|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 241 Records
-
1983 (1) TMI 272
... ...
... ... ..... al out of the forbearance shown by the adjudicating officer in releasing the seized launch. As pointed out by the departmental representative, Sec. 129-R does not cover fine. The rules cannot override the Act and hence the judgments narrated above by Shri Faizullabhoy are of no consequence to the present case where the Act specifically provides for stay of penalty or duty and not fine in lieu of confiscation which is the case under consideration. Under Sec. 126 of the Customs Act, the property in the confiscated launch vest in the Central Government and THREAD. Collector of Customs is required after issue of this order, to take and hold possession of the confiscated launch. In such circumstances the Tribunal cannot allow any stay against the recovery of redemption fine. In the aforesaid circumstances we find that there are no provisions under the Customs Act which would permit the Tribunal to grant stay. Accordingly, the appellants’ request for stay is hereby rejected.
-
1983 (1) TMI 271
... ...
... ... ..... Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the appellants have not filed any application for the production of additional evidence nor made any verbal request for the production of this new evidence. However, during the course of hearing, Shri Rao has filed the Bombay Port Trust’s revised outturn report as well as survey report. Therefore to meet the ends of justice, it is very essential for the appellants to make the fresh evidence and as such in the interests of justice we hereby admit the said evidence. As regards arriving at the correct conclusion for the imposition of penalty this evidence has to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the order dated 17-7-1981 of the Deputy Collector of Customs and dated 20-9-1982 of the Appellate Collector of Customs and direct the Deputy Collector of Customs to go into the genuineness and correctness of the fresh evidence and recompute the penalty in accordance with law.
-
1983 (1) TMI 270
... ...
... ... ..... ed under Appendix 4, there is no question of the description of staple pins being included in the list attached to the licence. It is also significant to note that the appellants have claimed the import of staple pins for the purpose of packing. Had their interpretation been correct, the description of ‘Pearl headed pins and pins of all types’ would have figured under heading ‘C’ for ‘packing materials’ which is included in the licence. As we have observed earlier, the import of staple pins is absolutely banned and therefore there is no question of the same being included in the list Annexed to the Licence No. P/L 0375251/C/XX/76/B/79 dated 21-7-1980. We find that the appellants request for acceptance of this licence is also not tenable. In view of the foregoing findings, we hold that the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs as confirmed by the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, is correct. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1983 (1) TMI 269
... ...
... ... ..... e Bills of Entry which reveal that the appellant had placed one consolidated order for supply of these items, and the intention was to have almost double pair of pipettes, to go with each chamber, so as to make it one set because the Bills of Entry show that as against 3000 blood counting chambers, 3100 pipettes of each description, namely red and white were imported, under a single licence and thereafter he treated them as a set only after putting them in an Indian-made box. It goes without saying that had he imported them as a complete set in box, they would have been certainly treated as Haemocyto-meter and not separately described by the supplier as blood counting chambers and pipettes. We are thus of the considered view that both these items are to be regarded as Haemocytometer, and as such “medical appliances” falling within the ambit of Tariff Entry 90.17/18 of the Customs Tariff. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct consequential action accordingly.
-
1983 (1) TMI 268
... ...
... ... ..... ; parts thereof”). The motors of which the imported goods are component parts, therefore, in our opinion, fall for classification under Heading No. 85.01(2). The imported goods being in the nature of component parts of motors falling under Heading No. 85.01 (2), therefore, also fall under the same heading by virtue of Section Note 2(b) to Section XVI. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the foregoing discussions, we do not think that Section Note 2(c) to Section XVI is applicable in this case as contended by Shri Iyer. 7. In the result, we hold that the imported goods correctly fall for classification under Heading No. 85.01(2) of the Customs Tariff Schedule. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Assistant Collector of Customs shall refund the consequential amount of differential duty involved to the Appellants within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (1) TMI 267
... ...
... ... ..... . It is, therefore, clear that Solenoid is an appliance in its own right having a specific function. Unless, therefore, if is shown that the imported Solenoides were suitable for use solely or principally with solenoid-operated valves, the Appellants’ contention that they fell for classification under Heading 84.61(2) is not acceptable. In this connection, we note that the claim of the Appellants as set out in the memorandum of appeal (revision) is solely with reference to Notification No. 350/76. The Custom duty concession contained in the said Notification is applicable only in respect of articles imported for the purpose of the initial setting up or for the assembly or for the manufacture of articles falling within the schedule to the said Notification. None of the headings 84.61, 85.18/27(1) or 85.28 appear in this schedule. Therefore, the question of extending the benefits of the Notification to the Appellants does not arise. In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (1) TMI 266
... ...
... ... ..... from whom enquiries were made were not the purchasers. We cannot go into this kind of argument as it was for the Excise Officer to collect information for finding out from various sources what price the goods in question would fetch when sold in the market. 8. The appellant further contended that defective goods would not bring the price which the normal goods would fetch and therefore, they would have to be sold at a lower rate. It was prayed that the lower price should be treated as the price of the goods and a corresponding reduction in the value of such defective-cum-short-length goods should be allowed for assessment purposes. We do not see any force in this plea because the Excise Officer had not acted by any rule of thumb. He had made necessary market enquiries and only after doing so, he had exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner which does not warrant any interference. 9. In the result we find no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 265
... ...
... ... ..... ng which an application for refund can be made. The meaning and intention of the said provision is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, ordinary, natural and recognised meanings have to be given. The said sub-section fully empowers the Assistant Collector to entertain applications for the refund of duty paid in excess. He has also the authority to dismiss such applications if they are barred by time. The view taken by the Assistant Collector was confirmed by the Collector in the first appeal. 18. Even new before us, the validity of the decision of the Assistant Collector on the ground of limitation has not been questioned with an eye on the period. The only challenge made is with regard to the jurisdiction of the said officer to take cognisance of the matter. This argument is devoid of any substance, 19. For the above reasons, we find no force in the contentions made by the learned coursel for the appellants. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 264
... ...
... ... ..... ounds of appeal, that the statement had been mis-interpreted by the Deputy Collector. For that matter no affidavit of Shri Narayan had been filed before the Collector to reinforce the contention. Any ground of that kind is nothing short of a self-serving statement, which cannot be given any credence. 8. The Deputy Collector had rightly held that the price as given in the invoice was not the fair price. He had rightly enhanced the same to appraised value. We agree with the order of the Deputy Collector, though on different ground, as we have not heard the merits of other grounds, which were argued before the Collector. In other words, we uphold the order of the Deputy Collector, which was confirmed by the Collector in the first appeal. 9. As the statement of Shri Narayan, Advocate, has clinched the whole issue, we do not consider that any other ground or argument will merit to outweigh the same. 10. This appeal has thus no force and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 263
... ...
... ... ..... without insisting on payment of duty on wrapping paper used internally for packing reams and reels provided the Mills has paid excise duty on the value of the wrapping paper in accordance with the tariff rate applicable thereto.” As observed earlier, the facts of the present case are on all fours with the facts of the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper. Mills Ltd. Since the appellants factory and the Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. fall within the jurisdiction of the same High Court, it is appropriate that the procedure being followed by the Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., in pursuance of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Writ Petition No. 2055 of 1980 should also be allowed to be followed by the appellants. We, therefore, direct that the wrapping paper in question be charged to excise duty only once in accordance with the ruling given by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in their judgment referred to above. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 262
... ...
... ... ..... ollector shall, within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order, re-adjudicate the case in the light of the observations made above and determine the exact amount of short-levy due from the appellants and pass appropriate orders. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the light of the observations made and the directions given above. 12. Before parting with the case we would like to mention that a strict legal interpretation of Notification No. 237/75 results in a situation where while steel ingots were liable to pay basic excise duty only at a concessional rate of ₹ 25/- per M.T., the scrap arising in the course of manufacture of such ingots in electric furnace units was visited with a liability to pay basic excise duty at ₹ 100/- per M.T. prima facie, it appears that the intention might not have been to bring about such a situation. If this be so, it would be for Government to consider the matter for any possible remedial action.
-
1983 (1) TMI 261
... ...
... ... ..... derations, we are of the view that the imported goods should be deemed to be component parts of synchronous condensers and that they fall for classification under heading No. 85.01(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule. 8. The rate of duty applicable to goods falling under heading 85.01(1) was the same at the material time as the rate of duty applicable to component parts required for the assembly or manufacture of those goods in terms of notification No. 182/78. It is not, therefore, necessary for us to go into the alternative claim of the appellants that the benefit of the said notification should be extended to them. 9. In the result, we allow the appeal and direct that the goods should be re-assessed under heading No. 85.01(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule and that the consequential refund of the differential amount of duty involved should be paid by the Assistant Collector of Customs to the appellants within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (1) TMI 260
... ...
... ... ..... used as sealing channel by the Indian Railways cannot take it out of the category of rubber tubing when it squarely answers the description of “rubber tubing” and when the seller and the buyer clearly regarded it as rubber tubing. As regards the appellants alternative plea of exemption under Notification No. 197/67-CE, we find that by no stretch of imagination can glass and window shutters or, for that matter, even railway coaches be regarded as machinery articles. As the relevant entry in the Notification confines the exemption to rubber piping and tubing designed to be component parts of machinery articles (including typewriters), the said exemption cannot extend to the subject robber tubing. We, therefore, agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Department that the subject rubber tubing is specifically covered by item 16A(3) CET and is not entitled to the exemption contained in Notification No. 197/67-C.E. 6. Accordingly, we reject the appeal.
-
1983 (1) TMI 259
... ...
... ... ..... hence validly covered within the scope of the notification. As regards the second ground of rejection of the appellants claim, we find from condition (ii) of the notification that production of Duty Exemption Certificate is not mandatory in every case and that the exemption could be allowed on production of the NMIC alone if the Collector of Customs was otherwise satisfied in each case that the goods in respect of which the exemption was claimed were scientific or technical instruments, apparatus or equipment or spare parts, component parts or accessories of such instruments, apparatus or equipments. Since we have already held that the subject Pens were parts and accessories of the Recorder, which in turn was a scientific and technical instrument, we do not consider that DEC should be insisted upon in terms of the notification. 6. Accordingly, we reject the appeal in respect of Chart Paper and Ink Cartridges but allow it, with consequential relief, in respect of Pens.
-
1983 (1) TMI 258
... ...
... ... ..... h would otherwise have to be carried out by themselves. We are not able to accept the argument of Shri Tayal that although the notification refers to use in the industrial unit, we should by implication take this to mean only electricity used by the owners/ managers of the industrial unit themselves. We accordingly hold that electricity used for this purpose is entitled to the benefit of the exemption. 15. In the result, we modify the order of the Appellate Collector to the extent that we hold the exemption under the notification to be applicable to electricity used (a) in the marketing office of the appellants situated adjacent to their manufacturing premises; and (b) by the outside contractors in the course of maintenance of the plant and machinery within the appellants’ manufacturing premises. We uphold the findings of the Appellate Collector in respect of the other uses which he has held as not entitled to the exemption. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1983 (1) TMI 257
... ...
... ... ..... idence to this effect, the confiscation of the Indian currency notes amounting to ₹ 12,790/- is not justified and accordingly the order of confiscation is set aside and the amount is ordered to be returned to Shri Jumma Abdul Gani. 8. As regards the levy of penalty on Shri Jumma Abdul Gani it is seen that the same has been levied in connection with the seizure of 5 grams of gold bullion valued at ₹ 430/- made from him and for having carried smuggled gold as per annexure I to the show cause notice as mentioned in para 11 of the show cause notice dated 5-3-1979. There is no denial regarding the ownership of the gold weighing 5 grams seized from Jumma Abdul Gani on 7-9-1978 and for having carried the smuggled gold and sale proceeds thereof. In the aforesaid circumstances the order of penalty is correct and sustainable. 9. The Order of the Collector of Customs, Appeal dated 15-4-1980 is modified to the above extent, and the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1983 (1) TMI 256
... ...
... ... ..... f appeal, the appellants had not produced a categorical evidence of the parcel having landed but missing from M/s. Air India. They had not specified whether the claim was under Section 13 or Section 23 of the Customs Act. 3. We have examined the case and considered the arguments both for and against the case. We find that the condition for grant of refund under Section 13 of the Customs Act are fully complied with. Even if we do not take into account the letter dated 16-10-1980 from M/s. Air India, the B/E Cash No. ACC 1252 dated 19-3-1979 provides sufficient evidence to show that the goods were not cleared. The lack of mention as to whether the claim was under Section 13 or 23 of the Customs Act would not vitiate the claim of the appellant, which is, otherwise in order. Considering these facts, we set aside the Order No. S/49-145/80 Air dated 30-8-1980 of the Appellate Collector of Customs and order the refund of duty amounting to ₹ 23,316.32 to the appellants.
-
1983 (1) TMI 255
... ...
... ... ..... e presence of unpurified acid which is subjected to purification to free it from unwanted contents. The process detailed by the Assistant Collector does not show that there has been set a purification process. We are, however, not going into this question in view of what is discussed above. 7. We set aside the three demands because they have to recommend themselves. Besides, two of them are time-barred. When a fact that is well-known to industry remains unknown for 10 years to Central Excise, a department that administers a tariff of tax rates that are categorised goods by their scientific and technological properties, we are compelled to reflect upon the application of the officers. But if the officers were ignorant of what was well-known to industry, they have only themselves to blame. That this was no more error of judgment is manifest. 8. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Refunds of the sums demanded should be given if the assessees have already paid them.
-
1983 (1) TMI 254
... ...
... ... ..... assessment of the goods at the preferential rate of duty as applicable to goods of U.K. origin. The Tribunal further observes that the Appellants have not been diligent in the matter of securing the necessary certificate of origin from the suppliers of the goods. From the correspondence between the Appellants and the suppliers it is observed that the Appellants wrote to the suppliers for the certificate of origin in the prescribed form for the first time on the 11th December, 1976, that is, long after the import of the goods and their clearance on payment of duty on 17th June, 1976. The certificate of origin has not been submitted within six months from the date of payment of duty at the standard rate as required under Section 3(2) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 read with Rule 6 of the U.K. India Trade Agreement Rules. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1983 (1) TMI 253
... ...
... ... ..... n exempting glass shells for the manufacture of TV picture tubes from basic duty in excess of 60% ad valorem was notified on the 16th February, 1976. Exemption notifications issued under the Customs Act or its predecessor Sea Customs Act do not have retrospective application and, therefore, the notification in question would not apply to the present goods which, as stated earlier, were imported and cleared through the Madras Port in the month of August, 1974. Further, glass shells which had yet to be fabricated into TV picture tubes cannot be considered to be parts of wireless reception apparatus and, therefore, would not qualify for classification under Item No. 73(2) of the ICT. The classification made by the Customs authorities of the present goods under Item 60 of the ICT read with Item No. 23-A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule is in order. This ground of challenge is rejected. 8. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the light of directions given above.
........
|
