|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods if set aside ... ... ... ... ..... able test on complete mutilation laid down in the policy for the guidance of the importer and the infringement agencies, the benefit has to be given to the importer. Synthetic Rags cut into two pcs. only available are to be taken as completely mutilated even if it is felt that mutilation is not sufficient, customs authorities should have ordered further mutilation on the guidance of Section 24 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the import is valid under OGL. rdquo There is no violation of any of the provisions of the Import Policy and the Customs Act, as the Zippers in this case are also cut into two pieces. We, therefore, set aside the Order of the Collector and direct him to grant consequential relief. 11. Since the goods are not available for giving consequential relief to the appellant, we direct the Department to return the sales proceeds of the 28 bales sold in public auction as stated in the letter of the Assistant Collector referred to above. The appeal is, thus, allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... artmental Representative had cited two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Newman Press, reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.) on the question of duty liability in the cases in which goods were manufactured during the exemption period but removed later. For the purpose of deciding these appeals it is not necessary to apply the ratio of these judgments. The manufacture of the finished goods in which the inputs were used has, in the present appeals, taken place after the inputs were no longer classifiable under Item 68. It is on this ground that the benefit of set off of duty under Notification 201/79 is not admissible after 16-3-1985. 7. Thus, after consideration of all the aspects of the matter, we find that there is no merit in the appellants rsquo contention. Both the appeals, therefore, fail and are rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... the lower authorities for fresh decision. We are therefore not satisfied that there is any merit in the ground urged by the appellants for getting over the bar of limitation. The appeals are liable to be dismissed as time barred . In view of the earlier decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields and which has been reaffirmed in the case of Ram Bhawan Singh and Others v. Jagdish and Others and following the judicial precedents that the latter decision of the Supreme Court has to be followed, we are of the view that the appellants were not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Application for condonation of delay is rejected. 5. Since we have rejected the application for condonation of delay, the stay application as well as appeal are also dismissed and we are not going into the merits of the same. In the result, the application for condonation of delay, the stay application as well as the appeal are dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Undervaluation ... ... ... ... ..... order that the most forceful plea taken by Mr. Hemrajani is that his signature nowhere appeared on any Bill of Entry/invoices nor has he presented the same to Customs for clearance and the statement of Shri Ashok Sehgal have not been corroborated by any independent evidence and that no statement has been recorded from Mr. Hemrajani himself. The statements of appellants 5 and 6 are self inculpatory and in addition corroborated by the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Sehgal. We therefore, do not see any force in the contention of Shri Ramanathan that no penalty is imposable on appellant Nos. 4, 5 and 6. However, we agree that the penalties imposed are excessive and disproportionate. We, therefore, reduce the penalty on appellant No. 4 from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs, on appellant No. 5 from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 and on appellant No. 6 from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,000/- 12. Subject to the above modification (reduction of penalty), we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.
-
1992 (10) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Self-copy paper ... ... ... ... ..... issued with reference to the classification list filed by the assessee and no decision on the classification has been made and the letter of January, 1990 was only to say the goods will be classifiable under Heading 4809.20/4816.00 which was the classification originally sought by the assessees themselves. The main thrust of the show cause notice was denial of exemption under Notification No. 44/86 which was not altered by the letter 4-1-1990. Therefore, the argument that the letter of 4-1-1990 is the start of fresh proceedings and it alters the basis of the original show cause notice does not have any force. The appeals are, therefore, disposed of by upholding the Order No. A-117/90, dated 2-7-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune in the case of M/s. Tejoomals Karbonless Papers Ltd. and by setting aside the order dated 11-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in the case of M/s. Kores (India) Ltd.
-
1992 (10) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... es of home consumption only or all clearances including that of exports. Majority view held that the first proviso to said Notification 176/77 spoke of clearances without any qualification of home consumption and therefore, the aggregate clearance of Rs. 30,00,000/-would include the value of clearances for exports as well. Even the minority view which held computation of clearances under the proviso would be restricted to clearances for home consumption only was on the reasoning that expression lsquo clearance rsquo in the proviso would take its colour from the expression in the main portion of the notification which used the expression lsquo clearances for home consumption rsquo . In the present case the question is different, namely whether exports to Nepal could mean lsquo clearances for home consumption rsquo . - the expression used in the main portion of the notification. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, we reject it.
-
1992 (10) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... White Industrial (supra) relied upon by the Ld. SDR. The ratio of the High Court judgments (supra) also would support the view that the exclusive marketeering of goods through M/s. Voltas by the appellants with their brand name, may not be sufficient circumstances having regard to the factual background of the case and the features of the Agreement between the two parties to come to the conclusion that the appellants and M/s. Voltas can be held to be related persons in terms of the definition under Sec. 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In this view of the matter, the order proposed by the Ld. Member (J) is concurred with and the papers are returned to the Hon rsquo ble lsquo A rsquo Bench for passing final orders. Sd/- K.S. Venkataramani (Technical Member) FINAL ORDER 46. In view of the majority opinion, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Sd/- (P.C. Jain) (Technical Member) Sd/- (S.V Maruthi) (Judicial Member) DATED 23-10-1992
-
1992 (10) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Watches and timepieces of foreign origin recovered from shop premises ... ... ... ... ..... ove, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector dropping the proceedings against the respondents under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not proper. We, therefore, set aside the order appealed against and impose a penalty of Rs. 15/000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) on Shri Kartar Singh, the sole proprietor of M/s. P.K. Brothers. As far as Shri Amarjit is concerned, since he was present in the shop on that day when the seized goods were recovered only because of the illness of his father Shri Kartar Singh we take a lenient view and refrain from imposing any penalty on him. Since M/s. P.K. Brothers were neither served with the show cause notice nor was any order passed against them by the Additional Collector, we hold that they could not be proceeded against in terms of the order passed by the Board under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 14. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms and the cross-objection is rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... bmission in the light of the classification determined by the M.P. High Court in Raj Packwell Ltd. case. The lower authorities shall also consider the grant of Modvat benefit as claimed by the appellants. The contention of the learned DR that the classification cannot be corrected is not a sound submission as duty has to be determined on the basis of the classification arrived at by the higher Courts as has been well settled by now. It is also seen that the show cause notice has been issued on 27-6-1990 raising demand for clandestine removal for the period 4-5-1986 to 16-8-19881 well after 6 months after the department has discovered the said clandestine removal which has come to be noticed by the department in their course of checks on 23-8-1986. The original authorities may also examine the plea of time bar raised before us at the time of de novo proceedings, which shall be disposed of after hearing the appellants in the matter. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (10) TMI 178 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... enty five thousand) only. 8. As far as the second point is concerned, we have to find out whether the imposition of penalty on the appellant is in accordance with law. It is now seen that there is no evidence in this case to show that he had any knowledge about the conveyance of the smuggled goods in his Van. There were also no circumstances in this case to show that the appellant had any such knowledge. The statements of the inmates of the Van also do not show that the appellant had any knowledge thereof. The order of the learned Additional Collector also did not discuss this aspect. He has not come to any finding as to how the appellant can be fastened with the liability of knowledge of the carriage of smuggled goods in this Van. In that view of the matter, we extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant and accordingly, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,000.00 imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (10) TMI 177 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... -3-1990. The applicants had also filed affidavits before the Additional Collector stating that they had not received the orders in question. Considering those affidavits the applicants were given copies of the impugned orders by the Additional Collector and their signatures were also obtained in the case records for having taken the copies of the orders on 16-8-1991. Even at that time when the applicants made averments through affidavits the office of the Additional Collector did not dispute the same. On the contrary, they themselves provided the certified copies of the impugned orders which were received by the applicants on 16-8-1991. In that view of the matter, we extend the benefit of doubt to the applicants and on the facts and circumstances of the case which are peculiar to these cases, the delays in filing the above-captioned appeals are hereby condoned and the Miscellaneous Applications are accordingly allowed. Registry is directed to post these appeals in due course.
-
1992 (10) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... have subsequently emerged, but where the interlocutory so passed does not remain in the domain of the Tribunal but had travelled to the higher Court such Order operates as res judicata in its subsequent application before the Tribunal. Following the ratio of the said decision, we are of the considered view that this Tribunal has no power to vary or alter the Order passed by the Hon. Allahabad High Court on 18-5-1992 modifying the Stay Order dated 10-3-1992 passed by this Tribunal. Hence we reject the Misc. Application. And since the appellants have not complied with the said Stay Order, as modified by the Court, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Chancier v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, AIR 1971 SC 2280 1981 (8) E.L.T. 679. 6. In the result, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clasification ... ... ... ... ..... ssifiable under 39.17 and 39.26 the question of suppression of facts does not arise and we accordingly, set aside the demand. 13. As regards the demand for gears the main contention of Shri Lakshmikumaran is that it is barred by limitation. From the facts narrated in the above paragraphs, the Department called for information as to the end use of gears and the appellants supplied the information by their letter dated 26-3-1991 and 21-3-1991. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 1-4-1991. In other words, immediately after clarifying that the gears were used for electroplating barrels. Show Cause Notice was issued. Since the appellants are not disputing the classification of gears and since Show Cause Notice was issued immediately after the appellants clarifying that the said goods are used in electroplating barrels, the appellants failed to disclose the enduse of the product. We, therefore, uphold the demand as far as the gears are concerned. The appeal is thus, partly allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... C.E., dated 13-5-1988 and 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988. 4. All the Trade Associations concerned are requested to bring the contents of this Trade Notice to the attention of member manufacturers in particular and the trade in general. 5. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the printed/lacquered/varnished tin sheets fall for classification under Heading 7212.30 of the CETA, 1985. We also hold that the sheets in question are eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 202/88 dated 20-5-1988 as amended by Notification 218/88 dated 21-6-1988 against clause 5 thereof/, as final products mentioned in Col. 3 of the notification viz. ldquo painted/lacquered or varnished sheets falling under sub-heading 7210.30 or 7212.30 are made out of duty paid inputs specified in Col. No. 2 thereof viz. rdquo sheets including tinned sheets . 6. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1992 (10) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ), i.e. body of the saw, whereas Tariff Heading 84.45/48 speaks of parts of machine tools. 5. Neither the invoice nor the leaflet is filed before us in spite of giving opportunity to produce the same. However, the Assistant Collector referred to the description in the invoice and leaflets as saw blade bodies for attachment of the Diamonds Segments. It means it is a body to which cutting instrument is attached. As pointed out earlier 82.01/04 covers items of blades for cutting instruments whereas 84.45/48 deals with parts of machine tools. In our view 82.01 /04 is a specific item whereas 84.45/48 is a general item. Since the description in the leaflet and in the invoice is itself a blade body for attachment to saw, it is covered by specific Heading 82.01/04 and not 84.45/48 as when there is specific entry, it precedes over the general item. For the reasons mentioned the Order of the Collector does not stand and, therefore, it is set aside. Department rsquo s appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ) also will not make a vital difference, as has been rightly held by the Assistant Collector, The leaflet itself states ldquo Material feed pump choice of pump system with variable speed gear unit to control residence time of mix,...... Special version with heated feed hopper rdquo . Incorporation of 2 pumps in no way interferes with the use of the machine for other applications. 5. None of the documents such as invoice, bill of lading, bill of entry, leaflet, installation manual indicates that the machine is for producing printing ink. It is clear that the machine is a general purpose grinding machine and not a machine for the production of a particular commodity. 6. Therefore, it properly falls for classification under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 7. In the result we hold that the Drais Pearl Mill imported by the appellants herein is assessable under Heading 84.59(1) of the CTA, 1975. We set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
1992 (10) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... sses which was removed by them in Nov., 1980 without payment of duty and without any gate passes. The appellant contended that there was verification of stock by the Department and a letter of Excise Inspector, dated 17-9-1980 which says that on 17-9-1980, he found that Tank No. 1 containing molasses of the year 1979-80 contained water which in quantity was three times the molasses contained in the Tank. On 10-10-1980, the receiver of the company addressed the letter to the Excise Commissioner stating that this molasses was not fit for distillation and was refused by M/s. Pilkhani Distillery to whom it was allotted. These two documents were admitted as additional evidence as they were in existence prior to the initiation of the proceedings. The above order is also distinguishable from the facts of this case. In view of the foregoing, we reject the prayer of the appellant for admitting the two letters as additional evidence. Miscellaneous Application is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... dings in respect of classification. The decision in the case of Merck Sharp and Dhome says that a letter from the Deptt. conveying a threat of demand of duty is not to be construed as a demand under the law, which should be one with cause to be shown to the competent authority and also should specify the amount. It is not a decision to say that non-specification of amount of duty per se vitiates the demand. The ratio of the Travancore Rayons case relating to demand under Rule 9(2) already has been dealt with in the facts of the present case by Ld. Member (J). It is also not as if in the absence of amount being specified in the demand notice the appellants were not in a position to ascertain their duty liability. It is seen that they had opted to pay duty under protest at one stage implying that they knew the extent of liability and expressing no difficulty in this regard. In the circumstances, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal, by the Revenue, is allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Penalty not imposable for technical omission ... ... ... ... ..... SDR and after perusing the appeal memorandum, I find that the undisputed factual position is that flux materials, which are utilised in the manufacture of welding electrodes even otherwise are eligible for exemption for captive use. Hence, even if it is held that the classification list for this item ought to have been filed claiming exemption, no penalty under Rule 173Q is legally permissible, because under Rule 173Q, penalty can be imposed, only where any violation of the Rule is with an intention to evading duty. When the admitted position is that there is no revenue evasion in this case, non-declaration of the flux materials in the classification list is only to be construed as a technical omission, and penalty under Rule 173Q cannot be sustained. Possibly, penalty under Sec. 210 would have been justified. Considering the facts of the case, I find that no penalty is warranted, but a caution would suffice. Hence, I allow the appeal and set aside the order imposing penalty.
-
1992 (10) TMI 168 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit scheme ... ... ... ... ..... errors in the order requiring a Reference, to call into question the order with snide references to stretching the meaning to limits beyond reason by incomplete examination etc. is totally unwarranted. While we would certainly welcome applications to have doubtful questions of law referred to the High Courts for obtaining the benefit of their advice, the scope of such a reference in the present case does not exist/ for the reasons exhaustively dealt with by us. For that matter, the order also has followed several decisions discussed elaborately. The effect of these have been totally missed by the Collector and an offensive Reference Application has been made. Incidentally, stretching the meaning beyond reason, misinterpreting etc. by itself may not give rise to questions of law requiring reference but only if, by such aberrations or otherwise, doubtful Hit or faulty conclusions are drawn. We have tried to steer clear of such results. The I boot is, probably, on the other leg.
........
|
