|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 218 Records
-
1983 (10) TMI 258 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of appeal does not arise. The right of appeal in the present case can be said to have accrued to the Collector concerned only on 11th October, 1982, the date on which the provisions of Chapter VIA of the Excise Act were brought into force. Therefore, all orders communicated within three months from this date alone are appealable to the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Company Ltd. - 1977 (39) STC 340 - has in very clear terms laid down that a mere substitution or enactment of a statute is of no avail unless it is also effectuated. Since the provisions of Chapter VIA were enforced from 11th October, 1982 therefore, it cannot be presumed that a right of appeal accrued to the Department with the enactment of the Finance Act, 1980. In the light of the Supreme Court decision (supra) the Department had no right of appeal in relation to orders communicated to the Collector, Central Excise prior to 11th October, 1982.
-
1983 (10) TMI 257 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... al of Rule 96YY makes it clear that a statutory obligation cast on the Central Excise Officers to recalculate the duty whenever there is alteration in the rates of duty or in the limit of exemption, and thereafter, to refund to the manufacturer in case the amount of duty so recalculated be less than the sum paid by the manufacturer. Rule 96YY is a complete code by itself. There is no question of making any claim for refund and therefore, in respect of matters which fall within the ambit of Rule 96YY, the provisions of Rule 11 are not attracted. The payment of duty the manufacturer was required to do under the said rule appears to be in the nature of provisional payment. Otherwise there was no rule provided under the proviso for recalculation, and thereafter the refund of duty if the amount of duty paid on recalculation be less than the payable. 6. On careful consideration of all the aspects we see no merit whatsoever in this appeal, and accordingly, we dismiss the same.
-
1983 (10) TMI 256 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants firm and the Proprietor of the appellants firm is one of the partners. When there was an allegation against the appellants that 39 coils were manufactured in the appellants’ firm and sent to Trichur, the appellants could have established by satisfactory evidence that these 39 coils were not manufactured in their factory but were purchased in the open market. The appellants did not adduce any independent evidence. They only rely upon certain invoices which were also not approved. In the circumstances no error has been committed by the Deputy Collector or the Collector (Appeals) even with regard to these 39 coils. 12. After careful consideration of all the aspects we are satisfied that the order passed by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) does not suffer from any illegality and the same is not unjustified on the facts and circumstances proved in this case. 13. In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1983 (10) TMI 255 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... art of ball bearings, the order of the Appellate Collector should be upheld. 12. I have carefully considered this matter and am unable to agree with my learned Brothers. I have before me an order-in-appeal No. S/49-1439 and 1440/79R, dated 23-10-1979 passed by the late Shri M.S. Vaidya, Collector (Appeals) dealing with a similar case. I agree with the reasoning in that case and hold that “rings” are to be accepted as “parts of ball bearings” in view of notes on page 1380/81 of the Explanatory Notes to the CCN and that the subject goods are identifiable as “parts of bearings classifiable under Heading 84.62(1), rather than as ”other articles of iron or steel" falling within Heading 73.40. I would also refer to my earlier dissenting order No. 571/82, dated 30-9-1983 in the case of Collector, Central Excise, Bombay v. Antifriction Bearing Co. Ltd. and would agree with the appellant and set aside the order of the Appellate Collector.
-
1983 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... tisfied that due meaning has to be given to this additional condition put in the tariff heading. In our view, interchangeable tools are those which satisfy the definition of interchangeability as given in the ISO Guide. It is not in doubt that the subject die sets are not interchangeable tools in that sense. 7. The analogy drawn by the Department’s Representative with Item 51A C.E.T. is not relevant to the issue of basic Customs duty before us. The drawings and plans are not necessary when the goods themselves are available for inspection and there is no dispute about the nature of the job they perform. 8. Since we hold that the subject die sets are not interchangeable tools, they do not fall under Heading 82.05. Heading 82.45/48, which includes parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machine tools for working metal, appropriately covers the subject goods. Accordingly, we allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (10) TMI 253 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... the dates of actual and receipted purchase; and it is not unconvincing. Considerable weight also has to be given to the fact that since he returned on 3rd Oct., 1982, he could very well have procured a receipt any time upto 2nd October, 1981 when he was at Oman, had the receipt not been genuine. Note has also to be taken of the other arguments advanced, specially the fact that the colour TV, with which a VCR goes, was allowed the concession, along with all the other articles. It is also seen that the appellant had a CCP which went unutilised. It may be true that the article looked new and the appellant appears to have acquiesced in this finding, as witnessed by his signature on the report, but the fact that it was an old model ought not to be ignored. All the attendant circumstances considered, there is a positive a doubt in favour of the appellant. We would give him the benefit and accordingly set aside the order appealed against with consequential relief to the Appellant.
-
1983 (10) TMI 252 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nce had taken up the matter separately with the Government through the Trade that assessment under Item 30(4) was wrong and this would mean that the appellants were aware of the correct position in law. Their contention that mistake of law came to be known only with the issue of Trade Notice, in view of the foregoing, is not acceptable. Besides, to get the benefit of sub-section (c) of Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963, it is not only that mistake is discovered, it is also stipulated that mistake could with reasonable diligence, have not been discovered. There is no material or pleadings on the point to show as to what steps were taken by the appellants in the direction. On the other hand, as already pointed out, material on record would show that the appellants long before the trade notice dated 12-12-1975 know of the correct legal position. In view of the foregoing, no interference in orders passed by the lower authorities is called for. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1983 (10) TMI 251 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he tariff as the article itself. The explanatory memorandum issued by the Government along with the Notification No. 129/80-Cus., dated 1-7-1980 also lays down that amendment to Notification No. 35/79-Cus. seeks to bring out the intention clearly that exemption will apply to all parts regardless whether or not they fall under the same heading in the tariff as the article itself. The same view was taken by S/Shri G.C. Baveja, Secretary to the Government of India, D.N. Mehta, Addl. Secretary and D.N. Lal, Joint Secretary in Review Petition No. 521-B/81, dated 2-10-1981 that the Notification No. 395/76 extends benefit to all parts of I.C.P. Engine irrespective of the fact whether they are themselves classifiable under Heading No. 84.06 or not. 5. In these circumstances, we allow the appeal holding that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 35-Cus./79, dated 15-2-1979 and they are entitled to the refund subject to the fulfilment of other conditions.
-
1983 (10) TMI 250 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hand, has held in the latest judgment decided on 20-9-1982 and reported as 1983 E.L.T. 923 (Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. S.R. Patankar and Others) that the relevant date for the purpose of calculation of duty is when the goods re-enter the Indian waters, and not with reference to the date of their first entry, as they cease to retain the character of imported goods, once they are taken out of the Indian waters. 25. In view of this, the matter ceases to be susceptible to any other interpretation than the one held by the authorities below which view has the sanction of preponderance of judicial authorities. We, therefore, do not find it possible to take a view, different than that held by the lower authorities. The appeal is, therefore, liable to dismissal, and is dismissed accordingly. The appellants shall have the benefit of the little modification allowed by the Appellate Collector qua the rate of countervailing duty, applicable in terms of Notification dated 5-1-1979.
-
1983 (10) TMI 249 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... learned Brother Syiem. I wish only to add that Rule 10 of the Rules is inapplicable to the facts of this case seeing that the assessment was completed as per the statement of the learned Counsel on 23-11-1977 while the show cause notice was issued earlier on 16/17-11-1977. It cannot be, therefore, that it is a notice to recover short levy or unpaid duty in consequence of assessment in terms of Rule 10. Order per G. Sankaran I agree with both my Brothers. I.I.S.C.O. BURNPUR INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT Principal Inputs Shop/Unit Output Coal Coke Oven Battery Coke, Coke Oven Gas and other by-products Iron Ore Blast Furnace Liquid Iron Coke STEEL MELTING COMPLEX Liquid Iron Bessemer Converter Blown Metal Iron Open Hearth Furance Steel Ingot Blown Metal Burnt Dolomite ROLLING MILL COMPLEX Steel Ingot Steel Products
-
1983 (10) TMI 248 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the Assistant Collector in his order dated 22-10-1980 cannot be a recovery of duty under Rule 196 as it purports to be. Let it be recorded here that though the notification was not satisfied, the removal of the motor spirit was in accordance with the application made under Rule 192 . 14. As the permission was given by the central excise mistakenly and since the clearances were not under Notification No. 35/73-C.E., the short recovered duty cannot be recovered under Rule 196, and since the permission was given wrongly when it should not have been given at all, it is from the manufacturer of the goods cleared at concessional duty i.e., motor spirit, toluene, xylene, etc. etc., that the short recovered duty can be recovered. We must, therefore, pronounce the order of the Appellate Collector to be wrong and unlawful and set it aside and allow the appeal. 15. The above being our order, we shall not go into the various other arguments advanced before us by the two sides.
-
1983 (10) TMI 247 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... base period that cannot be arrived at for it. For example, the fourth factory has base period 1973-1974, 1974-1975, 1975-1976; by combining the two base clearances, the first three factories will have 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 as base periods additionally, when their true base periods is 1973-1974. We can find nothing in the notification anything that permits this or anything that requires such combination. We therefore, have to conclude that the action of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector was wrong. We allow the appeal. 8. The fourth factory i.e. the factory that has its base period 1973-1974, 1974-1975, 1975-1976 should have its base clearance unlinked from the other three factories and its duty liability determined accordingly. On the above principles the other three factories will have their duty liabilities determined as well. All duties recovered incorrectly as a result of the order of the Assistant Collector shall be refunded to the manufacturer.
-
1983 (10) TMI 246 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ities were not justified in adopting the selling price of ₹ 575/- per M.T. for the sulphuric acid used for captive consumption. The selling price of ₹ 575/- was applicable to buyers of small lots. We consider that in the circumstances of the case it would be more appropriate to adopt the price of ₹ 510/- per M.T. for goods used for captive consumption i.e., treating them at par with goods sold to bulk buyers. It is also relevant in this connection that the sale to bulk buyers formed a substantial percentage of the total, namely, 23.5, as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The findings of the Collector (Appeals) cannot be substantiated; more so, it does not contain any reasons for arriving at the figure of ₹ 575/- and confirming the view of the Assistant Collector. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals). The consequent relief, which flows from this order be given to the appellants.
-
1983 (10) TMI 245 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Act, 1962 and not a territory outside India, or there was any other notification on the lines of Section 89 of the Customs Act, 1962, the position may well have been different. We had asked the Counsels on both sides whether the expression “territory” had been judicially interpreted but they could not throw any light in the matter. In the result, we have to conclude that a place beyond the territorial waters of India is not a “territory” outside India for the purpose of Notification No. 197/62 and, therefore, the benefit of the said notification was not available to Bharat Petroleum. Nor was the voyage of the lighterage vessel a coastal voyage in as much as it was only a voyage out of and back to the same port and not between two ports round the coast of the country. 11. In the light of the above discussions, we see no merit in the appeal which we, therefore, dismiss. 12. A copy of this order should be placed in each of the two appeal files.
-
1983 (10) TMI 244 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tice of modern cosmetics there is a whole chapter devoted to deodorants and anti-perspirants. Shri Jain also referred to a book “Manufacture of Beauty Products” published by Small Business Publications, Delhi. In the Chapter on “Systemic Skin Preparations” is listed deodorants. 6. From the above authorities, it may be seen that there is little doubt that deodorants are cosmetic preparations for care of the skin. The appellants have not adduced any evidence in support of their stand. As such, we uphold the classification of MUM Deodorant adopted by the lower authorities. 7. The contention regarding the demand for duty being hit by time-bar has also no force. Firstly, it is seen from the Asstt. Collector’s order that he has given due allowance for the limitation aspect. Secondly, the appellants have not adduced any basis for their contention. 8. In the result the orders of the lower authorities are upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (10) TMI 243 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Act, 1980, under which the Tariff Item had been retrospectively amended so as to make textile fabrics again liable to duty after processing. 18. There is some force in Shri Tayal’s arguments in so far as the question of levy of duty again after processing is concerned. But it does not answer the point that the excise authorities had not gone into the question whether the goods at the grey stage were independently marketable. The respondents in this case are in Gujarat, and the facts of this case are almost identical to those of the cases covered by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. We have already held that we cannot hold the goods to be leviable to duty under both Item 19-I(1A) and Item 22. If we have to choose between these two items, the appropriate item is obviously the one which is applicable to the goods at the stage at which they are cleared. In this view we consider that the Appellate Collector’s order should be confirmed. We order accordingly.
-
1983 (10) TMI 242 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n view of this we must hold that the use of power in the movement of the slurry before the manufacture of the synthetic detergents disqualifies Gujarat Dyetex Industries from the benefit of Notification No. 101/66-C.E. 9. We accordingly reject the appeal. EDITOR’S COMMENTS The question regarding the use of power in handling the raw material prior to its use in the manufacture, was considered by Divisional Benches of Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Chemical Works v. Union of India - 1981 E.L.T. 617 and Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra Engineering Works v. U.O.I. - 1981 E.L.T. 859, wherein it was held that use of power in pumping the raw material from motor tank to the storage tank cannot be said to be use of power in the manufacture of finished article manufacture out of such raw material. This decision of the Appellate Tribunal on this question appears to be in direct conflict with the authoritative decisions of the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts.
-
1983 (10) TMI 241 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... material before us to quantify such Caprolactum. 12. In the premises, the Questions in 2(a) and (b) are answered accordingly. Question 2(c) was not argued before us. On Question 2(d), we hold that the show cause notice was in order. 13. In the result, we have no option but to set aside the Appellate Collector’s order, in so far as it relates to recovery of Caprolactum from wash water, and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector for a quantification, to the extent possible, after enquiry in which the Respondent is represented and afforded an opportunity, of the Caprolactum manufactured out of the depolymerisation of oligomers in wash water. Duty is to be levied only on the Caprolactum ascertained to have been manufactured out of depolymerisation of oligomers present in wash water. In the result, the Appeal partly succeeds. 14. Before, parting with the case, we place on record the invaluable assistance we had derived from the submissions on either side.
-
1983 (10) TMI 240 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... em 51A(iii) does not say that the tools falling thereunder should have independent function. On the contrary, this item requires only that the tools should be designed to be fitted into machine tools. The tools have thus to function inconjunction with the machine tools and not independently. As regards the appellants’ final argument that the subject parts are only replacement spares, we observe that this can hardly change the nature and character of the subject goods. Functional parts in any machine are liable to wear and tear and would, in course of time, need replacement. Parts which basically perform the tooling operation would not cease to be tools merely because, in addition to original assembly, they are also used as replacement spares. Inasmuch as the subject parts are designed for being fitted ultimately into machine tools and do the functional work of a tool, we hold that they were correctly covered by Item 51A(iii). 4. Accordingly, we reject this appeal.
-
1983 (10) TMI 239 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ject-matter of these proceedings, in the light of the principles enunciated above, and in accordance with the exact composition of the products in each case. Since Shri Gopal Prasad himself had invited us to consider classification under Item 68, although it was not urged before the lower authorities, we do not think that there is any objection to our ordering classification under items different from those adopted by the lower authorities, provided this does not result in the appellants having to pay an additional amount of duty. If in respect of any of the five products this results in the levy of duty under the same tariff entry under which duty has already been paid on any of the constituent yarns, set-off of such duty should be allowed, in order to avoid double taxation under the same tariff entry. 23. In the result we modify the order of the Appellate Collector as indicated in para 22 above, and direct that consequential relief as due be granted to the appellants.
........
|
