|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 237 Records
-
1983 (3) TMI 296 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erruled. 14. As the disposal of these applications virtually means the disposal of the connected appeals, the appeals are treated as on day’s list. The impugned interim orders of the learned Judge are set aside. The appeals are allowed. No separate order need be made on the application for stay which shall also be deemed to have been disposed of along with this order. There will be no order as to costs. 15. On behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners), a prayer has been made for certificates for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, as the appeals are against interim orders, the order disposing of the appeals is not a final order and, as such, no appeal lies to the Supreme Court. Even assuming that such appeals are maintainable before the Supreme Court, in our opinion; no question of law of general importance is involved in these appeals. In the circumstances, the prayer for certificates is disallowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 295 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... accounted for the entire lot. Even so, the Appellant, as per the statement of the Counsel, is not interested in the release of the goods covered by the first Bill from confiscation. The second bill relates to 19 set of Main Thin Walled Engine Bearings. There is no finding anywhere in the orders of the authorities below either that they were smuggled goods or that they were acquired by the Appellant who knew or had reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, the orders did not deal with the said 19 sets at all nor did they discuss the mens rea anywhere. 8. In the premises, keeping in view the case law cited, we have no doubt, whatsoever, that the confiscation of the 19 sets as well as the levy of the penalty on the Appellant was unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal, order the release of the 19 sets of Main Thin Walled Engine Bearings confiscated and cancel the levy of the penalty on the Appellant.
-
1983 (3) TMI 294 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... xamination. If they were not offered for cross-examination the evidence of the witnesses to the Panchnama or the opinion of the Jewellery Appraiser is not worth any reliance whatsoever, not having been put to test. 7. To this extent, therefore, we are convinced there has been a failure of justice inasmuch as the Appellant was prejudiced in his defence for failure to produce the witnesses, in particular, Jewellery Appraiser for cross-examination. 8. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, New Delhi, as well as the order in adjudication of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur and remand the matter to the latter for fresh consideration and disposal giving an opportunity to the Appellant to cross-examine all the witnesses to the Panchnama as well as the Jewellery Appraiser. The proceedings should be concluded by the Deputy Collector, Jaipur within four months from the date of this order. 9. Order accordingly.
-
1983 (3) TMI 293 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tervailing duty with reference to Item 51 of the CET. On the other hand, howover, we do not find it possible to agree with the appellant’s contention that no countervailing duty was chargeable at all because even if these goods known as grinding pulp stones are not specifically provided in Tariff Entry 51 but still the description as given in the invoice and the notes appended by the party which are at page 8 of the file indicate that they are manufactured items. They would thus certainly go to Tariff Heading 68 for the purpose of assessment of excise duty, if manufactured in India, and by virtue of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, countervailing duty will also be chargeable accordingly as if these were goods, falling under Tariff Heading 68. We accordingly allow the appeal partly, and direct consequential relief to be given to the party on the basis of finding that the goods were assessable under Tariff Heading 68 of the CET for the purpose of countervailing duty.
-
1983 (3) TMI 292 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... out hoods ) are covered under Heading 61.01 and such hoods are not separately covered under Chapter 65 of B.T.N. as headwear. The raincoat caps in the instant case are nothing but hoods and not headwear even for the purposes of B.T.N. The dissenting order is solely based on the ground that the caps are not commercially known as ready-made garments’. We fear that this reasoning is without any basis as from both the orders (majority as well as dissenting) it is clear that no material or evidence was before the Benches to decide how the goods were known in commercial parlance as the evidence of any expert, trader or manufacturer was not before the Bench. Even no literature or catalogues in relation to the goods in question were before the Bench. How a particular product is known in the commercial parlance cannot be decided on the whims, it has to be corroborated with some evidence or material, specially when the members of the Benches are not themselves commercial people.
-
1983 (3) TMI 291 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ajasthan - 1980 E.L.T. 383 - classification of goods under Central Excise has to be done according to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to it by those dealing with it, that is to say, to its commercial sense. The dissenting judgment of Member (Tech.) appears to be more reasoned, logical, sound and correct because while deciding whether the particular machine is a machine tool’ or not, is never dependent upon the fact whether the machine is a complex machine or a simple machine because the machine is a machine whether complex or not, and it becomes a machine tool’ when it can be operated only after fitting of some tool(s). Since the machine in question has to be fitted with extrusion punches which had already been accepted to be tools’ by the majority judgment, there was no escape from the conclusion that a machine to which these tools (extrusion punches) are fitted will be a machine tool’ for the purposes of Central Excise Tariff Item 51A.
-
1983 (3) TMI 290 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pilation of Central Excise cases, Supreme Court Judgment 1932-1982, p. 466). In para 17 of the judgment, His Lordship Justice Krishna Iyer has observed “To return what has been taken wrongly is as much a duty and grace of government as to levy relentlessly and fully what is due. Default in either, not altogether unfamiliar, brings down the confidence of the community in the Administration. That a party should have been put to too expensive, and elongated litigations to recover a relatively small sum is regrettable.” This observation of His Lordship Justice Krishna Iyer expresses a certain desire as to the conduct of the government in regard to amounts wrongly taken by them. If, in terms of the Act, the amount collected is not refundable, being barred by provisions of limitation and if the Department chooses to claim the bar prescribed under the Act, it is not for this Tribunal to refuse to enforce the provisions of the Act. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 289 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... concede this request. The appellants have also stated that if the Sr. Nos. of the packages shown to have been landed as per the out-turn report are counted, the total number of packages shown as landed, would come to 53 and not 54. The appellants, therefore, contend that the out-turn report is not reliable. We find that this submission of the appellants is also not correct. The Sr. Nos. of the packages landed as per the out-turn report would show that 54 packages were landed and that two were not landed. This would, further, show that there is no reason to disbelieve the correctness of the out-turn report. The Dy. Collector of Customs has worked out the penalty on the value of short landed packages on Pro Rata basis in absence of any other acceptable evidence regarding the actual value of the short-landed packages. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we find that the orders of the lower authorities are correct and fair. The same are confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (3) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ponent of the value of the goods are missing should not, in our view, detract from the position that the seized assembly of projector parts is a cinematograph projector for the purpose of the said tariff item. In this view of the matter we do not see any merit in the appellant’s contention in this behalf. However, considering that the value of the seized goods, according to the order of adjudication, was ₹ 8,300 and that the duty leviable has been worked out on the basis of a tariff value of ₹ 32,000 prevailing at the time of clearance of the goods, we are of the view that the fine in lieu of confiscation imposed by the adjudicating authority was somewhat on the high side. Accordingly, we reduce the fine from ₹ 4,000 to ₹ 2,000 only. The consequential relief shall be granted to the appellant within two months from the date of the communication of this order. 8. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the light of the direction given above.
-
1983 (3) TMI 287 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... vious ruling and we find that all these contentions, including wording of the BTN, set forth by the learned Counsel were in focus before the Bench while deciding this issue, and in a well-considered judgment it was held that “Since Explanatory Notes to the BTN have not been incorporated into the Customs Tariff, the matter would have to be decided on the basis of the plain interpretation of the Tariff itself. The plain interpretation of the expression ”but excluding hand polishing stones, whet stones, oil stones and hones" is that the word “hand” qualifies only polishing stones. Accordingly, we hold that the Department is right in saying that both machine-operated as well as hand-operated hones are excluded from sub-heading 2 and their assessment under sub-heading 1 is, therefore, correct." 8. Finding ourselves in full agreement with the view already taken by the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1983 (3) TMI 286 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ussed, these articles were such “worn out rags” according to the term and specifications as could not be retrieved, for any use, other than manufacture of shoddy yarn. These, therefore, cannot be treated as “excisable goods” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Central Excises Act,. not involving any process of manufacture. The mere activity of collection or disposal of these goods in India would not, in our considered view, attract any excise duty and as such countervailing duty could not be levied by having recourse to the residuary item; namely, Tariff Entry 68 of the C.E.T. We, accordingly, consider it to be a fit case where levy of countervailing duty has to be set aside. As a result, we allow the appeal, and direct that countervailing duty which was charged on goods covered by Bills of Entry, which are subject matter of this appeal, be refunded by the concerned authorities of Customs at Bombay within sixty days of the receipt of this order.
-
1983 (3) TMI 285 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ious situation. We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that all what the Notification stipulates is that if there had been clearances during the preceding financial year, the value of such clearances should not have exceeded the prescribed limits. That this was the intention is also clear from the analogies of the two other Notifications referred to by the appellants’ Counsel. We, therefore, hold that since the appellants had not cleared any tyres (or tubes) during the financial year 1972-73, they were entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 47/72 during the financial year 1973-74 subject to compliance with the other conditions laid down in the said Notification. We, therefore, set aside the Appellate Collector’s order and allow the appeal in the light of the above observations and direct that consequential relief shall be granted to the appellants by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (3) TMI 284 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... were blended yarn consisting of 70 per cent synthetic staple fibre and 30 per cent cotton and another blend of 67 per cent of synthetic fibre and 33 per cent cotton. Their Lordships also rejected the contention of the Revenue that the pre-dominant weight test laid down in the Brussels Nomenclature should be adopted and that on that basis the predominant fibre would determine the classification of the blended yarn. In the present case before us the blended yarn comprises of wool and staple fibre of non-cellulosic origin on wool and staple fibre of cellulosic origin. However, the ratio of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court squarely applies to the instant case. We, therefore, hold that during the material time the impugned goods were not liable to excise duty. In the result, we allow the appeal and direct that consequential relief be granted to the appellants by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (3) TMI 283 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on, has referred to the old Tariff Entry 61. The only Entry in the present Tariff which corresponds to the aforesaid former Entry seems to be contained in Entry No. 71.02(5) of the Indian Customs Tariff, as the goods in question can be broadly considered to be falling in the category of “Semi-precious stone cut or otherwise worked”. Although the result for the party as well as for the Department will be the same because the rate of duty under this heading as well as the one determined by the Department, namely 38.01/19(1) is same i.e., 60% but nevertheless, the matter falling for consideration of the Tribunal on point of classification must receive its due consideration and applying our full mind, we feel that the subject goods are classifiable, for the purposes of customs duty on import, under Tariff Entry 71.02(5) of the Indian Customs Tariff. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 8. For the Revenue, Shri M. Chatterjee, JDR is present to defend the order.
-
1983 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . The Department’s representative stated that the subject garter springs were assessed under heading 73.33/40, CTA because the appellants had failed to produce the required evidence to substantiate their claim. Even now, though they had produced the drawing of garter springs, they had not produced the drawing of air pre-heaters to show the exact place where such garter spring was fitted in the air pre-heater. 3. We have carefully considered the matter. We consider that the evidence produced by the appellants is adequate to establish their claim. Accordingly, we allow their appeal and direct that the consequential relief should be granted to the appellants.
-
1983 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is clear beyond doubt that the rebate obtained as per the agreement was in the course of international trade. There is no reason to believe that any other customer who could offer a similarly large volume of cargo could not have obtained a similar rebate on freight. A lower price for sale or carriage of large quantity of goods is a known and accepted thing in the trade. We, therefore, hold that the rebate allowed by the Shipping Lines to the appellants was admissible for deduction to arrive at the assessable value. The fact that the rebate in question is granted subsequently cannot be a ground for disallowing the rebate for the purpose of calculation of assessable value, because even at the time of booking of the cargo, it is known that this rebate would be forthcoming to the customer in due course. 7. For the above reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief be, therefore, granted to the appellants in the light of this decision.
-
1983 (3) TMI 280 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ity where a different view had been taken. We follow the Bombay High Court decision and hold that the date of the issue of the cheque viz., 20th May, 1975 is the date which has to be considered for the purposes of limitation under Rule 10 and not 30th May, 1975 which had been wrongly stated. The show-cause notice was issued after the expire of one year and, therefore, it was time-barred. 6. We thus set aside the findings of the Appellate Collector and hold that the showcause notice should have been discharged. Consequently the sum of ₹ 4,898/- is not payable as held by the Appellate Collector. A further demand of ₹ 310.30 has also been made from the appellants. This was also sustained by the Appellate Collector. The learned Counsel for the Appellants, has not pressed for this amount. 7. In the result, we partly accept this appeal in respect of ₹ 4,898/- and modify the order of the Collector accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
1983 (3) TMI 279 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the ambit of Section 4 under which assessment is made according to the value payable for the goods ordinarily sold by the assessee. We cannot enlarge the scope and meaning of “such goods” as is intended to be done. the expression “such goods” would cover all types of dental cream under the trade mark “Colgate” which are manufactured and sold by the factory, whether for sale or for free distribution. The Central Excise Officer is simply to consider the assessable value of the article when the same is taken out of the factory premises and whether it is distributed as a free gift or sold is not relevant for the purposes of assessment. It is not the function of the Excise officer to keep a track of the manner of the disposel of the goods released by him. His function ends after he has made the assessment and has cleared the goods after charging the duty. For the above reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 278 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ith or without the approval of the departmental authorities and with or without the observance of formalities that could have been prescribed does not make any difference to this basic position in law. The goods were not liable to payment of duty at the time they were taken out of the factory in 1979. We agree with this view that the excisability of any manufactured goods arises when they are removed from the factory of manufacture in terms of Central Excises Act and the Rules thereunder. Any subsequent manipulation of the goods such as, export, return to the factory etc. does not bring into being a new product which becomes liable to excise duty a second time. We note that in the present case it is not the contention of the Department that the dumper which was returned as subjected to any processes which would constitute manufacture and hence may raise a question as to whether new goods have come into being. In the result, we allow the appeal and order consequential relief.
-
1983 (3) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Import Trade Control Schedule. This is made clear if we consider the observations of His Lordship the Chief Justice which appear a little later in the judgment - “Here in the present case I have pointed out that in my opinion the refusal of the Collector to follow the Madras decision was something which no reasonable man would do quite apart from the fact that the view which he had taken that ”adhesive tapes" is only a compendious description of a number of categories of goods and not a marketable commodity is itself “demonstrably absurd’ to quote the Madras case.” 9. In the result, we hold that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi is not binding on this Tribunal and for the reasons given in detail in the appeal of Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras (Appeal No. CD(T)(MAS)167/81)-1983 E.L.T. 653, the provisions of Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 will apply in this case. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
