|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 216 Records
-
1983 (7) TMI 323 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nding dues. Rule 173RG was a self-contained rule so far as duty liability on the pre-simplified procedure stocks was concerned and Rule 10 did not apply. There was, therefore, no question of any time limit for issue of show cause notice for enforcing that liability. Exemption Notification No. 71/78-C.E. issued under Rule 8 also could not erase the specific liability in respect of pre-simplified procedure stocks expressly created by Rule 173RG. As regards the small difference in duty amount of less than ₹ 90/- the Department is correct in saying that the appellants did not point out any calculation error to the Asstt. Collector nor in specific terms to the Appellate Collector. Considering the nature of this virtually fresh argument which would take us to the valuation of the stocks, altogether a new point of dispute, we are unable to go into it at this stage. We, thus, find no force in any of the arguments put forth by the appellants and accordingly reject their appeal.
-
1983 (7) TMI 322 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... le 10 was available, then no recourse could be had to Rule 10A. 16. We have thus no hesitation in holding that the demands of duty raised long after the expiry of the period of three months in all the eight cases, were clearly barred by time, and consequently the orders confirming the said demands and those of the Appellate Collector upholding the said confirmation of demands, are clearly not sustainable. These demands are, therefore, liable to be quashed on account of being barred by time. On the view we have taken, on the question of limitation, we do not deem it necessary to advert to the controversy as to what would be tentamount to “manufacture”. All the eight appeals are thus allowed on the point of limitation. It is directed that in case the duties have been paid, consequential relief by way of refund shall follow, which be allowed within a period of two months of the receipt of the communication of these orders by the concerned authority/authorities.
-
1983 (7) TMI 321 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... at Bench, Shri G. Sankaran. We have very carefully considered both the views expressed in that order and we are in agreement with the view expressed by the majority, namely that the goods under consideration were classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Since, the issue has been exhaustively discussed in the earlier order, and we are in agreement with the reasoning expressed by the majority, there is no need for us to discuss it again in detail. 7. In the result, we allow the six appeals before us, and hold that the goods under consideration, namely, P.V.C. Fire Resistant Antistatic Solid Woven Conveyor Belting, should be classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The reassessment shall be carried out on the basis of the above classification after taking into account relevant material regarding value etc., and should be completed as early as possible and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1983 (7) TMI 320 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nclude paper and paper-board....’ Thus, the reference here is two Heading Nos. 48.01 and 48.02. Further on in the B.T.N., under Chapter 48, I find specifically the inclusion of the description Paper and paper-board impregnated, coated...’ under Heading No. 48.07 and it goes on to say The Heading also covers some papers impregnated with insecticides and chemicals’. Thus, it would be evident that the ambit of Chapter 48 is very wide, wide enough to cover paper impregnated and coated with chemicals where the paper may be only a carrier but the assessment is still to be done under Chapter 48.” 9. On careful examination of the reasons recorded by the Collector and on perusal of Chapter 48 of the I.C.T., we are of the opinion that the appellants have not Collector’s reasoning and that the imported goods are paper impregnated or coated with chemicals and fall under Chapter 48. They have been correctly classified. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1983 (7) TMI 319 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... s to find that the Collector can waive such a cardinal condition. The period prescribed under Section 11B is one indicative of public policy in such matters and cannot be ignored by the Collector in exercising powers of relaxation under the proviso to Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. The delayed receipt of the buff copies of AR 4A forms cannot be a valid reason for waiver of the provisions of Section 11B which, in any case, does not provide in terms, for any relaxation. Further, it was open to the appellant-company to have filed a provisional claim for rebate well within the period of six months with documentation showing proof of export, such as bills of lading, and followed it up with the necessary certification from the officers of Customs. 8. In the result, we find that the order of the Board rejecting the claims as barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Act is maintainable in law and on the facts of the case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1983 (7) TMI 318 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... does not, however, specifically provide for Insulators or insulating fittings. It specifically speaks of electrical apparatus for making and breaking electrical circuits for the protection of electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electrical circuits; resistors; switch boards and control panels only, that is to say, it speaks only of those described in Sub-para (i) of para 6 supra. 8. In other words, 85.18/27(3) speaks of various other items comprehended within 85.18/27 but not Insulators or insulating fittings. An Insulator of the type imported by the Appellant cannot, therefore, fall within 85.18/27(3). 9. It is not the Appellant’s contention that it falls under any other Heading of the Import Tariff. 10. It has, therefore, necessarily to come within 85.18(27(1) as it is not elsewhere specified. Accordingly, we hold that assessment of the Insulators in question under 85.18/27(1) was proper. The Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
-
1983 (7) TMI 317 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ication to Heading 84.59(1) but later issued a separate letter to the appellants saying that he had done so by mistake and that the appellants may file a revision application against his order. Before us, the appellants prayer was that the goods be classified under Heading 84.60 as per their original stand or under Heading 84.59(2) as advised by the Appellate Collector later in his letter to them. They added that the Department had since issued a Tariff Advice classifying the goods under Heading 84.60 and all current imports of Motor Rollers were being assessed under this heading only. The Department’s Representative stated that the goods were electro forming moulds for the manufacture of screens and were correctly classifiable under Heading 84.60. On careful consideration of the matter, we agree with the common stand of both the sides that the goods correctly fall under Heading 84.60, CT Act. We allow the appeal accordingly with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (7) TMI 316 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... by the machine of which runout is one. Eccentricity being half the radial runout, the machine is a gear eccentricity tester capable of carrying out the tests described by ISI in Methods of Inspection of Spur and Helical Gears. Even the DGTD had confirmed this. 5. For the Department, Shri Ajwani, stated that the machine is not one of those specified in the exemption notification and even the literature shows that it performs functions of more than one of them. He, therefore, wanted the appellate order to be upheld. 6. The Tribunal observes that the appellants have adduced enough technical evidence to show that the essential function of the Rolling Gear Tester is that of an eccentricity tester. Due regard has also to be given to the DGTD clarification and the manufacturers’ certificate, specially since the department has not refuted the contentions by reference to any authorities or documents. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
1983 (7) TMI 315 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is a structure in which great heat is produced the latter connotes an apparatus where decomposition by an electric current is carried out. There is no material or evidence showing that in trade circles Dry Cell Batteries are treated as or called electrolysers. The appellants have also not called the dry cells electrolysers but only stated that they work on the principle of electrolysis; they also contend that the carbon rods do not become part of the battery i.e., electrodes, till they are processed embedded in manganese dioxide and cap is fitted. Keeping in mind the Explanatory Notes in the BTN given to Carbon electrodes for electrolysis and battery carbons’ under Heading 85.24 (which is merged in CT Act Heading 85.18/27) we accept the department’s contention that the subject goods are correctly classifiable as battery carbons covered by Heading 85.18/27(1) of the CT Act. In the circumstances, the order appealed against is confirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
-
1983 (7) TMI 314 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d of Excise and Customs had also recently accepted this condition and issued Tariff Advice F. No. 54/1/80-Cx. 2, dated 8-6-1983 to the effect that cotton handkerchiefs would more appropriately fall under Item 19 as cotton fabrics. He, however, contended that since the handkerchiefs have been stitched at the end, they have undergone further manufacture and accordingly should more appropriately fall under Item 68. He stated that he has been authorised by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to take this stand even though it is in direct contradiction of the Tariff Advice issued by the Board. 4. The Bench has carefully considered the points made by both the parties and agrees with the submissions made by the Advocate for the appellants. The item Handkerchiefs would more appropriately fall under Item 19 of C.E.T. This Entry does not specify that the items like Bed-sheets, Bed-spreads etc. whose ends have been stitched shall be excluded. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1983 (7) TMI 313 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... itation for this purpose should be computed from the date of issue of the demand and not from the approval of the price lists. This, in our opinion, seems to be a fair order and it binds the lower authorities. Further, the Collector (Appeals) should have heard the appellant in the matter and it was wrong to have disposed of the matter ex-parte without giving them an opportunity. 9. In the circumstances, we set aside the Collector’s order and remand the matter to him with the direction that he may consider the appeal on merits and pass an order within a reasonable time which in no case should exceed three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is expected that the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Meerut, with whom the same matter appears to be pending and who heard the appellant nearly a year ago would also come to a decision at an early date in the interests of justice. For this purpose a copy of this order may be endorsed to the Collector, Meerut.
-
1983 (7) TMI 312 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n this context to our decisions reported in 1983 E.L.T. 558 (Indian Cables Co. Ltd. v. C.C., Calcutta) and 1983 E.L.T. 839 (Nanavati and Co. v. C.C., Bombay). 6. Even in the decision of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the Appellant in 1981 E.L.T. 140, it had been conceded that the statutory authorities may not be able to entertain an application for refund in terms of the relevant statutory provisions. This, however, would not prevent the petitioner from approaching the Court for appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A clear distinction has, therefore, been made between the invocation of the statutory relief granted subject to a rule of limitation and a suit or a writ petition filed in a court or law, dehors the statute. 7. We do not propose to repeat all the reasons set forth in the two aforesaid decisions. Suffice it to say that for the reasons recorded therein this appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (7) TMI 311 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the Appellants stated that the issue involved in this case is interpretation of the Notification No. 308/76 and is of great importance to them. Accordingly a Revision Application was submitted to the Government of India under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 which has now been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal. 3. The Bench noted that the Order against which the appeal has been preferred is merely a request for payment of duty which, though short-levied, is admittedly time-barred. Since the Appellants are not aggrieved by the said order or decision, they cannot appeal against the same under the provisions of Customs Act. The provisions regarding appeals cannot be made use of for the purpose of obtaining a ruling regarding interpretation of the Exemption Notification as is sought to be done in this case by the Appellants. The Bench, therefore, agrees with the arguments made by the Departmental Representative. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
-
1983 (7) TMI 310 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tmental Representative conceded that complete insulators were not assessable as porcelainware under Item 33B but came under Item 68 according to Tariff Item Advice No. 29/77, dated 2-8-1977. 5. After careful consideration, the Tribunal agrees with the Department that the Transformer Bushing in question is correctly classifiable as insulator under Heading 85.18/27(1) and the impugned order is upheld to this extent. As regards the additional duty of customs neither of the two orders in question mentions any claim in this regard, but the Departmental Representative has not raised any objection in this regard. Having regard to the fact that the dispute concerns the basic fact whether these bushings are insulators or not and the question of c.v.d. is incidental to this, as they contain porcelain, the Tribunal is of the view that it would be just and proper not to deny the benefit of assessment under Item 68 CET, to the appellants. Their appeal to this extent only is allowed.
-
1983 (7) TMI 309 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sed for screening mineral substances is clear. However, Heading 84.56 speaks of their being in solid (including powder and paste form) whereas this is described as a Liquid-Solid separator and is also stated to be used for screening slurry. Even though in chemical terminology there is a difference between slurry and paste, in common parlance, slurry is a watery paste and this alone need not rule out application of Heading 84.56. There is also some force in the contention that it is a machine having an individual function for the production of a commodity (glazed tiles) coming within the scope of Heading 84.59(2). Though the BTN mentions extractive industries in respect of Heading 84.56 we agree that there is no such qualification in the CT Act, item. Keeping in view all the factors we feel that this would be the more appropriate classification being more specific than Heading 84.59. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct consequential refund be granted to the Appellants.
-
1983 (7) TMI 308 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... h those of the fully finished part i.e., races, except a marginal allowance kept for the machining of the said parts.” They have also furnished some dimensions purporting to co-relate the items of the invoice with the drawings, and have requested for sympathetic consideration of their appeal. 5. Shri Chatterjee stated that the drawings supplied were not adequate to connect them with the invoice and the goods. There is no evidence to show that they are semi-finished components of roller bearings as claimed and the goods are also out of Customs charge. They have, therefore, been correctly assessed on merits as other articles of iron and steel. 6. These goods have been invoiced as rolled steel rings and no evidence has been adduced that they are, in fact, taper roller bearings in semi-finished form. We agree with the Department that they are appropriately classifiable under Heading 73.33/40 as other articles of iron and steel. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1983 (7) TMI 307 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y the Appellants. The entire value of the aggregated goods was taken into account without exempting any part of it. Even though not barred by limitation, in the view we had taken on aggregation, it cannot sustain. 13. The allegation that the appellants had contravened any of the rules, as already stated arises out of misconstruction of the notifications in question. In the view, we had taken of the said notifications, it has to be held that the appellants had not contravened any of the rules specified in the show cause notices. 14. In the context of the language of Notification Nos. 89/79 and 105/80, we are of the view that there is no substance in the plea relating to jurisdiction. When the notifications speak of “manufacturer” having a plurality of factories, it will not exclude even by implication factories situated in diverse jurisdictions. 15. In the result, we allow the appeal herein as well as the other two (Appeal Nos. 163 and 164 of 1982).
-
1983 (7) TMI 306 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... the Ministry of Law and Justice. It will be seen that the Ministry of Law and Justice have inter alia stated that where payment was made under a mistake which could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, refund will have to be allowed provided the claim therefor is made within 3 years from the date on which the mistake was discovered by the party. In all other cases, the period of limitation would begin to run from the date of payment of the money. The question whether mistake could be pleaded would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case”. 9. In view of the above circulars, I hold that the refund is governed by provisions of Indian Limitations Act. The benefit of above circulars is available only to those cases where the goods are not excisable. The appellant’s claim for refund is within three years. In the result the appeal is accepted. The Revenue is hereby directed to refund the amount of ₹ 9,344/- to the appellants.
-
1983 (7) TMI 305 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... bmissions in the appeal and of the respondent. We find that the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad in his Order dated 31-7-1982 does not say that there was any lapse on the part of the appellant. He has denied the benefit of the proforma credit only on the grounds that the necessary permission was given not by the Collector but by the Assistant Collector. We find that this is not an equitable order in the circumstances of the case where the assessee had been made to suffer the loss of the credit where the fault was not his. We find that in the circumstances of the case, the Collector should have exercised his discretion in favour of the assessee and confirmed the permission for the transfer of the credit given by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot. Since this has not been done, we feel that in the interest of justice, we should do so now. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad dated 31-7-1982 and allow the appeal.
-
1983 (7) TMI 304 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... (b) would not be attracted? Again Sahib Dayal and Asha Rani’s case is one in point. In that case only gold sovereigns were seized. The Punjab and Haryana Court held that there was absolutely no material on the record on the basis of which a finding could be recorded that the petitioners were not in possession of any gold ornaments alongwith the disputed sovereigns. Though only sovereigns were seized in that case, the Court held that provision of Section 16(5)(b) are attracted and the limit on weight of gold articles provided in Section 16(5)(a) would not be applicable. In view of this judgment even if we consider case of Smt. Lilawati and 30 sovereigns in isolation she cannot be said to have contravened Section 16(5)(a). Benefit of Section 16(5)(b) of the Act, even considering her case singly in view of High Court judgment, would have to be given to her. 21. As a result appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur set aside.
........
|
