|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 288 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 236 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit - Component part ... ... ... ... ..... le to accept the contention of the appellants that the tool kits would be eligible for MODVAT credit under Rule 57A because we are satisfied that it cannot be said to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product viz. the Mopeds rdquo . 4. Both the sides agree that the matter stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case cited supra. 5. The learned Collector (Appeals) has observed that trade notice has been issued under which the Departmental authorities have allowed the benefit of MODVAT in respect of tools kit which are supplied along with the vehicles provided its value is included in the assessable value. We, with respect like to say that this decision of the Board in our view is contrary to law and we do not find any reason to depart from the reasoning of our order referred to supra. In the above view of the matter, we allow the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) so far as the tool kits are concerned.
-
1990 (12) TMI 235 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... to be held that the benefit of this Rule was intended to be given to the manufacturers even after March, 1987 and the wording ldquo immediately before rdquo in this context has to be read as ldquo preceding the date rdquo as set out in the Law Lexicon. In the light of this when we examine the facts of the present case, it has to be held that the appellants had the input with them i.e. the ship preceding the date of the dated acknowledgement and that the same was used in the manufacture of the finished product cleared from the appellants rsquo factory on or after the 1st day of March, 1987. The appellants rsquo case, therefore, has to be held to be falling within the purview of Rule 57H and in that view of the matter, the appellants rsquo plea therefore has to be allowed and the benefit of the MODVAT credit in respect of the duty paid by them on the input has to be allowed. We find no reason to depart from the decision above and, therefore, allow the appeal of the appellants.
-
1990 (12) TMI 234 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ appeal ... ... ... ... ..... r and the imposition of the condition was unwarranted. We find substantial force in the submission. Whether or not the Revenue would be entitled to recover any interest when the matter is finally decided is a matter for the Revenue to consider, and while dismissing the writ petition it was not open to the learned Single Judge to have imposed the condition saddling the appellant with the liability to pay interest ldquo as and when the proper duty recoverable from the petitioner is determined rdquo at the rate of 18 p.a. The error committed by the learned Single Judge is writ large and consequently we set aside that condition while otherwise upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, partially allowed but without any order as to costs. 3. It is clarified that this order shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits so far as the liability of the appellant is concerned, which may ultimately be determined by the Revenue.
-
1990 (12) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal dismissed ... ... ... ... ..... 4. We have already discussed the merits as to denial of principles of natural justice in the above paras. We are of the view that when the stay application was pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), he should have first disposed of the stay application and then he could have dismissed the appeal for non-compliance Of provision of Section 35-F, Accordingly, we hold that there was denial of principles of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to re-decide the appeal, because the appellants have already deposited the duty amount and had complied with the provision of Section 35-F. We further order that while re-deciding the same, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) shall observe principles of natural justice and also grant personal hearing to the appellants. Since the matter is very old, we shall appreciate if he re-decides the same within four months from the receipt of the order.
-
1990 (12) TMI 232 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty on clearing agent ... ... ... ... ..... rd to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that in the interest of justice the appellant would at least be entitled to the benefit of doubt inasmuch as the proceedings are penal in nature and by giving the appellant the benefit of doubt I exonerate him of the charge, set aside the penalty and allow the appeal. I also take note of the fact that the appellant has never been involved in any offence of any kind under the Act in the past and the family has been in the business of Custom House Clearing Agent for nearly three generations without any blemish. The Custom House Clearing Agent licence to the appellant was also suspended as early as on 30-6-1987 and continues to be under suspension for the past about 3 frac12 years and this has been more than an adequate punishment for the negligence on the part of the appellant in the discharge of his duties as Custom House Clearing Agent. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 231 - AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT
Detention order ... ... ... ... ..... make an effective representation against the declaration. This delay, in our opinion, is quite unreasonable and inconsistent with the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. rdquo In our opinion, in view of the aforesaid position and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the delay of 16 months before the detenu was made aware of his right under the Constitution to make an effective representation against the Declaration is quite unreasonable and inconsistent with the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the detention of the detenu beyond the original period of one year, in the circumstances, was unjustified. 4. We, therefore, set aside the detention of the detenu beyond the period of one year as envisaged by Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA and direct that he be set at liberty at once unless there are other justifiable circumstances to hold him back in custody. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
1990 (12) TMI 230 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund Claim - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ted matters, particularly as no adjustment in the PLA by assessing the correct duty amount in the RT 12 was ordered by the Superintendent while completing the RT 12 assessment and the appellants also did not press for the same during the original proceedings. However, I find that the specific claim staked by them for the application of lower rate of duty and the payment of refund due to them on account of the excess payment made by them will come to their aid since the formal refund claim subsequently made by them consequent to the remarks of the Superintendent while completing the RT 12 assessment cannot be treated as a fresh claim but as a continuation of the claim clearly staked by them vide their letter dated 17-5-1984. The fact that it was addressed to the superintendent and not to the Assistant Collector cannot invalidate it. In the circumstances, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order-in-appeal. The appellants would be entitled to the consequential refund.
-
1990 (12) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... elevant headings in the tariff have to be interpreted and applied in the light of Section Notes and Chapter Notes which are statutory and binding like the headings themselves. These Section Notes and Chapter Notes sometimes expand and sometimes restrict the scope of certain headings. In other words the scheme of the Customs Tariff Act is to determine the coverage of the respective headings in the light of the Section Notes and Chapter Notes. In this sense, the Section Notes and Chapter Notes have an over-riding force on the respective headings. The goods in question do not specify the definition of lsquo Strip rsquo . The judgments cited by the learned CDR do not help him. We uphold the findings of the Collector (Appeals). We do not find any merit in Revenue rsquo s appeals. The same are dismissed. Applying the above ratio, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue and are, therefore, rejected. 12. In conclusion, the 164 Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (12) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... stained. - We have already made references to certain aspects of the show cause notice. As submitted by the learned SDR the show cause notice was issued by the Collector in exercise of powers vested in him by the Central Excises and Salt Act. On 6-9-1984 the impugned order-in-appeal was passed by the Collector (Appeals). On this date the Assistant Collector rsquo s order got merged in the Appellate order and after this date the Assistant Collector rsquo s order did not survive independently. Therefore, after this date the Collector could not review the Assistant Collector rsquo s order. The only remedy available was to file an appeal against the appellate order. In these circumstances we hold that the review show cause notice dated 7-6-1980 does not survive. 15. As a result we hold that the refund claims of the appellants should be considered applying the limitation period as directed and on the basis of adjusted value of base clearance. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (12) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit - Deemed Credit ... ... ... ... ..... t was known that there were many materials capable of being used as inputs which were exempted conditionally, why were they included in the deemed credit provisions if the intention was that conditionally exempted goods were required to be considered as non-duty paid. 26. A reference to the amendment of the order of the Ministry in this connection is of no help to the department as the amendment had admittedly come into effect subsequent to the period in question and has not been given a retrospective effect. Further, the effect of such amendment was itself subject to interpretation and does not come within the purview of the present case. Hence, it will not be appropriate on our part to go into that aspect at this stage. 27. In view of the above discussion we see no reason to differ from the orders of the WRB and NRB cited by the learned counsels which admittedly cover the present case. 28. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals and confirm the orders of the Collector (Appeals).
-
1990 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Predeposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... n of permissibility of the action taken by the Assistant Collector embarking upon a fresh voyage of discovery of alternative classification in view of the specific directions in the remand order passed by the Collector (Appeals) apart, the alternate classification decided upon appears to be not appropriate. Reliance on HSN provisions to fall upon sub-heading 6807.00 may not be proper as the entry in the former is not in pari materia with the one in the latter. Further, if the scope of the entry ldquo of similar materials rdquo in Tariff Heading 6807 is considered ejusdem generis with the preceding group of entries namely - stones, plaster, asbestos, mica would keep bitumen out of contention. The appellants/applicants appear to have made out a prima facie case. We, therefore, grant the stay prayed for. The applicants/appellants should execute a personal bond for the amount in question. We direct the Registry to transfer the appeal to Special Bench of the Tribunal for disposal.
-
1990 (12) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Precedent – Res judicata ... ... ... ... ..... so that finality can be given on this issue. Opposing this request, the learned advocate for the appellant has urged that there is no need for a Larger Bench inasmuch as fresh facts and clearer enunciation of law has since been made. In view of these new developments, setting up of a Larger Bench is not called for. This Bench itself is competent to take a decision. He relies on Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 344-345/89-A in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Modi Zerox Ltd. apart from citing Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Brij Lal Lohia mentioned in connection with the Issue No. 1. We are inclined to agree with the learned advocate for the appellant. In view of the fresh material having been brought on record there are cogent reasons for differing with the earlier judgment of the Tribunal. Normally a Larger Bench is set up when conflicting judgments of different Benches of the Tribunal are there or likely to be there on the same material. 8.0 In sum, the appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... since the assessments during this period were provisional. However, nothing turns on this in view of our finding that the product was PVC Compound. 27. The Learned Counsel for the appellants has made an alternative submission that in the event of it being held that the subject product was dutiable, the appellants should be allowed to avail themselves of the benefit of the Central Excise Rule 56A read with Central Excise Notification No. 201/79 which plea was raised before the Assistant Collector though not before the Collector. We, however, see no need to consider this submission in view of our finding on the merits of the dutiability of the product. 28. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the subject product manufactured by the appellants, namely, Crown Cork Sealing Compound, was a PVC Compound within the meaning of Central Excise Notification No. 206/77 dated 29-6-1977. In view of this, the appeal succeeds and is allowed setting aside the impugned order.
-
1990 (12) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of duty recovered without authority of law ... ... ... ... ..... of refund which they did on 23-1-1981. If, by mistake, they claimed refund of the amount debited on 25-4-1979 and not part of the payment on 17-1-1981, that, in my view, is a minor technical mistake which, in the larger interest of justice should be overlooked. This claim was filed well within 6 months from the date of payment i.e. 17-1-1981. The fact that they did not file an appeal against the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order of 6-9-1979 should not, in my view, come in the way of the appellants getting the refund of the double payment. This is for the reason that what the appellants were aggrieved about the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order was not the decision on merits but the fact of non-adjustment. And, the amount not adjusted despite the appellants rsquo requests could, I think, be legitimately claimed by way of a refund claim by them. 14. In the above view, I would propose an order allowing the appeal. FINAL ORDER 15. In view of the majority order, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 222 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Absolute confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... set aside the impugned order (so far as it relates to the confiscation of the VCR in question) and remit the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider the genuineness or otherwise of the duty paid receipt and as to whether it is relatable to the VCR in question and then give a finding with reference to its confiscability absolutely or otherwise as per law. 5. Regarding the colour films the goods are not notified and are not covered under Chapter IVA or Sec. 123A of the Act and were permissible for import as conceded by the Ld. D.R. I do not think that the confiscation of the same is called for, more particularly in the light of the allegation in the show cause notice that the offence was for violation of the provisions of Secs. 11C. 11D, 11E to 11G and Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962.1, therefore, set aside that part of the order of confiscation in regard to colour films and direct the release of the same. The appeal is disposed of accordingly on the above lines.
-
1990 (12) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty pending appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ind no substance in the plea of limitation advanced on behalf of the assessee. The show cause notice has to be looked into as a whole. It should not be read in a piecemeal manner. Since the matter is sub judice, further observations for us will not be proper at this stage. In view of this discussion, we are of the view that prima facie the revenue has got a good case on merits. Financial hardship is not pleaded before us. Accordingly, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our discretion in dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty amount and grant stay. Accordingly, we order the applicant to deposit Rs. 1,95,690.48 (Rs. one lac ninety-five thousand six hundred ninety and paisa forty-eight only) within ten weeks from today. It is further directed that in case the applicant fails to comply with the terms of this order, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
-
1990 (12) TMI 220 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... er Sushanta Haldar, the appellant in Appeal C-367/89. Sushanta Haldar, by his letter dated 19-10-88 received by the department on 26-10-88 had stated that the money belonged to him and it was his hard-earned income from his business of sweets at Krishnapore Bus stand. Annexure to the show cause notice gives details of the above facts. Shri K.P. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in Appeal C-366/89, i.e. Srikanta Haldar, also submitted that the owner of the Indian currency is Sushanta Haldar and that Srikanta Haldar is not making any claim for the same. In view of this I order that the confiscated Indian currency of Rs. 10,100/- be returned to Sushanta Haldar, the appellant in Appeal C-367/89 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The chits seized having not been relied upon and being of no consequence, the Department is directed to return the same to Srikanta Haldar, appellant in Appeal C-366/89. 15. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
-
1990 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... e said Notification requires that the goods are exported within six months from the date on which the goods were first cleared for export from the producing factory or such extended period as the Collector may, in any particular case, allow and the claim for rebate together with the proof of due exportation is lodged within the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Here, goods had been exported without payment of duty under a bond and this is not a case for rebate. However, it is a clear indication that delay in the submission of the proof of export is a condonable lapse. As has been held by the South Regional Bench in the decision quoted supra, the delay could be condoned even for grant of rebate. A fortiori, it stands to reason that penalty which is a matter of discretion is not justified in this case. In the circumstances, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellants would be entitled to the consequential reliefs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 218 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund on returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... ass, it does not mean that the very same goods should be cleared from the factory after manufacture. If the same goods are there then no manufacture will be involved and the question of refund and fresh assessment of the remanufactured goods will not arise. In the case decided by the South Regional Bench, dust tea was mixed with withered green leaf and then put through the process of CTC tea making. What emerged was another variety of tea. It was observed that the remaking does not preclude the mixing of other ingredients so long as the class of goods manufactured remains the same. In the present case mixing of other ingredients along with the returned aluminium extrusions and foils is a technological necessity as their furnace is of4 M.T. capacity whereas the returned goods are much less say 200 kg. which cannot be melted separately. In the circumstances, the appeals deserve to be allowed and I order accordingly. The appellants would be entitled to the consequential reliefs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Ground not raised before the Assistant Collector ... ... ... ... ..... rs and the invoices, a specimen of which is produced by the petitioners on record, indicate that the goods imported are of identical weight and exact description. Merely because the worn out spinnerettes are melted for the purpose of repair, it cannot be concluded that the said spinnerettes have lost their identity. rdquo We have perused the orders written by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals). There are no details as to the repairing or manufacturing process and as such, we are not in position to express our views in this regard. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction to readjudicate the same. We further order that while readjudicating the Assistant Collector shall observe principles of natural justice and grant personal hearing to the appellant. Since there is recurring effect, we shall appreciate if he readjudicates the matter within three months from the receipt of the same.
........
|
