|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 276 Records
-
1989 (3) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Duty short paid or short levied ... ... ... ... ..... is no question of imposition of penalty. At best it could be a case of bonafide misunderstanding on the part of the appellants. The learned DR for the department, on the other hand, has urged that the bona fides have to be seen in the context of their mis-declaration. Since there was a mis-declaration on their part about the value of aggregate clearances during the financial year 1976-77 which has ultimately led to the detection of this case, penal proceedings were justified. We have carefully considered both these pleas. Since we have remanded the matter on the question of computation of the aggregate value of clearances, it would not be appropriate to decide the question of penalty as well. The penalty of Rs. 3.000/- would stand confirmed if the Collector finds that they had mis-declared the value of aggregate clearances of the goods during the financial year 1976-77 after extending the benefit as referred to in para 2(4) above. 3. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (3) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Act, 1944, a demand can be raised in case of short levy or non-levy for a period of six months and for longer period 1st proviso is involved in it. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Nat Steel, referred to supra, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 8 and recently in the case of C.C.E Hyderabad v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, Hyderabad 1989 (1) SCALE while deciding whether the demand could be raised for extended period of two years have held as under ldquo In that view of the matter and in view of the requirements of Section 11A of the Act, the claim had to be limited for a period of six months as the Tribunal did. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion. The appeal therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. rdquo 26. In view of the above, we hold that the demand has been correctly raised for the past period of six months. 27. We observe that the lower authorities rsquo order is maintainable in law and the appeal, therefore, is dismissed.
-
1989 (3) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Bulb sleeves and tube light ... ... ... ... ..... appellants regarding the fact that they were undertaking manufacture of box, drums and sleeves out of paper and paper board sheets purchased by them from the market inasmuch as they had not filed any classification list to that effect which they were under the law required to do. The appellants rsquo plea that the manufacturing of the drums and sleeves was undertaken in the manufacturing hall and therefore, the department knew its manufacturing is of no consequence. In the system of Self Removal Procedure the appellants cannot be absolved of their responsibility of bringing a product manufactured by them to the notice of the authorities even if they are using that product for their captive consumption. Appellants themselves cannot be absolved of their responsibility. 6. As mentioned earlier, the appellants succeed on the basis of our findings on the question of classification or of exemption from duty. Appeal is, therefore, allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1989 (3) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ceramic Colours ... ... ... ... ..... on of India and Others (supra) where the Hon rsquo ble Court laid down principles guiding classification of the goods. One of the principles which is relevant to the present matter is that ldquo in determining the meaning or connotation of words and expressions of an article in a Tariff Schedule one principle which is well settled is that those words and expressions should be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer. The reason is that it is they who are concerned with it and it is the sense in which they understand it which constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention....... rdquo 14. As a result we hold that liquid gold is a ceramic colour and is entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 35/85 as amended by Notification No. 78/86-C.E. The appeals therefore deserve to be allowed accordingly. 15. In the result we set aside the impugned Orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.
-
1989 (3) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tyres - Partial exemption to tyres for saloon cars ... ... ... ... ..... o be a Saloon Car for the purposes of Notification No. 20/84. We hold accordingly. 16. It was also pleaded by the appellants that the demand is time-barred. The show cause notice dated 4-9-1985 was issued for the period 25-5-1984 to 16-1-1985. The Collector in his impugned order did not give a finding on the applicability of the extended period of limitation to the demand. On the other hand he recorded in the concluding para of his order that there could have been a genuine doubt about the van tyres being entitled to concession. In the face of this, it would not be proper to hold that there was any suppression or mis-statement of facts on the part of the appellants justifying the application of extended time limit. Therefore, the appellants succeed on the question of time-bar also, as the show cause notice was issued more than six months after the clearance of the tyres on payment of duty. 17. As a result we allow the appeal on merits as well as on the question of limitation.
-
1989 (3) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Tribunal has power to modify the penalty awarded to the respondent when the findings recorded as to his misdemeanour is supported by legal evidence?
Held that:- In the light of the principles to which we have called attention the order of the Tribunal imposing a lesser penalty on the respondent cannot, therefore, be sustained. He was found guilty of the charge framed against him. He was a party to the fraudulent act for self aggrandisement. He prepared bogus documents for withdrawal of salary in the name of Ashok Kumar who was not working in his Division. He has thus proved himself unbecoming and unworthy to hold any post. Any sympathy or charitable view on such officials will not be conducive to keep the streams of administration pure which is so vital for the success of our democracy.
In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
-
1989 (3) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
HDPE fabrics hollow tubular ... ... ... ... ..... yet having the essential shape of finished sacks. The subject goods are not, therefore, ldquo made up rdquo articles within the meaning of heading 63.01, sub-heading 6301.00. 21. What, then, is the alternative heading? Heading No. 54,08, sub-heading 5408.00 covers fabrics of man-made filament yarn (a) woven, and (b) not subjected to any process. That the subject goods are woven fabrics is not in dispute. There is nothing to show that hollow tubular fabrics are not fabrics within the meaning of ldquo fabrics rdquo in heading 54.08. Accordingly, I am of the view that the appropriate heading for classification of the goods is 54.08, sub-heading 5408.00. I therefore allow the appeal. G.. Sankaran Senior Vice-President I agree with the views of my learned Brother Shri G. Sankaran, Senior Vice-President. Dated Harish Chander, Member (J) In accordance with the view of the majority, the appeal is allowed. Dated 3rd March, 1989 K. Prakash Anand, Member (T) Harish Chander, Member (J)
-
1989 (3) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Primary manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... d in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufacturer. By no stretch of imagination can the factory of the secondary manufacturer, under Rule 56C (special procedure) be considered either as the same factory in which goods are manufactured or as another factory of the same manufacturer. Clearly, the gauges which are manufactured in the factory of the secondary manufacturer are being used neither in the factory in which they are manufactured nor in any other factory of such manufacturer. They are to be used in the factory of the primary manufacturer. Despite, the earnestness of the learned Senior Advocate, we are not persuaded that simply because the department has extended Rule 56C procedure, the factory of the secondary manufacturer should be considered as their own factory. 14. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (3) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... uestion of filing an appeal against the approved classification list, as urged by the learned DR did not arise till their protest had been properly disposed of by the Asstt. Collector, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 181, cited by the learned DR is not relevant to the facts of this case. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are clearly of the view that the orders-in-original passed by the Asstt. Collector are untenable and the appeals by the lower appellate authority filed by the respondent company were rightly allowed against the impugned orders. The appeals of the department, therefore, are dismissed. Cross objections are also disposed of in the above terms. 6. In view of the fact that there has been long delay in settling the refund claims of the respondent company herein after passing of the CEGAT orders dated 21-5-1986, we direct that the refund claims of the respondent company should now be settled by the Asstt. Collector within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1989 (3) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... 8-D dated 17-2-1988 decided a completely different issue than what was discussed and decided by the Collector in the case before us. Instead of that, both sides to the appeal represented that the present case was fully covered by the said earlier decision. A copy of the said order dated 17-2-1988 was filed by Shri Santhanam in the open court before this Bench on 30-8-1988. Therefore, the record did not warrant to take a view that the said order dated 17-2-1988 fully covered the present case. There is, therefore, exceptional circumstances and an error apparent on record crept in when the operative part of the order was orally pronounced on 1-9-1988. The ratio of the judgment relied on by Shri Santhanam is not, therefore, applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, we re-call the operative portion of our order, which was orally pronounced on 1-9-1988 and direct the Registry to list this appeal for hearing on merits as early as possible.
-
1989 (3) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal against provisional assessment maintainable ... ... ... ... ..... order of provisional assessment and final assessment has not been made. In other words, the learned lower appellate authority holds that no appeal lies against an order of provisional assessment. Now turning to the provision of Section 35 of the Act, an appeal can be filed before the Collector (Appeals) by ldquo any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer..... rdquo Rule 173 C(5) read with Rule 9B, provides for provisional approval of the price-list for the purpose of provisional assessment of goods. Prima facie, therefore, there is force in what the learned Advocate for the appellant states that the order passed by the Assistant Collector is one under the Act and an appeal could, therefore, lie against the said order before the Collector (Appeals). 13. However, as proposed by the learned Judicial Member, there is no case for staying the operation of the order. An early hearing is fixed as spelt out in the order proposed by.
-
1989 (3) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Permission for withdrawal ... ... ... ... ..... quo 4. All the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to an Appellate Court in the Code of Civil Procedure. It was so held by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay in the case of New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. I.T. Commissioner, Bombay (AIR 1958 Bombay 143). The relevant extract of para 3 of the said judgment is reproduced below - ldquo 3.......... Now what we have just said nothing more than really a summary of the provisions with regard to appeals and cross-objections contained in 0.41, of the Civil Procedure Code and, as we shall presently point out, the position of the Appellate Tribunal is the same as a Court of appeal under the Civil Procedure Code and the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are identical with the powers enjoyed by an Appellate Court under the Code. 5. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Tribunal has got powers to grant permission for the withdrawal of the appeal. Necessary permission for the withdrawal of the appeals is granted.
-
1989 (3) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ontention that the goods are akin to coloured syrups is not tenable because the goods are powders. 13. As between the two Headings 2107.99 and 3204.90, we are of the view that the former is more appropriate to cover food colours. 14. In the grounds of appeal, it has been urged that since Notification No. 392/86 dated 22.8.86, as amended, refers to lsquo food colours rsquo and lsquo food colour preparations rsquo as falling under Heading 3204.90, that would be the proper classification for the present goods. We are unable to agree with this contention. It is settled law that while statutory notifications may be looked at for the purpose of ascertaining the scope of entries in tariff schedules, they cannot be used to determine or settle disputed classification of goods for which the relevant headings and section notes and chapter notes read with relevant judgments, if any, are the guides. 15. In the above view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (3) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... lead that the same could not be produced before the authorities below inadvertently. This can hardly be a ground for admitting the additional evidence at this stage. 17. It may be stated that we do not require of our own the said documents as the same are not required to enable us to pass orders or for any sufficient cause. We also do not consider the necessity to admit these documents to meet the ends of justice. Tersely no question of ldquo ends of justice rdquo is involved in the instant case as the department is not trying to demand or collect any tax/duty without any sanction of law. 18. In the light of the foregoing we refuse the prayer of the applicants for the production of documents listed at Sri. Nos. 1 to 12 as aforesaid. 19. In the result this application is partly allowed and the documents listed at Srl. Nos. 13 to 16 as stated above are taken on record as additional evidence and the prayer for the production of the rest of the documents is rejected as aforesaid.
-
1989 (3) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Glucose - Anhydrous Molasses ... ... ... ... ..... placed before us that in the sugar industry, the words Glucose and Dextrose are used synonymously although, in strict technical parlance, the two substances are not one and the same. However, the Tariff Entry has not left the matter for interpretation. It covers Glucose in whatever form, including liquid glucose and it goes on to specify dextrose monohydrate and anhydrous dextrose separately. No evidence has been placed before us nor, for that matter, any is forthcoming from the record to show that anhydrous molasses is known in the market as lsquo Glucose rsquo in which event alone, the question would arise whether it is lsquo Glucose in any form rsquo . As such, in the present state of evidence, Item No. 1E(1), CET has to be ruled out. Since both sides are agreed on the point that the goods are marketable, they have to be classified under Item No. 68, CET. We order accordingly. 16. The impugned order is modified accordingly and the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (3) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Synthetic and woollen rags ... ... ... ... ..... any objection to the goods being subjected to mutilation into 4 pcs. wherever necessary as directed by the Guj. High Court in the aforesaid case. We order accordingly while setting aside the confiscation. 5. The question of assessment at lower rate of duty cannot be denied to the appellants because the goods are admittedly mutilated rags as is clear from the examination reports, set out above. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Consultant for the appellants, the benefit of lower rate of duty to such rags had not been denied even at other parts, namely by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi and Collector of Customs, Bombay in such cases. The objection taken was only with regard to the fact that they were not completely premutilated. We, therefore, order that the benefit of lower rate of duty should be extended to the appellants for the purpose of assessment. 6. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 7. Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court.
-
1989 (3) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Retail sale ... ... ... ... ..... esale sales are sales to dealers who re-sell the goods to others. The sales may even be made to industrial consumers who use the goods in the manufacture of other goods or the sale may be to institutions or bulk users who buy in bigger bulk for their own commercial purpose. This is in contradistinction to a buyer who makes the purchase for his own use, as in this case. The law on the point at issue is well settled by the decisions which have been cited before us by the learned Advocate in his favour. It is not, therefore, necessary to dwell on this point at greater length. 11. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal of the department and uphold the remand order of the Collector (Appeals) in which it is directed that the Assistant Collector should redetermine the assessable value under Section 4( 1) (b) of the Act, read with Rule 6(a) of the Rules, after giving the respondents an opportunity to re-state their claim, especially in regard to various deductions claimed. 12. Dismissed.
-
1989 (3) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal lies against Collector’s order ... ... ... ... ..... urt rsquo s judgment in the case of M. Nazir Hussain v. Assistant Collector reported in 1969 (82) Madras LW 257 and Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in (AIR 1963 SC 395) and dictionary meanings, we hold that the order dated 7th January, 1983 is not a decision or order passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta as an adjudicating authority and as such the same cannot be a subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the application under Section 129D to be treated as appeals are not maintainable. In the result both the appeals are dismissed. rdquo 5. In view of the earlier judgments of the Tribunal and the discussion above, we hold that the appeals are not maintainable and dismiss the same. The appellant is at liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law as and when any adjudication order is received by him.
-
1989 (3) TMI 187 - SUPREME COURT
whether the two medicines, Arishtams and Asavas attract different considerations from those applied to other medicinal preparations?
Held that:- The two preparations, Arishtams and Asavas, are medicinal preparations, and even though they contain a high alcohol content, so long as they continue to be identified as medicinal preparations they must be treated, for the purposes of the Sales Tax Law, in like manner as medicinal preparations generally, including those containing a lower percentage of alcohol. On this ground alone the appellants are entitled to succeed. The appellants held entitled to a refund of the excess paid as sales tax on account of the turnover being treated under Item 135 rather than under Item 95
-
1989 (3) TMI 184 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... The burden was not discharged by the Department. On the other hand, the subsequent evidence brought on record by the assessee and the investigation made by the ITO confirmed that the version of loan is genuine. Therefore, there is no question of assessing the loan as concealed income of the assessee or income from undisclosed sources of the assessee for these years. It is only for assessing this type of income the assessments should be set aside and restored to the ITO with direction to pass fresh order. 15. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the CIT has not made out a case to show that the order passed by the ITO were prejudicial to the interest of Revenue so as to invoke his jurisdiction under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and consequently his revisional orders are not justified in law. Consequently, we set aside the revisional orders of the CIT for these years and restore the orders passed by the ITO 16. In the result the appeals are allowed.
........
|
