Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 233 Records
-
1987 (6) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sugar - Excess production incentive rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ect of production during October, 1976 to September, 1977 only (1976-77) and that it was in respect of the next year 1977-78 (the year with which we are concerned) that the Directorate failed to issue a certificate though applied for by the appellants. Since the notification itself was rescinded on 16.8.1978 the Directorate evidently did not pursue the matter further in respect of the letter of the appellants for grant of such certificate dated 1-8-1978. 5. ensp In the circumstances we feel that the ratio of the decision in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 553 applies to the facts of the present case also. In the circumstances we hold that the conclusion of the Collector that the appellants were not entitled to rebate claimed for the reason that Notification 36/76-C.E. applied to them is not correct. Accordingly this appeal is allowed, the order of the Collector is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector for grant of relief to the appellants in terms of Notification 108/78-C.E.
-
1987 (6) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Short levy ... ... ... ... ..... nvoked only if the amount could be ldquo demanded rdquo i.e. demanded within limitation - which is not the case here. 7. ensp We do not see the relevance of the Supreme Court judgment cited by the D.R. Even if it is assumed for argument rsquo s sake that the appellants had impliedly waived its legal objection to adjustment of the larger amount (though it was time-barred), it, must be noted that well before the department rsquo s action on such presumed waiver, the appellants clearly said that department could not proceed to adjust the full amount since it was barred by limitation. 8. ensp In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the Assistant Collector is directed to consider the appellant rsquo s claim contained in their letter dated 11-6-1979, read with their further letter dated 12-11-1979 and extend to them such consequential relief as may be due to them in addition to the refund already granted to them by the Assistant Collector.
-
1987 (6) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... espondents have not paid the excise duty, it cannot be said that they would be entitled to the refund. The contention that under Section 11B ldquo any person rdquo can claim the refund is not acceptable for the Section contemplates ldquo any person rdquo claiming the refund to make an application. Section 11B(2) indicates that on receipt of the application, if the Asstt. Collector is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty paid by the applicant (emphasis supplied) should be refunded to him, he may make an order. This provision proves that it is not open to any individual to come forward with an application for refund but only that person who had paid the duty of excise. If it is a refund claim under Section 11B, the statutory provision has to be strictly construed and the requirements must be satisfied. 16. ensp We are, therefore, of the view that the respondents are not entitled to refund. The impugned order cannot be sustained and the appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
classification ... ... ... ... ..... Since in this case the imported components do the filtering of the air i.e. purify oxygen to be breathed in the breathing appliance they are classifiable under heading 90.17/18 of the CTA, 1975. Therefore, to this extent, the Asstt. Collector rsquo s finding that the imported components are classifiable under heading 84.18 of the CTA, 1975 as filters does not appear to be correct. rdquo We have also gone through the judgments cited by both the sides. After going through the facts and circumstances we hold that the goods imported by the respondent fall under heading 90.17/18 as parts of the breathing apparatus. We uphold the finding of the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Since there is no cross-objection by the respondent we do not find it necessary to look into that part of the order which has been accepted by the respondent viz. denial of the benefit of Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22nd September, 1981 as amended from time to time. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Contravention and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, in order, except the goods weighing 709 Kgs. vide Serial Nos. 4 to 10 of Annexure A to the Seizure Memo. In the result, confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 46,809.12 vide Annexure A-7 to the Appeal Memorandum and goods weighing 709 Kgs. vide Serial Nos. 4 to 10 of Annexure-A to the Seizure Memo is set aside and confiscation of the other seized goods is upheld. 5. ensp In view of the above discussions and having regard to the value of the goods found not accounted for and the fact that out of the unaccounted goods, the goods shown in Annexure A-7 to the Appeal Memorandum valued at Rs. 46,809.12 and the goods weighing 709 Kgs. shown against Serials Nos. 4 to 10 of Annexure-A to the Seizure Memo were not liable to confiscation, I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 10,000.00 to Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand only) and also reduce the penalty from Rs. 10,000.00 to Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand only). 6. ensp The impugned order is modified in the above terms.
-
1987 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste/Scrap - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... nt has passed orders in Appeal Nos. E/522/83-B-I of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and E/Appeal No. 550/83-B-I of M/s. Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. on 16.6.1987. Those two appeals arose out of a difference between the two Members constituting the Bench whether the dross and skimmings were goods. One of the Members strongly relied on the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Khandelwal and Metal Engineering Works (as in this case) 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) . The-Hon rsquo ble President has considered the scope of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decision and placing reliance on the latter case of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. and others 1987 (29) E.L.T. 502 (Delhi) has held that the Aluminium Dross and Skimmings are not goods. The reasonings of this decision also go to show that the products in the present appeal will not attract the duty under Item 68. With these observations, I agree with my Ld. Brother that the appeal should fail.
-
1987 (6) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... rred on the part of the appellants. He has also not found that this lapse occurs in respect of all such cameras where this allegation has been set out in the show cause notice despite the denial by the appellants in their defense. In other words, on this account too, finding of the Collector is too vague. In view of the aforesaid discussion in respect of various findings of the Collector in para 25 of the impugned order, question whether the goods have been held liable to confiscation though not actually confiscated, gets shrouded in vagueness. Since the findings is vague in this regard and without discussion of the entire evidence on record for and against the appellants, I allow the appeal but direct the Collector to adjudicate it afresh on the aspect of penalty alone giving his definite findings after taking into account all the pleas of the appellants and discussing the entire evidence on record in the light of above observations. 12. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1987 (6) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... gal position as it stands on the date of hearing before the Tribunal and on that test, there is no gainsaying that demand of duty raised against the appellants by the three Show Cause Notices in respect of Extra Hard Hydrogenated Oil on the ground that they fell under Tariff Item 12 of the Tariff stand on a sound legal footing and deserves to be confirmed. 7. emsp Once we take this view, the grounds urged by Shri Lakshmikumaran that Show Cause Notice was on a different ground and demand confirmed on a different ground, demand of duty having been raised under one item which could not be demanded under another item, do not survive for consideration. So also the argument that processed oil at the intermediate stage is not goods or the applicability of Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules at that stage. 8. emsp We, therefore, uphold the demands to the extent confirmed by the lower Appellate authority though for reasons different from those found by him. 9.The appeals are hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tools - Additional duty ... ... ... ... ..... blades and segments thereof. These gang saw blades are to be fitted into the gang saw which is a machine saw. In the circumstances there can be no doubt that the sang saw blades are to be classified under Tariff Item 51A(iv) Central Excise Tariff and additional duty of customs would therefore be leviable thereon as under the said item. So far as the segments for the gang saw blades are concerned, they would be parts of the gang saw blades, evidently to be replaced when the original segments get worn out. Since Tariff Item 51A(iv) Central Excise Tariff does not cover parts of blades the proper classification in respect of such segments would be under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff. 7. emsp In view of the above circumstances we uphold the orders of the lower authorities so far as the same related to the additional duty in respect of gang saw blades but set aside the same so far as the segments are concerned. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with consequential relief.
-
1987 (6) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e paid in respect of the goods, other than for captive consumption when they are removed from the factory and not when they are removed merely from the storeroom although the goods still remain within the factory. This position gets further fortified from sub-rule (2) of Rule 173-G in respect of goods covered by SRP. This Rule speaks of actual removal of the goods from the factory. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the legal position and the factual finding that the truck was still within the factory, no contravention of Central Excise Rules has taken place in the instant case. Accordingly, order of confiscation of the excisable goods and truck and imposition of penalties on the two appellants are set aside. No order is made regarding imposition of penalty of Rs. 500/- on Shri Gurdial Singh, driver of the truck because he is not in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Appeals are, therefore, allowed so far as the two appellants are concerned with consequential relief to them.
-
1987 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty - Goods destroyed by unavoidable accident ... ... ... ... ..... y. All the rail tracks in the country are practically within the control of the Railway authorities. There is no possibility therefore, of whisking away a railway wagon. Ratio of the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate would not apply to the facts of this case. 6. emsp It was also understood during the course of hearing if the goods were not given to a consignee within a reasonable time, the consignee could lodge a claim against the Railway authorities and such claims were accepted by that authority. Lateron, if the goods were traced, the authorities disposed of those goods. In these circumstances, it would not be correct to remit duty on excisable goods which are not readily traceable on account of misplacement of wagons. It appears more appropriate that the parties should pursue their claims including excise duty with the Railway authorities who are responsible for depriving the parties of their goods. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (6) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... s been granted to the appellants. It is settled law that mere filing of an appeal or SLP does not amount to stay of the order appealed against. There is no valid reason for keeping the hearing of the appeal in abeyance as prayed for by the appellants. Consequently, the application filed by the appellants on 10-6-1987 containing the said prayer is without any substance. It appears that the appellants are obviously resorting to delaying tactics. Consequently, the same is dismissed. 6. Since the appellants have not deposited the amount of penalty as ordered by this Tribunal on 11-5-1987, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the order passed by this Tribunal on 11-5-1987 under proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act - a result which has been brought about only by the default by the appellants in complying with the order of this Tribunal to deposit the amount of penalty. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussions the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 156 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of Predeposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... pay even in cases where the impugned order on the face of it is not sustainable in law, requiring stay of its operation. 5. emsp The conventions so far followed has been that the Customs authorities were refraining from taking coersive action during the pendency of the Stay Applications. As a matter of fact it is learnt that there are Circular instructions not to take coersive steps during the pendency of the appeals. It may be stated here that the Tribunal has been insisting upon the applicants to get ready on the dates on which the applications are listed for hearing and the Tribunal was also warning them that in case they do not get ready they cannot claim any protection against recovery thus ensuring speedy disposal of the Stay Applications and preventing the applicant from adopting diletory tactics. 6. emsp It is hoped that the Department would not resort to coersive steps during the pendency of the stay applications necessitating the Tribunal to pass ad interim orders.
-
1987 (6) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Company Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 52 (M.P.) 1982 ECR 722-D, and this Tribunal rsquo s decision reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1927 (CEGAT) 1983 ECR 1227 (M/s. Sriram Piston and Ring Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut). Regarding second issue the Collector has held that the amount of excise duty recovered from the Customers but not paid to the Government should form part of the assessable value of the excisable goods as the amount of duty element should form part of the value of the goods and it is not the amount of duty deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals). The impugned order is according to law and does not merit interference. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... round of claim, in the refund application dated 31-3-1981, the appellants claimed ldquo refund of duty excess recovered rdquo . This expression read with the amount of claim shown in the working sheet enclosed to the refund application is sufficient to show that the appellants claimed refund of additional duty also. Their letter dated 22-10-1981 was by way of further elucidation of their original claim dated 31-3-1981. This letter was not the first claim for refund of additional duty. In the circumstances, we hold that their claim for additional duty was not barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Custom Act, 1962. In the result, we allow this appeal and direct that the differential amount of additional duty be refunded to the appellants after re-assessing the goods under item 26AA of the CET instead of item 15A (2) ibid. As the claim is clearly admissible we do not consider it appropriate to remand the case to lower authority in terms of the prayer of the learned J.D.R.
-
1987 (6) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... of the product under a particular item, in this case Tariff item 68. We also observe that Collector (Appeals) inter-alia followed a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. and Another v. A.K. Bandyopadhyay and Others (1980 E.L.T. 146). From the written submissions of the respondents, it appears that carbide sludge is only waste arising in the course of manufacture of acetylene gas. It does not appear to have marketability though there have been some stray cases of sale. There is nothing to disbelieve the respondents when they say that it is only an affluent and waste. Considering all this, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) and we therefore, dismiss the appeal. We make it clear that it would be open to Revenue to prove by credible evidence, if that be available, that carbide sludge is goods as per tests laid down by law and this decision would not act as a fetter, should such credible evidence be available.
-
1987 (6) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty for goods brought for industrial purposes ... ... ... ... ..... ct utilised by them for the purpose declare by them. In the circumstances, as already held by this Tribunal in the case of Arti Paints and Chemicals Industries, Bombay (Supra), the provision of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be invoked. In the result, the demand for duty is to be restricted to a period of six months under Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules. 5. emsp In view of the above discussions, we hold that as the concession was wrongly extended by the Department to the appellants, the Department is entitled to recover duty for a period of six months in terms of Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The demand for a period beyond the period of six months is held to be barred by limitation. Since L-6 licence was granted through mistake, the Department is at liberty to revoke it according to the provisions of law. The decision of the lower authorities of cancel the L-6 licence is confirmed. 6. In the result, appeal is partially allowed in the above terms.
-
1987 (6) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal was filed nearly a month thereafter. These facets of the case indicate that it was mere negligence or inadvertence that has caused the delay. If the department has not taken expeditious steps to impugn the order by appropriate proceedings, the rights of the other party should not be affected. The decision of the Supreme Court cited by the SDR has no relevancy to the present facts. From the facts of that case, we notice that it was a decision regarding the enhancement of compensation. The delay was merely 4 days. Making a justice oriented approach, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that there was sufficient cause in condoning the delay. This decision cannot be pressed into service in a case whether the delay may either be deliberate or on account of negligence. The inordinate and long delay in the case shows that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands rejected.
-
1987 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron castings ... ... ... ... ..... be sustained. 21. emsp In the result, the Central Excise authorities are directed to examine the applicability of notification 89/79 and 105/80 in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. Appeal disposed of accordingly by remand. Per H.R. Syiem, Member (T) . - 22. There are two factories separated by several kilometers involved in this contention. One factory makes the primary products, castings, and the other does the machining of these castings. This was submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran to the bench on the day the appeal was heard. The two places were licensed separately by central excise one for iron and steel castings, and the other for item 68 goods. Since the assessment of the machined parts is done under item 68, I direct the central excise to take the value of the plant and machinery of only that place or unit or factory which produced the machined product, excluding the plant and machinery of the unit which produced the castings.
-
1987 (6) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Exemption from duty and licensing ... ... ... ... ..... hand, the Department holds that M/s ITC were the actual manufacturers, the appellants being merely their hired labour, and the benefit of exemption Notification No. 77/83 was therefore not available to the appellants, the Department, on the other hand, seeks to levy duty on the manufactured articles and collect the same from the appellants and not from the ITC. This contradiction, in similar circumstances, has been commented upon by the Delhi High Court in the Poona Bottling Co. case 1985(21) E.L.T. 389 and the Madras High Court in P.N. Abdul Latif 1983 ECR 55 1985(22) E.L.T. 758 (Mad.) . 12. emsp In view of the above discussion we hold that the conclusion of the lower authorities, that the ITC were the actual manufacturers and the appellants were, therefore, not entitled to benefit under Notification No. 77/83 but were liable to pay duty, is not correct. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief, if any.
............
|