|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 218 Records
-
1985 (12) TMI 266 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urther find that the learned single Judge has under his impugned order not allowed the import of OGL items which are specifically banned under the current import policy. Hence the fear expressed by the appellants with regard to the effect of the imports on the market for the indigenous products and the possibility of the Respondents making huge profits by the imports may not come true. 17. As has been stated earlier, we have not gone into the question as to whether the Export Houses like the respondents who have delayed their performance of export obligations should be given the facility of importing OGL items under the 1982-83 Import Policy or not. This is because that question has not been kept open by the Supreme Court, and as far as this Court is concerned, it will be deemed to have been concluded. 18. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the appeal. There will however be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 263 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand on illicit tobacco transported without valid permit ... ... ... ... ..... nce under some other Rule of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not by itself render the action taken by invoking one rule namely Rule 40 of the Central Excise Rules illegal or improper. This is a common enough position and is hardly worthy of reference. Regarding Question 12 The finding is on evidence on record and is based on evaluation of factual data. Accordingly it is not referable to the Court. Regarding Questions 13 and 15 The offence is regarding receipt of tobacco illegally at the warehouse at Pudukkottai. That the tobacco originated from Puliampatti falling under the jurisdiction of some other Collector is not relevant to the issue. Accordingly this question is not referable. Regarding Question 14 It deals with the nature of evidence relied on by the Tribunal. Framed in the manner it has been done, it is not referable. Regarding Question 16 What has been observed in respect of Question 11 would apply to the present question as well. Accordingly it is not referable.
-
1985 (12) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Assessment of goods provisional ... ... ... ... ..... hority on other points, if any, will not be affected by our order. rdquo 5. We have heard both the sides to the reference application. Consequent to the clarification issued by the Tribunal (Annexure A2), the applicant has withdrawn the question relating to merits of the refund claim, which were not considered by us and hence, does not arise from our order. As a result of discussion, we find that a question in the following form arises from our order. We accordingly refer this question to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature at Madras ldquo When a provisional assessment is made under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on any of the permissible ground allowed thereunder, is it lawful to hold that the assessment as a whole is provisional so as to save a claim for refund on a different ground from the operation of time-bar, or whether the provisionality is restricted to the only ground(s) on the basis of which provisional assessment was initially resorted to? rdquo
-
1985 (12) TMI 261 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... 81. Having regard to the date of the shortlanding certificate the appellants could not have produced the certificate before the Assistant Collector. It is a notorious fact that the BPT takes its time to furnish shortlanding certificates. On that ground the appellants should not be penalised. Shri Senthivel rightly did not oppose the production of this certificate. He, however, contended that since the claim was not considered on merit, the matter may be remanded. His submission in the circumstances is justified. 4. On consideration of all the aspects I allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the authorities below and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector (MCD) for consideration of the claim afresh in the light of the documents now produced and in the light of the observations contained in this order. As the claim relates to the year 1980, the Assistant Collector shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1985 (12) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... High Court arising from the two appeals relied on by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal and required a reference to be made in this case also on the same lines. In the light of this we refer the following questions to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature, Madras - 1. Whether for the purpose of Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28.4.1978 and Notification No. 151/78, dated 16.8.1978 the quantum of exemption is relatable to the quantum of sugar produced during the prescribed period or is also dependent on the rate of duty prevailing on the date of removal of such excess production? 2. ensp Whether the benefit of notification is available in respect of that part of the excess production that is exported out of the country? 3. Whether the quantum of exemption is based on the per unit amount specified in the notification or whether the exemption is limited by the actual quantum of duty leviable on the sugar determined in the light of the answer to question No. (1) above?
-
1985 (12) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Question whether limitation period computable from date of declaration referable ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal and hence not dealt with in the order. It is therefore, not possible to make any reference on this aspect at this stage. The issue regarding the binding nature of a decision of three-Member Bench of the Tribunal on other Benches consisting of a smaller number of Members, all having concomitant jurisdiction stands already referred to the High Court of Judicature at Madras in this Tribunal Reference No. G/Ref/69/85 (MAS) in the case of ldquo Collector of Central Excise, Madurai v. S. Raman, Paramakudi (Annexure 1). 5. ensp It is found that a single question can be conveniently referred in the place of the two questions, numbers 2 and 3, raised by the applicants in the following terms and it is accordingly referred to the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras - ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of declaration would be the relevant date for the purpose of claims of refund under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. rdquo
-
1985 (12) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the Act. With the non availability of provisions of Rule 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as has been rightly pointed out by the Assistant Collector that a proper claim for refund has been received by him after the time limit prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act, it is barred by limitation. 4. ensp Both the sides were heard on the reference application filed by the Applicants. As a result of discussion, it has been decided to refer the following single question which would arise from the order of the Tribunal to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the rejection of the claim for refund of excise duty paid by way of debit to the Personal Ledger Account against a gate pass, which was not cancelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 173G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. rdquo
-
1985 (12) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sugar - Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... squo favour by the following authorities - (i) emsp 1980 (6) E.L.T. 10 (Madras Divn. Bench) - Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. M/s. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. This judgment was later confirmed by the Supreme Court on 13.2.1981 when it dismissed the Union of India rsquo s S.L.P. (C) No. 9538/79. (ii) 1980 Cencus 505D (Madras) 1983 (12) E.L.T. 484 (Mad.) M/s. Sakhti Sugars Ltd. v. U.O.I. 4. emsp The department rsquo s representative had nothing to say so far as the ratio of the aforesaid two authorities is concerned. His only prayer was that checking of the production data furnished by the appellants on 5.5.1975 and re-calculation of the amount or rebate admissible in accordance with the ratio of the aforesaid judgments may be left to the Assistant Collector. We so order. The appeal is allowed in these terms and the impugned orders are set aside. The Assistant Collector shall re-determine the rebate due to the appellants in accordance with the aforesaid judgments.
-
1985 (12) TMI 234 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
‘Imported into India" and “exported out of India” ... ... ... ... ..... on their way to the country of destination. 27. emsp In the view which we have taken, the appellant is clearly entitled to the drawback allowance and the learned single Judge was in error in rejecting the writ petition. Consequently, the order dismissing the writ petition by the learned single Judge and the orders of the authorities rejecting the request of the appellant for drawback allowance are set aside. The authorities are now directed to determine the claim of the appellant on merits. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant will be entitled to its costs of this appeal. Counsel rsquo s fee Rs. 500/-. 28. emsp Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the respondents, orally prays for leave to appeal, to the Supreme Court of India. Having regard to the fact that the law on this question appears to have been settled by several courts, we do not think that this is a fit case in which leave should be granted. Oral application for leave is accordingly rejected.
-
1985 (12) TMI 230 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Import - Goods whether covered by import licence ... ... ... ... ..... nk guarantee to the extent of Rs. 50,000 to be held by the customs authorities until the conclusion of the adjudication proceedings so that in the event any nominal penalty is to be imposed that can be realised from the bank guarantee. We make it clear that primary object of adjudication would be to determine whether the goods imported answer the description of the goods specified in the licence and in the event it is adjudged that it is not so covered, the appellants will not be entitled to impose any penalty other than a token one following their own precedent referred to hereinbefore. The parties will be given liberty to mention the matter once more if due to the subsequent proceedings any case for further direction becomes necessary. 11. The appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly. 12. emsp Let operative part of this order be forthwith communicated to the appellant, Collector of Customs as also to the Union Bank of India, 15, India Exchange Place, Calcutta.
-
1985 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Draw back on fibre content of sarees ... ... ... ... ..... d upon the appellants to produce proof that no rebate had been obtained or as observed earlier they could have made enquiries with the Central Excise Authorities. 11. emsp In the result and for the reasons stated earlier I allow all these appeals, set aside the orders passed by the Authorities below but remand the matter to the Assistant Collector, MCD, for verification as to whether rebate of duty paid on fabrics had been obtained either by the manufacturers or by exporters (if permissible) in respect of fabrics utilised in the manufacture of 100 polyester sarees exported by the present appellants. The Assistant Collector shall consider the declaration dated 25-7-1980 made by M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (Exhibit B), and such other materials that may be produced by the appellants or the department. If on verification the Assistant Collector is satisfied that rebate of duty had not been obtained he shall admit the drawback claims and grant drawback.
-
1985 (12) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drawback - Manner of determining market value ... ... ... ... ..... odied in the memorandum of revision application. Taking into consideration the data relied upon by the two sides, we think that the most appropriate approach is that of the Assistant Collector. The market value of the goods in the instant case could best be arrived at with reference to their salvage value and here we have the authentic information provided by the foreign suppliers of the appellants themselves. Since the market value of the goods with reference to this figure is much lower than the amount of the drawback claim, the rejection of the appellants rsquo drawback claim by the lower authorities is legally sustainable. We dismiss as of no consequence the appellants rsquo contention that the goods were capable of fetching Rs. 4 lakhs or so even in the damaged condition. The evidence cited in support of this contention of the appellants was obtained long after the goods had been exported from the country. In the result, we see no merit in the appeal and reject and same.
-
1985 (12) TMI 224 - CEGAT ,BOMBAY
Appeal disposed of by Board ... ... ... ... ..... ernment against the Board rsquo s order dated 30-1-1981. It has accordingly become final in law. The same cannot, therefore, be changed by a subsequent order of the Board. The argument that the third order dated 22-12-1981 was passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant to explain his case, has no merit. If he has already paid the reduced amount of penalty of Rs. 1000/-, it is upto the appellant to seek its refund from the Customs Authorities if the same is permissible. So far as the application which has been transferred to the Tribunal is concerned, it is seen that as per his own statement in this application, Shri Bohra has said that he has felt aggrieved with the Board rsquo s decision dated 22-12-1981. This is a decision which rectified an illegality. Even though Shri Bohra feels aggrieved with the decision, there is no lacuna in this order. Considering these circumstances, I find that there is no merit in Shri Bohra rsquo s appeal and I reject it accordingly.
-
1985 (12) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Customs - Exemption operating retroactively ... ... ... ... ..... n on the office copy of the show cause notice that the decision to issue the notice was taken on 11-10-1982, though the notice had been signed on 8-10-1982. Whether the decision to issue the notice on 11-10-1982 was a conscious one or was the result of the peculiar circumstances obtaining (viz. 9th and 10th Oct. 1982 were holidays and for some reason or other, the notices, though signed, were not issued on 8-10-1982), would hardly matter. For, the fact is that the notice was issued only after the appointed day (11-10-1982). I am, therefore, of the view that no action can be pursued or taken against the respondents in pursuance of these notices. 21. emsp Before concluding my order, I would, however, like to add that in so far as the merits of the dispute before us are concerned, I wholly agree with the conclusion reached by my learned brother Shri Raghavachari. 22. In any view of the matter, therefore, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. I agree with brother Sankaran.
-
1985 (12) TMI 222 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to the High Court not maintainable if a Precedent not followed by Tribunal for Cogent reasons
-
1985 (12) TMI 221 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
No discrimination by Tribunal if earlier decisions distinguished and not followed ... ... ... ... ..... hat the limitation prescribed under 11B was inapplicable. It further held that in the absence of evidence regarding intimation required to be conveyed to the assessee under sub-rule (5) of Rule 173-G, the respondents therein were not required to challenge the classification. In the instant case, as has been pointed out earlier, no objection was taken as to the classification. The procedure required under Rule 173-B(3) was also not followed. In the circumstances, we hold that the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent is inapplicable to the facts of the present case rsquo . It is thus seen that the Tribunal distinguished the earlier decision from the facts of the present appeal. In the circumstances, the complaint that the Tribunal discriminated between this appellant and the other appellants is totally unfounded. 4. On consideration of all the aspects, we refuse to refer any of the questions set out in the application and reject this application also.
-
1985 (12) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - ... ... ... ... ..... ctor of specific mention of ldquo waxes rdquo in the tariff item. Had ldquo liquid paraffin rdquo been likewise specified in the tariff item, we have little doubt that our predecessor Bench would have held it to be included in that item. In these circumstances, we do not feel that the decision of our predecessor Bench in the case of M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises would stand in the way of the view which we are inclined to take. 47. emsp In the result, we hold that Microcrystalline Wax was liable to additional duty of Customs on import with reference to T.I.11 A and sub-item (2) or (3) as the case may be. We accordingly reject appeals Nos. C.167/82-C, C.452/84-C, C.2168/85-C to C.2175/85-C and C.696/84-C, filed by M/s. Heeral. We allow appeals Nos. C.213/85-C, C.214/85-C, C.361/85-C and C.362/85-C filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, and in each of these appeals we set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore the corresponding order of the Assistant Collector.
-
1985 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Precedents - Appellate Tribunal’s decision binding until reversed ... ... ... ... ..... erstandings on the term. But the drug industry has to work within the parameters laid down by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The term ldquo drug rdquo has been defined in this Act. Though, as a general proposition one should not turn to other enactments for ascertaining the meaning of expressions in a given Act, in the present case, having regard to the all-pervasive nature of the Drugs Act, the understanding of gelatine capsules as a drug by the administrative authority (Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals) and the other circumstances narrated above, we do not see any good reason not to rely on this understanding for the purpose of determining whether gelatine capsules are ldquo drugs rdquo for the purpose of notification No. 55/75. 9. emsp In the result, I would hold that gelatine capsules are ldquo drugs rdquo and are eligible for the benefit of notification No. 55/75. I agree that the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) confirmed.
-
1985 (12) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Not referable to High Court, if already considered in the Tribunal’s Order tn appeal.
... ... ... ... ..... ni that there should be specific mention of clause (a) or (b) in the show cause notice and order of the Collector and if there is omission, the order becomes bad in law, cannot be accepted. The omission to mention a particular clause of a Section by itself is not fatal. As has been pointed out earlier, all the ingredients of clause (b) of Section 112 had been set out in the show cause notice. The finding of the Collector was also that the appellant was concerned in dealing with the illegally imported goods. By implication the Collector held that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Section 112(b). There is no illegality in the order passed by the Collector rsquo . Thus the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court had been considered though not by referring to the decision and in the said circumstances the contention of Shri Nankani that binding decision had not been followed cannot be accepted. 6. In the result this application fails and the same is rejected.
-
1985 (12) TMI 217 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold dealer’s licence ... ... ... ... ..... sued the licence to the appellant on 2-5-1983. The licensing authority apparently was satisfied that the appellant ceased to be the partner of the firm M/s. J. Chandulal and Co. when it issued the licence to the appellant on 2-5-1983. The Collector committed an error in holding that there was material suppression of facts or that the appellant had made incorrect or false statement in his application for gold dealers licence. On this ground the order of the Collector is liable to be set aside. 9. emsp Besides the above, under Section 50 no gold dealers licence can be cancelled unless the holder thereof has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of licence. In the show cause notice issued to the appellant the action proposed was not cancellation of the licence but the suspension of licence. Thus, it could be said that there has been no compliance with the requirement of law. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
........
|
