|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 153 Records
-
1978 (9) TMI 73
Seizure - Legality - Gold ... ... ... ... ..... es seized. In doing so it cannot be said that he was acting both as a judge and as a prosecutor. For instance it is well known that a judge is asked to make a local inspection of any land or building which is the subject matter of a suit and acts upon the impression formed by him on such local inspection. Similarly a judge also proceeded upon the impression regarding the handwriting or signature which is challenged. It cannot be said that in such cases, the judge is functioning both as a judge and as a prosecutor. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this contention also. 6. We see no reason to differ from the judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J. The writ appeal is dismissed. W.A. No. 326178 7. This writ appeal and writ appeal No. 325/78 in which we rendered judgment arise under a common judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J. in writ petition Nos. 3205/77 and 3223/77 respectively. Except that the appellants are different, the facts are identical. Hence this appeal is also dismissed.
-
1978 (9) TMI 72
Whether 'dryer felts' manufactured by the assessee fall within the category of "all varieties of cotton, woollen or silken textiles" specified in Item 30 of Schedule `B' of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948?
Held that:- A textile may have diverse uses and it is not the use which determines its character as textile. It is, therefore, no argument against the assessee that `dryer felts' are used only as absorbents of moisture in the process of manufacture in a paper manufacturing unit. That cannot militate against `dryer felts' falling within the category of `textiles', if otherwise they satisfy the description of `textiles'.
If we look at the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, we find in Chapter 59 occurring in Section XI of the First Schedule that there is a reference to `textile fabrics' and textile articles, of a kind commonly used in `machinery or plant' and clause(4) of that Chapter provides that this expression shall be taken to apply inter alia to "woven textile felts...... of a kind commonly used in paper making or other machinery.......". This reference in a statute which is intended to apply to imports made by the trading community clearly shows that `dryer felts' which are "woven textile felts......of a kind commonly used in paper making machinery" are regarded in common parlance, according to the sense of ordinary traders and merchants, textile fabrics. We have, therefore, no doubt that `dryer felts', are `textiles' within the meaning of that expression in Item 30 of Schedule `B'. Appeal allowed in favour of assessee.
-
1978 (9) TMI 71
Valuation - Quantity discount - Admissibility of ... ... ... ... ..... st of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Quantity discount as contemplated in Section 4 by its very nature is dependent on the quantity lifted at the time of removal of the goods from the manufactory. When sales are effected from cities outside Bombay and quantity discount is allowed therefrom, not only that it is difficult to adjust the duty leviable correctly, there is no warrant in law for allowing the same. The petitioners had made a request that assessments may be made provisionally under Rule 9B. This also is not acceptable as Rule 9B does not allow provisional assessment in such a situation. In the circumstances the revision fails and is rejected accordingly.
-
1978 (9) TMI 70
Bolts and nuts specially designed - Liability to duty ... ... ... ... ..... idental function. The nuts in question have only a fastening purpose as these lock the bridge washer and the righ washer on the tube surface. These do not have any other utility whatsoever. Even if these have been specially designed the fact remains that these are intended only for fastening purposes. So long nuts and bolts have predominantly a fastening purpose the same will necessarily attract duty under entry 52 of the C.E.T. The result is that the revision application fails and is rejected accordingly.
-
1978 (9) TMI 69
Valuation - Delivery charges not includible in assessable value ... ... ... ... ..... charged delivery charges depending on the weight varying from Rs. 2.50 onwards. These charges are separately shown on the invoices. Since the charges are separately identifiable Government observe that there is no justification for their inclusion in the assessable value under Section 4. In the circumstances the revision application is allowed.
-
1978 (9) TMI 68
P.L A. - Debiting of regulatory duty (Now special duty) from basic excise duty is irregular ... ... ... ... ..... intimated in September, 1974 that the amount of Rs. 1,03,896.66 paid during the period from 13-12-1971 to 31-12-1971 by debiting the Regulatory duty from the head of account meant for basic duty was irregular. The applicants immediately paid that amount again to regularise the adjustment of departmental accounts. Government thus observe that the amount was never paid due to inadvertence, error or misconstruction. Accordingly, the money which was found to have been paid initially as Regulatory Duty is refundable. 2. The revision application is accordingly allowed.
-
1978 (9) TMI 67
Adjudication by same officer who visited the factory at the time of seizure-Validity-Remand ... ... ... ... ..... case was beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise. In any case, the Appellate Authority could not remand the case to the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who is not amenable to his jurisdiction. Further merely because some seizure is effected on the date when the Deputy Collector visited the factory premises does not establish the fact that while adjudicating the case the said Deputy Collector (even if the same Deputy Collector adjudicated the case) would have chances of prejudice against the party. 4. In the circumstances, Government of India observe that the impugned order-in-appeal is not correct in law. Now therefore in exercise of powers vested in it u/s. 36(2) of the Central Excise order-in-appeal as the same is contrary to law and is not based on facts. The case is remanded to the Appl. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who should apply his mind to the facts of the case properly and pass an order in accordance with the law.
-
1978 (9) TMI 66
Synthetic organic products ... ... ... ... ..... e manufacture of paints, printing inks etc. The difference between these pigments and ordinary pigments is that they are more bright because of their fluorescent property, but they are not luminophores in the sense of exhibiting luminiscence in darkness. 3. On the scope of Item 14DD Central Excise Tariff Govt. of India observe that this item inter alia, includes synthetic organic products of kind used as organic luminophores. The term luminiscence/luminiphores is a general term covering both fluoroscene and luminiscence. As the impugned goods are synthetic organic products having fluorescent properties, they are covered by Item 14DD Central Excise Tariff. The Order-in-Appeal is therefore, upheld and the Revision Application rejected.
-
1978 (9) TMI 65
Cost of durable packing realised in instalments ... ... ... ... ..... do not realise the entire cost of the drum which is around Rs. 100/- and instead they recover on pro-rata basis a particular sum which represents the cost of the drum if utilised 6-7 times. Govt. are of the view that even if the cost of the drum is added on pro-rata basis and realised instead of the entire cost of the drum under section 4(4)(d)(i) even that particular sum would be eligible for deduction. There is no warrant in the section for not allowing the cost of equated packing charges provided of course it lead service admissible. 3. In the circumstances the revision application is allowed. Consequential relief may accordingly be granted to the Petitioners.
-
1978 (9) TMI 64
Job work - Nylon and nylon yarn converted into warpsheet - Dutiability - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed questions of facts
-
1978 (9) TMI 63
Seizure and confiscation - Whether goods are smuggled goods -criteria for - Conviction - Whether deterrent or lenient - Criteria for
-
1978 (9) TMI 62
Jurisdiction of civil court - Ambit and scope ... ... ... ... ..... not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case, the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply. 8. In this case, as seen from the narration of the facts, what is sought to be raised in the civil suit is not the lack of jurisdiction, but, only an improper assessment. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is undoubtedly excluded. In this view the decision in Provincial Govt of Madras v. Dasappa, AlR 1964 S.C. 1873 does not afford any assistance to the appellant. In the result, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, holding that the suit is not maintainable in a civil court. Therefore, in this view, I see no necessity to go into the merits relating to this second appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (9) TMI 61
Sodium Bichromate Liquor - Liability - Excise Duty - Show Cause Notice - Short Levy - Criteria for raising demand
-
1978 (9) TMI 60
Biris - Pre-Budget stock - Natural Justice - Denial of - Principles regarding - Unbranded ... ... ... ... ..... by them. In the absence of such correlation this plea is unsubstantiated and is dismissed as such. (iii) Regarding the alleged denial of natural justice, it is noted that an opportunity for personal hearing was given to the petitioners by the Appellate Collector. The telegram seeking adjournment was received in the office of the petitioners did not take proper care to send a request for postponement in time. Further it is noted in the records that the petitioners were informed by a letter dated 13-3-1977 from the Deptt. that their case was likely to be taken up for hearing in March, 1977. The plea regarding denial of natural justice for not being given a proper opportunity for hearing also thus fails. (iv) It is seen that the plea that the seized biris did not bear any brand name is not based on facts because in inventory the biris are described as with different brand names like Hara Dhaga , Rita etc. 7. The Revision Application thus fails on all the counts and is rejected.
-
1978 (9) TMI 59
Waste paper - Non-observance of Chapter X procedure ... ... ... ... ..... the order-in-appeal was not correct. 4. In reply to the show cause notice at the time of personal hearing it was submitted by the party that as they were new in the line they did not know the Central Excise procedure and therefore, could not follow it. It was also submitted that though the application for availing of the facility of proforma credit under Rule 56A was made as early as September, 1974, it was not granted. It is also urged that the broke was sold to M/s. Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Co. Ltd. who are L-6 holders. It was admitted that the proper Central Excise procedure was not followed in this case. 5. Govt. of India on consideration of the above submissions observe that as the correct procedure for availing of exemption from duty under procedure of Chapter X was not followed, the benefit conferred by Notification 77/74 cannot be enjoyed by the party. The demand of duty issued for the waste is therefore maintainable. The order-in-appeal is set aside to this extent.
-
1978 (9) TMI 58
Valuation - Equalisied Freight - Cash discount - Exclusion from assessable value ... ... ... ... ..... ls it is seen that the actual freight with reference to destination is not charged. Even in the case of sale at factory gate proportionate railway freight is charged. In all the cases, either sale at factory gate or despatches made to F.O.R. destination certain fixed amount is charged irrespective of the place of delivery. Such equated freight is not admissible under Sec. 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, since it does not represent the actual freight incurred and is also not identifiable as such. In view of the foregoing, Govt. of India find that the order-in-appeal is correct in law and based on facts of the case. 4. The Revision Application is rejected. 5. Govt. of India note that the petitioners either at adjudication stage, or at appeal stage, have not claimed exclusion of cash discounts of Rs. 7/- and Rs. 3/- per M.T. No order has been passed in this respect by the Appellate Collector. In the circumstances, Govt. of India do not pass any order on this count.
-
1978 (9) TMI 57
Valuation - Dharmada charges - Postal charges - Winchester bottles - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ds that enquiries to this effect were also made from other Central Excise Collectorates and market and it was reported that the Winchester bottles were being assessed under tariff item No. 23A. The petitioners also do not deny use of such bottles as commercial containers. They have not also adduced any evidence that the Winchester bottles are being used exclusively in laboratories only. Govt. further observe that Rule 173B (2) ibid directs the assessee to determine the duty payable on the goods intended to be removed in accordance with Classification List approved by the proper officer. 5. Subsequent roles indicate how the levy is completed and Rule 173J in the same chapter provides for recovery of a short levy. The petitioners plea that final assessments cannot be reopened at the subsequent stage is not maintainable in law. The Winchester bottles have correctly been classified under Central Excise Tariff Item 23A (4). 6. The Revision Application is decided as set out above.
-
1978 (9) TMI 56
Prosecution of a partner - Legality ... ... ... ... ..... against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Of course, in the paragraph 24 of the petition of complaint some averments have been made against the accused Nos. 3 to 5. But those allegation are absolutely vague. There is no independent allegation against those three persons that they were in charge of the affairs of that firm or they were in possession of such gold, diamonds etc. In the absence of such allegation in the petition of complaint it must be held that the ingredients of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act are wanting so far as the accused Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned and of those three accused, the petitioner is one. Hence the Rule will be made absolute only regarding those three accused. 5. The Rule is made absolute. The proceeding in question is quashed so far as the accused Nos. 3 to 5, viz., Ramesh T. Mehta, Jayanti Bhai Mehta and Sashi Kant T. Mehta are concerned. The proceeding will continue against accused Nos. 1 and 2.
-
1978 (9) TMI 55
Khandsari - Compounded levy Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... s were not working their centrifugal in the last week of December, 1975 no duty could be charged for the said week. In this context, they have also cited the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jai Hanuman Khandsari Sugar Mills and others v. Union of India. 3. On 27-12-1975, the petitioners factory was found crushing cane and manufacturing Rab in two crystalizers i.e. they had started manufacturing operation without payment of compounded levy for the 4th week of December, 1975. The Notification No. 240/76, dated 29-12-1976 was operative from 29-12-1976. Their case does not, therefore, fall under the said Notification. They had also paid compounded levy duty for the 1st week of Feb. 1976 on 31-1-1976. Their contention that they had decided to work under standard procedure is, therefore, not tenable. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court cited by the petitioners has no relevance to the facts of the case. 4. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
-
1978 (9) TMI 54
Phenolic Resins ... ... ... ... ..... rnment of India observe that the definition of phenolic resins in notfn. No. 122/71, dated 1-6-1971 covers only such phenolic resins as are obtained by re-acting phenolic with aldehyde and not by any other chemicals and also Phenolic resins which are not obtained by chemical modification but phenolic resins already obtained which are modified by chemicals. The petitioners product involved in this case does not fall under it. Government further observe that when clearances were obtained wrongfully indicating the composition, the matter will not come under purview of rule 10, ibid. The petitioner s case is not a case of mis-statement, but one were full and adequate data relevant for the proper assessment was not furnished. The show case notice demanding the duty in this case is not time barred. 4. In view of the foregoing, Government of India find that the order-in-appeal is correct in law and based on the facts of the case. 5. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
|
