|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 266 Records
-
1983 (11) TMI 321 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... It was urged by the learned Senior Departmental Representative that the matter could be remitted back for a de novo readjudication. We are not able to accede to this submission because first of all, M.M. Abdul Khader is admittedly no more and therefore the question of readjudication after issue of a show cause notice against him would not arise. Apart from it, we find that the seizure in this case was on 31-12-1971 and the adjudication order itself was passed on 28-12-1977. After a lapse of such long number of years and at this distance of time we do not consider it proper and just to remit the case for readjudication, even if such a course is permissible under law. We therefore allow appeal No. 106/80 in respect of M.M. Abdul Khader on this technical point without going into the merits and set aside the penalty imposed on him. In the result, we dismiss appeal No. 104/80 and 105/80 for the reasons stated supra and confirm the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.
-
1983 (11) TMI 320 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... should, by reason of its cancellation by the order of 10-3-1981, be deemed to have been invalid ab initio from 18-2-1980, the date of its issue. When the goods were shipped from abroad and even when the goods arrived in India, the licence was in force. It cannot, therefore, be said that the goods were imported without a valid licence. In this view of the matter, the order of confiscation is bad in law. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside. 14. The appellants did not redeem the goods as allowed by the Board. In due course, the goods were disposed of by the Customs authorities in auction. The appellants would, therefore, be entitled to receive the sale proceeds after deducting the expenses of sale and the duty leviable on the goods. We order accordingly and direct that the Addl. Collector of Customs shall give effect to this order within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. 15. The appeal is allowed in the light of the above directions.
-
1983 (11) TMI 319 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ractice of the Department of accepting shortages only upto 0.05% seems to be based on the premise that LSHS is semi-solid at normal temperature. The fact that at the time of handling it is a fluid and is handled at the comparatively high temperature of 70oC, does not seem to have been given due weight. At the temperature of handling, LSHS compares well with black oil, with the added disadvantage of the human factor in taking dip measurement of a hot fluid in a hot tank. Under the circumstances we consider that a shortage of about 0.25% should be adequate to take care of problems relating to storage alone. In this view of the matter we allow the appeals in respect of the following cases Appeal Nos. 265/83; 266/83; 296/83; 297/83; 298/83; 299/83; 300/83; 301/83; 302/83; 303/83 and 304/83. In respect of the other cases (Appeal Nos. 267/83 and 268/83) we order that a shortage upto 0.25% be accepted as due to normal causes and duty demand be restricted to the balance.
-
1983 (11) TMI 318 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . In doing so, he overlooked the fact the thermocouples in this case itself had been classified under Heading 90.23 and that Heading 90.29 covers parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally inter alia with one or more of the articles falling within Heading No. 90.23. The learned Collector has himself observed and not disputed that the weld-on-parts were specially designed for use in thermocouple. Therefore, in view of the foregoing Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Interpretation would not be attracted in the case. Besides the foregoing, it is also seen that in some other cases the same Customs House has classified weld-on-parts under Heading 90.29(1)/90.23(1). 3. For the foregoing reasons the appellants’ claim for re-assessment under Heading 90.29(1) read with 90.23(1) in respect of weld-on-parts is accepted. As to clamps the same having not been seriously pressed is rejected. The appeal is thus partly allowed with consequential refund to the appellants.
-
1983 (11) TMI 317 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . In fact, the Departmental Representative Shri V.M.K. Nair wanted time to produce such evidence before the Bench. This, however, would not be possible to be done at this stage before this Tribunal. It is, therefore, appropriate and in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, for considering the evidence as may be produced by both the parties and arrive at the decision regarding proper classification of the goods in question. The Bench, therefore, sets aside the order of the Appellate Collector and remands the case to him for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with the directions given above within a period of four months from the date of this order. 5. For the reasons stated above, the Orders-in-Appeal No. 1354/81-B and 1418/81-B covered by the Appeal No. 1353/81 are also set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for de novo consideration and decision as ordered above.
-
1983 (11) TMI 316 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the circumstances, the Tribunal accepts the first ground and directs that the assessment be revised on the values now furnished. As regards the second ground, prima facie, the goods imported are locomotive tyres and they are designed for the railways, so they cannot be treated as other articles of iron or steel. That they require some machining, in order to fit them to the wheels, is only incidental and does not seem to alter their basic character. The letter of the Government of India, more particularly being of the Ministry of Finance, has to be given due regard. From this it is clear that the request of the appellants to treat these loco tyres as components of locomotives under ICT 72(3) read with 72(a) is not unreasonable. We, therefore, accept the appeal on this ground also. To this extent we set aside the order appealed against and refer the case back to the Assistant Collector for re-assessment in the light of our findings with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (11) TMI 315 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d that there was an anomaly in the Notification No. 35/79-Cus., which was removed by Notification No. 179-Cus., dated 4-9-1980. Notification No. 179-Cus., could be said to be clarificatory and he had no objection if Appellants were given the benefit of Notification No. 179-Cus., subject of course of Appellants fulfilling other terms and conditions stipulated by the Notification. 5. We have seen both the aforesaid Notifications. To avail of either, it is essential that the Appellants have to plead and prove that the machine for which the parts under Heading 84.62 were being imported is itself specified under one or the other of the Headings enumerated in any of the aforesaid Notifications. The Appellants had singularly failed to do this. There is nothing on the record to show that the parts in question are required for a particular machine which falls under a specific heading enumerated in any of the Notifications. 6. In the result the Appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 314 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d order that this item be reclassified accordingly. In respect of strap, however, the claim of the appellant is that this strap will be fitted on the ascentric oil pump. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the bronze strip being alloy of copper it should have been classified under Item 74.09/10 of the CTA. The appellants could not get any relief because the rate of duty under this head is the same as under 84.06 CTA. We agree with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) and do not find any justification in classifying this item under 84.10(2) CTA. 8. In respect of all the remaining items we find that Section Note 2 to Section XVII of CTA completely excludes the classification of these items under 86.09/CTA, as urged by the learned SDR. The wording of this note does not leave any doubt in our minds about the correctness of the classification as done by the Customs Officers and upheld by the Collector (Appeals). We, therefore, reject the appeal in respect of these items.
-
1983 (11) TMI 313 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... f such goods within forty-eight hours of receipt of information." (emphasis supplied) The Rule requires intimation to be given within a specified time; the purpose of such intimation is also stated in the Rule itself, namely, to verify the particulars of the goods received in the factory with the original duty paying documents and such identification as is possible in respect of the returned goods. We note that in the present case, though the communication was not in the standard form - D. 3 - the information that ought to have been given in a D. 3 form is contained in the letter itself. The primary purpose of the Rule is, therefore, achieved by the information given by the appellant in his letter dated 7-9-1978. We, therefore, find that in keeping with the general objective of the Rule, intimation has in fact been given as required thereunder. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and order refund of the duty of ₹ 22,569.93, as claimed by the appellant.
-
1983 (11) TMI 312 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... r more, for at least 15 minutes, or dry heat at 160o to 180oC (320o to 360oF) for three hours. It is, in our opinion, futile to contend that there is no manufacturing process involved here. The question is not whether the appellants would be sterilising the imported goods, but whether the imported goods could be appropriately termed as raw material if imported by an actual user. We are of the view that they could be. And para 185 permits Export Houses to transfer raw materials imported by them in terms of that para to be eligible Actual Users which shows that the importer need not use the raw material himself but could transfer it to an eligible Actual User. 8. In the above view of the matter, we hold that, in the instant case, the imported goods were covered by the licence produced by the appellants. We allow the appeal and direct that the redemption fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to the appellants within 3 months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (11) TMI 311 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... goods. On this point, the Collector has recorded in his impugned order as follows - “During the course of personal hearing on 16-6-1981 the Counsel furnished a photostat copy of letter of authority dated 6-8-1980 issued by M/s. United Breweries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore authorising their clients to import goods and to open a Letter of Credit and make remittance of foreign exchange against their licence No. 2816076 to the extent of about ₹ 24,13,546.77 with the specific mention that this letter of authority has been issued as per the provisions contained in Chapter 1 para 6 of the Hand-Book of Import and Export Procedure 1979-80.” The photostat copy of the licence shows that United Breweries, the licensee, is an Export House. It is not clear, however, on what basis the Collector has recorded a finding as if the licence had been “transferred”. 14. In the light of the discussions above, we set aside the Collector’s order and allow the appeal.
-
1983 (11) TMI 310 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ods are synonymous, gets weakened. As regards the scrap of wires, it is going for remelting, in support of which challans are filed. Since it is not manufactured, it should not be classified under Item 26A(ib) but under Item 68. 7. For the Department, Shri Laxmi Kumaran supported assessment of the wires under Item 68 instead of 33B. As regards assessment of the scrap arising out of wires under Item 68 by the Asstt. Collector, he had nothing to say. 8. The Tribunal agrees that there was no reason to treat the copper alloy wires as electric wires under Item 33B and that on the basis of the ISS they are correctly classifiable under Item 68 since only wire rods’ and not “wires” finds mention in Item 26A(ia) . As regards the scrap of wires, since this is specified in Item 26A(ib) it is correctly classifiable under it. In the circumstances, the order of the Appellate Collector is modified accordingly and this will apply to both appeals before the Bench.
-
1983 (11) TMI 309 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... tter of licences, the appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise is also unsound. The right to appeal to the Tribunal is conferred under Section 81 of the Act. It does not make any distinction in respect of the orders which relate to licences and other orders. Therefore, we reject the contention of Shri Solanki. 18. After careful consideration of all the aspects, we hold the present appeal is not maintainable as no appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise. We, however, direct that the appeal papers shall be returned to the appellant for being presented, if she so chooses, before the appropriate authority. We also direct that the Collector (Appeals) shall, however, not reject the appeal on the ground of limitation if the appeal is presented within 15 days from the date of receipt of the appeal papers by the appellant on the return of the papers by the Registry.
-
1983 (11) TMI 308 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... quo;It is thus clear requirement of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act that the rate of duty, rate of exchange and tariff valuation applicable to any imported goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which the warehoused goods are actually removed from the warehouse.” 14. We find no feature to distinguish, the Supreme Court case of Prakash Cotton Mills (Supra) and Delhi High Court case of Jain Sudh Vanaspati (Supra) from the present case, where it has been held that the rate of duty applicable to imported goods is to be as per Section 15 of the Act, irrespective of the date of entry of the goods in the territorial waters of India. In the face of such authoritative pronouncement it is futile for the appellant to contend that the vital relevant date for determination of duty is the time when the goods entered the territorial waters of India. 15. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 307 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... y the company, by way of issue of supplemental instructions, so that the data necessary for the determination in the manner which we propose to indicate can be obtained without any hitch. 6. In the circumstances of the case, we order that on the basis of the monthly accounting referred to in the last paragraph, the amount of duty paid on the raw materials used in the manufacture of duty paid chemicals actually produced during each month be calculated. However, instead of granting a credit in the RG 23 account at the time of receipt of the raw materials in the factory, credit may be granted at the end of every month on the raw materials calculated as having been used in the manufacture of duty paid chemicals during the month. In so far as the period 22-10-1981 to 4-3-1982 is concerned, the same procedure, namely of monthly accounting, may be adopted; being action in relation to the past, this will be done on the basis of the records maintained by the appellant company itself.
-
1983 (11) TMI 306 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ision application to the Government of India, which has been transferred and is being considered as appeal. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants conceded that the goods in question are not electrical goods of the description mentioned under Heading 85.01 of C.T.A., 1975 but are component parts of the Turbine which is operated by steam. The imported goods namely; Expansion Joint is made of special stainless steel and the main function of the said joint is to withstand expansions and contractions in the Turbine during its operation. 3. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that since the goods are not electrical goods within the meaning of the Heading 85.01 of C.T.A., 1975 they had been correctly classified. 4. The Bench has considered the points raised and the material placed before it and does not find any material to interfere with the orders passed holding classification of the subject goods under Heading 73.20 as correct. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 305 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... lene." Page 829-830 McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms II Edition . (iii) “Intermediate” (Chem.) - A general term for any chemical compound which is manufactured from a substance obtained from raw materials, and which serves as a starting material for the synthesis of another product." page 624 - Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology Revised Edition . 13. The use of Glyoxal 40% in the manufacture of 2-Methyl Imidazole and ultimately of Metronidazole I.P. has not been disputed. Having regard to the several definitions of the expression “intermediate” which we have extracted above, we do not see any reason why the benefit of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. should not be extended in the instant case. 14. Accordingly, we allow the three appeals and direct that consequential relief shall be granted by the concerned customs authorities to the appellants within three months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (11) TMI 304 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... mption they were enjoying. And there is no satisfying ground for holding that the exemption was undeserved. We do not agree that the colloidal sodium silicate is not eligible to exemption under Notification 154/70-C.E. If the Central Excise found proof that the sodium silicate was unrefined it should have detailed its findings, told the factory about them, considering that the same goods were being cleared under the concession suddenly sought to be denied. This was no longer a case of the assessee proving its title to exemption, but of the tax Collector demonstrating that the bounty already given and enjoyed should be taken away. This has not been done; the ground advanced do not convince us that the concession should be terminated. 7. For all the above reasons, we set aside the Collector (Appeals)’s order and the demand as untenable. 8. The factory’s representative put forward some other arguments during the hearing but it is not necessary now to deal with them.
-
1983 (11) TMI 303 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e metals but may be for working on metals. It did not change the form or shape of the metals. It also did not remove the metal as was done by engraving machine. Therefore, he argued that the appellants claim for classification under Heading 84.45/48 was not tenable and the classification done under the Residuary Heading 84.59 was correct. 7. Both the parties, during the course of arguments relied on the Explanatory Notes to B.T.N. It was not disputed by the respondent that under the B.T.N. embossing and stamping machines are classifiable under heading working presses’ under Heading 84.45/48. The present machine in substance is in no way different from stamping machine. The appellants’ claim, therefore, for classification under Heading 84.45/48 Machine tools’ for working metals would have to be accepted. As a result the appellants’ claim for classification of the goods under Heading 84.45/48 is accepted with consequential refund to the appellants.
-
1983 (11) TMI 302 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ht have been described as accessories we would hold that they are parts suitable for use solely or principally with the honing machine. For such a case Note 2(b) of Section XVI to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would be attracted and Honing stones would have to be classified like the Honing machine which has been done under Heading 84.45/48. We do not accept Sh. Nair’s contention that the Stones are separate and therefore not part. Merely because stones are written separately would not mean that they are not part of the machine. As to Honing liquid, we do not accept Sh. Tandon’s argument that it is also part of honing machine. It is a lubricant like any other lubricant and can have alternative uses. The appellant’s claim for classification for this item must fail. 5. As a result the appeal is partly allowed. Appellants claim for classification of Honing stone under Heading 84.45/48 alongwith the Honing machine is accepted. As to Honing liquid it is rejected.
........
|
