|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 158 Records
-
1986 (5) TMI 171
Order - Adjudication order without giving a personal hearing quashable ... ... ... ... ..... appear before the respondent on a date fixed by this court, information of which shall be conveyed to the petitioner by its counsel. 16th June, 1986 is being fixed for this purpose Sri R.N. Bhalla, counsel for the petitioner states that some representative of the petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 16th June, 1986 and that it shall be deemed to be the date for personal hearing and on that date the petitioner shall produce all such material which it wishes to produce before the respondent as also make such oral submission as it considers proper. In view of the aforesaid statement it shall not be necessary for the respondent to issue any further notice of the date for personal hearing to the petitioner. We are confident that after the case is heard on 16th June, 1986, the same shall be decided by the respondent within a reasonable time. 6. emsp A copy of this order may be supplied to counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges by the 23rd of May, 1986.
-
1986 (5) TMI 170
Compressor components ... ... ... ... ..... not attain the essential character of finished bearing races and hence, the assessment could not be done as component parts. 15. emsp In view of the above discussions, we hold that the present cases before us are not comparable with the cases relied upon by appellants and by the Revenue. Considerable processing was required to be done in the form of reduction of outer diameter of the ring forgings by 10 to 12 mm., increase of inner diameter by 10 to 11 mm., reduction of width by 9 to 10 mm., grooving done to the extent of 72 mm. in two cases and 103 mm. in one case, drilling of many holes on the rings and surface finishing. The imported retaining ring forgings did not attain the character of finished parts. Original assessment of the goods under Tariff Heading 73.33/40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was, therefore, correct. 16. In the result, we find no merits in the appeals filed by the appellants. We, therefore, uphold the impugned orders and dismiss all the three appeals.
-
1986 (5) TMI 169
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... eel sections are used for and in the shape they are rolled or made, as they are better adapted for such uses. The judgment the SDR quoted 1980(6) E.L.T. 775 may be examined. This judgment dealt not with our kind of problem but with the question whether drilling, trimming, manufacturing were processes essential to render brake linings fit for use on vehicles. The conclusion of the court was that the lining were not fit for use as brakes on vehicles unless they went through there processes. The person affected said he did not manufacture brake linings the man from whom he bought the blanks did. No one disputed the presence of brake linings on the scene only, who made them ? 32. The other cases do not help resolution of this dispute. 33. emsp The question of whether an appeal from an order under Section 35E arose but by order in stay application order No.226/1986-B1, this Tribunal by a majority decided that such an appeal lay. 34. emsp I endorse my learned brother rsquo s order.
-
1986 (5) TMI 168
Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... erest of M/s. Inchek Tyres Ltd. in the undertaking had vested initially in the Central Government and finally in the appellant, free from all encumbrances and liabilities with effect from 14-2-1984 (b) emsp in terms of Section 18 of the said Act, every person having a claim against M/s. Inchek Tyres Ltd. with regard to any of the matters specified in the Second Schedule to the Act, has to prefer such claim before the Commissioner of Payments appointed under the provisions of the Act within a specified time (c) emsp revenue, taxes, etc. due to the Central Government is enlisted in category 7 of the aforesaid Second Schedule to the Act (d) emsp accordingly, no recovery can be effected from the appellant of any amount claimed towards Revenue actually due to be paid by M/s. Inchek Tyres Ltd. (e) the adjudicating officer had hardly considered this plea raised by the appellant in the adjudication order. 4. In the premises, we allow the appeal and set aside the Order in adjudication
-
1986 (5) TMI 167
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... re entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 in respect of printed cartons on which duty under Item No. 68 had been paid, used in the manufacture of synthetic detergents marketed in such cartons. 7. emsp Again in the case of M/s. Universal Cables Ltd., Satna v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore - 1984 ECR 1864, it was held by this Tribunal that wooden drums used in the packing of electric wires and cables were to be treated as inputs for the purpose of Notification 178/77-CE. 8. emsp Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan has stated nothing which would indicate that all aspects of the issue were not fully examined before the above-cited orders of the Tribunal were passed. All he says is that the Department has gone in appeal. 9. emsp We fully concur With the view taken by the different Benches of the Tribunal in similar matters cited above. In accordance with the ratio of these decisions, we, therefore, allow the present appeal before us with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1986 (5) TMI 166
Cotton fabrics not eligible for exemption when processed with the aid of steam ... ... ... ... ..... and duck cotton fabrics valued at Rs. 23,27,983. 68 paise which they removed from the factory without payment of central excise duty. The appellants are liable to pay Central Excise duty thereon. In this regard, we uphold the view taken by the Board. We, however, direct that if the duty calculated on the basis of this order at the rate applicable to Canvas and Duck on the entire quantity of 3,87,997.28 meters valued at Rs. 23,27,983.68 paise is found to be higher than the actual amount of duty calculated on the basis of the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector, the amount of duty as per our order should be limited to the amount of duty calculated as per Collector rsquo s Order-in-original. 22. emsp The penalty has already been reduced by the Board from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Further reduction of penalty is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is, therefore, confirmed. 23. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.
-
1986 (5) TMI 165
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... ation 165/76. We observe that even if this is true that would not have any hearing on the result of the review proceedings. Even if these tiles were exempted goods, the value of clearance thereof could not be excluded till 17-7-1979 in computing the value of the clearances in the preceding year. In this view no relief could have been granted to the appellants in the application for rectification presented by them. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of the Collector would not merit interference even on the basis of the allegation in this rectification application. 9. emsp In the result, the view taken by the Collector that the appellants became eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 89/79 on the basis of clearances in the preceding financial year, only from 17-7-1979 and that they were not eligible for refund of the duty paid by them on the goods cleared between 1-4-1979 and 16-7-1979, is correct. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1986 (5) TMI 164
Exports - Prohibition on import and export of goods to Rhodesia ... ... ... ... ..... islation which is in pari materia with the Act of 1947 a distinction has been made between goods of specified description and all goods. We also agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that section 3 of the Act of 1947 empowers the authorities to impose restrictions on trade and therefore, should be construed with some strictness. 37. emsp For the reasons as above, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal and we affirm the same. This appeal is dismissed. 38. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 39. emsp The learned Advocate for the appellants made an oral application for a certificate from us stating that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. It appears to us that this case has been decided on well settled principles of construction of statutes and no new or substantial question of public importance has been raised. The application is rejected. 40. Shyamal Mukar Sen, J. - I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 141
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... t watch is admittedly a notified item under Section 11B of the Customs Act and there is no evidence to prove that the appellant had taken the precaution that it was not smuggled while acquiring the said watch as stipulated under Section 11B of the said Act. There is nothing on the record to support the contention of the appellant that the said watch was gifted to him. 7. emsp As regards the quantum of penalty, it would again suffice to say that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has already reduced the amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. Coupled with the fact that there is evidence on the record that the appellant was also apprehended on 19-6-1978 while travelling in the car in question along with S/Shri Om Prakash and Mahendra Kumar and contraband goods worth Rs. 73,954/-were recovered from the car. This only confirms that the appellant was actively engaged in smuggling of contraband goods from Nepal to India. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1986 (5) TMI 140
Iron or steel products - Runners and risers ... ... ... ... ..... regarding time bar is concerned, we find that appellants had not obtained a Central Excise Licence nor they had complied with the formality like filing of classification list etc. The appellants have pleaded that the officers of Central Excise were aware of the manufacture of MS rounds by the appellants and the benefit of the notification that they were availing of. No evidence in this regard has been produced before us. It is, therefore, to be held that the duties demanded in terms of Rule 9(2) read with Section 11 A or Rule 10 as the case may be of the Central Excise Act and Rules provided thereunder applying extended time limit is maintainable in law. In view of the above, the lower authority rsquo s order is set aside by remand. The orders of the lower authorities in respect of other appeals listed at serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4- of this order, are, therefore, also set aside by remand also and they are directed to re-decide the cases de novo in the light of the findings above.
-
1986 (5) TMI 139
Gold - Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... mplements that were discovered in the car and not any gold whatsoever. Still, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the confiscation of the car is illegal or contrary to law seeing that, after all, the aforesaid 67 gms. of gold were discovered in the car. It is not as if the car should have been seized the moment the gold was discovered in it. Nor is it as if the owner of the car had proved that it was used without his knowledge or connivance for transport of gold discovered in it. 4. emsp In the premises we allow the appeal partly, direct the release of 874.850 gms. of gold from confiscation and its return forthwith to the appellants. The confiscation of 67 gms. of gold and the car and the fines in redemption thereof are sustained. The penalties in a sum of Rs. 7,500/- on each of the appellants in Appeal No. 3/84 and 4/84 is consequently reduced to Rs. 2,000/- each. The balance of the penalties if recovered, may be refunded forthwith. 5. Order accordingly.
-
1986 (5) TMI 138
Gold dealer - Unaccounted gold seized from pawn broker ... ... ... ... ..... ornaments comprise of 14 items and are of 20 to 22 ct. purity, weighing in all 675 gms. The two items of gold articles are only 12 gms. of 22 ct. purity. Taking the nature of the ornaments and the low purity of the same into consideration, in the facts and circumstances of this case we feel interests of justice would be met if the quantum of fine and penalty is reduced. Accordingly, we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) and the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). Except for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. 15. emsp The primary gold concerned in the case should be converted into ornaments through a licenced gold dealer or certified goldsmith by the appellant within 30 days of redemption of the same and the appellant shall report compliance of this order to the authorities, failing which the primary gold will be liable for confiscation.
-
1986 (5) TMI 137
Iron or steel products ... ... ... ... ..... melting scrap for the purpose at par with steel ingots, issued by the Ministry, were withdrawn, the benefit of the same should have been made available to the respondents inasmuch as the case arises during the periods when these instructions were in vogue. The instructions which were issued stood withdrawn before the Appellate decision was taken. No Trade Notices were brought to our notice whereby promise had been held out for the benefit of notification as claimed by respondents. The question of promissory estoppel therefore does not arise. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government of India had in the order cited, supra, extended the benefit of notification in respect of steel melting scrap does not by itself constitute any ground for interpreting the notification otherwise than as interpreted as in the case of Ravindra Steels. The fact remains that we are concerned here with the correct interpretation in respect of the term ingot as set out in the relevant notification.
-
1986 (5) TMI 136
Sugar - Excess production rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ectorate of Sugar. There is no basis in the notification to apply this ratio to the clearance of excess production sugar in each month. Proviso to Para (1) of the notification does not provide any nexus, as observed by the lower appellate authority, for calculation of the aforesaid ratio for each month. Proviso to para (1) says that if any excess production sugar is cleared as levy sugar then the amount of exemption calculated at the rate applicable to levy sugar shall not exceed the amount of duty of excise payable on such quantity of levy sugar (in a particular consignment). Similarly, if any excess production sugar is cleared as free sale sugar, then the amount of exemption calculated at the rate applicable to free sale sugar shall not exceed the amount of duty of excise payable on such quantity of free sale sugar (in that particular consignment). Accordingly the appeal is allowed on the second issue. 9. Demand of duty should be revised in the light of foregoing divisions.
-
1986 (5) TMI 135
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... preme Court 749 and in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 361. We observe that the Department has produced a date-chart to explain the delay. The position as to how the file was handled does not lay any basis for condonation of delay. We observe that the matter all along has been handled by the Department in a very routine manner and there is nothing on record to show that the Department was diligent enough or showed any sense of urgency to ensure that the appeal was filed in time. We hold that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. The appellant rsquo s application for condonation of delay is rejected. 6. emsp Since we are rejecting the appellant rsquo s application for condonation of delay, the appeal No. E/1793/85A is dismissed being hit by limitation. We are not going into the merits of the matter. In the result the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (5) TMI 134
... ...
... ... ..... s of justice require that the same should be resolved and clarified. Since the opinion of the licensing authority referred to above and relied upon by the appellants has not been adverted to in the impugned order, much less considered therein, and inasmuch as the previous practice of the Customs Department permitting clearance of similar goods under OGL pleaded by the appellants has also not been considered under the impugned order and as the opinion of an expert like that of the Principal, Madras Dental College, does not take the issue out of the pale of ambiguity, I feel in the interests of justice the relevant issues traversed herein will have to be considered afresh by the original authority. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order appealed against and remit the matter back to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue in the light of the observations made therein and in accordance with law and after affording the appellants an opportunity of being heard.
-
1986 (5) TMI 133
Appeal. - Condonation of delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... ided it finds that there is sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Bona fide but unsuccessfully prosecuting a writ petition under article 226 against the order of the Board is a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. rdquo A simple perusal of the judgment of the Hon. Madras High Court reflects that the appellant must establish his bona fide. In the present matter before us, the appellant has filed the writ petition keeping in view the judgment of the Hon. Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise reported in 1980 E.L.T. 210. So, the bona fide of the appellant should not be doubted. Keeping in view, the directions of the Hon. High Court for filing of the appeal to the Tribunal within four weeks of its order and the other judgment, we hold that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. The delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned.
-
1986 (5) TMI 132
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... is not in conformity with the issue raised in the show cause notice inasmuch as the Assistant Collector has not said anything about lsquo distributors rsquo being lsquo related person rsquo in the show cause notice, where he has disallowed the claim of the appellants that the commission should be deducted from the assessable value because distributor is a related person. In view of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International and others and also in the case of Moped India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nellore 1986 (23) E.L.T. 8 (SC) the distributors of dealers are not the lsquo related persons rsquo of the appellants. And I also do not agree with the Assistant Collector rsquo s views that because the distributors undertake the after sale service they are lsquo related persons rsquo . 5. emsp In view of the above, I set aside the Order of the lower authority and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
1986 (5) TMI 131
Cess - Handloom cess a duty of excise ... ... ... ... ..... ments of law the same cannot be kept out of reckoning in dealing with the claim of the respondents for the refund of the handloom cess. Similarly the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 are also made applicable by the aforesaid section 3(2) and it is only in this way that this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to deal with the appeal relating to the refund of the Handloom cess. In this view, I find that the refund claim of the respondents was hit by the limitation under old Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal) Bombay in setting aside the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order in part is not correct. Accordingly, I find that the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is not legal and the same is set aside. The appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda is thus allowed. The result is that in the end the refund claim of the respondent is time barred and it cannot be sanctioned
-
1986 (5) TMI 130
Search and Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... f gold has been made from his person. Prior to this, the person was searched by the Customs sepoy who felt something hard tied to his waist. He was, therefore asked to detrain and his person was searched in presence of panch witnesses. Though an aspersion has been cast on the veracity of the panch witnesses, there is no reason for such aspersion. Indeed, as argued by the learned S.D.R., there was no reason for the Customs Officer to pick up on the appellant from all the passengers who were travelling by that train. No such hostility has been alleged against the Customs Officer. Therefore, the plea of disowning the recovery is not acceptable. The acquittal in the criminal case does not save the appellant from the departmental penalty. Shri Senthivel has correctly relied on the Bombay High lsquo Court judgment in this behalf. Therefore, we find no validity in the appellant rsquo s arguments. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the Collector and the Board and reject the appeal.
........
|
