|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 265 Records
-
1986 (9) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Motors - Electric motors - Motor vehicles ... ... ... ... ..... hargeable on geared electric motors as it is commercially a different product and covered by Tariff Item 30 of CET as we have held above. For the sake of convenience, however, it is not inappropriate if the duty is charged at the final stage i.e. when the geared electric motors are proposed to be cleared from the factory. As regards the last plea of the appellants rsquo counsel for restricting the demand of duty from the date of show cause notice i.e. from 21.9.76, we observe that the change in practice can be said to be made w.e.f. 4.5.76 by issue of trade notice 129/76. Having regard to the facts that the earlier practice of the department was not to charge duty under Tariff Item 30 on the value of gear portion of the geared motors as evidenced by the classification lists, it would be appropriate if the demand of duty is restricted from the date of trade notice of the Bangalore Collectorate i.e. 4.5.76. 9. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1986 (9) TMI 204 - CEGAT ,NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... ger is dated 21-2-1980. This shows that this certificate was not in existence when the goods were assessed by the Custom House. The first condition of the exemption Notification was not thus satisfied. The reason adduced in the Memo of appeal dated 18.3.80 filed before the Appellate Collector for delay in filing the certificate is that the certificate had to be called for from the Hyderabad Project. This explanation for delay is not convincing. The required certificate was to be obtained from the appellants rsquo internal source. Secondly, the General Manager signed the certificate after eight months of the importation of the goods. This clearly shows that the appellants did not make diligent efforts to fulfil the statutory condition of the exemption Notification. 7. emsp In view of the above discussions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the assessment made by the Custom House. In the result, this appeal is to be dismissed as untenable. We order accordingly.
-
1986 (9) TMI 203 - SUPREME COURT
Whether under item 1 of Appendix 6 (import of items under Open General Licence) of the Import Policy, 1985-88, raw materials, components and consumables (non-iron and steel items) other than those included in the Appendices 2, 3 Part A, 5 and 8 will be permissible by the actual user (industrial)?
Held that:- This contention above cannot be accepted firstly because it comes within specific prohibition of Item 9 in Part-B of Appendix 5 being fatty acid and acid oil which were importable only by the State Trading Corporation of India under Open General Licence on the basis of foreign exchange released by the Government in its favour. Secondly the actual importation was not by the petitioners but by somebody else as mentioned hereinbefore, being M/s Dimexon Co. In the premises, the view of the Bombay High Court cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... The example of a factory being separated by a natural barrier, is not correct. It is not denied that the premises at C-1/19, Vatva is not a factory in terms of Section 2(m) of the Act. That being so, the benefit of notifications 89/79 and 85/79 to the manufacturer i.e. the assessee cannot be denied in the instant case. 10. emsp What the Department contends to do in this case has been intended to some extent by a subsequent notification 178/85, dated. 1.8.85 by which goods produced in a premises other than a factory defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 are exempted only when their clearances by or on behalf of a manufacturer from such premises do not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs in a financial year. In other words, the contention of clubbing the clearance in respect of goods produced in a premises other than the factory as defined in the Factories Act cannot be accepted in the face of notification 85/79. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of M/s. Prithvi Plastic Packaging.
-
1986 (9) TMI 201 - SUPREME COURT
Detention order dated December 11, 1985 under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as ‘the COFEPOSA ACT’ challenged
Held that:- The report of the Advisory Committee was considered by the confirming authority. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the confirming authority had not applied his mind to the evidence of the defence witness as contended on behalf of the appellant. It will not be unreasonable to presume that all the records including the deposition of the said M.L. Khanna were before the confirming authority. It will be a mere surmise to hold that the confirming authority had not applied his mind to the deposition of the defence witness, even though such deposition has been referred to in the report of the Advisory Committee. The contention, in our opinion, is without any substance and is rejected. No other point has been urged on behalf of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Assessments on R.T. 12 returns appealable ... ... ... ... ..... ty supporting Shri Varshney rsquo s contention that such assessments are appealable. Shri Sundar Rajan also does not dispute that such assessments are appealable. In view of this agreed position we do not consider it necessary to dwell at length with authorities on the point. We set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter for de novo consideration of the appellants case on merits to the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. As the matters are very old pertaining to year 1975/1978, the Collector (Appeals) shall decide the appeals within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by him. 3. The appeals are thus allowed by remand.
-
1986 (9) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Proforma credit - Calcined alumina received for manufacture of fused alumina grains and mullite grains
-
1986 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) ... ... ... ... ..... the ldquo casting weight rdquo , ldquo marked length rdquo on pieces. There is no mention in these reports to the effect that the goods were not fishing rods. Thus it appears that the basis for the allegation that the goods exported were not fishing rods but only component parts as imported seems to rest on the premise that items such as spools, reels, hooks etc. were not also exported. We have already given our finding that fishing rod is but one of the items that go to make up fishing tackle and that the items mentioned above are not parts of fishing rods but at best accessories or adjuncts. 21. emsp Once the position is reached that what was exported were fishing rods, the whole basis for the allegations against the appellants falls to ground. Consequently, the findings on this basis and the adjudication order consequent to such findings must also fail. 22. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (9) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Assessable value of dyestuffs ... ... ... ... ..... o accord his approval to it, though, for a wrong reason (i) the applications for refund are as well misconceived and do not sustain. Apart from merits, the refunds claimed were in respect of price lists duly approved and assessments made in accordance with such approved price lists. The Respondent was obviously not aggrieved because the determination of the assessable value was fully in accord with the declaration in the price lists filed. The approval of the price lists and the assessments had become final not having been appealed against. An application for refund, if allowed, will be directly inconsistent and conflicting with the orders in assessments which had become final and cannot, therefore, sustain. 28. The Appeals, therefore, succeed and are allowed. 29. Order per K. Prakash Anand . - I fully concur with the views expressed by my learned Brother G. Sankaran and further elaborated by my Brother M. Gouri Shankar Murthy. The appeals, therefore, succeed and are allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal time barred if filed beyond prescribed period - ... ... ... ... ..... ring agents were processing the matter and making claim for refund and filed the appeal. 3. emsp The Collector (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the ground that it is barred by time. Shri Kandlur did not challenge that part of the findings of the Collector. He has submitted that the person who was looking after the work had left the service all of a sudden and hence there was delay. 4. emsp This appeal deserves to be rejected firstly on the ground that the clearing agents are not competent to prefer appeals without proper authority. Secondly on the ground that there is no merit in the appeal. It has not been shown that the order of the Collector (Appeals) suffers from any infirmity. Admittedly, the appeal had been filed beyond the period of limitation. There seems to have been no request for condoning the delay. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is erroneous. 5. In the result this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1986 (9) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
‘Steel ingots- ... ... ... ... ..... a lack of understanding of technology leading to an unnecessary dispute. 18. emsp The addition of ferro-manganese and ferro-silicon is not only normal in the manufacture of steel ingot but is vital and necessary. The department is totally wrong and we set the order of the Collector aside. 19. emsp A little point that seemed to have escaped everybody the Collector records in the order that one of the ingredients for the manufacture of steel ingots was iron melting scrap or perhaps only iron. Iron and iron melting scrap would amount to much the same substances as far as manufacture of steel was concerned. Every person knows that iron cannot be turned into steel unless it is alloyed and has, added to it, substances like carbon, chrome, silicon etc. etc. Iron is an element Fe, but steel is an alloy of a number of elements, compounds etc., the base being iron. How did the department suppose steel ingots would be made out of iron or iron scrap without the addition of ferro alloys?
-
1986 (9) TMI 193 - CEGAT. NEW DELHI
Valuation - Brand name owner ... ... ... ... ..... eme Court decision which was not cited before us and that is Jt. Secretary to Government of India v. Food Specialties 1985(22) E.L.T. 324. In that case, Food Specialties entered into an agreement with M/s. Nestle to manufacture on their behalf sweetened condensed milk soluable coffee and Baby Milk foods under certain trade mark in respect of which the latter was registered as the sole user in India. It is held by the Supreme Court that what were sold and supplied by the respondents were goods manufactured by it with trade mark affixed to it and it was the actual price of such goods that must determine the value for the purpose of excise duty. It was held that it was the wholesale price at which the goods with the trade mark affixed to them were sold by Food Specialties Ltd. to Nestle Products (India) as stipulated under the agreements which would be the value of the goods for the purpose of excise duty. 12. emsp Accordingly, all these appeals have to succeed. Appeals allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Cost of iron component ... ... ... ... ..... ordingly submitted two new price lists No. 2/80 and 1/81. We find. further that in price list No. 1/80 there is no mention at all of any decision of the Assistant Collector to include or exclude the cost of inserts. Nor has any other proceeding been brought to our notice in which the Assistant Collector took any such decision. When these facts were put to the respondents during the hearing, all that they said was that both sides had the knowledge and the presumption that the cost of inserts was not to be included. How and on what basis? We were not enlightened. There is, therefore, no question of the Assistant Collector being estopped from proceeding with his inquiry on receipt of fresh price lists. 5. emsp Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and restore the order-in-original with the modification that the demand for differential duty for the period prior to the effective date of the revised price list No. 2/80 dated 18-11-1980 is quashed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron and steel products - Iron castings ... ... ... ... ..... hese words finding of the adjudicating authority is not tenable in law. We are fortified in this view by Supreme Court rsquo s in the case of Union of India and others v. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur - 1977 E.L.T. (J61) (S.C.) ECR (C) 490 (SC) . Supreme Court rsquo s observations are as follows ldquo If the intention of the Government were to exclude the exemption to duty paid pig iron when mixed with other materials then the notification would have used the expression lsquo only rsquo or lsquo exclusively rsquo or lsquo entirely rsquo with regard to duty paid iron rdquo . Notification under interpretation before the Supreme Court was 30/60 which 5. emsp In view of our aforesaid findings it is unnecessary to go into the other pleas raised by the learned consultant of the appellant in respect of time bar and imposition of penalty. The appeal succeeds on the basis of our finding on the first plea itself. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice not time barred ... ... ... ... ..... ordinarily understood as comprising of articles such as glass tumblers, glass vases etc. They are finished articles for use as components of motor vehicles. The rough blanks under consideration in the proceedings before us are not finished articles, viz. optical lenses. They are yet to be worked upon before they acquire that identity, of optical quality which have to be further worked upon. For the reasons which we have set out in discussing the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment on glass mirrors, we are of the opinion that the considerations which weighed with the court in classifying wind screens and other screens for motor vehicles under item No. 68 may not apply to the rough blanks before us. 14. emsp In the circumstances, we hold that the subject rough ophthalmic glass blanks are covered by item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the Assistant Collector rsquo s order restored.
-
1986 (9) TMI 163 - SUPREME COURT
Whether High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal on the findings that the order of the Appellate Authority did not suffer from any error of law?
Held that:- The findings recorded by the Deputy Director Enforcement and the Appellate Authority leave no room for doubt that the appellant took delivery of goods himself when he was in U.S.A. and sold the same by private sale in a surreptitious manner disregarding the directions of the Reserve bank of India and keeping it in dark about it. The appellant has not proved how much value and foreign exchange he realized by such private sale. In the first place he could not have sold the goods privately in a secretive manner contrary to the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. In the next place he should have candidly come forward to state how much he realized and ought to have repatriated the said amount. Instead of appellant resorted to manipulations to show that the importer had paid only 50% of the value which fact is established to be untrue. The full export value is reflected in the transaction which was made with the foreign buyer at $ 5976.00 but he has repatriated only $ 2931.42. He has thus clearly violated Section 12(2). The order under appeal is unassailable.
There is thus no escape from the conclusion that the appellant contravened Section 12(2) of the Act. The High Court committed no error in rejecting appellant’s submission. The appeal fails, is accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Motor vehicle parts ... ... ... ... ..... of Section XVI of the Import Tariff. The arguments noted in paragraph 4(ii), (iii), (vii) and (vii) of .this order are not, therefore, relevant to the facts of the present case. As the appellants have accepted the c.v. duty assessed by the Custom House, the argument advanced in paragraph 4(iv) is also found to be not relevant. The appellants have cited a number of past decisions of this Tribunal as well as of Supreme Court. There is no dispute about the ratio laid down in those decisions, but the ratio of the earlier decisions are to be applied where the facts are similar. In the facts of the present case, none of those decisions is applicable to this case. 10. emsp Having regard to our foregoing discussions, we hold that the imported jeep parts were correctly assessed under Heading 87.04/06(1) of C.T.A, 1975 and they cannot be re-assessed under Heading 84.63, as claimed by the appellants. In the result, the present appeal is to be dismissed as untenable. Ordered accordingly.
-
1986 (9) TMI 154 - ITAT PATNA
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ... ... ... ... ..... afresh after providing the assessee and the department an opportunity of being heard. 11. In the cross-objection filed by the assessee in respect of the wealth-tax appeals for the assessment year 1978-79 it is contended that while determining the value of the house property at 16 times the rental income, a deduction was required to be given for the municipal taxes, etc., for the purposes of arriving at the net rental income. It is stated that the value determined without providing for such deductions is highly excessive. We find that this matter has not been considered by the AAC. Hence we do not entertain this ground as it does not arise out of the order of the AAC. 12. In the end, the income-tax appeals filed by the department for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 are dismissed. The wealth-tax appeals filed by the department for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 are only partly allowed, for statistical purposes. The cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 153 - ITAT PATNA
Agricultural Land, Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Jurisdiction For Reassessment, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1986 (9) TMI 150 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Revision, Of Orders Prejudicial To Revenue, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... ability had allowed as deduction for life insurance policies. It was explained to him that the individual had taken loan against LIC policies and advanced the same to the HUF. Therefore, the liability was admissible as a deduction. The Commissioner was of the view that these facts were not spelt out in any statement available at the time of making the original assessments. So, he directed examination of this aspect also. While we cannot state that there is any infirmity in the finding of the Commissioner, because the full facts were not spelt out at the time of the original assessments, we would only state that on merits the issue has only become academic because in the subsequent assessments completed as a result of the order of the Commissioner the liabilities have been allowed because the assessee s contention has apparently been established to be correct. 13. The result is that the appeals against the orders of the Commissioner setting aside the assessments are dismissed.
............
|
