|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 318 Records
-
1990 (7) TMI 255 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one Additional Collectors of Customs working in the Customs House at Ahmedabad. Therefore, the reply submitted by the detenu might have gone to the Additional Collector of Customs who might not be dealing with the preventive branch of the Customs Department. Unless it is shown that the detenu had submitted the reply to the show-cause notice to the authority/officer issuing the show cause notice the question of consideration or non-consideration of the same by the Sponsoring Authority and placing the same before the detaining authority does not arise at all. In view of this factual position we need not consider and we do not consider as to whether it was necessary for the Sponsoring Authority to place the reply to the show-cause notice before the detaining authority or not. Therefore, this contention also fails. 10. No other contention is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. There is no substance in the petition. The petition stands rejected. Rule discharged.
-
1990 (7) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nder the 1944 Act. All that was further needed was the applicability of the procedural provisions of the 1944 Act. Here, however, the 1957 Act is incomplete as to the basis of the charge and its provisions would become totally unworkable unless the concepts of lsquo manufacture rsquo and lsquo assessable value rsquo as determined under the 1944 Act are carried into it. In the circumstances, I agree that we should give full and literal effect to the language of S. 3(3) and hold that it has the effect not only of attracting the procedural provisions of the 1944 Act but also all its other provisions, including those containing the definition. 11. Therefore, the provisions including the definitions are applicable to the Additional Duties of Excise Act, and by inference the definition of ldquo Excisable Goods rdquo and the penal provisions extending to such goods in Rule 173Q, will thereby apply. The legal points raised in the Miscellaneous Application are disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (7) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a detention order is to be passed or not in case of a person who was already in custody?
Held that:- The detaining authority was also conscious of the fact that the two other detenus who were arrested and detained in the same raid had already been released on bail. The antecedents of the detenu which were clear from his own statement went to show that he was initiated in drug trafficking in 1984 and employed as a delivery boy on ₹ 30/- per day and within a short span of four years the detenu himself started buying and selling Narcotic Drugs and amassed huge movable and immovable properties in Bombay. In the present raid itself heroin and Mandrax tablets worth ₹ 1,13,42,000/- were seized from the ownership and possession of the detenu. Not only that the detenu was using three vehicles for transportation of these Narcotic drugs. The detaining authority after taking into consideration the above materials placed before him, arrived to the conclusion that the detenu being in judicial custody may under the normal law of the land be granted bail and be in a position to continue to pursue his nefarious activities. The detaining authority in these circumstances considered it necessary to invoke the law of preventive detention under the Act to prevent the detenu from indulging in his prejudicial activities in future. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the order of detention was illegal on the ground that it was passed while the detenu was already in custody.
The present detenu cannot take advantage of any orders passed by the High Court declaring the detention orders of Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal K. Vora as illegal.
In the facts and circumstances of this case we are fully satisfied that the detenu has not been denied any opportunity of making any effective representation against the declaration issued under Sec. 10(1) of Act
As the delay has been explained by the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Thus we find no force in this ground of the detenu that his representations were disposed of after an inordinate and unexplained delay. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 252 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... use the appellants have not specified a particular notification for availing the exemption in the classification list, that did not deprive the appellants from claiming the exemption. It is also significant to note that though in the classification list, they have not specified the notification No. 218/77 but have categorically declared that they were the Small Scale Industries Unit and when such a declaration was there, obviously the exemption available to such Small Scale Industries Units ought to have been known to the department. 6. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I hold that the order passed by the authorities below cannot be sustained and hence the order pertaining to difference between the amount of refund claimed 5 and amount admissible 3 amounting to Rs. 14,255.68 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 7. It is once again clarified that the appeal is allowed to the extent of Rs. 14,255.68 for which only the appellants have pressed their point before me.
-
1990 (7) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Determination of relevant date ... ... ... ... ..... laced. Question before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the said case was whether the Tribunal was governed by the general law of limitation of time in the face of specific limitation of time provided in the Special Act governing the creation and powers of the Tribunal. Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has held that limitation of six months provided under the Special Act would apply to cases before the Tribunal. There was no question before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court about the manner of calculating the time limit of six months i.e. whether from date of receipt of claim by the Range Officer/Sector Officer subordinate to the Assistant Collector or from the date of receipt of such claim by the Assistant Collector himself. In view of the above observation, the question of making Supreme Court rsquo s judgment nugatory does not arise out of Tribunal rsquo s order. 4. Hence no question of law arises out of Tribunal rsquo s order. The Reference Application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1990 (7) TMI 250 - HIGH COURT CALCUTTA
Import Trade Control Order and Public Notice ... ... ... ... ..... of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, of 1947 and the Policy to restrict the entry of the goods through two specified Ports does not infringe the rights of the petitioners nor it violates any constitutional provisions. The points raised by the petitioners are thus answered in the negative. 22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit to grant any relief to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. All interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no separate order as to costs. The ratio of this decision squarely applies to other pending writ petitions, and those may be disposed by bringing them in the Daily List for hearing in accordance with law and ensuing procedure. 23. Upon prayer of the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner and for the respondents, there will be stay of operation of the order for a fortnight. 24. All parties including learned Advocates will act on a Xerox copy of the order on usual undertaking.
-
1990 (7) TMI 249 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... indings arrived at by the Addl. Collector, it is clear that they have not been able to pinpoint individual or a group of individuals, who were responsible for smuggling the goods to India. He has however felt that there was a joint involvement of entire crew. He, however, is positive that the appellant is not directly involved. It appears that the Adjudicating authority feeling that the contraband goods have been seized, and some one has to be punished for the same, has thought of imposing punishment on the Chief Engineer, overlooking the statutory provisions of Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, where mere lack of proper care is not provided for as one of the grounds for attributing penal liability to a person. 6. The imposition of penalty on the Chief Engineer under the circumstances, is based on misconception of law, and hence cannot be sustained, that portion of the order is therefore set aside. 7. The appeal, under the circumstances, is allowed. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1990 (7) TMI 248 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t already paid. The refund is claimed for a period from 21-10-1978 to 14-11-1978. Considering the date of submission of that letter as the relevant date, the claim is within a period of six months as laid down under the then existing Rule 11 of the Rules. When the amount has been paid in excess and when the claim for refund has been lodged within the period of six months, notwithstanding the fact whether the classification list is subsequently filed or not, as an independent claim for refund, it has to be entertained and a rejection thereof on the grounds as adopted by the authorities below do not appear to be justified. This is to be taken as a case simplicities of an amount paid in excess though not chargeable to duty and the claim is lodged within the period of six months. The same has to be allowed as such. Under the circumstances, it appears that the claim has been wrongly rejected by the authorities below. The appeal is therefore allowed. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1990 (7) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ations for condonation of delay. 11. Shri P.B. Vedantham, learned Departmental Representative opposed the contention and supported the order passed by Member (Technical) submitting that there is really no evidence that the appellant was suffering from chicken-pox at the relevant time. He has no comments to make about the extract of the book filed by Shri Ramaswamy. 12. I have considered the submissions of both sides. The appellant has filed an affidavit stating that he was suffering from chicken-pox from 23-2-1989. There is no counter-affidavit filed by the Department. Besides, the authority filed by Shri Ramaswamy, cannot be ignored. In these circumstances I agree with the order passed by learned Member (Judicial) that the delay should be condoned. 13. The point of difference having been resolved accordingly, the file is sent back to the South Regional Bench for further action. Final Order 14. The Condonation Application stands disposed of, in the light of the majority view.
-
1990 (7) TMI 246 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... . For claiming refund, the only provision in the statute is laid down under Section 11B of the Act and in the said section no provision exist to hold that the relevant date would be date of approval of the RT-12 return. Further this very Bench in its two Members decision in the matter of Indian Oil Corpn. (supra) has specifically held that limitation will be computed from the date of duty debited in the PLA and not the date of assessment of RT-12 returns. This is a two Members decision which will prevail over the single Member decision relied upon by the appellants. 6. Except the point pleaded as pointed out above, the appellants have not challenged the orders of the authorities below on any other ground and when the position of law being as mentioned above, the claim which is beyond the period of six months has to be taken as a claim barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Act. The orders of the authorities below are therefore correct. The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1990 (7) TMI 245 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS (APPEALS),
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ication under either of these two. The product at present are exempted by Notification No. 450/86 from whole of duty and there is not even a licensing control. Economically also I am not convinced that if the department had intended to charge the duty on patta patti as strip, as the duty of strip manufactured by a strip mill having investment running to crores whereas patta patti are manufactured by rolling mill having investment of 10 lakhs than suddenly instead of reducing duty the same would not have been exempted, from whole of it, and even from licensing control. 27. Keeping these facts in view I am inclined to agree that the product in question are not strip and are classifiable under 26AA (ia) prior to 1-8-1983 and under 25(8) after 1-8-1983. 28. The order No. 143/88 of Assistant Collector, North Gujarat is held to be a correct order and Order No. MP/237 to 249 of 1989 of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-II is set aside. The matter decided accordingly.
-
1990 (7) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Auxiliary duty of Customs ... ... ... ... ..... reasons that the expression in the Tariff Entry covers both plans and drawings. The Tribunal observed that it is evident that the term lsquo plans rsquo in the Tariff Entry or in the notification could not and have not been used in the sense of a concept because concepts are not goods and can not be charged to Customs duty. In para 10 of its decision, the Tribunal held ldquo In the circumstances we hold that the goods in question (Designs/drawings) were eligible for exemption from levy of auxiliary duty of Customs in terms of Customs Notification 112/87 dated 1-3-1987 . In the present case also the goods imported are basic engineering and drawing and technical knowhow in terms of collaboration agreement which would in the light of the aforesaid Tribunal rsquo s decision be covered by entry No. 24 of Notification 112/87 which covers plans. 5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed. The appellants are entitled to the consequential relief, if any.
-
1990 (7) TMI 243 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Imports - UV ... ... ... ... ..... the framers of the Policy themselves have chosen to make a specific mention re applicability of provisions of Chapter 5, where they have felt that they should be made applicable and mention of a sentence similar to the one in para 9 is conspicuously absent in para 7 or in condition (1) of Appendix 10. 11. Thus, when V. V. Spectrophotometers (double beam) have been specifically listed at Entry No. 25(6) of Appendix 2, without any qualifying clause, and when there is no dispute on the point that what is imported is the same item, and when the only objection thereto is that it is a computer system/computer based and when, from what is discussed above, it is clear that provisions of Chapter 5 would not stand attracted, there is no justifiable ground to object to its import under OGL. The objection raised, and consequent order of confiscation therefore cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. 12. The appeal, under the circumstances, is allowed. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1990 (7) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... otice issued, the suppression has not been alleged specifically and the learned lower authority has merely held that non-furnishing of the gross profit in the price list can be impliedly taken as suppression. It has been pleaded that the applicants had not furnished the information regarding the gross profit on their understanding of the law that only net profit was required to be included. prima facie we do not find any mala fides on the part of the applicants and going by the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Champlar India, we hold that prima facie appellants have a good case on merits. In this view of the matter, we hold that undue hardship would be caused to the applicants in case they are called upon to make the pre-deposit of the duty in terms of the impugned order. We, therefore, order that pre-deposit of duty need not be made . We also order that the recovery of the amount shall stand stayed till the disposal of the case.
-
1990 (7) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... pplying the ratio of these rulings, the impugned goods are classifiable under T.I. 68 of erstwhile Excise Tariff. Both the cited orders are placed in this file, which I have perused and satisfied myself regarding its applicability to the facts of this case. 11. Order per S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T) - In view of the majority view, the material in question is held to be a heterogenous mixture which was correctly classifiable as synthetic waste falling under 15.01/08, CTA for the purpose of Customs Duty. 12. The appeal is rejected and the order of the Collector (Appeals) is confirmed in so far as it relates to this aspect of the matter. 13. Further in so far as the question of additional duty (C.V.D.) is concerned 14. In view of the majority opinion, the matter is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) with the direction that he may allow both the sides to make further submission and then pass an appropriate order on this aspect. With these orders, the matter is finally disposed of.
-
1990 (7) TMI 240 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal filed within stipulated time ... ... ... ... ..... issued on 8-7-1986 returning them with the appeal. The corrected appeal which was received back by the authorities only on 4-1-1988. Taking the date 4-1-1988 as the date for filing the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the appeal was hit by limitation by 1 year 6 months and has rejected the same. 5. The appeal initially filed was within stipulated period of six months, though it was defective in nature. It was required of the Department to issue defect memo and get the defects rectified. It was not necessary for them to return the appeal in toto. The date of initial presentation has to be taken as the date of filing the appeal. Considering the same, the appeal is within time and the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) holding the appeal as time barred, under the circumstances does not appear to be proper and requires to be set aside. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and remand the case back to him for deciding the appeal on merits.
-
1990 (7) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... en imported complete. This is subject to the conditions laid down. There is no evidence to show that these conditions have been complied with or that the benefit of this notification claimed. The finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the notification would not apply if the parts in question do not fall under one of the headings specified in the notification is, of course, not correct. It has been held by the Tribunal in Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras -1987 (31) E.L.T. 112A that parts need not fall within the specified headings but that the articles complete, for which the part is imported, should fall under the specified headings. 13. In the result, we are of the view that the subject Air Buffers were classifiable under Heading No. 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The impugned order is modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed in these terms with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (7) TMI 238 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... edure. The reference cannot be accepted. 17. The specific question raised by the Sessions Judge is covered by the rulings of this Court reported in State v. Baby, 1981 K.L.T. 27 and John Samuel v. State of Kerala, 1985 K.L.T. 902, where the decision in Siddegowda v. Siddegowda, 1976 Cri. L.J. 1967, had been approved. The Sessions Judge was right to state that he has no power to exercise revisional jurisdiction to quash an illegal order of committal. I should, in this context, impress upon the Government the need for constituting Special Courts for speedy trial of offences under the Act. The volume of cases is reportedly increasing. The procedure for trial of offences under the Act, as now before the Sessions Court, is cumbersome and time consuming and ldquo speedy trial rdquo would be wishful thinking. The matter requires the urgent attention of the Government. Registrar will forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala for necessary action.
-
1990 (7) TMI 237 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import Licence ... ... ... ... ..... eriod of 18 months in respect of import licences granted for the years 1985,1986,1987 and 1988 shall commence from the date of issuance of attachment slips in respect of these four licences i.e. from April 20,1988 in respect of licence for the year 1985 and October 14, 1988 in respect of remaining three licences of the years 1986,1987 and 1988. As the validity period of 18 months in respect of these four licences had already expired, the respondents are directed to keep these four licences valid for a duration of three months from the date when the amendment would be carried out by the respondents in respect of these four licences and such amended licences are granted to the petitioner. The respondents shall carry out the amendment within a period of four weeks from the date when the petitioner submits these four licences to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi for requisite amendment. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
process of manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... and may also confiscate the excisable goods, and all goods manufactured from such goods, in store at the factory . 11. In view of the above discussion it cannot be said that the appellant did not duly account for excisable goods as having been used for purpose obtained. So this rule also cannot be invoked. 12. In view of above discussion imposition of penalty was not justified and so it requires to be set aside. Consequently concession granted to the appellant for purchase of raw naphtha under Rule 192 also requires to be continued. The appellant has also raised the contention of limitation but as we are allowing the appeal on merits we do not find it necessary to discuss about this aspect. 13. So we pass following final order (1) The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (2) Concession under Rule 192 in respect of raw naphtha be continued. (3) Order of forfeiture of security deposit and penalty is set aside. (4) Consequential relief to the appellant if any.
........
|
