|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 233 Records
-
1987 (6) TMI 316
Stopper heads ... ... ... ... ..... ince the goods imported were not refractory bricks, blocks, tiles or similar refractory constructional goods but were stopper heads, we hold that the assessment had been properly done under Heading 69.03 CTA. 5. ensp The appellant rsquo s claim that Notification No. 242/76 dated 2-8-1976 would apply to the goods in question which they say have special shape, namely, block. This claim is not tenable for two reasons firstly, the notification in question is in respect of refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnaces falling under heading 69.01/02. The present goods do not fall under heading 69.01/02. Secondly, the concession is admissible only to bricks and not to any other goods. It is significant to note that the heading No. 69.01/02 uses both the words bricks and blocks. They are, therefore, not evidently considered to be synonymous. 6. In the result, the orders of the lower authorities are upheld and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 315
Stopper heads ... ... ... ... ..... ince the goods imported were not refractory bricks, blocks, tiles or similar refractory constructional goods but were stopper heads, we hold that the assessment had been properly done under Heading 69.03 CTA. 5. ensp The appellant rsquo s claim that Notification No. 242/76 dated 2-8-1976 would apply to the goods in question which they say have special shape, namely, block. This claim is not tenable for two reasons firstly, the notification in question is in respect of refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnaces falling under heading 69.01/02. The present goods do not fall under heading 69.01/02. Secondly, the concession is admissible only to bricks and not to any other goods. It is significant to note that the heading No. 69.01/02 uses both the words bricks and blocks. They are, therefore, not evidently considered to be synonymous. 6. In the result, the orders of the lower authorities are upheld and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 314
Stopper heads ... ... ... ... ..... ince the goods imported were not refractory bricks, blocks, tiles or similar refractory constructional goods but were stopper heads, we hold that the assessment had been properly done under Heading 69.03 CTA. 5. ensp The appellant rsquo s claim that Notification No. 242/76 dated 2-8-1976 would apply to the goods in question which they say have special shape, namely, block. This claim is not tenable for two reasons firstly, the notification in question is in respect of refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnaces falling under heading 69.01/02. The present goods do not fall under heading 69.01/02. Secondly, the concession is admissible only to bricks and not to any other goods. It is significant to note that the heading No. 69.01/02 uses both the words bricks and blocks. They are, therefore, not evidently considered to be synonymous. 6. In the result, the orders of the lower authorities are upheld and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 313
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ing carbon) and chemically defined compounds and not articles made of them, as in the present case. 7. emsp Note 2(b) to Section XVI relied on by Shri Kapoor is, we note, subject, inter alia, to Note 1 to Chapter 84. And, Note 1 to Chapter 84 has been fully considered in the Five-Member Bench decision and it has been held that machinery parts made of carbon would be ldquo other articles falling within Chapter 68 as set out in the said Note 1(a) to Chapter 84. 8. emsp It is also observed, as Shri Sachar, D.R., pointed out, that it has been earlier held by this Tribunal in Order No. 279/84-D, dated 26-5-1984 in Appeal No. C-998/79-C of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Udaipur, that graphite blocks imported for fitment as spares in heat exchangers were covered by Heading 68.01/16 and not Heading 84.17. 9. emsp In the light of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the goods have been correctly classified under Heading 68.01/16. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 300
Appeal under Custom’s ... ... ... ... ..... ot communicate to the appellants about the same, the appellants themselves are to face the consequences thereof as they made themselves responsible for all the acts of the agents in this regard. The communication of the order-in-original to M/s. Sheikh and Pandit was, therefore, sufficient communication of the order-in-original to the appellants in view of the provision of Section 147 of Customs Act, 1962 and their specific letter of authority dated 25-10-1979 as quoted (supra). In view of the above, as the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was not filed within the statutory period of three months from the date of communication of order-in-original, the action of the Collector (Appeals) in rejecting the appeal as time-barred was according to the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. There is, therefore, no justification to interfere with the impugned order of Collector of Customs (Appeals). In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 299
... ...
... ... ..... pers, had nothing to say and leaves decision to the Bench. 4. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. The refusal to extend the notification was on the ground that no evidence was advanced to prove that the on ported goods were given a special shape for use in the radar. However, on perusal of the invoice, we find that the description given herein is ldquo Radar Spares rdquo . The invoice was issued to High Commissioner of India in London. We also take note that Director (Radar) had granted the certificate, copy of which is on our file. We also note Shri Chatterji averment that the imported goods were actually used in the radar. In view of all the circumstances, we hold that this is a fit case in which a lenient view should be taken and the concession extended to the imported goods. In this view, we allow the appeal, order the extension of the concession of Notification No. 284/76-Cus. to the imported goods and further order consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (6) TMI 298
Ocean-going vessels ... ... ... ... ..... Of course, even in the course of topping up operations during the fair season, it is necessary for the transhippers to go into the open sea to reach the bulk carriers. But, these operations do not make these vessels, lsquo ocean-going vessels rsquo , when their primary purpose and the purpose for which they were permitted to be purchased and brought to Indian territorial waters and not to serve as ocean-going vessels. Therefore, it is dear from the materials that both the vessels were ordinarily ocean-going vessels, but were converted as transhippers for the purpose of topping up iron ore from Yokohama in Japan and Bremen in Germany respectively to reach Marmugao. Therefore, they cannot be treated as lsquo ocean-going vessels rsquo . Since the items concerned in this case are merely Pontoons applying the ratio of the Supreme Court it is clear that they cannot be considered as lsquo ocean-going vessels rsquo . With these observations I agree that the Appeal should be allowed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 297
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... ns rdquo as envisaged in Section 35B(2), the requirement of an authorisation of the Deputy Collector by the Collector to file an appeal to the Tribunal has clearly not been met. There was no such authorisation. The Deputy Collector, or for that matter, any Central Excise officer cannot purport to act on the Collector rsquo s behalf unless authorised by the Collector. The purported appeal then was one filed without authority and is incompetent. This defect is not a mere procedural lapse which could be rectified by an authorisation issued to the Deputy Collector much later in point of time because the authorisation has to precede, or, at least, be contemporaneous with, the filing of the appeal. Lack of such authorisation amounts to failure to comply with the statutory requirement. In our opinion, the defect cannot be cured by the subsequent authorisation by a successor Collector after a long lapse of time. 8. We would therefore, dismiss the purported appeal as not maintainable.
-
1987 (6) TMI 296
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d C-2823/86-B2, there is a classification dispute regarding countervailing duty also. The department charged the countervailing duty with reference to Item No. 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff which, inter alia, covered ldquo shapes and sections rdquo of aluminium. The appellants pleaded that the goods as imported could not be considered as shapes and sections. However, they very fairly stated that the earlier Tribunal rsquo s order on this point 1987 (28) E.L.T. 134 was against them and that they had nothing further to say. By the process of die-forgings, the imported goods had definitely been shaped into a particular form, though a rough one as yet. We agree with the earlier Tribunal rsquo s order that the countervailing duty was correctly charged on the imported forgings. 10. In the result the 10 appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants so far as only the basic customs duty is concerned. On the point of countervailing duty the appeals are rejected.
-
1987 (6) TMI 295
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... . We find that the Supdt. who had received to rectify various defects pointed out by him in their refund claim and that this correspondence went on till 1980 and it is thereafter that the refund claim was sent to the Assistant Collector on 29-1-1980. This course of conduct of the Supdt. would itself establish that there was a practice that the refund claim though addressed to the Assistant Collector was required to be presented to the Supdt. who was to scrutinise the claims and thereafter submit the same to the Assistant Collector evidently with his remarks etc. We therefore hold that the claim must be held to have been presented to the Assistant Collector on 4-1-1978 when it was handed over to the Supdt. who must have received it on behalf of the Assistant Collector. If so the entire claim was within time under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. 6. We accordingly allow, this appeal, set aside the order of the lower authorities and direct refund to be granted as prayed for.
-
1987 (6) TMI 294
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... liance with the Chapter X Procedure in entirety, therefore, does not vitiate the appellants rsquo claim . 6. On the basis of the aforesaid authorities we do not find anything wrong with the impugned order of the lower appellate authority which has allowed the appeal of the respondents before it subject to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Assistant Collector that inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods had paid duty under Tariff Item 68 and such inputs were actually used. There is no allegation in the memorandum of appeal that the inputs in the instant case are not duty paid or that they were not utilised in the manufacture of the finished excisable goods, namely P or P medicine. Only certain procedural deviations have been taken as grounds of denying the benefit of Notification 178/77 or 201/79. These procedural deviations made by the respondents herein should not debar them for availing the benefit of the said notifications. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 293
Appeal to Collector ... ... ... ... ..... and Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 367. The appellant had despatched the appeal before the expiry of limitation on 28-8-1985 and as such it should be deemed that the appeal was filed by the appellant in time. Keeping in view the fact that the residence of the appellant is at Ahmedabad which is within the jurisdiction of the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court. Accordingly we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay with a direction that he should grant personal hearing to the appellants and decide the matter in accordance with law. We further direct that while deciding the appeals, the Ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals) with duly take into consideration the factum of taking over of the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile firm by the company M/s. Starvox Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. Accordingly we dispose of the miscellaneous applications filed by the appellant in these terms. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
1987 (6) TMI 292
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... peal should be numbered. As the fresh appeal has been filed at the instance of the Tribunal (since the earlier appeal was defective), we have condoned the delay in filing the fresh, properly signed appeal. As regards the question of out of turn hearing of the fresh appeal, the learned representative of the department left the matter to the Bench rsquo s discretion. Considering all circumstances, we allow the request for early hearing and order that the fresh appeal should be listed for hearing on 10-8-1987.
-
1987 (6) TMI 291
Valuation of Cotton Fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... only to be rejected in the light of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in U.O.I. and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and Ors., 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) 1983 ECR 1627-D. 7. The last contention of the appellant is that after omission of Central Excise Rule 10 with effect from 17-11-1980, proceedings initiated under the said rule could not have been continued. In the case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331, a Five Member Bench of this Tribunal, after considering several judgments including that of the Allahabad High Court in Ajanta Paper Printing v. C.C.E. Kanpur, 1982 E.L.T. 201 relied upon by the appellants, has held that proceedings initiated with reference to a rule or provision validly subsisting at the time of initiation of the proceedings can continue in spite of repeal or substitution of the original provision. The appellant rsquo s argument is, therefore, of no avail. 8. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 290
manufacture of blades/knives for leather industries ... ... ... ... ..... ead us to the conclusion that the imported goods were far away from the stage of knives and blades for industrial goods. We cannot accept as evidence the contentions made by the Appellants before the Collector (Appeals) as evidence that the imported goods acquired the characteristics of the final product. That these contentions were not specifically rejected by the Collector (Appeals) does not help the case of the Appellants as the Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal and it must be assumed that he did not accept the contentions of the Appellants. 7. The judgment of the Tri. in BHEL V. Collector of Customs -1987 (28) E.L.T. 545 (Tri.) (Supra) does not, in these circumstances, help the Appellants. In view of our observations above, the principles laid down therein cannot be held to be applicable in this case. Consequently there is no question of applying interpretative Rule 2(a) for the purpose of classification of the goods in question. As a result, we dismiss this Appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 289
Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to see no words are too strong to condemn the deception. 6. In the revision application the appellant tries again but this time he says that the memory circuit card is the same as mentioned in the export certificate, although in the appeal to the Appellate Collector, he clearly admitted that the memory circuit card imported was not the same as the one he exported. But this will not wash to accept this new story will lead to accepting anything. 7. The learned counsel argued that the card should have been assessed as part of the printing machinery. But the learned JDR, Mr. Saha, was correct when he opposed this on the ground that the memory card came not as a part of a machinery but only as a memory card. It may be used in the machinery, but when it arrived in India, it was nothing but a memory circuit card, and its assessment as a machinery part would not be correct. The learned JDR is correct, and the card has received an appropriate classification. 8. The appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (6) TMI 288
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... weaters a day when acrylic yarn is used. A perusal of the catalogue shows that the knitting machine in question is capable of turning out a variety of designs, some of them of particularly complicated and sophisticated nature. The operation of this machine is by hand. It works with the help of punch cards. It does appear, from the evidence produced by the appellants, that industrial use is being made of it. We may observe that even with its existent features, this machine can be used for domestic use but in our opinion in features and capacities this machine cannot be classified as a domestic machine. Its price is much more than of the knitting machine considered in the Tribunal order in C.C., Bombay v. Simac Group India (Supra). 1985 (22) E.L.T. 115 (Tri.). 12. In the circumstances, we hold that the knitting Machine in question (Model KH 840) cannot be considered to be a domestic machine only. We therefore allow the appeal and order classification thereof under 84.37(1) CTA.
-
1987 (6) TMI 287
Test/Signal equipment ... ... ... ... ..... irborne) equipment. They elaborated it by saying that it was a signal equipment used in connection with the Radar. As such, it is covered by Serial Number 5(i) of the Exemption Notification No. 206/76-Customs, dated 2-8-1976. The learned representative of the department did not, in view of the certificate produced and the explanation given, oppose the claim. 2. On careful consideration, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (6) TMI 286
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ifiable under Heading 84.63. 5. We have considered the arguments of both sides. In reply to our question, it was explained by Shri Gopinath that the part number given may not pertain to the imported goods but to the clutch or so-called component parts thereof. The appellants have been claiming that the imported goods comprised magnetic powder. The Instruction Manual shown by the appellants clearly indicates that the magnetic medium is the magnetic metal powder. A magnetic powder has necessarily to be of iron only. 6. In this view we see that the heading 73.03/05 specifically covers ldquo iron or steel powder rdquo . Heading 73.33/40 covers ldquo other articles of iron or steel not elsewhere specified rdquo . We further observe that since the goods are described as magnetic medium they cannot be considered as a component part. In view of the specific description contained in Heading 73.03/05 we hold that this heading covers the imported goods. We, therefore, allow this appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 285
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... learned Counsel for the Department, however, said that Heading 84.56 cannot cover these goods because, for one thing, the steel balls have come separately. In the same Chapter 84, Note 4 refers to Heading 84.62 which covers, amongst other things, polished steel balls. A reference to this heading shows that it covers ball roller or ned-die roller bearings. The same Note 4, continued the learned JDR, provides that other steel balls are to be classified under Heading 73.33/40. And the learned JDR is correct. 3. There cannot be any serious doubt that the steel balls are meant for the coal crushing machinery of the Electricity Board. Unfortunately, they have come as steel balls and their assessment as part of the machinery is not a serious proposition when in that capacity, they have a heading which has been made more specific for them by the note i.e. Note 4 of Chapter 84. 4. There is not much reason for interfering with the assessment already made and so the appeal is rejected.
........
|
