|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 228 Records
-
1994 (8) TMI 154 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Prosecution - Narcotic offence ... ... ... ... ..... Lastly, it was contended that the alleged contraband seized from the appellant was never produced in the Court. In view of Valsala v. State of Kerala (AIR 1994 S.C. 117), this infirmity rendered the prosecution case doubtful. It is not understood as to why the prosecution failed to produce the seized article in the Court. It is equally not possible to know as to why the Court did not insist on its production during trial. Without going into the question whether such non-production of the said article is sufficient by itself to defeat the charge, it is expected that the Courts will be more careful while dealing with such sensitive cases and before proceeding to record evidence in the case must ensure that all preliminaries including production of the incriminating articles in the Court are complete. 8. emsp In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed. Appellant rsquo s conviction and sentence as aforesaid are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.
-
1994 (8) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
`Manufacture’ - Lathe machine ... ... ... ... ..... 4, as amended in 1980 in relation to aluminium, refers to laquering or printing of plain containers but not foils. Thus viewed, aluminium in foils when printed would not attract duty again at the printing stage if duty had already been paid at the stage when foils were first produced. rdquo Examining the facts of the case before us in the light of the ratio of the decision relied upon by the appellant we find that they are not dealing with the subject of multi-stage duty. We are dealing with the provisions of Rule 173H and hence the facts in the two cases are different. 15. emsp On careful consideration of all the facts, circumstances and the case law cited and relied upon by the appellant we hold that the processes undertaken by the appellant in converting Lathe Machine Model HD-50B/1000 m.m. to Lathe Machine Model SB-65/1000 m.m. by undertaking certain processes amounted to manufacture. 16. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (8) TMI 152 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... of the same was plasticiser, will not make it as a plasticiser. The meaning in which the Trade understands the same has to be taken into account and if that is so, DAP Monomer cannot be understood in Trade Parlance as a plasticiser and the Department has not produced any evidence in this regard. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The learned Consultant, Shri Chattopadhyay also has produced the literature in the book named as ldquo Plastic Additives Handbook rdquo , wherein at page 370 plasticisers are described. Therein, the name of DAP Monomer was not at all mentioned. That is also another ground on which the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous. In such circumstances, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent Company is only in the nature of comments and therefore, the same stands disposed of in the light of this order.
-
1994 (8) TMI 151 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... interests of justice. 13. emsp Since the proceedings against the sister concerns flow basically out of the proceedings against appellant Jaya Soap Works and since acid slurry is the main raw material for manufacture of detergent cakes, we set aside the impugned order in respect of the other 5 Units also and remand the issues for re-adjudication, in accordance with law. 14. emsp The Departmental appeals have been filed questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned orders of the Collector seeking confirmation of the duty in full in terms of the show cause notices besides appropriate penalty relatable to the gravity of offence and the duty sought to be evaded. Since the matter has been remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law for the reasons set out in this order, the appeals filed by the Department would also stand dismissed as all the issues arising for determination will be considered by the adjudicating authority afresh in terms of the order of remand.
-
1994 (8) TMI 150 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts ... ... ... ... ..... part, enough light is thrown by the Single Bench decision (1990 Cr. LR 138) and Divisional Bench decision (MP 2021/93 decided on 7-1-1994) of this Court. On my consideration, I find it apt to permit preliminary objection, particularly in the light of the relief claimed, to prevail and preen. Law values liberty but voices dissent at wrong forum. It is improper to liberalise the rigours and lapidate the order passed by the Govt. of other State. 23. emsp In the result, I have no option but to mdash mdash the contention of wrong purpose rsquo and hold that the petition itself is presented at wrong place lsquo . 24. emsp The omega then is that this petition is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The interim order is consequently vacated. 25. emsp All points, as projected in this petition concerning the order of detention, are left litigable. In the facts and circumstances, parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this petition as incurred.
-
1994 (8) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... 7/86-Central Excises, dated the 1st March 1986, issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding grant of credit of excise duty paid on various ferrous and non-ferrous metals on a deemed basis. After considering the representations received in this regard and also taking into account the changes brought about by the Finance Act, 1988, in respect of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, the Government have, in supersession of Order F. No. B. 22/5/86-TRU (Pt), dated 12-6-1986 and F. No. 332/30/87-TRU, dated 2-11-1987, decided to issue the following directions under the second proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the said rules. rdquo 5. In view of the foregoing, I am inclined to agree with the appellants that between 12-6-1986 and 20-5-1988 steel sheets of thickness not exceeding 5 mm and falling under Heading 72.12 were entitled to deemed credit in terms of Order No. B. 22/5/86-TRU (Pt), dated 12-6-1986. 6. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 148 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import trade control - Letter of Authority Holder ... ... ... ... ..... me does not appear to be in conformity with the policy provisions, as laid down in the Hand Book. The provisions in the Hand Book are not provided for, to be curtailed by the Collector or any other agency and even otherwise, this being a procedural requirement, cannot alter the basic requirement. Even otherwise there is clear evidence of the appellants having acted as a Letter of Authority holder for NRSA and mere non-compliance of this requirement under the public notice, could not render the imported goods as liable to confiscation. 7. emsp Appx. 6(5) of the Policy Book AM 1985-88 permits import of the subject goods by the Research Institute and NRSA falls within the category of those, who are eligible to cause the import under the said provisions. The appellants have merely acted as the Letter of Authority holders. Under these circumstances, the objection raised cannot be sustained and the order of the authority below is therefore set aside. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1994 (8) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... d to Apex Electricals and the order passed thereon by the Collector deserves to be quashed and set aside. So also the prosecution which has been launched against Apex Electricals will have to be quashed on the ground that it did not commit the offence alleged against it. rdquo 7. emsp Having regard to the fact that the appellants had complied with all the central excise formalities and there being no provision under which they were required to declare the source of finance obtained by each of the concerned units, on the ratio of the judgement quoted above, we hold that the invocation of the extended period beyond six months for confirmation of the demand by the Collector is not legal and sustainable. 8. emsp The Final Order Nos. 276 to 279/93-C, dated 4-8-1993 stands amended accordingly and as a consequence thereof all the four appeals are allowed with consequent relief to the appellants in accordance with law. 9. This order shall be read as a part of Final Order in question.
-
1994 (8) TMI 146 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Proforma credit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... been levied. For the purpose of enhancement, some strong grounds ought to exist, which do not appear to be existing, and otherwise also, the blame for evasion of duty has to be equally shared by the Department. The Reliance Industries Ltd. has never attempted to withhold the relevant documents, and as is evident, audit party from the appellant too, had audited the accounts. The principal object of such audit parties is to find out whether the assessee has been regular in maintaining accounts and the Government dues have been properly paid. If such a party, whose main job is to detect such lapses, (whether they may be intentional or have advertently crept in) fails to discharge the duty assigned, the same would tantamount to contributory lapse, and it may not justifiably be open for the department to plead that exemplary penalty ought to be imposed on the assessee. The penalty imposed appears to be fair and reasonable. 16. Thus, I concur with the order proposed by Member (T).
-
1994 (8) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ning to redemption of fine and penalty, by taking a lenient view. Therefore, we are of the view that in this particular case, there is no reason for imposing such a high penalty and fine and hence we order for reducing the fine to Rs. 2,000/- and penalty to Rs. 5,000/- only in terms of the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. Thus the appeal is allowed in the above terms. 12. emsp Assent per Gowri Shankar, Member (T) . - While I am in agreement with the conclusion of my learned collegue, I would like to add the following observation. 13. emsp The gravity of the offence as disclosed in the appeal before us itself does not merit a higher redemption fine and penalty than has been determined by my learned colleague. I am of the view that there can be no precedent by way of decided cases with regard to the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, except to reiterate that these must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
-
1994 (8) TMI 144 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import Policy has to be followed in letter and spirit ... ... ... ... ..... that the policy has to be followed in letter and spirit. If the import policy lays down the nature of the goods that are under the restricted list, these items have to be held to be importable under a licence and there cannot be any modification of the policy by a letter clarifying a position in the context of import of certain particular items. We therefore, hold that the learned lower authority has rightly confiscated the goods. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also the pleas made, we hold that ends of justice would be met if the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 (rupeees One Lakh) and the penalty to Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand). The appellants rsquo plea for allowing re-export of the goods cannot be allowed as no facts have been brought to our notice as to how the goods are defective. The appellants rsquo prayer for re-export therefore cannot be allowed. But for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal in the two cases cited above wherein a number of decisions have also been discussed in detail. I find that the case of the appellant is that deemed Modvat credit facility on M.S. Sheet withdrawn w.e.f. 2-11-1987 was made known by the Collector, Central Excise vide his Trade Notice No. 66/87 dated 3-12-1987 and that though this Trade Notice was circulated to the Trade and Industry concerned only w.e.f. 16-12-1987, therefore, in any event the withdrawal of the facility of deemed Modvat credit on M.S. Sheets was intimated to the Trade under Trade Notice No. 66/87 on 3-12-1987. Having regard to the ratio of the decisions cited (supra) I hold that the withdrawal of the deemed Modvat credit facility to the appellant in the instant case will be applicable only w.e.f. 3-12-1987. Having regard to these findings, deemed Modvat credit can be disallowed only w.e.f. 3-12-1987. 7.But for the above modification the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
FERA - Offence - Investigation ... ... ... ... ..... time should be taken by the respondent to complete both the investigation and the adjudication in the matter and once the investigation and the adjudication are completed, the property seized should be returned to the person from whom it was seized. 7. emsp In the instant case, it is alleged by the petitioner that the investigation has been prolonged and on the other hand, it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation. However, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he has undertaken to co-operate with the Department in any manner as may be reasonably required. In view of the above, I feel that the ends of justice will be reserved by directing the respondent to complete the investigation within a period of four months from today and the documents seized under Section 38 of the Act viz., the passports shall be returned to the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms.
-
1994 (8) TMI 141 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Redemption of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ication and when the condition of the exemption notification is not complied with, the goods are to be charged to duty and hence the demand is sustainable, irrespective of the fact that the Respondents have not redeemed the goods. This is the only point, which is sought to be made as a point of law arising out of the order of this Bench. 3. emsp There is no dispute that under Section 126 of the Customs Act, goods, on confiscation vest with the Government and the officer is to take charge of such goods. When the offer for redemption is not exercised, payment of redemption fine as well as duty does not therefore, arise in respect of these goods. Only where goods are not available and have gone into consumption or when goods are not confiscated, duty is payable for violation of the condition of exemption. This statutory position cannot be said to have been affected by the exemption Notification. The Reference Application from the Revenue is misplaced and is therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 140 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Adjudication - Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... w on a question of law and therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the issue in the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order, as rightly conceded by the learned SDR has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, we modify the order of Tribunal dated 1-7-1994 and by granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and taking up the appeal itself in the above circumstances, with the consent of parties, in the peculiar aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned order for the reasons stated above and remand the matter for de novo adjudication. Ordered accordingly. We clarify that we are not pronouncing on the validity of the Boards rsquo circular. The learned Counsel at this stage pleaded that the appellant may be given the liberty to raise all issues that are open to him under law. It is open to the appellant to raise all issues that are open to him under law.
-
1994 (8) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... should be regarded as being in the production line. The machine was considered as designed for production of a commodity as it improved the functioning of the parts/components by cleaning which is an essential requirement for fitment of the components/parts to the engines manufactured. The Tariff Heading under consideration in the present case is not in pari materia with the one examined in the above case, apart from the manner of use of the subject goods being not as described in the Heading sought by the Appellants. The decision of the Additional Collector is upheld and the appeal is consequently dismissed. 6. emsp The appellants have also sought an additional relief namely issue of detention certificate. The dispute from the Import Trade Control angle which was raised in the show cause notice having been decided by the Additional Collector in their favour, this request may be disposed of by the competent departmental authority. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
-
1994 (8) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
S.S.I. Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... account of the rent of factory building. It is evident from these entries that the appellants were manufacturing the goods bearing the brand name of M/s. Morgendew Laboratories only on job work basis and Morgendew Laboratories had not carried out any manufacturing activity in the appellants rsquo firm by using their own labour or hired labour and by hiring the appellants rsquo factory along with the machinery or shift or shifts in the appellants rsquo factory for the manufacture of the goods in question. 8. emsp In view of the above discussion on the ratio of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indica Laboratory (P) Ltd. v. UOI extracted above we do not find any force in the appellants rsquo contention that the goods manufactured during the relevant period bearing the trade mark of Morgendew Laboratories were separately eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as goods manufactured by a loan licensee. 9. The appeals are, therefore, rejected.
-
1994 (8) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Low Sulphur Heavy Stock ... ... ... ... ..... upon the Tribunal rsquo s order No. 834 to 839/86-C dated 17-12-1986 which followed the principle laid down in Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (supra) that the term feed stock rsquo occurring in the notification has to be deemed as referring to raw materials delivered to a machine for process. In our view the case law cited by the appellants is not relevant since none of the judgments relate to the examination of the scope of any notification exempting any goods subject to the condition requiring their use as feed stock rsquo and also in view of the fact that each notification is to be interpreted strictly according to its language and there can be no room for intendment. 10. emsp In view of the above discussion and having regard to the fact that the matter is admittedly covered against the appellants by the Tribunal rsquo s order No. 834 to 839/86-C dated 17th December, 1986, we reject the appeal.
-
1994 (8) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... e being no claim for refund of auxiliary duty in terms of Notification No. 141/90-Cus., dated 30-3-1990, there was no decision on that issue by the Asstt. Collector and on this ground, he rejected the appeal. We find no infirmity in the findings of the Collector (Appeals) since the claim for refund for auxiliary duty in terms of Notification No. 141/90-Cus., dated 30-3-1990 not having been filed by the appellants before the Asstt. Collector, their claim on this ground made for the first time before the Collector (Appeals) merited rejection as time barred. This view finds support from the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Modi Rayon and Silk Mills v. CCE, reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 933 wherein it has been held that the ground for claim not amendable from the date of the initial claim when it requires elaborate examination of new facts/material. (iv) Renumber the existing para 6 as para 8. The captioned Misc. Application and ROM Application are disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... of their belief of the interpretation of the provisions of the law that the exempted goods were not required to be included and these did not include the value of the exempted goods which they manufactured at the relevant time. The Tribunal found that the explanation was plausible, and also noted that the Department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by the respondent when the declaration was filed by the respondent. The respondent did not include the value of the product other than those falling under Tariff Item 14E manufactured by the respondent and this was in the knowledge, according to the Tribunal, of the authorities. These findings of the Tribunal have not been challenged before us or before the Tribunal itself as being based on no evidence. rdquo On the ratio of the judgment quoted above, we hold that the Additional Collector rsquo s order confirming the demand for the extended period beyond six months is not sustainable.
........
|
