|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 233 Records
-
1987 (10) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... . Therefore, the machine can give a repetitive design. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned SDR submitted that while the machine may not do lamination it cannot be denied that it only transfers the design on the paper and with one transfer the paper was exhausted. 6. We have given the matter our most careful consideration. The fact that a piece of transfer paper exhausts with one transfer does not mean that the machine is not capable of giving repetitive design. When sufficient quantity of transfer paper is put into the machine, the machine will go on giving repetitive design. The appellants have shown us some fabric pieces which had repetitive printing done with the help of this machine. We, therefore, feel that Heading 84.40(1) is specific for this machine and Heading 84.59 which is a residuary heading cannot apply. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants by re-assessing the same under Heading 84.40(1).
-
1987 (10) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e of customs duty under Heading 84.57 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in respect of Selecting and Stacking Unit imported by them. We find that an identical issue in the appellants rsquo own case was dealt with by this Tribunal by their order No. 179/85/B2, dated 7-10-1985 in Appeal No. 6/115/82-B2. The contention of the appellants rsquo was rejected in that case. It was an order passed by a three Member Bench of this Tribunal. 3. We respectfully follow the ratio of the said order and dismiss the present appeal.
-
1987 (10) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... peal. We heard Sh. Prabhakaran in support of their appeal. He submitted that the Interface of the Computer was peripheral and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the two Notifications. Shri J. Gopinath very fairly agreed that the Interface is peripheral for the Computer. 3. In view of this we hold that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 115/80 and 41/80-Cus. both of which grant partial exemption from basic customs duty and full exemption from auxiliary duty respectively to computer peripheral unit falling under sub-heading No. 2 of Heading 84.51/55 CTA. 4. We allow the appeal and order consequential relief.
-
1987 (10) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... cided the respondents claim following Tribunal decision in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Premier Tyres and Dai-Ichi Karkaria (P) Ltd. Shri Sundar Rajan brings to our notice that Revenue has gone in appeal to Supreme Court against Tribunal decision in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 124 (Tribunal) and no stay in respect of the same has been granted. The decision by the Supreme Court in the matter may take considerable time. So far as the Tribunal is concerned there would appear no reason to depart from the decision supra. Following the same no interference in the impugned orders is called for. 2. The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Octyl Phenol and Dedecyl Phenol ... ... ... ... ..... g to this decision based on predominant use and there being no evidence on record by the Revenue as to predominant use of the product and the appellants assertion not disputed by the Revenue that the product is used by them as surface active agent, the goods would not be classifiable under T.I.65 for the purpose of additional duty. Shri Sundar Rajan during arguments informed the Bench that the appellants are not using the imported goods as rubber processing chemicals. Shri Sundar Rajan reiterated the arguments advanced by the Revenue when the Tribunal took the aforesaid decision. 5. Appellants claim for classification under T.I. 68 as against Revenue rsquo s claim under Item 65 in view of the aforesaid decision would have to be accepted. We see no reason to depart from the decision and following the same accept the appellants claim for classification of the goods under T.I. 68 in preference to T.I.65. 6. The appeals are thus allowed and consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (10) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Circuit - Printed Circuit Boards ... ... ... ... ..... he former for unpopulated ones and the latter for populated ones vide Note 4 to Chapter 85. They stated that the Printed Circuit Boards imported by them were unpopulated ones but since the rate of customs duty was the same under both the headings, the department could assess their goods under either of the two headings but in no case could the department jump to Heading 8473.30 in preference to a specific heading. 3. The learned Representative of the Department stated very fairly that since the goods were still available in the Customs Warehouse, the Assistant Collector could be directed to determine whether the Printed Circuit Boards in question were of populated or unpopulated type and thereafter re-assess them either under the specific Heading 8542 or 8534 as the case may be. On careful consideration, we agree with him and order accordingly. 4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above terms only in respect of the Printed Circuit Boards and is otherwise rejected.
-
1987 (10) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... of Notification 71/78. Those decisions are as under - (1) 1985 (20) E.L.T. 409 (C.C.E., Guntur v. Synthetic Polywood India (P) Ltd., Vizianagaram). (2) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 596 (Veekayan Industries v. C.C.E., Chandigarh). (3) 1987 (12) ECR 903 (M/s. Techno Chemical Industries v. C.C.E., Cochin). In view of the decisions of the Calcutta High Court, we hold that sub-clause (i) and (ii) of Clause (a) are independent and in the alternative. It must also. be noted that clause (iii) was introduced subsequently thus providing support to the submission that the clause (ii) and (iii) are distinct and separate and that the interpretation given by the department cannot be sustained. We must also note that there is no other decision contrary to the decision of the Calcutta High Court referred to above. Under those circumstances, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court, we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... t would come within the ambit of the explanation lsquo wire rsquo and the product could be described only as lsquo wire rsquo . Drawing the wire of a differential gauge from a wire of a higher gauge would result in the manufacturing product falling within the same category as lsquo wire rsquo . This is an aspect which has not been adverted to in the impugned order. The appellants have contended before us that the wire-rod is in a coil form and the wire in coil form of a lesser diameter is the final product. Considering the dimensions of the wires drawn in this case and there being no contra evidence, we are unable to agree that there has been any manufacture much less attracting the further duty. The Collector (Appeals) has not referred to this aspect of the case presumably as the appellants did not set out before him the precise gauges of the raw material and the resultant products. In the result, we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ue to the Tribunal. 2. At the hearing to-day, we have heard Smt. J.K. Chander, Departmental Representative for the appellant and Shri S. Ganeshan, Assistant Liaison officer for the respondent. We have also been shown the relevant Bill of Entry and have gone through the Central Excise Tariff as it stood at the material time. To us, the view of the learned Collector (Appeals) in view of the Tariff as it stood at the material time clearly appears untenable. Tariff Item 15A(2) specifically included films of articles of material described in sub-item (1) of Item 15A as would be seen from Tariff Item 15A(2) reproduced below - ldquo Articles of materials described in sub-item (1) the following, namely - Boards sheeting, sheets and films, whether lacquered or metallised or laminated or not lay flat tubings not containing any textile material. 3. In view of this, we modify the impugned order and dismiss the respondents claim for refund of differential duty. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Wire and cables ... ... ... ... ..... to the benefits of the notification. To restrict the benefit to a particular height would be doing violence to the language. The first category of the exemption refers .to overhead or underground tele-communication wires and cables. The second category refers to over ground (laid on the ground) tele-communication wires and cables. The benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the switch boards wires are situated at a height varying from 1 to 5 ft. and less. A close scrutiny of the notification establishes that overground tele-communication wires are also entitled to the exclusion. The category of wires which are expressly excluded are only internal housing cables ancillary for telecommunication purposes. Since the product in question does not come under that category, we are of opinion that on a strict interpretation of the notification, switch boards cables used in Telephone Exchanges would also be entitled to the benefits of the notification. The appeal is hence rejected.
-
1987 (10) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hnical literature referred to by the learned Consultant. The description given on Page 3 of the Catalogue is ldquo Being the smallest one from our series of generating machines - all operating to the same manufacturing principle and covering a range of spiral bevel gears with diameters of up to 2 metres (78 ) the FK-41B is intended primarily for small spiral bevel gears normally required for small machine tools, power tools and by the precision engineering industry in general. The FK-41B machine is capable of producing spiral bevel gears of diameters ranging from 4 mm to 110 mm (0.160 -4.330 rsquo ). rdquo Thus the main function of the machine is for the making of small spiral bevel gears. The technical literature referred to by the appellants does not help them. Accordingly we hold that spiral bevel gear machine FK-41B is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus., dated 1st March, 78. We confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... all for payment of excise duty the question of applicability of exemption notification would not even arise. Hence when, before the Collector (Appeals), the respondents had raised this issue of excisability he had a duty to go into the same and he cannot be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction in taking up this issue for consideration though the same may not have been raised before the Assistant Collector. 5. As far as the liability for payment of excise duty by reason of sawing of marble blocks into marble slabs the issue is settled under the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Fine Marbles and Minerals (P) Ltd. reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 128 (Tribunal) 1984 ECR 1493. The said decision was upheld by the Supreme Court when it dismissed Appeal No. 2611 of 1985 under its order dated 12-2-1986. 6. In the above circumstances we hold that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was perfectly proper. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e, said he adopted all the arguments advanced on behalf of M/s. Texmo Industries, Coimbatore, in Appeal No. E. 1904/83-B1. 3. The learned SDR for his part said his arguments would be the same as in the.......... 4. In the Texmo Appeal E. 1904/83-B1, we announced our judgment in order No. 569/87-B1 dated 31-8-1987 and held that the rotor and the stator of a monoblock pump were parts of an electric pump and were classifiable under Item 30-D. We rule similarly here and reject this appeal.
-
1987 (10) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Resistance coil for use in Potentiometer ... ... ... ... ..... ead is only a connecting wire and the main criterion for a resistor is resistance. According to him the Appellate Collector did not give a finding whether the imported goods were resistors. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We had occasion to inspect a sample of goods which was available on the file. The imported goods did not have any leads. Admittedly the leads have to be fixed by the importers. Shri Gopi Nath rsquo s argument in favour of application of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules (CTA) and for the application of the Section Note 2(a) of Chapter XVI cannot be accepted because we are interpreting a Notification and not the Tariff. On facts, as mentioned earlier, we agree with the submissions of the respondents that the imported goods are not resistors but part of resistors which ultimately go into a potentiometer. It is only resistors that are excluded from the concessional rates under Notification No. 172/77. In this view we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (10) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Decision for filing appeal ... ... ... ... ..... Gorakhpur, the original authority. We do not see why this averment should not ldquo be accepted as true. That would mean that limitation had not commenced to run, much less came to an end, before this appeal was filed. 8. Shri Gujral in this connection pointed out that the order of the Appellate Collector contains an endorsement of communication of a copy of the order to the Collector. He submits that, in the circumstances, a copy must have been sent and, therefore, the date of receipt thereof would be the relevant date under Section 35-B(3). But we note that the Assistant Collector has affirmed on oath that no such copy was received. Accepting the said statement on oath, we hold that limitation had not even commenced to run so far as the filing of this appeal is concerned. We, therefore, hold that there is no need for condonation of any delay. 9. Both the preliminary objections having thus been over-ruled, the appeal shall be listed for a suitable date for hearing on merits.
-
1987 (10) TMI 232 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Appeal - Adjournment ... ... ... ... ..... be taken up for hearing today itself. 3. It is seen that the Collector (Appeals) did not accede to the second request for an adjournment on the ground of the advocate being not available for the reason that he had earlier once granted adjournment. We feel that rejection for request for adjournment by the Collector (Appeals) was not justified. Shri Haksar prayed for remand of the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for de novo decision with respect to all the points that may be urged by the appellants before him. To this Shri Shishir Kumar, SDR had no objection. 4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo decision to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As the matter is old, the Collector (Appeals) shall decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The Collector (Appeals) shall afford the personal hearing to the parties before taking any decision. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1987 (10) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... -examine the concerned wholesellers we consider that a retrial is necessary to meet the ends of justice. Consequently we set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and also the adjudication order passed by the Assistant Collector and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication after taking into consideration the additional evidence produced by the department before us and also after giving the reasonable and effective opportunity to the respondents to rebut the additional ground as staged above and the additional evidence produced by the department. The adjudicating authority will also grant the permission to the respondents to cross-examine any wholeseller/(s) with reference to the invoice/(s) produced before us by way of additional evidence if such request is made by the respondents during fresh adjudication. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed by way of remand for fresh adjudication according to the observations made above.
-
1987 (10) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... placed on record certificates of the concerned engineers to the effect that the imported boiler tubes had actually been used for replacement in boilers. The supplier rsquo s certificate on page 30, after giving the dimensions and composition of the tubes, states that the boiler tubes were for Soviet Boilers installed at Obra, Harduaganj and Patratu Thermal Power Stations. We also find that for the same goods the Department accepted the import licence which was with the description - ldquo Boiler tubes for 50/100 MW USSR. Sets as per list attached. rdquo As such, the objection of the Department in not accepting the goods as ldquo tubes and pipes for boilers rdquo for the purpose of assessment under sub-heading (1)(iii) is not understandable. From the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the goods merited classification under this sub-heading at the lower rate. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the 4 appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (10) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Wire - Bare wires and insulated wires ... ... ... ... ..... . etc. which are widely used as conductors of electrical current are frequently insulated with non-conducting material like paper, textile fabric, glass fabric, plastic coating so that they may not lose the electricity, they carry by contacts with another surface, which, if conductive, will cause heavy loss of current and which might even pose serious safety hazards. By insulating them, such wires can no longer lose current even if they come into contact with another conducting surface. However, when the wires are placed in positions where they cannot come into contact with any other surface, they are usually left bare i.e. uninsulated. Such wires are seen in overhead transmission lines etc. where they are in no danger of contact with other surfaces. 5. In my opinion, the tinned wire is a bare wire being not an insulated wire and, therefore, should be assessed at the concessional rate permissible under Notification No. 208/79-C.E. I direct assessment of the goods accordingly.
-
1987 (10) TMI 220 - SUPREME COURT
Detention order vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay in dealing with representation of detenu
........
|
