Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 223 Records
-
1983 (2) TMI 309
... ... ... ... ..... ty there is in fact no order for clearance as envisaged under Sec. 47 of the Customs Act 1962. In terms of Section 13 of that Act, if there be non-availability of cargo to the party due to pilferage after its landing but before the proper officer has made an order for clearance for home consumption, the importer shall not be liable to pay the duty leviable on such goods. If, therefore, it is accepted that the goods cleared fell short of the quantity stated in the Bill of Entry by 91.235 MT. a fact which is attested by the New Mangalore Port itself, in terms of Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, the importer will have a good case for refund of the duty already paid by him. 7. The certificate issued by the Mangalore Port, a third party, states the quantity of cargo actually cleared. We see no reason to discard the same in the circumstances of the present case. We, therefore, allow the appeal and order refund of duty paid on a quantity of 91.235 MT of Muriate of Potash.
-
1983 (2) TMI 308
... ... ... ... ..... r set off envisaged in the notification should be given towards the crude copper stage duty. In any case, when the second paragraph of the notification does not specifically lay down as to on what date the “duty payable” is to form the basis of set off and two interpretations about the relevant date are possible, one held by the Department and the other urged by the assessee-there is no reason why, in this matter of Central excise tax, the interpretation favourable to the assessee should not be adopted. We, therefore, hold that “duty payable” in the second paragraph of the notification refers to the duty payable on the date of grant of the exemption or set off when the copper pipes and tubes were to be assessed to excise duty prior to their clearance for home consumption. In view of this finding, it is unnecessary for us to go into other arguments of the appellants. 7. We allow this appeal accordingly with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (2) TMI 307
... ... ... ... ..... ad not been considered and that if they had been considered a different view might have been taken. But for no reason at all there can be no departure from the view taken in an earlier year." It is not suggested that there were either fresh facts, change in law, change in process of manufacture or in the entries of the tariff. Applying the ration of above decision, it would appear that the Collector was not justified in changing the stand and holding that jockey pulleys are classifiable under Item No. 49 of the Central Excise Tariff. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Collector set-aside, and the order passed by the Assistant Collector restored. The result would be that Jockey Pulleys would be classified under Item No. 68 as done heretofore. The Department will, within two months of communication of this order make necessary adjustment or consequential refund of the excess duty amount paid by the appellants.
-
1983 (2) TMI 306
... ... ... ... ..... quo; are claimed to be parts are “domestic sewing machines” and, therefore, the rotating hooks are to be classified as parts of domestic sewing machines under Heading 84.41(2). This would be the appropriate classification even if one were to rule out the application of the aforesaid Section Note 2(b) because of Interpretative Rule 3(c) according to which “when goods cannot be classified by reference to Rule 3(a) or Rule 3(b) (both of which do not apply in the instant case), they shall be classified under the Heading which occurs latest amongst those which equally merit consideration”. 14. Having regard to the discussions contained in the aforesaid paragraphs, we are of the view that the correct classification of the goods in the present case is under sub-heading (2) of heading 84.41 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. In the result, the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (2) TMI 305
... ... ... ... ..... on their requirements. We have seen the Bill of Lading. The consignee there is the appellant. The goods were also got cleared by the appellant after necessary assessment had been made. The Customs Officer must have satisfied himself after seeing both the invoices, i.e. the invoice for 47 cases and the other invoice for 88 cases. 6. What happened after the clearance was not the concern of the customs authorities. Their duty ended when the goods were cleared after the payment of customs duty. We do not find any infirmity in the orders of the officers below, especially when the appellant failed to produce the relevant documents. The withholding of the material documents i.e. the invoice for 88 cases raised a very strong presumption against the appellant as it will be presumed that the said document, if produced, would have gone against the appellant. 7. We have thus no hesitation in upholding the order of the Appellate Collector. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (2) TMI 304
... ... ... ... ..... re not available at the time of delivery and the non-availability is not due to physical destruction or loss but due to theft, pilferage and the like, the provisions of Sec. 13 should prevail. In this view, as in this case the discovery of shortage or non-availability of goods was after the date of order of the officer of Customs allowing the clearance of the goods, the claim for refund of duty be hit by the bar under Sec. 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 and has to be rejected. 13. A plea has been raised that at the time of the survey a Customs Officer was present and hence the Department cannot refuse to accept the findings of that survey, on principles analogous to doctrine of Estoppel. It is a well-recognised principle that there is no estoppel against a statute. The presence of an officer of Customs cannot by itself bind the Government for a liability which it is not expected to bear in terms of the clear provisions of the statute. In the result the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (2) TMI 303
... ... ... ... ..... (ii)(b) of Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, in relation to orders or decisions in adjudication, can only flow to the Additional Collector from the powers vetsed in the Board by virtue of the proviso to Section 33. This does not make him a Collector and he remains subordinate to the Collector for purposes of Rule 2(ii)(b) and an appeal against an order by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, would lie to the Appellate Collector, Delhi. This being so, the order is not one passed by a Collector as adjudicating authority mentioned in Section 35B(a), nor is it an appeal pending before the Board or the Central Government as provided in Section 35P. The Tribunal would not, therefore, be able to entertain this appeal and the proper forum is that of the Collector (Appeals), Delhi. As such no orders are possible on the stay application before us. 6. The Tribunal orders accordingly that the records be transferred to the Collector (Appeals), Delhi, for disposal.
-
1983 (2) TMI 302
... ... ... ... ..... named the importer from whom the goods were purchased, the importer indicated the import licence and Bill of Entry and the Bombay and Ludhiana Customs authorities verified the transactions. In that case, there is no mention of there being any objection to sale of goods imported under the licence, which has been contended by the Senior Departmental Representative in this case. We find that 66 appeals relating to confiscation of so-called woollen rags, which contained a substantial percentage of serviceable garments, were allowed by the Board on the ratio of the Nagesh Hosiery Mills judgment. 8. We, therefore, accept the pleas made by Counsel in this case and set aside the order of confiscation as well as penalty. The goods may be released to the appellant, subject to the stipulation that the said woollen garments are mutilated in their mill under Customs or Central Excise supervision, so as to render them totally unserviceable, for use in the manufacture of shoddy yarn.
-
1983 (2) TMI 301
... ... ... ... ..... ppellant by the department. Having concluded that the documents produced did not cover the seized goods, it was for the department to investigate their origin and establish their contraband nature. The mere conclusion that they are not covered by the TR 5s, being partly cotton bush shirts is insufficient to prove that they have been imported through an unauthorised route, that too unspecified in so far as even the land border is concerned i.e. Indo-Pak or Indo-Nepal. Not an iota of evidence or reasoning which led to the conclusion of illicit import through an unauthorised route has been adduced by the department. There is also no discussion on this aspect in the Order-in-appeal. The department has also not controverted the Counsel’s contention that the appellate order is silent regarding Shri Lal Dass’s appeal. 14. For these reasons, the Tribunal accepts the appeal and sets aside the order relating to confiscation, imposition of penalty and redemption fine.
-
1983 (2) TMI 300
... ... ... ... ..... from the stage at which it was on the appointed day viz. 11-10-1982 and therefore, the single appeal covering 4 different Bills of Entry is in order. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose the appeal on merits. We have considered the appellant’s submission of ignorance of the amendment brought about with effect from 1-12-80 and their request for leniency. We find that the appeal does not bring forth any fresh grounds justifying further leniency. The import of goods has been rightly held as offending the Import Trade and Control Order and the fine as reduced by the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is quite lenient. Even though the letter of credit was opened on 9-12-80, the appellants could have stopped the import of goods by asking their suppliers to do so. No attempt was made to stop the import. Considering these circumstances, we find that there is no scope for further leniency. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and reject the appeal.
-
1983 (2) TMI 299
... ... ... ... ..... d hence the Addl. Collector’s order was quite correct. He submitted that the same should be upheld. 2. We have considered the submissions. We find that there is considerable force in the argument of the departmental representative that the actual user of the yarn is not the importer. It is the tape which is the component for the zip fastener and not the yarn. When Chapter 2, para 5 defines actual user, it implies that the jobbing work carried out on the component should not transform its physical form which is the case in the manufacture of tapes out of the imported yarn. Besides, para 6 under Appendix 10 gives an indication that the actual users of yarn should acquire their requirement from the canalizing agency. Considering these circumstances, we find that the import of yarn is not permissible under OGL in question to the appellants. In the aforesaid view, the Addl. Collector’s order is legal and correct. The same is confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (2) TMI 298
... ... ... ... ..... up the preliminary objection of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act raised by the departmental representative, we find that the plea of Advocate Shri Karmali is an afterthought. If he had been aware of this requirement of law, he would have filed a written application for stay much in advance and not made verbal request at the time of the hearing of the appeal. Our belief is further confirmed because of the fact that Shri Karmali did not have with him any written application for stay if he had the intention to file one as submitted by him. Thus, Shri Karmali’s request for verbal stay is not tenable. The provisions of Section 129-E are mandatory. Accordingly, the appeal of Shri R.T. Sajdeh is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the same. 7. In view of the above analysis, the appeal of Shri Sajdeh fails and is rejected on grounds of merits, time-bar and non-compliance with provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act.
-
1983 (2) TMI 297
... ... ... ... ..... as to be by an actual user who is himself a manufacturer of drugs. The OGL has to be interpreted as per its wordings and it is not open for the Customs authorities to read more in it than the mere text permits them to do so. It is also seen that the imported goods have been utilised for the manufacture of poultry-feed which has been exported, thus earning sizeable foreign exchange for the country. Apart from this, the C.C.I. has conveyed his recommendations and these recommendations are normally acceptable to the Customs authorities. Considering these circumstances, particularly, the fact that the OGL is fully applicable in the case, we find that the Deputy Collector’s orders of confiscation of the two consignments are not correct. We set aside the same as also the order dated 10-8-1979 of the Appellate Collector of Customs confirming the Deputy Collector’s orders. The appeal is thus allowed and the consequential refund of fines paid is granted to the appellants.
-
1983 (2) TMI 296
... ... ... ... ..... -Tax Office reported in 71 ITR 850. He has also relied on a Patna High Court Judgment in the case of Puran Mal Kauntia v. Income Tax Office-98-ITR 39. 3. We have examined the case. We respectfully follow the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and are satisfied that this Court has inherent powers as to the grant of stay. In the interests of justice we hereby grant an interim stay to the appellants for the re-payment of excise duty refund of ₹ 33,25,832.38 upto the 8th day of March, 1983. The Revenue authorities are directed not to recover this amount till the 8th day of March, 1983. For the grant of permanent stay till the disposal of the appeal the stay petition shall be heard by the Bench on the 8th day of March, 1983. The appellants will not be granted any adjournment. In case the appellants fail to appeal on the 8th day of March, 1983, or try to seek adjournment without any valid cause the stay petition shall stand vacated on the 8th day of March, 1983.
-
1983 (2) TMI 295
... ... ... ... ..... his fact, the representative of the appellant was asked/what plea he had to make to the Tribunal. He has left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal. 2. I have examined the contentions. In view of the fact that the consignment of the books in question has been destroyed by the Customs House, I refrain from going into the merits of the case. Since the evidence has been destroyed, I allow the appeal on technical grounds. I direct that the Collector of Customs, Bombay should pay a sum in Indian currency equivalent to the value of the consignment of D.M. 943.20 to the appellants. This Order will not debar the Customs authorities to come to any decision with regard to the future importation of the same book vis-a-vis the provisions of Notification No. 99-Customs, dated 8-6-1955. The Collector of Customs Bombay should further ensure that in future the goods are not destroyed or disposed of in any other manner before the period for filing appeal to the Tribunal expires.
-
1983 (2) TMI 294
... ... ... ... ..... .A. would cost about 5, two finished seal inserts made out of it would cost 30 each. 8. We have carefully examined the samples, catalogues, the technical literature and all the records laid before us in this case and have given our earnest consideration to the matter. We are satisfied that the subject goods are not really tubes but only blocks or blanks of resin-impregnated artificial’ graphite which, according to the Explanatory Notes to the CCCN relied open by both sides, remained within the scope of Chapter 38 CTA. The subject goods are far from being close to a finished article. At best, they could be regarded as semi-manufactures. Since even semi-manufactures of artificial graphite remain within the scope of Chapter 38, as per the Explanatory Notes to CCCN, and are excluded from Chapter 68, we hold that the subject goods are correctly classifiable under heading 38.01/19. 9. We allow these appeals accordingly with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (2) TMI 293
... ... ... ... ..... e absence of any evidence to the contrary there is no reason to reject the invoice description. The goods must, therefore, be held to be “plating salts”, i.e. chemicals. In terms of Note 2(vi) of Chapter 28 “Compounds organic or inorganic of precious metals, whether or not chemically defined, ......whether or not mixed together” are to be classified under Chapter 28. Now Heading 28.01/58 contains several sub-headings and the present goods are not covered by any of the specific descriptions contained in the sub-heading 6. Consequently, the goods covered by Items 4 and 5 fall for classification under sub-heading (1) (not elsewhere specified) of heading 28.01/58. In the result, we set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, allow the appeal and direct that the goods be re-assessed to duty under sub-heading (1) of heading 28.01/58 and the consequential relief be granted to the party within 60 days of the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (2) TMI 292
... ... ... ... ..... se. There were two Show Cause Notices-cum-Demand, one dated 8-8-1975 covering the period 14-5-1975 to 9-6-1975 and the second dated 18-12-1976 covering the period 3-1-1976 to 3-2-1976. Both notices were made within the time limit of 12 months in terms of Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J. The submission of the appellants on the applicability or otherwise of Rule 10 and Rule 10A are not relevant to the facts of the case. 13. The appellants’ contentions with regard to the effect of the retrospective amendment of Rules 9 and 49 are also devoid of substance. The effect of the said amendment read with amendments effected by Act No. 6 of 1980; is that grey fabrics and processed fabrics are made separately liable to duties as applicable to such fabrics subject, of course, to any set-off of duty permissible under the Rules and the applicable notifications. 14. In the result, the orders of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise is confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (2) TMI 291
... ... ... ... ..... of Central Excise and Customs, Surat and Others delivered on 27th September, 1968 in Civil Appeal No. 1059 of 1965-1978 E.L.T. (J 350) (S.C.). The relevant portion is extracted below - “It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the Notification or by necessary implication therefrom, the matter is different, but that is not the case here”. There is no room, in our opinion, for any doubt as to the intent or meaning of the Notification No. 36/76. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, we uphold the order of the Appellate Collector and reject the appeal.
-
1983 (2) TMI 290
... ... ... ... ..... y have considerable persuasive value since they constituted valuable aid in interpreting and understanding the CCC Nomenclature on which pattern the Indian Customs Tariff Nomenclature is based with some adaptations. The statement of objects and reasons attached to the Customs Tariff Bill, 1974, which was enacted as the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was that in the first Schedule to the Bill the description of articles is based on Brussels Tariff Nomenclature. Therefore, it is permissible to look at the CCCN (BTN) Explanatory Notes to interpret the entries in the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and take their assistance so long as the conclusion is not in conflict with the express words used in the said first schedule. On this reasoning also I agree with the conclusion reached by my learned colleagues on the Bench that the appropriate classification for the impugned goods is under Heading No. 90.25 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and that, therefore, the appeal is allowed.
........
|