|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 310 Records
-
1987 (2) TMI 379
Tool blanks ... ... ... ... ..... r the respondent, and perused the record. 4. emsp The question of correct classification of the very goods came up before this Tribunal in seven appeals filed by the present appellants and disposed of by Orders Nos. 100 to 106/86-D dated 26-2-1986 reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 623. On a full consideration of several headings of the Customs Tariff Schedule, the Tribunal found that the goods correctly fell under Heading No. 71.12/15. Smt. Saxena, fairly stated that this decision would apply to the present case as well. Since no fresh material has been placed before us, we do not see any reason to depart from the view taken by the Tribunal on the previous occasion. Consequently, we hold that the goods in the present instance also are classifiable under Heading No. 71.12/15. We accordingly direct that the goods be reassessed under this heading and relief, if any flowing as a result of such reassessment be extended to the appellants. 5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1987 (2) TMI 368
Defective/Damaged goods ... ... ... ... ..... ough his agent or branch in India and (iv) the defective articles or component parts thereof if not re-exported, are destroyed or surrendered to the Customs. In the present case, the position is that the foreign suppliers replaced some defective cells after damages were noticed therein at the time of installation, which was sometime after the importation. The very first condition of the notification in question is that the imported goods should have been private properties of the importers. In the present case, the goods originally imported cannot be held to be private personal properties. The third condition of the notification is that the replacement should have been done free of charge by the manufacturer through his agent or branch in India. In this case, admittedly, the replacement was done by the foreign supplier directly. In view of this position, we hold that the appellants are not entitled to the refund under Notification 80/70-Cus. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (2) TMI 367
Forming of requisite opinion by the Collector ... ... ... ... ..... Officer authorized by him in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. From the provision it is seen that forming of requisite opinion by the Collector of Central Excise that order passed by the Appellate Collector under Section 35-A was not legal or proper and directing and authorising the Central Excise Officer to file an appeal in this behalf was pre-condition which alone could make the appeal presented by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the Tribunal maintainable. As already referred to in our earlier order dated 26-12-1986, such authorisation or paper showing Collector had come to the requisite opinion are not available in the J.D.R. rsquo s file nor copy of any such order in terms of the provision have been placed in spite of grant of time on the file of the Tribunal. Appeal, therefore, is not maintainable. The appeal is rejected as not maintainable.
-
1987 (2) TMI 366
... ...
... ... ..... rice realised for them by the appellants. The claim of the appellants for refund is, therefore, correct in principle. The appellants further produced an affidavit, supported by a certificate dated 22-5-1986 from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandernagore Division to the effect that all their clearances since February, 1974 have been provisionally assessed in pursuance of the stay orders dated 29-11-1973, and subsequently in 1980 of the High Court of Calcutta. It means that the assessments for the material period before us have yet to be finalised. 3. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders and order that when finalisation of the provisional assessment is taken up, benefit of the reduced sale price of the O.E. Tyres should be given to the appellants. This will, of course, be subject to the appellants rsquo satisfying the Assistant Collector about the co-relation of the O.E. Tyres as originally assessed and as sold at reduced prices after 24-2-1976.
-
1987 (2) TMI 365
Glass Chatens ... ... ... ... ..... footwear with Glass Chatons. Before us Shri Sogani did produce a sample footwear with chatons fixed thereto as embellishment. We may note that in their letter dated 18-7-1979 addressed to the Assistant Collector the appellants had mentioned ldquo these beads and chatons are used as decorative pieces in leather industry as per samples of footwear shoes rdquo . Therefore, the observation of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector as if there was no sample shown in which Glass Chatons had been used as embellishment in footwear is not correct. As earlier mentioned such a sample was in fact produced before us. These chatons do not fulfil any functional requirement in footwear but are used merely be way of adornment and are thus embellishments only. 4. In the circumstances we hold that the appellants were entitled to the concessional assessment prayed for. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief.
-
1987 (2) TMI 364
Goods imported in replacement of the goods previously imported but found damaged ... ... ... ... ..... customs duty on second-hand machines was relatively a moderate one. The appellants argued before us that it would have hardly been worthwhile for them to try to save on the customs duty payment but spend money in the process on buying the West German currency (DMs) in the black market and then remitting it to the foreign supplier by under-hand channels. We see the point in their argument. It is quite possible that due to a significant change in the supply and demand for the second-hand printing machines, the appellants were able to buy the second machine of the same type cheaper by about 23 . We note from the lower order that even the Additional Collector has not held the appellants guilty of the charge of mis-declaration of value under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. We hold that the value of the second machine declared by the appellants was acceptable. 5. In the result, we set aside the impugned order an allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (2) TMI 363
Classfication ... ... ... ... ..... lick states that he relies on the arguments contained in their Revision Application in favour of their plea. 3. Shri J. Gopinath for the Department has intervened to say that the Department is not opposing reclassification as sought by the appellants. 4. Having regard to the merits of the case as well as the submissions of both the sides, we agree that the classification would be under Heading No. 84.63 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. We accordingly allow the appeal and direct the consequential relief being granted.
-
1987 (2) TMI 362
... ...
... ... ..... ned representative of the department stood by the lower orders and stated that the depreciation of 49 already granted was quite adequate and that the Assistant Collector had already considered the estimates prepared by the local garrages. 2. We have carefully considered the matter. The subject car is already out of customs control and is no longer available for re-examination of the damages suffered in the accident. But a look at the estimates prepared of the two garrages shows that the damage was quite extensive. Under the normal rules followed by the department even without the accident damage the car would have got depreciation of 46 for four years of use abroad. In other words, the lower authorities have given only 3 extra depreciation for the damages. In our view, it is quite inadequate. We find that 60 depreciation claimed by the appellant is reasonable and we allow it. The lower orders are modified to that extent. Consequential relief shall be granted to the appellant.
-
1987 (2) TMI 361
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... these circumstances, we are unable to agree that the demand could not be made for the extended period of limitation. On the question of penalty, it is argued that the appellants had no intention to evade payment of duty having regard to the Tariff Classification. We have already held that the appellants had not observed the Central Excise formalities nor had they obtained the Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of these goods. Having regard to the facts the penalty is justified but in view of the decision taken by us in regard to the applicability of the exemption limit, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. 12. In the result the classification of the products under T.1.28A is confirmed. The demand has to be re-worked. The question of according benefit of Notification 71/78, dated 1-3-1978 for the period during which it was in force is left open. Penalty is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. Except for the above modifications, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 360
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... cid or anhydride thereof and was not classifiable under Item 14G of Central Excise Tariff. 3. Shri Shishir Kumar, the learned SDR representing the respondent agreed that the decision covers the issue of classification of the product in question and that the same has been answered against the Revenue. He, however, generally defended the impugned orders so as to secure the rights of the Revenue, if necessary, by agitating the matter before a superior forum. 4. Following the decision aforesaid, we hold that Hydrogen Chloride Gas is not classifiable under Item 14G of Central Excise Tariff as it stood at the material time. 5. In the impugned orders there is some reference to valuation of the product also and the method of valuation. Parties, however, did not address any arguments as to this aspect of the matter presumably because classification having been decided this question becomes academic. 6. The appeals are allowed on the question of classification as already set out above.
-
1987 (2) TMI 359
... ...
... ... ..... ganlal and Sons, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. Both the parties agree that this decision covers the issue involved in the present appeal. Shri N.C. Sogani Consultant for the appellants agrees that this decision is against the appellants. He reiterated the ground urged by the appellants in the memo of appeal to secure his rights before the superior forum, if necessary, by filing an appeal. 4. Following the above said decision Formic Acid is not found to be Self Basifying Chrome Tanning agent, eligible for concession under Notification. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 358
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of recourse having been had to the procedure about provisional assessment containing Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in the background of the earlier show cause notice dated 4-1-1978 according to the Assistant Collector having been cancelled and according to the Collector superseded by subsequent show cause notice dated 27-7-1979 and in the absence of any allegation of mis-statement, suppression of fact, collusion and the like applying six months limitation from the later show cause notice dated 27-7-1979 under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules which was in force between 6-8-1977 till 16-11-1980 from the relevant date, which in the instant case under the meaning of lsquo relevant date rsquo in the Rules would be the date on which the duty was required to be paid under the Rules i.e. when they were cleared from the factory, would clearly be barred by limitation. We hold accordingly. 5. As a result, demand of duty against the appellants is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 357
Non-declaration of major items of substantial value liable to confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... t the Superintendent, who examined the goods, reported that they were new. Thereafter, for whichever article the appellant had produced satisfactory evidence of possession for one year, we have given him the benefit. In respect of the remaining articles, which were either not declared or which were found new, there is nothing on record to show that their value needs to be revised down ward. The goods are now not available for reexamination, they having been taken delivery of by the appellant many years ago. 6. As a result of release of the aforesaid 7 articles under the transfer of residence concession (vide paragraph 4 above) and having regard to other facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of redemption fine to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Consequential refund of duty and fine, if paid, may be granted to the appellant. But for this relief in respect of the aforesaid 7 items and reduction in the amount of fine, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1987 (2) TMI 356
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... and the originals were filed in some other file in 1979. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 3. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, states that since the DEC and NMIC were attached alongwith the revision application and the originals were filed with a consignment imported vide AWB No. 098-21916805, and the consignment cleared in 1979, he has got no objection to the acceptance of the appeal in view of the fact that the DEC and the NMIC are very much on record and are prior to the date of importation, and the goods arc covered by the same. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 211/76-Cus. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal. The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order within four months from the date of receipt of the order.
-
1987 (2) TMI 355
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... orking of the machine but it has not been shown that these are component parts of the machine. Besides, as pertinently pointed out by the learned SDR, the invoice itself describes the goods as lsquo Accessories rsquo . Even if the goods are considered as spare parts, Rule 2 of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963, goes against the appellants inasmuch as the invoice gives individual values for all the parts. It is only when it is shown that the value of the parts is included in the main machine itself, and when it is shown that the purchase of these parts by the importer was compulsory, the concession of assessing the parts under the main heading can be considered. In the present case, in view of what we have said above, it cannot be held that the imported parts, as described in the invoice, should have been classified under main heading, namely, 84.45/48 of the CTA. In view of this, we are unable to accede to the claims of the appellants. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (2) TMI 354
Appeal to the Appellate Collector ... ... ... ... ..... no power to condone the delay. Shri Gopinath further states that the appellants have not attached a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which has been referred to by the appellants in the revision application and the judgment is not a reported-one and the appellants should produce a certified copy of the judgment. In reply, Shri M. Hanumantha Rao has expressed his inability to produce the certified copy of the judgment. 3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was filed before the Appellate Collector of Customs after the expiry of six months. This Tribunal has taken a constant view, in all such earlier appeals, that where there is a delay of more than six months in filing the appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs under erstwhile Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal has got no power to condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 353
Refund claim - ... ... ... ... ..... exemption, the Appellate Collector rsquo s finding that shifting of the grounds resulted in limitation coming into effect, was obviously wrong. We also take into note the statement of Shri M. Hanumantha Rao that the imported goods were used in the manufacture of guided weapon. The same statement was made before the Appellate Collector. In view of the nature of the end-product, we do not propose the appellant to produce any further documents etc. but accept the statement made before us. In this view, we allow the appeal, in so far as Magnesium Alloy Plate and Lens are concerned and these goods should be reassessed in terms of Notification No. 206/76-Cus. and consequential refund may be granted. With regard to Ramp Test Set, we agree with the submissions made by Shri Gopinath that the appellants have not, even at this stage, adduced any evidence to substantiate their claim made in this regard. We, therefore, dismiss this part of the appeal. 7. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 336
... ...
... ... ..... s paid fulfilled all the ingredients of Section 14(l)(a). These other importers had not to pay any additional consideration, direct or indirect. When such price under Section 14(l)(a) was available, the statute does not permit resort to Section 14(1) (b) and the Valuation Rules. 4. Both sides cited a lot of case law in support of their respective contentions but we find that none of it was on the point except one case of General Marketing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 344 (Tribunal) the facts of which alone are somewhat similar to the case before us. Our conclusion in that case was also the same as we have arrived in this case. 5. In the circumstances, we hold that the lower authorities were correct in assessing the imports made by the appellants at the value under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act which was ascertainable and in rejecting the lower price paid by the appellants which was not the sole consideration for the sale. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (2) TMI 335
Rectification Application ... ... ... ... ..... t of landing in India was relevant and not the price at which the transactions took place in Tokyo. The adding of freight, insurance and landing charges was held to be correct. The claim for discount was rejected by the Tribunal for the reasons already slated. The Assessment of the air-conditioners and other accessories were upheld on merits. As rightly urged by the JDR, no promissory estoppel would arise. 14. We have devoted considerable care and attention in disposing of these applications despite the fact that some similar applications have been filed earlier more in our anxiety, that it would be our duty to exercise the power of rectification to aid the enforcement of a right of public or private action. But we are constrained to observe that our repented attempts to behold errors, if any, have not met with success, and we have no other alternative but to come to the same conclusion that these applications are totally devoid of substance, and, merit nothing but rejection.
-
1987 (2) TMI 334
Valuation - Sales under long term agreement ... ... ... ... ..... nce the agreements were long term contracts, valid for 4 to 5 years, the agreed prices had to be adhered to. But it cannot follow from this that the agreed price was not the sole consideration for the sale or that the agreed price was influenced by any non-commercial relationship. There is also no evidence of any flow back of the subsequent proceeds of primary bulk turpentine to the respondents. Nor could the nominal earnest money taken by the respondents from the customer company for due performance of the contract be said to create a special relationship between the two parties. 8. In the circumstances, we find that no case had been made out by the department to justify interference with the impugned order-in-appeal. Though the respondents also raised the legal plea that the demands were hit by time bar, in view of our finding on merits in favour of them, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question of time bar. 9. In the result, we dismiss all the three appeals.
........
|
