|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Co-axial Connectors (RF) and I.C. Sockets ... ... ... ... ..... en that except for Patch Cord 1 mm P8006, the other disputed items have been described in the relevant catalogue either Socket rsquo or plug rsquo . The exclusion clause against Sl. No. 13 in the Table annexed to the Notification No. 160/86 inter alia covers plugs and sockets of all kinds. Hence, in our view, the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that these items are not excluded from the purview of the exemption under the said notification. As far as Patch Cord 1 mm P8006 is concerned we find that it is a cable with connector or socket at the end for making daisy connections and are available at different lengths. This item cannot therefore, be deemed as a mere socket. 5. emsp In view of the foregoing the impugned order in so far as it relates to Patch Cord 1 mm P8006 is confirmed and the finding of the Collector (Appeals) in respect of Co-axial Connectors (RF), I.C. Sockets and Socket 1 mm PCB Mounting P8001 is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (3) TMI 227 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... r the purpose of modvat credit includes, inter alia, an expression ldquo machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing any goods or for bringing about any change for any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. rdquo The word machinery in the aforesaid expression is of a very wide import. The word ldquo machinery rdquo , in my view, would also include the parts of machinery. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the remaining six items are covered by the general expression given in Explanation (i) to proviso to Rule 57A. The position being quite clear, in my view, there is no point in keeping the matter pending awaiting the decision of the larger Bench. In the aforsaid circumstanes, in short, I hold as follows - (i) Modvat credit on Polishing Bricks is allowed and (2) Modvat Credit on the remaining six items, as mentioned in Para-I, is disallowed. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (3) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... claim of the department, for classification of the item under the main Heading 82.01/04 for the purpose of customs duty, we are of the opinion that the citations referred to before us in respect of Collector of Customs v. Manjushree Minerals Ltd. and Granite (India) v. Collector of Customs, is also fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We do not find any reasons to differ from the same. The reason being that blades for hand or machine saws were specifically covered under Chapter 82.01/04 and as held in the above noted citation, Chapter 82 is more specific. The Gang Saw blades have been held to be classifiable under 82.01/04 and so also Saw Blades bodies for attachment of the Diamonds Segments. Therefore, applying the ratio, we allow the Department rsquo s appeal for classifying the item under Chapter 82.01/04 of CET. We do not find any merit in the assessee rsquo s claim for classification under Chapter 84. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1995 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption from payment of duty on iron or steel products if manufactured out of duty paid raw materials
-
1995 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... was to be clubbed for the purposes of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., applicable to small scale industrial units. In the case of Lotus Chemical Industries and Aurobindo Chemical Industries v. C.C.E., Indore, Tribunal rsquo s final Order Nos. 458-459/91-C, dated 21-5-1991, the Tribunal in similar facts had observed that the mere fact that the units are separately registered as SSI unit or that they were separately assessed for the Income Tax or Sales Tax purposes will not make any difference for clubbing of clearances of the two firms. Similarly, in the case of Supreme Engineering Works, Super Flex Engineering Polymers and Superplating and Engineering Corporation v. C.C.E., Pune, under their Final Order Nos. 166-168/93-C, dated 18-5-1993, the Tribunal had held that when the three units were acting in tandem, the clubbing of clearances was justified. 9. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no merit in both the appeals, and the same are rejected.
-
1995 (3) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... owing it to solidify. A metallic object which has been made by casting the metal into the shape required without any working other than machining. Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary - ldquo Casting (Foundry). (1) The operation of pouring molten metals into sand or metal moulds in which they solidify. (2) A metallic article cast in the shape required, as distinct from one shaped by working. rdquo Metals Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 15 Casting published by ASM International - ldquo Casting. (1) Metal object cast to the required shape by pouring or injecting liquid metal into a mold, as distinct from one shaped by a mechanical process. (2) Pouring molten metal into a mold to produce an object of desired shape. rdquo Thus shots are not castings. Grits which are obtained by breaking shots are even more obviously not castings. In view of this position, the appeal of the department should succeed. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order-in-appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... nder Rule 57G and so long as it can be shown that the particular quantum of duty has been paid towards the inputs in question the Modvat credit for that quantum can be taken subject to the limitation that may be read in this regard. Rule 57E itself provided for the contingency for variation of the Modvat credit at the relevant time when the supplier of the goods was given a refund in respect of the inputs for which the Modvat credit had been taken by the assessee who purchased the inputs. The absence of a provision for the assessee to take further Modvat credit in case further duty was paid by the supplier would not mean that the substantive provision of Rule 57A would not come into operation. It is for this reason it has been held that the subsequent amendment of Rule 57E providing for the later contingency above is only clarificatory in nature. In view of the above matter we hold that no question of law arises for reference. The Reference Application is therefore, rejected.
-
1995 (3) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o the terms of the heading and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes. Since the imported Homogenizer was not principally designed for the use in dairy industry but was capable of being used both for the purpose of food processing and dairy processing, in terms of the Note 2 to Chapter 84 which provides that machine or appliance answering the description of one or more Heading Nos. 84.01/84.02 to 84.21 and at the same time to a description in one or the other Heading Nos. 84.22 to 84.60 is to be classified under the former heading it follows that the disputed Homogenizer which answers the description of both Heading 84.17(2) and 84.26 merited classification under the former Heading i.e. 84.17(2). 5. emsp In view of the foregoing we hold that the disputed Gaulin-3 Plunger High Process Homogenizer which was not exclusively meant for dairy processing was correctly classifiable under Item 84.17(2) of CTA, 1975. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... der passed by the authorities below on the ground that the appellants would have earned some profit if the goods in question would have been sold and thus such element of profit is liable to be added to the cost price for the purpose of assessment as provided under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It is admitted fact that the profit percentage in the balance sheet as shown by the appellants 15 is in relation to sale of Graphite Electrodes and Anodes. Quantum of percentage adopted by the Department seems to be reasonable in view of the fact that Head Block has got direct relation with the manufacture of Electrodes and Anodes but since it was not sold as such 50 of the profit of the finished product has been rightly adopted by the authorities below in determining the value. In the view we have taken, we uphold the impugned order on this issue and accordingly appeals filed by the party are hereby dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron and steel - Flat rolled products ... ... ... ... ..... ously typed is not tenable that the appellants had not adduced any ground as to why the classification was being changed that the sample drawn on examination was found to have rectangular cross-section and the expert opinion given by Motilal Nehru Engg. College supported the view of the Deptt. that it was a flat rolled product that this evidence was not before the Tribunal when it decided the cases cited and relied upon by the appellants. 11. emsp We observe that there is a force in what the DR contended. In the case before us we find that the cross section of the product on physical examination was found to be rectangular, we also observe that the expert opinion which relied on technical literature also opined that the product had rectangular cross-section, we, therefore, agree with the findings of the lower authorities that the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 7211.59 and hold accordingly. 12.In the result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1995 (3) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Evidence - Confessional Statement ... ... ... ... ..... ns. This driver, Chaggan Lal has stated in the hearing before the Collector that the police made recovery of the gold from a person who got down from the bus which he (Chaggan Lal) was driving and at a time while Shanti Lal was also getting down from it. We find that Chaggan Lal has withstood the questions put by the Collector. It is significant that the Collector has not discussed this at all in his order. 8. emsp The cumulative effect in each of these individuals flows in the department rsquo s case is that the benefit of doubt as to whether the gold was recovered from Shanti Lal has to be extended to him. Therefore, there is no case for imposition of penalty upon him. Since the confiscation of the gold is not under the challenge, we confirm that part of the Collector rsquo s order, and only modify his order to the extent that penalty imposed on Shanti Lal under the Customs Act, 1962 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968 of Rs. 10,000/- which is set aside, with consequential relief.
-
1995 (3) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Synthetic waste - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... in the arguments advanced by the learned D.R. that redemption fine as well as imposition of penalty was not only for undervaluation but misdeclaration of goods inasmuch as contravention of Section 111(d) as well as under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. We hold that Department was justified in ordering for confiscation and imposing penalty. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that quantum of fine as well as penalty requires to be reduced. Accordingly, redemption fine is reduced to 5 of the C.I.F. value as against 10 redemption fine in all the cases and as far as penalty is concerned, it is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- as against Rs. 45,000/- as per common impugned order in Appeals No. C/263/83-D and C/283 to 288/92/D, Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 30,000/- in Appeal No. C/362/82-D and Rs. 25,000/- as against Rs. 75,000/- in Appeal No. 268/83-D and 289 to 294/92-D, respectively. All these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (3) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... in liquidation referred to Section 530(1)(a) of Companies Act, 1956 had held as under In view of the above decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, the State has priority over debts, liability and obligations. 9. emsp On the question of financial hardship, we find that the total sale proceeds of the applicant company are a little over Rs. 3 crores which according to the Companies Act are not even sufficient to meet the workmen rsquo s payment as a first charge. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the merits in detail, we are of the view that undue hardship will be created if the entire amount of duty is required to be paid. However, in the interest of justice, we order pre-deposit of Rs. 7,50,000/- within 12 weeks from the date of issue of this order. On compliance of this order, recovery of the remaining amount of duty shall remain stayed during the period of appeal. Compliance of this order should be reported on 12-6-1995.
-
1995 (3) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Multilayer bags ... ... ... ... ..... e burden lies upon the appellants to substantiate their claim to the benefit of an Exemption Notification and having failed to do so, they run the risk of their claim being rejected. The learned SDR is also correct in pointing out that nothing turned wrong on the gate passes issued by TPI India Ltd., Moradabad, as the learned Member (T) has held in paragraph 5 of his order, that the particular gate pass is not relevant. I agree with the learned Member (T) that the order of the Collector (Appeals) Trichy in the case of Maris Associates cannot bind the decision of this Tribunal which can independently interpret the concerned Notification. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I agree with the finding of the Member (Technical). The file is returned to the original Bench for further orders. Dated 21-2-1995 Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) In terms of the Majority Opinion the appeal is rejected. Date 7-3-1995 Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Sd/- (Gowri Shankar) Member (T)
-
1995 (3) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of conveyance used for carrying contravening goods ... ... ... ... ..... y be dismissed. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions. The confiscation of the truck is legally in order in terms of Section 115(2) of Customs Act. The judgment relied upon by Shri Sikka does not help the appellant as the provision in the said rule regarding rules to be prescribed by the Government for being observed by the owner or the person incharge of the vehicle had been deleted vide Section 79 of Finance Act, 1988. The seizure of the goods was effected in October, 1988 after the said change in the sub-section. We, therefore, uphold the order of confiscation. However, in the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) which would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is partially allowed to the extent of reducing the fine in lieu of confiscation as above to Rs. 50,000/- but is otherwise dismissed. 5. The operative part of the order was announced in the court at the end of the hearing.
-
1995 (3) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... imposition of penalty, a lot of case law was cited and relied upon by both sides. We find that oil and moisture filters were removed from the factory in contravention of various Central Excise Rules. The contravention was with the intention to evade payment of duty. From the evidence on record, we find that the function of oil and moisture filters made them an important part of the air gauge unit. From the catalogue also, we find that they were standard equipment for air gauge units which shows their essential character in the functioning of an air gauge unit. The understanding in the trade parlance, both of the customers as well as the appellants indicated that the items were traded as spares. This leaves us with no doubt that imposition of penalty is maintainable in the instant case. As the quantum of penalty is low, we do not see any reason to interfere with the quantum of penalty. 20. Having regard to the above findings, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 212 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to Supreme Court - Warehousing charges - Interest thereon ... ... ... ... ..... does arise for reference as pleaded by the learned Advocate. We, therefore, refer the following question of law for reference to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court accordingly ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in its finding that the Appellant is liable to pay interest under the provisions of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 with respect to warehoused goods cleared after overstaying in the warehouse free of customs duty. rdquo In view of the nature of the issue involved and the conflicting views of the different High Courts and also the fact that the SLP has been admitted by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court involving the same issue and following the ratio of the ruling of the Supreme Court, we direct the applicants to pay 25 of the interest amount at the rate calculated by the Department and to give a Bank guarantee for 50 of the interest amount and a property surety for the remaining 25 pending disposal of the reference.
-
1995 (3) TMI 211 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he worth of the car and its model. In view of the above, we hold therefore that the charges against the appellant as fully brought out in the learned lower authority rsquo s order have been fully brought home and the car is liable to confiscation and the appellant liable to penalty. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant had tried to get away by producing manipulated documents to import a new car which he was not entitled to do, we hold that no leniency is called for and the absolute confiscation of the car under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 is called for as rightly held by the learned lower authority in his order. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the car has been absolutely confiscated, we hold that the ends of justice will be served if the penalty levied on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand). But for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1995 (3) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand when value of clearances of two units belonging to same manufacturer clubbed ... ... ... ... ..... as been raised against one unit. The two units admittedly are separately licensed and clearances of each unit are to be reckoned separately excepting for the purpose of clubbing the aggregate clearances of the two units. After having taken the aggregate clearances of both the units together for the purpose of assessment of duty liability in terms of Notification 175/86, duty liability for each unit should have been quantified separately taking into account the clearances made from each unit and the eligibility to take Modvat Credit earned by the respective unit and recovery made either from the PLA and/or from the credit available from RG 23 Part I from respective units. It is seen from the order of the lower appellate authority that demand has been raised against one unit in respect of the duty payable by both the units separately in respect of the clearances made by each unit. The plea of the appellant therefore, for payment of duty by the respective unit has to be allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ssifiable under Chapter Heading 88.02 and their parts shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 88.03. But having regard to the use of the specific terms under the notification, all parts including parts of Powered Hang Gliders shall not become eligible to the benefit under the Notification unless they conform to the description of the goods specified in the notification. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that if there is any doubt in the interpretation of any entry in a notification providing for concessional rate of duty then the benefit of doubt must be extended to the Revenue. Having regard to this aspect, we find that Powerchute imported by the applicant shall not be entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 145/77-Cus., dated 9-7-1977. 13. emsp Having regard to the above findings, we hold that the benefit is not admissible to the powerchute imported by the appellants. In this view of the matter the appeal is rejected.
............
|
