|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Crawler Tractors/Bulldozers submitted by the appellants, it is evident that the disputed ldquo Mechanical wrench for Undercarriage Track Shoes rdquo is essentially a mechanical appliance for the production of a commodity. We therefore, hold that it was specifically covered by Heading 84.59(2) and not by the residuary Heading 84.59(1) as held in the impugned order. 6. emsp It is seen that our finding that the dispute ldquo Mechanical wrench for Undercarriage Track Shoes rdquo would be classifiable under Heading 84.59(2) finds support from the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Super Cassetes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 582 in which ldquo Automatic Compression Revetters with quick Return Mechanism rdquo an innovative automatic screw driving mechanism used in the manufacture of audio cassetes was held as classifiable under Heading 84.59(2). 7. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classificastion ... ... ... ... ..... product is called Finned Tube and for purpose of classification as we have already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the product is known as Finned tubes. 13. emsp It has also to be considered whether the parts are identifiable parts of articles or they are parts of general use as defined in Note 2. It is also pertinent to note that general parts imported separately are not considered as parts of article but are classified in the headings appropriate to them. Looking at the Finned tubes in the light of this discussion, we hold that the Finned tubes shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.17/19. 14. emsp Having regard to the catalogue and drawings, Explanatory notes and Interpretative Rules as also the case law cited and relied upon by both the sides, we hold that the imported goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.17/19 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. 15.Having regard to the above findings, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Feather Valve Strips - Articles of base metals and called strips in trade parlance ... ... ... ... ..... in the instant case are different from the facts of the case cited and relied upon by the appellants. In the case before us we find that the goods are called strips and are articles of general use and imported separately and hence are to be dealt with according to provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 11. emsp On the second case relied upon by the appellant we find that the Apex Court ruled that the Rule requires the authorities to classify the goods in the heading which satisfies most specific description. No doubt we are following the ratio of this ruling of the Apex Court. 12. emsp Having regard to the catalogue and drawings, Explanatory Notes and the case law cited and the circumstances that the goods were imported separately for replacement of the strips, we hold that the imported goods were rightly classified under Chapter Heading 73.33/40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 13. Having regard to the above findings, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the sub-contractors would have to be deemed as having been carried out for and on behalf of the appellant and therefore, the casting in question would be classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff as fully machined parts has no force at all. It is well-settled that goods have to be assessed on the basis of their form at the time of their clearance. In this case as observed earlier at the time of clearance the goods had undergone only the processes of heat treatment, scraping and fettling and any subsequent machining carried out at the premises of the sub-contractors or job worker resulting in an activity amounting to further manufacture would have to be deemed as having been carried out by the job worker as an independent manufacturer and the liability for payment of duty, if any, attracted on the goods undergoing such further processing would be that of the job worker. 6. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
-
1995 (3) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rade as mosaic tiles rsquo cannot be relied upon and the respondents rsquo own literature and commercial invoices also do not describe the product as mosaic tiles rsquo . Under these circumstances, we hold that the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the respondents cannot be of any assistance to them. 11. emsp As described by us earlier in the commercial literature brought out by the respondents and in the invoices issued by them the product in question was being described only as ldquo Marbella agglomerated marble rdquo and ldquo Marbellam Tiles rdquo and not as ldquo Mosaic Tiles rdquo . Hence, it has to be held that commercially the tiles in question were not known as ldquo mosaic tiles rdquo . We, therefore, hold that the Collector (Appeals) finding that the disputed goods were mosaic tiles rsquo eligible for exemption under Notification No. 59/90, dated 20-3-1990 is not sustainable. 12. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ed about it being traded as a separate goods and known as a separate product in the market. In the CCE v. Jayant Oil Mills, as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 986, the Tribunal took into consideration the ruling of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, which took a view that oil would remain oil if it retains its essential properties, and merely because it has been subjected to certain processes would not convert it into a different substance. Therefore, this aspect of the ratio is applicable to the present case. Mere dehydration would not result into a new and separate product and it would not go outside the category of castor oil. In that view of the matter, I agree with the finding of ld. Member (T) Shri Gowri Shankar and direct for dismissal of the appeal. Sd/ (S.L. Peeran) Dated 14-3-1995 Member (J) FINAL ORDER In view of majority of opinion, the appeal is dismissed. Dated 20-3-1995 Sd/- (Gowri Shankar) Member (T) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran)Member (J) Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar)Vice President
-
1995 (3) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Second-hand machinery ... ... ... ... ..... such an assessment can not be set aside if it was based on reasonable considerations and recognised parameters such as comparison with the near equivalents in the circumstances of each case. 20. emsp The case law cited by the Learned Counsel also does not help the cause of the appellants. The case of Job Printers (supra) cited takes note of the fact that value depends upon the conditions of the second-hand machine in each case and the case of Tata Art Printers also rightly emphasises that the assessment has to be based on adequate material in evidence and as we have seen above both aspects have been duly taken care of by the Learned Additional Collector. 21. emsp In view of the above discussion I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Additional Colletor. I therefore reject the appeal. 22. emsp Order per G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) . - I agree with the view expressed by my learned brother, Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President, and consequently I also reject the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... sable value. This aspect of the matter requires further consideration and assessable value has to be worked out again. In other several cases, we have remanded on this point as in the case of Vapi Paper Mills v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 109 and Kanam Foam Industries v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 368. It has also been stated in the appeal memo that the Collector had failed to appreciate that their clearances had not crossed the limit under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, while we have hold that demands for larger period and penalty is not imposable in this case and the valuation is required to be re-calculated under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the aspect pertaining to the eligibility of exemption under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, could also be examined over again. In view of the matter, the appeal is remanded for fresh consideration in the terms as stated above.
-
1995 (3) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Test of marketability ... ... ... ... ..... lity is an essential ingredient of excisability it is not just correct to ask the party to prove marketability. Mere fact that goods do find place in the Tariff cannot be presumed that it was a marketable commodity and it is for the Department to prove that it was marketed and party cannot be asked to prove negative. Since Department has not produced any evidence in this case to show that item, as such, was marketed or marketable, Department rsquo s case remains unsubstantiated as it was observed by the Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) and, accordingly, the view expressed by him is concurred with. 22. The case file is returned to the Original Bench to pass an appropriate order. Sd/ G.A. Brahma Deva Member (J) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority of opinion the department rsquo s case has remained unsubstantitated. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. Dated 13-3-1995 Sd/- emsp emsp S.L. Peeran Member (J) Sd/- emsp S.K. Bhatnagar (Vice President)
-
1995 (3) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Moulding Compound ... ... ... ... ..... cted to the point of difference referred to me, I do not propose to go into further details to decide the issue whether similar bulk forms rsquo referred to in Chapter Note 6(a)(ii) would include the item in question to avail exemption in terms of Notification 133/86. In the facts and circumstances I am of the view that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the lower authorities to decide the issue afresh by giving one more opportunity to the appellants to substantiate their claim. Accordingly I agree with the Hon rsquo ble Member (J) to remand the matter for de novo consideration. The case file is returned to the original Bench to pass an appropriate order. Dated 10-3-1995 Sd/-(G.A.Brahma Deva) Member (J) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority of opinion the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration in accordance with law. Dated 13-3-1995 Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Sd/- (S.K.Bhatnagar) Vice-President
-
1995 (3) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... d that the facts in those cases were different from those of the case before us and we, therefore, hold that the cases are distinguishable. 10. emsp The ld. DR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gramophone Co. India Ltd. In this case, we find that the issue was different in as much as the issue was What does the expression service industry rsquo mean for purpose of Project Import Regulations, 1986 and thus the decision of the Tribunal in this case also does not support the contentions of the Deptt. Representative. 11. emsp Having examined the various contentions raised before us and the case law cited and as discussed above, we hold that the machines imported were not a part of the project enumerated under Chapter Heading 84.66(i) of the 1st Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, the lower authorities rightly refused registration of the contract. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals are accordingly rejected.
-
1995 (3) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s use in motor vehicles for fastening purposes. Para 16 of that order is extracted below - 16. emsp The fact that the studs are used in the motor vehicles is also not material in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) AIR 1977 SC 597 wherein it was observed that where a Tariff Entry does not contain a reference to the use or adaptation of the article, the end use of the article is not relevant. The goods in the present case are screw studs which are referred to in the Explanation below Tariff Item 52 and there is no reference to end-use in the item. 16. emsp In the light of the above discussion, there appears to be no doubt that the product laminated safety wind shield glass, manufactured by the appellants, as per the process of manufacture mentioned above, is classifiable under sub-heading No. 7004.20 of the Tariff. According, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal, and allow this appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand confirmed by non-speaking order ... ... ... ... ..... uo Letter dated 1-12-1986 from Grover Steel Rolling Mills, 11/3, Mile Stone, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad addressed to M/s. Durrung Steels Ltd., Dehra- Dun. Subject Your letter No. 5010(Case)/86/XX Reference your letter No. 5010(Case)/86/XX dated 14-11-1986, we would like to inform you that we have not received any material so far details given below Bilti No. Truck No. Qty. of Steel ingorts 3279 dt. 10-12-1984 UTL 5268 12.500 MT 3476 dt. 20-12-1984 DLL 1207 12.500 MT 5. emsp The Collector has not taken this defence into account while passing his order which, therefore, suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, and remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. He shall decide the matter on the basis of the evidence placed before him and pass a fresh order after extending an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. 6. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1995 (3) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manganese Powder - Low Carbon Ferro Manganese Powder ... ... ... ... ..... ter showing the percentage of different important constituents for classification whereas the use of the word and rsquo clearly indicates that in addition to the above requirements for classification, the requirement after the word and rsquo is essential for classification under the particular head indicated therein. On examination of the composition, we find that the imported goods contained Silicon and therefore, in view of the requirement of Chapter Note 1(c) of Chapter 73, we agree with the findings of the lower authorities and hold that the imported goods were not classifiable under Chapter heading 73.02. 7. emsp On the question that there was contradiction in the orders passed by the Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals), on a careful reading of the two orders, we do not find any material contradiction in the orders passed by the lower authorities, and we hold accordingly. 8. Having regard to the above findings, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Misdeclaration as to description ... ... ... ... ..... ower authorities and also any reason to interfere with the quantum of redemption fine. 11. emsp On the question of imposition of penalty, we find that the appellants had an export order, they had an import licence under the duty exemption entitlement scheme and the goods were needed for execution of the order which the appellant had and the goods were not liable to duty. In the special circumstances of the case we hold that mens rea is not proved, no evidence has been brought on record that Fixed Winchester of 190 MB were not permitted to be imported under duty exemption entitlement scheme and therefore the intention to evade payment of duty is not clearly proved against the appellants. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the imposition of penalty is out of all proportions in this case. We, therefore, reduce penalty to Rs.10,000/-. 12.But for the above modification the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (3) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Jig Boring Machine - Machine imported ... ... ... ... ..... help him. Learned brother Member Judicial has extracted the common understanding of big boring machine as given in the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Engineering page 379. 22. emsp In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus., dated 1st March, 1978. Accordingly, I concur with the view expressed by Member Judicial. The point of difference referred to me is answered accordingly. Registry is directed to place the matter before the Bench for passing appropriate orders. Dated 30-1-1995 Sd/- (Harish Chander) President FINAL ORDER 23. emsp In accordance with the majority decision, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the imported goods are not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 40/78, dated 1-3-1978 vide Sl. No. 2 thereof. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Sd/- (K.Sankararaman) Member (T) 6-3-1995 Sd/- (S.L.Peeran) Member (J) 7-3-1995
-
1995 (3) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sugar - Rebate for excess production ... ... ... ... ..... reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 145 (SC) the Supreme Court has taken the view that while calculating the rebate percentage would not apply to the excessive production but it would to the average production with reference to the Notification No.146/74-C.E., dated 12-10-1974 but it has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Saswad Mali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., (supra) that rebate being made relatable on the excess production, it is this production (beyond the average), which has to be looked into and accordingly, it is not an average production. In view of the foregoing conclusion particularly with reference to clause 3 of the Notification, we hold that Assistant Collector was correct in taking production of one sugar year alone as average production of preceding three years. 7. emsp In the result we set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and, accordingly the appeal is allowed by restoring the Order-in- original of the Assistant Collector.
-
1995 (3) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Order ... ... ... ... ..... iff heading, therefore, declaration was not required merely of a change in tariff heading. In case of Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 689 (T), the Tribunal held that when declaration has been given indicating description of the input as perfume rsquo and the description in the gate pass also indicated that description, it cannot be held that declaration does not cover the input. Tariff classification is not in the hands of the appellants and disparity in tariff classification between declaration and gate pass cannot have the effect of denying substantive benefit as long as both tariff headings are eligible for modvat credit as per notification issued under Rule 57A. 13. Considering the legal position as set out above I consider it a fit case for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit and at this stage itself take up the appeal for consideration. For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 190 - SUPREME COURT
Whether dry cell batteries manufactured by the assessees are eligible to tax under Entry No. 3 or Entry No. 38 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957?
Whether the arc carbons manufactured by the assessees are eligible to tax under Entry No. 4 or Entry No. 38 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ?
Held that:- The decision of the High Court that arc carbons are taxable under Entry No. 4 of the First Schedule to the Act does not call for any interference.
The expression “accessories thereof” in Entry No. 3 indicates that Entry No. 3 can be attracted only if the dry batteries or cells can be treated as accessories of the wire reception instruments etc. specified in Entry No. 3 or else they would fall under Entry No. 38 as “other accessories” of “all electrical goods” being the residuary entry. The dry cells or batteries marked for use in transistors as is the case of some such batteries manufactured by the Union Carbide India Ltd. alone during the pre-1976 period, may fall under Entry No. 3 as held by the High Court. However, multi-purpose batteries, not specified for use in transistors alone cannot be treated as “accessories thereof” of wireless reception instruments etc. for the purpose of Entry No. 3. No infirmity in the view taken by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 189 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... both these years. The assessment order does not contain discussion of this addition. There is only description to the effect that the addition is on account of preliminary expenses debited to the P and L account. As would be evident from the above, in the first appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) had asked the assessee s counsel to state as to how these expenses were allowable as business expenditure. He could not explain it. Now, by way of modifying the ground of appeal, the assessee is attempting to alter the nature and character of the ground of appeal and in this manner he is trying to raise before us a new ground which would require fresh/further enquiry and investigation into facts. We see no good reason for allowing this at this stage of the proceedings. We also see no reason for our interference in this part of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, reject this ground. 18. In the result, both the appeals partly succeed and are allowed as above.
............
|
