|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 78 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ther test to which the goods being subjected, it is absolutely irrelevant and is not at all helpful to the appellant or, indeed, to anyone else. 10.We are unable to agree that the extended period invoked in the notice to show cause contained in the proviso to Section 11AC could not be invoked. We are unable to see from this test report that we had referred to that there was confusion in anyone s mind regarding classification. The appellant has not demonstrated that it made any enquiries with the department, or shown evidence in support of its claim that it bona fide believed that the goods could be classified in the manner that it did. After all, as we have noted, this was not an issue that required deep scientific study or arcane knowledge. We accordingly confirm the demand for duty. We, however, reduce the penalty imposed on the firm of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-, and set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on Kailashbhai Kotak, its partner. 11.Appeal allowed in part.
-
2000 (10) TMI 76 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Representative, who echoed that reasons, were able to give any reasoning. The two decisions of the Tribunal in Pepsi Foods Ltd v. CCE and the unreported decision cited by the appellant indicate that the department itself had claimed classification of Mirinda, Lehar 7Up both of which are beverages similar to the beverages made, out of the products now under consideration, and in fact referred to in the notice to show cause as products classifiable under heading 3302. We agree with the Departmental Representative that these were not the issues specifically for consideration in this matter. However, these decisions certainly show the department s view that these are to be classifiable under heading 3302.10 and adds reinforcement to the submissions made by the appellant. 11.We are therefore of the view that the classification as determined by the Assistant Commissioner is correct and restore that classification and it would then follow that the demand for duty is not sustainable.
-
2000 (10) TMI 74 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Seizure - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... lants were voluntary in nature and were not obtained as a result of force or coercion. We are of the view that evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the appellants were concerned in carrying/concealing/keeping/transporting/dealing with foreign, currency knowing it to be liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus the appellants were liable to penalty under Section 114(1) of the Act. The Department has discharged the burden of proving that the appellants were involved in the smuggling of foreign currency out of India. Hence, we uphold the imposition of penalty. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also noting the submission that Shri Satish Kumar was suspended from service w.e.f. 25-8-96 and has been subsisting on suspension allowance and also noting the financial position of Shri Bahadur Singh, we reduce the penalty to Rs. one lakh on each appellant. The appeals are thus partly allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 73 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Appreciation of evidence - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... into India by over invoicing it. These goods were recovered from the possession of the noticees. Noticees were called upon to show cause why these goods should not be confiscated. In the reply to the show cause notice, the advocate of this appellant stated since the goods do not belong to my client he has no objection for its confiscation and he is nowhere concerned with the said imports . Since the appellant did, in fact, issue cheques towards the payment of the value of the imported goods and also other letters under his signatures, he cannot be treated as a complete stranger to the transaction. When he was so involved in the transaction concerning goods valued more than Rs. 6 crores, imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs does not appear to be excessive or too harsh. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said penalty. 10.In view of what we have stated above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 72 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... , if, he cleared the goods with the brand name of others who are not eligible for the grant of exemption. As the appellants were availing the benefit of this notification, they cannot say that they were not aware to the conditions of this notification. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is that there was doubt in the minds of appellants as well as in the minds of Revenue in respect of availability of exemption has no merit. 13.The appellants also contended in some of the GPIs that they were mentioning the words ESCORT and BM under Column Identification mark . The appellants merely written the word BM and ESCORT without any explanation to the fact that the goods were embossed with the trade mark of others. The stray cases of these gate passes where they have mentioned the word BM and ESCORT in identification column without any explanation will also not be helpful to the appellants. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 71 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... 16-9-99 in the case of M/s. Smithkline Beechem Consumer Health Care Ltd. Following the ratio of the above orders which in turn are based upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries case, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the refund, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 6. The ratio of the above order is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case and hence we hold that the appellants are entitled to refund of Rs. 63,95,121/-. Further, they are also entitled to refund of Rs. 27,112/- paid as duty on bill of entry No. 311226 dated 24-11-96 at ICD Port since assessment was finalised by the SVP and refund claim arose consequent upon order of finalisation. The claim for refund of Rs. 3,14,557/- is required to be verified with reference to the original bill of entry and for this purpose, we remand the issue of refund of Rs. 3,14,557/- to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 70 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s on the basis of this that the Tribunal in Heal Well Pharmaceuticals v. CCE - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 446 has held that dropper supplied with pediatric drops by its manufacturer, would be an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the bottle containing medicine for the reason that the medicine required to be administered of measured dose which is not possible without the aid of the dropper. It is on this reasoning that the Tribunal held in CCE v. Swaraj Mazda - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 258 that mats for placing floor of motor vehicle were inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of such motor vehicles. The Commissioner s order does not appear to take note of these aspects. We are satisfied that the commodity is therefore an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product, and therefore do not consider it necessary to consider the other alternative argument, that the goods are accessories. 6. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 69 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... l control, the absence of evidence of specific flowback from one to the other does not advance the appellant s case. Such common financial control and management would necessarily not present features of flowback it would, in fact, render such a requirement unnecessary. Taking these factors into account, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the conclusion of the Collector that Asahi was a fa ade of Akay. 4. 8194 On these facts, penalty is imposable on Akay and A.K. Shah, its director. It would then follow that penalty was not imposable on the others. According to the Collector, there was no legal existence of Asahi he says that it was a creation of Akay. The Collector also does not find in his order any acts or omissions on the part of the other four directors of Asahi as a result of which penalty has been imposed on them. The order is entirely silent on that. Hence, the penalties imposed on Asahi and its four directors are set aside. 5. 8194 Appeal allowed in part.
-
2000 (10) TMI 68 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... w that there was manufacture, noting that the chemical changes which may take place in a commodity when it is subjected to certain processes may not be so such as to so change its nature as to justify the conclusion that a new product had emerged. 4. 8194 In its decision in CCE v. Tikitar Inds. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 468 the C-Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi had come to the same conclusion that air blown bitumen was not manufacture for more or less the same reasons, but emphasised the binding nature of the circular issued by the Board that such process would not amount to manufacture. 5. 8194 The departmental representative is not able to tell us why the ratio of these two latter decisions should not be followed in preference to that in Bitumen Products. Therefore, following the ratio of these latter decisions, we hold that the process to which bitumen was subjected was not manufacture. 6. 8194 Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief, if permitted by law.
-
2000 (10) TMI 66 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and Redemption Fine - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... deposited in a bonded warehouse and cleared by another to whom they are sold or otherwise transferred. By this definition, that second person is deemed to be the importer of the goods and hence liable to pay duty. The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act are an exception to this principle. These provisions have evidently been introduced in order to recover duty on goods which have been imported in an unauthorised manner without having been declared on their arrival in the country. However it is not permissible, where the importer is known and in fact has been issued a notice proposing recovery of duty, simultaneously to demand duty from another person who is not the importer. The provisions of Section 125(2) of the Act are not intended to be used as a substitute for the provisions of Section 28 when circumstances prevent resort to that section. The demand for duty before us is therefore without authority of law. 8. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 64 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Project import - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... for the Tribunal to consider a case that is laid down for the first time in appeal because the stage for setting out the factual matrix is before the authorities below. Accordingly we are not taking into consideration any of these new pleas advanced by the learned D.R. 7. We also find that no evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the impugned goods were taken for use for any other project after these were utilised for initial setting up of the project for which these were imported except a mere statement during the course of hearing before the Collector (Appeals) that it could be used for other project/plants. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants are eligible for project import of the goods in question under Heading 98.01. In view of the findings that the benefit of project import is available to the Appellants, the second question referred, to by the Referal Bench being only of academic interest is not answered in the present matter.
-
2000 (10) TMI 63 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Conversion of MS blank cylinders ... ... ... ... ..... n making gravure printing cylinders out of MS blanks for the first time has been conceded to be a manufacturing process. There is no dispute before us that when the MS blank cylinders are converted into gravure printing cylinders, they undergo a manufacturing process. Appellants agree that they are liable to pay duty when MS blanks are first converted into gravure printing cylinders. Their only contention is that while the same cylinder is worked upon for re-engraving to make it reusable as gravure printing cylinder, no manufacturing process is undertaken. In the light of the decision of this Tribunal in Special Prints Ltd., which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, we hold that the work carried out to re-engrave the rollers second, third or fourth time, as the case may be, will not amount to process of manufacture. 18.It, therefore, follows that the orders passed by the departmental authorities cannot be sustained. Appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
-
2000 (10) TMI 62 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tice holding the classification to be under Heading 5205. This order was not further taken up in appeal by the Revenue. It is clear from Section 35B order dated 5-11-1993 of the Board that even after the first order was passed by the Tribunal classifying the goods under Heading 5909, the Revenue authorities considered their earlier circular of 1988 to be valid and had instructed all field formations to continue classifying the goods under Heading 5205. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the appellants that this is not a case where allegation of fraud or suppression or mis-representation of facts could be validly raised. Therefore, the demand which has been issued invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A has to be held to be done without warrant. The appeals, therefore, have to be allowed on the ground of time bar. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside in its entirety with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2000 (10) TMI 61 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Spare parts ... ... ... ... ..... r the actual process of manufacturing the final product only. 10.Wabco Trucks, P and H Shovel, Motor Grader, CAT Front End Loader, Terex Front Loader, Komatsu Dozer, 35T Cap Haulpack Truck, Poclain Excavator and Water Sprinkler used by the appellant in processing the mined ore are vital machinery which play an integral part in the process of manufacture of finished goods. Even though they are not directly involved in the manufacture of the finished goods, they are machinery used in the manufacture of such goods. Spares imported for such machinery are entitled to the benefit of Customs Notification No. 13/81. The contrary views taken by the authorities below are illegal. They are set aside. Authorities below are directed to pass final order on the refund applications as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to effect refund of the duty levied on such spares imported. 11.Appeals are allowed as stated above.
-
2000 (10) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Writ jurisdiction - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ty whatsoever. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner in these writ petitions cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, these writ petitions require to be rejected. 6.However, Shri Habibullah, learned Senior Counsel submits that, if for any reason the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as directed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore, at least a direction may be issued to him to consider and decide the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. In my opinion, the request made by the learned Senior Counsel is highly reasonable. 7.For the reasons stated, these writ petitions are rejected. However, a direction is issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner within four weeks from the date a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as directed by him in his order dated 9-12-1999 is deposited by the petitioners. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Revision - Prosecution - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ld have exercised the power under Section 311 Cr. P.C., to say the least such observations were unwarranted. Mr. O.N. Vohra rightly contended that the petitioner had no notice that Shri G.P. Thareja would be considering the order of the then learned ACMM, dated 23rd July, 1997 and of Shri N.K Gupta, learned ASJ dated 29th July, 1998. Mr. Vohra contended that the petitioner was taken by surprise during the course of arguments because he otherwise had no notice that learned ASJ was going to re-open the order which had already been affirmed and was not subject matter of revision before him. Mr. Vohra contended that if such an order is allowed then there would be no certain finality in judicial processing. We find force in these submissions. Criticism of the order passed by his predecessor would definitely shake the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. 13.For the reasons stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... Court would be wasted for holding the trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce its conclusion on a future date. The Court further observed that in this view of the matter, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue and thereby forcing the petitioners to face the ordeal of a trial would be an abuse of the process of law. The facts and findings of the aforesaid case are squarely applicable to the present case. In the instant case, the petitioners have been totally exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the very basis of the complaint does not exist and the petitioners prosecution on the same set of facts and findings cannot be sustained. Any further criminal proceedings would be clearly an abuse of the process of law. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned A.C.M.M., dated 1-7-1998 is set aside. 5. This petition along with Crl.M.No. 6662/98 is accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... cated as the total profit earned by the petitioner. According to him, the mistake committed by the Tribunal imposing the condition of Rs. 10 lacs for hearing of the appeal is apparent on the face of the order and, therefore, a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing of the same with the direction to the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not advance any convincing argument to controvert the submission of the learned Counsel. Rather, he had to admit that the balance sheet of the petitioner reflected that it had earned profit of Rs. 34,000/- during the year ending on 31-3-1999. 5. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 5-10-1999 passed by the Tribunal and remit the case to it for fresh decision of the petitioner s application for stay. It is hoped that the Tribunal will decide the petitioner s application afresh within 3 months from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order.
-
2000 (10) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... manufacture of final products which are excisable for payment of excise duty and for final products which are exempted or chargeable to nil duty, does not on that score release the manufacturer from the duty to expunge the credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products prior to the introduction of the rule as Rules 57A read with Rules 57C and 57D clearly indicates that Modvat credit can be availed of only in respect of the inputs utilised in the manufacture of excisable final products on which duty is paid excepting in the circumstances set out under Rule 57D. We must also notice that, in this case there were no dispute at all before the authorities about the amount of the Modvat credit taken by the assessee on the quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product. We therefore answer the question referred to us in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Demurrage and Storage charges ... ... ... ... ..... t of the Supreme Court in the case of International Airports Authority of India case (supra 2). This Court in the judgment which, is sought to be reviewed has recognized the entitlement of the Central Warehousing Corporation to demand storage and demurrage charges from the petitioner, but, the Court having found that the Customs Department had committed a wrongful act and on account of that wrongful act, the importer had to bear the brunt of paying storage and demurrage charges, applied Art. 14 postulates to the fact-situation of the case and thought it reasonable and fair to direct the Customs Department to pay the demurrage and storage charges to the Warehousing Corporation. 5.We do not find any ground whatsoever to review our judgment. The Review WPMP is, therefore, dismissed. However, 15 days time granted by this Court to the Customs Department to pay the storage and demurrage charges to the fourth respondent in the writ petition is extended by another 15 days from today.
....
|
