|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 541 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Payment of duty on fortnightly basis ... ... ... ... ..... /s. Baburam Parkash Chandra Maheshwari v. Zila Parishad Muzaffarnagar, AIR 1969 S.C. 556 and a series of other decisions in which it has been held that if the impugned action/order is challenged on the ground of violation of the natural justice, the High Court can overlook the objection of alternative remedy. 22. emsp For the reasons, mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders Annexures P.1 and P.2 are quashed with liberty to respondent No. 4 to pass a fresh order by giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. We further direct that if respondent No. 4 again comes to the conclusion that the facility available to the petitioners under Rule 49(1) read with Rule 173G of the Rules should be forfeited, then the period of forfeiture shall be operated after deducting the period for which the facility had already been denied in pursuance of the impugned orders. 23. emsp Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications.
-
2001 (3) TMI 540 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... imported separately and not along with the milling machine. Hence, the impugned permanent magnets were clearly not excluded from the scope of Heading 85.05, as per the Explanatory Notes in HSN. 14. emsp In view of the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to interfere with the original order which is maintainable (except for the fact that the impugned goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8505.11 and not under sub-heading 8505.90. 5. emsp We agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and uphold the classification of the impugned goods under sub-heading 8505.90 as we do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the goods are used in the milling machine has not been disputed simply for the reason that the provisions of Note 2(a) is applicable for the purpose of classification and no reference to Note 2(b) can be made as it has not been imported along with the machine. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 539 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ved that intellectual inputs greatly enhance the value and giving example, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court mentioned that the value of paper is negligible as compared to the value or price of the Encyclopaedia or a Dictionary. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that ldquo this means that the charges of a duty is on the final product whether it be Encyclopaedia or the engineering or architectural drawings or any manual rdquo . Following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. We also agree with the findings of the Commissioner on the invokability of the provisions of Section 11A(1) as the material facts were not disclosed to the Department and duty was not paid on the entire value. Penalty is imposable on the appellants. We find that only penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed in a case involving duty of Rs. 1.21 lakhs which in our view is not high at all. We, therefore, uphold the order and reject the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 538 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... lants had not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the goods were misdeclared. He observed that the appellants rsquo defence before the Commissioner was that it was a genuine mistake and they had indicated the mistake themselves to the department. This has not been rebutted by the department before us. The appellants have also submitted copies of the letters which the Custom House Agent had addressed to the Assistant Commissioner requesting for amendment in the shipping bill. In view of these facts, we find that the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation and we, therefore, set aside confiscation of the goods and consequently redemption fine. However, as the goods were initially described as woven fabrics though inadvertently, the some penalty should be imposed on the appellants. We feel that a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- will meet the end of justice and, therefore, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 537 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the promise made by the Counsel another deposit of Rs. 1 lakh was made on 22-1-1997. However when the matter was posted for hearing today, it became clear that the assessees had not complied fully with the order inasmuch as the remaining sum of Rs. 3 lakhs had not been deposited. Shri Paresh Joshi, ld. Counsel fairly concedes and submits that he has filed yet another miscellaneous application. It is his submission that the unit is now sick and is under BIFR. He further submit that the lack of compliance should not be held against him. 2. emsp We have considered this situation. We find that where the assessees should have complied with the order in modification, after 4 years also there is no compliance. In the face of utter disregard of the Tribunal rsquo s order by the assessee, we are not inclined to give any further facility such as hearing on the application for modifications. The appeal merits dismissal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 513 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the departmental view. 5. emsp On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the records, we notice that in the present case, demands were raised for re-classification of the item under Item 16A(1) of the erstwhile tariff in respects of the clearances effected during 6/81 to 2/82 and differential duty was demanded. The question for our consideration is whether reclassification of motor vehicle seats can be done under Tariff Item 16-A(1) of the erstwhile Tariff Act. Now the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the appellants rsquo own case cited above, has overruled the Revenue rsquo s contention that the item is classifiable under Item 16-A(1) of the erstwhile Tariff Act, and upheld the assessee rsquo s contention for classification as parts of motor vehicle under erstwhile Tariff Item 34-A. The Apex Court judgment fully applies to the facts in the present case. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief if any.
-
2001 (3) TMI 512 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ition however would be different if the appellant had done no testing at all, and if the entire testing that a manufacturer would conduct is done for it by another agency. In that case, the ratio of this decision that the goods are already marketable may not apply. While it is contended in the appeal that the test by Lloyds Ltd. was additional to the test by the appellant and therefore optional, there is not the slightest evidence cited to support it. We are therefore of the view that this whether the testing by Lloyds Ltd. was in addition to the testing by the appellant, and, being at the instance of some of its customers, was optional, has to be examined. 6. emsp Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant may, within three months from the receipt of this order, make its submission in this regard to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall deal with them and pass orders in accordance with law.
-
2001 (3) TMI 511 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Cross Arms is not dutiable ... ... ... ... ..... Cross Arms is dutiable or not. It was brought to our notice in written submission that issue with reference to very item has already been considered by Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai as per Final Order No. 1814/98, dated 10-9-1998. In view the position taking into consideration, the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal as per earlier order in the very party s case, we accept the contention of the party and accordingly, appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (3) TMI 510 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Remand - Natural justice - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n while passing the Order. 2. emsp Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for the Revenue justified the action of the Department in classifying the item under 7008.90 based upon the tariff entry as well as with reference to HSN notes. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the matter. On going through the facts and circumstances, in view of the plea taken by the assessee that they have produced sufficient technical literature before the Commissioner (Appeals) but the same has not been taken into consideration, we are of the view that the matter will have to go back for reconsideration. In the view we have taken, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. The party may make use of this opportunity to produce an evidence in support of his claim during the readjudication proceedings. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 509 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... SN notes, reveal that lsquo marking ink rsquo (e.g. based on silver nitrate) are listed as known to people who deal with such products, in the commercial world and tariff classifications, to be lsquo other-inks rsquo falling under Heading of lsquo Printing Ink, writing or drawing ink and other inks rsquo . Therefore, we find HSN notes to be relevant to establish how the product is understood in the commercial and commodity taxation world. We find that the marking ink were containing silver nitrate or not, would be understood as lsquo other-inks rsquo by such persons, who are commercially dealing with it and also for commodity taxation purposes. Therefore, we have no hesitation to determine the lsquo marker ink rsquo under import to be classified under the heading ldquo others rdquo under Heading 3215.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 6. emsp In this view of our findings, the Revenue rsquo s appeal has to be allowed. The Order-in-Original is restored. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 508 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... . 637 (Tri.) 1999 (33) RLT 375 wherein it has been observed that coating thin layer of wax on plain particle did not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence as a result of the process. 11. emsp The Apex Court in C.C.E., Meerut v. Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) 2000 (39) RLT 124 (S.C.) has also observed that mixing of four gases did not amount to manufacture for want of any evidence to show that new product with distinct usage and marketability came into existence. 12. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Collector that silver coating of the copper tamping powder amounted to manufacture for want of any material evidence on record to prove that any new/distinct in character and usage product came into existence. Consequently, the impugned order of the Collector is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2001 (3) TMI 507 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Remission of Duty ... ... ... ... ..... Section 23 of the Customs Act and submitted that there was no case for a claim to be made out under Section 23 in the facts of this case since the fire accident admittedly took place destroying the goods after the out of charge order was passed and signed on the Bill of Entry on 7-6-1994. He drew our attention to Section 2(25) which defines lsquo imported goods rsquo and submitted that once the duty was paid the goods no longer remained imported goods. 4. emsp We find that provisions of Section 23 are very clear and explicit and they can be exercised only before an order for home clearance is made. In this case, it is an admitted position that loss by fire took place on a date, after an order for home clearance was passed by the Proper Officer of Customs. The remission envisaged in Section 23 cannot be granted and claim made entertained. Therefore, we find no merit in the present application and reject the same. 5. emsp In view of our findings above, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 506 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classifiaction - Notification - Interpretation of ... ... ... ... ..... er, that the castings have assumed the essential character of parts of pumps. That is why their classification under Heading 84.09 is not questioned. The entry in the notification exempts such parts of pumps as are classifiable under Chapter 82, 83 or 84. If, for the purpose of these chapters, these goods were parts of pumps they would equally be parts of pumps for the purpose of entry in the Table to the notification. That is to say, in construing an exemption granted to goods with reference to their classification in a heading of the tariff, the provisions of that tariff, including the general interpretative notes and section and chapter notes which governed their classification would have to be taken into account. Paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in GSFC v. CCE - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 3 is relevant in this regard. There was therefore no basis for denying the benefit of the notification. 4. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (3) TMI 505 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... thout legal Counsel. On receipt of this order he was in continuous correspondence with the Commissioner for amendment thereof. Having been called for some hearing he was under the impression that the order was likely to be amended. Only when the follow up action was undertaken did he realise that the order passed by the Commissioner was not to be amended. He thereafter filed the appeal. 2. emsp Ordinarily we would be loath to condone such long delay but in the circumstances as explained we think that condonation is required. We also find that the order is not accompanied by a preamble informing the assessee as to what steps to take in case of the contest. It is correct that the every order or decision is appealable but the Commissioner is extracted to advise and inform his assessees as to the method of further agitation. 3. emsp In these extraordinary circumstances we condone the delay. 4. emsp The applicants are absent. The stay application may be posted of another occasion.
-
2001 (3) TMI 504 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to the Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... in Heading 40.06 of the Tariff that are entitled to the exemption, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to comply with his order requiring deposit of the entire duty. 2. emsp The same Commissioner in his earlier Order Nos. 163-165/BDR/99, dated 19-7-1999 has extended the benefit of the notification to the same goods manufactured by the appellant. In these circumstances, his dismissal of the appeal for failure to deposit the entire duty was wrong. 3. emsp Accordingly, we set aside the order, allow the appeal. Commissioner shall decide the appeal before him on merits in accordance with law without insisting on any deposit.
-
2001 (3) TMI 503 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Discount ... ... ... ... ..... does not mention any schedule of discount. 5. emsp The respondent has not challenged before us the applicability of the prices in the price list in question. That being so, any discount that would be applicable to the prices in that price list which would be available to the importer. The price list does not contain details of any discount available to a buyer. It is also, clearly, not a mail order price list. The Commissioner (Appeals) does not indicate that why he equated this price list with a mail order price list for the purposes of discount. No discount therefore was permissible. 6. emsp The Commissioner (Appeals) has also reduced the redemption fine and penalty, evidently as a consequence of reduction in the value that he determined of the goods ordered confiscated. That reduction also will therefore have to be set aside. 7. emsp The appeal is therefore allowed, the Commissioner (Appeals) order in question set aside and the Additional Collector rsquo s order restored.
-
2001 (3) TMI 502 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Aluminium and steel frames ... ... ... ... ..... ppeal, and used by it in the manufacture of travel goods are not marketable and hence not liable to duty. 2. emsp While the department rsquo s appeal questions this finding on the ground that although the goods are not marketed, they are capable of being marketed, it does not cite any evidence in support. We, therefore, do not find any ground for interference. 3. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 501 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Manufacture - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... hifted to the General Stores and kept there. They are, therefore, identifiable movable goods, meeting the description of the new different heading in the tariff than the heading of the new material from which they are fabricated. Hence, manufacture does take place and if manufacture take place they are dutiable as held by the lower authority. The new classification were not challenged below the lower authority nor before us. (d) We would, however, find that the duty demands will have to be limited only on Street Light Fittings, Panel Boards and C.T. Meter Boxes and for that purpose, the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority to redetermine the duty. While so redetermining the duty, the valuation of the products should be redetermined, keeping in mind the Modvat credit available, if any, and the Supreme Court decision on the subject as held in Dai Ichi Karkaria - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). 3. emsp In view of our findings, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
2001 (3) TMI 500 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... le we agree such delay is undesirable, such delay itself cannot be a ground for out of turn hearing. Further, the absence of a regular judicial member in this Bench also has to be taken into account. We therefore dismiss the application. The applicant is at liberty to seek revival as and when the Bench starts functioning regularly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 499 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Provisional assessment - Proper officer ... ... ... ... ..... fficer to exercise the powers under Rule 9B(1) should be an officer of the rank of an Assistant Collector. On this basis, Learned Consultant has prayed for rejecting these appeals. 3. emsp It is fairly conceded by the learned DR that the provisional assessment of Central Excise duty is governed by the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9B. If that be the case, the proper officer to make provisional assessment under the said provisions is an officer of Central Excise of not below the rank of Assistant Collector as per the notification cited. The provisional assessment in the instant case was admittedly made by the Superintendent and that assessment was set aside by the lower appellate authority on the ground that Superintendent had no jurisdiction to do so and that the proper officer to do so was the Assistant Collector. There is nothing wrong with this decision of the learned Collector (Appeals). The appeals filed by the Revenue are bereft of merits and the same are rejected.
............
|
