained iron and not steel. 5. We have carefully considered the matter in both the cases. We find no substance in the objections of the Department. Since the goods predominantly contained iron and only 36 per cent nickel, we hold that they are alloy steel products covered by heading 73.15(1) of the Tariff and further the exemption under Notification No. 77/77-Cus. is applicable to the goods in both the cases. We direct that the goods be reassessed accordingly and consequential relief granted to the appellants. Alternative plea of the appellants for complete exemption of nickel iron rods under Notification No. 211/76-Cus. is dismissed as withdrawn. both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1983 (4) TMI 255 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Custom House Public Notice No. 54/80. The Department’s point is that the goods were strips according to ISI-3288, Part I-1965 and hence C.V. duty was chargeable on them under Item 26A(2), CET. On careful consideration of the matter, we find that the Indian Standards specification relied on by the Department relates to rolled strips while the subject goods were wire which is a drawn product. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that the goods being wire, and not strip, were not chargeable to C.V. duty under Item 26A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (4) TMI 254 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... artment’s objection regarding assessment of the goods under Item 54 of the Tariff is misconceived. No doubt, an electric element is fitted inside the cooking vessel at the bottom, but this element by itself is not a heat source of the cooker. The heat source is the electric current which comes from outside. When the current is switched on, it heats the element which in turn cooks the food placed inside the vessel. There is force in the appellants’ plea that since the electricity which supplies heat for cooking the food is supplied from outside, it has to be treated as an external heat source. We, therefore, hold that the subject electric pressure cooker is correctly classifiable under Item 54 of the Central Excise Tariff which is specific for “Pressure Cooker”. In view of this finding, it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative prayers of the appellants and the Department’s objections thereto. 4. We allow this appeal accordingly.
-
1983 (4) TMI 253 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... anatory Notes to the CCCN, on which the appellants as well as the Department relied on during the arguments before us, that a transmission shaft may transmit power to another machine or to different parts of the same machine. In the case before us, the subject shaft transmits the rotary power from the turbine to the impeller of the same pump. We therefore, agree with the Department that the subject shaft is a transmission shaft. Since transmission shafts are specifically covered under heading 84.63, they have, according to note 2 (a) to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff read with rule 3(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of Tariff, to be assessed under this heading only even though they may be integral parts of some machinery described in some other heading. The case of M/s. S.P. Trading Co. cited by the appellants is not on all fours with the present case as the goods as well as the issues involved in that case were different. 4. Accordingly, we reject this appeal.
-
1983 (4) TMI 252 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Ruling No. 1 of 1934 in support of his contention that the subject goods were only sheets and not strips. 3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the point at issue in this case stands settled with the judgment, of the Hon’ble, High Court of Madras, reported as 1977-2 MLJ 202, in which the said High Court have held similar goods imported by another party as strips. No contrary judgment has been brought to our notice. The appellants fall within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court and the judgment of that High Court is, therefore, applicable to them. We also find that the identical issue has been dealt with at very great length in orders-in-revision of the Government of India passed in a batch of 13 revision applications and reported as 1982, ELT-768. We are in agreement with the reasoning given and the conclusion drawn in these orders of the Government. 4. Accordingly, we allow both these appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (4) TMI 251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Union of India, (1979) E.L.T. (J 181) and Jyoti Ltd. v. Union of India, (1979) E.L.T. (J 546) where interest at 12% was awarded against the department. However, with typical fairness, he also brought to my notice a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) E.L.T. 327, where it was held that awarding interest must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I think the ends of justice would be met if the Department is ordered to simply refund the amount of duty collected from the Company without authority of law. 15. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents shall refund the amount of ₹ 12,17,537.17 within 12 weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs. Finally I acknowledge the ability with which Mr. Pochkhanawalla conducted the case on behalf of the respondents and the lucidity with which he advanced his arguments.
-
1983 (4) TMI 250 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ates of purchase, names of the parties and their addresses, the bill numbers, quantity and the amount involved. In spite of the furnishing of such details, the assessing authority made no verification of any of those particulars and yet negatived the claim for exemption put forward by the assessee. It was in those circumstances that the Bench of this Court observed that once the dealer furnishes the necessary information to show that the goods had suffered tax already at the point of first puchase, it is for the assessing authority to verify the correctness of the information furnished by the assessee. So far as the present case is concerned, there has been a good amount of enquiry and verification by the departmental authorities, on the basis of which, indeed, they have granted substantial relief to the assessee. For the above reasons, the tax revision case fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1983 (4) TMI 249 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cause separate bills were made out for freight, packing and delivery charges. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Parry and Company 1976 38 STC 122 a Bench of this Court has held that even though no written contract was produced, an agreement to deliver the goods in the Madras Port could be inferred and the freight charges including other charges shall be deemed to be pre-sale expenses incurred by the assessee and were liable to be included in the assessee s taxable turnover. The above judicial decisions directly apply to the present case. Thus, we do not find any material for giving a differential treatment to the air freight charges which were incurred by the assessee prior to the sale and towards the import of the goods by the assessee before the sale to the purchaser for the purpose of granting exemption from exigibility. In the result, therefore, these revision petitions are dismissed, and the revenue will get its costs from the revision petitioner. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 one set.
-
1983 (4) TMI 248 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cillary to the assessee s business. The department s case that the car was used for transporting the commodities in which the assessee carried on business was not found to be correct. All that was found was that the car was used for the conveyance of the partners. The law on this point has been stated by this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Project Automobiles 1978 42 STC 279. It was held in that case that sale of a motor car which was not only incidental but also ancillary to and connected with the business carried on by the assessee was taxable as it came within the definition of the word business . In the instant case, on the finding reached that the sale of the car was not ancillary to the business of the assessee, the same cannot be included in the turnover and cannot be taxed. 3.. For the reasons stated above, our answer to the question referred is that the sale of the second hand motor-car could not be taxed. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1983 (4) TMI 247 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nables the revenue to proceed against the petitioner who is only a Director of the company, personally, for arrears of sales tax due from the company, which is a distinct and different legal entity. So in the light of the uncontroverted averments in the O.P., I hold that exhibit P1 notice issued against the petitioner in his personal capacity is unauthorised and illegal. Exhibit P1 is quashed. The respondents are restrained by the issue of a writ of prohibition from proceeding with any recovery proceedings against the petitioner in his personal capacity. 3.. I should make it clear that this will not prevent or disable the revenue from proceeding against the company for recovery of the arrears or against the petitioner if it is shown or substantiated that he has got the properties of the company nor will this prevent the revenue from taking recovery proceedings against the company and its assets in accordance with law. The O.P. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (4) TMI 246 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gistration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, is that the period of turnover in relation to any dealer who is liable to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act shall be fixed only on the basis of the period in respect of which he is liable to submit his returns under the general sales tax law of the State. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is liable to submit its returns under the general sales tax law of this State on an annual basis, in terms of the order of the 1st respondent dated 6th March, 1979. Once I come to this conclusion, it naturally follows that it is not bound to file monthly returns in terms of rule 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules. In view of this, it is unnecessary for me to consider the question of vires of rule 5(1), as I have already stated. In the circumstances, I quash the impugned order. A writ of mandamus will issue directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to file its returns under the Central sales tax annually. No costs.
-
1983 (4) TMI 245 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1969 24 STC 468 must be deemed to have been overruled by the Supreme Court by its decision in Guruviah Naidu and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 38 STC 565 (SC). Thus the decision in Sadak Thamby and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1969 24 STC 468 is not good law as on date in view of the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to. Therefore, the fact that the assessee has been subjected to tax in respect of inter-State transactions in relation to tanned hides and skins under the Central Sales Tax Act is not a bar for bringing to charge the proportionate purchase value of raw hides and skins under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Thus the view taken by the Board of Revenue in this case in respect of both the items of turnover is correct and does not call for any interference. The tax case is therefore dismissed. The revenue will have its costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1983 (4) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... India Limited regarding the price of the material, which was sought to be exported by M/s. Rallis India Limited to the foreign buyer. There is absolutely no document to suggest that M/s. Rallis India Limited acted as the express or implied agent of the assessee. There was absolutely no transaction between the assessee and the foreign buyer. It is conceded that the assessee never acted as agent of M/s. Rallis India Limited for any other export sale. So this is a single export sale wherein the assessee has acted as agent of M/s. Rallis India Limited. Thus, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they have sold 6000 tons of torsteel in export to the foreign buyer through M/s. Rallis India Limited is proned to be absolutely baseless. Consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to the exemption claimed towards the export sale. In the result, the orders of the appellate authorities are confirmed and the revision is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
........
|
