|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 214 Records
-
1991 (6) TMI 140 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund on returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... ut the mixing up of the returned goods with fresh raw materials and the refund should not be denied if other conditions are fulfilled and goods of the same class are manufactured. Sub-rule (2) also does not call for separate manufacturing process to be undergone and separate accounts maintained in relation to the specific quantity to be remanufactured, so as to co-relate at 1 1 ratio. This being the legal position, the approach of the authorities below in rejecting the refund claims merely on the ground that during the process of re-manufacturing, the goods were mixed up with other raw materials undergoing production process, did not entitle the appellants to claim refund, cannot be sustained. The order of the authorities below are therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Asstt. Collector shall examine the refund claims on merit and after inspecting the accounts submitted in relation to the reprocessed material, sanction the refund claim as admissible under the law.
-
1991 (6) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... because the import is considered as unauthorised, confiscation and imposition of fine is not an unavoidable exigency. I find that the Collector himself was satisfied about the bona fides of the appellants and the delay in getting registration was due to the bona fide impression as can be seen from the records. Thus there was no intention on the part of the Appellants to violate the provisions of Customs Act and the Import and Export (Control) Act. Therefore, considering the guidelines laid down in the decisions cited by the appellants rsquo Counsel, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that it is not necessary to order confiscation and the imposition of redemption fine. Since I am allowing the appeal on the issue of bona fide conduct of the appellants, I do not feel it necessary to go into the other issues raised by both sides. 8. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1991 (6) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn - Waste ... ... ... ... ..... held that the terms of exemption in both Notifications are essentially the same. The Tribunal laid down that ldquo having regard to the scheme of collection of duty of excise on goods manufactured in a factory and removed for manufacture of another commodity in the same factory and in particular, the provisions of Rule 49A, we have no reason to differ from the decision of the Tribunal dated 14-4-1986 in the said case of M/s. Rajkumar Mills. These orders were followed by the Bench in the case of Shree Balajee Spinning and Weaving Mills v. C.C.E., Pune Order No. 431/88-D, dated 29-6-1988 . 6. We see no reason to differ from the above view (arrived at after a detailed discussion) which applies on all fours to the facts of this appeal. The decision in the Shree Yamuna Mills case is not applicable as it deals with sizing waste and we have no material on record to establish that the weaving waste is only sizing waste. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1991 (6) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... it because it performs a specific function for him. There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer between the article and the need it supplies in his life. It is the functional character of the article which identifies it in his mind -... rdquo . The Department has not placed any evidence to show that the imported ceramic pythagoras tubes is a lsquo chinaware rsquo as understood in commercial sense. Applying the well laid rulings of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court noted supra, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the Revenue in this appeal. The reason given in the impugned order-in-appeal by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay are in conformity with the well laid down propositions and hence there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 5. Respectfully following the ratio laid down above, we hold that the goods are classifiable under T.I. 68 for the purpose of countervailing duty. 6. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1991 (6) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Arising out of the Tribunal’s order ... ... ... ... ..... 19-4-1991 but without waiting for the reply, the Assistant Collector has passed the above order. 3. We do not appreciate the way in which the Assistant Collector has reopened the case. It shows that he has started fresh proceedings which are unwarranted in the eyes of law. Further, he has not quoted the provisions under which he could initiate fresh proceedings. We are of the view that the Revenue authorities are withholding the refund by not implementing Tribunal rsquo s orders and the proceedings started by the Assistant Collector are ab initio void, arbitrary and illegal. However, we do not restrain the applicants from taking proper remedial action under law in case if they choose to do so. We direct the Revenue authorities to give consequential effect to the order passed by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The judgments cited by the Jt. CDR do not help the Revenue in any way. In the result, the Miscellaneous application is allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rock drilling including drills (Spiral or Twist drills, Centre bits etc.), brace bits etc. rdquo 12. From the above discussions it follows that in common parlance drills or drill bits are known as ldquo tools rdquo and not as parts of drilling machines. Hence, we are of the view that in accordance with the accepted principles of classification laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Indo-lnteniational Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) 1981 (3) S.C.R 294 and Dunlop India Ltd. v. U.O.I. -1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) - that goods should be classified according to their popular meaning or as they are understood in their commercial sense and not as per their scientific or technical meaning, the disputed Tungsten Carbide drills would be classifiable as tools under the specific Heading 82.07 and not under the General Heading 98.06 as parts of machine tools falling under Chapter 84. 13. In view of the foregoing the appeal is rejected.
-
1991 (6) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Export - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... Section 8 of the said Act, however, prohibits possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as well. Possession of heroin and the concern of the appellants in possession of heroin is not a subject matter of the appeal before us. Section 79 of the NDPS Act, 1985 makes, inter alia, prohibition and restrictions imposed under that Act in respect of export from India of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as prohibition and restrictions under the Customs Act. Therefore, we are not concerned with the prohibition on possession of heroin by the appellants in respect of the appeal under the Customs Act. 5. Hence the above order is passed without prejudice to any action that might be taken against the goods as well as the appellants under the NDPS Act, 1985 or any other law for the time being in force. In fact, the impunged order passed by the Additional Collector makes this clear in the last para. 6. In sum, appeals are allowed while setting aside the impugned order.
-
1991 (6) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... f the Bill of Entry, Test report and the literature produced in support of the appellants case, it is clear that the impugned item synthetic organic is a dyestuff. The Chemical Dictionary meaning of rsquo Colorant rsquo also clearly indicates that colorants are either dyes or pigments. The note to the definition of lsquo Colorant rsquo clarifies that a valid distinction between dyes and pigments is almost impossible to draw. The chemical test report has clearly indicated that the sample is in the form of coloured powder composed of synthetic organic dyestuff. The literature relied on by the Collector (Appeals) also does not leave any room for doubt. The invoice and the bill of entry also describes the item as Pigments Dyestuff. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the item imported is not a dyestuff. Therefore, the correct classification is under Heading 32.04/12(3). The appellants succeed and the appeal is allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, if any.
-
1991 (6) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ve not cared to explain the delay at various stages in an explicit manner as required under the law. The statement of the appellants and the letter issued by the Advocate have narrated different stories without substantiating how delay has been caused and further more they have not chosen to file affidavit of their Advocate in support of their contention. The latches and negligence are quite clear in this case which do not call for any condonation. As rightly contended by the Departmental Representative sufficient cause was not shown by the appellant to condone an inordinate delay. 8. In the view we have taken, we reject the condonation application and as a consequence the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. 9. Assent per S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T) . - I agree with my learned brother that the appellant has not been able to show sufficient cause. Hence, the delay cannot be condoned. The application is accordingly rejected. The appeal is consequentially dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Old car ... ... ... ... ..... namely, Japan ought to have been taken into account. However, the claim that the air-conditioner and the radio cassette player being standard accessories the ex-works price of the car should be deemed as inclusive of the price of these items is not correct since the automobile Red Book official used car catalogue which has also been relied upon by the appellant shows that these accessories were being charged separately and the ex-works price of the vehicle was not inclusive of the price of these items. 6. We also find that the shortfall in the face value of the CCP being nominal there was no justification for imposition of any fine in lieu of confiscation. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of confiscation. 7. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed by remand to the Assistant Collector who shall revise the duty on the basis indicated in this order and grant consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1991 (6) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... it was issued as a consequence of finalising the provisional assessment, and when it is seen also that the notice has been issued for the recovery of duty under Sec. 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the question will be to see whether conditions for invoking the longer period for demanding duty under Sec. 11A have been fulfilled in this case. The Ld. Member (Judicial), has found, on facts, that regular RT 12 returns for the period, had been filed by the appellants and finalised and that on that score, there was no ground for alleging suppression of facts and to invoke the longer period for demanding duty under Sec. 11A. In the circumstances, the view expressed by the Ld. Member (Judicial) is concurred with. 27. The papers are now returned to the Hon rsquo ble North Regional Bench for further disposal. 28. In view of the majority opinion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 29. The COD is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (6) TMI 129 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund claim in case of re-entry of goods in factory ... ... ... ... ..... the mistaken belief and on that ground the refund ought to be ordered, even if it is to be considered for the sake of argument, then also the provisions of Section 11B could be attracted and the demand of duty ought to be made within the period of six months from the date of payment. Here is not the case, where there is a mis-calculation as to the rate of duty so as to avail the benefit of filing of the RT 12 return and as such the argument advanced by the ld. Sr. executive that because of the RT 12 returns were not finalised cannot hold as goods. In any case, the claim initially lodged beig one under Rule 173H, the fresh ground now urged cannot be entertained, and even if it is entertained the decision could not be in favour of the appellants, as going by that, the claim would be barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rules. In the circumstances, there appears to be no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellants and the same is dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Tyres, tubes and flap sets ... ... ... ... ..... w the rank of Joint Secretary in the Department of Industrial Development in the name of the appellants, had been produced. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the exemption, which clearly covers only Association of owners of vehicles, as eligible importers, when the importer is not, in fact, such an Association, and also in the absence of the certificate, as mentioned above, from the Department of Industrial Development at the time of importation the exemption under the Notification cannot be extended to the goods imported. In such a view of the matter, the order of the lower authorities holding that the import is unauthorised, and that the goods are ineligible for the exemption under Notification 185/88, is well-founded and is upheld. As regards the quantum of redemption fine, the Collector (Appeals), has already given sufficient relief and in such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is rejected.
-
1991 (6) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... reliance on the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CCE (Supra) in which it was held that refund of duty under Rule 173L was admissible even when the returned defective bricks were crushed to a powder and re-manufactured afresh after mixing with other material. Similarly in the case of Tata Tea Ltd. v. CCE (Supra) which has also been relied by the appellants it was held by the Tribunal that benefit of Rule 173L was admissible when dust tea received back in another unit of the appellants for the purpose of manufacturing tea of another variety. It is seen that these decisions are not relevant to the case before us since in respect of the defective ingots in question the appellants had not claimed refund under Rule 173L by fulfilling the prescribed procedural requirements and on the basis of the proof of payment of duty on the returned defective steel ingots. 7. In view of the foregoing the order appealed against is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 126 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export - Cotton textiles ... ... ... ... ..... in our opinion, there can be no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the solitary ground on which the third respondent took a lenient view of an otherwise extremely serious case, was only on the basis of the regret and remorse expressed and on the basis of the request made to the third respondent that the petitioners would behave themselves in future and they should be given a chance to do so. The learned Single Judge has also recorded some strong observations which, in our judgment, were fully justified with regard to the conduct of the petitioners in the course of the correspondence entered into by them with the third respondent, in the course of the hearing of the various proceedings and in the course of the litigation. We are entirely in agreement with those observations and do not propose to add to them. 14. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and accordingly stands dismissed. The appellants shall pay to the respondents costs of the appeal in two separate sets.
-
1991 (6) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Non-maintenance of Accounts ... ... ... ... ..... for not accounting the production with a view to evade duty. Statement of the factory Manager, Shri Ranbir Singh, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate, cannot be relied upon much for the purposes of drawing any inference against the appellants, in view of the obvious contradictions in the statement. I am, therefore, of the view that a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and as upheld by the learned Vice-President would not be sustainable. 25. I agree with the learned Judicial Member that the penalty is required to be reduced having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the level of penalty suggested by him, in my view, would meet the ends of justice. 26. In view of the majority opinion, the personal penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. 27. The order of the Additional Collector is modified to this extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (6) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ion of an object into a commercial commodity which has been held to be a manufacture has not been satisfied -commercial commodity remains the same. The increase in purity of sacchrine 330 to 550 was held not to amount to manufacture in the case of Michical v. Pinch -1906 (2KB 352). 28. Therefore, the argument of the DR that grade being distinguishable is relevant for holding that a process of change in grade amounts to manufacture is not tenable. 29. In the light of the above discussions of the relevant case law on the issue I agree with the view expressed by the learned Member (Technical) that the process of purification by recrystallisation and distillation will not amount to a process of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 30. Now the point of difference having been resolved, the file may placed before the original Bench for further orders. 31. In view of the majority decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... r Section 111(d). (4) As regards the plea that the provisions of Section 111(o) have not been correctly invoked by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as they are not at all attracted in the instant case, we are inclined to agree with the appellants. As pointed out by them the provisions of Section 111(o) are attracted only for violation of any post importation condition whether relating to any prohibition on import or relating to any exemption from any duty. We are not inclined to accept their further plea that a suitable reduction in fine for non-attraction of Section 111(o) be made inasmuch as we feel that the adjudicating authority has already taken a fairly lenient view in imposing a fine only of Rs. 50,000/-against the confiscation of goods worth over Rs. 4 lakhs, 6. The adjudication order, therefore, is correct in law and in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
-
1991 (6) TMI 122 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Capital Gains, Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... 9 dated 10-5-1983 it was considered that if the investment from the date of transfer is strictly construed and investments prior to the date of execution are discarded it would go against the purpose and spirit of the section. A similar approach was called for in the present case because there being felt a difficulty in the application of law with reference to the date of execution, contrasted with the date of registration, the CBDT could have very well issued a circular accepting the investments in fixed deposits, as well, at least with respect to transfers prior to 31-3-1979, as being eligible for the tax rebate. This may be a pious hope but such pious hopes have judicial approbation--see Seth Lunidaram Tikamdas v. CIT 1980 121 ITR 824 (Mad.). 19. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the assessee was entitled to the rebate under section 54E and we, therefore, direct the Income-tax Officer to grant the rebate and recompute the total income. The appeal is allowed
-
1991 (6) TMI 121 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... The result of this rider is that in a case of the type under consideration, which is governed by proviso (iii) to section 21(4), exemption available, inter alia, under section 5(1)(Axiii) is not withdrawn but is available to the assessee in question. 15. The position in law may be summarised thus (1) The assessee-trust is governed by the provisions of section 21(4) of the Act. (2) But it falls within the pale of proviso (iii) to that section. (3) It also falls under the beneficial umbrella of the rider incorporated in Explanation 2 to section 21(4). (4) Consequently, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(xxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act. 16. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we set aside not only the impugned order of the first appellate authority but also the four rectification orders passed by the Assessing Officer and restore the original assessment orders on this issue. 17. In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed
........
|
