|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Transaction value ... ... ... ... ..... with reference to different imports he has backed out and abandoned the goods. However in the absence of clear findings with reference to charges in respect of other imports we are not convinced that he is a habitual offender and although imposition of penalty was justified. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view the quantum requires to be reduced. Accordingly penalty is reduced to Rs. 2,50,000/- as against Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakh) in case of Importer and similarly penalty is reduced to Rs. 2,50,000/- as against Rs. 7,50,000/- on Supplier. As regards prayer of the Supplier for allowing them to sell the goods in the country to another party, we direct the Collector to release the goods on payment of duty amount on redetermined value and on collection of other incidental charges. Quantum of redemption fine can also be reviewed by the Collector in the light of the redetermination of the assessable value. Thus appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (9) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... stereo systems, radar, X-rays, tape recorders, computers. The blade manufacturing industry thus is not an electronic industry. Sl. No. 109 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 118/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 covers vacuum coater evaporator sputtering unit head aided coater for depositing various metal films, metal oxide films, and photo resist films. The concessional rate of customs duty is applicable only to the goods which are used in the electronic industry. In the case before us the importers were a razor blade manufacturer and were not registered as an electronic industry. Accordingly, we hold that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 118/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 is not available to the goods in question. 18. emsp Accordingly, we hold that the goods in question are correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.59(2) of the Tariff but are not eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 118/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980. 19. Appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... pe of situation which has arisen in the present case and does not in any way bar the continuation of benefit already taken under Notification No. 201/79 with reference to the same inputs and outputs irrespective of change of classification. We, therefore, find that in respect of the stocks already lying with the assessee on the date of amendment i.e. 16/17th March, 1985 in respect of which the credit had already been taken in terms of entitlement under Notification No. 201/79. The benefit could be availed of even after the date of said amendment in respect of declared inputs or final outputs, if the benefit of said Notification had already been allowed by the proper officer in the normal course and the appellant could not be asked to reverse the credit or repay the amount so utilised. 14. In other words, in respect of the stocks in question the appellants were not hit by the explanation. 15. In view of the above position, we set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal.
-
1994 (9) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... y. The Bench had taken the view that prima facie the records disclosed the applicant had sold the cars at higher price and on that ground the Bench had taken the view that partial pre-deposit for the purpose of Section 129E would be justified. We follow the ratio of the precedent Stay application because of the similarity of the facts even prima facie view. We accordingly direct that the applicant herein pre-deposit the amount of Rs. 75,000/- on or before 30th November, 1994 and on such compliance the pre-deposit of the balance amount penalty is dispensed with and its recovery stayed. 5. The matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 2-12-1994. 6. emsp In passing the above order, we note that as far as the duty aspect is concerned it stands covered by a bank guarantee already executed in this regard and this bank guarantee may be continued. It is made clear no order is passed as regards redemption fine since it is not covered under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
1994 (9) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste of texturised yarn - Dutiability of ... ... ... ... ..... ariff Item 18-IV includes only wastes arising in the manufacture of man-made fibres and man-made filament yarns. The goods in dispute (waste) do not arise in either of these processes but arise in the process of conversion of duty-paid filament yarn into texturised yarn. We, therefore, hold that the waste in dispute cannot be classified under the then Tariff Item 18-IV. Further, we find that duty on textured yarn is only Rs. 5/- if it is manufactured out of duty-paid base yarn. It, therefore, does not appeal to common sense as to how duty on good yarn could be only Rs. 5/- and duty on wastes could be Rs. 9/- per kg., therefore they will not be liable to pay duty at the rate of Rs. 9/- per kg. 7. emsp In view of the above discussions, we hold that the waste in dispute is not classifiable under the then Tariff Item 18-IV, and therefore, was not liable to be assessed at a rate of Rs. 9/- per kg. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (9) TMI 185 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Vegetable product ... ... ... ... ..... ay contain any other oil which itself need not be hydrogenated but may be mixed with vegetable oil or fat which had been hardened by hydrogenation or by any other process and was fit for human consumption. It was, their submission that mere addition of Til oil and Vitamin A to the hydrogenated product does not lead to the emergence of a different product and it remains covered under the same heading and therefore the entire quantity including Til oil was eligible for exemption and they had rightfully claimed it. 8. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the appellant rsquo s contentions have strong force. The product remains vegetable product as known in the market even after addition of the oil and/or Vitamin A. It is immaterial as to whether they are added before or after hydrogenation till the product as known to the market remains the same and is classifiable under the same heading. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal.
-
1994 (9) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... tion before passing his order. 23. emsp At this stage the counsel sought leave to mention that during the pendency of these proceedings the department had detained some of their goods by order of the Assistant Collector, Pune dated 26-8-1994, by virtue of this order, articles for making or manufacturing or producing such goods and plant and machinery of their have been detained till the amount of Rs. 56,84,913.50 was paid or a stay order from the proper authority was produced and he prays that necessary observations and directions may be made in this regard so that the position is clear to the authorities below. 24. emsp We observe that as in this matter stay has been granted and simultaneously the appeal has been heard and disposed of in the above terms the aforesaid order of Assistant Collector dated 26-8-1994, automatically becomes infructuous and the goods and other articles if any detained may be released forthwith. 25. This is clarified for the benefit of all concerned.
-
1994 (9) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Aluminium dross and skimmings ... ... ... ... ..... are obtained and matter examined in the light of fresh materials. There is force in the arguments of the ld. JDR. The dross and slags are known in the market and are having definite use as per the definition seen in the Chemical Dictionary. The assessee is also selling them. Therefore, this aspect requires reconsideration. Thus the impugned orders are set aside and matters remanded for de novo consideration, in the light of the observations made. The department shall obtain test results of the items in question, with regard to its contents and also examine the question of its excisability in the light of the citation on this very item rendered in the old tariff. The department shall issue fresh show-cause notice or corrigendum, if need be. The assessee shall be given full opportunity to counter the department rsquo s claim and to present their case in the hearing to be afforded by the original authorities. 14. Thus, the appeals are allowed by remand for de novo consideration.
-
1994 (9) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Fax machine ... ... ... ... ..... s Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras reported in 1991 (50) E.L.T. 633 (Tri.) 1991 (32) ECR 461 (Paras 8E, 8F and 9) had held as under - ............ ........... .......... ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... The Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Blue Star Ltd. reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 186 (Para 8) had held as under - ............ ........... .......... ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... The Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Office Photostat Printers reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 142 (Para 4) had held as under - ............ ........... .......... ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... 3. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not find any justification for the exercise of inherent powers. Even otherwise, the respondents appear to have a good case on merits. Accordingly, the applications for grant of stay are rejected.
-
1994 (9) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Quantification of demand made by order of Assistant Collector ... ... ... ... ..... er for out of turn hearing, the appellant with his petition dated 19th September, 1994 has attached the detention memo and there are recovery proceedings. We are told by Shri Doshi that there is recurring effect and demand of Rs. 1,24,00,.... has been created so far and show cause notice has already been issued. Shri Doshi pleaded that to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, out of turn hearing may be granted as demand has got nothing to do with the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. Shri Doshi has opposed the grant of out of turn hearing. As observed above, there is no demand in the present order. There is recurring effect on the future clearances and show cause notices are being issued from time to time. In order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, we are of the view that it is a fit case where out of turn hearing may be granted. Accordingly, we accept the prayer of the appellant for out of turn hearing. The matter to come up for hearing on 6th February, 1995.
-
1994 (9) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Glass Banding Tapes imported ... ... ... ... ..... quo polyester fiber. On a plain reading of the above, it follows that Polyester Resins are alkyd type of resin. Alkyd Resins are specifically covered by Heading 3907 of the Central Excise Tariff and being covered by Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, they are evidently plastic material. Hence, the appellants rsquo contention that Polyester Resin impregnated fabric tapes imported by them could not be deemed as plastic impregnated has to be rejected. The finding that Polyester Resin impregnated tapes in question had to be deemed as plastic impregnated also finds support from the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) wherein it was held that the general term Plastic rsquo as understood in the Trade and technical books would cover resin also. 5. emsp In view of the above discussion, we find that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). We therefore, reject the appeal.
-
1994 (9) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Trade discount ... ... ... ... ..... different sets of buyers are based on well-defined commercial considerations so as to rule out the possibility that these discounts based on considerations other than proper trade criteria in a transaction at arm rsquo s length. The appellants, while stating the position in law in this regard, have not put forth any evidence to show that the varying discounts are demonstrably in accordance with these provisions in law. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the Collector (Appeals) order in this regard. It is also not on record that the appellants had proved with satisfactory evidence that forwarding charges are in the nature of transport charges in which case only such costs are deductible from assessable value. In the result, the orders of the Collector (Appeals) are modified only to the extent that fixation/application charges are, for the reasons discussed above, to be excluded from the assessable value. The orders of the lower authorities are, otherwise, upheld.
-
1994 (9) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... t as aforesaid. It is settled law that mere filing of the appeal or SLP does not amount to stay. In the instant case, as aforesaid, sufficient time was also given by the Tribunal at the first instance which was later on extended by the Delhi High Court. The appellants did not comply with the stay order and approached the Delhi High Court for extension of time. The Delhi High Court refused to extend the time. Under these circumstances we are not inclined to adjourn the hearing as prayed for only to enable the appellant to ascertain the outcome of their said pending SLP. Since admittedly both the appellants have not complied with the stay order, as aforesaid, both the appeals are rejected for non-compliance in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - a course approved by the Apex Court in the case of Noveen Chand Chottelal v. C.B.E.C., 1981 (8) E.L.T. 679 (S.C.) and Vijay Prakash Mehta and Jawahar D. Mehta v. C.C., Bombay, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 178 (S.C.) AIR 1988 S.C. 2010.
-
1994 (9) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 4-1982 C 35 30 and levy of CVD was not disputed. Shri B.K. Singh fairly stated that the matter is fully covered against him in view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 543 (Tribunal). Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents. 2. emsp We have heard Shri B.K. Singh, the learned SDR and have gone through the records. The Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 543 (Tribunal) in Para Nos. 7, 9 and 11 and held as under - The facts of the present case are similar to the earlier decision. The chemical composition is as under - Nickel 0.016 Chrome 20.03 Iron Balance Manganese 0.31 Silicon 0.57 Aluminium 3.43 Carbon 0.04 Phosphorus 0.024 Sulphur 0.010 We do not find any reason to deviate from the earlier decision. We follow the same and we do not find any merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal. The same is rejected.
-
1994 (9) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Misdeclaration as to description of goods not established ... ... ... ... ..... imported goods and there is no much quality difference between the Wide Spec polystyrene and regular graded polystyrene. In view of the clear finding that quality of imported goods was inferior to the prime quality of polystyrene or graded material, we are of the view that same cannot be compared since it cannot be said to be contemporaneous evidence. We also take note of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that price of prime quality of goods started from US 600 and goods of prime quality imported from Russia in the case of Priya Plastics wherein goods were described as of CIS origin and the price quoted was US 650 by a Hong Kong supplier for shipment from Singapore and these were not considered by the Adjudicating Authority in determining the value. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that there was no justification either for enhancement of transaction value or to impose penalty. All these four appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (9) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tment to make further enquiry on receipt of the Classification List to satisfy themselves as to whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 20/89, dated 1-3-1989 and by not making any further enquiries the Department had failed to carry out its function which it was expected to perform and for its failure the party could not be held responsible. In view of the finding of the Tribunal in Order No. E/15/93-D, dated 13-1-1993 in a case in which proceedings were initiated on the basis of the same facts, we hold that the impugned order confirming the demand invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act is not sustainable. For these reasons, the case law cited on behalf of the respondents cannot be of any assistance to them. 8. emsp In view of the above discussion, the impugned order confirming the demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1994 (9) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay application by department ... ... ... ... ..... -produced below - ldquo Affidavit in support of misc. petition. I, K.N. Pillai, Assistant Collector of Central Excise,.Hyderabad. VIII Division, Hyderabad Collectorate, Hyderabad do hereby take oath and state as follows on solemn affirmation. 1. that, I have been authorised by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad to file an appeal before the CEGAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s. OMC Computers Ltd. , Patancheru and had filed an appeal on 11-6-1994. 2. that, I have gone through the contents of the annexed Misc. application and understood the same properly. 3. that the contents of the Misc. application are true and correct to my personal knowledge based on records maintained in the office of the appellant. Sd/ - (Deponent) Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, VIII Division, Hyderabad. The perusal of the same shows that it is not attested by Oath Commissioner/Notary Public/Magistrate. The stay application is, therefore, a defective one and the same is dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre deposit ... ... ... ... ..... manufacturing process to higher authorities, but it was necessary to indicate the specific quantity of gas which was entitled for exemption and to follow the prescribed procedure accordingly. The wording of notification 175/85 are significant in this case and the quantity used for captive consumption only is exempted from the duty. 11. We have considered the above submissions. 12. emsp In view of the correspondence exchanged between the appellants and the department, prima facie, the appellants appear to have a better case. In this connection, we respectfully note the observations of the Hon rsquo ble High Court and keeping them in view grant un-conditional waiver of per-deposit of the amount in question and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal. 13. emsp At this stage both the sides requested for early hearing as the amount involved is more than Rs. 4 crores. We grant this prayer and fix the matter for hearing on 22nd November 1994 at the top of regular matter.
-
1994 (9) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... es and Salt Act, 1944. She relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R.S. Steel Works v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal). She pleaded for the grant of stay of Rs. 1,11,778/-. Shri K.K. Jha, the learned SDR who is present on behalf of the respondent relied on the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector. He pleaded for the rejection of the stay application. 2. emsp We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal in the case of R.S. Steel Works v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal) in Para No. 6 had held as under - In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that prima facie, appellants have got a good case on merits. Accordingly, we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,11,778/- and further order that during the pendency of the appeal, Revenue authorities shall not pursue recovery proceedings.
-
1994 (9) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... e as a prime mover for transport vehicles were classifiable under Item No. 34A before 1979 Budget and were dutiable if were one of the specified parts. After 1979 budget they remained classifiable under Item No. 34A if they were one of the specified parts, and if they were one of the unspecified parts then they became classifiable under Item No. 68. 11. emsp As IC engines were excisable goods and as the parts of IC engines which were used in the motor vehicles were parts of the motor vehicles, and as even otherwise all parts of IC engines which were not otherwise specified under Item No. 34A of the Tariff, were classifiable under Item No. 68, we consider that the denial of the exemption under Notification No. 167/79-C.E., dated 19-4-1979, to the unspecified parts used in IC engines for motor vehicles, was not proper. 12. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we accept the appeal and vacate the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.
............
|
