|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 332 Records
-
1994 (3) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... entitled for the said 5 discount being special, and hold that it was rightly allowed by the Collector (Appeals). 11. Before we part, it may be stated that the classification of the subject goods was not disputed before us and the focus was only, as to whether the importers were entitled for the benefit of the Notification Nos. 242/76-Cus. and 112/87-Cus. 12. In the result ndash (i) Appeal No. C/738/90-C is allowed to the extent that the respondents M/s. Keshari Steels in this appeal were not entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 242/76-Cus. and 112/87-Cus. However, they were entitled for the benefit of the discount (described as special discount) as held by the Collector (Appeals) in his impugned Order. Consequently, that part of the impugned Order-in-Appeal which allows the claim of the appellants for the special discount is only upheld. The cross objections filed by the respondents also stand disposed of accordingly (ii) Appeal No. C/3370/90-C is rejected.
-
1994 (3) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty - Molasses ... ... ... ... ..... mmodity which by its inherent nature gets deteriorated due to certain chemical reaction and sometimes auto-combustion also takes place during which excessive heat is generated and even with proper precautions, the stock may get burnt and converted into a solid black mass. This is a natural phenomenon occurring in molasses. Therefore, unless the Department is able to establish that auto combustion was a result of negligence or delay on the part of the appellants, the duty demand cannot be sustained. In this case as set out earlier, the appellants have been able to prove that they acted prudently and took all reasonable steps to prevent and lessen the loss due to auto combustion and this fact remains uncontroverted. We, therefore, accept the contentions of the appellants and set aside the inpugned orders and allow the appeals with consequental relief to the appellants as already announced in the open court. The cross objections filed by the Department are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... pointed out therein that the impugned order in this case was passed by the Collector (Appeals) following the ratio of the decision of the aforesaid case as per Order No. E/150/93-D, dated 21-4-1993. 5. Since the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very party rsquo s case, learned Departmental Representative preferred to reiterate the stand taken by the Department. 6. We have considered the matter. Since the issue has already been considered in the very party rsquo s case as pointed out by both sides, we are not in- clined to take a different view on this issue. Following the ratio of the precedent we hold that item in question is classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, accordingly, the appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. Cross-Objections are also disposed of accordingly. 7. The operative portion of this order was already pronounced in the open Court on the conclusion of the hearing on 7-3-1994.
-
1994 (3) TMI 193 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... ellants with the alleged act of attempt to export the goods out of India. The appellants cannot be found guilty on mere presumption. There must be some material to connect them with the alleged act of attempt to smuggle the goods. Merely because the appellants had sold certain Woollen Yarns at Bhadohi which is the Indian Territory and which is 200 kms away from the border it cannot be presumed that the goods sought to be exported out of India by Shri Kanodia are the same goods sold by the appellants and that the appellants had the knowledge that Shri Prahlad Rai Kanodia purchased these very goods for exporting the same to Nepal. No connivance with the attempt to export the goods by Shri Kanodia is proved in this case, from the facts which are available before us. In such circumstances, the imposition of penalty on the appellants is not in accordance with law. We set aside the same. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellants are entitled for the consequential reliefs.
-
1994 (3) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... held therein, submits the ld. advocate, that Explanations-II to III have to be read together and it is not material that the final goods should also be cleared under the said Notification No. 175/86. It is, therefore, immaterial, urges the ld. advocate, that Headgears are not being cleared under Notification No. 175/86. 4. Ld. SDR, Shri B.K. Singh concedes to the aforesaid position regarding the judgments of the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue. 5. We have gone through the impugned orders. We have also heard the ld. Counsel from both the sides and we are satisfied with the issue involved as aforesaid in these matters herein is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Universal Electrical Industries and Another. Therefore, following the ratio of the said judgment, we allow the appeal of the assessee namely M/s. Gadgets India with consequential relief to the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 6. Dictated and pronounced in the open court.
-
1994 (3) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hem in manufacture of sub-assemblies which in turn are used as OE parts rsquo in tractors. There cannot be any such intention in the case of the appellants because they are not manufacturer of tractors. Condition (i) of the notification is clearly substantive in character. Thermax (P) Ltd. relied upon by the learned advocate is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case and to the controversy before us, as rightly contended by the ld. S.D.R. Hence we uphold the impugned order. 4.3 emsp Superintendent rsquo s letter dt. 4-5-1993 regarding demand of duty was not a subject matter of the proceedings before the lower authorities. Show cause notice did not envisage any demand of duty. Therefore, no duty can be demanded in pursuance of the lower authorities rsquo orders. Revenue has to follow the procedure laid down under the Act or the rules made thereunder. We do not pass any orders in respect of the said letter dt. 4-5-1993. 5. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (3) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... ed from payment of duty on its further utilisation in the factory itself, then the question of collecting duty does not arise. The grant of benefit of exemption under notification in question is only on the criteria of the goods being ldquo manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured rdquo . Admittedly, the goods manufactured, were intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, thus the question of discharging duty on the basis of mere fact of raising an invoice in favour of B.P.L. Finance Ltd. does not create a liability for charging duty at all. So long as the goods have been manufactured in a factory and are intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, the exemption straight away applies. As stated earlier, the levy of excise duty is on manufacture and not on saleability, as already noted from the rulings cited above. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... arts of the assessees and they were acting under a bona fide belief for classification of the goods under 7307.10. We, therefore, regid the prayers, of the appellant Collector for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty in Appeal No. E/2631/89-B1. There is, however, one more prayer by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur i.e. regarding imposition of duty on pre-budget stock but clear after 1-3-1986. This prayer is of no consequences in view of the show-cause notice having been already found as barred by time for demand. 10. Question of imposition of penalty and redemption fine also does not arise in Appeal No. E/55/89-B1, 1260/89-B1 and E/364/90-B1 as we have already held in the appeal of the Collector (in Appeal No. E/2631/89-B1) that the assessees were apparently acting under bona fide belief. Therefore, penal action by way of confiscation and penalty are not called for in the facts and circumstances of these cases. 11. Appeals disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (3) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... r with the argument advanced by the Departmental Representative that this issue was precisely considered in the case of Plasmac Machine Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We are not inclined to take a different view on the issue of classification. Following the precedent we hold that items in question were classifiable under Tariff Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. 8. emsp As regards time barring issue, we find that there is some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. Classification issue of the items was not free from doubt and having regard to the nature, facts and circumstances of the case particularly in the absence of specific allegation of suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty in the show cause notice, we are of the view that Department was not justified in raising demand beyond the period of six months. Accordingly, we hold that demand prior to 8-10-1981 was barred by time. 9. Thus, these two appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (3) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ugs and Liniments, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) becomes relevant laying down that in order to invoke the longer period for demanding duty, it has to be shown that there had been a conscious and deliberate withholding of information by the assessee when he knew otherwise. In the present case from the discussion supra, this cannot be said to have happened. In the circumstances, the order proposed by Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) that the demand in this case is not enforceable for the extended period, is concurred with. Dt. 2-3-1994 (K.S. Venkataramani) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 38. In terms of the majority order, it is held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 247/77-C.E., dated 23-7-1977 and in view of the matter the Revenue appeal is allowed subject to the demands being confirmed for only six months and that the demands are not enforceable for the extended period. Dt. 7-3-1994 (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) (Lajja Ram) Member (T)
-
1994 (3) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... msp Assent per P.K. Kapoor, Member (T), agreeing with Vice President . - On the point of difference referred to me I have heard both sides. Having regard to the fact that on the question of classification of the disputed goods the matter is covered in favour of the applicants by the orders of the Tribunal and also having regard to the fact that the Assistant Collector who was directed to go into the question whether the amount should be credited to the fund or paid to the applicants had arrived at the finding that the applicants had not passed on the duty incidence to the buyer I am inclined to agree with the order recorded by the learned Vice President. Dated 2nd March, 1994 (P.K. Kapoor) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 12. emsp In view of the majority opinion no pre-deposit is called for and recovery is stayed subject to the appellant giving an undertaking to the Collector as proposed by the Vice President. dt. 7-3-1994 (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) (S.K.Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1994 (3) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Life saving equipment ... ... ... ... ..... ess than Rs. 500/- p.m. whenever made available for this purpose not less than 10 of beds are reserved. 4. emsp Certified that the charges levied for other indoor patients are reasonable either on the basis of the income of patients/guardians or otherwise. 5. emsp Certified that the Medical, Surgical and Diagnostic Equipments apparatus and appliances to be imported, will be used in the Institution itself only and will not be removed therefrom for private use and will not be sold or otherwise disposed off without prior permission of the Government. THE CERTIFICATE IS VALIED FOR CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 1989-90. SD/- Jt. Director of Health Services (PDE) Bombay . 17. emsp In view of our findings in terms of these clarifications given by the Director of Health and enormous evidence placed by the importers and taking into consideration, the salient law laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the noted cases. The appellant succeeds in the appeal and the same is allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... e appellants. Therefore, its question of removal for use in the manufacture of Audio Cassette Tapes and consequently duty liability on such Audio Cassette Housing (CO) in terms of Rule 9 does not arise. 28. In view of the aforesaid finding, the plea regarding the demand being time barred is merely of academic interest. Nevertheless, I agree with my learned brother on the reasoning and the conclusion relating to this aspect in para 24 of his order. Various findings by the adjudicating authority to the effect that no proper declaration was made regarding the process of manufacture, that there were discrepancies in two classification lists submitted once in March 1986 and another in April 1986 and that the plea of non-manufacture of Audio Cassette Housing (CO) on account of its not coming into existence before Audio Cassette Tape being an afterthought, cannot act as an estoppel on the question of time bar. 29. Hence I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1994 (3) TMI 183 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Search, seizure and arrest - Narcotics ... ... ... ... ..... d followed. 7. But, in connection with the first contention, raised on behalf of the respondent, I am totally unable to persuade myself to countenance his view for the reason that it goes to the very root of the power vested with this Court under Section 37(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Enough for me at this stage to hold that this Court has ample power to exercise its power for granting bail, but subject to the limitation provided under Section 37(b) of the Act as was clearly spelt out by the Supreme Court in Kishan Lal and Others case, stated supra 1991 (52) E.L.T. 328 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 53 . In these circumstances, I do not find any need or necessity to traverse each and every one of the case laws relied on, on behalf of the respective parties herein. 8. In the result, I have to hold that there is no material available in favour of the petitioner to have an escape from the clutches of Section 37(b) of the Act and that for the said reason, the petition for bail is hereby dismissed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI ... ... ... ... ..... nt situation and are differently worded and are independent of each other. The case of Ashapura Electricals Ltd. v. CCE, 1989 (42) E.L.T. 709, is also not appropriate to the present case as in that case the dispute was regarding the availability of modvat (proforma) credit under Rule 56-A and it was decided after taking into consideration the various other circumstances, that is to say, the Department themselves have not chosen to issue a fresh licence treating the company as an entirely different manufacturing concern, and that in any case there was a substantial compliance of Rule 56-A. Besides, sub-rule (6) of Rule 56-A also provides for the transfer of unutilised proforma credit in case of a transfer of the business of such manufacturer to another manufacturer, though with the prior permissions of the Collector. That apart, that was a case of conversion of the partnership concern into a limited company. 17.In the result, the appeals are rejected being devoid of any merit.
-
1994 (3) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... te rope is clearly covered under Item 18D CET read with its Explanation I. Item 18D is for ldquo Jute Yarn, all sorts. rdquo Explanation I says, ldquo Jute yarn shall include jute twist, thread rope and twine rdquo . Hence classification of the rope under Item 18D is in order. Nor can we accept the contention that there is no manufacturing process involved, because it is clear from the Explanation I to Item 18D, that even jute twist and twine are covered, and, it is also noted that the appellants had led no evidence to show that no market exists for the goods, which is the relevant and vital criterion in this regard. However, on the quantum of penalty on the appellants, we feel there is a case for relief especially considering Collector rsquo s own finding that they are not chargeable with suppression of facts. The penalty is, therefore, reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). The Collector rsquo s order is modified only to this extent. It is otherwise upheld.
-
1994 (3) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Proforma Credit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... in RG-23A or in PLA or in cash. For the period after 1-3-1986 when Modvat Scheme had come into force, the appellants would be entitled to adjustment in terms of the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Steel Authority of India 1990 (47) E.L.T. 389 and SAIL Rourkela Steel Plant 1990 (47) E.L.T. 394 wherein it has been held that Modvat credit is admissible in respect of duty payment effected subsequent to the state of clearance and as long as the subsequent duty payment is correctly authenticated, the benefit of Rule 57-A is available and cannot be whittled down by the provisions contained in Rule 57-E which, prior to 1-3-1987, did not provide for upward adjustment of Modvat credit on account of recovery of duty subsequent to clearance of goods. 5. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the appellants are entitled to adjustment of differential duty paid, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1994 (3) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r HSN Explanatory Notes under Heading 68.15, It has been stated that the heading covers articles of Stone or of other mineral substances not covered by earlier headings of Chapter 68 and not included elsewhere in the Nomenclature. Here, it is to be noted that the goods imported are parts of furnace burners which are specifically covered under Heading 84.16 CTA, and parts thereof are also specifically covered under sub-heading 8416.90 CTA. Moreover, it may also be pertinent to note that natural graphite is specifically covered in Chapter 25 CTA for ldquo Mineral Products rdquo and under specific Heading 25.04 which reads ldquo National Graphite rdquo So when Heading 68.15 covers only, inter alia, articles of other mineral substances then that heading will not accommodate articles not made of natural graphite. In this view of the matter, the impugned Order classifying the goods under sub-heading 6815.10 CTA is not sustainable and is set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper board articles, printed ... ... ... ... ..... e non-dutiability of outer shells rsquo - alone on the basis of Delhi High Court rsquo s decision Zupiter Printery. But he submits that outershells and inner slides where manufactured together will be dutiable. On the same analogy, he holds that where hings lids cut out and inner frames are manufactured in the same factory, they would also be dutiable. 8. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. It is true that before Delhi High Court , there was only the question of dutiability of outer shell alone. But the judgment of Madras High Court in Asia Tobacco, supra is complete answer to the contention of the learned SDR. 8.1 emsp Reasoning which led the High Court of Madras to rule against the dutiability of outershell and inner slides rsquo applies equally to the hinge lids cut out and inner frames. 9. emsp Accordingly, following respectfully the decisions of the two Courts, we allow the appeals of the assessees and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue.
-
1994 (3) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Revolver - Absolute confiscation not necessary ... ... ... ... ..... . JDR appearing for the respondent submitted that the revolver was confiscated absolutely and that there has been no relaxation of the ban imposed on import of fire arms. He reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 3. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. I find that there has been a number of cases where the Tribunal has allowed redemption of confiscated revolvers. Having regard to the fact that there has been no relaxation in the ban on import of fire arms, I sustain confiscation order passed by the lower authorities. Further having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has been allowing redemption of fire arms, I following the ratio of those decisions, allow redemption of the revolver in question on payment of a fine of 400 of CIF value. Duty at appropriate rate shall also be payable on the revolver. Further the revolver will be released only on production of appropriate fire arms licence. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above findings.
............
|
