|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 167 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... g effect of the duty paid on the inputs. Hence when the inputs are t subject to duty and it has been paid even subsequently, it would be available under Rule 57E. Otherwise the object of Rule 57E is frustrated. I am also unable to appreciate the stand taken by the Collector (Appeals). If the appellants have chosen to honour time-barred demand, that does not make the payment a donation. It is only a payment towards duty, in respect of which credit is available, even though payment is at a subsequent stage, under Rule 57E. The Ld. Chartered Accountant also confirms that the certificate has been issued by the Customs authorities only for the purpose of availment of MODVAT Credit and they are not going to seek for refund of the customs duty. Hence the other objection taken by the Collector (Appeals) also does not appeal to me. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities below and grant consequential relief, where called for.
-
1992 (10) TMI 166 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... n circular looms and what are manufactured on circular looms are fabrics which are then cut and stitched into sacks is a fact which is not unknown and should not have been unknown to the Department in view of the circulars and instructions. It is not that they gave a declaration that they manufactured sacks from fabrics not woven on circular looms. But their staking a claim for exemption under the relevant Notification impliedly constituted a claim that they did not manufacture the woven sacks on circular looms. The question will be whether such an implied claim would constitute a misdeclaration or suppression. We feel the element of doubt present in the circumstances of the case would justify the grant of stay. We, accordingly, grant waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amounts for the hearing of the appeal and stay of recovery of the said amounts during the pendency of the appeal. 7. The Registry should transfer the appeal to the Special Bench of the Tribunal for disposal.
-
1992 (10) TMI 165 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... of the Collector brings out the fact that clearance of goods with duty involvement of Rs. 11,700 had taken place on 31-8-1985 without payment of duty. He has remarked that no specific evidence has been brought out in the application alleging that there had been any manipulation of records with intent to evade lawful duty. Such a requirement is not a must in dealing with a case of this type where, admittedly, goods had been cleared without sufficient balance in the P.L.A. For the reasons discussed above, with reference to the first appeal, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo decision in accordance with law and natural justice. We accept the plea made in the appeal that the Assistant Collector rsquo s original decision was not proper and required to be set aside and the Collector (Appeals) erred in upholding it. 7. The operative part of the order was announced in the Open Court at the conclusion of the hearing.
-
1992 (10) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Strictures against departmental authorities - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... 1991 to the applicants telling the applicants that he would be going by the consumption of sulphur alone for the purpose of arriving at the total production. We observe that appreciation of evidence may or may not lead to a conclusion of evasion of duty, but what we are saying is that it is incumbent on the learned lower authority to go by the pieces of evidence that have been gathered during the investigation which are indicative of evasion of duty particularly when large amount of evasion of duty has been alleged in the show cause notice issued by another Collector. It is regrettable that this has not been done in the present case. We observe that we can only comment on what had happened but cannot rectify the position in a situation like this on account of the limited legal mandate under which we operate. It is for the Departmental authorities, if they feel necessary to take whatever remedial action they would like to take in this regard as available to them under the law.
-
1992 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... peal proceedings. Their first appeal thereon was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that no appeal could lie to him in the matter as the Assistant Collector rsquo s communication of the amount of duty demanded was not his decision but the same was by way of implementing the Collector rsquo s decision. The appeal, accordingly, was held to be effectively against the Collector rsquo s decision and as such not entertainable by him. The appeal against that Order-in-Appeal is before us in separate proceedings. Be that as it may, in the present matter, the Collector rsquo s order is held by us to be incomplete for failure to indicate the duty amount confirmed. We accordingly set it aside and allow the appeal by way of remand to the Collector for de novo decision on merits and consistent with natural justice. A complete order indicating the amount of duty confirmed may be passed. 8. The operative part of the order announced in the open Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1992 (10) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit - Input ... ... ... ... ..... om had been given when certain arguments presented before us and considered by us were not canvassed before our learned Brothers in the West and South Regional Benches. In this connection, we recall the observations of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Surgichem, reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 548 wherein certain discussions in Salmond on Jurisprudence on decisions passed sub silentio and the non-binding nature thereof, have been referred to. A decision without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of authority, would not be binding and such a precedent sub silentio is not authoritative. The same principle was followed in a subsequent decision of the Tribunal in Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 563. The action taken by us in deciding the present case as above would be in conformity with the principles regarding sub silentio precedents referred to above.
-
1992 (10) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Valuation - Packing charges
... ... ... ... ..... ing of fact that special cement is being sold without packing and the said finding was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to change in respect of the very same manufacturer who sold the entire production in gunny bags. In our views, the general principle of law that where packing is not necessary for putting the article generally in the market at the factory gate, the same principle should be applied to the commodity though it is sold in packing. We are of the view that there should be finality for litigation and parties should not be permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views. 37. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the Order No. 111 to 119/90-A does not require re-consideration as it has not expressed any view different from the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above. Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the Revenue Authorities are directed to give consequential relief.
-
1992 (10) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cable extrusion line imported ... ... ... ... ..... indicated the description given in the Bill of Entry, as well as in the invoices. The bill of entry and invoices make it clear that they have imported not only the plastic extruder 152 mm sq. diameter but also electrical control drives and ancillary equipment and spares. In other words, the appellants imported the entire equipment viz. cable extrusion line. It consists of 10 parts out of which extruder is one part. The fact that the other parts are necessary or essential are indispensable for smooth functioning of the equipment is not a ground for granting the benefit of the Notification when the Notification specifically mentions the name of the goods for the purpose of exemption. The Notification categorically mentions plastic extruder above 150 mm sq. diameter. Therefore, the authorities below are justified in rejecting the benefit of Notification to the impugned goods. There are no reasons to interfere with the Order of the Collector. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cotton fabrics - Process of calendering undertaken on ‘zero zero’ machine without attached ‘baby stenter’
-
1992 (10) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nce by the learned DR on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Fusebase Eltoto reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 401 is misplaced - it was held therein that the projection of TV signals in the form of a picture on to the screen is a technological improvement over the conventional sets and, therefore, it cannot be said that the purpose of the machine is not to receive TV signals and to convert them into TV pictures. This order was cited by the DR to support his argument that the tariff cannot be static it has to keep abreast of the advance in technology. In the appeal before us switches and contactors are already existing recognised different items and, therefore, the ratio of the above decision will not apply in the facts herein. 11. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the contactors manufactured by the respondents are eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification 160/86, dated 1-3-1986. We uphold the impugned order and reject the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
1992 (10) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... al filed by the appellants was rejected. Hence the appeal before us. 6. We have already pointed out that under similar circumstances, we have directed the Assistant Collector, to ascertain after taking into consideration the bank guarantee executed by the appellants being equivalent amount of the advance paid to them and examine whether there is any nexus between advance paid, the bank guarantee executed by the appellants, and the sale price namely whether it has reduced sale price of the goods manufactured by the appellants. 7. Since the contract and the purchase orders are similar to the contract and purchase orders referred to in that above order, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the lower authorities and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the observations made in the Order No. 316-320/92-A, dated 27-5-1992 1992 (62) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.) . The appeal is thus allowed and remanded to the Assistant Collector.
-
1992 (10) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ave stated that they have issued circulars indicating payment of trade discount and quantity discount. Neither those circulars were filed before us nor before the lower authorities. In other words, there is no examination of the fact of giving trade discount in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyres International (Supra) . We therefore, remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to examine whether the trade discount and turn-over discount given by the appellants are in accordance with the principles laid by the Supreme Court. As regards the deductions on account of bank charges for collection, these admittedly being the post-removal expenditure cannot be added to the assessable value. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector and direct the Asstt. Collector to determine the eligibility for deduction in respect of the trade discount and turn-over discount in the light of the observations made above.
-
1992 (10) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rs in Bombay, Hyderabad and Bangalore except consignment transfer to self depots. It is submitted by the appellant that the gate passes and invoices categorically mentioned that the goods are routed through consignment agents and depots. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts. The appellants have also filed gate passes indicating clearance from appellant factory to M/s. M.D. Goel and Sons, Hyderabad. Similarly, the stock transfer invoice dated 4-7-1981 also indicates consignee rsquo s name as M.D. Goel and Sons. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no suppression of facts and the department is not justified in invoking the longer period of limitation as the appellants have categorically indicated in the gate passes and also in stock transfer invoices the name of the consignees. Further in the light of view that the price list under Part II, a proof is valid under Section 4, the question of suppression of facts does not arise. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication and appeal ... ... ... ... ..... leave of the Court is not necessary. 6. In the present proceedings the Assistant Collector issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to recover duty in respect of fabrics denying of benefit of exemption Notification No. 252/82 and 80/82. He also proposes to approve the price lists treating the fabrics for the purpose of value as sound fabrics. In other words, the Assistant Collector proposes to re-assess the goods by revising the price lists. On appeal, the Collector agreed with the Assistant Collector. Therefore, these are nothing but re-assessment proceedings. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court is on all fours in the present case. Consequently, leave of the High Court winding up the company is not necessary for impleading the Official Liquidator. The Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the Official Liquidator is impleaded as party to the proceedings. Cause Title is directed to be amended accordingly by substituting the Official Liquidator in place of Respondents.
-
1992 (10) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
`Rate of Duty ... ... ... ... ..... rs declared in the documents, like, invoice and bill of lading. Such a verification and scrutiny could not properly take place when no original documents accompanied the bill of entry. Therefore, when the exercise involves such comparison and scrutiny of the particulars of the documents having impact on the rate of duty, valuation and classification, it cannot be held to be unreasonable for the Customs House not to have accepted such bills of entry for noting in the import department especially having regard to the fact that these were being presented on the date of the budget during observation of the special period when the Revenue Department takes precaution relating to the filing of bills of entry. The facts of the case relating to Priyanka Overseas and those of Associated Forest Products of the Calcutta High Court (supra) are dis-similar. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authority and the appeals are rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Predeposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... same. As the appellants prayer has not been considered by the Collector (Appeals), it has resulted in failure of justice. The learned Collector (Appeals) also should have given a show cause notice prior to the dismissal of appeal calling upon the appellants to explain as to why their appeal should not be rejected for failure to comply with the stay order as per Section 35F of the Act. As there is failure on this aspect also, the matter requires to be remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh disposal as per law. The learned Collector (Appeals) shall take all the points that may be urged by the appellants in this behalf at the time of their hearing of the application for modification of the stay order. The appellants shall present their application for modification for reconsideration before the Collector (Appeals) within a reasonable time and the learned Collector (Appeals) shall give a personal hearing and dispose of the same as per law. The appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1992 (10) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Classification dispute ... ... ... ... ..... bject goods have been mentioned by the appellants to be Aluminium Oxide, Silicon Carbide, Flint/Quartz, Emery and Garnet. Collector (Appeals) has rejected the plea for classification of these products under Chapter 28 on the ground that the goods are not marketed as Aluminium Oxide or Silicon Carbide and are obtained by crushing the waste materials that arise out of manufacturing grinding wheels. He has also held that the items are bonded with clay. He has also taken into account the Chapter Notes to Chapter 38, according to which, all types of products such as antiknock preparations, oxidation inhibitors, gum inhibitors, viscosity improvers, anti-corrosive preparations, pickling preparations for metal surfaces, finishing agents, dye-carriers are all covered by this Chapter. The subject goods being mixtures of natural products have been appropriately held to fall under sub-heading 3801.90. We do not see any reason to differ with this finding and accordingly reject the appeal.
-
1992 (10) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he above discussion, we hold that the extended period of limitation will not be attracted in these cases. Consequently, the demands in Appeal Nos. E/1516/91 and Appeal No. E/1517/91 are entirely barred by limitation. In Appeal No. E/2788/88 and Appeal No. E/2846/91, the demand is confirmed for a period of six months prior to the issue of show-cause notice. 13. In the result, we hold as follows (a) Anti-creep bearing plates fall for Classification under Heading 7302.90. (b) Brake blocks fall for Classification under Heading 8607.00. The demands in Appeal No. E/1516/91 and Appeal No. E/1517/91 are set aside on the ground of limitation. The demand in Appeal No. E/2788/88 is confirmed for the period 5th Feb. lsquo 87 to 31-3-1987 and the demand in Appeal No. E/2846/91 is confirmed for the period from 17-2-1987 to 31-3-1987. The penalties in all four appeals are set aside as unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (10) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Predeposit of duty and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... s. 12/- lakhs out of the total duty amounting to Rs. 24,69,820/- and penalty amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 9. On a perusal of the Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1992 we find that the total current assets of the applicants exceeds the total current liabilities substantially i.e. by Rs. 86,30,454.66. Their current assets include inventories to the tune of Rs. 40,34,767.02, sundry debtors Rs. 75,04,771.38 etc. Under these circumstances we do not find any justification to vary or alter the earlier stay order passed by the Bench. In the result the application is rejected. However, before dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the Stay Order No. 01/92-C, we in the interest of justice, direct the appellants to comply with the said order by 30th November, 1992. Failure to comply with the stay order mentioned above may entail the dismissal of the appeal without any further notice. To come up for passing suitable order after ascertaining the compliance of the said stay order on 15-12-1992.
-
1992 (10) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... these Fork Lift Trucks and, therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that these Trucks are designed for use off the road. These Fork Lift Trucks possess the attribute of vehicle designed for use off the road. One may use these trucks on roads or public places is a different matter. Here we are concerned with the interpretation of the expression ldquo vehicles designed for the use off the road rdquo . Thus, we uphold the classification made by the authorities below in their impugned Orders. Before we part, it may be stated that the case of Hindustan Motors Limited, supra, is not applicable for, in that case the High Court was concerned with the question, as to whether the Rear Dumpers fall within the category of ldquo Motor Vehicles not otherwise specified rdquo . 8. In the result, we reject the appeal being devoid of any merit. The Misc. Application also stands disposed of by this order as no separate order is required to be passed in the light of the foregoing discussion.
........
|
