|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 311 Records
-
1996 (5) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... teel saw blades and diamond impregnated segments rdquo were held correctly classifiable under 82.01/04 and 82.07 respectively. 25. emsp In Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Rajasthan Udyog, saw blades bodies rsquo for attachment of Diamonds segments were held classifiable under Heading 82.01/04 of CTA, 1975. 26. emsp In the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Inds. dealt with the question of grant of the benefit of Notification No. 69/87, with regard to the item circular saw blades (friction types). 27. emsp In Collector of Customs v. Manjushree Minerals Ltd. Blades for cutting instruments were found to attachment to saw and hence its classification under Heading 82.01/04 of CTA, 1975 was upheld. 28. emsp In Granite (India) Ltd. case Gang saw Blades were held classifiable under Heading 82.01/04 of CTA, 1975. 29. emsp Thus, the claim of the importer is rejected and as a result their appeals are dismissed and the Revenue rsquo s claim is accepted and thus the Revenue appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (5) TMI 259 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation of Patent or Proprietary Medicines ... ... ... ... ..... ought to have been done by the lower authorities. We therefore hold that the option should have been left with the appellants either to claim for the benefit of Notification 245/83 for all the goods figuring in the price list under the Drug Price Control Order or to opt for the assessment under Section 4 in respect of all the drugs. It is open to the assessee to choose whichever of the two courses is beneficial to him. We therefore hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is not maintainable in law and we set aside the same with direction to approve the price lists after giving the option to the assessee as above and after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee before approval of the same. We observe that there was no warrant in the facts and circumstances of the case for levy of any penalty on the appellants. We therefore set aside the order of the learned lower authority so far as levy of penalty is concerned and allow the appeal in the above terms.
-
1996 (5) TMI 258 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Export - DEEC Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ndication in the AR form, the Customs Officers could not have found out whether these goods are being exported under the DEEC Scheme licence granted to the appellants. The certificate issued by the Inspector of Central Excise cannot be said to be a substitute for the satisfaction of the Customs Officers who were performing their duties under the Customs Act. All procedures have been laid down in order to ensure that what was being exported is in terms of the licence granted to the appellants. Therefore, it cannot be said that these are procedural in nature, but these are substantial safeguards enumerated by the policy makers to show that the exports are made in terms of the Policy and they are not misused by the exporters. In our view therefore it cannot be termed as a mere procedural irregularity. But this is a substantial condition which cannot be condoned. In the above view of the matter there are no infirmities in the impugned order and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.
-
1996 (5) TMI 257 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Show Cause Notice - Natural Justice - Personal hearing ... ... ... ... ..... sent to the appellant. Even if the show cause notice was presumed to have been served on the appellant the authorities should have given a personal hearing notice also to the appellant as contemplated under Section 124 of the Customs Act. Such notice was not at all sent to the appellant. Even on that account the principles of natural justice is violated. In that view of the matter the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the appellant is not in accordance with law and therefore we direct the adjudicating authority to serve a show cause notice on the appellant as per the procedure prescribed under Section 153 of the Customs Act. The learned Advocate at this juncture intervened and stated that the appellant will receive the show cause notice from the authorities through his Advocate by hand. The appellant thereafter could file his reply and after granting personal hearing the adjudicating authority should dispose of the matter by flowing the principles of natural justice.
-
1996 (5) TMI 256 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... various provisions under different rules from which the scope of the scheme can be read. Under Rule 57S it is clearly stated that the Modvat credit in respect of capital goods can be utilised so long as the same were used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. This clear provision about the use as above cannot be ignored and the use of the capital goods therefore for Modvat purpose will have to be considered in or in relation to the manufacture of the notified products. We therefore find no force in the plea of the Revenue and we hold that the appellants would be entitled to benefit of Modvat credit in case they are able to show that the use of Fork Lifts is essential in the respondents rsquo factory and without the use of the same the Respondents would not be able to manufacture the final product. In this view of the matter we remand the matter to the learned lower authority for this limited purpose.We dismiss the appeal subject to the above observations.
-
1996 (5) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ects. In this background therefore merely because one importation has been made at a higher price cannot form the basis for enhancement of the value of the machines of the appellants who has produced evidence in support of the value declared by way of certificate issued by the statutory authority, the High Powered Committee constituted by the Government of India and it is further backed the same by producing other evidence by way of proforma invoice for 1986 model machines and also similar machines manufactured in India. In view of the above, taking into consideration the evidence on record we hold that no valid basis has been laid for enhancing the value as done by the learned lower authority and we therefore give the appellants the benefit of doubt and set aside the order of the learned lower authority enhancing the value and also levy of penalty on the appellants and also confiscation of the goods. We therefore allow the appeals of the appellants with consequential relief.
-
1996 (5) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... r the tariff heading for textile. We, therefore, are proceeding on the assumption that the goods imported are specially designed for use in the zip tapes and the issue we are called upon to go into is only with reference to the benefit of notification in terms of entries at S. Nos. 2 and 4 of the table to the notification. We observe that the term zip tapes rsquo has not been amplified in the notification and the respondent had also not been able to show that the term zip tape rsquo can be taken only which are fitted with the teeth. The term zip tape rsquo therefore, has to be taken to be a comprehensive term as in the notification the same is not defined and can be taken to be covering not only the tape fitted with teeth thereon, but also the tape as has been imported by the respondents. In view of the above, we hold that the appeals filed by the revenue has to be allowed. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned lower authority and allow the appeals of the revenue.
-
1996 (5) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation of conveyance - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... d to the appellant Syndicate Bank and the recovery proceedings were pending for the recovery of the balance amount of hypothecation. Taking into consideration all these aspects we are of the view that it is a fit case wherein the adjudicating authority should have allowed the appellant to redeem the vessel in question and in that view of the matter that the vessel is liable for confiscation we allow the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lakhs). The appellant should redeem the abovesaid vessel by payment of abovesaid amount within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. This will satisfy the case of the appellant Syndicate Bank. But for these observations and modifications the appeals are otherwise dismissed. We also observe that in fixing the redemption fine we have taken into consideration the fact that the vessel in question is lying for a long time with the Department and it has deteriorated in its value.
-
1996 (5) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... e same survey number and after converting the raw materials into clinkers they are sending the same to M/s. Nandi Cements. In that view of the matter, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 119/86. A mere procedural lapse in not following the Chapter X procedure is not sufficient to deny the benefit to the appellants as has been held in the abovesaid decisions which are relied by learned advocate. 7. emsp In the present case from the allegations in the Show Cause Notice itself it is very clear the goods were received by the appellant and after the Job work is done they were sent back to M/s. Nandi Cements and what is required is verification in this regard. In that view of the matter we hold that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 119/86 subject to the verification by the department regarding the quantum returned. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms. The penalty imposed on the appellants is also set asided .
-
1996 (5) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Advance licence ... ... ... ... ..... e licence re-validated earlier. The licensing authorities allowed revalidation without any condition as per their request. In such a situation where there is time bound obligation for export under the advance licence issued as endorsed in the DEEC the re-validation done has to be taken to be in respect of the goods which are covered by the licence within the value limit for the intended export product. Once the re-validation has been done it should be taken to cover the past imports so long as the respondents meet the export obligation. In the present case, it has been stated that the respondents have met the complete export obligation. In the above view of the matter, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case re-validation of the licence in the above background can be taken to cover the imports which were made earlier and which have been used for the manufacture of the export product. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned CC (A) and dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (5) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... e third parties are available, the benefit of cross-examination should be allowed. It could have been a different matter if the other parties were co-accused and they implicated themselves when implicated others in their statements before the authorities. In such an event the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani v. U.O.I. reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (SC) 1996 (62) ECR 366 (SC) held that statement of co-accused is a material evidence. In this view of the matter, we hold that there has been denial of principles of natural justice and for that reason, the learned lower authority rsquo s order is not a proper order. We, therefore set aside the same and remand the matter to the learned lower authority for de novo adjudication after affording an opportunity of cross-examination of the third parties on whose statements reliance has been placed against the appellants in regard to supply of raw materials and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
-
1996 (5) TMI 249 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
`Proper Officer’ - Meaning of - Show Cause Notice - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... gs also, would be too far fetched assumption. No request for cross-examination appears to have been made. The Respondents also seem to have produced the certificates from Plant and Quarantine Authority, and Port Health Laboratory. 26. emsp When such documentary evidence is brought on record to Counter the solitary report of CFL, produced by the Department, which, on the grounds duly discussed in minute details by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, has been held as not acceptable and reliable, and when no clinching evidence to re-counter the same or convincing reasons to discard the said evidence has been advanced, there seems no justifiable ground to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, and hence the same is also confirmed. 27. emsp When on merits the appeals do not deserve any consideration the minor issues whether the direction from the Board cover up all the issues, are not considered. 28. emsp In the result, all the appeals stand rejected.
-
1996 (5) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... or and no verification about the receipt of the letter appears to have been done by the department. It is also not known as to whether any of the Directors who were examined by the department officials had stated about this letter and whether such a plea had been raised at earlier stage. Therefore, in the fitness of things, it is necessary that the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration only on this aspect of the matter and also to consider remission of duty on exported items. The Learned Commissioner shall examine the plea of limitation as raised by the appellants before the Tribunal and also with regard to the valuation and remission of the duty after giving them due notice of hearing and decide the case de novo. The duty which has been deposited and bank guarantee furnished will remain as security till the readjudication of the case. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration.
-
1996 (5) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ork. (2) emsp Double tiles intended for splitting before use. (3) emsp Mosaic cubes, whether or not on a paper or other backing. On the other hand, in addition to glazed articles the heading excludes (a) emsp Tiles specially adapted as table mats, etc. (Heading 69.11 or 69.12). (b) emsp Ornaments and the like of Heading 69.13. (c) emsp Ceramic tiles specially adapted for stoves (Heading 69.14). On a careful consideration of all the pleas and on examination of the Explanatory Note under HSN 6907, which is akin to Heading 69.05, the classification adopted by ld. Collector in respect of goods in question is correct and requires to be confirmed. 7. emsp The ld. DR relied on Tariff Advice cited in 1989 (39) E.L.T. T5 it pertains to Biscuit Tiles, which emerge as an intermediate product and held to be non exigible. The said Tariff advice is totally irrelevant. Perhaps, ld. DR has cited the same by inadvertent mistake. There is no merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed.
-
1996 (5) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Credit ... ... ... ... ..... assessee in this matter. The judgments referred to by the assessee also lay down that the Modvat credit cannot be denied so long as substantive compliance has been done by the assessee in terms of the Modvat Rules, Notification issued thereunder. I am fully satisfied on perusal of the documents that there has been no violation of any Rule or Notification and the assessee had correctly availed the Modvat credit. There is no dispute by the department that the assessee has not utilised the declared inputs in the manufacture of final products. The dispute has been restricted only to the technicalities as has been held in the judgments referred to above that Modvat credit cannot be denied for procedural lapses and on account of technicalities. 7. emsp In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the ratios referred to above, the impugned orders are therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1996 (5) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 26. The learned Collector was clearly wrong in classifying these goods under Tariff Item 25 which covered only iron and not steel. 8. emsp From the order we find that the learned Collector has decided the appeal only on the issue of classification and that he did not deal with the other two issues made by the appellants before him, viz. that the process of manufacture was within the knowledge of the Department for nearly 3 years and as such, the demand was barred by limitation and also that the goods were manufactured without the use of power. These omissions may adversely affect the interests of M/s. Prajapati Metal Works, on our holding that the learned Collector was wrong in classifying the products in this manner. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector and remand the case for de novo proceedings to the Assistant Collector who shall proceed to determine the claims of the respondents only on the aspect of time bar. 9. emsp The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (5) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... ce is to make the party concerned aware of the charges and also to furnish the grounds for the charges. It is seen from the appellants response to the Superintendent rsquo s letters that from the beginning they were fully aware of the grounds of the demand and took steps to resist it. Therefore, the contentions that the show cause notice is time barred and that the longer period has been invoked without jurisdiction are not tenable, as it is seen on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, that there is satisfactorily material on record to show that the demand had effectively been made within the normal time limit under Rule 57-I. In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities. However, considering that at the relevant time there was some grey area as to the interpretation of the deemed credit order, the penalty on the appellants appears harsh, and it is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (5) TMI 232 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nment exchequer. If the applicants have paid any amount to suppliers it may give rise to civil action. In so far as the Modvat credit is concerned, the only criteria to be examined is, whether the amount on which the credit has been taken, has been paid as a duty to the Government exchequer. If that is not done, the availment of Modvat credit may not be possible. The factual position in this case requires to be examined and a final conclusion can be drawn only thereafter. Prima facie, however, it appears that the amount demanded has to be secured. Under the circumstances, the applicants are directed to keep the amount of Rs. 52,179/- in their Modvat account. In case of any shortage in their Modvat account, they can cover up the amount by furnishing Bank Guarantee. They should report compliance within two months from the date of receipt of this order. On reporting compliance, there shall be stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the duty as well as penalty amounts.
-
1996 (5) TMI 231 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Liability to interest ... ... ... ... ..... e direction from us. 4. emsp Section 11AA prescribes for levy of interest on delayed payment of duty. The Explanation (1) thereto indicates that the relevant date for determination of the commencement of the period for which interest is to be charged thereunder is the date of the order of the Appellate authority or the Court. In other words, the liability to interest does not commence, until the dispute is finally settled by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be. It would, therefore, appear that the demand for recovery of interest at this stage is premature. However, since in our opinion, the impugned communication from the Asstt. Commissioner is in the nature of administrative instruction, in terms of the powers vested in us under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, we direct the jurisdictional Commissioner to examine the representation made by the applicants and issue appropriate orders to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner.
-
1996 (5) TMI 230 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Remand - Ex-parte order ... ... ... ... ..... e derivatives of Vanillin (4-Hydroxy and 3-Methoxy Benzoldehyde) as described under tariff sub-heading 2912.41. In our views, this enquiry is imported inasmuch as the classification of the goods would also depend on the sub-heading note relating to ldquo derivatives rdquo given in chapter note of Chapter 29. The said sub-heading note is as follows - ldquo Within any one heading of this Chapter, derivatives of a chemical compound (or group of chemical compounds) are to be classified in the same sub-heading as that compound (or group of compounds) provided that they are not more specifically covered by any other sub-heading and that there is no residual sub-heading named rdquo Other in the series of sub-headings concerned. 6. emsp Since the goods have been imported in October, 1993, we expect the Commissioner of Customs to decide the case expeditiously in the light of the above observation in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Appeals are thus allowed by remand.
............
|
