|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Iron and Steel Products ... ... ... ... ..... hen the matter is pending before the Commissioner, and although the earlier determination made by the Commissioner is no longer in existence, the respondents are alleged to have been demanding excise duty on the basis of the said determination. 4.No counter affidavit was proposed to be filed and in the circumstances aforesaid, we dispose of this petition with the following directions (1) The respondent No. 1 is directed to determine the actual production capacity of the petitioner s unit in compliance of the Tribunal s order dated 18-3-1999 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to do so within a period of ten days from today. (2) Till the determination of the actual production capacity of the petitioner s unit as above, the respondents are restrained from demanding the excise duty from the petitioner in terms of any earlier determination made by the Commissioner.
-
1999 (12) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... lting and alloying of aluminium which is for manufacture of pistons. This ramming mass which comes in the form of powder is mixed with water, rammed and sintered in Induction Furnace to provide an insulative and workable crucible surface. This material is being imported presently because of non-availability of equivalent indigeneous material. 6.From the evidence which has come on record it is clear that the items are chemical and resin and therefore cannot be considered to be the items falling under clause (b)(1) of Explanation to Rule 57A. In these circumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the applicant are not eligible to Modvat credit in respect of Ramming Mass, Fibre Glass and filter mesh used in or in relation to the manufacture of pistons on the ground that they are covered under Proviso to Rule 57A of t he Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7.The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1999 (12) TMI 75 - SC ORDER
Re-export of goods ... ... ... ... ..... .C.) 1992 (2) SCC 66 will not be applicable. This submission is contested by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. 3. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that it would be more appropriate if the main writ petition which is pending in the Gujarat High Court is itself disposed of at an early date. Pending the said decision in writ petition, status quo should be maintained. We, accordingly, set aside the interim order passed by the Gujarat High Court and request the High Court to hear and dispose of the writ petition within a period of three months. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... found that the Collector (Appeals) was in error for the Tribunal had in an earlier order held that landing charges at the overall rate of 1 should be added to the CIF value of imported goods. 3. We understand from what is stated at the Bar that the Tribunal has itself now taken a contrary view. 4. Landing charges are a component of the assessable value of imported goods. They must be assessed on the basis of actuals. But the onus of the proof thereof is on the importer. Only in the absence of the proof of actuals, landing charges may be assessed at the rate of 1 of the CIF value of the imported goods. The Collector (Appeals) was, therefore, right in the view that he took and the Tribunal in error. 5. The appeal is allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to a refund provided they can establish before the Assistant Collector, Visakhapatnam, that what they actually incurred by way of landing charges was less than 1 of the CIF value of the said goods. 6. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 73 - SC ORDER
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... , testing and commissioning based thereon. One is as much a part and a condition of the contract as the other. We find, therefore, no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed with costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 72 - SC ORDER
Shells and hulls ... ... ... ... ..... the shells and hulls in question have been used or were intended for use in the factory of their manufacture or in any another factory of the same manufacturer, namely, the respondent. To this latter extent, the respondent must satisfy the Assistant Commissioner who exercises jurisdiction over the factory of their manufacture. 2. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. 3. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... also stated the same. Thus the petitioner s case is that filing of any appeal before the Tribunal would not have been an efficacious remedy. We do not agree with such contention. The appeal is statutorily provided and, therefore, simply because the Tribunal has already taken same view on the matter, the appellate procedure cannot be by-passed. It was open to the petitioner to persuade the Tribunal to get the matter referred to a Larger Bench or to wait for the decision of the appeal and then adopt further course of legal action like a reference to the High Court. 4. As regards a circular, the same was not binding on the appellate authorities and hence that could not come in the way of the Tribunal in taking a correct view of the matter. The petitioner thus had an alternative remedy and this writ was ill advised. The prayer that the Tribunal s order in another case be declared to be incorrect is also misconceived and ill advised. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Natural justice - Personal hearing - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... as per Notification No. 46/81, but on the basis of the available evidence on record, the first respondent has held that the petitioners had employed more than 10 workers in their factory and hence, they are not entitled to the exemption as per the said notification. The first respondent therefore held that the petitioners suppressed the fact with a view to evade payment of duty. The above conclusion was arrived at by the first respondent on the basis of the available evidence on record. 10. It is further stated that an appeal was preferred against the order and that appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the interim order passed in the appeal and the said order has become final. 11.In the above circumstances, I see no grounds to interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, three months time from the date of receipt of this order is granted to the petitioners to make the payments. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... onies in the accounts might ultimately be liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Nobody can make out why summons under Section 108 has been served when the allegation is the obtaining of Fraudulent drawback by quite another party than the writ petitioner and not smuggling. 8.Stopping banking operations on such vague grounds is irresponsible use of authority by the respondents. 9.The observations herein, however worded, are prima facie and without prejudice. Affidavits have to be invited after all respondents appear after service of rule. 10.Rule as prayed for. Returnable 8 weeks after re-opening after Christmas vacation. During pendency of the Rule, there shall be interim orders in terms of prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. 11.Prayer for adjournment made by the first three appearing respondents for obtaining instructions from Delhi is turned down. 12.Parties and all others concerned to act on a xerox signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertakings.
-
1999 (12) TMI 68 - SC ORDER
Investigation and enquiry ... ... ... ... ..... not find any justification for staying further proceedings pursuant to the action which had been initiated by the customs authorities. The latter part of the impugned order dated 21st May, 1999 staying further proceedings is accordingly set aside. No stay shall be granted by the High Court in respect thereto pending disposal of the writ petition before it. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of . 4. No costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 67 - SC ORDER
Valuation (Customs) - "Related person" ... ... ... ... ..... is that laid down in the judgment of this Court in Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 1998 (99) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.) 1998 (3) SCC 681 . It is permissible for the authorities and the Tribunal to pierce the veil in given facts and circumstances to ascertain whether the buyer and the seller are indeed related persons within the meaning of the said sub-rule. 2. The civil appeal is, therefore, disposed of. 3. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 66 - SC ORDER
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... would have done, because the price of a second-hand car such as that involved in that case could easily have been ascertained by reference to popular magazines and publications relating to cars in England. There are no popular publications that would indicate the prices of machines. Therefore, ascertaining the value of the second-hand machine imported by the appellants, when new, based on the certificate produced by the appellant itself, and scaling down that price by giving depreciation does not appear to be an arbitrary method of ascertaining its value. 2. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT
Tyres for vehicles ... ... ... ... ..... s which were imported fall within sub-heading (I) of Item 16, as the appellants contend, or within sub-heading (III), as the respondents do. Sub-heading (III) deals with tyres for vehicles or equipment designed for use off the road. It is nobody s case that the tyres that were imported were specific for vehicles or equipment designed for use off the road. What is relied upon on behalf of the respondents is, at best, a statement that these tyres are capable of use on the road and off the road. It is enough if the tyres are capable of use on the road and are fitted to a mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a tractor, designed for use upon the road. This is not in question. Clearly, then, the imported tyres fall within sub-heading (I)(b)(i) of Item 16 and are entitled to the exemption given by the said notification. 5. The civil appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. 6. Refund, if any, shall be payable if admissible under the law. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rgument on behalf of the appellants is that radiator assemblies are not parts of internal combustion engines but accessories thereof and this had been accepted by the respondents earlier. It is difficult to accept this latter argument and the argument that an internal combustion engine can function without a cooling device. It cannot do so. If, then, the cooking device is water based, being the radiator, that cooling device must be held to constitute a part of such engine. 8.In the result, except in relation to the demand made in the show cause notice dated 16th July, 1992, which stands quashed, the civil appeals are dismissed. 9.Any deposit that has been made by the appellants in respect of the demand that is quashed will now stand adjusted against the demands made by the two remaining show cause notices. 10.If the appellants claim any Modvat benefit for themselves or their customers in this behalf, the claim shall be decided in accordance with law. 11.No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the benefit of proforma credit procedure specified in Rule 56A(1) is available to the appellants though the raw materials consumed by the appellants in their manufacture of the final products are excisable under tariff items different from the one under which their final products are excisable?
Held that:- We are in no doubt that to avail the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A the inputs which go to manufacture the specified finished excisable goods must be eligible to payment of duty under the same tariff item or sub-item; or else, if such inputs are exigible to tax under different tariff items or sub-items then they must be covered by the specific sanction of the Central Government granting remission or adjustment of duty on those inputs as provided by proviso (ii) (b). Admittedly there is no such specific sanction. The raw materials consumed being excisable under Tariff items different from the one under which the finished products are excisable the appellants have been rightly denied benefit of proforma credit. Assessee appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Department in this appeal has made out a case which calls for interference by this Court with the orders passed by the authorities below?
Held that:- The question whether the machinery imported by the respondent pursuant to the import licence granted to it is in accordance with the terms of import licence granted or not, is primarily a question of fact that is for the fact-finding authorities below and the Tribunal to decide. Their decision on technical matters as to what could be imported and what was imported must prevail. The authorities below and the Tribunal, after considering the case of the Department as well as that of the respondent and taking into consideration the entire material, concurrently arrived at the conclusion that the importation in question was in conformity with the terms of import licence. The argument of the Department that an adverse inference in regard to the legality of the import should be drawn, itself based on certain inferences like the excess production by the respondent, was considered and for reasons recorded not accepted, and we are not inclined to disagree with the same. The question as to the jurisdiction of an authority in deciding as to the legality of importation based on the description of the goods imported is well-settled. See Union of India v. Tara Chand Gupta & Bros. [1971 (1) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the phosphoric acid imported by the appellant for the manufacture of fertilizer is liable to auxiliary duty @ 5% under Clause 2 of the aforesaid Table and not @ 15% under Clause 1?
Held that:- In the instant case, it is seen that the highest rate of duty specified in the First Schedule for the phosphoric acid as per Item 28(16) is 60 per cent. Hence, in the instant case, the highest rate for import of phosphoric acid would have been 60 per cent but for the Notification No. 14, dated 1-3-1974, since the import in question was from Burma, the duty payable is 30 per cent ad valorem. Hence, from a perusal of the First Schedule read with Notification dated 28-4-1969 it is clear that so far as the import of phosphoric acid by the appellant is concerned, it falls at Serial No. 1 of the aforesaid Table and 15 per cent auxiliary duty is required to be paid. We also find support to the above reasoning of ours from the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Western India Plywood Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1989 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
Warehoused goods - Duty ... ... ... ... ..... import of excisable goods into the State, the charge of incidence of duty stands attracted as soon as the taxable event takes place and the facility of postponement of collection of duty under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, can in no way affect the incidence of duty on the imported goods. 8. In this view of the matter, the demand of countervailing duty from the appellant in the established facts and circumstances of the case was perfectly justified. The fact that the liquor was rendered unfit for human consumption and destroyed, after its import, which by itself attracted the levy of duty could not wipe of the liability of the appellant for payment of duty on the excisable goods, after their import, in the bonded warehouse. The Full Bench of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in finding that the challenge to the demand made by the appellant had no merits. Thus appeal has no merits. It, accordingly, fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation (Customs) - Landing charges ... ... ... ... ..... objection by the appellants to this. It is not the case that such percentage exceeds the costs in this behalf that they have. actuary Incurred and that they should get a refund. What they do contend is that the 1.4 per cent landing charges represent all that they have had to expend to bring the said goods to land and that, therefore, no addition of stevedoring or unloading charges can be made. 9.In. our view, the submission made on behalf of the appellants is unexceptionable. It is open to the Customs authorities not to assess landing charges at a percentage and to assess them at actuals. But if they do assess them on a percentage basis, they cover thereby all aspects of landing charges and it is not open to them then to seek to add any amount thereto on the basis that this or that or the other was not covered thereby. 10.In the result, the civil appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The respondents shall pay to the appellants the costs of the appeals.
-
1999 (12) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the adjudication was under sub-clause of Section 111?
Held that:- Having released the goods thus into the market and permitting the sale of the same, in our opinion it is not open to the Collector to initiate another proceedings under another clause of Section 111 to recover the so-called differences in valuation of the imported goods from the ultimate bona fide purchaser for value. If the Collector failed to make a proper enquiry as to the market value of the goods and released the same after a half-hearted adjudication, we fail to see why a subsequent purchaser be saddled with the liability of undervaluation, more so in the background of the fact that the appellant had no role to play either in the import or earlier adjudication proceedings.
That apart, it is rather surprising that the fresh proceeding under Section 111(m) is not initiated against the original importer in spite of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. Counsel for the respondent is unable to convince us why no notice under Section 124 is issued against the original importer who was permitted by the Department to redeem the goods under Section 125 of the Act and sell the same in the open market. In this background, we are of the opinion that the action of the Department to initiate proceedings against the appellant, who is a bona fide purchaser of the redeemed goods for value, is unjust and hence not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus the initiation of proceedings under Section 111(m) of the Act is liable to be quashed.
....
|
