|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 274 Records
-
1989 (1) TMI 284 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... e of the executive instructions by the Collector for considering the plea of the appellants. The learned Collector (Appeals) did not exercise his quasi-judicial power while deciding the matter and merely followed the executive instructions of the Collector while deciding the issue. The learned Collector (Appeals) was in error in doing so. 5. In view of what we have held above, we hold that the appellants are eligible for the benefit of the Notification in respect of the aerated waters manufactured by them in which the essences received before the issue of the Notification were used. Since the factual verification about the extent of use and the quantum of exemption are not on record, for this limited purpose we remand the matter to the lower original authority to determine the quantum that would be allowable taking into account the use of the essences etc. in the aerated waters and allow the appellants necessary relief. The appeal is thus allowed by remand in the above terms,
-
1989 (1) TMI 283 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... herefore, the strength of the cabinet is far below the standards prescribed by the ISI specifications. Further the standard for doors of the safe has been prescribed in para 4.4 and para 4.5 of the said ISI specifications. The door of the safe were required to be backed with drill proof steel which will resist hamour blows. In the case of the impugned goods, there is no drill proof layer over the lock in the case of the said cabinet as has been specified in the ISI. It therefore does not satisfy the minimum security requirements for safe and it is also cannot be called to be burglary and fall resistant. 4. In view of the explanatory notes and the ISI specifications quoted by the appellant it would be clear that the product mentioned by the appellant is far below the standards prescribed by the ISI in their standard ISI 550 1979 and is rightly covered under Heading 94.03 of the Central Excise Harmonised Tariff. The appeal is admitted with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1989 (1) TMI 281 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... was squarely within the purview of Appendix 21. Hence it is immaterial for us to look into whether this item figures in Appendix 2 or not, so long as there is no such restriction mentioned, either in Appendix 21 or anywhere else. Para 230 talks about various categories of importers which are specified in Appendix 10 itself. Hence we are unable to appreciate the argument of Shri Mondal that para 230 includes the imports made by the units in the Free Trade Zone as a category. In this view of the matter and taking note of the positive findings of the Collector that the goods are meant for export production in the approved unit, we do not find any reason to justify the order of the Collector. If there had been any doubt on this matter, the Collector would have in his findings referred to the absence of the approval by the Development Commissioner with regard to the import. We, therefore, set aside the order and allow this appeal. 8. The appellants be granted consequential relief.
-
1989 (1) TMI 279 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT credit - Transitional provisions ... ... ... ... ..... be eligible for MODVAT in terms of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules. The fact that at the time of receipt of the input, the final product were exempt, has to be considered in the light of the declaration dated 29-3-1986 filed by the appellants opting for MODVAT, and the specific provisions of Rule 57H wherein it is seen that the Assistant Collector can allow the MODVAT facility on the input lying in stock with the manufacturer prior to the filing of declaration under Rule 57G and which are used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared from the factory on or after 1-3-1986. In this view of the matter, there is tot of substance in the appeal filed by the appellants which is accordingly allowed, subject to the Assistant Collector satisfying himself that the conditions for exercising his power under Rule 57H to allow MODVAT in respect of the inputs received by the appellants prior to the date of filing the declaration under Rule 57G by them have been fulfilled.
-
1989 (1) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Seizure of gold ornaments ... ... ... ... ..... gh the second respondent in contravention of law. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, would appear to have lost sight of the fact that the respondents had already been proceeded against for the act of contravention, by the competent authority in adjudication which was also appealed against and the whole thing reached a stage of finality before the Tribunal by an order against the respondents. The proceedings being penal in nature and the transaction being one and the same so far as the respondents are concerned, the authorities do not have jurisdiction in law to initiate proceedings once over and visit them with penalty again for a second time in respect of the same transaction and such an act would certainly amount to double jeopardy not conceivable in our system of jurisprudence besides being a constitutional anathema opposed to all cannons of fair play and justice. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeals and the appeals are accordingly rejected.
-
1989 (1) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Project imports ... ... ... ... ..... nderstanding the scope of Project Import Regulations in regard to the exact nature of documents to be produced. The Customs authorities are creatures under the Act and cannot traverse beyond the confines of the same and an elementary bare reading of Heading 84.66 CTA read with the Project Imports (Registration and Contracts) Regulations, 1965 would clearly bear out that registration of the contract prior to the clearance of the goods is a condition precedent and a sine qua non as it were to entitle the appellant the concessional assessment under Tariff Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act. The confusion in the mind of the appellant would appear to be more imaginary than real and the confusion is only worse confounded by the vagueness of the plea. Since admittedly the contracts had not been registered, the appellant would not be entitled to concessional assessment under Tariff Heading 84.66. We, therefore, uphold the impugned orders appealed against and dismiss the appeals.
-
1989 (1) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Gold Dealer’s Licence ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal (signed and verified by the Deputy Collector) was not competent in the absence of an authorisation in favour of the Deputy Collector, under Section 35-B(2) as would have entitled him to file the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as incompetent. ORDER Dated 20-11-1982 In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sub-section (2) of Section 35(B) of thee Central Excises and Salt, 1944, I hereby authorise the undernoted officer of this Collectorate to act on my behalf in the matter of filing appeal/memorandum of cross-objection in respect of case noted here below before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta/Delhi. Sd/. B.N. Rangwani, Collector. Name of the Officer, Designation, Sri T. Tochhawng, Deputy Collector. Name and Address of the Assessee M/s. Brookhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd, B.T. Road Panihati, 24 Parganas. Vide Order in Appeal No. 969/Cal/82, dated 18-10-1982 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta.
-
1989 (1) TMI 267 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... volved related to two different Collectorates, where the payment of duty has been made. Each Assessee is expected to know that he can seek for refund of duty paid only from the Collectorate, where the payment has been made. Hence, their claim before the Asstt. Collector (MCD) was obviously wrong and if the Asstt. Collector of Customs (MCD) had delayed return thereof, they should have agitated against that order and not against this order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Pune who rejected the claim as time barred. Shri Kinikar also contended that since the duty has been paid by mistake of law, the department is bound to return the refund claim. In this context, I observe that the remedy of this ground is to be sought for elsewhere. The Tribunal is the creature of law and it has no power to condone or extend the statutorily laid down limitation under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act. In this view of the matter, I see no merit in this appeal and accordingly I reject the same.
-
1989 (1) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Goods cleared for home consumption ... ... ... ... ..... ting Authority the aforesaid documents which the appellants in their application earlier sought to produce by way of additional evidence were not referred to may be due to inadvertance. On consideration of the arguments we feel that no opportunity was given by the Adjudicating Authority on the point of valuation to the appellants and the aforesaid documents are relevant for determining the valuation. As such we think it proper to set aside the valuation made by the Adjudicating Authority of the complete video cassettes at Rs. 75/- per piece and remand the case for re-determining the value. 22. In the result we confirm the confiscation of the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation but set aside the demand of duty at the appropriate rate on the revised value directing the Adjudicating Authority to value the goods afresh after giving proper opportunity to the appellants and demand the duty accordingly.
-
1989 (1) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ed in the short payment of duty. In the absence of any allegation in the show cause notice in regard to suppression and also the circumstances thereof, the show cause notice itself cannot be held to be proper for invoking the longer time period. The Tribunal in various decisions have held that unless the allegation of suppression of fact was made or the circumstances in regard thereto are set out even if the term suppression of fact as such is not used but the circumstances set out in the show cause notice are such that these clearly bring out the fact of suppression, the longer time period cannot be invoked. In the present proceedings, the show cause notice does not contain any facts as to how the appellants are guilty of suppression of fact in regard to the assessable value. We, therefore, hold that the demand having been raised beyond the period of six months is not maintainable in law and therefore set aside. 11. The appeal is therefore, allowed with consequential relief.
-
1989 (1) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... with the composite goods made of different materials and the relevant rule for the same is interpretative Rule 3(b). What has been imported is not something which has been made of a mixture of carbon with something-else, but a composite article which consists of a carbon layer, zinc sheet and a lamination of paper carrying the electrolyte. The plea for applying interpretative Rule 2(b) is, therefore, not acceptable. Goods have, therefore, to be classified with reference to interpretative Rule 3. It is seen that the goods have not been described nor they are understood as carbon electrodes, and a more specific item for this is under heading 85.03 which covers primary cells and parts thereof. What has been imported in fact is more or less a complete cell without the jacket and this can be considered as a component part of the primary cell. 15. In view of this, the order of the lower authority is not maintainable in law and is set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... he appellants rsquo proposition that show cause notices already validly issued by a Central Excise Officer before 27-12-1985 had to be re-issued by the Collector after 27-12-1985. 11. The third point of the appellants is that the Collector was not empowered under the Act to have the proceedings transferred to himself from the Additional Collector. This point already stands answered by us in paragraph 9 above while dealing with the first objection of the appellants. An assessee charged with contravention of law cannot dictate that his case should be adjudicated by a particular officer only. So long as the appellants rsquo case was adjudicated upon by an officer having jurisdiction and after a due notice and hearing, the requirements of law and principles of natural justice were fulfilled. 12. In the result, we dismiss all the preliminary legal objections put forth by the appellants. 13. The Registry should now list the appeal for hearing both sides on other points of the case.
-
1989 (1) TMI 260 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Order of confiscation set aside ... ... ... ... ..... of law, it is not a legal entity like a natural person. A partnership is not a lsquo person rsquo within the meaning of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, the rights and obligations of firm are really rights and obligations of the individual partners of the firm. Therefore, no exception can be taken to imposition of penalties individually upon them. But since the firm is not legal entity and Section 140 of the Customs Act is inapplicable to the adjudication proceedings, imposition of double punishment on the partners for the same sets of acts. rdquo In view of the discussions above, I find that the order, of the lower authority is not sustainable in law. I, therefore, set aside the order of the lower authority with regard to confiscation of unstamped gold ornaments weighing 267.600 gms, I also set aside the order of penalty on M/s. Shah Dalichand Kapoorchand and Co., Shri Shah Dalichand Kapoorchand, Shri Ashok Dalichand Shah, and Shri Satish Dalichand Shah.
-
1989 (1) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund arising out of Tribunal’s order ... ... ... ... ..... before this court. The appeal was withdrawn. This court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefore in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the party might seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it might be advised. See the observations of this court in Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) (1985 E.C.R. 289). Since there is no provision under the Customs Act for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of the refund, we reject the applicant rsquo s prayer for the grant of interest. We also feel that there is no justification in the present matter for invoking the inherent powers of the Tribunal. We also do not find any justification for the grant of costs. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application is rejected.
-
1989 (1) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances of goods produced on job work basis ... ... ... ... ..... spondent has rightly taken the plea of limitation before the Tribunal. We have perused the show cause notice No. PRI/Hiper/show cause/82/536 dated 17th June, 1982 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise Pune Range I, Division IV, Pune. There is no allegation of suppression of facts. The demand pertains to the period from 29th September, 1980 to 31st March, 1981 for Rs. 1,04,279.98. The show cause notice is dated 17th June, 1982. This demand is much prior to six months from the date of issue of the show cause notice. The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case. Accordingly, we hold that this portion of the demand is hit by limitation. The demands in respect of the other two show cause notices dated 28th September, 1981 and 10th February, 1982 are in time. 14. In view of the conclusions arrived at in the foregoing paragraphs, the revenue rsquo s appeal is allowed partly. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1989 (1) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department - Authorisation for filing ... ... ... ... ..... peal and the authority competent to hear the appeal against the order of the Collector is only competent to hear and dispose of the appeal from the decision of the Additional Collector. 7. In view of the above judicial pronouncements we hold that the Additional Collector of Customs was authorised to exercise the powers of the Collector of Customs and the authorisation by him is correct in law. In the matter before us the appeal memo has been signed by the Additional Collector himself. In these circumstances, even the authorisation was not necessary. Accordingly we over-rule the objection of the Respondents. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned JDR had made a prayer for early hearing of the appeal. Since the stay application is to come up for hearing first, we do not want to pass any orders in this regard at this stage. We order the Registry to list the stay application for hearing first. The stay application filed by the Revenue will be heard on 28th February, 1989.
-
1989 (1) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... of assuming the existence of a fact which does not really exist. Since the appellant has chosen to pay duly at the resin stage, which is an intermediate stage and thereafter, the resins so manufactured arc consumed or utilised in the integrated process for the manufacture of Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder and Melamine Formaldehyde Moulding Powder, there was no requirement of storage of resins prior to its use for the manufacture of moulding powders in view of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills and Another v. Union of India and Others (supra). Shri Sunder Rajan further stated that in view of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court aforesaid, the revenue rsquo s plea as to storage of the resin no longer survives. In view of this judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, we set aside the findings of the Assistant Collector as to storage of the resin. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in these terms.
-
1989 (1) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plastic - Mixture of formaldehyde, caustic soda and resorcinol ... ... ... ... ..... is is clear from the reference to the Trade Notice No. 224/80, dated 3-12-1980 adverted to by the learned adjudicating authority in the impugned order. It is also evident from the use of the words lsquo resorcinol formaldehyde solution rsquo in the last sentence of the first para of the show cause notice dated 5-2-1981. It becomes further evident from the 2nd para when the appellants have been called upon to ldquo show cause..........as to why a penalty.-.and why the duty on the resorcinol formaldehyde manufactured by the assessee so far should not demanded.... . There is thus no doubt that the show cause notice dated 5-2-1981 is valid and the subsequent show cause notice dated 2-11-1981 has merely attempted to rectify the mistake in describing the process of manufacture of the solution as mentioned by the learned Collector in his impugned order. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we reject both the appeals.
-
1989 (1) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ing plywood which can be reused twenty times and it helps to build modern Indian temples. Nowhere the advertisement says that it is structural plywood. Learned advocate for the respondent company is on a very strong ground when she submits that different ISI specifications exist for structural plywood and shuttering plywood. Thus marking them out as two different products known to the trade and industry. Her reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court mentioned supra, is well founded. Reliance on dictionary meaning is not a sale guide for determining the trade and commercial parlance of the product as has been clearly held by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Carbon Papers Ltd. (supra). 6. Accordingly, we agree with both the lower authorities that shuttering plywood is different from structural plywood and they are not the same thing in commercial and trade parlance. Hence the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections are upheld.
-
1989 (1) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... respondents were asked to explain why duty should not be demanded under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the extent of Rs. 26,883.00. In the show cause notice, there was no allegation of suppression of facts or wilful mis-statements. Shri Lachman Dev has made a categorical statement before us during the hearing that Dantmanjan Lal was included in the catalogue enclosed to the classification list filed by the respondents. This statement has not been rebutted by Shri Durghayya by producing any evidence. This being the position, we hold that demand for duty could not be raised for more than six months prior to the issue of show cause notice. In the circumstances, the demand for duty should be limited to six months only under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the consequential refund should be allowed to the respondents. 12. The appeal is allowed subject to limitation of demand for duty to six months prior to the issue of show cause notice as stated above.
........
|
