|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 310 Records
-
1992 (2) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... le, or appellant and the supplier are associated in the business of each other. 3. Appeal disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Since the goods are in the Customs custody for about two years now the adjudicating authority is directed to undertake speedy readjudication of this case in the light of the observations made above and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of this order. We have already held that Dimethyl Octadienol and Hydroxy Dimethyl Octanal (Citronellal) are liable to confiscation a suitable redemption fine should be fixed by the adjudicating authority taking into account the value of the goods, the margin of profit and the fact that these are limited permissible items. We are unable to fix the fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods in the absence of the above particulars. Further, adjudicating authority rsquo s finding in the status of M/s. Indoplast on re-adjudication may also have some bearing on the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation.
-
1992 (2) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... and the question of waiver of show cause notice in a matter like this does not arise. Thereafter, he wrote another letter on 5-9-1983 requesting the Collector to issue an order-in-original so that the appellants can file an appeal. Again on 17-9-1983, referring to the earlier letters, he requested to furnish a panchanama or inventory of the goods, the copy of the statement and the order-in-original. It appears in spite of the above letters neither the statement of the appellant was furnished nor the inventory of the goods seized was furnished. Even on the date of hearing neither the panchnama nor the statement of the appellant nor the inventory is before us. From the above it follows that the so-called confessional statement is not voluntary and the order of the Collector is vitiated as the statement and the inventory of the goods was not furnished to her before passing the impugned order. 8. For the above reasons, we set aside the order of the Collector and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (2) TMI 229 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Import policy ... ... ... ... ..... te is diluted sulphuric acid. The test report does not clearly show that the batteries in question consist of lead electrodes. The sulphuric acid is in the gelled form. That being so, it is highly doubtful whether the batteyies in question are lead acid batteries. The gist of the test report is mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. The perusal of the same also does not give any report to conclude that the electrodes in this case are made of lead or lead oxide. It only stated as follows - ldquo The test report when read with the above information as given in the literature reveals that such batteries fall under the Heading ldquo Batteries, secondary (lead acid) . In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant as there is no conclusive test report to base a conclusion that the batteries in question are lead acid batteries. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside.
-
1992 (2) TMI 228 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... romic acid section was part of the appellants rsquo premises and it could not be considered to be not a ldquo factory rdquo . The corollary is that the duty exemption which was not due was wrongfully availed of. 23. These observations do not help the appellants and here the goods are removed in contravention of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and on the facts of this case the clandestine removal of goods with intent to evade duty is clearly established. Besides this, the wilful suppression is also established as appellants failed to make such entries in RG-1 Register and RT-12 returns. In this view of the above matter, we hold that the demand of duty confirmed in this case by the learned adjudicating authority is sound in law. Accordingly, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000/- is also in accordance with law in view of the fact that Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules is violated. 24. In the result, the appeal is without merits and we, accordingly, dismiss the same.
-
1992 (2) TMI 227 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... der Rule 57F, instead of resorting to movement on payment of duty for cleaning purposes and receiving back. Even holding that credit was not available against the particular delivery challan, I observe that subsequently a regular gate pass has been issued indicating the particulars of duty debit. There are instructions to the effect that if the duty paying document is not available at the time of receipt of the inputs, credit can be taken, but not to be utilised till the production of the duty payment document. Hence, when a gate pass has been produced subsequently, that will enable them to get the restoration of credit. Besides, going by the spirit of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, any subsequent payment can be given as credit, even though at the time of receipt of the inputs, the duty amount has not been paid. Considering all these aspects, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). Hence the appeal from the revenue is dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 226 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Normal production - Determination of ... ... ... ... ..... e appears to be something wrong in the production figures as reflected in the appellants rsquo Unit, the figures which are arrived at by the lower authority should have been based on some acceptable criterion which we have cited above for the reasons given is not so. We, therefore hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is not a proper one and therefore the same has to be set aside. We, therefore, order that the learned lower authority should adjudicate the matter de novo in the light of our above observations by conducting experiment in the appellants rsquo Unit if it is feasible to do now taking into consideration the machinery installed then and now or arrive at the figure after eliciting further information in regard to the fluctuations in the consumption of electricity and the production figures and also the norms prevailing in other Units which are using same machinery, if necessary after consulting rubber technologists. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1992 (2) TMI 225 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... larger group was remedied. As noted earlier, we cannot come to the conclusion that in the present case, there it was an inadvertent slip on the part of the Government. The repeated representations and the refusal of the Government to change its stand, notwithstanding those repetitions, clearly rule out a case of inadvertent omission. We have thus come to the conclusion that on application of the well-known principles, the notification does not suffer from any discrimination. 11. A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi so that appropriate action about the grievous default in the defence of Respondents 1 to 3 may be duly taken and to ensure that such lapses do not recur. 12. We accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition. 13. Counsel for the petitioners sought stay of the operation of the Judgment. 14. We are not satisfied that any ground exists for granting stay of the operation of our Judgment. 15. The prayer for stay is declined.
-
1992 (2) TMI 224 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Survey instead done without Customs Authorities taking part in it ... ... ... ... ..... distinction with the abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22 and the remission of duty on goods lost or destroyed under Section 23 is statutorily provided in the Customs Act. Blotting out such distinction would make one of the Sections nugatory whereas it is evident that the legislature in its wisdom has made separate provisions for covering these two contingencies on imported goods. It is well-settled law that such an interpretation making statutory provisions nugatory is to be avoided. The decision of the West Regional Bench relied upon by the Applicants is that of a single Member and related to Section 23 of the Act whereas the decision of the two Member Bench of East Regional Bench (cited supra) related to the very same Section 22 of the Act and the facts are similar to the present case. In the result we hold that no points of law arise out of the Tribunal rsquo s order calling for reference to the High Court. The Reference Application is accordingly rejected.
-
1992 (2) TMI 223 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT - Credit correctly taken for eligible inputs and final product as declared ... ... ... ... ..... payment of duty towards the final product irrespective of when the final product is cleared and whether a particular batch of inputs have gone into that particular batch of the final product. In the Rules, it is seen, so far as an event of taking credit is concerned that is provided for separately under Rule 57A and the event of utilisation of the credit has been provided for separately under Rule 57F and if the credit has been wrongly taken, the same can be reversed or recovered within a period of six months or 5 years as provided for under Rule 571. The same would apply in case the said credit has been wrongly utilised. But each event will have to be dealt with separately. In the present case we observe there is no dispute in regard to the taking of the credit and since we have held that the credit has been correctly utilised, the respondents cannot be called upon to pay back the credit utilised as pleaded by the Revenue. The appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 222 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure - Reasonable belief ... ... ... ... ..... or confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly the penalty imposed on them is justified. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the penalty is in any way excessive. 77. In the result, we hereby order that (i) the Diamonds mentioned in Category ldquo B rdquo and ldquo C rdquo as mentioned below be returned to appellant Jayantilal T. Mehta (B) Locker No. 1803 Box C - Packer C16, C27 to C32 and C35 to C37 Locker No. 2051 Box A - Packers A10, A12, A17 Box B - Packer Bl Box D - Packet D20 Locker No. 1803 Box C - Packets 06, C21, C24, C25 (ii) The confiscation of the Diamonds at Category ldquo A rdquo mentioned below is hereby confirmed Locker No. 1803 Box C - Packets C1, C5, C11, C13, C14, C15, C17, C19, C20, C22, C25, C26, C33, and C34 Locker No. 2051 Box A - Packer A7 Box B - Packer B21 Box C - Packer C3 (iii) The penalties imposed on the appellants are hereby confirmed. 78. Accordingly, the appeals succeed partly in the above terms.
-
1992 (2) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... e-export of the goods, is correct. Accordingly, the order passed by the Additional Collector to that extent is not correct. Hence, the impugned order requires to be modified as it was done in the aforesaid case. I, therefore, modify the order of the Additional Collector in the following manner ldquo The goods are confiscated, but the appellants are entitled to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/- rdquo . 6. The decision in the case of Uma Textile v. Collector of Customs is not relevant to this case since that was with reference to imposition of penalty and no personal penalty was imposed in the present case. As regards re-exportation of the goods is concerned, the imposition of fine validates the import and as soon as they become an absolute owner of the goods on payment of redemption fine, they are free to export them subject to the provisions of Customs Act, and they are permitted to re-export accordingly. 7. Thus, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (2) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of duty on pilfered goods ... ... ... ... ..... ore the proper officer has made an order for clearance, the importer is not liable to pay the duty leviable, except where such goods are restored to him after pilferage. We are unable to appreciate the Department rsquo s contention that no enquiry was necessary either from the Port Trust or the Police Authorities, to verify the contentions of the appellants. It would not have been difficult at all to ascertain the correct position so that the claim could be decided one way or the other. We, therefore, now direct that necessary enquiries be made by the Assistant Collector with the Port Trust and Police Authorities in respect of the alleged pilferage and the refund claim be disposed of in accordance with law. rdquo 6. In the light of the above decision, I allow this appeal by way of remand with a direction to the Assistant Collector to make necessary enquiries with Port Trust Authorities and then to.dispose of the matter in the light of facts gathered by him in such an enquiry.
-
1992 (2) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... Chemicals and Industries Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 681 has also held relying on the ruling rendered in the case of Syanamid India Ltd. 1984 (15) E.L.T. 186 that it would not be in the interest of justice or conduce to a proper disposal of the question of correct classification of the goods if the appellants are prevented from raising a new ground so long as that ground is relevant to the question of classification. The Tribunal has also relied on the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. 1967 3 SCR 957 . The case laws relied on by the learned Advocate pertain to those aspects which raise a fresh ground and in which no allegations have been raised and inquiry being done or which were in the nature of filling in the gap. Therefore, the said rulings do not apply to the facts of the present case. As a result, the applications are allowed. The registry shall list the cases for final hearing.
-
1992 (2) TMI 218 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... he East End Paper Industries Ltd. case. We had noted in our order that plywood for tea chest are excluded from the benefit of Modvat in view of the specific provision in the Explanation clause of Rule 57A. Such plywood for tea chest occupies a similar position to Tinplate, such plywood is used for making the tea chests which are used for packing tea. The fact that same is specifically excluded would only mean that but for such an exclusion it would be eligible for Modvat. No such exclusion is there for Tinplate and on this account also the grant of Modvat benefit would be admissible for Tinplate. 9. For all these reasons, the decision taken would be in accordance with the relevant provision granting Modvat benefit and particularly in conformity both the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the East End Paper Industries rsquo case. In the circumstances, there is no point of law required to be referred to the High Court. We accordingly dismiss the reference application.
-
1992 (2) TMI 217 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjudication Order ... ... ... ... ..... to the petitioner to know the contents strikes at the very root of our judicial process. I must, therefore, conclude that the petitioner had no real and effective opportunity to deal with or meet the case put forward by the opposite side. rdquo 19. It is thus seen that non-supply of those documents has prejudiced the appellants. The order not being a speaking order and not having discussed the contentions of appellants, and since no reasons are furnished to reject the contentions raised by appellants, has violated the principles of natural Justice. Hence, the order deserves to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by way of remand and the learned adjudicating authority is directed to supply the two documents referred above to appellants, and grant personal hearing to appellants, and take into consideration all arguments that may be raised by appellants and thereafter to pass a speaking order in this behalf in the light of the observations made by us as above.
-
1992 (2) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... in, are attempting to distinguish the authorities of higher forum when the said rulings are very clear and to the point and such a trend has not been appreciated by higher forums. We have to only draw the attention of the lower authorities to follow the rulings of the higher forums without making any distinction when the rulings are quite clear and no ambiguity exists. The learned Collector (Appeals) has made attempt to show that the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is not a binding precedent on him and has drawn support from some rulings. With great respect, we have to state that the learned Collector (Appeals) has totally mis-conceived and mis-applied the rulings for no good reasons. 7. We do not see any reason to differ from the ruling rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Food Specialities case (supra) as the said ruling covers the facts of the case in toto. Applying the ruling, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Jute caddies not leviable to duty ... ... ... ... ..... re not dutiable. 17. In view of these rulings, we have to hold that the jute caddies is not a manufactured product and are, therefore, not goods for the purpose of excisability under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 that an article is not liable to excise merely because of its specification in Tariff Schedule unless it is lsquo goods rsquo known to the market. The Supreme Court has held that marketability is an essential Ingredient for dutiability under the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In view of this ruling of the Supreme Court and as we have held that the jute caddies are not excisable commodities, the question of deciding its classification does not arise and we are not recording our separate findings on this issue. In view of the findings given by us, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed and the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... resaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. We do not agree with the contention of the Departmental Representative that exemption Notification is the guiding factor to interpret the term lsquo manufacture rsquo since calendering with plain rollers was used in the said notification. The term lsquo manufacture rsquo either in the tariff entry or in any Notification has to be interpreted on the basis of its definition in the present Statute. What was not in the main definition of term lsquo manufacture rsquo cannot be substituted or entered in the Tariff entry or in the Notification. Since we have taken the view that calendering was not specified in the Tariff Entry and lsquo any other process rsquo does not include process of calendering and, as ruch, calendering does not amount to manufacture. We do not feel it necessary to go into other issues raised by both sides. 8. In the result, we set aside the impugned order, and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... order for implementation of the High Court rsquo s direction. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter remanded for de novo decision on the basis of my above observation. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed by remand on the above terms. 12. On a perusal of the order, it is clear that the same is in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon rsquo ble High Court. The date of payment of interest is not from the date of High Court rsquo s order. But the relevant date is the date of the impugned order of the Assistant Collector which was annexed to the writ petition at Annexure-I. Accordingly, we find that there are no merits in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. We direct the Assistant Collector to pass the de novo decision as per the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) which is impugned in this appeal, within two months from the date of receipt of this order and refund the amount in this regard within the above-said period.
-
1992 (2) TMI 212 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... e is the officer of Customs, through whose port the goods were allowed clearance on a proper satisfaction. This is mainly on account of the fact that the proper officer, who allowed clearance under Section 47, is required to be satisfied that the conditions imposed for clearance have been violated or a fraud has been committed in obtaining clearances by the importers. Hence in our view, the case proceedings should have been sent to Bombay Customs for adjudication in accordance with the law. There are no reasons to differ from the view taken by us earlier on the issue. We, therefore, set aside the order only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for the Collector of Customs, Rajkot, without prejudice to such action that may be taken by the Department in regard to the goods and/or on the importer, as permissible under the law. 6. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, of the penalty deposit of Rs. 25000/- reported to have been made, as per the Interim Order of this Bench.
............
|
