|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 3273 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n again fairly stated before us that the present case would be covered by the decision of a 5-Member Bench of this Tribunal in Saurashtra Chemicals, Porbandar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1986 (23) E.L.T. 283. By that decision, it was held that Carbon Rings and Carbon Seals though recognizable as spare parts in turbosets and compressors, were classifiable not under Chapter 84 but under heading 68.01/16(1) because they were articles of carbon, a mineral substance, and statutory Note 1(a) to Chapter 84 clearly excluded from Chapter 84 ldquo Mill Stones, Grind Stones and other articles falling within Chapter 68 . It was held that even fully finished machinery parts, if they are made of carbon, would fall under Chapter 68. 7. ensp In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities were correct in upholding the classification of the subject goods under heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the Schedule. Accordingly, we dismiss both the present appeals.
-
1987 (12) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Printed corrugated board boxes/cartons ... ... ... ... ..... shir Kumar, learned S.D.R. has argued that commercially, waxed printed boxes/cartons are differently known from ordinary printed boxes/cartons. Therefore, the waxed printed corrugated board boxes/cartons are not covered by the Notification No. 279/82-C.E. dated 22-11-1982. 3. ensp We have considered the case records and the arguments of both sides. The goods under exemption vide serial No. 3 of the table of the Notification No. 279/82-CE are specified as ldquo corrugated board boxes and corrugated board cartons. rdquo To include ldquo waxed rdquo corrugated board boxes and cartons in the Notification will mean expanding the scope of the Notification, which is not permissible. We are, therefore, of the view that ldquo waxed rdquo corrugated board boxes/cartons are not covered by this exemption Notification. There is, therefore, no justification to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. In the circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of duty ... ... ... ... ..... appellants had not disclosed the fact of collection from the customers at 30 though duty was being paid at 15 only. They could not be held to have been guilty of suppression or wilful misstatement of facts. It would, therefore, follow that when with reference to those months, the department chose to raise a demand, the said demand should have been issued within the normal period of limitation. Though under the Finance Act of 1982 the amendment to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) had been made retrospective, it would not mean that all demands for such differentials could be raised irrespective of the limitations prescribed under Section 11-A. Since, for the reasons already stated, we hold that demand in respect of the differential duty for the months April-May 1980 should have been issued within the normal period of limitation, we hold that the show cause notice dated 16-6-1982 was barred by time. 6. ensp This appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities set aside.
-
1987 (12) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... processing as stated earlier. In the show cause notice issued by the Government, reliance is placed mainly on the description of the goods as tool bits in the respondent rsquo s catalogue as evidence of the commercial or trade parlance in respect of the present goods while how the goods are described in the catalogue would be prima facie evidence of how the goods are known in the present instance, the fact cannot be ignored that the respondents had been claiming all along that the tool bits manufactured by them could not be used directly till after they were subjected to further processing and this claim remains unrebutted. In the circumstances, and following the previous decisions of this Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Collector has correctly held that the subject goods are not classifiable under Item No. 51A(iii) but under Item No. 68 of the CET. 8. The result is that we uphold the impugned order, discharge the show cause notice and dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (12) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by department to the Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... that there was no authorisation, as required in Section 35-B, in favour of the Assistant Collector when he signed and verified the appeal on 23-7-1983. The authorisation subsequently signed on 25-7-1983 could not ratify the act of the Assistant Collector in having filed the appeal without such an authorisation. An appeal is a statutory right and can be exercised only by the person entitled under the statute to exercise that right. Section 35-B confers on the Collector the right to file an appeal to the Tribunal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). Section 35-B(ii) enables the Collector to direct any other person to prefer that appeal on his behalf. When the Assistant Collector signed, verified and filed the appeal on 23-7-1983 he acted without any such authority from the Collector. 3. We, therefore, hold that the appeal is incompetent as having been filed by a person who was not competent to file the same. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as incompetent
-
1987 (12) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... sing the claim. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, SDR submitted that the product has been described in the invoice as ldquo Spray Control Valve rdquo . The Bill of Entry contained the similar expression. He submitted that the prior ruling of the Tribunal would apply to the present facts. 5. We notice that the Collector (Appeals) has merely stated that the contention of the appellants was not borne out on the evidence and the catalogue did not support their contention. We have to observe that this finding of the Collector (Appeals) cannot be justified. The catalogue produced by the appellants confirm that the goods are ldquo pressure reducing valves rdquo . The further evidence, namely, the write-up, the prior order of the Government and also the Tribunal confirm that the items could be correctly classified under Heading 84.61 (2) only. The impugned order is set aside in respect of the imported valves only. Consequential reliefs would follow. The appeal is allowed, in part as stated above.
-
1987 (12) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... a ldquo Loading Machine rdquo assessable under Heading 84.22. 2. Shri J. Gopinath, SDR submitted that the Board had made a reference to CCCN and after addressing the DGTD has decided to classify the ldquo Load Haul Dumpers rdquo under Heading 84.22. He, therefore, states that he has instructions not to press this appeal. In the circumstance stated by the SDR, the appeal is dismissed as ldquo not pressed rdquo .
-
1987 (12) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d out at the same time i.e. (i) taking of the fused assembly and putting on the articles to be fused on the loading station (ii) fusing operation in the heart pressing station and (iii) cooling down the fused assembly in the cooling station. The whole turning frame must be manually moved at 120 deg until it snaps. The pressing operation is automatically initiated thereafter. These operations of the machine confirms the view that the machine cannot be called the collar turning and blocking machine. The review show cause notice refers to the two different machines designed and built for different and independent functions. The respondents have not filed any evidence to held that the machine can be considered as a ldquo Collar Turning and Blocking machine rdquo . Their request for considering the notification broadly, and attribute a broad meaning to Sl. No. 19 of the exemption notification is, therefore, not called for. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... der Rajan, JDR reiterates the arguments urged by the Revenue when the Tribunal took the aforesaid decision to secure their rights before the Appellate Court. That however, is no reason that we should depart from the decision. Following the decision, we hold Polyethylene Glycol as properly classifiable under Heading 38.01/19(1) of CTA. A necessary corollary of this classification would for additional duty be the classification under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. 2. In view of the foregoing, this appeal by Revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... er itself without going into the details of the accessories. 5. The SDR, however, pointed out that it would not be possible to accept the contention of the appellants, since as recorded in the order-in-appeal, the accessories and parts, though shipped with the phototypeseller, were not compulsorily supplied with the machine, but have been listed and charged separately in the invoice. 6. I agree that this is so. The parts came not as parts of the machine but were separately charged, and invoiced differently from the main machine. It may be true, as claimed by the importers, that the PCB and the flopping disc have such specific uses that they can be used only with the phototypesetter with which they arrived. But they stood apart and separate from the main machine. Therefore, they cannot form part of the assessment of the main machine, phototypesetter. The action of the lower authorities, therefore, cannot be faulted and I am not prepared to interfere. 7. The appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (12) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... deficiencies and for disposing of the appeals on merits thereafter. 2. On careful consideration, we agree with the common submissions of both the parties. We set aside the impugned order and remand all the five matters to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for a fresh disposal. He should give the opportunity to the appellants to affix the missing court fee stamp. As regards the requirement of pre-deposit, he should give the opportunity to the appellants to either pay the duty due or to file a stay application. If the appellants choose to file a stay application, the Collector (Appeals) should consider it and pass suitable orders thereon.
-
1987 (12) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Violation of principles of - Denial of opportunity ... ... ... ... ..... urnment had been rejected and they were informed of this rejection. Considering this it cannot be said that the order contradicts the assertions made by Dr. Gauri Shanker and Manoj Arora before us. Viewed in this background it appears to us that appellants had no proper opportunity of hearing before the Director of Publications before he took the impugned decision. 6. Dr. Gauri Shanker has no objection if the Tribunal set a time limit for decision of the matter by the Director of Publications as the amount involved appears to be large. 7. As a result of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for de-novo decision to the Director of Publications, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi after affording an opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to the appellants. Director of Publications shall decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by him. The appeal is thus allowed by remand in the foregoing terms.
-
1987 (12) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Trade Discount ... ... ... ... ..... here. 10. In 1983 E.L.T. 1896 the Supreme Court held that after-sale services, marketing and selling organisation expenses including advertisements expenses cannot be deducted. Indeed the court held that all items that enter into the price of the article at the factory gate should figure in the assessable value, unless it figures as a permissible deduction according to the law. We are not satisfied that Rs. 5,000/- deduction claimed by the assessees is a permissible deduction. 11. In 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 re Madras Rubber Factory, the Supreme Court decided that overriding commission allowed to a dealer was a commission for sales, and was granted for the sale of the products through the dealers and was a commission for services rendered. The court ruled that it was not a discount and disallowed the deductions claimed. In our present case also, the commission is not a discount but is a commission to a dealer who will render services. It is not deductible. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import - Durability ... ... ... ... ..... y within the meaning of the Factories Act. The appellant rsquo s unit does not satisfy the second condition i.e. it does not qualify to be a factory under the Factories Act and as such we hold that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Project Import under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Shri Dandapani, the learned advocate had pleaded that the assessment should be made under Heading 90.07 whereas the impugned order shows that the appellant had made a claim under Heading 90.08 before the learned Appellate Collector of Customs and he had rejected the claim on the ground that this plea was not taken earlier before the Assistant Collector. This claim for assessment under this heading had never been placed before the Assistant Collector, the original authority. If the importers wish this head to be considered, they may place it before him for consideration, as such an assessment must be first considered by the first authority i.e. the Assistant Collector.
-
1987 (12) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r the manufacture of fertilizer, cannot be treated as feed stock for the manufacture of fertilizer and hence the benefit of the Notification No. 147/74-C.E., dated 30-10-1974 is not admissible for the quantity of LSHS thus used for the purpose of drying the raw materials. Duty was, therefore, correctly demanded by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue. 4. We find from the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Collector that a penalty of Rs 1,500/- was also imposed on the respondents. The Deputy Collector has given reasons for imposing the penalty under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Representative for the respondents has not addressed any argument on the question of penalty. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the Deputy Collector. 5. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 234 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Definition of “Vegetable Oil” ... ... ... ... ..... obtained as a result of polishing of rice in mills. What may be of plant origin may be paddy not the rice bran. Plant according to dictionary means, ldquo a young tree, vine, shrub, or herb planted or suitable for planting a vegetable, flower, fruit rdquo . Therefore, stems, roots, barks, leaves or even weed may be included or deemed to be of plant origin. But not the rice bran which is at worst is a by-product. Since rice bran is not covered by either of the characteristics given to vegetable oil no cess was leviable from persons who extracted oil from rice bran. 5. Preliminary objection of opposite party that petition is not maintainable as the Association is not registered cannot be accepted, in view of widening of concept of locus standi. 6. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to opposite parties not to realise any cess from members of petitioners rsquo association on oil produced from rice bran. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 233 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
Detention order ... ... ... ... ..... delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The said order of detention has also been struck down on the ground that the same was not justified on the solitary instance that had taken place in February 1981. There is one additional glaring ground in the present petition which was not there in that petition and that is, that the impugned order of detention has been passed as far back as on the 4th of December, 1981 and there is no evidence that the petitioner has either visited India after May 1981 or has indulged in any activities of the nature contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. Hence, it will have to be held that this is a fit case where the impugned order of detention deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground also. 11. emsp In the result, this petition succeeds. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b).
-
1987 (12) TMI 232 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... 0 gms. no accounts were maintained. The quantity is in excess of permissible limit. There is thus contravention of Sections 42(ii) and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act. Therefore, though the Collector was not correct in ordering confiscation of the entire seized quantity there could have been confiscation of the primary gold belonging to the appellants. Since the Collector had allowed redemption on payment of fine the appellants are entitled to redeem their gold on payment of fine. I, therefore, reduce the quantum of fine from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). 12. As regards penalty the Collector had imposed Rs. 1000/- each on the appellants. Looking to the contravention committed by the appellants the penalty cannot be considered as harsh and even unreasonable. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with that part of the Collector rsquo s order. The appellants shall be granted consequential relief by way of refund of the excess fine amount, if they have paid.
-
1987 (12) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import Policy - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... cious stones is covered specifically under Tariff Heading 71.04. Such dust and powder need not be for jewellery purposes and mostly it is for non-jewellery purposes. Tariff Heading 71.02(3) speaks again of lsquo industrial diamonds rsquo i.e. which are of non-jewellery variety. Therefore, if some of items covered under the said Chapter 71 and not meant for jewellery purposes can be classified under this chapter, there is no reason whatsoever as to why the pearls of non-jewellery quality alone should be excluded from the purview of the Chapter 71 in the absence of specific words to that effect. Since the goods under import have been found raw pearls and that also unworked, in the absence of any specific report that they are worked, the benefit of Notification 247/76, dated 2-8-1976 would also be available to the goods. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is set aside while allowing the appeal. Consequential relief if any, will be given to the appellants.
-
1987 (12) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Review show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... and contradictions found in the statements cannot hold that the defence is an after-thought. Such a finding is opposed to the very show cause notice issued by the Department. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in so far as it relates to the setting aside of the confiscation of the seized gold. 11. the next question that arises for consideration is whether the Appellate Collector was justified in reducing the penalty from Rs. 9000/- to Rs. 500/-. The Appellate Collector had accepted the defence version that the seized gold belonged to G.G.Patel. He had also accepted the defence version that the seized gold was brought for testing of purity. Therefore, the offence, if any, committed by the gold dealer would be of a technical nature and in the said circumstances if the Appellate Collector had reduced the penalty, the same does not require any interference. 12. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
........
|
