|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 206 Records
-
1984 (6) TMI 246 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... entions Rule 10A, implying that no assessment ever took place and the Assistant Collector invoked Rule 10, without any allegation or finding whatsoever as to why the duty short-levied is being demanded beyond the period of six months. The show causes notice as well as the appellate order are conspicuously silent on the question of limitation. In our view, the facts do not justify applying a longer period of limitation of 5 years in this case. We, therefore, set aside the demand so far as it relates to a period beyond six months of the date of the show cause notice i.e. 21-11-1977. On the question of classification of the goods, we agree with the learned Sr. Departmental Representative that the motor fitted with the gear mechanism would be more appropriately covered by the description of Item 30-CET namely. Electric Motors, all sorts. We accordingly uphold the order of assessment under Item 30-CET of the Motor fitted with the gear mechanism. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 245 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... for bathing purposes does not make them household soaps. They would still retain their identity as toilet soaps. 32. The Collector (Appeals) in both the appeals before us has gone wrong while holding that toilet soap is apparently household soap classifiable under T.I. No. 15(1). The findings should be on the basis of the established facts available on record and not on the basis of appearance. The Collector (Appeals) completely ignored the basic aspects and the most important material like legislative history of T.I. No. 15, Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 1964 and technical literature before arriving at his conclusion. 33. Under these circumstances, we have got no other alternative but to set aside both orders of the Collector (Appeals) New Delhi No. 7-CE/CHG/ 83, dated 26-3-1983 and No. 311-CE-CHG/83, dated 5-10-1983 and accept both these appeals filed by the Department and confirm both orders passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Ludhiana.
-
1984 (6) TMI 244 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ides the representation made by the Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry cannot be acceded to. We have to decide the case on the basis of the law as it stood at the relevant time. At that time the product caprolactum was subjected to excise duty at the rate of 50% plus 5% under Tariff Item No. 14AA of the Central Excise Tariff and by virtue of the Notification No. 305/79-CE dated 4-12-1979 the effective rate of duty on caprolactum manufactured from duty paid Benzene was reduced to 23% ad valorem. The appellants could not satisfy the conditions as laid down in that notification and as such the authorities below have correctly assessed this product caprolactum falling under sub-item (2) of Item No. 14AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the purpose of c.v. duty and special excise duty at 50% plus 5%. 21. We find no ground for interfering in the findings of the authority below and we, therefore, rejected this appeal.
-
1984 (6) TMI 243 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... here it is not similar to remaking or refining or reconditioning. 8. Sub-rule (2) of rule 173M says- No refund shall be paid until the processes mentioned in sub-rule (1) have been completed an account under clause (iv) of that sub-rule has been rendered to the satisfaction of the Collector within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. 9. We know that the process carried out was not one of the three envisaged in subruled - (1). Nor does it appear that an account was rendered to the Collector but we will not labour this here, as it is not necessary. For this reason alone, the refund must be rejected under rule 173M. 10. It, further, appears to us that M/s. Tata Finlay did not proceed on the provisions of rule 173M. They merely claimed refund because the duty paid package tea had been brought back to the factory and repacked into loose tea. There is no provision in the law for such refund. 11. For all the above reasons, we reject the appeal.
-
1984 (6) TMI 242 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... No. 84.65 under certain conditions. 7. By application of Section Note 2 to Section XVII, the present goods would stand excluded from the purview of that section under which Heading No. 87,04/06(2) falls. The appellants’ reliance on Note 1(k) to Chapter 39 is mis-placed. This note says that Chapter 39 does not cover parts of aircraft or vehicles falling within Section XVII. We have seen that the present goods do not fall within that Section. Since the parts are made of plastic, they are rightly classifiable under Chapter 39 and the correct Heading is 39.07. 8. The appellants have made an alternative claim for classifying the goods under Heading No. 84.65. This heading covers machinery parts not falling within any other heading in Chapter 84. We have already arrived at the finding that the subject goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter 39. Hence Heading 84.65 has no application to the present case. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1984 (6) TMI 241 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Heading No. 84.66 (ii) covers, among other things, consumable stores imported as a part of a contract registered in term of sub-heading (i) of heading No. 84.66 subject to the condition that the total value of consumable stores, spare parts and raw materials, does not exceed 10% of the value of the goods covered by sub-heading (i) and that such consumable stores are essential for the maintenance of the plant or project. It may thus be seen that one of the requirements is that the imported consumable stores should have formed part of the contract registered with the Custom House in accordance with the Project Import Regulations. While it is not correct, as the lower authorities have done, to hold that consumable stores are not eligible for assessment under heading 84.66, the benefit of such assessment will not be available in the present case since the consumable stores did not form part of the registered contract. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1984 (6) TMI 240 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... uments such as gate pass or certificate, can be submitted within either 15 days or one month from the date of arrival of the goods in the factory. This itself would show that the requirement regarding production of gate pass is procedural in nature, if identity of the goods could be established-and in this case, in fact had been established-without the gate pass or the certificate of payment of duty, the presentation of such a document at a later date does not in any way affect the minimum checks necessary for the purposes of Rule 56A. Though, therefore, in this case, the delay in the submission of the relevant documents is somewhat long, viewed in the context of the period of 15 days or one month set out in the trade notices and the actual verification of the goods received by the appellants and acceptance of identity, we would hold that the provisions of Rule 56A have been observed in respect of the consignments. Accordingly, we allow the appeals with consequential relief.
-
1984 (6) TMI 239 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, requiring the appellants to make a deposit of duty and penalty as a pre-condition for an appeal would not be applicable when the show cause notice leading to the demand was served on the appellants on a date earlier to 11-10-1982, the date on which Section 35-F came into force. We may observe that this principle has no relevance to the facts of the case before us. This particular view has been over-ruled by a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in an order dated 17-2-1984 in Appeal No. ED (SB) A. No. 1761/83-B. 8. The appellants seem to be nursing a sense of grievance, apparently with cause, that the delay in Customs clearance of the goods has resulted in an increased duty burden on them. As the Appellate Collector has rightly observed, the proper forum for agitation of this matter is not quasi-judicial authorities functioning under the Act. 9. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1984 (6) TMI 238 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... -headings of the CCCN make it amply clear that that the list of items and varities of graphic listed therein is by no means exhaustive. In sum, the position is that sub-headings 38.Ul and 38.19 of the CCCN taken together cover all articles of artificial graphite and carbon in primary forms as well as up 10 the stage of semi-manufactures. The question of further classification under Chapter 68 or Chapter 85, depending on whether the articles are for electrical or non-electrical use, arises only in the case of finished articles of graphite and carbon. Since, in the two appeals before us, it is now the accepted position that the rounds imported by the appellants were semi-manufactures, inasmuch as they were used by the appellants as intermediate goods for further manufacture of moulds (the finished articles), they appropriately fall under heading 38.01/19 (4) of the CTA and not under Chapter 68. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1984 (6) TMI 237 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... eported in AIR 1975 (Cal.) 337 that it has been held that a partnership is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act. The rights and obligations of since a firm are really rights and obligations of individual partners of the firm. Since the firm is not a legal entity and Section 140 of the Customs Act is inapplicable to the adjudication proceedings, imposition of penalties also upon the firm would, in effect, be imposition of double punishment on the partners on the same set of facts. The ratio of the said decision is applicable to the facts of the present case since Section 93 of the Gold Control Act which deals with offences by companies is not applicable to the present firm. In the circumstances, we set aside the penalty imposed by the Collector on the firm. However, in the light of our findings regarding the seized gold ornaments, we reduce the penalty on the 2 partners of the firm from ₹ 500 each to ₹ 100 each.
-
1984 (6) TMI 236 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Dr. D.D. Tanna reported in 1983 ECR 1344-D (CEGAT) 1983 E.L.T. 1137 (CEGAT) in support of his stand that applying Interpretative Rule 4, the present goods should be classified under heading 40.05/16(1) since they were akin to rubber tyre components. We do not consider that Rule 4 has any application to the facts of the case for it is possible to classify the goods under the specific heading 73.27/28. 22. The appeal is allowed. We order that the goods be reclassified under heading 73.27/28. Consequential relief shall be given within three months from the date of communication of this order. 23. As regards the claim for refund of additional (countervailing) duty, we observe that this claim was not made before the lower authorities. We cannot, therefore, permit this new ground to be raised at this stage. Besides, the basis for this claim has not been spelt out or elaborated either in the revision application or in the hearing before us.
-
1984 (6) TMI 235 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ing, there is no, or very little, penetration by the colour/colourant into the substrate body. Stains and printing depositing on paper, wood cotton fabric do penetrate the substrate to a little depth; but this penetration is entirely due to the absorbent nature of the material and is not part of the scheme of staining or printing. 9. We think that it would be much more preferable not to be circumscribed by one rule of solubility in this matter, when we know that the subject permits of no such set division. We will go by the merits of a case and the nature, properties, character of a substance and its application and action. This product. Alkali Blue Flushing, is a pigment, that is to say, a colourant that is used in printing for enhancing the brightness of printing ink-this if not a dyeing process. Its correct classification is under Item 14-I(i)(ii), CET. 10. We allow the appeal and direct consequential relief to the appellants within three months from this order.
-
1984 (6) TMI 234 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... finds use as a drug intermediate. Based on the material on record, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case Gamma Picoline qualifies for that description. 7. During the course of the hearing, the authorised representative of the appellants offered to produce evidence to show that the Isonicotinic Acid manufactured by them was sold to M/s. Pfizers India Ltd. who, in turn, used the goods for manufacture of INH, the anti-T.B. drug. 8. Having regard of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the subject goods were eligible for duty concession in terms of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. as a drug intermediate, and the appellants to the consequential relief. The Customs authorities may, if they so wish, satisfy themselves that isonicotinic acid manufactured out of Gamma Picoline did ultimately find its use in the manufacture of INH, anti-T. B. drug. All action consequent to this order shall be completed within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1984 (6) TMI 233 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... manufacture of lubricants, medicines, plastic and paints industry, soap making. And it is useful not to forget that degree of hardening is hardly a satisfactory basis for classification because while some oils can be hardened and still be edible, others are never edible whether hardened or not. It is, therefore, not a clear case of a new use that has emerged a new use may emerge in the case of some oils but not all not the kind of foundation for us to build upon. 17. We, therefore, think the DCM judgment cannot apply. Furthermore, the problem before the Supreme Court was a commodity whose excisability was in dispute, not a product whose proper heading was uncertain. We are not to decide whether the rice bran oil (hydrogenated) was excisable but how to excise it. 18. We think that assessment under Item 12 is appropriate, while assessment under Item 68 not so. We order assessment accordingly. We also set aside the notice dated 22-9-1980 issued by the Govt. of India.
-
1984 (6) TMI 232 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 2) applies and whether the demand is even otherwise time-barred; granting 25% wastage allowance for cutting sheets into circles; correct valuation and rates of duty on the bases prevailing from time to time; and whether set-off or proforma credit to the extent of the duty already suffered under item 27(b) in terms of Rule 56A would be admissible to the appellants. These become academic in view of my finding that, if it can be proved to the satisfaction of the department, and there is admittedly no dispute on this score, that aluminium sheets, on which appropriate duty under item 27(b) has been discharged, were used for cutting into circles, no duty under this item would be leviable again on the said circles. In the result, I would allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Sd/- (A.J.F. D’Souza) Member (Technical) In accordance with the decision of the majority, I agree that the appeal is allowed to that extent. Sd/- (A.J.F. D’Souza) Member (Technical)
-
1984 (6) TMI 231 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the meantime). It has been held in the case of sewing machines that such machines may be used in industrial establishments would not detract the position that they are basically domestic. Here too that the present model of stapling machine may be used in an industrial establishment should not detract from the basic nature of the article that it is a general purpose machine intended for light tacking work. 15. The decision of the Madras High Court cited by the Respondents does not alter the position. In that case cited, the Court has confined the examination to the issue of capability of use of an imported item as a raw material for manufacture of end-products irrespective of the other qualities of that raw material with particular reference to the manner in which the description in the licence. In the present case capability is not the main criteria. 16. In the result the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the order of the Deputy Collector restored.
-
1984 (6) TMI 230 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ax Act pre-deposit of tax is not a condition precedent to hear the appeal by the Tribunal. Even then it is provided in Section 265 of that Act that tax shall be payable notwithstanding that a reference has been made to the High Court. 4. When the Central Excises and Salt Act makes it obligatory for an aggrieved person to pre-deposit the duty and penalty before his appeal could be considered it would not be reasonable to assume that the Tribunal has inherent power to grant stay of realisation of duty and penalty even after the disposal of the appeal but pending consideration of the Reference Application. 5. Even assuming that the Tribunal has an inherent power to grant stay of the recovery of duty and penalty the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the exercise of the inherent power in favour of the appellant. 6. On careful consideration of all the aspects / reject the prayer. 7. In the result this application fails and the same is rejected.
-
1984 (6) TMI 229 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... pplication under sub-rule (2) on the date of the notification issued under sub-rule (1) or rule 8 and has made such application subsequently, the Collector may for reasons to be recorded in writing, condone the delay in filing of such application and allow the manufacturer to take credit of the duty already paid on the material or compenent parts even though the procedural requirements laid down under this rule have not been complied with”. (emphasis supplied) The above provision amply justifies my conclusion that compliance of procedural requirement is not a must in all circumstances. I am satisfied that the authorities below have failed to take into consideration the circumstances under which the appellants could not give prior notice or D-3 intimation. 9. In the result for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph I allow this appeal and direct that consequential relief be granted to the appellants within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1984 (6) TMI 228 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... before us by Shri Merchant that there was any change in the constitution of the partnership. If a stranger were to be inducted into the partnership, the constitution of the partnership gets changed. In that event the firm cannot transact business on the strength of the licence issued to it. The appellants in our opinion cannot request the Collector to induct a person who is altogether a stranger to the partnership firm. Even if her husband was once a partner that does not confer any right on her to get inducted. Her claim is not based on the ground that under the law of partnership she becomes automatically entitled to be inducted as a partner on retirement of her husband as a partner. If the request of the appellant had been allowed, the constitution of the partnership firm would have changed and in that event the appellants would be required to make a fresh application for issue of a licence. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal, and accordingly, we reject the same.
-
1984 (6) TMI 227 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... that there was sale of the V.C.R. and the T.V. by the second respondent. If there had been no sale, then the two items would not become liable for confiscation and no personal penalty could also be imposed on the second respondent. The learned Collector (Appeals) has correctly understood the scope and ambit of Chapter IV-A of the Act. The whole of the chapter is intended to prevent smuggling of goods into India and disposal of the goods so smuggled. From the admitted facts it is seen that the import of the two items was wholly legal. The second respondent brought them from London as his personal baggage and cleared them on payment ₹ 18,000/-. The goods in question were neither smuggled nor was there any evasion of Customs duty payable in respect of the goods. The order passed by the learned Collector (Appeals) is not only legal but is wholly just. 13. After careful consideration of all the aspects, I see no merits in this appeal and accordingly I dismiss the same.
........
|
