|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 717 Records
-
1997 (12) TMI 643
... ...
... ... ..... ve Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.
-
1997 (12) TMI 642
... ...
... ... ..... t be solely extended to interpret the scope of an entry, in an exemption notification. The rules are for interpretation, for the purposes of classification of a commodity, under the Customs Tariff. Only after the classification of the goods is determined, the question of applicability of notification arises. Since I have already held that the impugned goods are components, for the facsimile machines, they would therefore, be appropriately classifiable under the appropriate Heading, for components, and only that notification, if any, will be applicable, which will be applicable to the components, of facsimile machines. 27. After examining the situation in the correct perspective we agree with the view that the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. was not available to the goods imported in both the case. 28. After giving our careful thought and consideration to the matter we do not find any merit in both these appeals. The appeals are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 592
Refund - Unjust enrichment - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... nd of the amount involved subject to being execution of a bank guarantee to the extent of 50 and a bond for the remaining amount. He says that pending the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter the Collector rsquo s order should be set aside. 3. emsp We are not impressed by this argument. As the representative of the respondent points out the Supreme Court, in its decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 has said (in para 98) that the situation in the case of captive consumption is not dealt with, and the question is left open. This order was passed after the interim order was passed by the same court. In any event, since the operation of the Bombay High Court rsquo s order has not been stayed by the Supreme Court since that court has left the issue open, the prevailing decision is that which has been followed by the Collector (Appeals) this order therefore cannot be found fault with. 4. emsp We decline to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 552
Penalty - Evidence - Statement of co-accomplice ... ... ... ... ..... jail for long time. He is deprived of his wife rsquo s money of Rs. 4,500/- which is adjusted towards the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- which appears to be excessive. From the facts of the case, it is seen that he has not derived any benefit from the alleged understanding and attempt to help Peter David to escape with contraband gold outside the Customs area. As contended by his ld. Counsel in the argument the appellant is unable to maintain his family as he is still under suspension. We feel the penalty imposed on the appellant requires to be reduced to the amount already adjusted that is Rs. 4,500/-. So to that extent the case of the appellant is accepted, and the point raised is answered in the negative. We pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order is modified by reducing the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 4,500/- which is already adjusted. The rest of the impugned order is confirmed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 476
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... importability or otherwise of the items were not the questions which were before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court or before the Hon rsquo ble High Court in those cases. Therefore, the ratio of those decisions do not apply to the facts of this case. 8. emsp In this particular case, it is seen that these items are not items which are required for the functioning of the fans as such. It is only a decorative item to provide light to the fan. Its character as an electric lamp or a light is not changed merely because it is fixed to a fan. Therefore, these items are clearly mentioned as restrictive item under heading 94054000. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the confiscation made in this case is legal and proper. 9. emsp However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand). In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no penalty is called for and we set aside the same.
-
1997 (12) TMI 452
... ...
... ... ..... ate products while the tools are final products. On this finding of fact in the present case the provisions of Rule 57D(2) will get attracted. We also find that the position has been clearly elucidated in the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 168 (Tribunal) holding that Rule 57D(2) carves out and exception to the operation of Rule 57C, insofar as intermediate products are concerned. The two provisions should be read harmoniously, observed the Tribunal. While Rule 57C will enter the picture only when the final product is exempt, Rule 57D(2) will operate in all cases where the intermediate product is exempted to put it differently, in cases where the intermediate product is exempt from duty, it is Rule 57D(2) that should be applied and not Rule 57C. We find that the ratio of the Tribunal decision clearly covers the facts of the present case. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (12) TMI 451
Electronic components ... ... ... ... ..... olour specification was an error and the error be removed but for that reason it could not ignore the colour specification when it was the part of the law. We entirely agree with the view of the Tribunal that even if the Central Government corrected its error about condition No. 2 from 2-9-1978 by issuing a fresh notification, the earlier colour specification requirement remained operative for imports made by the concerned importers prior to 2-9-1989 when the earlier notification dated 2-8-1976 was holding the field. The latter notification can not be said to be merely clarificatory notification nor can it have any retrospective effect. It is a fresh notification laying down fresh condition deleting the earlier condition No. 2 about the colour specification. Hence this submission is of no avail to the learned Counsel for the appellants. rdquo 8. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 447
Lamps - Automatic head lamps ... ... ... ... ..... erve that on the Bill of entry the appellants while giving the description as bulb has subscribed to the declaration that they were going to avail the benefit of Modvat credit. Even otherwise the goods imported by them were declared to be inputs for the purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As we have observed above the assessments from 29-9-1989 onwards were provisional and will not be hit by time bar. For the earlier period we consider that the demand was hit by time bar. 11. emsp In view of the above discussion we consider that only the demand when the assessment were provisional is sustainable. 12. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case we also consider that there was no ground for imposing penalty. 13. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account the demand with respect of the bill of entries where the assessments were provisional is confirmed. The order relating to the imposition of penalty is vacated. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 445
... ...
... ... ..... e of under-invoicing, which may be established. 6. emsp The appellants, it is seen, were sending a sample supply and the price agreed to has to be found out in that background. It is not unusual in the trade that when first sales which by way of sample supplies are made, the appellants may even choose to supply at a loss, but that is not to say that the appellants resorted to under-invoicing. 7. emsp In view of the above, we hold that the learned lower authority has not examined the issue indepth and, therefore, it is not proper and we set aside the same and remand the same for de novo consideration and decision in the light of our observations above, particularly after taking into consideration the parameters of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and also laying a basis with evidence as to the degree of under-invoicing, if any. 8. emsp We, therefore, allow the appeal by remand. The pre-deposit made shall abide by the final outcome of the proceedings in the de novo adjudication.
-
1997 (12) TMI 437
Chucks whether accessories or components parts of machine tools - Refund - Unjust enrichment - Short-shipped goods
-
1997 (12) TMI 434
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ot excluded. The items excluded are in the nature of tooth wheels and not this item. The lower appellate authority therefore in our view, has not appreciated the scope of Tariff Heading 8483.40 in the correct perspective. We observe that the customs tariff is based on the HSN and the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Wood Craft Industries v. C.C.E., reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 at para 18 has held that in case of any doubt the position as set out in the HSN can be relied upon for resolving the same. The HSN clearly sets out that chain sprockets are covered by Tariff Heading 8483.40 We are therefore of the view that this Tariff Heading is specific for chain sprockets and order accordingly with consequential relief subject to the provisions of the amended Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Inasmuch as we have taken the classification under this heading in appeal filed by the appellant i.e. C/1232/89, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue i.e. Appeal No. C/1270/89.
-
1997 (12) TMI 431
Seizure - Reasonable belief - Confiscation - Evidence - Statement ... ... ... ... ..... nd Singapore Dollars. We have also perused the allegation in the Show Cause Notice in this regard as also the findings in the Order-in-Original. We are convinced by the evidence led by both sides before us that foreign currency was liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. We, accordingly, uphold the confiscation thereof. 52. emsp On the question of cross-examination of the Panch witnesses and Inspector Dhakar, we find from the records that cross-examination of S/Shri Harsh Bahadur, Superintendent and S.N. Sethi, Inspector was allowed. Panch witnesses witnessed the recovery of foreign marked gold biscuits, foreign currencies and Indian currency. Recovery of the goods is not denied. Hence the denial of cross-examination of Panch witnesses has not prejudiced the cause of the appellants. 53. emsp In view of the above findings, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 425
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... EC was issued subsequent to the date of export, the same had been issued on their application where these items had been mentioned. Accordingly, it will not be correct to say that the applicant did not know about the obligation to use the items applied for in the manufacture of the product exported by them. As the certain items like zip fasteners and velore tape had admittedly not been used by the applicant in the manufacture of the export product. They were not eligible for duty free release on the strength of the DEC as has been correctly held by the Commissioner in his impugned order. 3. emsp I have taken note of the rival submissions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the applicant has made out a prima facie case which would justify the grant of waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudged penalty amount. I accordingly direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of two months from today and report compliance on 2-3-1998.
-
1997 (12) TMI 420
Valve - Pressure valve ... ... ... ... ..... es would prevail. It is in this respect that context becomes absolutely necessary, and therefore, a finding in regard to nature and characteristics of goods is a first step towards arriving at a decision whether goods are really such as are covered by Heading 84.81. This is essentially a question of fact. In this connection, we may refer to Tribunal rsquo s decision in case of Krishna and Co., New Delhi. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2017. 7. emsp The appellants have also contended that Collector did not at all consider their claim for benefit under Notification 60/87 even while assuming that classification under Heading 84.81 was correct. 8. emsp In view of this, we consider it is necessary to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for arriving at a de novo decision on all the pleas made after according appellants an opportunity of being heard. Appellants are at liberty to produce additional evidence which they consider would support their case.
-
1997 (12) TMI 419
Penalty and Fine - Evidence - Confessional statement ... ... ... ... ..... nalty on master of the vessel was not imposable unless there was a positive evidence of his involvement in bringing the goods on the vessel or to the effect that he was in the know of the crew members concealing the goods specially when vessel was (sic) and the crew members could bring in the goods conceal them in the vessel without the knowledge of the captain. In the case of Jayant R. Patel v. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 164 (Tribunal), it was observe penalty was imposable only with respect to the excess quantity imported. None of these judgments in any way justify the misdeclaration involved in these proceedings. The goods valued at Rs. 6.7 lakh were found in excess. The duty evaded was of over Rs. 9 lakh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakh and the penalty of Rs. 5 lakh was fully justified. 12. emsp We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 412
Exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... constrained strictly and the scope of the exemption is restricted to the goods specifically mentioned in the applicable exemption notification. Even when the TV monitor could be taken as an essential accessory to the angioscope, the benefit of exemption could not be extended to the TV monitor in the absence of the specific mention in the Entry No. 104 referred to above. 7. emsp Ld. Collector, Customs (Appeals) had observed that even after the monitor was regarded as an accessory, it was eligible for the duty concession provided under the Notification No. 65/88-Cus. As we find that no accessories had been included under S. No. 104, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector, Customs (Appeals). 8. emsp In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order-in-appeal and restore the order-in-original dated 15-1-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Madras. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (12) TMI 400
Truck - - Benefit of Notification No. 13/81-C.E. not available. ... ... ... ... ..... circumstances, when it cannot be denied that the spares imported by the Appellant are ldquo used in connection with the production of packaging of goods for export rdquo , the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) that since the spares are used for transportation, the notification will not apply, is arbitrary and without basis in law. 3. emsp The ld. SDR reiterated the reasonings in the order of the ld. Lower authority. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions. We observe that admittedly the refrigerated trucks in question are used for transport of the goods into the factory. May be raw material are required in frozen conditions for their carriage but that by itself cannot be a reason to hold that the trucks have been used for production of the goods as envisaged in the Notification 13/81. The reasoning given by the ld. Commissioner is in accordance with law and we do not find therefore any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is therefore is rejected.
-
1997 (12) TMI 398
Tin sheet cuttings which is plated or coated on one side not eligible to benefit of Notification No. 80/90-Cus.
-
1997 (12) TMI 394
Export Oriented Unit - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ndition 7 requiring payment of duty leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. We are in agreement with the Department rsquo s contention that 100 EOUs are conceptually deemed to be islands intended to enable manufacture of goods for export and for that purpose insulated from all domestic restrictions and tariffs to enable competitiveness for the manufactured goods exported from such EOUs. As a corollary, when goods are sought to be cleared from EOUs for home consumption to the D.T.A. such clearance is deemed to be an import into the country. In the instant case we therefore hold that though champagne manufactured by the EOU cleared for consumption in D.T.A. is not chargeable to Central Excise duty because of the constitutional provisions, other imported inputs such as bottles, corks, wire rods and foil will be chargeable to duty in terms of Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. emsp Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the Departmental Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 386
Confiscation of goods - Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... duce Khandelwal. If the Department rsquo s plea had to be accepted, it would follow that by producing Khandelwal the appellant had produced evidence of lawful importation of the goods. This would obviously not be the case. Therefore, in this case the burden of proof has neither shifted to the appellant nor had he taken upon himself that burden. The ratio of the decision referred to above and many others that in case of the goods not notified under Section 123 Chapter IVA the burden of proof that the goods were legally imported falls on the Department and in the absence of such proof the goods cannot be confiscated, would therefore apply. The fact that the goods were restricted for import does not lead to the conclusion that they could not have been imported. They could have been imported by persons holding licence for their import. 7. emsp The order of the Collector (Appeals) therefore is not sustainable. 8. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
........
|
