|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 265 Records
-
1986 (9) TMI 315
Demand - Relevant information not disclosed to assessee ... ... ... ... ..... ect, when the Collector relied on information which was relevant but not disclosed to the appellants. 7. emsp In the circumstances, we feel that the proper course to be adopted would be to set aside the order of the Collector and remit the matter to him for de novo consideration so that he may make available to the appellants information obtained by him regarding the conditions of storage before test and afford an opportunity to the appellants to contest the same, if desired, and thereafter dispose of the matter. In doing so, he will go into the question whether the assessments initially were provisional and therefore the period of 6 months mentioned under Section 28 would not be attracted. 8. emsp Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Appellate rsquo Collector is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay for de novo adjudication in the light of the observations earlier and disposal thereafter in accordance with law.
-
1986 (9) TMI 314
Exemption subject to observing Chapter X procedure of Excise Rules ... ... ... ... ..... ion which was impossible to comply with because of the action of the revenue should be taken to have been dispensed with so long as there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of Chapter X procedure on facts. In this case, the lower authority was satisfied that the goods had been cleared for the purposes set out in the notification and were duly accounted for as required under Chapter X Procedure and had in the circumstances, sanctioned the refund in this regard. We also observe that the procedural compliance with the requirement of the law, where goods had to be properly accounted for a particular end-use has to be held to be directory in nature and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-compliance with the Chapter X Procedure in entirety, therefore, does not vitiate the appellants claim. We hold, therefore, that the Collector was in error in denying them the benefit of refund as ordered by the Assistant Collector. We, therefore, allow the appeal.
-
1986 (9) TMI 313
... ...
... ... ..... umar, Sr. D.R. for the respondent. 4. The dispute before us is in respect of hand-knitting dyed yarn. The Collector has charged the invisible wastage to duty in terms of notification No. 52/72-C.E. dated 17-3-1972. The short point for consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from duty in respect of the wastage of yarn arising subsequent to the spindle stage of grey yarn and during the course of dyeing and processing of such grey yarn into dyed hand-knitting yarn. The appellants have not drawn our attention to any specific provision of law, including any notification, which permits such exemption. Grey yarn is excisable and dutiable. Therefore, duty is payable on the quantity of grey yarn removed for processing including dyeing and waste occurring in such processing is not, in the absence of any specific provision, eligible for remission (or exemption) from duty. In the circumstances, we upheld the orders of the lower authorities and reject this appeal.
-
1986 (9) TMI 312
Import of Motor or gear box ... ... ... ... ..... ar box. What has been considered as impermissible spare under, Appendix 30 is either motor individually or gear box individually and not any item containing gear box or motor. If that be the correct interpretation, all capital goods having motor or gear box would become impermissible for import. 11. emsp After taking into consideration all aspects, I am unable to agree with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the impugned goods are complete gear box. They are in my view permissible spares rsquo required for operation and maintenance of the imported Hydraulic Spoolers. Appendix 10(4) read with Chapter 9 permitted import of the said items under OGL by the Actual Users (Industrial). The items imported are not for stock or trade but for the actual use as spares for the earlier imported Hydraulic Spoolers. 12. emsp In the result this appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside. The fine, if any, paid by the appellants be refunded to them.
-
1986 (9) TMI 311
... ...
... ... ..... p of paper containing the telephone number of the appellant rsquo s firm, in our opinion, are not adequate to bring home the charge against the appellant as per law. In this- view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against in respect of the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 with consequential relief to the appellant. 6. emsp Shri 3eshtmal, the learned counsel at this stage submitted that he filed one appeal in respect of the penalty under the Customs Act as well as the Gold (Control) Act, as they were covered by a single order namely, the impugned order now appealed against. The learned counsel, however, undertook to separately file an appeal to satisfy the technical requirements in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellant under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Since all the papers have already been filed along with this appeal, the learned counsel is permitted to file a separate appeal along with the necessary fee for the same.
-
1986 (9) TMI 310
Refund claim for excess production ... ... ... ... ..... 79 This claim also being for the year 1977-78 will have to be allowed in full. (3) Claim dated 3-9-1979 This claim relates to the period 1978-79 ending with 31-3-1979. The claim will have to be allowed so far as it relates to payment of duty upto 1-1-1979 and in respect of payments after 2-1-1979 claim will be barred for the period 2-1-1979 to 2-3-1979. The claim for the period 3-3-1979 to 31-3-1979 will be within time since the claim was filed on 3-9-1979 and so the refund for the period 3-3-1979 to 31-3-1979 will have to be allowed. (4) The claim dated 26-11-1979 This related to the period 13-11-1978 to 31-3-1979. The claim will have to be allowed for the period from 13-11-1978 to 31-3-1979 but rejected in respect of the period 3-1-1979 to 31-3-1979 as barred by time, since the refund claim was filed on 26-11-1979 only. 9. emsp The four appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and the order of the Appellate Collector would stand modified to that extent.
-
1986 (9) TMI 286
Natural justice - Adjudication Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... the facts and circumstances of this case, non furnishing of the said copies to the appellant inspite of repeated requests for the same is against all accepted cannons of natural and elementary justice and fair play. The impugned order passed in dis-regard of the elementary doctrines of fair procedure ldquo would be no decision within the meaning of Statute rdquo and would be ldquo contrary to the essence of justice rdquo to borrow the felicitous phrase of Lord Selbourne. Therefore, without going to the merits of this case, I set aside the impugned order appealed against and remit the matter back for reconsideration after furnishing the appellant with copies of the said documents and affording him an opportunity of being heard. Since a issue relates to a seizure dated 26-8-1985 and involves a seizure of currency of Rs. 44,930/-, the Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai is directed to take up and dispose of this after within 3 months after receipt of the copy of this order.
-
1986 (9) TMI 285
... ...
... ... ..... ect or indirect, in the business of each other. rdquo 12. emsp In this case, there is no material to show that the appellant company had any interest in the business of M/s. Dharmsi Morarji Chemicals Company Ltd., and vice versa. The fact that M/s. D.M.C. held 30 shares in the appellant company and two of the Directors in both the companies were common, will not go to establish that they are related persons. The argument that M/s. D.M.C. participated in the erection of plant and lent technical know-how is also of no avail, as according to the appellants, they made payments to M/s. D.M.C. for their services in this regard. We are, therefore, not convinced by the reasons advanced by the Collector (Appeals) in upholding the decision of the Assistant Collector, nor are we able to accept his finding that the two Companies had interest, direct or indirect, in the business of each other. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal.
-
1986 (9) TMI 284
Gold Control ... ... ... ... ..... ld be entitled to possess 4000 gms. without being obliged under law to make any declaration thereof in terms of Section 16. I also find that the appellant and his major son have filed separate Wealth Tax Returns before the authorities and this would also prove that the appellant rsquo s major son was not a member of the Hindu undivided family of which the appellant is said to be a Kartha. Since the adjudicating authority has not taken this aspect into consideration and has held that the appellant would be under legal obligation to make a declaration by reason of the fact that he was the head of the family and that his major son was also living with him with his wife, the impugned has come to be passed. This reasoning of the adjudicating authority is contrary to the express provision of Section 16(6) of the Act and the special statutory definition for the family given therein. In this view of the matter I set aside the impugned order appealed against with consequential relief.
-
1986 (9) TMI 283
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... d not include waste (18-IV was, both sides had agreed, before the Court, not the correct item). The present goods are also godet waste. That the subject godet waste arises in relation to the manufacture of viscose filament yarn and not, as in the R.K. Synthetics and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. case, at the fibre stage, should not, in our opinion, make any difference to the applicability of the ratio of the Court rsquo s decision. The goods also do not fall under item 18-IV which takes in only non-cellulosic wastes and not rayon (cellulosic waste). 10. The result is that we hold that the subject godet waste was not classifiable under item No. 18 of the CET. Since the goods are not specified elsewhere in the tariff, they would fall under the residuary item No. 68 as claimed by the respondents in the appeal before the Appellate Collector. The goods shall be reclassified accordingly and consequential relief granted to the respondents. 11. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
-
1986 (9) TMI 282
Seizure of goods ... ... ... ... ..... fiscation of the van in question in pursuance of a valid order of adjudication by competent adjudicating authority is not in any way invalidated by reason of a show cause notice not having been issued to the appellant within the statutory period of six months in terms of Section 110(2) of the Act. I, therefore, uphold the finding of the adjudicating authority under the impugned order in respect of the confiscation of the van in question. Regarding the quantum, taking into consideration, the fact that from the date of seizure namely, 5.5.1984, the van remains stationary and is in the custody of the department and so would have undergone considerable damage by sheer passage of time and loss in its utility value, I feel interests of justice would be met if some reduction in the quantum of fine is given and in this view of the matter I reduce the same from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only). Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 281
Foreign exchange - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ee letters above and not any other letter seized from appellant, and which even according to him, the respondent, they do not contain any incriminating statement, it is quite apparent that the two authorities have misguided themselves in reading into these letters contravention as changed for huge sum and holding that contraventions of the provisions of the Act had been committed by appellant. Now that it is established that these letters do not contain any incriminating transaction, and the authorities themselves having realised that the total amount mentioned in the two statements is nowhere near the amounts mentioned in the letters received by the appellant, and when the circumstances of the case disclosing that the statements could not have been voluntarily made, it results in the appeal being allowed on the point as raised by the appellant with costs. The amount confiscated requires to be returned within six weeks from the date of receipt of the steno copy of this order.
-
1986 (9) TMI 280
Res judicata ... ... ... ... ..... While the aforesaid reported decision related to the month of October, 1975, the period relevant for the instant appeal is from 1st November, 1975 to 8th January, 1976. In our earlier decision we held that on the application of the principle of res judicata that appeal had to be allowed. The question as to whether dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court operates as res judicata was discussed elaborately in the aforesaid decision. It is unnecessary to repeat what we had said earlier in this context. The only thing that has to be borne in mind however is that the principle of res judicata is not to be confused with that of staredecisis or declaration of law in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 2. emsp There is no single feature in the instant appeal that could distinguish it from the appeal decided by us earlier. In the premises, following our earlier decision in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 930, we allow the instant Appeal with consequential benefits.
-
1986 (9) TMI 279
Refund - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... been taken cannot be considered and apart from that there is also no evidence before me regarding the payment under general protest from January, 1981 till 10th May, 1981. In these circumstances the refund claims of the appellants admittedly being time-barred, have been rightly rejected under the impugned orders now appealed against. The plea of the appellants that when collection is made either by mistake of law or without the authority of law the aggrieved party would be entitled to refund thereof without being hampered by any bar of limitation is not legally tenable. The legal position is well settled that a statutory Tribunal cannot traverse beyond the confines of law and afford a relief by way of refund to an aggrieved party even if the duty had been collected by the authorities by mistake of law unless the refund application has been filed within the prescribed time limit. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeals and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 258
Valuation - Price lists - Manner of filing ... ... ... ... ..... e being shown in the invoices. Is it for the appellant to determine what is to be excluded? When did the appellant disclose these elements and claim exemption as he says he did in the reply, dated 4-9-1984 Are these elements not to be declared in the price list but only to be ldquo shown rdquo in the invoices? ldquo Shown rdquo to whom and to what purpose? 4. emsp The detection took place in the course of the assessment. The demand was confined to a period of less than six months anterior to the detection thereof. The subsequent notice, dated 1-8-1984 was not in supersession of the earlier notice, dated 5-11-1980 but in revision thereof. There is no question but the demand was within time. 5. emsp In the result, we do not see any merits in this appeal and we have no hesitation in dismissing it, as it would appear that the appellant had, by virtue of the Assistant Collector rsquo s order, obtained relief which should not have been allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 257
Demand - Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... g remission of duty is that the goods are destroyed in a manner so that these are irretrievable as such goods. Destruction of the goods in the instant case is not disputed by the department. Therefore, the breach of any other procedural condition which may have been prescribed by the Collector may involve imposition of some penalty for breach of such procedure. Imposition of liability to duty for breach of procedure is not called for. Accordingly, the demand of duty in the impugned order is set aside. 8. emsp As regards the penalty, I also observe that the Central Excise authorities were duly kept informed of the exchange of correspondence with the State Excise Authorities. Breach of procedure, if any, can, therefore, be considered not more than a technical breach. There was no deliberate intention to cause that violation. Accordingly, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 100/-. Consequential relief, if any, be granted. 9. emsp Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1986 (9) TMI 256
Export - Refund claim for - Duty of Export ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal that when an amendment had been allowed in the shipping bill the proviso to Section 16(1) would have no relevance with reference to the fictional date of shipping bill as provided in -Section 16. The proviso to Section 16(1) speaks of the date of entry outwards of the vessel by which the goods are to be exported. In this case the goods were to be exported by S.S. Macol Ace only and not by S.S. Amado. Therefore, under the proviso to Section 16(1) it was the date of entry outwards for S.S. Macol Ace that would be relevant since admittedly the shipping bill had been presented, and also amended, prior to the said date. Therefore, following the decision of the Supreme Court we hold that duty was to be determined only with reference to the rate prevalent on the date of the entry outwards i.e. 14.9.1981. Admittedly by that date the goods have become free of duty. We, therefore, hold that the order of the Appellate Collector was correct and accordingly dismiss this appeal.
-
1986 (9) TMI 255
Revision - Suo motu review or revision by Government of India ... ... ... ... ..... Clauses to the proposed Bill which gives an unmistakable indication of the understanding which the law making authority had, and to remove this anomaly, the provisions were suitably amended. 27. emsp We are, thus, satisfied that, at the relevant time, the law, as it stood, positively laid down that no order or decision of the lower authority could be revised after the expiry of period of two years from the passing of such an order, and it did not admit of any exceptions or saving-situations. We are, therefore, of our considered view that the order-in-review passed in this case on 8-8-1977, in respect to the assessments made on clearances effected by 9-7-1975, is liable to be struck down because of having been passed after the time allowed for the purpose. We, accordingly, uphold the preliminary objection, and do not find it necessary to further go into the merits. 28. The appeal is, thus, allowed on this preliminary point and the order dated 8-8-1977, as a result, set aside.
-
1986 (9) TMI 254
Adjudication proceedings - Examination of witness ... ... ... ... ..... at the seized two attache and a hand bag out of which contraband goods were recovered were the baggages of the appellants and none else. 8. emsp Before we part with the discussion of the ocular and documentary evidence on record we also find that the circumstances available on record as stated above also satisfactorily proves the guilt of the appellants. The confessional statements of S/Shri Manohar Singh and Hans Raj involving the appellants, who were also tried along with the appellants during the adjudicating proceedings and were found guilty and penalised and against that order appeal was filed by them also lends further assurance to our said conclusion. 9. emsp Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the small amount of penalty which is Rs. 5,000/- each, the only other surviving contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that penalty is harsh is only to be stated to be rejected. 10. In the result, both the appeals fail being devoid of any merits.
-
1986 (9) TMI 253
Food products or Food preparations ... ... ... ... ..... authoritative work of reference classifies beverages including soft drinks under the category of foods. If this be so, there seems to be no good reason why non-alcoholic beverage essences should not also be classified as food products or food preparations if not as foods 13. emsp We do not accept the learned Senior Departmental Representative rsquo s contention that the Bangalore Collector rsquo s Trade Notice, the CCCN, the Import Policy, the Madras and Bombay Appellate Collector rsquo s orders are all of no avail in determining the present dispute. We have already given reasons in support of our conclusion. 14. emsp In the result, we hold that the subject non-alcoholic beverage bases were eligible for duty exemption in terms of Serial No. 1 of the Schedule to notification No. 55/75. 15. In the above view of the matter, the appeals succeed. In consequence, the other issues do not survive for consideration. 16. We allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
........
|
