Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 231 Records
-
1989 (4) TMI 232 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... by public religious institutions could be of an assorted nature including those items which are smuggled ones or prohibited under various laws. Such a situation may occur quite often. It is necessary and desirable that suitable guidelines are formulated by the Government to deal with such situations, when the temple authorities notice objectionable items, which are liable for confiscation either under the Customs law or any other law. In the absence of such guidelines, it is likely that genuine parties may suffer, while unscrupulous may take advantage of this position. Atleast in so far as the provisions of the Customs Act are concerned, it is desirable that the C.B.E.C. New Delhi may like to prescribe suitable guidelines for the public religious institutions to follow, whenever they come across any offerings in the nature of smuggled goods. We direct that a copy of this order may be sent to the Central Board of Customs and Excise, New Delhi for consideration of this aspect.
-
1989 (4) TMI 231 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Exemption not deniable for procedural lapses ... ... ... ... ..... m the facts and circumstances that there has been substantial compliance with the procedure by the appellants herein. In this connection, the case law cited by the appellants also supports their plea. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants had in fact been following the Chapter X procedure in full upto 28-2-1986 and it was only in the absence of an enabling Notification after the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and also because of late receipt of the copy of the Notification by the appellants, that they cleared the goods on payment of duty without following the Chapter X procedure. In these circumstances, the plea put forth by the appellants has lot of force. The case is remanded to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise with the direction to consider the refund application on merits with reference to the condition relating to the utilisation of the material covered by the gate passes contained in the refund applications. Remanded accordingly.
-
1989 (4) TMI 230 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Drugs Trafficking ... ... ... ... ..... een recovered by the Customs Authorities from the Yacht. We do not think that the circumstances of the case warrant a remand of this matter at this distance of time. Moreover no useful purpose will be served by remand inasmuch as the appellant did not even plead or produce any evidence to show that the Yacht in question was used as a conveyance for transport of goods or passengers on hire in terms of the proviso to Sec. 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Traffiking in Hashish which is a dangerous and deleterious substance endangering the welfare of Society causing incalculable harm and irreparable damage to human lives is a very serious offence and would warrant a deterrent punitive treatment. The Yacht in question admittedly was used as a vehicle for concealing and transporting Hashish by the Captain who is a self-confessed opium eater admittedly incharge of the Yacht. We, therefore, uphold the order of absolute confiscation of the Yacht. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - REP Licence ... ... ... ... ..... goods, the country of origin and other relevant parameters, it has to be held that there has been denial of principles of natural justice, apart from the fact, the basis as set out in the Collector rsquo s order, has not been shown to be acceptable. In view of this, we hold that the Collector rsquo s findings in regard to the assessable value are not maintainable in law and to this extent, his order in this regard is therefore set aside. He is directed to re-adjudicate the matter in this regard after giving the appellants full details of the import of the goods, the value of which has formed the basis of the value and also connected evidence and after giving an opportunity to appellants to put forth their pleas in the matter. Inasmuch as, we are remanding the matter in regard to one aspect of the matter, the Collector rsquo s order is set aside by remand for re-adjudication in the light of the above observations. The appellants appeal is partially allowed in the above terms.
-
1989 (4) TMI 225 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT credit ... ... ... ... ..... Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is in the nature of Customs Duty only and it is only for the quantification of the duty leviable under that Section the Central Excise Tariff has to be referred to. In this connection the Supreme Court decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and Another v. Union of India and Others 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (SC) would be relevant wherein the Court held that the Additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is in the nature of Customs Duty only. It cannot also be argued that just because there is an Exemption Notification under Central Excise Tariff, it will automatically be applicable to imported goods which will be classifiable under the relevant Central Excise Tariff Act Heading, because some of these Exemption Notifications are of a conditional nature. Therefore, we see a lot of force in the arguments put forth by the appellants which are accepted and the impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 224 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s a precedent. If the case of the petitioners cannot be distinguished, on any material grounds, the petitioners cannot be treated differently. Hence, in my view, the petitioners will be entitled to the reliefs claimed in this petition. 10. emsp In the result, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated the 12th June 1987/22nd July 1987 (Exhibit lsquo C rsquo to the petition) ordering absolute confiscation and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioners the amount of Rs. 98,939.50 Ps. which has been paid by the petitioners in pursuance to the interim order dated 8th October 1987 passed in the present petition. This amount shall be refunded within a period of four weeks. In the event of there being a default, the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per annum from today. Rule absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
1989 (4) TMI 223 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... Hop as well as Hop pellets is the same, namely utilization for the manufacture of quality Beer in Breweries. In this view of the matter the amendment to Serial No. 13 of Appendix 2 Part B dated 11-9-86 which added the words lsquo in any form rsquo would not make any difference because we have held that Hop pellets are nothing but pelletized Brewery Hop which item was already covered by existing entry at Serial No. 13 of the said Appendix to the Import Policy Book 1985-88. As regards the infirmities pointed out by the appellants in giving direction to the Assistant Collector by the Collector for review of the order under Section 129(D) (2), it is seen that these are technical and not such as to be fatal to the review application. We are also in agreement with the reasoning adopted in this regard by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with die order, passed by the lower authorities and the appeals are accordingly rejected.
-
1989 (4) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... dispute remained unsettled and that the protest would be technically still alive and that there would be no question of any limitation. It was held that it would not be legal or proper to hold that the protests were deemed to have been extinguished since no appeal was filed. We do not see the relevance of this decision to the facts of the present case. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, we do not consider it necessary to discuss the submissions made by Shri Sundar Rajan. 10. In the result, we hold that the protest lodged with respect to duty payments at the Virudhunagar factory was of no avail with respect to the duty payments at the Coimbatore factory. Since the refund claim in respect of the latter payments was made admittedly after the expiry of the limitation prescribed in section 11B of the Act, the claim was correctly rejected as barred by limitation by the Assistant Collector and equally correctly by the Collector (Appeals). We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (4) TMI 221 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund claim - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... preted in such a way as to render it nugatory and unworkable. In the present case when the appellant admittedly is entitled to the amount in question and when he has taken out a refund application specifically setting out the grounds for claiming refund well within the prescribed period of limitation and also by way of abundant caution made endorsement of protest in the only document viz. the challan where alone in the circumstances of the case he could have if at all protested and all in the context of a situation where the classification list of the appellant claiming the benefit of Notification 118/75 has also been accorded approval not only by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise but has also received the blessings of the appellate authority for the earlier period, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant would be entitled to the refund of the amount in question. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1989 (4) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal dismissed on merits ex parte after serving notice to party ... ... ... ... ..... ugned order has held that ldquo the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are remanded to the Collector of Customs, Madras, for deciding the issue de novo relating to the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of the imported goods. We also leave open the question of personal penalty with a direction that this issue also be decided afresh by the Collector after giving the respondents an opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law. rdquo The petitioner herein can by no stretch of imagination contend to be aggrieved by the above order of remand, since the issue is now at large and the petitioner would have all opportunities to put forth his plea. Therefore, in the context of the above order the plea of the petitioner seeking to recall the order, which in substance is for re-hearing of the appeal, would be purely academic. 10. Therefore, on consideration of the entire materials on record, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly rejected.
-
1989 (4) TMI 219 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty and fine ... ... ... ... ..... and even in regard to the necklace one Narayanamoorthy, who was examined by the Department in a follow up action, told that he had not purchased it but only taken it from the appellant for passing it on to the appellant rsquo s mother at Kakinada. Para 5 of the Show Cause Notice reads as under - ldquo One Sri P. Narayana Murthy has confirmed of receiving one necklace from Ramesh Jain at Vijayawada and delivering the same to Ramesh Jain rsquo s mother at Kakinada, in regard to which Sri Ramesh Jain has however stated as sold. rdquo Therefore, since the ornaments had not been actually sold and were only merely attempted to be sold, we are inclined to think that the Interests of justice would be met if the impugned order is modified by reducing the quantum of fine and penalty. In this view of the matter we reduce the fine to Rs, 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) and the penalty to RS. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand). Except for the above modifications the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 218 - CEGAT,MADRAS
MODVAT Credit - Component part ... ... ... ... ..... is received as such by the appellants, undergoes no process in their factory, and it is supplied as such by them along with the finished Moped. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the tool kits would be eligible for MODVAT credit under Rule 57-A because we are satisfied that it cannot be said to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product viz. the Mopeds. That the value of the Tool kits is included in the value of the Moped is not relevant for the purpose in question because while judging whether a material can be considered as an input for the purposes of MODVAT credit, we have to see the parameters of Rule 57-A and applying the parameters to Tool kits vis-a-vis Mopeds, as the final product, we find that they cannot be considered to be inputs for the purposes of Rule 57-A. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and the appeal is rejected.
-
1989 (4) TMI 217 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Transaction of business outside licensed premises allowed by High Court ... ... ... ... ..... 1987 itself, we reduce the quantum of fine to Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty-five Thousand). In fixing this quantum, we also have regard to the fact that there was due account of the ornaments in the original G.S. 12 Register maintained by appellant J.J. Jewellers at Nellore and the non-accountal was only in the subsidiary G.S. 12 Register which the travelling salesman was carrying. We also bear in mind that the original quantum of fine by the adjudicating authority was fixed for charges of contravention under Section 27(7)(b), 36 and 55 of the Act and that we have exonerated the appellant of two charges viz. under Section 27 (7)(b) and Section 36 of the Act and held that breach of Section 55 is technical in nature. In the above circumstances, we reduce the penalty of appellant. J.J. Jewellers to Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. Seven Thousand), and the penalty on appellant Praveen Kumar Jain to Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. Four Thousand) Except for the above modification, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Vegetable non-essential oils ... ... ... ... ..... a ldquo processed rdquo VNE oil, if it had undergone also a non-specified process such as hydrogenation. In our view, the three processes have been specified so that unless one or more of these processes had been gone through, the VNE oil would not qualify to be called ldquo processed oil rdquo . To contrue the explanation in any other manner would be artificially narrowing down its scope. If such indeed was the intention, we should have found words expressing such intention to exclude VNE oils which, in addition to one or more of the specified processes, have undergone - as in the present case - another, process, e.g. hydrogenation. 10. For the rest, the issue involved in the present case stands squarely covered by our two decisions in Appeals Nos. 72/1975-C and 275/1977(C). Following those decisions, we set aside the show cause notice dated 8-2-1977 issued by the Central Government and uphold the Appellate Collector rsquo s order dated 20-2-1976. 11. The appeal is rejected.
-
1989 (4) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Pitch Creosote oil mixture is not tar ... ... ... ... ..... the larger description, which defines the scope of Central Excise Tariff item 11(5). 2. ensp We have heard Shri N. Mookherjee, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative, on behalf of the department. 3. ensp We find that this issue has already come up for consideration before this Bench in the case of Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Cochin -1988 (38) E.L.T. 69 and the decision was in favour of Revenue. 4. ensp We have seen this order of the Bench. The points that have been raised here have been fully examined and dealt with in the order of the Tribunal, which has been cited by Shri Sunder Rajan in favour of the department. We entirely agree with the view that has been taken by the Tribunal in that matter. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to deal with the same points in this judgment again. 5. ensp Concurring therefore, in the view already taken by the Tribunal on this issue, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (4) TMI 194 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Order - Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... me Court wherein it has been recited as under - ldquo We would like to emphasise that since we have decided the matter in view of the special facts and circumstances available in these cases, this order will not be treated as a precedent rdquo . In my judgment, the aforesaid observation cannot come in the way of granting the reliefs prayed for in this petition as the facts and circumstances governing the case of the Petitioner is identical to the facts which were before the Supreme Court. Hence this contention of Mr. Shringarpure is liable to be negatived. 4. emsp In the result, the petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the event of the fourth Respondent not refunding the amount of Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty one Lakhs) within a period of one month from today, the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per annum from today i.e. 25th April 1989. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Research Institution - Meaning of Import ... ... ... ... ..... rted by a Research Institution rdquo , the modification in the language used has to be given due weight and consideration. The record shows that M/s. T.T.I., imported the goods for their R and D Unit. 14. ensp During the course of arguments, Dr. Gauri Shankar, the learned Sr. Advocate had referred to Para 25 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Tea Ltd. v. State of West Bengal reported in Taxman-Tax Reports (Vol. 39 page 76). Para No. 25 of the said judgment does not help the appellant. In the foregoing paragraphs we have given our detailed observations as to the profit and loss account of the R and D Unit of the appellant. It is settled law that the terms of the notification have to be interpreted strictly. Since the appellant has not satisfied the conditions laid down in the Notification, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 70/81-Cus., dated 26th March, 1981. 15. emsp In the result, we dismiss all the 99 appeals.
-
1989 (4) TMI 192 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Replenishment licence ... ... ... ... ..... of 28th July 1987, wherein on facts similar to the one arising in the present Petition it was held that the Petitioners are entitled to the splitting up despite the application therefor having been made after the 1988-91 Policy came into force. 3. emsp In the result, the Petition succeeds. The impugned order dated the 13th of May 1988, Exhibit lsquo E rsquo , and the order dated the 1st of June 1988, Exhibit lsquo G rsquo , are quashed and the Respondents are directed to split up the Petitioners rsquo Replenishment Licence as per their prayer contained in their application dated the 30th of July 1987. The Respondents shall deliver the licence so split up after revalidating the same for a period of one year from the date of the issue of the split up licences. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from today. 4. emsp Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide the case of baggage ... ... ... ... ..... ning to baggage - lsquo The collection of property in packages that a traveller takes with him on a journey luggage. Therefore, the word ldquo baggage rdquo is a comprehensive term which means the luggage of a passenger, accompanied or unaccompanied, and comprises of the trunks or bags and the personal belongings of the passenger contained therein and it must be in this comprehensive sense in which ldquo baggage rdquo has been used in Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act. If ldquo baggage rdquo in Section 80 of this Act means only bona fide baggage as contemplated by clause 3 of the Tourist Baggage Rules, 1958, there will hardly be any occasion for the application of Section 80 of the Customs Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that ldquo baggage rdquo has to be given the larger and ordinary meaning. The view taken by us is quite in conformity with the definitions quoted in paragraph 9 of the High Court judgment supra. 6. ensp The appeal will come for hearing in due course.
-
1989 (4) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... llector and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The appeal is accordingly allowed in respect of the classification of the goods. The Department would examine and dispose of the claim for refund in the light of these observations and if otherwise in order. 13. ensp We observe that the strips after paper covering have been held under Section 27(b). On the same logic the bare strips would also fall under the same heading. The appellants plea that the strips are of electrical grade and that these are conductors makes no difference so far as the classification of the goods under Section 27(b) is concerned as they have not been able to show that aluminum conductors of the type manufactured by them, fall under any other tariff entry. The tariff entry is specific for aluminum strips and following the ratio of the earlier judgments and in view of what we have said above, we hold that there are no merits in the plea of the appellants and we therefore, dismiss the appeal.
........
|