|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 233 Records
-
1987 (10) TMI 305 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Small Scale manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... turer from availing of exemption under other notification should the same be applicable to the goods in question. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Tribunal on which Sh. Sastry has placed reliance - Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Madras 1987 (31) E.L.T. 534 (Tri.) (1983 ECR 1021-D(CEGAT) . In this decision, it was held that there is no bar to availing of more than one benefit unless it is barred categorically. We find nothing in the notification pointing or suggesting that the notification is inherently such that availing of benefit under one would disentitle the parties to benefit of exemption under the other notification - the same being applicable to the goods in question. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we modify the impugned order and hold that the appellants would be eligible to benefit of exemption which was denied to them in respect of the goods as setout in para one above. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Final product need not be dutiable ... ... ... ... ..... in any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured hellip hellip .. In view of this we find substantial force in the argument of the learned advocate for the appellants that the molasses have been used in the same factory of the manufacturer. The notification does not stipulate that the goods claimed to be given an exemption must be used in the manufacture of other excisable goods. Lower appellate authority rsquo s observation that ldquo no concession concerning exemption from excise duty can be deemed to be relatable to an item which is not covered by the excise rdquo does not appear to be borne out from the plain reading of the Notification No. 118/75. It is well settled that in order to interpret any statutory provisions one need not look for any intendment behind that provision so long as plain meaning can be given to such provision. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (10) TMI 301 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Country of origin - Indo-Nepal Treaty - Turmeric Export ... ... ... ... ..... with glaring defects in the show-cause notices, the unusual features of the procedure followed as also the fact that the authorities below have not examined all the relevant aspects of the matter, gives an edge to the assertion of the appellants rsquo counsel that the department rsquo s action was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Board has, in fact not dealt with the matter with any degree of thoroughness and I consider that the appellants rsquo grievance was fully justified on this score. Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the cases as a whole, I consider that the proceedings were ab initio had in law and the orders of the Collector of Customs and the Board were incorrect, unfair and improper as such, they were liable to be set aside. 91. Accordingly, I quash the show-cause notices and the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Delhi. 92. As a result, the appeals succeed and are accepted.
-
1987 (10) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... (Inking Kit) and Item (viii) (Pens) the appellants have the same arguments namely that these are essential for the working of the Sine Generator which cannot work without using them. However, Chapter Note (2) to Chapter 90 specifically calls for classification of these items in the respective heading. We reject the appellant rsquo s prayer and confirm the assessment as done by the Customs. 6. Item (v) (Floor stand) was classified under Heading 73.33/40 as articles of iron and steel. It is explained by the learned representative of the appellants that this floor stand is a sophisticated stand on which the Sine Generator is mounted. We feel that considering this item as merely an item of iron and steel would not do justice to classification. Considering it as an essential part of Sine Generator we accept the appellant rsquo s request and order that this item be classified under Heading 90.29(1). 7. Accordingly we allow the appeal in the extent indicated and otherwise rejected.
-
1987 (10) TMI 298 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Bifurcation of a factory ... ... ... ... ..... letter states that the production of Emkay Udyog has been taken into the records of the respondents who have paid duty thereon also. In construing this letter it should be remembered that the authorities had refused to amend the licence and the ground plan of the respondents and had insisted on treating the leased portion also within the factory of the respondents and had demanded duty also from the respondents on the goods produced by the Emkay Udyog. In view of this attitude, Emkay Udyog had terminated its activities. In the circumstances, even if, subsequent thereto, the respondents had taken over the goods manufactured by the Emkay Udyog and had offered to pay duty thereon (which fact itself is denied by the respondents) that would not mean that during the relevant period Emkay Udyog was not functioning as an independent entity. 4. In the above circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Collector (Appeals). These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 293 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s of Notification No. 234/79, dated 5-12-1979. Accordingly, we direct release of the goods subject to execution of the bond laid down in the Notification. 5. emsp In the above view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to go into the question of valuation of the goods adopted by the Collector and contested by the appellants. 6. emsp At the conclusion of his submissions, Shri Lakshmi Kumaran requested that a mention should be made by us about issue of a detention certificate to enable the appellants to claim relief in the matter of demurrage from the port authorities. Grant or denial of a detention certificate is not a decision or order under the Customs Act or the Rules or Regulations made there under and this Tribunal is not competent to direct issue of a detention certificate. However, we are of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances, the present case may be fit one for consideration by the customs authorities for issue of a detention certificate.
-
1987 (10) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... T. Under the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) had classified them under Item 68-CET. The Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur has sought to set aside the said order. This Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. M/s. Emkay Glass Works (Excise Appeal 1875/83-D) held under order No. 451 to 462 of 1984-D, dated 7-8-1984 that the Head Light Glass Covers are classifiable under Item 68-CET. The appeal against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5001 to 5012 of 1984 under order dated 17-4-1985. 4. ensp In view of the above we uphold the impugned order in appeal and dismiss these appeals.
-
1987 (10) TMI 291 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e known in the trade as motor vehicle parts and not as electric lighting fittings, they did not fall under Item No. 61 but fell under Item No. 68, CET. 7. emsp The contention of the appellants that the subject goods operate at 6 Volts DC and 16 M.A. and are used in the contact panel of Oil India Telemetry Projects has not been controverted by the Department. The function of the switches is explained as sending control command by way of making 4 contacts at a time when pressed. A lamp lights up indicating that the above operation has been completed. The primary function of the switches, therefore, is not lighting. The lighting up of the bulb seems only incidental and indicative of the main function of the switch. 8. emsp In the state of the evidence on record, we conclude that the subject switches did not fall under Item No. 61, CET, but under Item No. 68, CET. The appeal is allowed in these terms and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (10) TMI 290 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cement plant ... ... ... ... ..... o noticed that impugned order in both the appeals is the same). Shri Sooji further requests that the present appeal may kindly be decided on the basis of decision taken on the appeal filed against M/s. Shubham Cement, Industrial Area, Kota, heard by the Bench on 6-10-1987 without their having to appear personally to argue before the Tribunal today (23-10-1987). 2. ensp In the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal held that to avail of concession as Mini Cement plant under Notification No. 194/79, dated 30-5-1979 existence of one or more kilns on the plant is an essential requirement and in absence of the same, the requirement of explanation in the notification is not fulfilled and concession under the notification not available. 3. ensp Following the said decision, we allow this appeal also and modify the order to the extent it relates to the present respondent and reject the respondent rsquo s claim for exemption as Mini Cement plant. The appeal is allowed in the foregoing terms.
-
1987 (10) TMI 289 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... trade notice No. 235 of 1977 issued by the Madras Central Excise Collector and the trade notice 234/77 dated 4-7-1977 issued by the Bombay Central Excise Collector, which trade notices took note of the opinion of the DGTD. The trade notices took note of the fact that U Bolts, Eye Bolts and Centre Bolts used in Leaf Spring Assembly do not perform a mere fastening function only, but are manufactured with specific functions to be performed in the Leaf Spring Assembly, and that they are not normally inter-changeable. It was, therefore, held in the said decision that till the amendment of Item 34A these goods fell under Item 34A and that, after the amendment they fell under Item 68 CET and not Item 52 CET. Respectfully following the said decision we hold that in the period in issue in this appeal, the subject goods fell under Item 34A CET and not under Item 52 CET. 4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief.
-
1987 (10) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... in Mill Black Plate Seconds rdquo was one of the items specifically provided for. 4. ensp In view of the re-test report having demolished the very foundation of the impugned order-in-original and in view of the import licence being specific for the goods imported, the learned representative of the Department stated very fairly that the declared description and value of the goods as well as the import licence produced were acceptable subject to the import licence having adequate balance to cover the goods. 5. ensp On careful consideration, we agree that in view of the re-test report of the IIT, Powi, Bombay, the charges of misdeclaration under-valuation and unauthorised import as made out in the impugned order no longer survive. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. The goods should be assessed on the basis of the declared description and value and the import licence accepted subject to it having adequate balance to cover the goods. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
-
1987 (10) TMI 287 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - REP Licence ... ... ... ... ..... ed. It is also not known whether the law Ministry rsquo s opinion was as set out by the Additional Collector in his order. The judgment of the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Company Ltd. case is very specific and clear. The Supreme Court had hold that the licence obtained by fraud is only avoidable, it is good till voided in the manner prescribed by law. 15. emsp Admittedly all the process of import as well as actual, import took place not only before the licence was cancelled but also before the licence was suspended. In the circumstances it is to be held that when the goods were imported they were imported under the valid licence and in such circumstance the Additional Collector committed an error of law in ordering confiscation and levying fine in lieu of confiscation. 16. emsp Following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court as well as Calcutta High Court, I allow this appeal set aside the impugned order. The fine, if paid, shall refunded to the appellant.
-
1987 (10) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Aluminium foils backed with reinforcing material ... ... ... ... ..... the law in the right spirit, and with due needfulness. It avails one nothing to thrash about to find as escape from a position that the law obviously and necessarily intended. Surely, no one truly believes that when the law said ldquo backed with paper or other reinforcing material rdquo it meant the backing must always be a single layer, as if it did not know that there are multiple-layered backings too. If anything, the multiple backed foil is a better backed foil, stronger, more durable, not to mention the higher value, and hence a stronger contender for taxability. A reasonable construction is what we are always called upon to make. Would it not be unreasonable to say that the multiple-backed foil goes duty free but the single backed foil must pay? The more reasonable reading is to say that all backed foil, whatever the number of backings, must be levied to duty. 11. emsp I, therefore, order that the foil must be assessed at or after the stage of last backing or backings.
-
1987 (10) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ammonium Nitrate Melt is not fertilizer ... ... ... ... ..... ower authorities. Regarding interpretation of statute Shri Biswas has relied on this Tribunal rsquo s decision reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 437 (T). He has prayed that the earlier decisions relied upon by the learned S.D.R. may be reconsidered by the Tribunal. 5. ensp We have considered the case records and the arguments of both sides. In the respondents rsquo own case in appeal No. ED/SB/2237/83-C this Tribunal, vide Order No. 356/87-C dated 27th May, 1987, has held, after detailed discussions, that Ammonium Nitrate (Melt) produced by the appellants is not fertilizer and hence the benefit of exemption Notification No. 147/74-C.E., dated 30-10-1974 was not admissible in respect of the L.S.H.S. used in the manufacture of Ammonium Nitrate Melt. We find no reason to differ with the above-mentioned decision. Following the said decision, we, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue. The cross-objection filed by the respondents is dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ubstance, for use in an infra-red copying machine to make a copy of an original document by transferring a dye compounded with the coating substance on to a sheet of ordinary paper (heat transfer process) rdquo (Seep. 685 CCCN Explanatory Notes Vol. 2, 2nd Edition, 1966) The notes further indicate that copying and transfer papers, bearing texts or designs for reproduction, remain classified in this heading, whether or not bound in sequence. Though the present goods are not exactly identical to heat transfer papers used in infra-red copying machine, they are akin to them in that by application of heat and pressure, the design on the paper is transferred to the fabric. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a better heading than ldquo printing paper rdquo to cover the subject product. On this basis, the appropriate classification under the Customs Tariff Schedule would be 48.01/21(1). In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Formic Acid ... ... ... ... ..... the respondent and perused the available papers. 2. The issue arising for decision in these appeals is whether imported Formic Acid is eligible to benefit of concessional assessment under Notification 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979. In that connection Shri Sundar Rajan draws our attention to a decision of the Tribunal in appellants rsquo own case Order Nos. 361 to 370/83-C where such a plea after considerable discussion was negated. Following the decision we dismiss the present appeals.
-
1987 (10) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of Exemptions available ... ... ... ... ..... he description Polyvinyl Chloride as set out under Tariff Item 39.01/06. It is seen that so far as the scope of polyvinyl chloride falling under 39.01/06 is concerned, the same in terms of the Chapter Notes covers apart from the material being in liquid, pasty, and granule form also the material in sheet form. These sheets imported were tested by the Departmental authorities and found to be sheets and described as PVC (flexible). The material has not been found to be anything other than PVC. In view of the fact that the goods answer to the description of PVC and the fact that the sheets are covered under T.I. 39.01/06, the same have to be held to be falling under the category of PVC ldquo Other forms rdquo under 6(1)(c) of the Notfn. We find no force in the plea of the Revenue that the PVC covered under this item has only to be in raw material form as pleaded in the Grounds of Appeal. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the lower authority rsquo s order and reject the appeal.
-
1987 (10) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand limitation ... ... ... ... ..... to the notification. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the department was not aware of the nature of the products. Of course, the appellants had removed the goods without filing a classification list. Since the department is aware of the nature of the products and the contentions raised by the appellants in regard to the exemption of the products, the mere absence of the classification list will not be sufficient to hold that there was suppression or clandestine removal of the products. The show cause notice has been issued after a considerable delay and, hence, we hold that the claim is barred by limitation. 18. Regarding the eligibility of Notification 176/77-C.E., the question is purely accademic in the view taken by us on the question of time-bar. Hence no finding is called for on this point. 19. In view of the above circumstances, we hold that the imposition of penalty is not justified. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed on the question of time-bar.
-
1987 (10) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... eration Industries Ltd. (1985 Vol 26 E.L.T. 353). In an elaborate judgment the Tribunal held that so long as the process applied was only that of reconditioning, even inclusive of addition of new parts in replacing old parts, the benefit of duty free removal under Rule 173-H would be available so long as the identity of the article is left intact. The Tribunal observed (P-363 top) that unless it can be established that a commercially distinct article, having different name or use has come into existence, there would be no manufacture. Applying the said test, the Tribunal held that when the old compressors were received and after dismentling, remade, even by substitution of old parts by new parts there was no manufacture of a new commodity involved. 7. Applying the said ratio we hold that in the present instance also the process of reconditioning the worn out dies did not amount to manufacture. We accordingly uphold the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (10) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... edia Britannica Volume V page 141 is reproduced below - ldquo Taxable or nominal horsepower of steam or internal combustion engines is an arbitrary figure calculated from certain dimensions of the engine and bearing no exact relationship to actual power capacity. For motor vehicles in Great Britain and parts of the United States, the usual formula for taxable horsepower is d2n/2.5., in which d is cylinder bore of the engine in inches and n is the number of cylinders. Piston speeds and effective pressures in modern engines are much higher than assumed in the formula, and the maximum horsepower of modern automobile engines may be many times that of taxable horsepower. rdquo 6. A simple reading of the Tariff Item 34 of the Central Excise Tariff clearly shows that Motor Cars of 16 horsepower and above by RAC should be classified under sub-heading (3) of the same. Accordingly we uphold the findings of the lower authorities. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
