Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 2885 Records
-
1992 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... the Honourable High Court of Patna for their valued opinion. 10. The Cross Objection filed by the respondents gets covered by this reference being made to the Court. 11. Order . - In view of our above observations, the Reference Application is partly allowed. We, therefore, refer the following question of law to Hon rsquo ble Patna High Court for their valued opinion - ldquo Whether a Superintendent of Central Excise is competent to issue a show cause notice for demand of duty within a period of six months from the relevant date, even if, the non-levy or short-levy necessitating such notice is by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement of facts or contravention of the provisions with intent to evade payment of duty or only the Collector of Central Excise can issue the notice in such cases, even if the same issued within a period of six months from the relevant date. rdquo Registry is directed to immediately send the copy of this order with necessary enclosures.
-
1992 (12) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is not possible to verify the facts with reference to the conditions stipulated in the notification. 35. Finally, about the demand for the past period in terms of the proviso to Section 11A, we agree with the Assistant Collector that this is a clear case of mis-declaration in the Classification List. In the case of goods manufactured with a brand name unless the chemical composition of the product, its character and use are declared by the assessee, its correct classification cannot be determined. In the absence of any such details the manufacturer making a claim for classification at a low rate of duty does so at his own peril and, if the facts are found on verification to be otherwise, the appellant is liable to the consequences of his mis-declaration which, in the circumstances of this case, we find to have been correctly adjudged. In the light of these findings, we agree that the demand for duty was rightly confirmed. Thus, the appeal on all counts fails and is rejected.
-
1992 (12) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal from Additional Collector ... ... ... ... ..... quashed. This obviously means that the 5th respondent cannot hear the revision any more. In view of the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the proper forum is the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Act, the appeal papers filed before the Tribunal by the department will be returned to the department for proper presentation, before the forum having jurisdiction, if so advised. 6. In view of the above discussion we order that this Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction in the matter and the jurisdiction vests with the Collector of Customs (Appeals). We direct the Registry to return the appeal papers to the appellant keeping in view the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court. The appellant is at liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and if there is any limitation problem, we shall appreciate, if the Collector (Appeals)-interprets the provisions liberally. 7. The matter is disposed of in the above manner.
-
1992 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal- Re-hearing of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... 932 Lahore 387 in the case of Bhagwan Das and another v. Mt. Dakhan and Another that where a case has been dismissed for default application for restoration should be granted. The learned Senior Departmental Representative Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram has no objection if the Bench is inclined to recall the order already announced and to rehear the appeal. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides here, we are inclined to allow the Misc. application for rehearing the appeal having regard to the ratio of the decisions cited before us by the learned Consultant and also considering that the operative portion of the order though announced in Court had not been brought to its logical conclusion by the issue on a signed order containing the reasons therefor and also since the Misc. application for reopening and rehearing, it had been filed before such a formal detailed order came to be issued. The Misc. application is, therefore, allowed. Order announced in Court.
-
1992 (12) TMI 148 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Exemption to S.S.I. Units ... ... ... ... ..... the learned lower authority should do necessary verification arid allow the appellants the benefit as claimed by them, in case their plea made before us is found to be correct. We clarify that in respect of a particular specified product if the appellants at any stage during a financial year availed of the MODVAT Credit, the provisions of sub-clause (a) (i) of the Notification 175/86 in respect of that commodity will get attracted. The provisions of sub-clause (a)(i) makes no distinction as to at what stage in a financial year manufacturer avails of the MODVAT Credit in respect of the specified goods. With these observations we allow the appellant rsquo s plea and remand the matter to the ldquo lower original authority as mentioned above. Accordingly the appeal is allowed by way of remand. rdquo 7. In view of the above, there is no substance in the Department rsquo s appeal and has to be rejected. ORDER 8. For the reasons discussed above, the Departmental appeal is rejected.
-
1992 (12) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... edemption fine has to be calculated on that basis. In the above appeal, the market price of the confiscated goods was Rs. 1,21,638 and the proviso to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1960 states that fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated. 6. In view of the foregoing, the following question of law arises for reference ldquo (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in ordering the release of the silver to the L.R. on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000 which is admittedly in excess of Rs. 1,21,638 appraised at the market value of the silver at the time of its seizure on 25-5-1983 is not highly excessive as the quantum of redemption fine should be commensurate with the value as has been held by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Calcutta in their Judgment in the case of Narayan Prasad Dutta v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 17 (Cal.) 1989 (21) ECR 223? rdquo
-
1992 (12) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ain covered by Item 12 as this item covers ldquo Vegetable non-essential oils, all sorts ... rdquo , while Item 68 is a residuary one covering ldquo All other Goods, not elsewhere specified ..... rdquo . The material point to be considered, therefore, is whether extra hardened rice bran oil is oil or not. We do find an answer to this question in the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in Tungabhadra case supra. 11. We do not find any justification for the view advanced in the appeal that Item 12 should be restricted to Vegetable non-essential oil in their natural state. No evidence has been placed before us that the decisions of the Tribunal in Tata Oil Mills case (supra) and Jayalakshmi Cotton rsquo s case (supra) have been set aside by the Supreme Court. The fact that appeals were filed against these decisions of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court does not warrant the conclusion that these decisions are not good law. 12. In view of the foregoing, the appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1992 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... 8-1-1992 reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 426 (Tribunal) in which the Tribunal had followed its own earlier order in the case of C.C.E. v. Somany Pilkingtons Pvt. Ltd. Order No. E/464 to 465/91-D, dated 10-10-1991 reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 451 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had held that broken glazed tiles are not excisable to duty and also observed that merely because the waste tiles are sold in the market, that cannot be the factor to consider the goods to be excisable. The learned DR pleaded before us that the department has gone in appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Tribunal but he also says that there is no order of the Supreme Court staying the operation of the order of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we hold that the ratio of the decision squarely applies to the facts of theses cases and we uphold, the order of the Collector (Appeals) and reject the appeals by the department. The cross objection by the respondents is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... lassification should be decided by applying the common parlance test. Similarly, the learned Counsel had also pressed into service a number of decisions in support of his view. While we have referred to only those cases which were necessary, we have considered all of them in arriving at our decision. Besides, taking into account the argument of both sides, we have also carefully studied the resume of written submissions given by Shri Shridharan. Finally, would like to place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by both sides in dealing with this complex question of classification. 35. To sum up, upon full consideration of all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that Rice Rubber Rolls manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under sub-heading 4016.99 and are not entitled to exemption under Notification 197/67-C.E., dated 29-8-1967. The order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh is set aside and both the appeals are allowed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... rsquo own understanding that the exemption given by the proviso to notification would be applicable even in the case of appellants though only billet steel was made with the aid of electric furnace and not subsequent down-stream products like wire rods. Having issued this circular, we fail to understand as to how the respondents can now accuse the appellants of suppression. Further there was already a judgment of the Tribunal in Pearlite Wire Product rsquo s case delivered on 11-4-1983 taking a view similar to the appellants rsquo understanding. Hence there cannot be any allegation of suppression in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the demand for the period beyond six months cannot be enforced. Further, since the appellants have already succeeded on merits, the entire demand is liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, we set aside the impugned order both on merits and on limitation and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1992 (12) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... irst appellant, there has been no serious argument made by the learned Advocate in this regard. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the case and the manner in which the first appellant has gone about to evade duty, we do not think that the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1,55,000 to be on the higher side and we confirm the same. As regards the confiscation, a fine of (i) Rs. 1500 (ii) Rs. 450 (iii) Rs. 2000 (iv) Rs. 10,000 and (v) Rs. 60,000 in lieu of seized goods on the various premises of the other appellants imposed under Rule 173Q(1) and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We do not see any infirmity in this order. They are all offending goods on which duty has not been paid and there is no denial that these goods were not purchased and cleared from the first appellant rsquo s factory. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with this portion of the Order and we confirm the same. 33. In the result the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (12) TMI 141 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Exemption to S.S.I. Units ... ... ... ... ..... before us in the present appeal, we do not propose to go into that question. 11. In the circumstances, as the view taken by us in the matter which agrees with the contention raised in the appeal differs from the stand taken by the South Regional Bench of the Tribunal in a series of decisions, the matter requires to be resolved by a larger Bench. We, therefore, place the matter before the Honourable President of the Tribunal for referring the case to a larger Bench of the Tribunal for resolving the difference. Incidentally, another question that will have to be decided in the matter will be whether the issue which is concerned with the question of interpretation of exemption Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 and, therefore, a question relating to rate of duty will not be a matter for decision by a Special Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal and the purported Cross Objection filed by the respondents are placed before the Honourable President of the Tribunal for his decision.
-
1992 (12) TMI 140 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ... ... ... ..... variation between the figures recorded in the RG 1 and those figuring in their statement to the bank has not been disputed. The appellants have merely an explanation for the discrepancy. He suggested that inasmuch as none of the lower authorities have dealt with the matter in detail and had merely passed the general order, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to remand the case for fresh adjudication by going into each point in detail. 4. Shri Maingi has no objection to the suggestion. 5. After carefully looking into the orders passed by the lower authorities, I am satisfied that they have not passed speaking orders in the matter. It is necessary to examine the explanation of the appellants point-by-point and then to pass the speaking order. The orders of the lower authorities are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, after granting a hearing to the appellants.
-
1992 (12) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... with the earlier set which is being disposed of by a separate order and therefore, it is not necessary to mention the arguments in detail in this order. 6. While allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in the year 1989, we have observed that the Depot Service Charges and unloading charges cannot be included towards assessable value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty when the price at the factory gate was ascertainable. Therefore, we have quashed the show cause notices issued by the Respondent No. 3. 7. In the present set of writ petitions also, the facts are absolutely identical and similar. 6. Following the ratio of the decisions quoted above, we hold that in the appellants rsquo case during the relevant period, the approved ex-factory price at which sales were actually made to independent wholesale buyers represented the assessable value. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (12) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import Licence ... ... ... ... ..... sition of personal penalty is not justified in this case, and waive the same. The appeal to these extents are allowed. rdquo This would indicate that in these cases though the value declared is not acceptable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, no mala fides are attributed to the appellants in this regard. Therefore, the plea of the appellants in all these cases that the enhanced value is not to be debited to the import licence has a lot of force and is accepted. In the result, it is held that the decision of the lower authorities to debit the import licence with the appraised value is not well founded and in this view of the matter, order of the lower authority in this regard is set aside. However, the offence in respect of excess quantity of goods found in each case still remains and accordingly the order of the lower authority confiscating the goods and levying fine in lieu of confiscation is sustainable and is upheld. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (12) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he products are appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 7019.90 and hence the classification adopted by the lower authorities is proper. As we have upheld the order on merits, the other questions raising the additional grounds at appellate stage does not survive for consideration. The learned Counsel has relied on the rulings of the Supreme Court as in the case of Atul Glass Industries and Other Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Products Ltd. and Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. These decisions have been rendered under erstwhile Central Excise Tariff pertaining to Glass mirror. Arc Chamber and the entry lsquo articles of plastic rsquo . As the present case is under new Tariff, it is based on section note and Chapter notes. The products are specifically excluded by Note 1(c) of Chapter 84 and the entry 7019.90 is more specific and hence the classification made thereunder, is to be upheld. In the result, we do not find any merits in these appeals and the same are dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Smuggling of goods ... ... ... ... ..... egarding this aspect and has not established that it was a case of abetment by ldquo aiding rdquo or ldquo conspiracy rdquo as understood in law. The order of the Tribunal in the case of Leonardo Villarico v. Collector of Customs (Prev.) reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 765 cited by the learned Counsel is also distinguishable on facts - in that case the appellant therein was aware only of transportation of gold in the vessel agreeing to abet in unloading thereof at Bombay without any knowledge about place of concealment of gold and the Tribunal held that the appellant not being instrumental in procuring gold, bringing it into vessel and concealing it, penalty imposed under Section 112(b) was not justified. In the above appeal, however, the role played by the appellant and his involvement and complicity in the offence has been established. 9. In view of the above discussion we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. We accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
1992 (12) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... s order dated 29-2-1984 while deciding the issue of classification for the purpose of customs duty observed that equipment imported did not fall under Chapter 92 as it was not a sound recording equipment since they do not record the sound but transmit the sound to the cinematographic films. This finding remains since no appeal was filed against that order. Further this finding was not rebutted by the Department with substantial evidence even though sufficient time was granted to produce catalogue with reference to the item in question. On going through the description in the invoice that it is a cinematographic equipment and in view of the clear finding by the Collector (Appeals) that it is not a sound recording equipment, we do not find any justification to classify the item under 37AA of C.E.T. 8. In the result, we set aside the impugned order dated 27-1-1984 and thus the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (12) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classificatiomn ... ... ... ... ..... ability of the product could be considered. The said item before presentation to the deity would not be lsquo Prasad rsquo or lsquo Prasadam rsquo but it would be known in the stage in which it is. Therefore, the item, after it is presented to the deity by the temple authorities and offered to devotees on charges, cannot be considered as lsquo goods rsquo . The term lsquo goods rsquo as has been noted in the definitions, does not carry any religious sentiments nor does it have any blessings of deity. Goods are commodities which are brought to the market for sale, while the lsquo Prasad rsquo or lsquo Prasadam rsquo are the blessings of a deity which has a great religious significance. Therefore, in my opinion lsquo Prasad rsquo or lsquo Prasadam rsquo cannot be made exigible. In the result I agree with my learned Brother rsquo s findings that the item in question have to be considered as sugar confectionery falling under sub-heading 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. 1985.
-
1992 (12) TMI 133 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund of amount pre-deposited pending appeal ... ... ... ... ..... judgment of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in Tungabhadra Steel Products Limited v. Superintendent, Central Excise, reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 340 (Kar.), which was cited before us by Shri Sekhar Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel for the respondents. This judgment, which does not refer to the Gujarat High Court judgment in the Torrent case, lays down that Rule 57-I, as it stood before amendment with effect from 6-10-1988 should receive the same interpretation as it should receive after the amendment. In the view we have taken on account of the notice in the present case having been issued after the amendment, the Torrent case is distinguishable. 8. In view of the position discussed above, we are satisfied that no question of law requiring a reference to the High Court has arisen from the order passed by us. Accordingly, we dismiss this Reference Application. 9. As the Reference Application itself is dismissed, the Stay Application filed by the Collector is also dismissed.
........
|