|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 227 Records
-
1988 (11) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 9. In the light of these case laws, it is well accepted that Section 25 (2) of the Customs Act does not impose any restriction on the Central Government as to the time when it should grant the exemption. Even in cases when Customs duty had been collected, it is open to the Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) ibid, to grant exemption and refund the duty. 4. Accordingly, we hold that in this case also the ad hoc exemption order, though issued after the importation of the goods and the payment of duty thereon is legally valid to cover the claim subject to satisfaction of the conditions prescribed in the relevant ad hoc exemption order. 5. We, therefore, allow this appeal and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector who should decide the claim of the appellant after duly applying the ad hoc exemption order issued by the Central Government on due satisfaction of the conditions specified in the said ad hoc exemption order. 6. Appeal allowed by remand.
-
1988 (11) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ll make such amendments if the mistakes brought to its notice by the collector of Customs or the other party to the appeal Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the other party shall not be made under this sub-section, unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to him of its intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed under this Section to the Collector of Customs and the other party to the appeal. (4) Save as otherwise provided in Section 130 or Section 130-E, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. rdquo A simple perusal of the section shows that no mistake can be rectified against an order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 and as such the application is dismissed as non-maintainable. Pronounced in open court.
-
1988 (11) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal decided ex-parte ... ... ... ... ..... er, the registry did not raise any objection while acknowledging the appeal. rdquo 5. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal only on the point of limitation. We have perused the records as well as the covering letter. The appeal was sent by registered post on 5th March, 1983 and received in the registry on 11th March, 1983. The appeal was verified on 4th March, 1983. Undoubtedly the appeal was despatched before the expiry of limitation but the same was received in the Registry after the expiry of limitation. The appeal was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. The Bench had dismissed the appeal on merits. Proviso to Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules is applicable only in those cases where the appeal is dismissed for default. In the matter before us, the appeal was dismissed on the point of limitation and the question of restoration does not arise. Accordingly the application for restoration is dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... not come into existence independently. As we have seen, the drawing process which results in reduction of denierage is carried out simultaneously with the process of texturing. If FOY had emerged as a product by itself which could be packed and sold as FOY, as understood in trade, the situation may have been different. However, such is not the case here since the reduction of denierage which results in FOY and texturising go on simultaneously in the draw-texturising machine. 13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the respondents were liable to pay basic excise duty on the textured yarn cleared by them only at the rate of Rs. 5/- per kg. 14. A number of decisions were cited by both sides. In the view we have taken, it does not appear to be necessary to refer to, and discuss, those decisions. Nor is it necessary for us to deal with any of the other contentions. 15. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is uphold and these appeals are dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 216 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... squarely covered by the ratio therein which we adopt and accept. We are not inclined to accede to the submissions of the Ld. S.D.R. that the Special Bench ruling was not appealed against because the amount involved therein was not much. We would also like to note that for Customs purposes, the department itself has classified the product for duty under sub-heading 8708.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, dealing with parts and accessories of the motor vehicles and this has also been admitted in the impugned order. The Ld. S.D.R. merely cited that it is classified for Customs purposes as accessories because the duty was more. The Ld. S.D.R. stated that he would not be able to say anything more about it. On careful consideration of the entire matter we are inclined to hold that the issue is squarely covered by the ruling of the Special Bench referred to above and we, therefore, sustain the impugned order appealed against and dismiss the appeal. 10. Announced in the open Court.
-
1988 (11) TMI 215 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... he two note books as per the direction for remand above, the department rsquo s case falls and nothing is left for the appellant to argue. On the other hand, if the adjudicating authority finds that the two books belong to the appellant firm then this circumstance itself would seriously effect the other plea of the appellant regarding the capacity of production inasmuch as the basic assumption on which this plea is based would go against them. In other words the assumption of maintenance of record properly and accurately. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to give our finding on this plea of the appellant. 10. Hence the appeal is allowed by way of remand for de novo decision in the light of the above directions. 11. Since the appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in terms of Section 35F of the Act before hearing of this appeal in the Tribunal, we direct that the same money be refunded to them because the original order stands set aside by way of remand.
-
1988 (11) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Excludible items ... ... ... ... ..... tions on account of freight and transit insurance should be allowed pro-rata on average basis after verifying the claims of the appellants made on the basis of 6 categories of products for this purpose, the total cost of transportation of the two factories for a year or a quarter, as convenient could be taken together, the pro-rata cost for exempted, non-excisable and specific rated products transported deducted therefrom and the balance amount allocated to individual ad valorem rated products on weight basis, sale-unit basis. (ii) deductions on account of taxes should also be allowed on a similar average basis if allocation on actual basis is either impractical or too cumbersome (iii) the matter of discount/rebates, including time-bar aspect should be decided afresh by the Assistant Collector in the light of Supreme Court judgments in Bombay Tyres International case aforesaid and in MRF Ltd. case 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 SC . 14. The appeal is allowed, in these terms, by remand.
-
1988 (11) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Freight ... ... ... ... ..... mation of expenses actually incurred for the relevant period for getting these deductions. The appellants stated that in respect of loading and unloading charges paid to coolies beyond the factory gate and conveyance charges paid for local deliveries, they did not have receipts from payees but they had their own vouchers. We direct that since these are petty amounts but are obvious expenses, the Assistant Collector may take a reasonable view in the matter. The appellants further stated that the octroi receipts described litharge as Battery Oxide. They claimed that both were one and the same thing. The Assistant Collector may consult some technical authority in the matter and then proceed accordingly. In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector with the direction that he will complete the re-adjudication proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1988 (11) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Calcium carbide - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... ules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules by Notification No. 20/82-CE, dated 20-2-1982 contemplates collection of duty levied on production of a commodity at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of another commodity. In view of the deeming provisions under the Explanation to Rules 9 and 49, the goods which are produced or manufactured at an intermediate stage and thereafter consumed or utilised in the integrated process of manufacture of another commodity, though the said intermediate products are not actually removed from the factory, should be construed as removed. Duty on the intermediate product is payable on such deemed removal. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the Calcium Carbide produced by the appellants and consumed captively for the manufacture of Acetylene Black is liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 14AA as decided by the lower authorities. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (11) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay of two months in filing appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ides. I observe that the Collector has not at all explained the reasons for delay as to why it was necessary to receive the opinion of the Assistant Collector. The Collector has got full machinery to get the point examined in his office particularly when a point of law was involved and no questions of fact were to be examined. Secondly, there is also no reason as to what steps he took to get expeditiously the opinion, if necessary, from the Assistant Collector rsquo s office. There is no time chart of events in explaining the delay. In these circumstances, I find sufficient force in the plea of the learned consultant for the non-applicant/respondent herein that delayed filing of appeal has not sufficiently been explained. I do not find that there is sufficient cause in delayed filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 5. In view of the above decision, the appeal itself is time barred and is, therefore, liable to be rejected as such. I order accordingly.
-
1988 (11) TMI 210 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) BOMBAY
Filing cabinets - Articles of base metal ... ... ... ... ..... nt Collector is not sufficient to classify the products under 83.03. Even if the products under reference are not ordinary filing cabinets nevertheless they are not safes as understood in the trade and as set out in ISI specification. The structure of the cabinet is not like that of a safe nor its body strength near anywhere that of safe. The product is neither designed nor recognised in the trade and industry as a safe. Further filing cabinets are specifically covered under Heading 83.04. There is no exclusion on account of its fire resistance or any other special quality. The locking arrangement is in addition to its main purpose of cabinet. The ratio of the CEGAT decision in order No. 55/85 in appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. The Appellant is squarely applicable to this appeal. The impugned products are therefore classifiable under Heading 83.04. 7. In view of the above I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1988 (11) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Laminated paper or paper board ... ... ... ... ..... rdquo According to Interpretative Rule 1 the product should be classified under this Heading. There is, therefore, no scope for invoking Interpretative Rule 3(b). The learned S.D.R. has referred to Page 597 of the ldquo Materials Hand Book rdquo by George S. Brady and Henry R. Clauser, Eleventh Edition, relevant extract from which has been reproduced in paragraph 6 of this order. It has been stated therein that the properties of the laminate are related directly to the properties of the paper from which the laminate is made. This also negatives the point made by the learned S.D.R. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the product in dispute in this case is correctly classifiable under Heading 4818.90. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow appeal No. E/54/88-C filed by the assessee. The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. The cross-objection filed by M/s. Amit Polymers and Composites Ltd. is disposed of in the light of the foregoing findings.
-
1988 (11) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e. As referred to earlier, they are treating their own hose assemblies as hoses which are used with original equipment in machine tools, earthmovers, heavy duty diesel engines and hydraulic lifts. Explanatory Notes referred to above, provided a more authentic guidance of international usage regarding the scope of the term lsquo hoses with or without fittings rsquo mentioned in Heading 40.09. This, as stated earlier, supports the department rsquo s case. In view of the goods under classification being more specifically covered under Heading 40.09, Interpretative Rule 3(a) would be applicable in the circumstances. Aid to Interpretative Rule 3(c) can be invoked only when the earlier two sub-rules 3(a) and 3(b) are not invokable. 5. Hence the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the lsquo hose assembly rsquo of vulcanised, unhardened rubber are classified under sub-heading 4009.92 of C.E.T.A. 1985. 6. Cross-objections are dismissed accordingly.
-
1988 (11) TMI 181 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... before the adjudicating authority. The question as to which of the versions is correct, whether of the petitioner or that of the respondents is again a matter which it is not for this court to adjudicate upon at this preliminary stage. It is for the petitioner to raise his contentions before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority will necessarily have to apply its mind to all the contentions of the petitioner about the acceptability or otherwise of Exts. P4(a) and P4(b) or as to whether he should act upon the mahazar, which is stated to have been prepared earlier. All these are matters to be decided primarily by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner rsquo s approach to this court is premature. I have no doubt that the adjudicating authority who is exercising statutory functions will necessarily go into these matters in passing final orders in the matter. The original petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. Issue photo copy on usual terms.
-
1988 (11) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sed freight is concerned. All that has been pleaded is that there were some sales at the factory gate, even though sale price at the factory gate is the same as that away from the factory gate and notwithstanding this inasmuch as the price at the factory gate is available abatement of equalised freight is not to be allowed. 9. We observe that this plea is totally contrary to the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International on this point as set out in para 50 referred to supra. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where the freight is average, the same will stand included in the price whether for sales at the factory gate or outside for the purpose of having the same price and the element of this freight in terms of Section 4(2) is required to be abated for arriving at the factory gate price for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. In view of this, we find no merit in the pleas of the Revenue and dismiss the same.
-
1988 (11) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Fertilizer - Feed stock ... ... ... ... ..... a v. M/s. Fertilizers Corpn. of India Lot, supra held on the language of Notification under reference, i.e. Notification No. 147/74-C.E., dated 30.10.1974 and the case law on the point that furnace oil/Low Sulphur Heavy Stock used for generation of steam cannot be held to be used as ldquo Feed Stock rdquo in the manufacture of fertilizers. Thus following the ratio of the said decision we hold that the use of furnace oil for raising steam in the urea plant during trial runs and commissioning of the urea plant without any production of urea cannot be said to have been used as ldquo Feed Stock rdquo in the manufacture of fertilizers. Consequently the respondents were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 147/74-C.E., dated 30.10.1974. 7. In the result all the four appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi so far as they are impugned before us are set aside and that of the Assistant Collector restored.
-
1988 (11) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Under-valuation ... ... ... ... ..... and ldquo no evidence produced rdquo . However, our perusal of the impugned order does not show any details of the consignment with which the present goods were compared. It is obvious the Collector had some information on the value of the goods but no such information has been incorporated in the impugned order. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the appellants. Considering the circumstances existing in this case, we order that in the absence of any evidence to support the enhancement of the value the invoice value should be accepted. 10. The goods were confiscated and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed. We, however, note that the confiscation is under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. This means that the Collector did not order confiscation on the ground of under-valuation, 111(m) not having been mentioned. We, therefore, do not interfere with the fine. As a result the appeal is partly allowed in respect of valuation. It is rejected in respect of the licence.
-
1988 (11) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund amount ... ... ... ... ..... xcess taxes paid, but the Hon rsquo ble Court did not grant the relief of interest as prayed in the petition. Accordingly, it was directed by the High Court that the refund of the duty collected without authority of law should be made within 3 months from the date of the judgment without any interest thereon. In the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 904, this Tribunal observed that Section 214 of the Income Tax Act provided for payment of interest on refund of excess tax collected, but in the Customs Act, 1962, except Section 61(2) which provides for payment of interest on unpaid duty in respect of goods warehoused beyond the periods specified therein, there is no other provision in this Act for payment of interest on duty refunded. In the circumstances, the applicant rsquo s prayer for payment of interest is rejected. 3. In view of the above discussions, we dismiss the Misc. Application filed by the applicants.
-
1988 (11) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Computer ... ... ... ... ..... whether there was or was not a disclosure of the technical service charges and that this work could only be done in the first instance by the Assistant Collector. He, therefore, suggested that the question of time bar may also be remanded to the Assistant Collector alongwith the principal issue of segregating includible and non-in-cludible technical services. We agree that in the circumstances this is the only feasible course. 11. Accordingly, we set aside both the lower orders and direct the Assistant Collector to re-determine the assessable values in the light of our observations above. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in these terms. 12. So far as the cross-objection filed by the respondents is concerned, we found that not only was it time barred, it sought no further relief either. We put this position to the respondents in the course of the hearing. The respondents stated that they did not press for the cross-objection. Accordingly, we dismiss the cross-objection.
-
1988 (11) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... according to which there are two conditions to make a particular article classifiable under that heading. The two conditions are that the article is made wholly of insulating material and that it should be designed for insulating purposes even though at the same time it has other functions. The exception attached to the heading is that it does not cover fittings which even though made wholly of insulating material have not been specially constructed for insulating purposes. In the present instance there is no doubt that the fuse bodies are made wholly of insulating material, but there is no finding that they are constructed for insulating purposes. The submissions made by the appellants indicate that these are not so constructed. For this reason the goods are not classifiable under Heading 85.26 and are, therefore, excluded from sub-item (I) to item 85.18/27. As a result, the goods are correctly classifiable under sub-item (III) of the heading. 10. The appeal is thus allowed.
........
|
