|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 286 Records
-
1991 (9) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... the metallic portion, Therefore, in the absence of these details in the test report the ratio of the Premier Brass and Metal Works P. Ltd. (supra) is not straightaway applicable to the present case. 11. Regarding valuation aspect the adjudicating authority has not given any reasons for enhancement of the value to US 980 per metric tonne, beyond an averment in the show cause notice that the value of similar goods had been noticed at that price during that period. This by itself is not sufficient to lead the value. 12. Penalty cannot be imposed unless the charge of suppression and mis-declaration are established. We, therefore, set it aside. 13. In the light of the above discussions we hold that the proper course of action to follow would be to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the importers. We do so accordingly. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
1991 (9) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... on 133/86 covers sub-heading 3903.10 Polystyrene and Heading 39.03 is Polymers of styrene in primary form. Chapter Note 6 (a) (ii) to Chapter 39 CETA says that in the Heading Nos. 39.01 to 39.14 the expression ldquo primary forms rdquo applies, inter alia, to material in the form of moulding powder. Hence Polystyrene Moulding Powder will also fall under sub-heading 3903.10 CETA. Therefore, the reliance placed by the appellants on the ratio of CEGAT decision in the Shaw Wallace Case (supra) is well founded to say that what was implicit in the original Notification 133/86 has been made explicit by the amending Notification 239/87 which added the Explanation to Notification 133/86. Since it is found that Notification 239/87 is only clarificatory, the appellants are justified in claiming it for the consignments cleared prior to its issue. In this view of the matter, there is a lot of force in the contentions of the appellants which are accordingly accepted and the appeal allowed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... Excise Rules for unauthorised removal of excisable goods without payment of duty from the place of manufacture. It is not the say of the appellants that they had given any declaration to the Department. The narration of facts in show cause notice is clear in this respect. In fact Sh. Nilesh Kumar R. Patel has said in his statement that he did not know that use of power would attract Central Excise duty. Hence it is held that the appellants rsquo arguments on limitation are unacceptable. 9. In the result, therefore, the case is remanded to the Collector for the limited purpose of ascertaining - (1) whether there is any scope for redetermining the duty demanded based on the claim that use of compressor was confined to manufacture of non-agricultural hose pipes for the period April, 1983 and (2) whether the correct classification of the goods will be under Item 19-I(b) or 16A(3) CET with exemption under Notification 17/84. The appeal is disposed of by remand in the above terms.
-
1991 (9) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-assessment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... on, the appeal is otherwise rejected. 13. Before we part, we must record that Shri M.K. Jain had submitted during the hearing that no action was taken against the officers who were responsible for examination and mutilation of the goods in the docks. We also find from the case records (File No. S/10-275/85 Eg./CIV - Genl. 98/85 of the Bombay Customs House which has been placed before us by the learned SDR, that even though action was taken against the goods, no action appears to have been taken against the officers who had passed the consignment after examination and mutilation. We direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Bombay (by name) for examining the matter for deciding what action should be taken against the officers concerned who had allowed clearance of the goods on the declaration of the appellants in the bill of entry and who recorded an examination report which, as subsequent events indicate, was not found to be correct.
-
1991 (9) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ave been also raised by the Department. It cannot be alleged that the Department was unaware of the clearances for this period, when parallel proceedings had been initiated by Superintendent of Central Excise for the subsequent period. Therefore, the demands raised in E/A. No. 3803/89-C are hit by limitation and are not enforceable. 23. The demands raised in the show cause notice dated 27-2-1987 for the period covering 1-9-1986 to 31-1-1987 which is subject matter in appeal No. 2900/88-C are not hit by limitation and there is no plea of time bar also and hence the duty demand for this period for a sum of Rs. 19,30,227.65 are hereby confirmed. 24. We, therefore, uphold the order of the lower authorities in not granting the benefit of Notification No. 179/85-C.E., dated 1-8-1985 as amended by Notification No. 78/86. The demands raised in E/A 2900/88-C are confirmed. The demands raised in E/A 3803/89-C are set aside as time barred. The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
-
1991 (9) TMI 177 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI
Exemption to SSI Units ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 175/86. It is also reported that the finances of the lady partners were independent of their husbands and they actively participate in the affairs of the partnership firm. As per the available records these two firms have separate L. 4 Licence, income-tax and sales-tax registrations etc. to indicate their separate legal entity. Moreover in view of the case law cited earlier a partnership itself is a separate entity. Since under Section 3(42) of General Clauses Act, 1897, a person shall include any company or any association or body of individuals whether incorporate or not. Thus both the partnership firms are different legal persons and hence there is no justification for clubbing their clearances unless it is established by evidence that one is a dummy created by the other. In view of the foregoing the denial of exemption Notification No. 175/86 to both the appellants does not appear to be correct in law. Accordingly the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
1991 (9) TMI 176 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Valuation - Installation and commissioning charges ... ... ... ... ..... e, said decision of M/s. Unicorn Industries case is not similar to the facts and circumstances of this case. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of I.A.E.C. Bakers (also relied upon by the Respondents) is more relevant for the reason that, the respondents are manufacturing complete boilers in their factory and thereafter clearing it in CKD condition for convenience of transport. Therefore, they are liable to duty on boilers only at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory, which has been discharged. Subsequent action for installation of boilers at the buyers site are post clearance expenses with reference to the same excisable goods which had already discharged the duty liability. The boilers are also fixed as permanent structures. Therefore, such erection and commissioning charges are not liable to be included for assessment to duty. 9. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Asstt. Collr. and reject the deptt. rsquo s appeal.
-
1991 (9) TMI 175 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
MODVAT Credit - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... y to avail Modvat credit under the said Rules. The Courts and Tribunal at various times held that minor discrepancies in the declarations cannot be sufficient ground for denial of Modvat credit. The Asstt. Collector after due verification of the case has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents have broadly described the inputs though they did not give specific Heading and Sub-heading and they have received the inputs under proper duty paid documents, and the inputs have been consumed by them in the manufacture of their final products. 5. I also noted that the respondents have declared the inputs (ur) Molecular Sieve and labels. They have also declared various inputs under ldquo DIAGNOSTIC REAGENT KITS rdquo and has shown inputs as Anti Body Reagent (organic chemical). 6. Thus they have substantially met the requirements of Modvat rules. 7. In view of above, I do not find merit to interfere in the order passed by the Asstt. Collector. The E.A. 2 application is rejected.
-
1991 (9) TMI 174 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... period of 2 years and more and had also admittedly declared ldquo old and used articles rdquo in the Baggage declaration in terms of Section 118 of the Act. In such a situation the Tribunal, while upholding the order of confiscation in regard to the goods not declared in addition to the packages, has held that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of Transfer of Residence concessions in respect of the old and used articles duly declared as per law. This finding is based in appreciation of evidence in the factual background of the case and in exercise of judicial discretion by a quasi-judicial Tribunal. Such exercise of discretion cannot be called in question unless it is patently perverse or demonstrably arbitrary. The mere fact that the Department could or might take a different view which might be more plausible or specious would not by itself give rise to a question of law meriting reference. In this view of the matter the Reference application stands dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Detention of goods, plants and machinery chargeable with, when duty not paid ... ... ... ... ..... 1944, cannot be made a subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. In other words, her submission was that the present appeal is not maintainable and it was rightly returned to the appellants by the Registry. 5. We have considered the submissions. In view of the admitted position that the impugned Order of Detention was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhilai, to realise the duty which remained unpaid in pursuance of the adjudicating Order-in-Original dated 31st March, 1981, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, we are of the opinion that the present appeal is not maintainable, more particularly, when it is not a case of the appellants that the said Adjudication Order-in-Original dated 31st March, 1981 has been set aside by any Appellate Authority. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable and the Misc. Application also stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in the Open Court.
-
1991 (9) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Valuation Rules, 1988 is not applicable for the reason that under Rule 5, the transaction value, of identical goods in a sale at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity as the goods being valued shall be used to determine the value of the imported goods. Admittedly, the quantity imported by the appellants is more than the quantity imported under the two invoices. Therefore, it cannot be said that the imports are substantially the same quantity as the goods under consideration. Therefore, Rule 5 is not applicable. If the applicability of Rule 5 is excluded and if the appellant and the suppliers are not related persons and since no other rule has been invoked by the adjudicating authority, the transaction value has to be accepted. Therefore, the assessable value is to be determined on the basis of the transaction value. As regards the views expressed in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, I agree with Shri P.C. Jain. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1991 (9) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... o product and correspondingly reduced vis-a-vis the product of the other two companies and on this ground, he held that there was no reason to interfere with the Assistant Collector rsquo s order. This order of the Collector (Appeals) needs no modification and is, therefore, correct in law. In the result, it is held on valuation that there is no need to interfere with the three orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) with which we are now concerned, and in the case of the valuation aspect, arising out of the adjudication order of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, (E/Appeal No. 2354/85-C), it is directed that suitable reduction, arising out of difference in purity between the appellants rsquo product and the compared products, if not already given, in working out the assessable value, should now be granted and the assessable value re-determined, if need be, in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) which does provide for such adjustments. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (9) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Raw naphtha obtained under Chapter X procedure ... ... ... ... ..... yrolysis Gasolene diverted for extracting lsquo C8 C9 Cut rsquo . In this connection, he has filed a fresh duty calculation sheet, by which the duty chargeable would be approximately only Rs. 4.36 crores and not Rs. 24,41,99,988.77 as confirmed in the impugned order. This appears to be a correct contention. The learned Collector has not given a clear finding on this aspect of the matter and hence the question of duty confirmation requires to be reconsidered by the learned Collector, by hearing the appellants on this question only and by taking fresh particulars for verifying the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. 40. As regards the imposition of penalty, there are justifiable grounds for imposing the same. As the duty element is likely to get reduced considerably and taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 173Q(a) (b)(d) of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal is partly allowed. Annexures Not Printed
-
1991 (9) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... available could be transferred. We observe that the facts of the case following the interpretation of statute as pleaded by the ld. advocate for the appellants, the appellants cannot be placed at a disadvantage for the reason of the action of the authorities in classifying the goods as they did. As it is the rules are silent about the transfer of the proforma credit where a person becomes eligible for Modvat Scheme after 1-3-1986. The intention of the Rule 57H(3) at the relevant time was to allow the transfer of the proforma credit when the assessees became eligible for Modvat Scheme. In the present case since the appellants became eligible to the Modvat Scheme benefit later in the year the benefit of transfer of proforma credit should be made available to them as was in case of assessees who became eligible to the said benefit with effect from 1-3-1986. We, therefore, applying the ratio of the rulings cited supra in regard to the interpretation of statute, allow the appeal.
-
1991 (9) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... specific to the point and basically only means that Pulp obtained from Bamboo by processes is similar to the one as in the case of making Wood Pulp from wood and, therefore, it does not improve the case of the appellants. The clarification given by the Assistant Collector of Customs, in his letter dated 23-4-1981 is also of no consequence because it lacks any statutory backing and cannot affect the adjudicating proceedings and, therefore, the said certificate and the letter were rightly rejected by the authorities below. 6. In the result, we uphold the finding of the authorities below that the imported goods, that is to say, subject goods Bamboo Pulp does not come within the meaning of ldquo Wood Pulp rdquo and, therefore, the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 157/78-Cus. was not applicable to the subject goods, apart from the fact that, it has been used in the manufacture of paper. 7. In the result, the appeal is rejected being devoid of any merit.
-
1991 (9) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... f the letter dated 21-3-1983 addressed to the appellants by the Senior Scientific Officer, Department of Electronics, that the revised Notification was issued on the recommendations of the Department of Electronics after the matter was taken up by the appellants with that Department. It is evident that the revised notification was issued with the objective of obviating the problems encountered by manufacturers of plastic film capacitors in the clearance of imported consignments of lsquo tin foils rsquo on account of a strictly technical interpretation of the scope of the expression lsquo tin foil rsquo occurring in Notification No. 30/81 by the Custom rsquo s authorities. However, as observed by us earlier in this order the imported foil having tin as the predominant constituent could be deemed as lsquo tin foil rsquo covered by Notification No. 30/81. 9. In view of the foregoing we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1991 (9) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... eading 59.16/17 CTA as claimed by the appellants needs to be allowed because Chapter Note 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 covers woven textile fabrics, flat woven also and not only tubular or endless fabrics. The explanation of the appellants supported by the technical literature also goes to show that paper maker felt are tailor-made items supplied to paper mills according to their individual needs for being fitted on to paper making machinery and are imported in open-ended form only so as to be joined together on the machinery after mounting as a measure to reduce the down time of the machinery which it will otherwise involve, if the paper makers felt in endless form is to be fitted on to the machinery. In such a view of the matter, therefore, it is held that the paper maker felt or Dryer Screen felt imported in this case is correctly assessable under Tariff Heading 59.16/17 CTA, 1975 as textile fabric of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... . In fact, we notice that Note (a) in the Explanatory Note which is the same as Note 5(b) of the Central Excise Tariff covers a product like lsquo milk masala rsquo specifically. 17. Shri Jain had also submitted that Pan Masala falls under Chapter 21 only because of a specific inclusion in that Chapter and milk masala being a similar preparation, it would not fall in that Chapter without specific inclusion. That this argument is devoid of any merit is evident from the fact that Chapter 21 deals with lsquo Miscellaneous Edible Preparations rsquo , and sub-heading 21.07 with the residuary entry - not elsewhere specified or included. 18. Thus, having considered all the grounds in the appeal and arguments of the learned counsel Shri R.K. Jain, we come to the conclusion that sub-heading 2107.91 is the most appropriate classification for Everest Milk Masala. There is no need, therefore, to remand the matter as requested by Shri Jain at the hearing. The appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1991 (9) TMI 164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this was the raw stock which would, ordinarily, be carried by all manufacturers of aluminium products. In any event, there can be no finding of discrimination on the basis that one manufacturer chooses to hold larger raw stocks than others. 9. Since we are quite unsatisfied that there has been any classification or discrimination, and that is the foundation of the petition, we do not find it necessary to go into authorities. 10. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The respondents shall pay to the appellants the costs of the petition and of the appeal. 11. On Mr. Diwan rsquo s application, we direct that the appellants shall not take any steps to recover from the respondents the amount of the alleged excess excise duty, which has already been refunded to the respondents pursuant to the order under appeal, for a period of eight weeks from today. 12. Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both parties expeditiously.
-
1991 (9) TMI 163 - CEGAT, MADRAS
S.S.I. Exemption -Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... aham, learned consultant for the respondent. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. This issue has been covered and settled by a number of decisions of this Bench and the Bench has taken the view that the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs in terms of the said notification would be applicable in respect of each specified goods. The Bench has taken this view in the case of ldquo Purushotham Goculdass Plywood Co. v. Collector of Central Excise rdquo , reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 440 and has also taken similar view in the case of. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s. Electrical and General Wood Industries (in E/A. No. 170/90) and the judgment rendered on 17-9-1990. It is not disputed that the facts in the present case and the facts in the cases cited supra are all on fours. Therefore, following the ratio of the said rulings, we hold that the finding in the impugned order is sustainable in law and in this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal.
............
|
