Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 189 Records
-
1986 (10) TMI 192
Export - ‘Attempt’ to improper export is an offence but not the concealment or preparation ... ... ... ... ..... dquo . From the finding of the Collector one cannot understand how he could order confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2). His finding was that there was contravention of Section 11K. For contravention of Section 11K the Customs Act did not authorise confiscation of the conveyance though it authorise confiscation of the specified goods conveyed in the conveyance. There is no clear finding by the Collector also that the truck was used as a means of transport in the smuggling or in the carriage of smuggled goods. In the circumstances and for the reasons already stated the confiscation of the truck and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation are set aside. 12. emsp In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The penalty imposed on both the appellants is set aside. The penalty, if paid, shall be refunded to them. The confiscation of the truck MHT 2304 and the fine in lieu of confiscation are set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant, J.L. Sharma.
-
1986 (10) TMI 191
Rectification of order ... ... ... ... ..... gold and the car and the fine in redemption thereof were sustained but the confiscation of 874.850 gms. of gold was set aside. Consequential relief by way of refund of amount of redemption fine covering such gold should have also been a part of the order, but this was inadvertently omitted. 6. emsp In view of our aforesaid findings, we direct that the following may be inserted at the end of para 4 of N.R.B. Order No. A/255-257/1986-NRB, dated the 30th May, 1986. ldquo In view of the order setting aside the confiscation of 874.850 gms. of gold, the redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) and the balance should be refunded to the appellant. rdquo 7. emsp In the course of the proceedings, the Bench has also observed that there is a typing mistake in Para 1(c)(i) of its above cited order which begins with the figures and words lsquo 874.50 gms. rsquo of ornaments. This should be corrected to read ldquo 874.850 gms. of ornaments rdquo .
-
1986 (10) TMI 165
Glass fabrics - Discs cut out of processed glass fabrics retaining identity as glass fabrics
-
1986 (10) TMI 164
Appeal - Pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... fore, the appellants claim for refund becomes admissible. But then the appellants have not adduced any evidence before us as to the contents and the value thereof of the goods in the crate cleared on 31-10-1981. Therefore, the request for refund of half the penalty amount levied against Item No. 161 cannot be straightaway granted by us. The matter requires examination by the authority which is competent to grant the refund. 13. emsp In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Collector and also that part of the order of the Deputy Collector by which he levied penalty in respect of one of the crates against Item No. 161 and remand the matter to the Deputy Collector, Manifest Clearance Department, for consideration of the refund claim of the appellants in respect of one of the crates against Item No. 161, in the light of the observations contained in this order and the documents produced and thereafter pass orders in accordance with the law.
-
1986 (10) TMI 163
Glass Tubings ... ... ... ... ..... post 1979 Budget tariff under Item 23A(4) not as glassware but as articles of glass. Keeping in view the ratio of the decision in the Jintal Clinical Thermometers Company case as well as the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Atul Glass Company (P) Limited (supra), the decision in the present matters to classify the impugned goods as glassware has to be set aside. Since in the pre-1979 Budget period, Item 23A of the Central Excise Tariff did not include ldquo other glass rdquo , it would follow that the correct classification during the pre-1979 Budget period would be under the residuary item, namely, Central Excise Tariff Item 68. 26. emsp While, therefore, the plea of the appellants for classification under Central Excise Tariff Item 23A(2) is rejected, it is ordered that the goods be classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and with consequential relief to the appellants. The Revision Applications are partly allowed in these terms.
-
1986 (10) TMI 162
Mineral fibre, yarn and products ... ... ... ... ..... ustrial Marketing Corporation, Bombay 1985 (Vol. 22) E.L.T. 950 . No reference was made to this decision during the course of the hearing before us. In that decision it had been observed, with reference to varnished Sleevings, that they would certainly fall outside Item 22 B since sleevings are tubular in shape and would not therefore, be fabrics, which would be pieces of woven cloth of any length or width. The decisions cited before us in the present hearing had not been cited in the hearing in the case mentioned supra and therefore had not been considered in that decision. In view of the decisions cited before us in this hearing, which have been fully discussed in the order prepared by the Vice President, I concur with his view that the braided fibre glass sleevings fall within the description ldquo glass fabrics rdquo and therefore the order of the Appellate Collector has to be upheld. I, therefore, agree that the appeal is to be dismissed and the review notice discharged.
-
1986 (10) TMI 161
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... nst the demands to the Assistant Collector and appeal against them to the Appellate Collector. They did nothing of the kind. They willingly paid the demands. They did not even lodge a protest at the time of payment. From their conduct, it is clear that they accepted the demands and paid them willingly. Even after the payments, they had yet another remedy inasmuch as they could ask for its refund within the time limit of Rule 11. They did not do this either. They came up for refund long after the date of finalisation of assessments and payment of differential duty. If they let go the successive remedies available to them to enforce their right of refund, they have only themselves to blame. The authorities constituted under the Act cannot go beyond the limitation provisions of the Act and the rules 1985 E.C.R. 289 (S.C.) - Miles India Ltd. . We, therefore, reject their second appeal. 10. The two appeals are disposed of in terms of the orders in the preceding paragraphs 8 and 9.
-
1986 (10) TMI 160
Manufacture by or on behalf - Exemption to clearance ... ... ... ... ..... een a manufacturing of the kind that we see in this case. There is no charge by the Collector that the independent manufacturers were mere surrogates of M/s. Techma Engineering or that they were set up by them. Had they been so and had there been evidence proving it, we would have without hesitation said that the bolts and nuts were manufactured by M/s. Techma Engineering and cleared by them. Those dummies rsquo premises would be M/s. Techma rsquo s premises, and the prohibition to removal of the goods would be prohibition relevant to removal from M/s. Techma rsquo s premises because they in reality are the owners of those manufacturing units. But it is not so. The Collector himself treats the manufacturing units as independent from M/s. Techma Engineering at any rate, he does not say that they were tools of M/s. Techma. In accordance with these findings we hold that M/s. Techma Engineering Enterprises is not required to fulfil the requirements of Notification No. 111/78-C.E.
-
1986 (10) TMI 159
Gold - Licence granted for export of gold articles and ornaments without granting domestic licence
-
1986 (10) TMI 158
Motor Vehicle parts - ‘Spring’ whether a part of motor vehicle ... ... ... ... ..... eady left central excise control and have been cleared, we do not see on what grounds the reassessment can be done to allow the exemption and the refund claim to be made. Even if the difficulty about end-use and end-use certificates and other problems had not arisen, this would still he a big stumbling block over which we do not know how M/s. Sarang Spring manufacturing Company propose to get over. However, we will leave it to them to convince the central excise authorities, if they can, on this matter. 19. emsp In respect of the rejection by the Superintendent of their claim for assessment under notification No. 99/71-CE, we have already discussed the matter above they may produce their end-use certificates to the central excise authorities for such action as are appropriate in order to provide them the benefits they seek as may be lawfully permissible and right. 20. emsp The order in appeal is set aside to enable the lower authorities to reexamine afresh as indicated above.
-
1986 (10) TMI 157
Smuggling into India ... ... ... ... ..... order and find that the charge under Sec. 112 as against the Master of the ship, the appellant herein, has been clearly brought home and in this view of the matter, we confirm the penalty imposed on the Master under the impugned order. 7. emsp So far as the Shipping Corporation of India is concerned, Shri Telang did not seriously press his plea with reference to show cause notice after it was brought to his notice that the confiscation of the conveyance would be only consequential to the penalty imposed on the Master under Sec. 112 of the Act but, however, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel interests of justice would be met if a reduction is given in the quantum of fine imposed on the Shipping Corporation of India. In this view of the matter, we reduce the fine on appellant, Shipping Corpn. of India from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Except for the above modifications, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 156
Smuggling - Contraband goods recovered from masthouse of ship ... ... ... ... ..... f the Chief Officer. In this view of the matter we reduce the penalty imposed on the Master from Rs. 25,000/-to Rs. 5,000/-. So far as appellant Sharma, the Chief Officer is concerned the records reveal that he has been involved in the other seizure at Bombay when he was also the Chief Officer of the ship at the relevant time. No evidence has been brought in by appellant Sharma to even probabilise that the goods under seizure were kept in the masthouse under his charge without his knowledge. We therefore do not find any justification to modify the penalty imposed on appellant Sharma. So far as the Shipping Corporation of India is concerned the conveynace becomes liable for confiscation in terms of Section 115(2) of the Act. Taking the facts and circumstances of this case we feel interests of justice would be met if the fine imposed on the shipping corporation is reduced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Except for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 155
Classification list effective from date of filing and not from date of approval by Assistant Collector
-
1986 (10) TMI 154
Electrical battery - Single dry cell is an electrical battery ... ... ... ... ..... for their claims that a dry cell is not a battery. They have merely brought the usages of the word battery in other context and in other meanings to bear upon this association in order to project before us that a single cell is not a battery. They draw upon the fact that the word battery is employed when a number of similar equipments, appliances, are used in conjunction for a definite end. Thus when one talks of shore batteries opening fire upon hostile vessels we know that a number of guns are trained upon the enemy and fire together. M/s. Toshiba Anand Batteries also seek to profit from the fact that the accumulator battery has a number of cells in one case or container, connected electrically to produce one voltage current. But, we do not consider this an ingenuous presentation because we see it only as an attempt to obtain what in truth and right is not due to the claimant. We reject the claim and rule that a dry cell is assessable under central excise tariff item 31(1).
-
1986 (10) TMI 153
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... nts only on receipt of Intelligence in pursuance of which they visited the factories of the appellants and M/s. I.E.C., took charge of the appellants rsquo private accounts and made further inquiries. The appellants themselves were a large scale manufacturer of similar instruments in their own factory and they were well aware that central excise duty was payable on them. From the facts of the case and the conduct of the appellants, which have all been mentioned in the show cause notice, the conclusion is inescapable that the appellants were guilty of wilful suppression with a view to evading payment of duty on a part of their production of instruments which they got fabricated by employing another unit (M/s. I.E.C.) as hired labour. In the circumstances, the extended time limit of five years applied to their case and the show cause notice was not time barred. 5. No other plea was taken before us by the appellants. In the light of our above discussion, we dismiss their appeal.
-
1986 (10) TMI 152
Gold - Show Cause Notice quashable if it does not state the nature of contravention ... ... ... ... ..... who was dealing in gold in an Unauthorised manner. I have therefore no hesitation in concluding that these bangles weighing 47.7 grams also belong to Shri Bhaskar Rao who had either sold to Shri Venkat Rao or had engaged the latter to deliver the jewels to some other party who had ordered for it. I am therefore of opinion that those two bangles weighing 47.7 gms were also involved in contravention of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and liable for confiscation under Section 71(1) of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Shri N. Venkata Rao for being in possession of jewellery in contravention of same Act, is liable for penalty. rdquo I have no hesitation to hold that the above observations of the adjudicating authority would not make for or bear out any act of contravention on the part of the appellant under law. In the peculiar circumstances of this case and for the reasons given above the original order of the adjudicating authority referred to supra is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 151
Refund - Res judicata - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ited to the admitted sum of Rs. 3,13,173.50 only and in terms of prayer (b) (iv) and partly in terms of prayer (a) in Writ Petition No.161/85 inasmuch as the refund prayed for was rejected. The Assessment Orders with such modifications are upheld. 23. emsp Mr. Nadkarni made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in both Writ Petitions. Since we have relied on judgments of the Supreme Court, we do not think -that this is a case where leave to appeal should be granted. In the circumstances, the application for leave is rejected. 24. emsp Mr. Nadkarni has also prayed for stay of our Order for refund for- a period of four weeks from today in both the matters. We see no reason for granting the stay and therefore reject the application for stay. The petitioners will be at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs.3,13,179.50 out of the amount of Rs.3,27,473.41 deposited by the respondents in Writ Petition No.55/86. The balance amount to be refunded to the respondents.
-
1986 (10) TMI 150
Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... dy been filed in 1984. Unless, it could be plausibly made out, we do not see need for any further legal advice or deliberations, as to whether appeals be filed in each case or not. In any case, it should not have taken 11 months and six days to arrive at an appropriate decision. Interestingly, the seat of the Tribunal for these cases is at the same place, where the Collector rsquo s office is situated, and the earlier appeals had already been filed by the Collector of Customs, Delhi with the result, that the entire information ought to have been available in this office. In view of all this, and in view of the fact that in spite of time given, no further justification has been made but, and we are rather informed that the files do not reveal further facts explaining the delay, we find these to be not the cases where delay in filing the appeals deserves to be condoned. We, therefore, are constrained to reject the applications for condonation of delay, in all the three appeals.
-
1986 (10) TMI 149
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... d not inter-dependent. 24. emsp Another reason which would also be relevant in arriving at the said conclusion in the present proceedings would be that the proceedings in the present case arose within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court and, therefore, if any reference is to be made by us on the question of law it would be to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is taking into consideration that aspect also that our answer to the question referred to us is as above mentioned. 25. emsp The papers shall now be transferred to the Bench which heard the appeal, for passing further appropriate orders as required under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act and Section 81D of the Gold (Control) Act. Sd/ V.T. Raghavachari Member (J) Sd/ S.D. Jha Vice President (J) Sd/ K. Prakash Anand Member FINAL ORDER In view of the opinion of the Majority the confiscation of the gold and imposition of personal penalty are confirmed. Sd/ M.-Santhanam Member (J) Sd/ D.C. Mandal Member (T)
-
1986 (10) TMI 148
Valuation - Price list ... ... ... ... ..... phinstone Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), the short-levy was in the circumstances specified under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules and hence, it was held by the Supreme Court that Rule 10-A could not be applied. As already held by us, the short-levy in the present case was due to suppression of facts and this was not covered by Rule 10. Consequently, Rule 10-A was correctly applied. Shri Dixit also relied upon this Tribunal rsquo s order reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 442. In the case covered by that order, there was no suppression of facts on the part of the appellants and hence, the Tribunal held that Rule 10 was applicable, whereas in the present case there was suppression of facts and accordingly, Rule 10-A was to be applied. The decision in the earlier cases cannot, therefore, be followed by us as the facts are different. 13. emsp In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal under consideration before us and consequently, the same is dismissed.
........
|