|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 254 Records
-
1983 (9) TMI 291 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... taken by the Government of India as revisional authority. 10. Shri Tayal submitted that, even if we were inclined to hold that in this case Item 17(2) was not applicable, the position might have undergone a change later, in view of a subsequent amendment to Item 17. That amendment, whatever its effect might be, is subsequent to the period covered by the present case, namely 5-8-1979 to 22-1-1980. We would make it clear that our decision in this case is confined to the period mentioned above, and that we have not had occasion to consider the position after the amendment. 11. In view of our conclusion that the goods were properly classifiable under Item 22A as claimed by the appellants, it was not necessary for us to consider their plea of limitation, and we have not done so. 12. In the result, we hold that during the material period the goods under consideration were classifiable under Item 22A. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the demand for duty.
-
1983 (9) TMI 290 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... en for motor vehicles” was based entirely on different proposition because in that case, the entry under consideration was 23A(4) which deals generally with glass and glassware’. It was in this context that it was held that there was distinction between the raw material which was the glass in this case and the end-product which was apparently wind screen, meant for motor vehicles. We are not faced with such type of wide sweeping general entry in the present case but a very specific entry dealing with specified goods of the description covering the present goods and in face of this situation, the ratio of that decision can be of no avail to the appellants. 29. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the classification as now determined by the lower authorities as a sequel to the change of the tariff entry of the subject goods, holding hub-bolts and nuts as under T.I. 52 is fully justified. The appeal thus merits dismissal, and is dismissed accordingly.
-
1983 (9) TMI 289 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is not circumscribed by any restrictions, such as were relatable to errors, etc.; the assessees are entitled to claim refund, in terms of exemption or concessional notifications, and in case any conditions are imposed for entitlement to exemption, if they are substantially satisfied in the sense, that at the time that the refund claim was lodged, the party shows to have met with all the requirements, as contemplated by the relevant notification, then the refund could not be declined. 20. As a result, we find that the refund claims were rejected on erroneous view, and we accordingly set aside the order of the Appellate Collector, relating to all the five appeals, except for modification in the case of Stretchlon (Pvt.) Ltd., in relation to the amount of the refund which shall stand reduced in their case to ₹ 2,12,545/-. We, therefore, accordingly allow all the five appeals, subject to this modification, with consequential relief, by way of refund to the appellants.
-
1983 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the Appellant and his father and were not inclined to put much reliance on its as a piece of evidence in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case. Nor does the failure of the Assistant Collector to make any remark about the signs of use of the goods in question necessarily lead to a presumption regarding its use when for a fact he was disposing of the case on the short ground that the Appellant was, admittedly, not the owner of the goods. 11. Going by the invoices, it does not appear that the Appellant had the use of the articles for the requisite period. Nor can it be said that they had the “right to use” (placing a wider construction upon the word use’ occurring in Rule 2 of the T.R. Rules) for the requisite period, seeing that they had not purchased the goods for use in England. 12. The Appellant himself could not claim the benefit of T.R. Rules and the adjudication order was correct. 13. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (9) TMI 287 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ead as evidence in a proceeding in a criminal court, it can hardly form part of the evidence under the aforesaid enactments. Once this was so, the seizure itself has not been proved and there is no question of the applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act. In any view, therefore, the burden of proof rests squarely on the Revenue. 9. In view of the bar of the use of a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. already discussed, it cannot be evidence in the adjudication proceedings. 10. In the circumstances, when neither the seizure nor the statement admittedly recorded by the Police have been brought on the record in the adjudication proceedings, it is futile to say that the Appellant did not ask for an opportunity to cross-examine the persons associated with either the recovery memo or the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. 11. In the result, we allow the appeal and the penalty of ₹ 5,000/- if already paid should be refunded to the Appellant.
-
1983 (9) TMI 286 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e amount of cash compensatory support as per their applications, copies of which are annexed as Exhibits A’, H’ and M’ to the petition. Shri Hidayatullah applies for payment of the cash compensatory support along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the ground that the advantage was denied to them without any reason. I am not inclined to grant interest to the petitioners on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioners would be entitled to the costs of the petition. Pursuant to the order dated April 8, 1983 passed by the learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 479 of 1983, the respondents have deposited the amount of ₹ 16,28,836.68 in this Court, and the petitioners had withdrawn the same on furnishing bank guarantee in favour of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. The Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioners shall be kept alive till the expiry of the period for filing appeal against this judgment.
-
1983 (9) TMI 285 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to supply large quantities of a scarce commodity over a period of some months at a fixed price prevailing at the time of contracting. They have substantiated their case with the help of the “Metal Bulletin” that there was nothing unusual in the supply of some quantity at a fixed price and some quantity at the “formula” price. The Department has produced no evidence to show that the other Indian importers of tungsten ore who contracted for the goods at about the same time had paid any different price. There is also no evidence on record to indicate that the Department doubted the bona fides of the transaction. Nor is there any suggestion that the fixed price obtained by the appellants was not a price at arm’s length. In the circumstances, we hold that the Department was not justified in escalating the contracted price of U.S. 129.50 for the smaller lot of 60 M.T. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (9) TMI 284 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r out of the crushed rubber. We are not able to agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the department that a new product was created when the old rubber was crushed into powder. The qualities of the substance remained the same and there has certainly been no chemical reaction or reformation by the crushing. A simple act of crushing and powdering like this one should not in our opinion be taken to be synonymous with creation of a new product. It is true that crushing does change the physical form as, for instances, the specific surfaces increase considerably thereby allowing intimate mixture etc. etc. but except in very rare instances, the substance remains what it was. The product keeps its original character, molecular structure, chemical identity etc. etc. We are therefore, not satisfied that the demand for duty was sustainable. 5. We set aside the demand and allow the appeal. In view of this we need not deal with any other arguments raised by the appeal.
-
1983 (9) TMI 283 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e particular goods would be eligible to the duty concession which were included in the base clearances. If the clearances of any goods were not included in the base clearances because they were not excisable during the base period, that is no reason to deny the benefit of the concession to those goods in the incentive period so long as they answered to the description of the goods specified in the notification. In the result, we accept the appellants’ contention in this behalf and direct that the clearances of PVA compound grade and calibonds during the incentive period be extended the benefit of notification 198/76. The consequential relief should be granted to the appellants by the concerned excise authorities within 4 months from the date of communication of this order. 9. In the above view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to pronounce on the other contentions of the appellants. 10. The appeal is allowed in the light of the directions given above.
-
1983 (9) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ion. It may be true that the goods are sold to manufacturers of medicine but we do not see that this can make such a difference in the assessment. 6. The assessment under Item 8 of the unpacked liquid paraffin was because, as indicated by the lower authorities, the goods conformed to the description of that item and, therefore, that assessment was correct also. 7. As regards the time bar, it needs to be mentioned that the factory made no declaration that paraffin was sold in labelled drums/containers. They also claimed goods were drug intermediates assessable free of duty under Item 68. Nor did the assessee report that an Item 8 product was obtained. Tests showed the product answered to these specifications. The factory therefore failed to make a complete and true declaration. The longer time limit of 5 years was therefore correctly applied. 8. We are, therefore, unable to interfere with the decision of the lower authority and accordingly reject these appeals.
-
1983 (9) TMI 281 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on conforming to the nomenclatrue of Heading No. 34.03. On the other hand the statutory notes referred to earlier, coupled with the description in the Invoice and the Bill of Entry, unmistakably point to the classification under Heading No. 39.01/06 as the correct one. Though CCCN Explanatory Notes have no binding force, they have considerable persuasive value inasmuch as they represent the combined expertise of the Customs Cooperation Council whose tariff nomenclature is the basis for the Indian Customs Tariff Nomenclature of 1975. As Shri Sunder Rajan has pointed out, the CCCN Explanatory Notes on page 575 make it clear that silicone oils (which would include emulsions) used as mould release agents (which is stated to be the use to which the imported product is put) fall under Heading No. 39.01 of the CCCN. The corresponding heading in the Indian Tariff is 39.01/06. 6. Having regard to the above discussions, we see no merit in the appeal which is, therefore, rejected.
-
1983 (9) TMI 280 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nd not carbon dioxide, inasmuch as, the proportion of nitrogen was much higher than that of carbon dioxide in the mixture of gases that emanates. It is not, therefore, as if their Lordships proceeded to consider the composition of the emanating gas with a view to ascertain its identity. On the contrary, their Lordships had categorically identified the mixture as kiln gas known as such in the trade and in science and not as carbon dioxide. If the ratio of the aforesaid decision were to be correctly applied, it would go to support the contention to the effect that “Rubber processing chemicals” in tariff entry 65 is more of a generic description known, designated and recognised as such in technical literature as well as in trade and consequently its use or predominant use are altogether irrelevant for its classification in Item 65 of the First Schedule. 23. But then, however, in view of the full Bench decision, adverted to earlier, the Appeal has to be allowed.
-
1983 (9) TMI 279 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r either Item 19 or Item 22, but would have to be relegated to the residuary Item 68. And this cannot be a solitary case. It would certainly be anomalous if, when the tariff contains an item for cotton fabrics and another for man-made fabrics, each of which provides for admixture of a variety of other fibres, a fabric consisting partly of cotton and partly of man-made fibres should have to be relegated to the ultimate residuary item. 18. We therefore hold that for the purpose of deciding whether a fabric is a “man-made fabric” within the meaning of Item 22, the content of both cellulosic and non-cellulosic man-made fibres should be taken together. 19. In view of our findings on the two basic issues, we hold that the fabric under consideration, which contains 65% of man-made fibres and 35% of cotton, was correctly classifiable under Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff. We accordingly allow the appeal, with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (9) TMI 278 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... grounds of appeal and there is no documentary value of the covering letter mentioned by the learned Authorised Representative. 5. After hearing both the sides, we feel that there is denial of the principles of natural justice. The covering letter attached along with the appeal by the appellant is very much part and parcel of the appeal and there is a specific prayer for knowing the date of personal hearing in advance. This clearly specifies that the appellant wanted a personal hearing. Even otherwise, if there had been no request from the appellant for personal hearing, it is a settled law that where there is discretion, the same has to be exercised judicially. We find there is no force in the learned Departmental Representative’s arguments. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we remand the appeal to the Collector (Appeals) to look afresh into the matter and decide the same in accordance with law. For statistical purposes the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (9) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ter having recorded a finding that the Asstt. Collector, Ludhiana did not have jurisdiction to pass the Order-in-Original on 27-2-1979, could and should not have proceeded to modify the very same order. The only course open to him was to quash the order passed without jurisdiction which was a nullity in the eyes of law. He could have remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction for a de novo adjudication. The Collector’s order, in our opinion, is, therefore, neither legal nor proper. We are also not impressed with the SDR’s submission on the footing that the appellants had not raised the issue of jurisdiction before the Collector. In our view, this was not necessary because jurisdiction is not matter of consent. 5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order. The Asstt. Collector having jurisdiction over the appellants shall adjudicate the matter de novo within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (9) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... uty should be refunded. Shri Jayaraj cited order No. B-431/83, dated 23rd May, 1983 which came to the finding that fuse links cannot be classified as porcelainware for purpose of Countervaiting duty goods, he wanted the ratio of this decision to be applied to the present case. Shri Unnikrishnan sought to make a distinction between the Tribunal order cited above and the present case by pointing out that Item 23B covered chinaware and porcelainware whereas Item 23A covered glass and glassware. 4. We are unable to appreciate the point made by the Departmental Representative because if the fuse links are not glassware they are certainly not glass. There is no dispute that the goods are made of glass because the Assistant Collector has held the appellant down to the amended triplicate Bill of Entry. We, therefore, hold that the goods are not classifiable under Item 23A of the CET for purposes of additional duty and the appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief.
-
1983 (9) TMI 275 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... heading. 6. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Chatterjee submitted that the goods are not pressure reducing valves and the classification made by the lower authorities is correct. 7. After hearing the parties, it appears to us that the gas and air ratio valves imported by the appellants are in fact not pressure reducing valves. Their function is to regulate flow of gas and air and maintain their ratio. There is no question of these valves reducing any pressure. In the view, we take the classification made by the lower authorities is correct and calls for no interference. 8. It might be pointed out that there is a typographical error in the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs. In the 3rd Para of his order, he has written Heading 84.64(2), whereas, it should have been 84.61(2). This remark has become necessary because the appellants in their grounds of appeal in para 3 have made grievance of the same. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1983 (9) TMI 274 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... terated the grounds set out in the Memo of Appeal. No Bill of Entry has been filed before the Tribunal. In the absence of the same, it is not possible to co-relate the documents produced with the goods. Besides, the Appellate Collector gave the appellants sufficient opportunity to put up their case before him, the appellants did not avail of the same. The appellants’ explanation in the grounds of appeal before us that due to exigency of work appellants’ Engineers could not turn up at the time of hearing before the Appellate Collector is neither convincing nor acceptable. If the appellants wee negligent in conducting their case before the Appellate Collector of Customs they are themselves to blame for it. Even before the Tribunal all the documents have not been filed so that the appellants case could be properly appreciated. In view of this the Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the lower authorities. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1983 (9) TMI 273 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... per Shri A.J.F. D’Souza 7. - Neither the B/E nor the copy of the invoice were available to the Tribunal to know the precise description of the subject goods. However, from the Revision Application it is seen that “Nickel and Nickel Alloy” were imported and assessed under Chapter 75 without allowing exemption in Notification No. 449/76-Cus., dated 16-12-1976 under which Nickel Powers and Flakes" falling within this Chapter were exempted partially. The B/E is dated 23-5-1980 whereas the application for refund was filed on 21-5-1981. It is clear that the refund claim was dependent on a question of facts as well as law and it was, therefore, incumbent on the claimant to comply with the time-limit of 6 months stipulated in Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The question of the assessment being without the authority of law as argued by Shri Mehta, does not, therefore, arise. I fully concur with brother Jha’s finding dismissing the appeal.
-
1983 (9) TMI 272 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he lower authorities have found that the machine in question is basically a tool in hand with self-contained electric motor. There is no material to rebut this finding of the lower authorities. The notification would therefore not be applicable in the appellants’ case. 10. As for applicability of Notification No. 46-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 regarding Item 3 of B/E Cloth Cutting Machine it might be pointed out that according to invoice it is “consew model 606". In the part catalogue ”cutting room equipment’ placed by the appellants at this stage only details about model numbers 616, 600, 500, 505, 506, 508, 560 and 580 are given. It does not have the literature on the model No. 606 about which we are called upon to decide in the present case. In the absence of the same it is not possible to correlate the machine with this notification. For want of adequate material this claim cannot be upheld. In view of the foregoing the appeal stands dismissed.
........
|
