|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 244 Records
-
1985 (1) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Additional duty of customs ... ... ... ... ..... hat the goods in this case were different than those, involved in the earlier orders of the Tribunal, on which the appellants have placed reliance. 6. We therefore do not find existence of any ground to take a view, different than taken earlier. We also do not feel convinced with the reasoning for denying benefit of Notification 101/71 and 153/71 for the reasons stated because, we feel that in view of the finding that these imported goods were primarily used by the appellants for machinery and not on motor vehicles, strict insistence on compliance of the provisions of Chapter X of Central Excise Rules was not justified being not practical or feasible, and that a case of substantial compliance could have been recorded. We therefore allow the appeal for all these reasons with the finding that the imported goods are not to be treated as motor vehicle parts, for the purpose of CV duty. Appellants are held entitled to consequential relief pursuant to the acceptance of this appeal.
-
1985 (1) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand -Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... facts. 7. The rulings reported by the SDR would not apply to the present facts for the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., had to consider removal of goods under the self-removal procedure. The writ petition was in regard to the penalty imposed and the Court held that mens rea was not a necessary ingredient for the purpose of imposing the penalty. Similarly, the case of Indore Bottling Company was one of challenging the penalty. The decision in Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., was only in respect of suppression of facts. That ruling will not apply to die present facts. Similarly the case in Cheran Engg. Corporation Ltd., was one in respect of suppression of facts. In view of the findings of the Board, that there was no intent to evade payment of duty, the longer period of limitation will not apply. Since the show cause notice was issued beyond the period of limitation, the demand is barred by time. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Acetyl Acetone ... ... ... ... ..... 89 (44) E.L.T. 395 (Tribunal). In that order, the Tribunal had discussed the eligibility of Acetyl Acetone, the very product involving in the present appeal, and held that the substance was drug intermediate and entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE. 5. Shri Sunder Rajan, appearing on behalf of the Respondent stated that the decision cited by Dr. Gautam covered the issue involved in the present case. However, he would reiterate all the submissions made by him in Appeal No. 118/81-C. 6. We have considered the matter. There is no reason advanced by the Departmental Representative which persuades us to differ from the earlier decision which is on the very product. Following that decision, we allow the present appeal and direct that the duty exemption should be extended to the consignment of Acetyl Acetone in the present case. The Customs authorities are at liberty to satisfy themselves that the consignment was used in the manufacture of drugs. Appeal allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nder Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules has to be subsidiary to the principles laid down in the statute. In this view of the matter, it has been held that irrespective of the fact that though an assessee has opted for the procedure of invoice-value under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., principles as laid down in section 4 calculating the assessable value are to be kept in view and permissible deductions, such as equalised freight and transit insurance charges, etc., have to be allowed to be abated. On the same principles, the items in the present case namely, Bank commission, Hundi commission and charges on account of interest payable to the Bank in the account of the customer are, admittedly, in the nature of post-manufacturing and post-clearance expenses, and cannot form part of the assessable value even though included in the invoice. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals) and uphold the same. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Potassium carbonate ... ... ... ... ..... such in the IP and BP. The respondents also stated that it has been so recognised by the Ministry of Commerce (ITC Policy Page 135. Section II of Red Book of 1976-77). We do not accept the contention of the learned Representative of the Department that the decision cited would not apply to the facts of the present case. We are satisfied that product in dispute is a drug intermediate and that the respondents are entitled to the exemption notification. 8. emsp Shri Lakshmikumaran also drew our attention to 1985 (21) E.L.T. 182 (Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Guest Keen Williams Ltd.) wherein it was held that a successor Asstt. Collector cannot review the orders passed by his predecessor. Since the matter is being disposed of on merits it is unnecessary to consider this plea. 9. emsp Hence on merits we hold that there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order qua the classification list. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The cross-objection is also dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ion exchange co-polymerisation products ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal rsquo s order No. 189/80-C dated 18-12-1982 discusses at length the merits of the dispute and has come to the conclusion that Ion Exchange Co-polymerisation products are correctly assessable under heading No. 38.01/19(9) as ldquo Water Treatment Chemicals, not elsewhere specified rdquo and not as ldquo Artificial Resins rdquo under heading No. 39.01/06. Correspondingly the order says, the assessment under item No. 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff must be held to be inappropriate and that item No. 68 is a more appropriate head. 4. emsp No argument has been advanced before us nor do we see any reason to differ from the earlier decision, following which, therefore, we order re-assessment of the goods involved in the present dispute under heading No. 38.01/19(9) of the Customs Tariff Schedule, 1975 and item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The consequential relief shall be paid to the appellants within 3 months from the date of this order. Appeal allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Imports - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... lue mentioned by the appellant has to be accepted. The contentions of the respondent on this aspect is not tenable. 16. emsp In view of our finding that the items are not components, the import would not be covered by valid licence. 17. emsp The contravention under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 has been made out. The fine of Rs.1,50,000/- cannot be considered excessive in the circumstances of the matter. 18. emsp The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. We notice that the appellant has paid duty of Rs. 5,43,559/- and a demurrage of Rs. 22,641.88/-. We have held that there is no under-valuation. Considering all these circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which the penalty could be reduced to Rs. 40,000/-. 19. emsp In the result the penalty is reduced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. In another aspect the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 204 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Export House Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... ld have more stable and better negotiating capacity with their foreign counterparts. A sustained trade relationship would be possible more where the exporter is himself a manufacturer. The reasons stated in the two impugned orders of the respondents are wholly irrelevant and not germane to the Scheme of Chapter 18. This is also the reason for the impugned orders being bad in law. 9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders dated 21-6-1984 and 28-2-1985 are invalid and are quashed. The Petitioner satisfies the requirements of Para 176 of the Import-Export Policy of the Year 1984-85. Respondent No. 1, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is directed to issue an Export House Certificate to the petitioner in the capacity of ldquo Manufacturer Exporter-SSI Unit rdquo for the year 1984-85 if there is no impediment or bar or any other condition as required by law or the relevant import and export policy. The petition is allowed with costs. Counsel fee is Rs. 1,000/-.
-
1985 (1) TMI 200 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Short landing of one of the packages ... ... ... ... ..... e possibility of short landing certificate having been issued after the landing certificate cannot be ruled out. As a matter of fact from the perusal of the two documents I find that the landing certificate on which Shri Gidwani relied was signed by the Assistant Manager, Central Documentation Office, Indra Dock whereas the short landing certificate had been signed by the Deputy Manager, Indra Dock. It is quite possible that after the Assistant Manager issued landing certificate there was further verification at the Deputy Manager rsquo s level. The Deputy Manager must have been satisfied as to the short landing or else one cannot expect him to issue short landing certificate. 6. ensp I am satisfied that this is a case of short landing and therefore the ratio of the decision in the Star Textile case applies. Accordingly, I allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct the Customs authorities to grant consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1985 (1) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... saving in case of protest was engrafted in the Rule by amendment only on 6-8-1977 and cannot apply to applications of refund filed before the said date. The discussion relating to payment under protest is, therefore, altogether irrelevant. In the premises, even if there is a case for refund and a right to claim it had accrued to the Appellant, it cannot extend to payments made beyond three months prior to 16-12-1974, the date of the refund applications i.e., 16-9-1974. (f) In the premises, the Appeals, in my respectful opinion, fail since no right to claim refunds had accrued to the Appellant, and have to be dismissed. New Delhi 24th January, 1985. Sd./- (M. Gouri Shankar Murthy) Member (Judicial) In accordance with the view of the majority, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the-directions in Para 10 of the majority order. Sd./- (M. Gouri Shankar Murthy) Member (Judicial) Dated 28-1-1985. Sd./- (D.N. Lal) Member (Technical) Sd./- (S. Venkatesan) Senior Vice President
-
1985 (1) TMI 198 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal - Stay petition ... ... ... ... ..... ay, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. rdquo Section 35C(1) of C.E. and Salt Act, 1944 ldquo (I) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. rdquo A comparative study of both the sections shows that the powers of the Tribunal are almost similar. The powers of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal are much wider as compared to the powers of the Tribunal under the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 6. With these observations, the stay application filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1985 (1) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... to be granted is referable to the levy under Item 16 only and to no other. It cannot, therefore, apply to future levies under items other than Item 16. The answers to the questions formulated in para (2) supra are, in the ensp 16. premises, - (a) the goods in question do not fall within the ambit of Item 16 at any material time (b) the exemption in the circular letter is relatable only to the goods falling within Item 16, on the erroneous assumption they did and cannot apply to the goods in question coming within Item 68. Accordingly, the Appeal is to be dismissed. Sd/- (M. Gouri Shankar Murthy) Member (Judicial) New Delhi, the 26th February, 1985 TRIBUNAL rsquo S ORDER In accordance with the judgment of the majority of the Members who have heard this matter, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Sd/- (K.L. Rekhi) Member (Technical) Dated 26th February, 1985. Sd/- (M. Gouri Shankar Murthy) Member (Judicial) Sd/- (S.Venkatesan) Sr. Vice-President
-
1985 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption on first clearances ... ... ... ... ..... We cannot agree that the differentiation of factory from a manufacturer is inconsistent with the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In fact, place of manufacture as well as manufacture are distinct concepts in the Act and the Rules. 6. emsp As regards the appellants rsquo arguments that the impugned demand cannot be confirmed under the provisions of Section 11 A, when the show cause notice was issued on 27th June, 1980, when Section 11 A was not effective or that the recovery proceedings should have ceased with the deletion of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, this view has already been rejected in the CEGAT Order dated 7th June, 1984, in Appeal Nos. ED(SB) (T) 11/82-B, ED(SB) (T) 505/82-B, ED(SB) 1056/83-B, ED(SB) 1184/ 83-B, ED(SB) 1185/83-B, ED(SB) 1186/83-B and ED(SB) 1531/83-B - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331. We are entirely in agreement with the view expressed in that decision. 7. In the light of our foregoing findings, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS
‘Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s order allowing the appeal correct in law’ ... ... ... ... ..... e the Tribunal and hence not dealt with in the order. It is therefore not possible to make any reference on these questions at this stage. The issue regarding the binding nature of a decision of a Three Member Bench of the Tribunal on other Benches consisting of smaller number of members all having concomittant jurisdiction stands already referred to the High Court of Judicature at Madras in this Tribunal rsquo s Reference G/Ref/-69/85 (MAS) in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madurai v. S. Raman of Paramakudi (Annexure D). 5. emsp It is found that a single question can be conveniently referred to in the place of the two question Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the applicants, in the following form, and it is accordingly referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature at Madras ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of declaration would be the relevant, date for the purpose of claims of refund under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 .
-
1985 (1) TMI 179 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Customs - Confiscation of ship involved in smuggling proper ... ... ... ... ..... issal of the department rsquo s appeal by the High Court do not have any relevance to the levy of the penalty on the Master. The Learned SDR has rightly opposed the contention of the appellant in this behalf while relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Maniklal U. Jain. This judgment is more specific to the case in question than the Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the case of City of Nagpur v. Ram-chandra and Others relied on by the appellants. The Master had been a party to the unsuccessful attempts to provide legal cover to 166 packages. He has already been shown leniency by the Board who reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- on the Master. No further leniency is due to him. Therefore, we turn down his plea and reject the appeal. 11. emsp The orders of the Collector and the Board are modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeals of Shri Muk Tin Fui and M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. are otherwise rejected.
-
1985 (1) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... warranted by Section 11A of the Act. The demand being, thus, barred by time, we do not consider it further necessary to go into the fact as to whether the duty had been actually paid or not for which the refund had been allowed inasmuch as there is no such allegation in the show cause notice dated 15-7-1982, and this being entirely a question of fact which, apart from the presumption that it ought to have been verified when the Assistant Collector passed the adjudication order resulting in refund to the party otherwise also does not arise for consideration in the view we take namely, that the demand was barred by time. As a result, the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise - being Appeal No. ED(SB) A.No. 292/84-A - is liable to dismissal whereas appeal of M/s. Re-Rolling Mills, Hirakud - being Appeal No. ED(SB) A.No. 2858/84-B - is allowed on the question of the demand for recovery, insofar it was confirmed by the impugned order, being barred by time. Ordered accordingly.
-
1985 (1) TMI 177 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ntion of any of the provisions of the Customs Act. There is no proof that he contravened the Baggage Rules or the provisions of Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975, I, therefore, allow his appeal and set aside the personal penalty imposed on him. The penalty, if paid shall be refunded to him. 30. emsp On behalf of the appellant Shri Hasmukh Shah, Shri Mehta had contended that the penalty imposed was excessive and harsh. As has been observed earlier the penalty was imposed not merely on the basis of the value of unaccompanied baggage but also on account of the past conduct of the appellant, Hasmukh Shah. So is the case with the appellant Shri K.B. Aswani. In the circumstances I see no reason to hold that the penalty imposed on these two appellants is either harsh or unreasonable or unjust. 31. emsp In the result the Appeal Nos. 315/80 and 392/80 are rejected. The appeal 437/80 is allowed. The penalty if paid by the appellant Shri C.B. Aswani shall be refunded to him.
-
1985 (1) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Summoning and inspection of original records ... ... ... ... ..... e same has been produced before us. The prayer of the learned SDR is not to make it available for inspection by the other side. After perusal of the file submitted by the learned SDR, we do not see any paper of confidential nature in the file which would justify withholding of inspection by the appellants. Without going into the question whether this Tribunal has got the power to modify its earlier interlocutory order or not, we are, of the view that there is nothing on the record or in the submissions made by the learned SDR to recall the earlier order, dated 13.9.1985 passed by the Bench. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing discussions, we reject the application of the learned SDR for withholding the inspection of the file by the appellants. File No. V(15C)Addl.Collr/15/21/A and R/82 be kept in the safe custody of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this CEGAT who is directed to make the file available for inspection by the appellants rsquo representative under his supervision.
-
1985 (1) TMI 166 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Imports - Abetment ... ... ... ... ..... the respondent no. 2 had issued the show cause notices. The petitioners have established beyond doubt that the charge of abetment referred to in the show cause notice by respondent no. 2 is wholly unsustainable and, therefore, respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to issue show cause notices. The expression ldquo abetment rdquo has been defined under the General Clauses Act as one known in the Indian Penal Code and under the Indian Penal Code, the person is said to abet when such person instigates or participates in commission of the offence. In my judgment, it is a far cry to suggest that the petitioners have abetted contravention of the licence by purchasing, the tallow after it was cleared by the customs department. In my judgment, show cause notices were issued without any authority and deserve to be quashed. 7. emsp Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 160 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund on Return of duty paid goods for reprocessing ... ... ... ... ..... the grant of refund in respect of the goods lost during reprocessing is erroneous. Rule 173-L is a complete code in the matter of refund of duty on goods returned to the factory. When refund is admissible and when it is not admissible are laid down in the said rule. The rule is explicit and unambiguous. It says that the Collector may grant refund if the manufacturer claiming refund satisfies the Collector the conditions laid down in that rule. 13. emsp In what circumstances the refund is inadmissible is set-out in clauses (i) to (iv) (at the relevant time) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 173-L. Thus, both positive and negative aspects had been provided in the rules. The rules in my opinion is more elequent and it would be incorrect to state that rule is silent. 14. emsp After careful consideration of all the aspects, I allow these appeals and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct the Central Excise authorities to grant consequential relief to the appellants.
........
|
