|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 291 Records
-
1990 (9) TMI 175 - CEGAT, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... parent that what is contemplated is one licence in respect of one factory complex having main divisions or sub-divisions. The appellant is entitled to obtain one consolidated licence for the manufacture of its goods within its aforesaid factory complex, as the object behind the grant of a consolidated licence is that any person manufacturing different excisable goods within one factory area is entitled to obtain one licence in respect of the goods instead of different licences for different commodities, as ldquo factory rdquo has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as any premises, including the precincts thereof, wherein or in any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured, or wherein or in any part of which any manufacturing process connected with the production of these goods is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on. 10. In the light of the above discussion the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Misdeclaration of goods ... ... ... ... ..... de to the decision of this Court in P. Balakotaiah v. The Union of India, 1958 SCR 1052 (AIR 1958 SC 232) and Afzal Ulah v. State of U.P., 1964-4 SCR 991 (AIR 1964 SC 264). Further a common form is prescribed for issuing notices both under Rule 9(2) and Rule 10. The incorrect statements in the written demand could not have prejudiced the assessee. From his reply to the demand, it is clear that he knew as to the nature of the demand. Therefore, I find no substance in the plea of limitation advanced on behalf of the assessee. 7. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the findings of the Collector of Customs, Bombay as to the levy of penalty. However, to meet the ends of justice and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 5000.00 to Rs. 2500.00 (Rs. two thousand and five hundred only). The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. Except for this modification in the order, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1990 (9) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the Bench for further orders. FINAL ORDER 27. In the light of the majority opinion, we hold that the product lsquo Vardhak rsquo , a plant growth regulator, falls outside the scope of Central Excise Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 following the Tribunal rsquo s order in Agromore Ltd., Bangalore v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore-1987 (28) E.L.T. 409. However, the Revenue is entitled to recover duty only in respect of the period of six months preceding the dates of receipt by the respondents of the respective show cause notices. 28. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 29. Since the Collector (Appeals) had given complete relief to the respondents, there was no cause for filing a cross-objection. During the hearing, when this was pointed out to the counsel, he appreciated the position and requested that these called cross-objection might be treated as written submissions. 30. The appeal and the so called cross-objection are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1990 (9) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 78. The said provisions are reproduced below - ldquo 3(3) The provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duties, shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the duties of excise leviable under this Section in respect of any goods as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of the duties of excise on such goods under the Act or those rules rdquo . Since Rule 49A provides for levy of interest on the basic duty of excise under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the said provisions would also be made applicable to the additional duty of excise leviable under the said Act, 1978 by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of Section 3(3) of 1978 Act. Hence on merits we do not find any substance in the plea of the respondents. 6. As a result of the foregoing discussions, we allow the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the impugned order.
-
1990 (9) TMI 171 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty for short landing of cargo ... ... ... ... ..... y to compensate the Government of the loss of revenue. The amount of the penalty is paid to the Customs and goes to the revenue. The object of the penalty is not merely to compensate the Government, but also to deter other persons from committing the same offence and thereby preventing or hindering the collection of revenue. rdquo 6. It is thus clear whether any duty is chargeable or not, the penalty can be imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The object of penalty is not merely to compensate the Government but also to deter other persons from committing the same offence and preventing or hindering the collection of revenue. In such circumstances there are no grounds made to interfere with the imposition of the penalty. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the penalty of Rs. 58,035 is excessive. Accordingly, we reduce the same to Rs. 20,000/-. Subject to this modification, this appeal stands dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation -Branded chewing tobacco ... ... ... ... ..... computing the value per kg. of the Jarda rdquo which clarifies and amplifies the stand of the appellants that the question of weight was not the subject-matter of the dispute before the Bombay High Court. In view of this position the reliance of the learned SDR on the reference to Bombay High Court judgment in the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order dated 10-10-1982 is of no significance and nothing turns on this, and it is immaterial that this point has not been raised before the Collector (Appeals), who has gone into the question of interpretation of Notification 35/79. 8. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 1982 E.L.T. 112 does not operate as res judicata against the appellants. The issue in dispute being already settled in favour of the assessee by virtue of the order of this Tribunal reported in 1983 (43) E.L.T. 382, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 9. The cross objections are disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (9) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Aggrieved person ... ... ... ... ..... stoms Act itself under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act for safeguarding revenue interests. If the revenue interests are affected on account of an improper or illegal order, the proper course would be to get the order reviewed by the Board, who may issue an authorisation as may be necessary, to the Collector for filing the appeal under Sec. 129D. It is not the case as though the Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence does not have such a remedy before him, as in the case of M/s. HPF and they have to come directly impleading themselves as appellants. Even in this view of the matter, the appeal filed by Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence is not sustainable. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as not maintainable, without prejudice to the course of action which can be resorted to by the Department under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act. 6. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability, the stay application does not survive for consideration.
-
1990 (9) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... xcise, Sitapur through the Supdt. who is an officer subordinate to the concerned Assistant Collector. In these circumstances, if any delay has taken place in sending the refund claim to the office of the Assistant Collector on the part of the Supdt., that delay could not be laid at the door of the appellant/assessee. 5. Material facts and circumstances of this case are on all fours with the facts of M/s. Rosa Sugar Works, mentioned supra. Learned advocate Shri Beri rsquo s reliance on the citations made by him are well founded. We also reply on another judgment of the Tribunal reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 325-Tri. Prag Vanaspati Products v. CCE . 6. Having regard to the aforesaid long line of judgments after the judgment of the learned single Member of the East Regional Bench in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. relied by the respondents, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 7. Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court,.
-
1990 (9) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ol compressed into blocks or cones are commonly used for the relief of nasal congestion, headache and neuralgia. It is clear that the imported goods conform to pharmacopeal standards and are therefore of medical grade. Customs Tariff Advice No. 35 dated Sept. 10, 1979 also provides the guideline that Menthol Crystal Pharmaceutical Grade is classifiable under Heading 29.01/45(13). The learned DR rsquo s argument regarding end use certificate falls to the ground as it has been held in the case of Haresh Bros. v. CC 1989 (40) E.L.T. 122 that there is no implication that an importer must be an actual user in respect of goods which are admittedly drugs and end use is not built into the relevant Customs Tariff heading. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the goods merit assessment under Heading 29.01/45(13) for levy of basic customs duty and T.I. 58 CET for levy of countervailing duty, hence not covered by Notification 234/82-C.E. 10. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... heet of design paper, are then laminated in a hydraulic press applying pressure and heat to make a laminated sheet. During this process, the resin passes through the pores of paper and acts as a binder between the paper sheets. It is thus seen that the goods are more appropriately to be termed as resin-reinforced paper sheets and not paper-reinforced plastic sheets or, as the Revenue will have it, paper-stratified plastic sheeting. In the event, Chapter 48 would be more appropriate than Chapter 39. 7. Apart from the above considerations, the goods involved and the process of manufacture in the Amit Polymers case and the present case are similar. We do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion in the present case. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the goods herein be classified under Chapter 48 in accordance with the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Amit Polymers followed by the decision in the case of Meghdoot Laminart (supra).
-
1990 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tification made therein, the refund could be granted if the application was otherwise in time. 16. The case cited by the learned SDR namely that of Batliboy and Company reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 118 is distinguishable for in that case the main question was the categorisation of the machine in question, and as to whether it could be considered a boring machine of the type covered by the notification and it was in this context that the Bench had observed that the meaning of the words of the notification has to be construed strictly. This case in other words does not deal with the issue or the aspects with which we are concerned in the present case. 17. The instant case on the other hand is of on all fours, with the case of Himachal Air Products (Supra) decided by this very Bench in so far as the limited question of effect of non-declaration in the given circumstances was concerned. Hence following the ratio thereof we accept the appeal as already announced in the open Court.
-
1990 (9) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Substitution or pilferage of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ant case, although apparently there has been some substitution and pilferage, the very fact that the consignees have been found fictitious indicates some conspiracy and it is not the case of the department that the CWC had participated in such conspiracy. In fact the department has not adduced any evidence to show that there was a deliberate act of negligence on the part of CWC. That apart the possibility of the substitution or pilferage having taken place before the goods were transferred to CWC cannot be entirely ruled out. In any eventuality there is no evidence before us that the CWC had consciously or knowingly permitted removal of such goods without Customs clearance. 13. Hence, violation of Section 45(2) (b) is not established. 14. The Additional Collector rsquo s order is apparently based on assumption, presumption and suspicion and not on evidence hence it cannot be upheld. 15. In view of the above position, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is accepted.
-
1990 (9) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed. The goods in dispute are film lined electrodes. The matter is fully covered by an earlier order of the Tribunal vide Order No. 11/89-B2 dated 25-1-1989 in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. National Carbon Co. in A. No. C/1974/83-B2. We have looked into the facts of the present appeal. We are in full agreement with the judgment of the Tribunal cited supra and we do not find any justification for the deviation from the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and order that goods imported are to be assessed under Heading 85.03. Accordingly, the Revenue rsquo s four appeals are allowed. 5. In view of the above discussion and earlier decision of the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal and order that the goods imported are assessed under Heading 85.03. Accordingly, we allow the appeal.
-
1990 (9) TMI 162 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... uo reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 752 (Tri.), would also support the case of the appellant and the Tribunal has referred to the earlier ruling in the case of rdquo Collector of C. Ex., Calcutta v. M/s. Stewards and LLoyds of India Ltd. -1984 (ECR) 1559 1985 (22) E.L.T. 522 (Tri.). One other important factor which we would like to take note of is that the Department did not challenge the order of the Asstt. Collector, when he held that the refund claim was entertainable and, therefore, the finding of the lower appellate authority that the appellant would not be eligible to pursue the remedy for refund under Sec. 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by reason of not having appealed against the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, was not an issue at all before him. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, we set aside the impugned order appealed against and remand the matter to the original authority for consideration of the claim of lsquo .. refund on merits.
-
1990 (9) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Use of power — Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... rocess of manufacture and packaging, if power is used for heating purpose, then the exemption under the notification is not available to the manufacturer. It is not the case of the Department that power is being used for the purpose of heating in any of the processes of manufacture and packaging. The power is being used only for labelling which is not specified in the notification. The notification has to be strictly construed. There is no mention of labelling in the notification. The exemption can be denied only if the power is taken during the process of heating and not otherwise. The appellants are not using power for any process of manufacture or packing. Therefore, they are entitled to claim the exemption as sought for by them. The relevance on various citations by learned Member (Judicial) in the main order (supra) is uncalled for and they are not necessary or in any way helpful to construe the effect of the notification in question. 16. I agree for allowing the appeal.
-
1990 (9) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand — Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... ld like to observe that since the matter is sub judice, it will not be proper for us to give our further observations. However, we feel that if the applicant is desired to deposit the full duty amount of Rs. 36,32,451.30, it will amount to undue hardship. We dispense with the pre-deposit of the same on the condition of the applicant rsquo s depositing Rs. 18,00,000.00 (Rs. eighteen lacs only) in cash and also furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000.00 (Rs. ten lacs only) within 12 weeks from the receipt of this order. We further order that the revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings for the balance duty amount. We also order that during the pendency of the appeal, the applicant shall keep the bank guarantee alive. In case the applicant fails to comply with the terms of this order, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. The applicant shall report compliance of this order to the Registry within 14 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1990 (9) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ine with the criteria laid down in the Tribunal rsquo s decision (supra). We have seen, by applying the criteria of the Tribunal rsquo s order in the Atul Products Ltd. case, that liquid paraffin IP is a mixture of hydrocarbons which has a varying chemical structure, and could, therefore, not be considered as a separate chemically defined organic compound or as a single chemical substance with a known and recognized structure in chemistry. Therefore, liquid paraffin IP cannot be brought within the ambit of Chapter 29 because Chapter Note 1(a) thereof says that the headings of the Chapter apply only to a separate chemically defined organic compound whether or not containing impurities. The classification of the product under Heading 2710.99 decided by the lower authorities, therefore, needs no modification and is accordingly, confirmed. 7. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1990 (9) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... gh we hold that the imposition was justified under Section 125 of the Act on facts and circumstances and as per provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, we feel it is on higher side. Further we concur with the appellants rsquo counsel that Adjudicating Authority erred in not dis.c.losing the details of market enquiries to the appellants before determining the redemption fine. This aspect requires reconsideration. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Additional Collector on this limited issue with a direction to redetermine redemption fine as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act after giving opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence, if any, in support of their contention, in addition to the documentary evidence produced before us which are on record. Since the goods are still lying with the Customs authorities, the Additional Collector is directed to dispose of this matter at the earliest possible time on receipt of this order.
-
1990 (9) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... s wide enough to cover in its fold commodities which remain the same despite change in shape. Coke briquettes thus being only a preparation of coke dust are covered by the expression coke in all its form rdquo . 21. The Tribunal has relied on other rulings before coming to the conclusion as in paras 14 to 15 in Punjab Industries case (supra). Applying the ratio in both the citations cited supra, we are of the view that the process of agglomeration of manganese ore fine into lumps will not result in a new excisable product and therefore, the demand raised is not sustainable. In view of our finding that there is no new product emerging from manganese ore fine, it is not necessary for us to go into the other question of applicability of Notification No. 118/75 and Notification No. 217/79 and also with regard , to time-bar raised by the appellants. 22. The various contentions raised by the Revenue and the reasoning are not sustainable therefore, the Cross appeal is also rejected.
-
1990 (9) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Goods imported ... ... ... ... ..... e by the Collector (Appeals) would render the notification infructuous in so far as aseptic packaging material is concerned. It is well-settled that statutes including notifications should be construed in a manner as to make them work unless, of course, the words employed are such that one and only one interpretation is possible however absurd it might be. In the present instance, we see a plusible construction of the notification which would make it work. The construction sought to be put on the notification by the Department would make the notification unworkable in so far as ldquo aseptic packaging mateial rdquo is concerned. We do not think that this is the right course to adopt. 8. In view of the foregoing dis.c.ussion, we set aside the impugned order, allow the appeal and direct the Assistant Collector to grant consequential refund to the appellants after satisfying himself as to the quantum of the imported material which is shown to have been used in aseptic packaging.
............
|
