|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 259 Records
-
1992 (8) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... 83. We are not convinced with the argument of the DR that benefit cannot be extended since consumption of the 3 raw materials was not directly in the manufacture of the final products but in the manufacture of intermediate product (masticated rubber) and intermediate product was transferred. Since it is not in dispute that the raw materials (the 3 goods mentioned earlier) were consumed in the manufacture of masticated rubber that finally went into production of the ldquo said goods rdquo (tyres, tubes and flaps) and taking into consideration of the organisation of M.R.F and the pattern of manufacture adopted by them as manufacturing process was spread over different factories of the appellants as it was rightly argued by the representative with reference to case laws. We do not find any justification for denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.95/83. In the result we set aside the impugned order and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1992 (8) TMI 177 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Import of goods from Nepal - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... h have been exported to Nepal from countries other than India. The very seizure memo indicates that these are Nepalese goods. In order to come within the purview of Notification No. 76-Cus. 65, dated 19-6-1965 it must be proved that the goods which are imported to India should have been goods which have been exported to Nepal from the countries other than India. There is no such proof that these goods are third country origin goods which have been imported into India from Nepal. On the contrary, the records as well as the statements go to show that these are Nepalese goods. So, there is no contravention of the above-said notification and on that ground, the goods cannot be confiscated. Accordingly, the confiscation of the goods in question is set aside. The penalty imposed on the appellants is also set aside. The order of confiscation of the truck in question is also set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the appellants are entitled for the consequential benefits.
-
1992 (8) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machine for Fabric Printing Curing ... ... ... ... ..... eral machines such as - (1) TEE Shirt Printing/Curing Machine. (2) TEE Shirt Printing and Curing Machine. (3) TEE Shirt Printing or Curing Machine. Both the words lsquo Printing rsquo and lsquo Curing rsquo occurring together without any words in between or without any sign in between is clearly confusing. From that angle also, we are of the view that benefit should be extended to the importer because of the inherent ambiguity in the entry at S. No. 103 in the notification. There is also nothing on the record to controvert the certificate given by the Principal of Government Institute of Textile Chemistry and Knitting Technology, Ludhiana from the side of the department. This certificate clearly supports the view of the appellants. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the benefit of Notification 108/89 read with 16/85 should be extended to the appellants. We order accordingly. 5. Appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (8) TMI 175 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... . Choudhury and he is described as the Manager of the appellants. Shri Choudhury filed a reply. It is thus clear that no notice was issued to the appellant company as such. In order to impose any penalty on M/s. Premier Road Carriers Ltd., a notice should have been issued to them under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not sufficient to issue a notice to the Manager. The contention of the learned J.D.R. is ldquo that Shri Choudhury filed a reply on behalf of the appellant company. But, as stated above, in order to penalise a particular person, a show cause notice should have been issued to him and the mere knowledge of the appellants in this regard is not sufficient to penalise them. These are the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court in a decision reported in AIR 1973 Calcutta 134. Accordingly, on both these grounds, the appeal succeeds. The penalty of Rs. 20/000/- imposed on M/s. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. is hereby set aside, with consequential reliefs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s). This Section Note reads as follows ldquo 1(K) - This Section does not cover articles of Chapter 94 (for example furniture, mattresses supports, lamps and lighting fittings...... rdquo It is also not possible to accept the argument that the lower authorities should not have gone by the technical drawing because it is appellants rsquo own document relating to the very type of toot box style 1140 of which classification was sought. It is, further, found that this is not a case of the Department seeking to modify an already approved classification but SCN has been issued on their filing classification list asking them why the goods be not classified under 94.03 for the reasons stated in the SCN. Hence, the case law cited in respect of modification of approved classification list, are not quite apt to the appellants situation. In the result, there is no reason to interfere with classification of the goods as done by the lower authorities and the appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1992 (8) TMI 173 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Unaccompanied baggage ... ... ... ... ..... why the goods could not be shipped until 23-7-1991. We have come across cases which show that within the next three or four months after the war in Kuwait the position had generally settled in that area. In one case decided by the Tribunal in Order No. 24/1992 dated 23-1-1992 in Appeal No. C/864/91 /Mas the goods had been shipped from Saudi Arabia and received in India on 25-5-1991. The facts in that case are that the appellant in that case left the place because of warlike conditions on 5-1-1991 and he had entrusted the packages to the airlines before his departure and the packages were received by the shipping agents on 15-2-1991 and the same received in India on 25-5-1991 by him. In the present case we find the delay in despatch of the goods has been inordinately long and we do not find that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay in shipment and in view of this we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is maintainable. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
-
1992 (8) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... with reference to Notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act. Viewed in this light, the Notification 68/87 can be construed as setting the outer limit to CVD, where such article is leviable to Central Excise Duty. In such a view of the matter, in the present case, the department has classified the goods for CVD purposes under Chapter 90 and the goods imported are covered by Sl. No. 1 relating to parts of cinematograph projectors contained in Notification 71/86, which grants nil duty exemption. It is also to be noted that there is no condition attached to this exemption. Therefore, it was not possible to sustain the view taken by the department in the facts of this case that when there are two notifications, one specifically for CVD and another on the excise side, then only the notification, which is specifically for CVD will prevail. In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and the appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1992 (8) TMI 171 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Redemption Fine ... ... ... ... ..... om the ones which were produced for clearance of the consignment. These licences were not produced before the authorities and the reasons for the same were that there was a raid by the I.T. authorities. Going by the licences produced and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held that the goods were not covered by the licences produced and there is no attenuating circumstance to warrant leniency as in the other cases cited by the appellants. No plea has been taken that the redemption fine is excessive taking into consideration the market value. It is noted that as it is, the lower authority has given 20 depreciation on market value while fixing the redemption fine for the defects pointed out. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and long period for which the goods had been kept, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand). Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
S.S.I. exemption - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... at the two units are one and the same. On the other hand, permission has been granted to respondents for 56B facility. The Rule says that such facility may be granted to a manufacturer for removal of semi-finished excisable goods for certain processes, ldquo to some other premises of his or to the premises of another person rdquo and for the receipt back of such goods without payment of duty. Now, it is not the Department rsquo s case that they have granted the 56B facility to respondents for removal of the goods to some other premises of the respondents themselves, which again will not support the Deptt. rsquo s case for denying the exemption. Further, the Deptt. has also failed to rebut the respondents rsquo claim by evidence that even combining the value of capital investment in the two units, the total would be less than Rs. 20 lakh. In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and, the appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1992 (8) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification depends on condition of the goods at the time of their import ... ... ... ... ..... rticle is classified and put under a distinct entry, the basis of the classification is not open to question. Technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance, we then see no difficulty for statutory classification under a particular entry rdquo . Right from the time that an order for these goods was placed till they were cleared from the Customs, the goods have been described as Plain Polyester Film and they have also been cleared against Serial No. 451 of the OGL Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, which relates to Plain Polyester Film. This being the position, the condition of the goods at the time of their import is what has to be taken into account. We do not, therefore, consider any merit in the argument that even though the goods were so described and known, they should be-classified as electrical insulators. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d it difficult agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge because in our opinion artificial fur cloth, does not include velvet or velveteen. As indicated above, in order to term any fabric as artificial fur cloth, one of the essential requirements is that it should be an imitation of some animal fur or it should took like or resemble animal fur. Unless that is so, it cannot be termed as artificial fur cloth. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that the fabric imported by the petitioners is not artificial fur cloth and, as such, the respondents were justified in refusing the clearance of the said goods under the REP Licence. 15. The petitions are therefore dismissed. The respondents shall be at liberty to adjudicate the claims of the petitioners and to realise the lawful duties in accordance with law. Until the adjudication is over the Bank Guarantees furnished by the petitioners and the bonds executed shall all be kept alive.
-
1992 (8) TMI 167 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... pression. The present, however, is an extreme case where departmental officers have also not been spared as collusion has been hinted. It is interesting to find that there have been two decisions at the fairly senior level of Additional Collector in the Collectorate in favour of the assessees. If such be the case, the decision of the lower authorities in this case will hardly be a case of collusion. The longer time limit is clearly not attracted. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellants would be entitled to the consequential relief. However, as the Collector has referred to another adjudication in the matter by the Addl. Collector based on the declaration given under Rule 57G and credit taken under Rule 57H, we have to make it clear that our findings here will be in the facts of the present case. The outcome in the matter arising from the case decided by the Additional Collector will be independent of the present case.
-
1992 (8) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... quo and then to proceed to classify them under sub-heading 3925.10. Since no evidence has been produced on this point, we do not think that the authorities have succeeded in making a case against the appellants. Even if a few orders were received from the Government Departments, for tanks for water supply, this, by itself does not make such tanks ldquo Builders rsquo ware rdquo . The statement of Shri T.R. Vaidayanathan, Company Secretary, which was recorded during the investigation also supports the view that the appellants have consistently taken. We, therefore, consider that, in the absence of any evidence that the goods were ldquo Builders rsquo ware rdquo , classification under sub-heading 3926.90 would be appropriate. In this view of the matter, the allegation of mis-declaration fails and there was no case for raising a demand for duty. The appeals are allowed and the orders of both the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1992 (8) TMI 165 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... the process of manufacture and which go directly into the manufacturing stream by themselves or are used in the manufacture of materials which go into the manufacturing stream resulting in the manufacture of the end-product. In the present case the use of Sand Paper is akin to the use of wire netting and woollen felts on the paper machine. Therefore, following the ratio of the above decision, we hold that Sand Paper used is not eligible for the benefit of the MODVAT credit. Further the Sand Paper by virtue of its working on the plywood has to be taken to be in the nature of a tool which stands excluded from the purview of Rule 57A for the purpose of grant of MODVAT credit by virtue of Explanation under Rule 57A. In view of the above the ratio of the case laws cited by the respondents is distinguishable as in all those cases the functioning performed by the items was not in the nature of tools or accessories of a machine. 5. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... portant. Admittedly Central Sales Tax claimed for deduction is not payable by the appellant. It is immaterial whether the non-payability, has arisen on account of any exemption notification issued by State Government or otherwise. Hence its deduction is not permissible from the value of the excisable goods. (VI) Freight Forwarding Charges There is a conflict of findings between the Additional Collector and that of the Assistant Collector on this issue. The Additional Collector has found that these charges are neither equalised nor uniform and hence these are not deductible. The Assistant Collector while dealing with the price list, on the other hand, has found that these are deductible and therefore, he has allowed deduction on account of freight subject to production of evidence in this regard and subject to its verification by the Range Superintendent. We agree with the findings of the Assistant Collector in his order dated 2-11-1987. 4. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (8) TMI 163 - CEGAT, MADRAS
S.S.I. Exemption - Branded goods ... ... ... ... ..... erature submitted by M/s. NGEP during the personal hearing of lsquo On load tap changers rsquo which are mounted in the transformer. M/s. NGEF have indicated on the photo of transformer of the literature of lsquo OLTC rsquo and have also dearly indicated the place of utilisation of the said Aluminium housings and covers. This established that the Aluminium housing and covers are component parts of the Brushed product. 23. From the foregoing discussions I am satisfied that Aluminium housings and covers affixed with the brand name of lsquo NGEF rsquo cannot be held as branded goods and hence would not come within the mischief of para 7 read with Explanation VIII of Notification 175/86 C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. 5. In view of above, in the interests of justice we set aside the impugned order and remand the issue since apparently on identical issue there cannot be conflicting views by the quasi-judicial authorities in the same Collectorate. The appeal is therefore remanded.
-
1992 (8) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... t he got 90,000 Bangladesh Takas in exchange of Indian currency of Rs. 44,500/ - and Punam Chand Bhotra paid the same. So the recovery of 90,000/- Bangladesh Takas is only a part of the statement of Shantilal Chhalani. There is no independent corroboration of this evidence. The appellant, when contacted, had denied about this fact at the first instance itself. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot be found guilty only on the un-corroborated testimony of Shantilal Chhalani. The learned J.D.R. Shri B.B. Sarkar stated that the same is sufficient and relied on the decision of Sukkar Narain rsquo s case 1987 (27) E.L.T. 74 (Tri.) . But in Sukkar Narain rsquo s case decided by the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal, in addition to the confession of the co-accused, there were the account books and the evidence of the crew members which corroborated the same. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the penalty of Rs. 500/- imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside.
-
1992 (8) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit - Declaration not filed by assessee ... ... ... ... ..... nd the assessee. Further RT 12 returns for the above period were assessed and appellants were never informed that they were required to file separate declaration under Rule 57G. The letter given by the assessee dated 21-4-1986 along with the classification lists clearly indicates that the inputs are used in the process of manufacturing and the final product. Declaration is only to enable the department to verify whether input and final product are covered by Modvat Scheme. The decisions cited by the Departmental representative are not applicable for the facts of this case as they were held in different context with reference to different commodity where detailed description of inputs was necessary but only broad description of inputs was given in the declaration. In the facts and circumstances of this case and for the foregoing conclusion we do not find any justification for denying the Modvat benefit. In the view we have taken the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1992 (8) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Strictures against Department ... ... ... ... ..... y did not end by merely sending a copy of our order to the Collector particularly when this matter had come several times and we have recorded a finding that the Departmental Authorities rsquo action in unilaterally debiting the PLA was totally arbitrary and uncalled for. We have already expressed the view that in the past itself we expected greater attention from the learned Jt. CDR in a matter of such importance and we are sorry to record our unhappiness at the attitude which he has taken during the hearing of the matter today. 5. At the request of the learned Jt. CDR that he required further four weeks rsquo time to report compliance of our order, dated 22nd July, 1992, the matter is adjourned to 8th September, 1992 for mention. 6. A copy of this order as well as a copy of our Miscellaneous Order No. 142/92-C, dated 22nd July 1992 may be sent to the learned Member (Legal and Judicial) (Shri B. Sankaran), Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi, by name.
-
1992 (8) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... y allegation against the other units, on prima facie grounds, we are obliged to hold that the duty levied on the other units may not be sustainable their respective replies to the show cause notice admitting themselves as manufacturers notwithstanding. Having regard to the factual background of the case, the amount of duty involved and the allegation of suppression levelled and other relevant factors, we direct M/s. Premier Electronics to pre-deposit the duty of Rs. 89,166 (Rs. Eighty-nine thousand and one hundred and sixty-six) and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on or before 30th October, 1992 and report compliance, subject to which pre-deposit of the balance of penalty by M/s. Premier Electronics shall stand dispensed with pending appeal. We also grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty by all other units pending disposal of the appeals and also grant stay of recovery of the same. The matter will be called on 30th October, 1992 for reporting compliance.
............
|
