|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 290 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 218
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claims under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules for remanufactured goods.
- Compliance with procedural requirements and maintenance of necessary records.
- Determination of whether remanufactured goods belong to the same class as the returned goods.
- Examination of technological requirements in the manufacturing process.
- Consideration of past decisions and instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
Analysis:
1. The appellants filed three appeals challenging the rejection of their refund claims under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules for certain rejected excisable goods returned for remanufacture. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims for not observing the conditions stipulated in the rule. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.
2. The appellants argued that they complied with procedural requirements, maintained necessary records, and remanufactured goods up to the melting stage. They cited past decisions in their favor and contended that the reprocessed goods were of the same class as the returned goods, satisfying Rule 173L requirements.
3. The Departmental Representative supported the rejection, emphasizing non-fulfillment of Rule 173L requirements. The impugned order highlighted the loss of track of returned goods post-melting and the emergence of different products not belonging to the same class as the returned goods.
4. The Tribunal noted the appellants' evidence of past favorable decisions and examined the reasoning behind the rejection. It emphasized the importance of maintaining the identity of returned goods during remanufacture and questioned the Collector (Appeals)'s failure to consider or distinguish the past decisions in the appellants' favor.
5. Referring to similar cases involving different products remanufactured from returned goods, the Tribunal highlighted the need to retain the original identity of goods post-melting. It cited instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs to support the appellants' argument regarding the classification of remanufactured goods.
6. Drawing parallels to a previous case where refund was granted for reprocessed goods, the Tribunal emphasized that the production of goods from returned materials should not alter the classification under Rule 173L. It supported the appellants' claim that the remanufactured goods fell under the same class as the returned goods.
7. Considering the nature of the manufacturing process and the technological constraints faced by the appellants, the Tribunal concluded that the remade products were of the same class as the returned goods. It highlighted the necessity of mixing other materials during remanufacture and allowed the appeals, granting the appellants consequential reliefs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 217
Issues:
1. Whether the Collector (Appeals) was justified in refusing the appellant to raise a fresh plea at the first appellate forum.
2. Whether the activity of reconditioning and repairing "Spinnerettes" amounts to manufacturing.
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 131/81-CE dated 22nd June, 1981.
4. Whether the matter should be remanded for further adjudication.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, Hindustan Platinum Pvt. Ltd., appealed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, contending that their activity of reconditioning and repairing "Spinnerettes" does not involve manufacturing. The appellant sought to raise a fresh plea before the Collector (Appeals), which was denied on the basis that it was not raised before the Assistant Collector. The appellant argued that the fresh ground did not require additional evidence and cited legal precedents supporting their position. The Tribunal, citing judgments from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court, held that the Collector (Appeals) erred in refusing the appellant to raise the fresh plea at the first appellate stage. The Tribunal admitted the fresh plea at the second appellate stage.
2. The issue of whether the activity of reconditioning and repairing "Spinnerettes" amounts to manufacturing was also addressed. The appellant argued that no manufacturing activity is involved in their process, citing a Bombay High Court decision in support of their position. The Tribunal noted that the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) lacked details on the repairing or manufacturing process. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for readjudication. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to observe principles of natural justice and grant a personal hearing to the appellant within three months.
3. The appellant had also claimed the benefit under Notification No. 131/81-CE dated 22nd June, 1981. However, the appellant did not press this claim at the current stage of the proceedings, seeking permission for its withdrawal. The Tribunal did not delve into this claim further due to the appellant's decision not to press it at that point.
4. In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded that the Collector (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the appellant's fresh plea and admitted the same at the second appellate stage. The Tribunal also directed a remand of the matter to the Assistant Collector for a detailed adjudication considering the lack of information on the repairing or manufacturing process in the previous orders. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a personal hearing to the appellant during the readjudication process.
-
1990 (12) TMI 216
Whether the detenu or anyone on his behalf is entitled to challenge the detention order without the detenu submitting or surrendering to it?
Held that:- In the present case, admittedly the proposed detenu is absconding and has been evading the service of the detention order. The first respondent who is his wife has sought to challenge the said order because the show-cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA is issued to him, a copy of which is also sent to her. Thus, the assistance of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is sought by the first respondent on behalf of the detenu to secure the order of detention with a view to defend the proceedings under the SAFEMA. Thus the proposed detenu is trying to secure the order of detention indirectly without submitting to it. What is further, he is also trying to secure the grounds of detention as well as the documents supporting them which he cannot get unless he submits to the order of detention. No prima facie case is made out either before the High Court or before us for challenging the order of detention which would impel the Court to interfere with it at this pre-execution stage. Unfortunately, the High Court disregarding the law on the subject and the long-settled principles on which alone it can interfere with the detention order at this stage has directed the authorities not only to furnish to the detenu the order of detention but also the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon for passing the detention order.
The appellants took the plea that although they were willing to produce the order of detention and the grounds of detention for the perusal of the Court, they cannot furnish them to the first respondent unless, as required by the Act, the detenu first submits to the impugned order. The High Court thereupon issued the contempt notice by its order dated June 30, 1989. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that both the orders of the High Court directing the appellants to furnish to the detenu or to the first respondent or her counsel the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents supporting them as well as the contempt notice of 30th June, 1989 are clearly illegal and unjustified and they are hereby quashed. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 215
Issues: Valuation of imported goods and validity of the license
In this case, the appellants imported measuring instruments and declared values, which were later enhanced by the Collector of Customs. The appellants challenged the decision, arguing that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice as cross-examination of witnesses was not allowed. The appellants also contended that previous imports of similar goods were not questioned by Customs, and the documents filed were not considered. The appellants disputed the violation of handbook provisions and argued that the license trafficking allegations were unsubstantiated. The issue of valuation was raised concerning the price list and whether prices should be considered CIF or FOB. The Customs Department relied on the price list, while the appellants argued for reliance on the invoice.
Regarding the valuation issue, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the prices in the price lists should not be considered CIF as argued by the appellants. The Tribunal found the Customs Department's reliance on the price list valid, rejecting the appellants' unsubstantiated claims about previous imports.
Regarding the validity of the license, the Tribunal considered the trafficking allegations. The evidence mainly relied on statements from witnesses, including Shri K. Dalal and Shri Shah. The Collector did not allow cross-examination of these witnesses, and no documentary evidence of sale was presented. The Tribunal found the evidence of trafficking insufficient, especially in the absence of cross-examination. Additionally, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the handbook provisions and Import Control Rules, ultimately setting aside the Collector's decision due to lack of acceptable evidence of license trafficking.
As a result, the Tribunal upheld the enhancement of the goods' value but set aside the confiscation. Since the evidence on the value of goods was not adequately considered and no illegal remittance was alleged, the penalty was also set aside. The appeal was partly allowed, with the decision reflecting the findings on valuation and license validity issues.
-
1990 (12) TMI 214
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notice dated 9-2-1988.
2. Entitlement of 'Oil of Olay' to exemption as Barrier Cream under Notification No. 393/86-C.E., dated 22-8-1986.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
Issue: Whether the show cause notice dated 9-2-1988 is valid in law.
Analysis:
The appellants argued that the show cause notice was invalid as it was signed by the Assistant Collector, and not by the Collector, as required under proviso to Section 11A. The Tribunal examined the show cause notice and found that it did not invoke the proviso to Section 11A. The notice was issued within six months from the date of the alleged contravention, thus falling within the normal period for issuing such notices. The Assistant Collector had the authority to issue the notice under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which allows for redetermination of classification and demand of duty for six months. Therefore, the show cause notice was deemed valid and not vitiated.
2. Entitlement of 'Oil of Olay' to Exemption:
Issue: Whether the product 'Oil of Olay' is entitled to exemption as Barrier Cream under Notification No. 393/86-C.E., dated 22-8-1986.
Analysis:
The appellants claimed that 'Oil of Olay' was a barrier cream and satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 393/86. They argued that the product was manufactured under a license issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and therefore qualified for the exemption. The Department contended that 'Oil of Olay' did not meet the definition of a barrier cream as per Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 33, which describes barrier creams as products that give protection against skin irritants.
The Collector examined the technical literature and advertisements of 'Oil of Olay' and concluded that the product did not form a continuous protective film on the skin, as required for barrier creams. Instead, it was absorbed by the skin and marketed as a beauty fluid for general skin care. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the product's characteristics and commercial understanding aligned with it being a beauty cream rather than a barrier cream. Consequently, 'Oil of Olay' did not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 393/86.
Additional Considerations:
- The appellants argued that the Department could not challenge the license issued by the Drug Controller, but the Tribunal held that the exemption depended on the product being a barrier cream as defined in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and not merely on the issuance of a license.
- The Tribunal also addressed the appellants' contention that classification lists could only be revised prospectively, citing relevant case law. However, it found that the facts of this case did not support the appellants' position, as the show cause notice was issued within the permissible period and based on valid grounds.
Conclusion:
The show cause notice dated 9-2-1988 was valid, and 'Oil of Olay' was not entitled to exemption as a barrier cream under Notification No. 393/86-C.E., dated 22-8-1986. The penalty imposed was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000, considering the circumstances of the case. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, upholding the Collector's order.
-
1990 (12) TMI 213
Issues:
1. Inclusion of the cost of gunny packing in the assessable value of excisable goods.
2. Determination of sales at arm's length between the appellant and another company.
3. Validity of the order regarding the assessable value of goods and approval of price lists.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Inclusion of the cost of gunny packing in the assessable value of excisable goods
The appeal arose from the Collector (Appeals) confirming the inclusion of the cost of gunny packing in the assessable value of excisable goods sold by the appellant to another company. The Assistant Collector had directed the inclusion of the packing cost in the assessable value, which was upheld by the lower appellate authority. However, the Tribunal held that the cost of packing material should not be included in the assessable value unless there is evidence that the packing material is not returned by the buyers regularly. The Tribunal directed that the assessable value should be based on the ex-factory price at which the goods were sold.
Issue 2: Determination of sales at arm's length
The Assistant Collector had considered the sales between the appellant and the other company as not at arm's length due to the relationship between the directors of both companies. This led to the direction that the assessable value should be based on the prices charged by the other company to its customers. However, the Tribunal found that there were sales made to other customers at the same prices as the sales to the related company, establishing an ex-factory price. The Tribunal held that the companies were not related persons under the law, and the sales were at arm's length, directing that the assessable value should be based on the prices charged to the related company.
Issue 3: Validity of the order regarding the assessable value of goods and approval of price lists
The Tribunal set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal, directing that the assessable value of the goods should be based on the prices charged to the related company. It was held that the price lists should be approved under Part I, emphasizing the importance of determining the assessable value based on the actual sales prices. The Tribunal clarified that the commonality of some directors between the companies did not establish a relationship under the law for the purpose of determining the assessable value.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing that the assessable value of the goods should be based on the prices charged to the related company and that the price lists should be approved accordingly.
-
1990 (12) TMI 212
Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of duplicate appeal.
2. Classification and duty assessment of TV sets with an inbuilt timer system.
3. Interpretation of the term "clock" for duty classification purposes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Withdrawal of Duplicate Appeal:
The appellant, Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, filed two appeals: No. E/1852/90-B1 and No. E/1721/90-B1. The learned JDR, Shri M.S. Arora, acknowledged that appeal No. E/1852/90-B1 was a duplicate and filed after the expiration of the limitation period. He requested permission to withdraw this duplicate appeal. The respondent, represented by Shri S.R. Tripathi, did not oppose this request. Consequently, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal and dismissed appeal No. E/1852/90-B1 for statistical purposes.
2. Classification and Duty Assessment of TV Sets with an Inbuilt Timer System:
The core issue was whether the TV sets manufactured by M/s. Television and Components Pvt. Ltd., which included an inbuilt timer system, should be classified under serial No. 20A of Notification No. 68/86-CE, as amended by Notification No. 131/87-CE, attracting a higher duty of Rs. 2000.00 per set, or under serial No. 19(ii) of the same notification, attracting a duty of Rs. 1750.00 per set.
The Assistant Collector initially classified the TV sets under serial No. 20A, arguing that the timer system functioned as a clock, displaying real time in hours and minutes on the TV screen. This classification was based on the expert opinion from the Head of Electrical Engineering Department, L.D. Engineering College, Ahmedabad, which stated that the timer circuit could display real time and automatically stop the TV at a set time.
However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disagreed, holding that the timer system was not a clock as defined in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and did not perform regular movements linked to a counting mechanism. The timer system displayed time only incidentally when the TV was switched on and did not function independently as a clock.
3. Interpretation of the Term "Clock" for Duty Classification Purposes:
The Tribunal examined whether the timer system in the TV sets could be considered a clock under Chapter 91 of the HSN, which covers clocks and watches. The Tribunal noted that the timer system did not meet the definition of a clock, as it was not composed of two main parts (movement and container) and did not function independently of the TV set. The timer system only operated when the TV was switched on and could not show the time of day independently.
The Tribunal also referenced the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which defines a clock as a machine with a device performing regular movements linked to a counting mechanism. The timer system in the TV sets did not meet this definition, as its primary function was on-off programming, with time display being incidental.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), concluding that the TV sets with the inbuilt timer system should be classified under serial No. 19 of Notification No. 68/86-CE, as amended, attracting a duty of Rs. 1750.00 per set. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, affirming that the timer system did not constitute a clock for the purposes of duty classification.
-
1990 (12) TMI 211
Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application pointing out defects in the Tribunal's order, consideration of arguments regarding rehabilitation aids for the handicapped, technical opinions, and relevant provisions of Notification, review of Tribunal's own order, mistake apparent from record, power of Tribunal to review its own order.
Analysis:
The Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application was filed by the appellants highlighting defects in the Tribunal's Order. The appellants contended that the Tribunal did not address the issue of rehabilitation aids for the handicapped and did not discuss technical opinions from experts. The appellants also argued that specific grounds from the Appeal Memo were not considered by the Tribunal. The appellants sought acceptance of the ROM application, citing a previous judgment where similar arguments were not discussed in the Tribunal's order.
The respondent, represented by a JDR, argued that there was no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and no mistake apparent from the record. The respondent emphasized that the ROM application was essentially seeking a review of the order, which the law does not empower the Tribunal to conduct.
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, examined the facts and circumstances of the case. It noted that all arguments, including technical opinions and relevant provisions, were duly considered and mentioned in the order. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that elaborate arguments do not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that further arguments at this stage would be improper and cited a High Court ruling that the Tribunal lacks the power to review its own order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application, stating that there was no mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal clarified that the judgment cited by the appellants did not support their position and reiterated that all arguments were taken into consideration before reaching the decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to correct mistakes is limited and does not extend to reviewing its own order, as established by legal precedents.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised in the Rectification of Mistake application and the Tribunal's decision regarding the review of its own order, emphasizing legal principles and precedents governing such matters.
-
1990 (12) TMI 210
Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim for excess production incentive is time-barred under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules.
2. Whether the refund application addressed to the Assistant Collector, but submitted through the Range Superintendent, should be considered timely filed.
3. Interpretation of the legal position regarding the submission of refund claims to the Assistant Collector.
Analysis:
1. The appellants sought a refund of duty under Notification 198/76 for higher production, which grants duty relief. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as time-barred under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, stating it was received after six months. The appellants argued that they followed the prevailing practice of submitting refund claims through the Range Superintendent, citing previous similar claims. The Tribunal had previously held in Pariakaramalai Tea & Produce Co. case that such claims should be considered timely. The appellants also relied on the Super Tyres case, where it was held that limitation should be counted from the date of receipt by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal found merit in these arguments and held the claim was not time-barred.
2. The Respondent contended that the show cause notice and Trade Notice 32/72 mandated filing refund applications directly before the Assistant Collector. They argued that the practice of submitting claims through the Superintendent was not acceptable unless it was a recognized practice in the Collectorate. Referring to the G. Jerambhai Exports case, the Respondent emphasized the importance of following established procedures. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted that the issue of whether the claim should be made directly to the Assistant Collector or submitted through the Superintendent had been addressed by the Kerala High Court. The High Court's ruling in the Talayar Tea Co. case supported the practice of submitting through the Superintendent, as long as the claim was ultimately addressed to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation and set aside the time-barred decision.
3. The Tribunal concurred with the High Court's judgment that the claim for refund should be made to the Assistant Collector, not necessarily presented directly before the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of prior practice and the lack of objections from the Range Office in accepting the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as the claim was addressed to the Assistant Collector and followed established procedures, it should not be deemed time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to consider the refund claim on its merits and hear the appellants in accordance with the law.
-
1990 (12) TMI 209
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Collector traverses beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice.
2. Whether M/s. I.G.E. is the manufacturer of the complete X-ray system.
3. Whether M/s. Elpro is liable to pay duty on the entire X-ray equipment.
4. Whether M/s. I.G.E. is a related person/agent of M/s. Elpro.
5. Whether X-ray equipment is immovable property and thus not excisable.
6. Whether assembling the bought-out items at the customer's site amounts to manufacture.
Summary:
1. Order Traversing Beyond Show Cause Notice:
The Collector's order against M/s. I.G.E. was found to traverse beyond the show cause notice, which only proposed a penalty u/s 9(2) for conspiracy and abetment in evading central excise duty. The Collector's findings that M/s. I.G.E. is the manufacturer and liable to pay duty on the entire X-ray system were not part of the original allegations. Hence, the order against M/s. I.G.E. was set aside.
2. Manufacturer of Complete X-ray System:
The Collector's finding that M/s. I.G.E. is the manufacturer of the complete X-ray system was based on the fact that M/s. I.G.E. assembles the components/parts at the customer's site, which brings into existence a new product, the X-ray machine. This assembly amounts to manufacture as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Narne Tulaman Mfgrs. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, where assembling parts to create a new product known to the market amounts to manufacture.
3. Duty on Entire X-ray Equipment:
M/s. Elpro's liability to pay duty on the entire X-ray equipment depends on whether M/s. I.G.E. is a related person/agent and whether the X-ray equipment is considered goods or immovable property. The Collector's order holding M/s. Elpro liable was remanded for fresh consideration.
4. Related Person/Agent:
The Collector's conclusion that M/s. I.G.E. is a related person of M/s. Elpro was based on the shareholding of General Electric Co. in M/s. Elpro. However, the relationship between M/s. Elpro, M/s. I.G.E., and General Electric Co. was not clearly established. The definition of a related person u/s 4(4)(c) requires mutual interest in the business of each other, which was not sufficiently evidenced. The Collector was directed to re-examine this issue.
5. Immovable Property:
The X-ray equipment was argued to be immovable property as it is fastened to the earth. However, it was determined that the equipment, which can be dismantled and shifted, is not immovable property. The components are fixed to the earth for beneficial enjoyment but do not become part of the earth permanently.
6. Assembly as Manufacture:
The assembly of bought-out items at the customer's site was held to amount to manufacture, as it brings into existence a new product, the X-ray machine, known to the market and excise law. This aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in Narne Tulaman Mfgrs. (P) Ltd. v. CCE.
Conclusion:
The appeal of M/s. Elpro International was remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration on the issues of related person and agent, and whether the X-ray equipment is excisable. The appeal filed by M/s. I.G.E. (India) Ltd. was allowed, setting aside the Collector's order against them.
-
1990 (12) TMI 208
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal against order allowing modvat benefit for plastic holders used in manufacturing transfusion bottles.
Analysis:
The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta II sought condonation of a seventeen-day delay in filing an appeal against an order granting modvat benefit to a company for plastic holders used in manufacturing transfusion bottles. The delay was attributed to administrative processing delays within the department. The Collector argued for condonation, citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing administrative delays in government offices. However, the respondents contended that the delay was not justifiable, relying on precedents that did not condone delays due to administrative reasons. The Tribunal examined various cases and noted that administrative delays were not sufficient cause for condonation. In this case, the delay was attributed to internal processing issues, including delays caused by officials being on leave. Despite the explanations provided, the Tribunal found the delay unjustifiable and dismissed the condonation application, consequently dismissing the appeal as time-barred.
The Tribunal referenced previous judgments to highlight the importance of timely appeals and the lack of sufficient cause for condoning delays caused by administrative inefficiencies. Notably, the Tribunal differentiated between cases where delays were condoned based on valid reasons and cases where delays were not justifiable. In this instance, the delay was primarily due to internal processing delays and incorrect routing of the file, leading to a lack of urgency in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for diligence and prompt action in time-bound matters. Ultimately, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the explanations provided by the Collector, the precedents cited by both parties, and the specific reasons for the delay. Despite the internal processing challenges faced by the department, the Tribunal found that the delay could not be justified as sufficient cause for condonation. The decision underscored the importance of timely actions in legal proceedings and the need for diligence in handling administrative processes. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation application and subsequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of timely filing of appeals and the criteria for condoning delays in legal proceedings. The analysis focused on the specific circumstances of the case, including internal processing delays and administrative inefficiencies. By considering relevant precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in this case was not justifiable and declined to condone it. The decision served as a reminder of the importance of prompt action and diligence in legal matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to being time-barred.
-
1990 (12) TMI 207
Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed by Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal on appellants' firm for involvement in attempted import of Hashish concealed in heavy machines.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty:
The appeal was filed against the penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the appellants' firm by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal for their alleged involvement in the attempted import of Hashish concealed within heavy machines. The penalty was imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with acts or omissions rendering goods liable for confiscation under Section 113.
2. Factual Background:
The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with heavy machines containing Hashish on 12-7-1986 near a petrol pump in West Bengal. Subsequent investigations revealed the involvement of the appellants' firm, a clearing agency in Calcutta, in the preparation of shipping documents related to the seized goods.
3. Contentions of the Parties:
The appellants' advocate argued that there was insufficient evidence linking the firm to any act or omission leading to the goods' confiscation. On the other hand, the Respondent's representative contended that the firm's actions showed haste and lack of diligence, justifying the penalty under Section 114.
4. Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 114 and Section 113(d) of the Customs Act to determine the legality of the penalty. The Tribunal analyzed the statements and evidence presented during the investigation, particularly focusing on the contradictory statements regarding the preparation date of the shipping bill.
5. Collector's Order and Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal reviewed the Collector's order, which concluded that the appellants' firm displayed haste and lack of diligence in preparing the shipping bill, potentially rendering the goods liable for confiscation. However, the Tribunal found the Collector's reasoning vague and lacking concrete evidence to establish the firm's involvement beyond doubt. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000.
6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and clear linkage between the firm's actions and the goods' confiscation to justify the penalty under Section 114. In this case, the lack of definitive proof led to the reversal of the penalty imposed on the appellants' firm.
This detailed analysis outlines the key legal aspects, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in overturning the penalty imposed on the appellants' firm in connection with the attempted import of Hashish.
-
1990 (12) TMI 206
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot.
2. Legality of the seizure of goods.
3. Interpretation of Exemption Notification 117/78.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
5. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act.
6. Applicability of previous judgments (Metro Export and Bliss Impex Corporation).
7. Jurisdiction of the Special Bench.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot:
The appellants argued that the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot, did not have the jurisdiction to order the confiscation of goods and demand duty, citing the settled law by the Special Bench in Bliss Impex Corporation. The Tribunal found that the Collector had ordered the confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act due to non-compliance with the Duty Exemption Scheme (DEEC) as per Notification 117/78. However, no duty was demanded in the Show Cause Notice or the impugned order, which only related to confiscation and penalty. Thus, the appeal did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench but should be dealt with by the West Regional Bench.
2. Legality of the Seizure of Goods:
The appellants contested the legality of the seizure, arguing that the goods were imported and cleared through Bombay Port, making the seizure by Jamnagar authorities illegal. The Tribunal noted that the goods were seized as they were being illicitly dispatched to Bombay, and the Collector concluded that the appellants had not followed the Duty Exemption Scheme with the intent to avoid duty payment.
3. Interpretation of Exemption Notification 117/78:
The appellants contended that the Collector's order involved the interpretation of Notification 117/78, which should fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench. The Tribunal found that the Collector's order did not demand any duty but only related to the confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty, thus not involving any question related to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment.
4. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:
The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act for their acts/omissions related to the goods under seizure. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting the appellants' failure to follow the Duty Exemption Scheme and their intent to avoid duty payment.
5. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act:
The Collector ordered the confiscation of 37 drums of MPDSA and 6 drums of PNA under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, allowing the appellants to clear them on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.25 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the Collector's order was based on the appellants' non-compliance with the Duty Exemption Scheme and the intent to avoid duty payment.
6. Applicability of Previous Judgments (Metro Export and Bliss Impex Corporation):
The appellants relied on the judgments in Metro Export and Bliss Impex Corporation, arguing that the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot, lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that in both cases, there was a demand for duty, whereas, in the present case, no duty was demanded. Thus, the ratio of those decisions was not applicable.
7. Jurisdiction of the Special Bench:
The Tribunal concluded that the appeal did not involve questions about the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, and therefore, it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench. The appeal should be dealt with by the West Regional Bench.
Separate Judgment Analysis:
Contra Opinion:
One member dissented, arguing that the impugned order related to the determination of questions having a relation to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench per Section 129(C)(3) of the Customs Act. This member emphasized that the duty amount would be payable if the appellants chose to redeem the goods, thus involving a question related to the rate of duty.
Assent Opinion:
Another member agreed with the majority, emphasizing that the case did not involve the determination of the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, and thus, the appeal should be heard by the West Regional Bench.
Conclusion:
The majority opinion held that the appeal should be dealt with by the West Regional Bench since it did not involve questions about the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment. The dissenting opinion argued for the jurisdiction of the Special Bench, citing the potential duty payable upon redemption of the goods. The final decision was to transfer the appeal to the West Regional Bench for hearing and disposal as per law.
-
1990 (12) TMI 205
Issues involved:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 23/55.
Issue 1: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act:
The appeal challenged the order classifying limestone chips and powder under Heading 25.05 CETA '85 by the Collector of Central Excise. The process of crushing, grinding, and sieving limestone to obtain chips and powder was deemed a manufacturing process under the amended Sec. 2(f) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal upheld this classification, citing relevant legal precedents where similar processes were considered manufacturing activities. The new definition of "manufacture" under the Act includes processes specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, which encompass activities like crushing and grinding. Therefore, the conversion of limestone into chips and powder was deemed a manufacturing process. The Tribunal also noted that the denial of exemption under Notification 23/55 based on the goods not being used as fillers was incorrect. Previous decisions by the Tribunal established that proof of specific end-use was not required for exemption under the notification, and the goods were found eligible for the exemption.
Issue 2: Eligibility for exemption under Notification 23/55:
The appellants argued that the process of obtaining limestone chips and powder did not amount to manufacture, citing legal cases where similar processes did not result in a new product. However, the Tribunal held that the emergence of new products with distinct characteristics and uses after crushing, grinding, and sieving limestone constituted manufacturing activities. The products were considered marketable goods with different names, characters, and uses, aligning with the definition of manufacture under the Act. While the Assistant Collector rejected the classification under Chapter Heading 23.02, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with this decision. However, the lower authorities were deemed unjustified in denying the appellants' claim for exemption under Notification No. 23/55. Following the reasoning in the impugned order, the appellants were granted the exemption, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 204
Issues:
Central Excise duty on iron used in the manufacture of Steel Melting Scrap, applicability of Notification No. 150/77, extended period of limitation, duty liability at the time of clearance to Mini Steel Plants, suppression of facts, duty liability on iron in crude form used in the production of steel melting scrap.
Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Pig Iron, Steel Ingots, and Iron & Steel products, had been following the "later the better" principle for Central Excise duty payment. The issue arose regarding the duty liability on iron used in the manufacture of Steel Melting Scrap, cleared under Notification No. 150/77. The show-cause notices sought to recover duty on iron used in the production of Steel Melting Scrap. The appellant contended that duty was not payable at the iron stage due to the principle accepted by the Government and clearances were made with the approval of the Central Excise Superintendent.
The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand, alleging contravention of Central Excise Law with an intent to evade duty payment. The Collector held that Notification No. 150/77 did not apply, and duty on iron used in the production of Steel Melting Scrap was payable at the time of clearance to Mini Steel Plants. The appellant challenged this decision.
The Appellate Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. The demand, if upheld, was limited to a period of 6 months before the show-cause notice. On the merits, the Tribunal held that duty on iron in crude form, when used in the production of steel melting scrap, was leviable at the time of dispatch of such scrap. The duty liability arose due to non-compliance with Notification 18/71 and Notification 150/77, as the steel melting scrap was cleared without payment of duty or following the prescribed procedure.
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the demand for duty for the 6 months preceding the show-cause notice issuance and dismissed the appeal with this modification. The decision clarified the duty liability on iron used in the production of steel melting scrap and emphasized compliance with the relevant notifications for duty exemption.
-
1990 (12) TMI 203
Issues:
1. Cancellation of bail order by the Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Justification for retaining the accused in custody during investigations.
3. Balance between the need for investigation and the rights of the accused.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the cancellation of a bail order by the Additional Sessions Judge, challenged by the accused through a criminal application. The accused was initially granted bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, but the bail was canceled by the Sessions Judge based on the Department's plea for further interrogation. The High Court reviewed the decision and set aside the cancellation, confirming the bail granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. The key issue addressed was the justification for retaining the accused in custody during the investigations. The Department argued that the accused was integral to a significant illegal operation and that his release on bail would impede the interrogation process, potentially allowing others involved to cover their tracks. However, the High Court found that the investigations had progressed significantly, with essential evidence already collected, rendering the accused's continued custody unnecessary. The Court emphasized that the decision to grant or cancel bail must be based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The judgment highlighted the importance of striking a balance between allowing Investigating Authorities sufficient time to conduct thorough investigations and safeguarding the fundamental rights of the accused. While acknowledging the need to facilitate investigations, the Court emphasized that curtailing an individual's liberty should only be done when absolutely necessary and justified by the circumstances. The Court ultimately set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, reinforcing the principle that the detention of an accused should be warranted by the specific requirements of the investigation.
This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the considerations surrounding the cancellation of bail, the necessity of retaining an accused in custody, and the delicate balance between investigative needs and individual rights as deliberated by the High Court.
-
1990 (12) TMI 202
Issues: Imposition of penalty by Collector of Central Excise, Compliance with Central Excise duty payment, Request for setting aside or reducing penalty, Application of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, Leniency in penalty imposition.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA involved an appeal by M/s. Lektrolite, Calcutta against the penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I Collectorate. The Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000 on M/s. Lektrolite and directed them to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 9954, which they complied with. M/s. Lektrolite, through their counsel, argued that being a small-scale unit, the penalty was excessively heavy, and requested for setting aside or reducing the penalty to a token amount. The Departmental Representative contended that M/s. Lektrolite should have obtained a Central Excise license earlier and paid duty on clearances exceeding the exemption limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that proceedings were initiated against both M/s. Lektrolite and another company, Peico Electronics, for manufacturing goods beyond the exemption limit. The Tribunal found that M/s. Lektrolite had cleared excisable goods without payment of duty exceeding the exemption limit, leading to the penalty imposition. The penalty was imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, as M/s. Lektrolite had not obtained the required license and had removed excisable goods in contravention of the Rules. Despite the penalty being a token amount compared to the value of the goods involved, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, considering the leniency shown by the Collector in the circumstances. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed by the Collector.
In this case, the primary issue was the imposition of a penalty by the Collector of Central Excise on M/s. Lektrolite for clearing excisable goods without payment of duty exceeding the exemption limit. M/s. Lektrolite argued for leniency due to being a small-scale unit, requesting the penalty to be set aside or reduced. The Departmental Representative highlighted the failure of M/s. Lektrolite to obtain a Central Excise license on time and pay duty on clearances beyond the exemption limit. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that M/s. Lektrolite had indeed contravened the Central Excise Rules by not obtaining the necessary license and clearing goods without paying the required duty. Despite the penalty being relatively low compared to the value of the goods involved, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, taking into account the leniency shown by the Collector in the penalty imposition.
The application of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was crucial in this judgment, as the penalty was imposed under this rule due to the non-compliance of M/s. Lektrolite with the licensing and duty payment requirements. The Tribunal noted that M/s. Lektrolite had failed to obtain a Central Excise license promptly after crossing the exemption limit and had cleared goods without paying the duty, which was due for a significant period. The Tribunal found that M/s. Lektrolite's actions fell under the provisions of Rule 173Q, justifying the penalty imposed by the Collector.
The issue of leniency in penalty imposition was also addressed in the judgment. Despite the penalty being relatively low compared to the value of the goods involved, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, considering the circumstances and the Collector's lenient view in fixing the quantum of the penalty. The Tribunal acknowledged the Collector's observation of taking a lenient view and found the penalty to be appropriate in the given situation. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed by the Collector, emphasizing the importance of complying with Central Excise regulations and the consequences of non-compliance.
-
1990 (12) TMI 201
Issues:
1. Validity of the licence for import of Fax Machines Model TF 222.
2. Transferability of the licence and compliance with actual user conditions.
3. Allegations of breach and imposition of fine and penalty.
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs confiscating Fax Machines imported under a licence specifying a different model. The appellants argued that a Public Notice retrospectively made licences transferable without actual user conditions. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in models but considered it a technical contravention. The licensing authorities were found not to have discriminated against the appellants, and the breach was not serious. The Tribunal reduced the fine and penalty imposed.
2. The issue of transferability of the licence and compliance with actual user conditions was raised. The appellants contended that the licence became transferable due to a retrospective Public Notice. The Tribunal acknowledged the amendment but emphasized that the licence specified a different model. It was observed that the breach was technical, and the appellants were not deprived of any rights under the law. The Tribunal reduced the fine and penalty based on the technical nature of the contravention.
3. The appellants were alleged to have breached the licensing conditions, leading to confiscation and imposition of a fine and penalty. The Tribunal considered the discrepancy between the specified model in the licence and the imported goods. Despite the technical breach, the Tribunal found no discrimination by the licensing authorities. The appellants' reliance on previous court rulings was deemed inapplicable to the case. The Tribunal reduced the quantum of fine and penalty, considering the technical nature of the contravention and financial implications on the appellants.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the finding that the imported goods did not match the model specified in the licence. However, due to the technical nature of the breach and lack of discrimination by the authorities, the fine and penalty were reduced. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with licensing conditions and the impact of technical contraventions on penalties imposed in customs cases.
-
1990 (12) TMI 200
Issues Involved:
1. Application u/s 35(E) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Request for early hearing and stay of proceedings.
3. Relevance of previous judgments and inherent powers of the Tribunal.
Summary:
1. Application u/s 35(E) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The respondents, M/s. Karna Industries Ltd., filed an application emerging from the Revenue's application u/s 35(E) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be treated as an appeal. The respondents argued that their repair activities for compressors are similar to those previously adjudicated in favor of M/s. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. by the Tribunal, and that the Supreme Court had not admitted the Revenue's appeal due to a delay.
2. Request for early hearing and stay of proceedings:
The respondents requested an early hearing of the appeal and a stay on the ongoing adjudication proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) and the Assistant Collector. They argued that completing these proceedings would cause unnecessary litigation, inconvenience, and financial burden. The respondents cited several judgments to support their plea for the Tribunal to exercise its inherent powers to grant a stay.
3. Relevance of previous judgments and inherent powers of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal considered the respondents' reliance on earlier judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in ITO v. Mohd. Kunhi [AIR 1969 S.C. 430], which recognized the inherent powers of appellate authorities to grant interim relief. The Tribunal also referenced similar observations made by the Delhi High Court in ITC Ltd. v. UOI [1983 E.L.T. 1] and the Rajasthan High Court in DCM Ltd. v. UOI [1991 (52) E.L.T. 18 (Raj.)]. The Tribunal agreed that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and undue hardship, it was appropriate to grant a stay on the pending proceedings.
Order:
The Tribunal ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) and the jurisdictional Assistant Collector shall not proceed with the adjudication proceedings in respect of the specified show cause notices. The Tribunal also granted an early hearing date for the appeal on 6-3-1991.
-
1990 (12) TMI 199
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the Power of Attorney executed by the appellants for importation.
3. Whether the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) for unauthorized transfer of license.
4. Consideration of mens rea in penalty proceedings.
5. Applicability of the Import Policy and Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures in determining liability for penalty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute arose from the importation of personal computers declared as photo-composing machines. The Collector found the goods ineligible for import under the applicable provisions, leading to confiscation and penalties. The appellants contested the legality of the penalty under Section 112(a) while not disputing the findings on confiscation and redemption fines imposed on the actual importer.
2. The appellants argued that they had executed a specific Power of Attorney in favor of an individual for importation, contending that they should not be held liable for the actions of the Power of Attorney holder. The Collector's findings questioned the validity of the Power of Attorney, leading to the imposition of penalties for unauthorized transfer of the license. The appellants relied on legal precedents to support their stance that the Principal cannot be held responsible for the wrongful acts of the Agent.
3. The Revenue countered by emphasizing that the appellants were responsible for the illegal importation under their license, regardless of the actions of the Power of Attorney holder. The penalty under Section 112(a) was justified for the contravention of Import Policy provisions. The argument focused on the liability of persons involved in illegal importation, leading to penalties and confiscation of goods.
4. The discussion extended to the mens rea element in penalty proceedings, highlighting the quasi-criminal nature of such proceedings. The appellants argued that in the absence of mens rea, the penalty would be unjustifiable. Legal references were made to cases emphasizing the importance of establishing intent in penal actions related to economic offenses.
5. The judgment delved into the applicability of the Import Policy and Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures in determining liability for penalties. The analysis focused on the provisions governing the appointment of agents and the requirement of prior permission for importation against non-transferable licenses. The judgment highlighted the contravention of these provisions as grounds for imposing penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 2 lakhs. The judgment upheld the imposition of penalties for unauthorized transfer of the license and emphasized the importance of complying with Import Policy provisions to avoid penal consequences.
............
|
9911796707
