|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 291 Records
-
1987 (8) TMI 305 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Amalgamation of two firms ... ... ... ... ..... questioned as to whether M/s. Kamat and Co. were specifically authorised to represent the STC before the Asstt. Collector in this matter. Shri Dhurve admitted that no such specific authorisation was granted but he reiterated that they were representing the STC in all their matters. Thus, it is clear that when Kamat and Co. addressed their letter dated 27.8.82 by which they amended the ground as well as the amount of refund, they were representing a non-existing firm and not STC. The authorisation given by State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals to M/s. Kamat and Co. came to an end when the amalgamation took place. Thus, throughout the proceedings the STC did not evince any interest. In the circumstances I will not be justified in giving another opportunity to the STC to go before the Collector (Appeals) and to reagitate the matter on the ground that they became successor in interest of the State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India. I, therefore, reject this appeal.
-
1987 (8) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 975 as claimed by the respondents herein or under Heading 29.01/45 as claimed by the department. 3. Learned SDR appearing for the appellant-Collector has fairly conceded that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the Tribunal rsquo s order No. 548-555/84-C, dated 21st August, 1984. Learned SDR has reiterated the various grounds set out in the appeal memoranda filed by the appellant-Collector. The learned Representatives of the respondents have, however, reiterated the various grounds dealt with in the Tribunal rsquo s order in their favour. 4. We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal set out in the appeal memoranda. We feel that all the grounds taken by the appellant-Collector have been exhaustively dealt with in the Tribunal rsquo s order mentioned supra. No new ground has been taken in the appeal memoranda filed by the Collector. We respectfully concur with the findings of the Bench in the said order. Accordingly, all the appeals are rejected.
-
1987 (8) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electric Machinery and equipment ... ... ... ... ..... to explain the contents to prove his claim. 6. We feel that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was not correct in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the appellants did not submit the documents. The appellants rsquo letter dated 30th August,1986 shows otherwise. The Asstt. Collector was consequently wrong in holding that the imported goods were ldquo spares rdquo as these were claimed to be parts of Telephone Exchange in CKD/SKD condition. We do not find it practicable to go into the documents at this level. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector with the direction that he should give a fresh opportunity to the appellants to prove that the imported goods are a Telephone Exchange in CKD/SKD condition. He should then pass an order on the request of the appellants for re-classification of the goods under Heading 85.13 read with Notification and for consequential refund. 8. The appeal is, thus, allowed by remand.
-
1987 (8) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... iated Cement Companies Ltd. does not rely on any fact of fixation of a maximum price under the Cement Control Order. What the judgment relies upon is that under the Cement Control Order, the purchaser was bound stalutorily to return the gunny bags to the manufacturer either directly or through the latter lsquo collection agent rsquo and get a refund of the cost of gunny bags fixed by the said Cement Control Order. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal, relying on judgments of three High Courts, namely of Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka that this statutory binding between the parties must be treated as an arrangement between the seller and the buyer for return of the gunny bags thereby rendering them as returnable in terms of clause 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act. We are in agreement with the learned Advocate for the respondents company that following judgment of the Tribunal in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 746 the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (8) TMI 291 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import - Zip fasteners and snap fasteners ... ... ... ... ..... dani further contended that on proper interpretation of Note (3) in Column (5) against Entry-0 in Appendix 17, it must be held that the holder of the licence is entitled to import snap fasteners and zip fasteners taken together for the value not exceeding 5 of the value of the licence. 6. We are unable to accept this submission made on behalf of the appellants. We find that the wording of Note (3) read with items mentioned separately in Column (4) of Appendix 17 against Entry-0 makes it clear that snap fasteners and zip fasteners are treated as separate items and on the plain reading of Note (3) it is clear that the licence holder is entitled to import snap fasteners and zip fasteners each upto 5 of the value of the licence. In view of this, we find nothing incorrect in the interpretation put by the learned single judge on the relevant entry and the relevant note. 7. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 288 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import on Actual User’s licence ... ... ... ... ..... ot be termed or characterised as an ldquo intermediate processing rdquo contemplated in the definition of the expression ldquo Actual User rdquo . In the circumstances, there is no scope to draw any sustenance from the decisions of the Tribunal referred to above. 12. emsp Though the import of consumable tools satisfies the first condition of the definition of the lsquo Actual User rsquo , namely, that they were required for their own use and not for business or trade viz. it, however, does not satisfy the second condition viz. the entrustment of the imported tools to jobbing units was for ldquo intermediate processing rdquo . The Collector of Customs (Appeals) was wrong in holding that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Order Nos. 718-719/85-C dated 24-10-1985 was applicable to the facts of the appeals before him. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and allow all these appeals and restore the orders passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 287 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - Components of T.V. ... ... ... ... ..... for the purpose of Import Policy, consumer goods will mean consumer goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing, it would include consumer durable also. Components imported by the appellants at Kandla would not directly satisfy human needs. Further processing would be required to make complete T.V. sets. Therefore, it cannot be even said that the components imported are consumer goods. 17. On careful consideration of all the aspects, we hold that the Collector was not correct and was unjustified in ordering confiscation of the goods sought to be cleared under bill of entry No. F. 3183 dated 30.10.1986. We, therefore, while allowing this appeal, set aside the order of confiscation as well as the penalty. Since we have set aside the order of confiscation there will be no scope to levy fine in lieu of confiscation. The goods shall be released to the appellant, if not already released. The penalty and fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.
-
1987 (8) TMI 282 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Small Scale Industry Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... during the instant period (i.e. first week of April) of the next financial year that the appellants had intended for continuing MODVAT for the entire financial year denying the above exemption, and confirming the demand and also imposing penalty of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred fifty only) is set aside. 8. I also seem it a duty to express my feeling, that such procedural matters could be easily sorted if necessary with approval of Collector, and so much time and energy as is being spent in appellate procedure, which is counter productive could be avoided. It is true a huge amount of Rs. 2,89,697.27 is confirmed by issuing an adjudication order, but what will be the use of it, if it remains in paper, or has only to be refunded. The proper thing would be to energetically provide guidance to the industries so that procedural lapses are avoided specially when new schemes are launched by Govt., so that they are encouraged to have respect for law rather than make mistakes in panic.
-
1987 (8) TMI 281 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal papers returnable to appellants for pursuing remedy open ... ... ... ... ..... ial authority to another. But this Tribunal would have no such power, in the absence of conferment of such a power either under the statute under which it has been brought into existence or the rules framed thereunder. 27. In the circumstances I hold, agreeing with the M(T), that the papers in these two appeals are to be returned to the appellants for enabling them to pursue their remedies thereafter in the manner open to them. FINAL ORDER 28. The difference of opinion between the two Members of this Bench was referred by the President to Third Member Shri V.T. Raghavachari (Member (J)) who has since recorded his findings. The appeals are required to be disposed of in terms of Section 35-D of the Central Excises . and Salt Act read with Section 129-C of the Customs Act on the basis of majority view. In majority view the appeals of M/s. Rallis Machines Ltd. are not competent and they are required to be returned to appellants for pursuing their own remedy. We order accordingly.
-
1987 (8) TMI 276 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Interpretation as to correct meaning and effect of Letter of Credit is a question of law ... ... ... ... ..... t (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the L/C dated 25-11-1980 is a confirmed irrevocable Letter of Credit for US 3,78,300/- issued by the Corporation Bank in favour of M/s. Interspan Pte. Ltd., Singapore, (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was firm commitment prior to 1-4-1981 by opening an irrevocable letter of credit to cover the goods ordered to be confiscated, (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the additional licences of which the applicants are the Letter of Authority holders are valid to cover the goods the shipment of which were effected after the coming into force of the Policy A.M. 1982, (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the imports effected are governed by the policy year 1980-81 or by the policy year 1981-82. 39. Accordingly, we allow the Reference Applications and refer the aforesaid questions of law to the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court for opinion.
-
1987 (8) TMI 275 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... s issues, I agree with the order passed by the learned Member (Judicial). Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Member (Technical) Bombay, 31-7-1987. FINAL ORDER 32. The point of difference between the two Members of this Bench was referred by the President in terms of Section 129C of the Customs Act to the third Member Shri P.C. Jain who has since recorded his finding. The appeal is required to be disposed of on the basis of majority view in terms of Section 129C. In the majority view, the Additional Collector rsquo s order of absolute confiscation of 12 gold bangles and levy of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellant Smt. Uma Balasaraswathi is set aside and her appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector for consideration afresh as to whether the appellant, her 2 daughters and mother-in-law are entitled to the benefit of Rule 6 of the Baggage Rules. Sd/- (K.S. Dilipsinhji) Member (Technical) Sd/- (K. Gopal Hegde) Member (Judicial) Bombay Dated the 3rd August, 1987
-
1987 (8) TMI 270 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appellate Tribunal not empower to review ... ... ... ... ..... e condition of pre-deposit under Section 129-E. Such order of dismissal disposed of the appeal finally so far as this Tribunal is concerned. Restoring such an appeal would amount to review of the earlier order of dismissal of the applicant by the West Regional Bench. Since the Tribunal has no such power to reviewing its earlier final order, I hold that the application for restoration of the appeal has no merit. I, therefore, dismiss the application. 22. The matter should now be placed before West Regional Bench for passing the final order on the application. Sd/- (K.L. Rekhi) Member (Technical) Bombay, 24-8-1987 FINAL ORDER In the view of the majority of the Members who heard this application, this application is required to be rejected and accordingly, we reject the same. Sd/- emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp Sd/- (K. Gopal Hegde)(K.L. Rekhi) Member (Judicial)Member (Technical) Bombay, 26th August, 1987.
-
1987 (8) TMI 269 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay of cancellation of gold dealer’s licence ... ... ... ... ..... uld cause irreparable injury to him. I, therefore, agree with the view taken by the learned Member (J) of the West Regional Bench. Accordingly, I allow the application. At the same time, I would suggest to the West Regional Bench that in order to be rair to both sides, the appeal pending before the Tribunal itself should be heard and disposed of at all very early date. The matter should now be placed before the West Regional bench for recording the final order. Bombay, 24-8-1987 Sd/- (K.L. Rekhi) Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER 23. In the opinion of the majority of the Members who heard this application, the application is required to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow this application and stay the operation of the order passed by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) pending disposal of the appeal G/158/87-Bom. Sd/- emsp emsp emsp Sd/- (K. Gopal Hegde) ensp emsp emsp (K.L. Rekhi) Member (Judicial) ensp ensp Member (Technical) Bombay, 26th August, 1987.
-
1987 (8) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation of gold for non-accountal ... ... ... ... ..... imposed on appellant, Thiagarajan is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. At this stage the learned D.R. pleaded that the appeal may be remanded for reconsideration of the issue by the adjudicating authority after conforming to the statutory requirements. I am afraid, that recourse to such a course would be neither expedient nor conducive in the interest of justice, because the ornaments were seized on 16-5-1985 and more than two years have already elapsed. In the context of my finding that no Show Cause Notice was issued as per law to appellant, Lakshmanan, even if the matter is remanded the authorities would not be legally justified in retaining the ornaments if that had not been redeemed by the appellant and in the present case I am told the ornaments have already been released to appellant, Lakshmanan. Therefore, the remand would serve no purpose in the context of the present case. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 261 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal ... ... ... ... ..... a stay application before the Tribunal and accordingly appellant Babulal A. Gandhi made a stay application which was rejected by the Tribunal on 2.1.1985. We have perused our Order dated 2.1.1985. We had observed in that order that question of pre-Deposit does not arise in the appeal. Since the applicant did not prosecute the application, the same was rejected. Our observation regarding pre-deposit has relation to the revision application filed before the Central Government which stood transferred to the Tribunal. Under the Customs Act, as it then stood, the revision application was not required to make deposit of duty or penalty before the Central Government. It was the revision application that had been transferred to lsquo the Tribunal (though they have to be heard as appeals) and, therefore, we made an observation that question of pre-deposit would not arise in the proceedings. The above observation has nothing to do with the merits of the appeals filed by the appellants.
-
1987 (8) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty on owner of vessel used in smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... ecord, I respectfully agree with the view and the reasons of the learned Member (J) advanced in support thereof. Sd/- (P. C. Jain) Member (T) 21. FINAL ORDER . - The point of difference between the two Members of this Bench was referred by the President in terms of Section 129-C of the Customs Act to the third Member Shri P.C. Jain who has since recorded his finding. In terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Section, the appeal is required to be disposed of on the basis of the majority opinion. In majority opinion, the appeal of Shri Mansuk C. Bhatt is allowed, but the matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Goa for fresh consideration of the liability of the appellant to personal penalty in the light of the observations contained in the Tribunal rsquo s order. Both the sides are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence before the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise Goa. Sd/- K. Gopal Hegde Member (J) Sd/- K.S. Dilipsinhji Member (T)
-
1987 (8) TMI 255 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... d extracted the reply of the present appellant to the show cause notice issued to him. The contention now urged before us, namely, there was an order for clearance by the proper officer and, therefore, fresh show cause notice cannot be issued by the collector was not taken as one of the grounds. The Addl. Collector rsquo s order also does not indicate such a contention having been taken before him even during the personal hearing. In the circumstances, we are not required to consider that new ground which Shri Jagat had urged in support of his contention that the Addl. Collector rsquo s order is without jurisdiction. However, we may add that under Section 130 of the Customs Act, as it stood at the material time, the Collector/Addl. Collector did have the power to review the orders passed by his subordinate officers. 7. Having regard to our finding that the order of the Board does not suffer from any infirmity, we see no merit in this appeal and accordingly we reject the same.
-
1987 (8) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of duty for retrospective levy ... ... ... ... ..... nto play. The date on which duty in terms of the notification had to be paid must relate back to the date or dates of payment of the duty on clearances during the period material to the present case. Otherwise, the levy will be only prospective from 23-2-1982, not retrospective as enjoined by Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982. 8. The material period during which clearances were made on payment at the admittedly prevalent rates was April 1981 - March 1982. The show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was dated 9-8-1982 issued on 10-8-1982. The notice will, thus, be enforceable only for the differential duty in respect of the period of six months preceding the date of the show cause notice. The demand for the remaining period is barred by limitation and is set aside. The actual quantification has to be done by the Assistant Collector. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above, with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (8) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... y and such a course would not warrant the setting aside of the order passed by the original authority. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and remit the appeals to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who, in our opinion, is the authority competent to decide the matters arising under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 as well for disposal according to law. In doing so we bear in mind the fact that if two different appellate authorities were to decide an identical issue arising under the provisions of the two different enactments namely, viz. one under the Customs Act, 1962 and the other under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, it is likely to lead to conflicting decision and, therefore, in the interests of justice it is but proper that the transaction which would make for an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is decided by the same authority, to avert a possible judicial conflict.
-
1987 (8) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty - Contraband gold ... ... ... ... ..... conducted in this regard. If, as I have observed earlier, the Department had chosen to file an appeal seeking enhancement of the quantum of penalty in respect of the contravention under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, that would have been more appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and so far as the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act are concerned, the contravention is only in relation to a person being found in possession of primary gold in contravention of Section 8(1) of the Act. The question that the primary gold was of foreign origin is not of any relevance so far as the charge under Section 8(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is concerned. In this view of the matter, I do not find any justification for enhancement of the quantum of penalty imposed on respondent (Gurunath) under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. In the result the appeal of the Department (G/A. No. 190/87) is dismissed. 8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
........
|
