|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 276 Records
-
1989 (3) TMI 289 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng approval from the Government and the Government shall have power to give directions to the Council as to the performance of its functions in matters, involving national security or substantial public interest and the council will be bound to give effect to the same and the Government shall have power to call for such reports, returns and other activities of the Council as may be required from time to time. Further, the Engineering Export Promotion Council is nothing more than a disbursing authority and the funds required for payment under the scheme are to be provided only by the Union of India. Therefore, the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1570 to 1575 of 1988 are clearly are agencies or instrumentalities of the Central Government and are amenable to writ jurisdiction. 30. In the result, the writ appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Costs - Rs. 2, 000/- (one set). The tank guarantee furnished, pursuant to the interim directions pending the writ appeal, will stand released.
-
1989 (3) TMI 286 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Import - Interpretation of Policy ... ... ... ... ..... he respondents to enable the petitioner to get over the demurrage charges from the Port Trust. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent will consider the same on mertis and pass orders. It is hoped that the respondent will exercise the discretion judicially and pass necessary orders on this aspect viz., grant of detention certificate. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the import of ASC under OGL is quite in accordance with the provisions of Import and Export Policy for the period April, 1985 to March, 1988 and the contrary conclusion of the respondent reached under the impugned order is not correct and therefore the same is quashed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the subject goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 023009 dated 28-4-1988/G-M No. 315/88, L.No. 379/88 dated 22-11-1988 without the payment of fine imposed in lieu of the confiscation under the impugned order. No costs.
-
1989 (3) TMI 285 - CEGAT , MADRAS
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... came to be considered by the Hon rsquo ble Karnataka High Court in a habeas corpus Writ Petition No. 135/84 wherein the Hon rsquo ble Karnataka High Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2083 Belamul v. State of Maharashtra and held that what is contained in Section 123 relates to proof, and is, therefore, a procedural matter and since procedural provisions of law can be given retrospective effect Notification 204/84 dated 20-7-1984 which brought zip fasteners within the ambit of Section 123, has retrospective effect. Admittedly, the goods viz. zip fasteners are goods which are eligible for import only against a valid import licence. The claim of the appellant that the goods under confiscation are those purchased against the invoice issued to him by M/s. Goyals Dresses has not been established by evidence as discussed above. In the circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authority and the appeal is rejected.
-
1989 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import of Hydroquinone ... ... ... ... ..... at the Customs House had taken up for review of the clearance of the previous consignment of the same goods by the same appellants before the Collector (Appeals) who had found it not a fit case to order review of the Assistant Collector rsquo s order granting clearance of the goods when it was taken up before the Collector (Appeals) and the decision of the Collector (Appeals) had not been challenged and has attained finality. In the circumstances, therefore, since the Technical literature, and the expert opinion from the Research Institute, have shown that the material is used as Electroplating salt and Brightener in the Electroplating process, and having regard to the precedent decision of the Tribunal and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, and in the light of the parameters in the Import Policy, Appendix 17, we see a lot of force in the contention of the appellants, and in this view of the matter, the impugned orders are not sustainable, and the appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Bill of Entry ... ... ... ... ..... ase was transferred by the Special Bench vide their order No. M-221/88-D dated 2-12-1988 on the ground that the issue to be decided in this case is regarding the date of filing of the B/E and once this issue is decided, the rate of duty would be automatically decided. Accordingly we do not propose to take the question of the rate of duty. The only question to be decided by us is with regard to the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry for clearance of synthetic rags covered by Invoice No. 86725 for which the Bill of Entry was presented, bearing department L. No. 04514. As per our findings as discussed above we answer that in respect of clearance of synthetic rags covered by Invoice No. 86725, the Bill of Entry was presented for the first time only on 11-3-1987 which was registered under Import Department L.No. 04514. Accordingly the date of presentation of this Bill of Entry can be taken only as 11-3-1987 and not 8-1-1987. 10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (3) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit -Packing material ... ... ... ... ..... relates to the value of the packing materials has not suffered any duty, then there will be no question of availing of any credit of duty thereon at all. This is because only if the inputs which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products have actually suffered any duty, then only the question of taking MODVAT credit thereon arises. Therefore, a harmonious construction of sub-paras (ii) and (iii) to the Explanation to Rule 57A has to be given bearing in mind the basic requirement for MODVAT credit as revealed under Rule 57A with regard to taking of credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. Thus the two sub-paras cannot be considered in isolation. In this view of the matter, therefore, we are unable to accept the contentions of the appellants and we see a lot of force in the reasoning of the lower authorities, and, accordingly, the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is confirmed, and the appeal rejected.
-
1989 (3) TMI 279 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Res adjudicata ... ... ... ... ..... at the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) does not debar the Department from adjudicating the case afresh as per law. We do not find any force in the plea urged in the memorandum of cross-objection filed by the respondents that the Collector of Central Excise in filing the appeal had already formed an adverse opinion against the respondents. The Collector of Central Excise has not gone into the merits of the issue at all and merely directed the appeal being filed against the impugned order only on the ground that the lower appellate authority should have remanded the issue for a de novo proceedings by the proper authority. We have already held that the Collector of Central Excise has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case under the law in the facts and circumstances. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the memorandum of cross-objection filed by the respondents and the same is dismissed. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (3) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Promissory estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... ch argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge. Even before us, Shri Sringarpure is unable to show any ground for denying the cash assistance, when both the benefits were promised as a package. The argument, therefore, is only to be stated to be rejected. 11. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. 12. At the time of the admission of the appeal on April 8,1982, operation of the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge was stayed on the appellants depositing in Court the entire amount of cash assistance, and the respondents were allowed to withdraw the amount on furnishing a Bank guarantee. Accordingly, the appellants had deposited the amount and the respondents had withdrawn the same. Since the respondents succeed in the appeal, the Bank guarantee given by them is hereby discharged. The Prothonotary and Senior Master will return the Bank guarantee to the respondents duly discharged. The Prothohotary to act on the certified copy of the minutes.
-
1989 (3) TMI 267 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... xcise Rules, 1944. It is stated that the inter leaving kraft paper is used during the coiling and uncoiling process of the stainless steel sheets as a protection against scratches. It is also seen that these papers are used and reused. Therefore, judging from the function of the material, they are more in the nature of the equipment or appliance used in the manufacture of the finished product i.e. stainless steel sheets, to prevent scratches or absorption of oil in the coiling process, and, as such, in terms of the explanation to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, such materials excluded from the purview of the term lsquo input rsquo , and in such a view of the matter, the material cannot be considered as an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product. In the circumstances, therefore, there is a lot offered in the contention put forth in the appeal by the Collector and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (3) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... prison, is not on par with the Public Prosecutor. 3. emsp It is further to be observed that now there is a well organised Legal Aid Service here and it is open to the accused to send appeal directly to the High Court with a copy to the Legal Aid Service which would do all the needful to protect the interest of the accused/appellant/petitioner. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condonation of delay is a matter of right in the case of an accused. 4. emsp It is also to be noted that as per Part II of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1958, the records consisting inter alia of the oral evidence would be destroyed after three years. Now, more than three years have elapsed and without the oral evidence it would not be possible to appreciate the case of the appellant in the proper way. This is also another reason for rejecting the petition of the accused. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
-
1989 (3) TMI 265 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... hs, he would be able to take advantage of this notification for both types of goods up to 15 lakhs of value of each. If he makes, goods, lsquo A rsquo lsquo B rsquo and lsquo C rsquo the exemption will be available up to Rs. 15/- lakhs for any one of the three products and the reminder of Rs. 15 lakhs, will be available for the other goods in any combination. The language of the Notification cannot give rise to the presumption that where in the case of any one product the limit set for that product is exceeded, duty is payable on the other goods, where the limit not yet been reached. From the above discussion of the scope of the Notification clause (a), and the departmental clarification referred to above, it is evident that the claim of the appellants herein that no duty was payable by them in the facts of the present case is sustainable, and in such a view of the matter, the impugned order is not maintainable, and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1989 (3) TMI 264 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Goods returned to factory ... ... ... ... ..... re the jurisdictional Superintendent concerned amounts to filing an application before the Assistant Collector. Since this was admittedly done within normal period of limitation prescribed by Section 11B, therefore, the application should have been considered as within time and should have been scrutinised with reference to Rule 173L on merits in the light of the ratio of Shri Ambika Khandsari case cited above 1985 (21) E.L.T. 281 (Tribunal) . 32. ensp Even otherwise, as already held in a number of cases by us (in the light of judgments of various High Courts and the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court a citizen should not be deprived of his substantive right merely because of some minor procedural infraction if the claim was otherwise due on merits. 33. ensp In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the authorities below but nothing that the claim has not been examined on merits, remand the same for considering it on merits and passing of appropriate orders accordingly.
-
1989 (3) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pplicable in this case. 20. emsp Order per V.P. Gulati, Member (T) . - This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue involved in this appeal is similar to the issues involved in Appeal No. 1510/87-A and the facts in this case are the same as are set out in the order recorded in that case. As mentioned in our order in that case, the common arguments were advanced in respect of three cases in Appeal Nos. 1510/87-A, 505/85-A and 502/85-A and the detailed arguments by the learned advocate and our findings in regard to the issues involved are set out in the order recorded in Appeal No. 1510/87-A in the case of M/s. Ganesh Tobacco Co. Our findings in that case are equally applicable in this case and we allow the appeal of the Revenue, in the terms set out in that case. Dharmada and forwarding charges are not an issue in this appeal and our findings in regard to this in A. No. 1510/87-A will not be applicable in this case.
-
1989 (3) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT credit - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... respect of the same Notification No. 208/83. The Assistant Collector rsquo s order referred to and relied upon is earlier to the present order and does not contain any discussion on the lines stated above relating to the consideration of a conditional exemption Notification and the grant of deemed credit. In the result, we hold that the deemed credit on scrap of Copper and Scrap of Aluminum has rightly been denied as they are totally exempt unconditionally under Notification No. 172/84 and Notification No. 182/84, and as such can be rightly held to be clearly recognisable as non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty. As regards the deemed credit of unwrought copper, the appellants herein are clearly entitled to deemed credit as the exemption Notification No. 149/86 is a conditional one and the Department has not shown as to whether the conditions for the full exemption had been satisfied in respect of this material. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... he provisions of Rule 57H. The further contention of the appellants that the demand is time-barred is not borne out by the material on record as the Show Cause Notice is seen to have been sent by Registered Post to the appellants within six months, and the demand for duty is being made under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11-A invoking the longer period on the ground of suppression, and the fact remains that the appellants had availed of deemed credit for the period prior to the date of declaration, on their own, which was only found out by the officers of the Department on the visit and scrutiny of the records. We are, however, in agreement with the appellants in their plea that, in any case, the penalty on the appellants on this score is not warranted, as the records do not reveal any mala fides on their part. The personal penalty on the appellants is, therefore, set aside. The order of the Collector is modified only to the extent indicated above, and, it is, otherwise, upheld
-
1989 (3) TMI 260 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... he wording of the Government statutory direction extracted above would appear to have retrospective effect in operation, it should be construed in such a way as to cover only cases where parties had not availed of Modvat credit at the relevant time. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned D.R. because the wording of the statutory direction is clear and categorical and is operative retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1987 in respect of the inputs in question. We would also like to add in this context that this statutory direction itself was withdrawn with effect from 2-11-1987 and if the contention of the learned D.R. were to be accepted it would almost render the very statutory direction otiose and purposeless. Therefore, on consideration of the entire records we hold that the deemed credit availed of by the appellant is in order by reason of the statutory direction cited supra. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1989 (3) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Letter of credit ... ... ... ... ..... nternational, I set aside the redemption fine of Rs. 7,75,000/- and 3,75,000/- and in the case of Shri Vinod Bansal I set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-. The penalty imposed on M/s. Silibans International of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- is also set aside. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. The above appeals are allowed. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. 10. Per P.C. Jain, Member CD . - Since it is admitted to both the sides that the facts in this case are on all fours with the facts of the case of Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi 1988(16) ECR 67 and the learned SDR for the department has adopted the same arguments which had been advanced by the learned D.R. in the aforesaid case. No new points arise for consideration in these appeals. Following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Gulab Impex Enterprises to which I was a party, I allow the appeals.
-
1989 (3) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s prepared by my learned Brothers. After reading and re-reading the judgments so prepared, I fully agree with my learned Brother Shri I.J. Rao, Member (Technical) that the judgments rendered by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Bombay in the case of Insulations and Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (35) E.L.T. 45 (A.P.) and Sheet Thermoplastics Ltd. v. UOI, 1988 (36) E.L.T. 106 (Bom.) respectively and which are based on the test laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Multiple Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 1987 (29) E.L.T. 481, apply on all fours to the instant case and no exception, as observed by my learned Brother Shri P.C. Jain, Member (Technical), could be taken. 31. In the result I agree with my learned Brother Shri I.J. Rao, Member (Technical) in toto and dismiss the appeals with consequential relief to the respondents, if any. In accordance with the majority opinion, we dismiss these two appeals.
-
1989 (3) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Auxiliary duty of excise paid in excess ... ... ... ... ..... e moment it had been enacted and governed all proceedings instituted thereafter. There has been no change in the law of limitation during the period material to the instant case. The relevance of this decision to the present case is not clear and, in our view, it is not relevant. 13. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the two refund claims filed by the appellants were not barred by limitation. However, the claim in respect of payments made prior to 19-4-1974 is not saved from limitation. In consequence, the orders of lower authorities are set aside to this extent and the matter goes back to the Assistant Collector who shall dispose of the claims on their merits. For this purpose, he shall take the appellants rsquo letter dated 19-4-1974 to the Assistant Collector, Baroda as the date of making the claim. 14. In the view we have taken above, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the other authorities cited before us by the learned Consultant for the appellants.
-
1989 (3) TMI 239 - ERNAKULAM HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ount due as per Ext. P-1 on the allegation that Ext. P-5 is only an order waiving the deposit and not an order staying recovery of the balance amount due as per Ext. P-1. 4. I considered a similar matter, O.P. No. 1039 of 1989 wherein I held that waiver of deposit does not tantamount to stay of collection of the duty payable. However and having regard to the fact that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that it also operates as stay, I granted two months time to the assessee concerned in that case to apply to the Tribunal for stay and meanwhile stayed the collection of the amount demanded. The same procedure has to be followed in this case as well. 5. Accordingly I dispose of the original petition with a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall not enforce the order Ext. P-1 for a period of two months from today within which the petitioner may move the first respondent Tribunal for appropriate orders for stay of Ext. P-1. The original petition is disposed of as above.
........
|
