|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 241 Records
-
1985 (4) TMI 306 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ation. But so far as the Robinson’s Patent Barley is concerned this admittedly consists of barley powder to which calcium and iron had been added, the actual process not being disclosed. Therefore, this would appear to us to fall within the description of “preparation with a basis of flour” though not a preparation with a basis of starch" as held by the Collector. As earlier noted, the appellants do not claim Robinson’s Patent Barley to be an infant food to qualify for exemption within item 14 of the schedule to the notification No. 17/70. 36. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the submissions on both sides we hold that the order of the Collector has to be upheld (for the reasons given earlier) in so far as it related to Robinson’s Patent Barley but the same has to be set aside so far as it related to Purity Barley. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms and order of the Collector modified with consequential relief.
-
1985 (4) TMI 305 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d out on an assu- med assessable value of ₹ 2,697.86 per metric tonne of raw petroleum coke whereas the correct (according to the appellants) assessable value for the goods was ₹ 852.43 per metric tonne only. It is further stated that the latter value had been accepted by the Asstt. Collector, vide price list dated 16-6-1982 appr- oved by the Asstt. Collector. The letter points out that on the basis of the appr- oved assessable value the duty amount would comedown from the figure of ₹ 25,49,477.70 mentioned in the demand to ₹ 8,05,546.35. The letter ends with the request to have a corrigendum issued rectifying the error in computation of the duty payable. Apparently, no action seems to have been taken on this request. In giving effect to our order in the present case, the lower autho- rities shall give due consideration to the appellants’ aforesaid communication. 14. The result is that the appeal is rejected with the aforesaid observations.
-
1985 (4) TMI 304 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... tative decision is given to avoid conflicting orders. 3. As this Tribunal has already decided in the case of S.S. Agarwal v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, that it has no jurisdiction to hear such appeals, this appeal is accordingly sent to the Collector (Appeals) for disposal in accordance with law. The Registry should forward the relevant record immediately. 4. We are informed that there are several other appeals pending in the South Regional Bench where a similar point regarding jurisdiction is involved, i.e. wherein the orders had been passed by the Additional Collector under the Gold (Control) Act. Those appeals be also sent to the Collector (Appeals) immediately. This will avoid inconvenience to the parties. A report that all such appeals have been sent to the Collector (Appeals) be submitted to the President after compliance by the Registry. 5. A copy of this order be also sent to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, for information.
-
1985 (4) TMI 303 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... lt would be that even though the decision of the Trial Court given on merits is confirmed by the dismissal on a preliminary ground, there can never be res judicata. The finality in the decision of any adjudicating forum can be destroyed by the simple expedient of lodging an appeal, which is later allowed to be dismissed in default of appearance or on same preliminary issue AIR 1966 SC 1322 . 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no substance in the contention of the Respondent that the principle of res judicata did not govern the instant proceedings. Without, therefore, going into any other question, we hold that the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP (Civil) No. 11044-45 of 1980 of the Union of India against the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1980 E.L.T. 593 supra operates as res judicata in these proceedings and the Revision now heard as an Appeal has accordingly to be allowed, regardless of any other contention that could be advanced on merits.
-
1985 (4) TMI 302 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ly beyond the period of limitation. As such, the notice dated 13-1-1981 is hit by limitation. We are, therefore, of the view that no duty liability can be fastened on the appellants. 22. We must note that whereas the first show cause notice demanded duty under item No. 14-HH, the second show cause notice does not even spell out under which item of the tariff the goods fell. However, the Collector has arrived at the classification of the goods under item No. 68 CET. This, to our mind, was clearly improper as he had gone out of the scope of the show cause notice. It is, however, interesting to note that even the second notice says that “inasmuch as they manufacture Fertilizers (Zinc Sulphate............). It is clear that even this notice proceeds on the basis that the subject product was a fertilizer. It did not say that the goods fell under item 68. 23. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1985 (4) TMI 301 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . We decline to do so. In keeping with our consistent approach, we respectfully follow the Gujarat High Court judgment aforesaid and hold that during the material period metallised yarn fell under item 15-A(2) and not under item 18-C.E.T. 5. So far as the Department’s alternative plea of time bar is concerned, we hold that it has been well taken. A part of the appellants claim falls beyond the time-limit of one year then in force under rule 11 read with rule 173-J and would, thus, be hit by the time bar unless the appellants can establish that they had paid the duties under protest. 6. In the light of our above discussion, we allow this appeal on the point of classification and order that the amount of consequential refund to be paid to the appellants will be regulated by the time bar of rule 11 read with rule 173-J, as then in force, unless the appellants can prove to the sat is faction of the Assistant Collector that the duties had been paid under protest throughout.
-
1985 (4) TMI 300 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... may be true that in the good old days paper took less processing and fewer chemicals in its manufacture but we are not satisfied that this should remain so for all time. We cannot turn our back on technological advance. The contribution that chemicals and other substance make in producing better, stronger, improved, durable paper, have given paper more desirable properties than paper produced in olden times had. If a substance or chemical is used and consumed in order to produce paper or to impart to it certain qualities and properties, we shall say that chemical or substance was an input or a material in the manufacture of the paper. They aid and contribute directly to the generation of the finished paper. 9. The above is our order, and the central excise shall extend the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-CE., to these substances used and consumed in the manufacture of paper. Substances like alum used in treating the effluent water would not be entitled to this concession.
-
1985 (4) TMI 299 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... under which the period of limitation is six months only. In the result in respect of payment of duty subsequent to 6-8-1977 the claim will have to b3 restricted for a period of six months before the date of claim as had been done by the lower authorities. But in respect of payments made before 6-8-1977 the claim will have to be allowed in respect of payments within one year from the date of refund claim. Therefore, in addition to the relief granted by the lower Authorities the appellants will be entitled to refund of the differential duty in respect of duty paid between 8-6-1977 to 6-8-1977. 10. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled to succeed to a limited extent in the manner indicated above. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the limited extent of modifying the orders of the lower authorities to grant the appellants a further relief of refund in respect of their payment of duty between 8-6-1977 to 6-8-1977, and the appeal is dismissed in other respects.
-
1985 (4) TMI 298 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he authority below has correctly invoked the provisions of Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules for confiscating the plant and machinery of the appellants which they had used for the manufacture of the goods which were removed from the factory without payment of excise duty. However, instead of absolute confiscation of the plant and machinery, the authority below ordered the release of the same on the payment of redemption fine of ₹ 10,000/-. The only point which needs consideration is whether this amount of ₹ 10,000/- is justified ? In view of the fact that a penalty of ₹ 25.000/- has already been imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if this redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 1,000/- only. 26. With this modification, we confirm the order of the authority below. Appeal partly allowed only to the extent of reduction in the amount of the redemption fine.
-
1985 (4) TMI 297 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... given the exemption. We rule that dispatch of the slurry through the pipeline is not manufacture of the slurry by means of power even if such a despatch by pipeline was by power. When the slum was despatched, it was already finished slurry and the despatch did not make it more slurry or more waste. The dispatch by using power is not .manufacture of the slurry by the use of power. We accordingly direct him to extend the exemption under the notification which he unjustly denied. 14. We direct all concerned, the central excise authorities and M/s. Gwalior Rayon Co. to proceed and to act in accordance with the judgment we have given above. Order per G. Sankaran, Member (T) . - I agree with brother Syiem that the neutralization of hydrochloric acid in the present case resulting in slurry did not amount to “manufacture” and that the slurry would not attract duty. In this view of the matter, I think, there is no need to consider Notification No. 179/77, dated 18-6-1977.
-
1985 (4) TMI 296 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... clinkering process is essential. 11. Under these circumstances, in view of the report of the Chemical Examiner and the fact that this product manufactured by the appellants contains those very ingredients which are also used in the manufacture of cement and that it is used for laying bricks and plastering them, it is a variety of cement, i.e., Non-portland cement as mentioned in Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology by Kirk-Othmer. 12. The authority below has correctly classified this product under Tariff Item 23(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. We confirm the order of the authority below and reject this appeal. 13. Regarding penalty, though the original authority had imposed a penalty of ₹ 500 on the appellants but the Order-in-Appeal is silent on this point, meaning thereby he did not confirm this finding of the original authority. We also do not find any justification in imposing penalty in the circumstances of the present case. 14. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1985 (4) TMI 295 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s, the classification in the present instance would have to be under Tariff Item 16A(2) in view of cotton not predominating in weight. As Shri Kohli points out, this view has been subsequently accepted by the Adjudicating Authorities also as found in the orders dated 8-1-1985 and 21-3-1985 produced by Shri Kohli. No doubt, Shri Tayal contends that the order dated 21-3 1985 was on a price list. But on a perusal of the order, it is seen that the Assistant Collector had, in the said order, held that it is very clear the goods (Friction Cloth) fall under Tariff Item 16A(2) and it was on that basis that he was approving the price list also. 12. In view of the above circumstances, we hold that the subject goods a classifiable under Tariff Item 16A(2) as claimed by the appellants. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside in the matter of classification. Classification is directed to be done under T.I. 16A(2), with consequential relief.
-
1985 (4) TMI 294 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he invoice price is not influenced by any commercial, financial, or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise other than the relationship created by sale of any goods. In this case there is no evidence to show that concessional or lower prices were charged by the appellants on account of any extra commercial consideration. There is also no proof that the appellants had any direct or indirect interest in the business of the distributors. Even the Appellate Collector has referred to the sale of spare parts to M/s. Chellur Corporation. It is not the volume or the quantity of the sale at the factory gate, but the fact that the goods produced in this factory and sold through the distributors was readily available to any person. The order of the Assistant Collector withdrawing the concession of assessment in terms of Notification No. 120/75-C.E. and confirmed by the Appellate Collector cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, thus, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 293 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... other than any immediate pecuniary hardship in the payment thereof.”; (j) admittedly, nothing is pleaded in support of the Application except the existence of a good case, prima facie. There is no question of any hardship in making the deposit much less undue hardships unless, payment of money held to be due by the two lower forums is the last priority that would, in itself, invariably cause undue hardship; (k) the decisions cited to us are all in a different context - for stay of recovery and not for dispensing with a deposit statutorily required to be made for the maintainability of the Appeal itself. 8. In the result, we see no merits in the Application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. This Appeal, alongwith the three other Appeals adverted to in para 1 supra, may be listed for disposal in accordance with law if the deposits required to be made in each of them are not made within eight weeks from the date of the communication of this order.
-
1985 (4) TMI 292 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... with the other requirements of the Notifications, namely, production of evidence as may be required by the Collector for verifying that the goods had been produced only in the course of training. The lower authorities have, therefore, rightly held that the appellant-institution has not established that it is entitled to the benefit of these Notifications. 13. A cross-appeal has been filed by the appellant. The appellant has claimed in the grounds of appeal that jigs and fixtures, etc., manufactured by the institution would be covered under residuary Item 68 and not T.I. No. 51-A. But the appellant had not raised this ground before the lower authorities nor had they come forward with such a case in reply to the show cause notice. We, therefore, hold that the appellant-institution is not entitled to raise such a plea at this late stage. 14. For the reasons aforesaid the appeal is allowed and the cross-objections are disposed of in the light of the above observations.
-
1985 (4) TMI 291 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hat the Assistant Collector has also referred to the prior approval of classification lists by the authorities though she did not consider its effect on the later classification lists. The Department contends that under Section 11-A of the Central, Excises and Salt Act, 1944 demand notices can be issued within a period of 5 years. On the present facts, it is manifest that there was no mis-declaration or suppression of facts and the appellants have been disclosing to the authorities the nature of the products. 13. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellate Collector was right in restricting the demand to the period of six months and not enlarging it to a period of five years. The demand shall now be reworked out limiting it to a period of six months excluding the period of 26-12-77 to 16-3-78 with respect to the show cause notice dated 8-12-77 and not 26-12-77 to 6-10-82 as had been earlier done. 14. In the result, the six appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1985 (4) TMI 290 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... der Nos. C-548 to 555/84, dated 21-8-1984) the opinion of the Chief Chemist was necessary for the purpose of taking a decision whether the appeal should be filed or not. In that order passed by this Bench of the Tribunal the dispute was also with respect to the classification of the goods either under Chapter 15 or 29 of the Customs Tariff Schedule of 1975. Here also the dispute is whether this product is classifiable under Chapter 15 or 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The product is also the same i.e. Fatty Alcohol. 9. We find that in view of the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Dair-Ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd., it became necessary for the Department to solicit the opinion of the Deputy Chief Chemist second time keeping in view the observations made by the Bench in that order and it is a sufficient explanation of filing the appeal beyond time. 10. Under these circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the appeal.
-
1985 (4) TMI 289 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... he value of the damaged or deteriorated goods bears to the value of the goods before the damage or deterioration and sub-section (3) of the Section 22 lays down the manner for ascertaining the value of the damaged or deteriorated goods at the option of the owner. The value of such goods may be ascertained by the proper officer, or such goods may be sold by the proper officer by public auction or by tender, or with the consent of the owner in any other manner and the gross sale-proceeds shall be deemed to be the value of such goods. In the instant case, these conditions are not fulfilled. The learned Appellate Collector of Customs has observed in the last para of his order that he had examined both the original and duplicate copy of the bill of entry and found that there was no report of survey or damages on these by the Shed Appraiser. I have got full sympathy for the appellant. But the provisions of Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962 are mandatory. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ecision of the Bombay High Court in the Sylvania Laxman case (supra) on which the appellants place reliance. 9. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Jain Shudh Vanaspati case of the Kerala High Court in the Indian Aluminium Industries case and of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Cotton Mills case and the Tribunal’s decision in the Bayer case, we hold that the lower authorities have correctly held that the date of presentation of the bill of entry, and not the date of entry of the goods in the Indian territorial waters, was the date relevant for ascertaining the rate of customs duty applicable to the goods. The bill of entry was presented in the instant case on 13-3-1979 on which date the notification exempting palmolein from basic customs duty was no longer in force. In its place, Notification No. 42, dated 1-3-1979 imposing a duty of 12.5% ad valorem was in force. The duty has, therefore, been correctly collected. 10. The appeal is rejected.
-
1985 (4) TMI 287 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... h are new products. But for that reason, the treated vegetable oil itself did not become a new commodity. The Supreme Court clearly ruled that what M/s. D.C.M. undertook was only processing of raw oil and not manufacture of a new commodity, prior to hydrogenation. 5. We find no ground to interfere with the earlier finding of this Bench that sawn timber (without any further finishing into distinct articles) is not a new or different commodity. Sawing only reduces the thickness and/or length and width of the timber pieces. But just after sawing, it remains timber only. We agree with the appellant that sawn timber was, for that reason, not an excisable item and the value of its clearances could not, therefore, be included in the turnover ceiling. 6. In the light of our above discussion, we allow this appeal in terms that if by excluding the value of clearances of sawn timber, the appellants became entitled to the exemption, the benefit thereof should be given to them.
........
|
