Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 178 Records
-
1989 (6) TMI 204
Show cause notice issued ... ... ... ... ..... should not have been rejected. 23. Further, there is no positive evidence to prove the clandestine removal, and the conclusion is based merely on the assumption, as in the opinion of the Additional Collector, the explanation was not worthy of credence. 24. Undisputedly, there are lots of irregularities, but merely on that count, allegation of clandestine removal cannot be levelled. 25. Under the circumstances, I hold that the charges levelled against the appellants in the notice to show cause, cannot be held as duly established. 26. It was submitted that in any case, many irregularities have been noticed in RG1 register, which is statutorily required to be maintained and the appellants deserved to be penalised on that count. The show cause notice however relates only to the allegations of clandestine removal, and hence the said plea cannot be entertained. 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed, order of the Additional Collector is set aside. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1989 (6) TMI 203
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... y and bricks were intermingled and hence they did not correspond to the entry made. Hence, relief requested for is not even legally tenable apart from any consideration of equity, which is positively against the appellants in a case like this. 28. Under the circumstances, we hold that the order of absolute confiscation of all the consignments is legal and valid. So far as the personal penalties are concerned, we are convinced that Mr. Walhekar was the mastermind behind the whole thing, where Mr. Muchandi, knowingly and willingly associated and assisted. If they had succeeded, they would have duped the Government to the tune of more than Rs. 14.00 lacs. We, therefore, feel that the penalties are not on the higher side in comparison to what has been done by the appellants. On the contrary, we feel that the adjudicating authority has remained just and fair in imposing the personal penalties. 29. Under the circumstances, we find no merits in the appeals filed and reject the same.
-
1989 (6) TMI 202
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... me special significance. The straight meaning that can be given is that when the Collector (Appeals) desires to differ from the view taken by the subordinate authority and wants to make a demand, which has not been made or when the authority below has held that the assessee is not liable to pay, he has to issue a notice which should comply with the requirement of Section 11-A and if that is not done of, if the demand made is beyond the period stipulated under Section ll-A, then the order may be held as bad in law. 11. This being precisely the case here, prima facie, the order of the Collector (Appeals) appears to be not sustainable. Moreover, we also find that the applicants in pursuance of finalisation of provisional assessment had deposited a sum of Rs. 5.9 crores, though they are still contesting their eligibility for some deductions. Since the additional demand now made prima facie appears to be time barred, we grant the prayer for unconditional stay of the duty demanded.
-
1989 (6) TMI 201
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... following the latter does not arise. Likewise the rules of interpretation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, are not applicable to the instant case since there is no ambiguity in Section 27 of the Act. 7. Before we part with the case we, keeping in view the well known maxim that no act of the Court (for our purposes any act of the authority functioning under the Customs Act) should prejudice the interest of either party to the list would venture, to say, though it is not our function to suggest and formulate the law that the law should be amended on the lines of Section 152 of the CPC to enable the authorities functioning under the Act to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in its order arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties so that just claim of a party is not defeated on account of arithmetical mistake. 8. In view of the above we reject the appeal.
-
1989 (6) TMI 200
Excess production rebate ... ... ... ... ..... considered the submissions of both sides. We have also perused the Notification No. 198/76 and the Board rsquo s order of exemption dated 24-11-1975. According to the Notification No. 198/76-C.E., the clearances of any specified goods exempted from the whole of the duty leviable thereon shall not be taken into account (in computing base clearances). This notification does not refer to sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. In fact, the respondents did not pay any duty on the goods which were cleared under the Board rsquo s exemption order. The distinction between Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules cannot be introduced under this Notification which is clear by itself. It does not contain any words or indication that such a distinction should be made. We, therefore, hold that the Collector (Appeals) was correct in the view he has taken. We find no justification to interfere with his order. 8. We dismiss the appeal. The Cross Objection No. 86/85-B.l also abates.
-
1989 (6) TMI 199
... ... ... ... ..... be ignored. We also take note that nearly 4 frac12 to 5 years elapsed between the importation and the passing of this order. Taking all the circumstances into consideration and noting the amount of duty sought to be evaded in each case, we order, in respect of fine, as follows In respect of Volta-River the fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- is reasonable. It is upheld. In respect of Faethon the fine is reduced to Rs. 1,50,000/-. In respect of Baarn the fine is reduced to Rs. 1,75,000/-. In respect of Nadia the fine is reduced to Rs. 1,60,000/-. 46. In respect of penalties we note that the Collector imposed reasonable amounts. Considering that the appellants deliberately attempted mis-declaration and evasion of duty we do not find any justification to interfere with the penalties. They are upheld. 47. As a result the appeals are partly allowed only to the extent that the redemption fines in 3 appeals are reduced as indicated above. The impugned orders are confirmed in all other respects.
-
1989 (6) TMI 190
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o. Description of Article Rate of Duty Std. Prefn. Areas (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 84.66 Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading Nos. 84.56 to 84.65, including work or tool holders, self-opening dieheads, dividing heads and other special attachments for machine-tools tool holders for any type of tool for working in the hand. 8466.92 For machines of Heading No. 84.65 40 72.19 Flat-rolled products of stainless steel, of width of 600 mm or more 7219.90 Other 300 Plus Rs.... The details of the goods imported by the appellants as per specifications of the supplier dearly show that these are parts of machine tool rsquo for pressing hard bpard of wood waste and there are six lugs on the length of the sheet on each side. Accordingly, we are of the view that the goods imported by the appellants fall under Heading 8466.92. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (6) TMI 186
Classification
... ... ... ... ..... operties, the appropriate Central Excise Tariff for the goods would be the residuary Item 68. Accordingly we hold that countervailing duty has to be charged under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. 18. In the result, all the 26 appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Importers are dismissed. 19. emsp During the course of arguments, Shri Sunder Rajan, the learned JDR had made a prayer for condonation of delay in the filing of the cross objections and Shri Nankani, the learned Advocate had left it to the discretion of the Bench. The only prayer in the cross objections was in respect of the CV duty. In view of the submissions of both the sides on the prayer for condonation of delay and both the sides pray that CV duty be levied under Tariff Item 17(2) of the CET, we condone the delay in the filing of the cross objections. In the foregoing paras since we have held that CV duty has to be levied under Tariff Item 68 of the CET, the cross-objections are also dismissed.
-
1989 (6) TMI 185
... ... ... ... ..... to be levied ad valorem is, in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, not their actual value, the invoice value or the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation i.e. the market price at the time and place of importation and where it is not so ascertainable, its nearest equivalent determined in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. rdquo Accordingly, the market price in this case is not so ascertainable at the time and place of importation and according to the Department, 1983 price list is the nearest equivalent to be determined as deemed value cannot be accepted in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. Hence, we hold that 1983 price list itself is not sufficient to determine the deemed value under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act in this case. 7. With this view, the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is upheld and in the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (6) TMI 184
Demand - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... s yet to adjudicate on this question, which is pending before him. The matter is remanded back to him to consider the validity of the grounds of refund along with the matter pending before him and to pass a consolidated and comprehensive order within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 17. We have noted the details of the rulings cited by the parties and we have concluded that the appellants rsquo letter of protest dated 4-10-1982 and subsequent letters dated 3-4-1983, 6-4-1983 and 16-12-1983 are in order and satisfies the requirement of Rule 233B, and further from the rulings we also note that the Supdt. of Central Excise is deemed to be a proper officer to receive letter of protest (Appeal No. E/2391 of 1984 B1 Trib. Ms. Chintamani Sharma and Sons v. CCE). There is no ruling cited which contradicts our findings. The other rulings relied and cited by the appellants and Revenue are not on the points of our determination. Hence the appeals are allowed by remand.
-
1989 (6) TMI 183
Exemption - Iron & Steel ... ... ... ... ..... on-duty paid for the purpose of this Notification. The condition laid down in the proviso to the aforesaid notification is not, therefore, fulfilled. Hence, the benefit of notification is not applicable to the M.S. round bars manufactured by the appellants out of the inputs supplied by M/s. Vizag Shipping and Metal Processors, Vizag and M/s. Ushodaya Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Vizag. The inputs supplied by these two suppliers out of ship breaking do not stand on the same footing with the other inputs purchased from the market. There is no material before us to hold that the inputs purchased from the market are identifiable as non-duty paid, whereas the inputs supplied by the above two suppliers are clearly identifiable as non-duty paid as it is an admitted fact that Central Excise duty under Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff was not paid thereon. In the circumstances, we set aside the inpugned orders of the Collector (Appeals) and allow all the three appeals filed by the Revenue.
-
1989 (6) TMI 182
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... alignment. Glandnut has, therefore, to be considered as a fastener liable to the classification under the erstwhile Tariff Item 52 and later 8313.10. 11. A bonnet is a part of the valve, attached to the body which carries operating mechanism. Our examination of the part did not show that it is designed for any fastening function. 12. The union is a part of the bonnet which provides space around the stem to contain the gland and gland packing. This part too, cannot be considered to have any fastening function. 13. As a result we hold that glandnut was classifiable under erstwhile Tariff Item 52 and later under sub-heading 8313.10. In respect of bonnet and union we uphold the findings of the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is thus partly allowed. In view of this finding based on facts, and also non-pursuance by the respondents on the point of jurisdiction, the remaining arguments advanced become immaterial and we do not go into them. 14. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (6) TMI 181
Refund - Provisional refund claim permissible ... ... ... ... ..... ot proper to treat the letter dated 29-3-1985 as a fresh claim cutting off its root in the shape of the earlier valid claim dated 19-11-1984. Even if the Assistant Collector had any qualms about the validity of this claim the subsequent one dated 1-12-1984 should have set the same at rest. 8. Nothing much turns on his observation with regard to the certificate obtained by the respondent company from their customers Western Coalfields Ltd. That company had clearly certified that they had admitted the claim of bill including the amount of Central Excise duty in categoric term. This indicates what they had paid. The Assistant Collector wanted that a certificate that no other amount was paid to the company on account of escalation bills. The certificate produced gave a clear indication of the amount actually paid in this regard. That should be sufficient. 9. I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the circumstances, I dismiss the appeal.
-
1989 (6) TMI 180
Food preparation ... ... ... ... ..... goods not specified elsewhere under a particular Tariff heading makes for a more specific classification than classification under a separate Tariff heading. 19. Suddenly, and as if from nowhere, the learned Advocate puts forth a claim, obviously as an alternative that the impugned product is not a food product but a preparation with a beverage base. He submits that he relies on the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC) . This judgment of the Supreme Court was in the context of the old Central Excise Tariff. We do not, therefore, feel that reliance shown can afford much hope for the appellants rsquo case. We feel that this submission which was not at all made before the lower authorities remains unsubstantiated by any technical opinion or any other evidence on trade parlance. It is, therefore, rejected. 20. In the light of the foregoing, we uphold the view taken by the lower authorities and dismiss the appeal.
-
1989 (6) TMI 179
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... tion with the other evidence on record. The question posed by the application, therefore, is not a question of law but merely a question of fact. Therefore, the second question as alleged to be arising out of the order of the Tribunal is not a question of law and is, therefore, not required to be referred to the High Court. 7. emsp The other question regarding conversion of contravention from one sub-section to another sub-section of the Gold Control Act is apparently a question of law arising out of Tribunal rsquo s order and is, therefore, required to be referred to the High Court. 7.1. emsp We, therefore, refer the following question to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Allahabad for its opinion - ldquo Whether the Tribunal is correct in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of Section 8(l)(a) of the said Act to conclude that there is no impediment for converting the established breach from one sub-section to another sub-section of the same section. rdquo
-
1989 (6) TMI 178
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... b and Haryana was whether chairs fixed or screwed to buses could be considered as ldquo furniture rdquo within the meaning of Central Excise Tariff Item 40 It was held that such seats have to be considered as fixtures of the vehicles rather than as ldquo furniture rdquo and that therefore they were not classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 40. In the judgment of this Bench written by me in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1988 (37) E.L.T. 375 the meaning of steel furniture for purposes of classification under Central Excise Tariff has been gone into at some length keeping in view the various land mark decisions on this subject. The view taken was further supported in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 432 (Supra). In accordance with the view elaborated in these two judgments and, agreeing with the discussions of Brother Peeran, I concur and dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (6) TMI 177
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... in the main part of the notification. 14. Apart form the aforesaid reason, there is yet another reason which compels me to take the view which I have taken above. Clearances for export, in so far as the goods namely, lsquo motor vehicle parts rsquo in the instant case are concerned, are exempted even otherwise from payment of duty either under Rule 13 when such goods can be exported without payment of duty under bond or full rebate of duty paid on such goods could be claimed under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. If the interpretation advanced by the department is accepted it would be clearly against the object of export promotion. Such a restricted view, therefore, is not warranted to impose a larger liability on a person who undertakes export of goods and export of which is otherwise exempted from payment of duty. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the Collector is dismissed. 16. In view of the majority decision, the appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (6) TMI 176
Appeal to Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... der that section. After expiry of the warehouse period, the goods ceased to be warehoused goods. The removal of the goods was under an order passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 72 of the Customs Act. In such a case, the rate of duty applicable to the goods will be the rate of duty in force on the date of filing of the into bond bill of entry as provided in Section 15(1)(a) of the Customs Act read with proviso to Section 15(1) and Section 46 ibid. In the present case, the Customs Department has charged duty at the said rate. According to the provision of Section 72, the interest is also recoverable from the appellants for storage of the goods after expiry of the bonding period. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Assistant Collector. 9. emsp In view of the above discussions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (6) TMI 175
Valuation - Misdeclaration as to value ... ... ... ... ..... . had the evidence of value from contemporaneous import of such or like goods namely second hand machinery from the same supplier and imported at the same port and we hold that the value so determined is value for assessment under Section 14(l)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The further argument advanced that since on the date of Show Cause Notice valuation based on transaction value as per the amended provisions of Section 14 have come into force and that it is that valuation that will cover the import is not tenable because of the very wording of the Section 14(l)(a) which refers to the value of the goods should be deemed to be the value at the time and place of import which the appellants have duly declared in their Bill of Entry filed by them. This was admittedly prior to the date of which the amended Section 14 came into effect. Therefore, in this view of the matter we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector and the appeal is rejected.
-
1989 (6) TMI 174
Samples - Retesting of ... ... ... ... ..... le in their possession, retested, in some other laboratory and could have confronted the adjudicating authority with the said report. But that would only have made case of the appellant arguable but the adjudicating authority would not have been bound by such report. Moreover, it was not a legal duty of the appellant to do so. So, their case cannot be faulted on that ground. It is possible that the second or third samples might not be available either with the department or with the assessee and remand might not serve any purpose. But then for sake of expediency demand of justice cannot be over looked whatever might be the consequences. So, I would propose the following order ldquo The matter be remanded to the jurisdictional authority for de novo adjudication after obtaining test report of the second or third sample. rdquo FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the appeal and the ldquo Cross-Objection rdquo are disposed of in terms of paras 8 and 9 of the said opinion.
........
|