Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 230 Records
-
1985 (9) TMI 211
Appellate Tribunal’s Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... dar Rajan, took us through the impugned order and explained that there was no determination either of the rate of duty or the assessable value in these orders. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, on the other hand, contended that the determination of the correct classification of the goods under the Import Trade Control Schedule would also effect the classification of the good under the Customs Tariff Schedule. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The impugned orders do not touch upon or determine any issue having a relation to the rate of duty or value for the purpose of assessment to duty. In fact, it is seen that there is no prayer in the appeals seeking determination of the classification or assessable value or any question having, a relation thereto. We are therefore, of opinion that these appeals do not fall within the jurisdiction of Special Bench lsquo C rsquo to hear. 4. In the circumstances, the matter is placed before the President for directions.
-
1985 (9) TMI 210
Assessment on invoice price ... ... ... ... ..... 120/75 in the instant case. Moreover, the inserts are supplied free of cost by the Railways and what is supplied free of cost cannot form a part of the assessable value. The appellants relied on the judgment pronounced by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in case of Mysore Structurals Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and others - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 60 (A.P.) and the decision held by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta in case of M/s. Orissa Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., The issue involved in both the cases is similar to that involved in the instant appeal the ratio of the above judgment/decision is applicable to this appeal as well. 4. emsp In the result, the appeal in question succeeds both on time barred ground as well as on merits and is accordingly allowed. The order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Div. I, Baroda dated 5-1-1985 appealed against is set aside with directions for the grant of consequential relief.
-
1985 (9) TMI 205
Rate of duty and valuation ... ... ... ... ..... aluation in force on which the duty is paid, Shri V. Sridharan has relied on Dayaram Metal Works Pvt. Ltd., Bilimora v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda 1985 (20) E.L.T. 392 (Tribunal) and has submitted that in view of this decision the provision applicable would be the one claimed by the appellant and not sub-rule (5) of rule 9A applied by the Department. The appellants, it is not disputed, had cleared the goods on the strength of proper excise papers and the date of actual removal of goods from the factory was well-known to the department. To us it appears that on the facts and circumstances of the case, sub-rule (5) would not be applicable and the rule applicable would be the one claimed by the appellants. We hold accordingly. As a result, the demand of duty from the appellants is restricted to a period of six months and the same shall be worked out as provided in rule 9A(l)(ii) of Rules. The appeal is disposed of in these terms and order-in-appeal modified accordingly.
-
1985 (9) TMI 204
Show Cause Notice for demand ... ... ... ... ..... the notice under reference, that it was actually received on 18-6-1981. 13. emsp In view of the plain provisions of Section 28(1) as noticed above, and in view of the accepted principle that the Post Office is treated as an agent of the sender, the date of mere handing over of the registered letter, containing notice, to the Post Office would not be relevant but the date on which it is served on the addressee. In this view of the matter, the receipt of notice, being on 18-6-1981, is clearly after expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty, and even this notice, in relation to first Bill of Entry, has to be taken as barred by time. 14. emsp In the view we are taking namely, both the demands being liable to be struck down for reasons of show cause notices having been issued beyond the permitted time-limit, we do not consider it necessary to go into other questions raised in the appeal. 15. We accordingly allow the appeal on the basis of notices being barred by time.
-
1985 (9) TMI 203
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... provision of time bar in Section 11B of the Act. Even so we find that the facts on record before us do not help us to determine the precise period for which refund should be granted. The revised classification list on record does not bear any date. It is claimed by the appellants that it was submitted on 27-4-1983 but there is nothing on record to support it. The appellants rsquo claim that before that they had filed a protest letter on 26-12-1981. But neither the protest letter is on record nor is any mention of it found in the lower orders. In the circumstances, we have to leave the question of determining the period of refund to the Assistant Collector. 9. emsp In the light of our above discussion, we allow the two appeals in terms that classification of the subject varieties rsquo of lsquo Dokta rsquo is ordered under item 68 during the period prior to 1-3-1984 and consequential refund, subject to the limitation of Section 11B, is ordered to be granted to the appellants.
-
1985 (9) TMI 202
Capital investment in plant and machinery ... ... ... ... ..... value limit used to be Rs. 10 lakhs, was cancelled. We find no reason why the same norms should not be followed for interpreting concessional notification under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. Earlier, two Benches of this Tribunal have agreed to follow these norms. We agree with these earlier orders in this respect. As all the necessary data is already available on record, there is no need to remand the matter back to the Assistant Collector because we notice that by excluding any one of the three elements of (i) transport charges, (ii) erection charges, (iii) cost of other materials, the original value of Rs. 20.51 lakhs worked out by the Assistant Collector goes below the limit of Rs. 20 lakhs set out in the notification and the respondents thereby become entitled to the exemption. 8. emsp Accordingly, we reject this appeal of the department and uphold the impugned order of the Appellate Collector. Consequential relief should be granted to the respondents.
-
1985 (9) TMI 201
IMPORT EXPORT OF GOLD JEWELLARY ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal meriting a reference. 9. emsp We ,therefore, formulate the following questions for reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature, Madras (1) emsp Whether by mere declaration of import of a prohibited article like gold in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, a person would be entitled to claim re-export of the same in terms of Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 and if so, the true scope and meaning of Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 vis-a-vis Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) emsp Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant could be said to have imported the package in question, and competent in law to make a declaration thereof to the authorities in terms of Sections 77 and 81 of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. emsp We allow the two appeals accordingly with consequential relief to the appellants with effect from 8-7-1963.
-
1985 (9) TMI 200
Refund of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ection due to error or misconstruction. In the circumstances, we find that the Mysore High Court judgment does not stand in the way of Asstt. Collector dealing with the appellants rsquo refund claims. 8. emsp Before we conclude, there is one more aspect of the matter which is required to be dealt with. The refund claims of the appellants now before us relate to the period from 1962-1972. On the appellants rsquo own showing, their protest letter against charge of excise duty on Compreg was sent only on 8-7-1963. The protest letter can, therefore, save from time bar under Rule 11 only such of the amounts paid as duty for Compreg which were paid from 8-7-1963 onwards. No claim or protest prior to 8-7-1963 has been brought to our notice. In the circumstances, the claim relating to the period prior to 8-7-1963 has to be held as time-barred under Rule 11 and we do so. 9. emsp We allow the two appeals accordingly with consequential relief to the appellants with effect from 8-7-1963.
-
1985 (9) TMI 199
Oils - Vegetable non-essential oil “unprocessed” ... ... ... ... ..... ent are of the considered view that in the instant cases it can neither be proved nor disproved as to whether the cocount oil in question was processed. The Customs House has no evidence or material to refute the affirmation from the suppliers that the goods were not processed. As the Department are not in a position to verify the claim of the petitioners on the basis of an objective and acceptable criterion, and moreover, when the affirmation from the suppliers to the effect that the goods in question were unprocessed V.N.E. oil was produced by one of the Importers, a claim that the Department are not in a position to either prove or disprove, the Government are inclined to allow the importers benefit of doubt in all those cases where their claims were not hit by limitation. 14. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the imported coconut oil was eligible for the duty exemption in Notification No. 33/63. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 198
Demand raised after vacation of Court stay order on show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... s, the appellants were bound to pay the duty on the goods as fabrics under T.I. 19, C.E.T. but when they did not pay the duty amount, demand was made through notice dated 20-5-1982. This notice cannot be treated as a notice under Section 11 A or Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules and cannot be said to be barred by time. The Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in the case of H.N. Mariam and Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Sankarankoil and Others (supra) have clearly laid down that in cases of demand raised after the Court injunction, provisions of Section 11A or Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules will not apply. Therefore, neither the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises Act nor the provisions of Rule 10 will apply. 13. emsp The Collector (Appeals), Madras has correctly decided this matter before him and we find no reason to interfere with his judicious findings. We, therefore, confirm the findings of the Collector (Appeals), Madras and dismiss this appeal.
-
1985 (9) TMI 197
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... ates. rdquo 22. emsp The order dated 4-11-1980 of the other Collector (Appeals) and the Order-in-Review dated June ,1980 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1, show that these officers also were of the same view. All these factors go to lend support to the view we have taken, namely that the goods in question were not classifiable under T.I. 39 as it stood at the relevant time. They were however, classifiable under T.I. 68, as pointed out by the appellants in their letter dated 5-6-1978, and as accepted by Shri Gopal Prasad before us. Whether or not the appellants were liable to pay duty under T.I. 68, or whether they were exempt by virtue of Notification No. 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 are questions which we are not required to go into, for the reasons given in para 16 above. In this appeal the only question before us is as regards the correct classification of the goods. Our decision is that they were classifiable under Item 68. 23.The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1985 (9) TMI 196
Manufacture OF GOODS ... ... ... ... ..... e preceding financial year etc. The question whether the respondents fulfilled these conditions or not have not been gone into fully by the lower authorities even though the respondents have been agitating this issue throughout. In fact, there was no occasion for the Appellate Collector to go into this aspect since he decided the appeals before him in favour of the respondents on the substantive issue itself. Now that we have held otherwise on the substantive issue, we feel that the claim of the respondents to exemption under the aforesaid notification requires to be gone into fully by the lower authorities. 8. emsp In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Collector and restore the orders of the Assistant Collector with the modification that the Assistant Collector will decide afresh the respondents rsquo claim to exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977. The two appeals are allowed in these terms.
-
1985 (9) TMI 195
Jurisdiction to adjudicate ... ... ... ... ..... er to the Hon rsquo ble High Court the question as re-formulated (vide para 19 above). The question as reformulated was again read out. Neither Shri Raghunathan nor Shri Bhatia had any further comments to make. 23. emsp This statement of the case was made out and copies made available to both parties. The statement of the case was taken up for consideration on 20-9-1985. Neither Shri Raghunathan nor Shri Bhatia suggested any amendment to the statement. Accordingly the same is taken as finalised. 24. emsp We accordingly, in terms of Section 350 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, refer the following question of law arising out of our order dated 4-8-1984 to the Hon rsquo ble High Court ldquo Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, leading to his order dated 29-3-1973, were not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction on the part of the adjudicating officer. rdquo
-
1985 (9) TMI 194
Quantum of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ice. From the proceedings we find that such violation of principles of natural justice has taken place in respect of the fabrics seized at the premises of M/s Raj Kumar and Co. of Ahmedabad. Although the quantity so seized is insignificant as compared to the overall quantity involved in the Surat seizures and stock shortages, that, in our view, cannot be a ground for glossing over the matter. 6. emsp Accordingly, we set aside the order of confiscation in respect of 87 pieces of fabrics seized at the premises of M/s Raj Kumar and Co. of Ahmedabad. We also set aside the demand for differential duty in so far as it relates to the goods so seized at Ahmedabad. The Collector would be at liberty to decide the matter in respect of these goods seized at Ahmedabad afresh after due compliance with the principles of natural justice. But for this modification, the impugned orders of the Collector and the Board are confirmed in all other respects. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
1985 (9) TMI 193
Manufacture - Coke oven gas ... ... ... ... ..... rol Rules cannot, without more, be assumed to be fraught with consequences of national dimensions. The broad principle that punishment must be proportioned to the offence is or ought to be of universal application save where the statute bars the exercise of judicial discretion either in awarding punishment or in releasing an offender on probation in lieu of sentencing him forthwith. The words of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act are wide and would evidently include offences under the Customs Act and Gold Control Rules. rdquo In the present case before us, the appellant had been claiming exemption from the levy of duty but had been ignoring the rejection of exemption since there is no clandestine removal. Keeping in view the gravity of offence to meet the ends of justice, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000. In the result, the appellant is entitled to a relief of Rs 5,50,000 in respect of quantum of penalty. The Appeal is partly accepted, in terms of these orders.
-
1985 (9) TMI 192
Demand based on Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... te before us. The learned JCDR has not contested the position that if we were to take 29-3-1978 as the crucial date for issue of the show cause notice, the same would be hit by limitation under the provision of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excises Rules, 1944. 6. ensp emsp We have devoted thought to the matter before us. We see force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that in the absence of any indication whatsoever that the show cause notice of 29-3-1978 was issued in pursuance of the Appellate Order of 30-1-1964, it should be treated as a fresh starting point for adjudication proceedings. In this view of the matter, the notice is hit by limitation and the appeal deserves to be allowed on this limited legal ground alone, without prejudice to other right of the Department, if any. We order accordingly. 7. emsp Since we are allowing the appeal on the question of limitation, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case.
-
1985 (9) TMI 191
Appeal filed without verification - Defect subsequently rectified ... ... ... ... ..... rice in the course of international trade. 10. emsp The department has mainly relied on the difference in the value and have urged that the value worked out as per the newspapers was about 81 higher than the prices mentioned in the invoices. If the department wanted to make this as a ground, they should have set out this in the show cause notice. We notice that the same has not been done in certain cases. The Collector of Customs has given cogent and convincing reasons why the value claimed by the department should be accepted- There is no reason to discard the prices set out in the invoices. In the absence of any finding that the department has no other option but to have recourse to Section 14(b), we are inclined to accept the findings of the Collector of Customs (Appeals). 11. emsp For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in all these appeals and dismiss the same. The Cross Objections are also dismissed in the light of the observations contained in this common order.
-
1985 (9) TMI 190
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... their laminated jute bags. This cannot be called suppression on their part. The Appellate Collector rsquo s own finding negatives the charge of suppression. In the circumstances, we agree with the appellants that they were at least entitled to the benefit of time bar of six months under rule 10. 9. Summing up, we order that - (1) during the period from 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979, laminated jute bags manufactured by the appellants fell under item 68 and not under item 22A (2) emsp the appellants rsquo claim to exemption under notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 under item 68 should be adjudicated upon by the Assistant Collector after a due hearing to the appellants and (3) emsp in any case, the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of the time limit of six months under rule 10 if any duty is ultimately found to be payable by them after fresh adjudication of their entitlement to exemption ordered by us at (2) above. The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms.
-
1985 (9) TMI 189
Duty on cloves ... ... ... ... ..... y such anomalous situation were to arise, as a result of which the preferential duty on cloves in terms of the Agreement falls to a very low level or to zero, it would be open to the Government of India to consider appropriate remedial action in terms of the relevant provisions of the Agreement. Therefore, the hypothetical possibility of a zero duty (as we have said, there can be no ldquo negative duty rdquo ), in the event of the assessable value of cloves reaching a very high level, need not be seriously considered or stand in the way of our adopting an interpretation which from all angles is the correct one. 28. emsp In the result, we hold that the finding of the Collector (Appeals), namely that the preferential rate of duty on cloves in terms of notification No. 431-Cus., dated 1-11-1976 was Rs. 20/- per kg. less 7 frac12 ad valorem, was the correct view. We accordingly confirm the order of the Collector (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Collector of Customs, Madras.
-
1985 (9) TMI 188
Aluminium foils - Duty leviable only once either at plain or printed stage ... ... ... ... ..... be exacted ever again on that thing. The unprinted foil qualifies to pay duty under Item 27(c) because it has never paid that duty. The foil, after printing, also qualifies to pay duty under Item 27 (c) if it had never paid that duty. The different forms will permit duty to be exacted (in the form the foil is presented for assessment) even when the item says only ldquo Foils rdquo , as long as the substance, foil whether printed, embossed, coloured, had not paid duty under this item. They do not sanction duty on the duty-paid plain foil the minute it is printed, and again when it is embossed etc. Once duty paid, always duty paid is an axiom that holds true, but only for one item. A goods duty-paid in one item can undergo manufacture so as to make it enter another item. Then it is non-duty paid as the new manufacture. I think I have written enough. 24. emsp No duty is due on the foil after printing by M/s. Swastik Packaging as demanded by the Collector. I set aside his order.
........
|