|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 371 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 153
Issues:
1. Transit losses of low sulphur heavy stock (LSHS) during transportation.
2. Consideration of losses and gains in transit losses cases.
3. Allocation of special type of wagons by Railways.
4. Reconciliation of losses and gains on a periodic basis.
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to transit losses of low sulphur heavy stock (LSHS) during transportation by tank wagons to the installation of Indian Oil Corporation at Tirunelveli in February and March 1987. The applicants reported losses in thirteen consignments and excess in eighteen out of thirty-one consignments during the relevant period. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) allowed condonation of losses up to 0.5% and 1% respectively. However, the plea for setting off losses against gains was not considered by the lower authorities.
2. The applicants explained that LSHS is a heavy residual stock fuel oil obtained from the primary distillation of Bombay High Crude, which solidifies at normal ambient temperature and needs to be heated for handling. Due to its characteristics, it may not be fully discharged at the destination, leading to over-carriage and excess receipts in some consignments. The specially designed wagons used by the applicants are reloaded within a week to ten days for consecutive dispatches.
3. The Government observed that when full discharge of LSHS does not take place, the goods are not lost but reflected in substantial gains. Therefore, it would be improper to consider losses only without accounting for gains, especially when there is no negligence or mala fide intent on the part of the applicants. The judgment cited a previous case related to adjusting losses and gains for different items to support the decision to consider losses and gains on a periodic basis.
4. In light of the above discussions, the Government directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the case, taking into account both losses and gains on a periodic basis and determining duty on net losses alone after allowing condonation up to permissible limits. The reconciliation of losses and gains was ordered to be done on a monthly basis due to the frequency of rake movement. Two other revision applications relating to similar transit loss issues were also disposed of in the same terms as the main case.
-
1991 (4) TMI 152
The Supreme Court disposed of civil appeals regarding classification under the Customs Tariff. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Collector of Customs. The appellant and the department can present their cases on classification. The Tribunal observed no arguments on the applicability of Tariff Item No. 15, but the issue had been raised previously. The matter has been remanded to the Assistant Collector for further examination.
-
1991 (4) TMI 151
The petitioner, a Sugar Mill, stored excess molasses in pits with permission from Central Excise authorities under a bond. When molasses burnt, petitioner sought remission of excise duty, but authorities denied. Court directed petitioner to appeal within specified date for consideration without limitation objection. Writ petition disposed off with no costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 149
The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the petitioners who imported Hydrogen Peroxide from Taiwan. Respondents 1 to 4 were directed to release the goods based on the invoice value and issue a Detention Certificate. The petition was made absolute, and the rule was considered accordingly.
-
1991 (4) TMI 147
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 159/85 rescinding Notification No. 88/84.
2. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel against the Central Government.
3. Nature of statutory notifications issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Notification No. 159/85 Rescinding Notification No. 88/84:
The petitioner-company, engaged in manufacturing tyres, tubes, and flaps, was initially granted excise duty exemptions under Notification No. 88/84, which extended benefits to units licensed under Section 13 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The petitioner-company had made substantial investments and was certified by the DGTD, making it eligible for significant excise duty rebates. However, Notification No. 159/85 rescinded Notification No. 88/84, leading to the cessation of these benefits and resulting in the petitioner paying excess duty. The court found that the rescission of Notification No. 88/84 by Notification No. 159/85 was unenforceable and void as it deprived the petitioner of accrued benefits without a valid justification.
2. Application of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel Against the Central Government:
The petitioner argued that the rescission of Notification No. 88/84 should be declared ultra vires based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court examined several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Motilal Padampath Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Pournami Oil Mill v. State of Kerala, and Dharanendra Trading Company v. A.C.C.T., which upheld the principle of promissory estoppel against the State. The court concluded that the petitioner-company, having acted upon the representation made by the government and invested substantially, was entitled to the benefits promised under Notification No. 88/84 for the full period of seven years. The court held that the principle of promissory estoppel applied, making the rescission of the notification unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary.
3. Nature of Statutory Notifications Issued Under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The Central Government contended that the principle of promissory estoppel could not be applied to legislative functions, including subordinate legislation under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The court reviewed various decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which discussed the legislative nature of such notifications. The court distinguished between plenary legislative functions and subordinate legislation, concluding that statutory notifications, while legislative in character, are subject to judicial review and the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Bharat Commerce Industries v. Union of India, which upheld the application of promissory estoppel against notifications issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing Notification No. 159/85 as it applied to the petitioner and ordered the Union of India to refund the excess duty of Rs. 34,36,487.10 to the petitioner-company within eight weeks. The judgment reinforced the application of promissory estoppel to statutory notifications and protected the petitioner's accrued benefits under the earlier notification.
-
1991 (4) TMI 146
Issues: Classification of tobacco as manufactured or unmanufactured for Central Excise duty.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the sale of tobacco under specific brand names, sought to challenge the communication from the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, classifying their tobacco as manufactured under Chapter sub-heading 2404.41 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner contended that their tobacco should be classified as unmanufactured based on a trade notice and previous communication from the Asstt. Collector. The dispute revolved around whether the tobacco sold by the petitioner under the brand names "Hari Chhap Tobacco" and "Bandar Dholak Chhap Tobacco" should be considered manufactured or unmanufactured for the purpose of Central Excise duty.
The petitioner argued that the impugned order classifying their tobacco as manufactured was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. They claimed that the issue of classification should have been decided after providing them with a proper opportunity to be heard and that the report of the Chemical Examiner, if relied upon, was not communicated to them. The petitioner emphasized that they were not given a chance to present their case against the classification decision.
On the other hand, the Central Government's counsel contended that the order was appealable, and the petitioner should have pursued the appellate remedy. They argued that the classification was based on the report of the Chemical Examiner, which was a valid basis for the decision.
The High Court, after considering the arguments, found that the impugned order was indeed passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court highlighted the importance of the classification issue, as it determined the levy or non-levy of duty on the tobacco products. Despite the provisional treatment of the goods as manufactured due to seizure, the final decision on classification should have been made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the court quashed the order dated 6-12-1990 classifying the tobacco as manufactured, along with the consequential proceedings issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise on 10-12-1990.
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Asstt. Collector to decide the classification issue promptly after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Until a final determination was made, the petitioner was permitted to clear the goods by executing the bond as specified in the Asstt. Collector's earlier letter. The court made no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing in matters of classification for Central Excise duty.
-
1991 (4) TMI 145
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the telex message restraining the petitioner from operating the advance licence.
2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Validity of the Customs Authorities' refusal to release the imported goods.
4. Authority and jurisdiction of the respondents under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Telex Message:
The primary issue is whether the respondents were justified in issuing the telex message restraining the petitioner from operating the advance licence. The petitioner had received an advance licence for importing pig iron under the Duty Exemption Scheme, which was subsequently enhanced. However, the Customs Authorities refused to release the goods based on the telex message from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, New Delhi, instructing the petitioner not to operate the licence until further advice.
2. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized the importance of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Liberty Oil Mills, which stated, "We do not think that it is permissible to interpret any statutory instrument so as to exclude natural justice unless the language of the instrument leaves no option to the Court." The court noted that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before issuing the telex, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court further stated, "The rules of natural justice have to be fulfilled at the threshold before the power under 9(3) comes into play."
3. Validity of the Customs Authorities' Refusal to Release the Imported Goods:
The Customs Authorities refused to release the goods based solely on the telex message. The court found this action unjustified, as the telex was issued without a pending investigation or any prima facie suspicion of wrongdoing by the petitioner. The court highlighted that the reasons provided by the respondents for initiating an investigation were not substantial and did not justify the harsh action taken against the petitioner.
4. Authority and Jurisdiction of the Respondents under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955:
The respondents claimed to have acted under Clauses 8 and 9 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. However, the court found that no proceedings were pending under these clauses, and no show cause notice had been served on the petitioner. The court stated, "The action of the Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 therefore in issuing the telex is not only ultra vires the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, but also in violation of the principles of Natural Justice." The court also noted that the respondents were unable to disclose the source of their power for issuing the telex, and the interim suspension was not supported by any substantive clause of the Order.
Conclusion:
The court held that the writ application must be allowed. The impugned telex was set aside, and the respondents were directed to release and allow clearance of the said goods covered by the advance licence. The court clarified that this order does not restrain the respondent licensing authority from taking action if an investigation is subsequently commenced under the said Order against the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded the cost of the application by the respondents 4 to 6. The prayer for stay made by the respondents was refused.
-
1991 (4) TMI 144
The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition against two orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, stating that an application for 'Reference' should be filed before the Tribunal first. If declined, the petitioner can approach the High Court.
-
1991 (4) TMI 143
Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty illegally collected by a private limited company.
2. Non-compliance with the High Court's order directing refund.
3. Contempt of court proceedings initiated against the respondent for failure to refund the amount.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing plywood and wood articles, sought a refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,36,329.74 and Rs. 56,000/- for the period from February 6, 1987, to March 17, 1990. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal had classified the goods under a specific tariff sub-heading, entitling the company to the refund. Despite an order from the High Court directing the respondent to implement the Tribunal's decision and refund the amount due, only a partial refund of Rs. 56,000/- was processed, leading the company to file a writ petition for the remaining amount.
2. The Division Bench of the High Court issued a final order directing the respondent to implement the Tribunal's decision within two months, subject to no stay order from the Supreme Court. The court further ordered immediate release of any amount found due upon implementation. However, the respondent failed to refund the remaining amount within the stipulated time and instead issued a show cause notice to the company, questioning the refund application on the grounds of unjust enrichment.
3. The respondent's issuance of the show cause notice, contrary to the High Court's order, prompted the company to file a contempt petition. The respondent justified the notice based on government instructions regarding unjust enrichment, which the court deemed unacceptable. The court clarified that executive instructions cannot override judicial interpretations of statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the issue at hand was the respondent's violation of the court order to refund the amount due to the company, irrespective of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The court admitted the contempt petition and directed the respondent to appear in person for further proceedings.
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of complying with court orders, especially regarding the refund of duties illegally collected, and emphasizes that executive instructions cannot supersede judicial interpretations of the law.
-
1991 (4) TMI 142
Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs regarding the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
2. Eligibility of the importer of synthetic rags and imposition of personal penalty.
3. Validity of the restriction on the port of import and the requirement of mutilation of goods as per Public Notice 1/88.
4. Conditions for the release of goods and the satisfaction of authorities regarding the nature of goods.
Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Collector of Customs dated 1-4-1991, which confiscated goods and imposed penalties. The petitioner, an importer of synthetic rags through Tuticorin Port, faced issues related to the port restriction and the mutilation of goods as per Public Notice 1/88. The Additional Collector imposed a redemption fine and a personal penalty of Rs. 40,000. The petitioner contended that being an eligible importer, the personal penalty was unwarranted and that the port restriction had been invalidated by the Court. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the Public Notice 1/88 did not apply to the relevant policy period.
Regarding the eligibility of the importer and the port restriction, the Court found that the petitioner was eligible and that the port restriction had been struck down. The Court also noted that the policy required rags for shoddy yarn to be worn-out beyond repair. Therefore, the authorities were justified in assessing the nature of the goods. Consequently, the Court directed the release of goods subject to specific conditions, including payment of duty, redemption fine, and the provision of a bank guarantee and personal bond.
The judgment addressed the issue of mutilation of goods, stating that if authorities were unsatisfied with the initial mutilation, they could request further mutilation at the petitioner's expense. The Court deferred consideration of the personal penalty until the final disposal of the writ petition, scheduling the matter for final disposal on 27-6-1991. The judgment balanced the interests of the petitioner and the authorities, ensuring compliance with relevant policies while allowing for the release of goods under specified conditions.
-
1991 (4) TMI 141
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act
2. Challenge to the impugned order
3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions
4. Application of Section 24 of the Customs Act
Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 3(1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner contended that the buttons/snap fasteners found mixed with the imported scrap were actually scrap and met the specifications for grade "Honey" scrap. The petitioner argued that the Customs Authorities should have released the uncontested portion of the scrap and that the option given for mutilation of the buttons/snap fasteners should have precluded the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty.
2. The petitioner relied on various legal precedents to support the contention that there was no alternative remedy available. The Court noted that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was warranted in this case due to errors in the impugned order. The Respondent No. 1 had not considered crucial factors, such as the discrepancy in the quantity of buttons/snap fasteners and the certificate from the foreign seller regarding the condition of the items.
3. The respondents argued that the import of metal buttons/snap fasteners required a license as per the ITC Policy of 1990-93, and the mis-declaration of these items as scrap justified confiscation. However, the Court found that the impugned order was based on erroneous assumptions and failed to address key aspects, such as the petitioner's offer for mutilation of the items. The Court emphasized that the Customs Authorities could not both mutilate the items into scrap and treat them as separate items for imposing fines and penalties.
4. Section 24 of the Customs Act was analyzed, which allows for the denaturing or mutilation of imported goods to render them unfit for certain purposes. The Court highlighted that if goods were mutilated, they should be chargeable to duty based on their mutilated form. As the buttons/snap fasteners were not in good condition and were intended for scrap use after mutilation, the duty should be charged accordingly. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the re-adjudication of the matter by the Respondent No. 1, considering the observations made in the judgment.
-
1991 (4) TMI 140
Issues:
1. Prosecution under Sections 135 and 135A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Acquittal of accused by the Trial Court.
3. Appeal by Union of India against the acquittal.
4. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
5. Validity of seizure by Police and Customs Authorities.
6. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
7. Application of benefit of doubt to the accused.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a prosecution case under Sections 135 and 135A of the Customs Act, 1962, where three accused individuals were charged based on a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The police party encountered the accused at a residential premises near the border, leading to a confrontation where contraband goods were recovered. The accused were subsequently charged, and after trial, acquitted by the Trial Court.
2. The Trial Court acquitted all three accused, prompting the Union of India to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges under the Customs Act and claimed to be tried, resulting in the appeal challenging the acquittal decision.
3. The High Court heard arguments from both parties and examined the record before reaching a decision on the appeal filed by the Union of India against the acquittal of the accused individuals by the Trial Court. The judgment highlighted the assertions made by the accused during the trial proceedings regarding the circumstances of their alleged involvement in the case.
4. The judgment delves into the burden of proof as outlined in Section 123 of the Customs Act, which specifies the obligations concerning seized goods believed to be smuggled. The Court considered the application of this provision in the case and the significance of proving innocence in such circumstances.
5. The validity of the seizure of contraband goods by both the Police and Customs Authorities was a crucial aspect of the case. The Court examined the sequence of events leading to the recovery and subsequent handling of the seized goods, including the statements recorded by the police and the Customs Authorities.
6. The judgment includes an interpretation of the legal provisions relevant to the case, citing precedents and authorities to elucidate the application of the law in similar contexts. The Court referred to past judgments to support its analysis of the legal framework governing customs-related offenses and the burden of proof in such cases.
7. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to give the benefit of doubt to the accused individuals, leading to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Union of India. The judgment affirmed the findings of the Trial Court regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, emphasizing the importance of upholding the principle of the benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings.
-
1991 (4) TMI 139
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner can clear goods provisionally under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, based on the wholesale price charged by M/s. Peico Limited.
2. Whether the interim order reflected in Annexure P-4 can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without first obtaining a final order from the authorities.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Provisional Clearance of Goods under Rule 9B
The petitioner challenged the issuance of Annexure P-4 by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Range, Mohali, which allowed provisional clearance of goods pending the Collector's decision in a similar review proceeding. The petitioner manufactures dry cell batteries for sale to M/s. Peico Limited, which are sold at a normal price in the usual course of business. The petitioner argued that M/s. Peico Limited is neither a related person nor a favored buyer, and the transactions are on a principal-to-principal basis. The petitioner contended that excise duty should be charged based on the price at which the batteries are sold to M/s. Peico Limited, as it represents the full value of the goods.
The petitioner relied on Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, which states that the valuation of excisable goods for charging excise duty should be based on the normal price at which the goods are sold to an unrelated buyer in the course of wholesale trade. The petitioner argued that the price charged to M/s. Peico Limited should be the basis for excise duty, as it includes only manufacturing costs and profits, excluding post-manufacturing costs and profits.
The Collector issued a show cause notice under Section 35A of the Act, proposing to levy excise duty based on the price at which M/s. Peico Limited sells the goods in wholesale. The petitioner challenged this view, arguing that the excise duty should be based on the price at which the goods are sold to M/s. Peico Limited, as the petitioner is the manufacturer and M/s. Peico Limited is merely a buyer.
The court held that the petitioner manufactures goods according to the specifications provided by M/s. Peico Limited and sells them at a wholesale price stipulated in the agreement. The excise duty should be based on the price at which the petitioner sells the goods to M/s. Peico Limited, not the price at which M/s. Peico Limited sells the goods to its wholesale dealers. The court relied on the precedent set in "Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others v. M/s. Food Specialities Limited," where it was held that excise duty should be based on the value at which the manufacturer sold the goods to the buyer, even if the buyer affixes its trademark on the goods.
Issue 2: Challenge to Interim Order in Writ Petition
The respondents argued that the petitioner should first obtain a final order from the authorities and then challenge it in the appellate and revisional forums. However, the court noted that the petition had been admitted, and the plea of alternative remedy could not be raised at the final argument stage after a decade. The court also observed that the impugned order reflected the authorities' view in clear terms, making it appropriate to address the legal questions in the writ jurisdiction.
The court concluded that it would be unjust and inequitable to require the petitioner to seek redress from the Collector of Central Excise or the appellate and revisional authorities, especially when the facts were admitted, and the legal questions could be determined within the writ jurisdiction. The court cited precedents from various cases, including "M/s. Mysore Acetate & Chemical Company Limited v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Mysore" and "Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others," to support its decision to address the merits of the case without insisting on a final decision from the authorities.
Judgment:
The court set aside Annexure P-4 and directed the respondents to levy excise duty based on the price charged by the petitioner from M/s. Peico Limited, not the price charged by M/s. Peico Limited from its wholesale agents. The petitioner was allowed to release the bank guarantee after paying the excise duty based on the stipulated price. No order as to costs was made.
-
1991 (4) TMI 138
Issues Involved:
1. Levy and collection of additional excise duty on goods manufactured before the enactment of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978.
2. Interpretation of 'retrospective' application of the Act.
3. Legislative background and relationship between the Act of 1944 and the Act of 1978.
4. Validity of the Deputy Collector's interpretation and departmental practices.
5. Interpretation of the term 'duty' under Rule 2(v) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
6. Application of Rule 9A and Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
7. Case law and precedents cited.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Levy and Collection of Additional Excise Duty:
The petitioner contended that additional excise duty under the Act of 1978 cannot be levied on goods manufactured before the Act came into force on October 4, 1978. The court examined Section 3 of the Act of 1978, which provides for the levy and collection of additional excise duty at the time goods are assessed to duty. The court concluded that the additional duty is to be levied and collected at the stage of assessment of excise duty, which occurs at the time of removal of goods from the factory. Therefore, goods manufactured before the Act came into force but not cleared would attract additional excise duty.
2. Interpretation of 'Retrospective':
The petitioner argued that applying the Act of 1978 to goods manufactured before its enactment would be retrospective. The court clarified the meaning of 'retrospective' using established legal principles, stating that a statute is not considered retrospective merely because it applies to goods manufactured before the Act if the goods were not assessed to duty before the Act came into force. The court held that the Act of 1978 is not retrospective as it does not impair any vested rights or create new obligations for past transactions.
3. Legislative Background:
The court discussed the legislative background, noting that the Act of 1944 and the Act of 1978 are supplemental to each other. Section 3(3) of the Act of 1978 incorporates provisions of the Act of 1944 and the rules framed thereunder, including those related to refunds and exemptions. The court emphasized that the additional duty under the Act of 1978 is in addition to the duty chargeable under the Act of 1944 and is to be levied at the stage of assessment of excise duty.
4. Validity of Deputy Collector's Interpretation:
The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on a letter from the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, which stated that goods fully manufactured before October 4, 1978, would not attract additional duty. The court held that the Deputy Collector's interpretation does not change the legal position, as he had no authority to grant exemptions or alter the law.
5. Interpretation of 'Duty' under Rule 2(v):
The petitioner argued that 'duty' under Rule 2(v) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, refers only to duty payable under Section 3 of the Act of 1944 and not to additional duty under the Act of 1978. The court rejected this argument, stating that the additional duty under the Act of 1978 is in addition to the duty under the Act of 1944 and is to be assessed and collected in the same manner.
6. Application of Rule 9A and Rule 49:
The court addressed the petitioner's contention that interpreting the Act of 1978 using Rule 9A and Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, would be inverse logic. The court clarified that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1944, read together, constitute the charging section, and the rules make the scheme workable. The court concluded that the provisions of Rule 9A and Rule 49 apply to the additional duty under the Act of 1978, and the duty is to be levied at the stage of removal of goods.
7. Case Law and Precedents:
The court referred to various case laws to support its conclusions. In the case of Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, it was held that excise duty is on manufacture, but its realization can be postponed to the date of removal. Similarly, in Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. Union of India, it was held that the rate of duty applicable at the time of removal is relevant. The court also discussed other cases cited by the petitioner and intervenors, concluding that they did not alter the interpretation of the Act of 1978.
Conclusion:
The court rejected the petition, holding that the additional excise duty under the Act of 1978 applies to goods manufactured before the Act came into force but not cleared. The Act is not retrospective, and the provisions of the Act of 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944, apply to the levy and collection of additional duty. The interpretations and practices of the Deputy Collector and the department do not change the legal position.
-
1991 (4) TMI 137
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of caution or warning under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Applicability of Section 164(2) Cr. P.C. to statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Admissibility of statements recorded without caution or warning.
4. Right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
5. Applicability of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act to statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
6. Maintainability of writ petitions in the context of imminent penal action.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Requirement of Caution or Warning under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The petitioners contended that the empowered officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act must administer a caution or warning to the person summoned that any confessional statement made may be used as evidence against them. The court examined whether there is a legal obligation for such a warning, similar to the requirement under Section 164(2) Cr. P.C., before recording a confessional statement.
2. Applicability of Section 164(2) Cr. P.C. to Statements Recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The court analyzed Section 4(1) and Section 4(2) of the Cr. P.C., which stipulate that all offenses under the IPC and other laws should be investigated and tried according to the provisions of the Code, subject to any enactment regulating such procedures. The court noted the absence of specific provisions in the Customs Act for recording confessional statements, implying the necessity to adhere to Section 164(2) Cr. P.C. for such recordings.
3. Admissibility of Statements Recorded without Caution or Warning:
The court referred to precedents, including Kehar Singh and Others v. The State (Delhi Administration), emphasizing that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 164(2) Cr. P.C. renders a confessional statement inadmissible in evidence. The court held that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without the required caution or warning are inadmissible for any purpose.
4. Right Against Self-Incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The court reiterated that Section 108 of the Customs Act does not compel a person to incriminate themselves and they can maintain silence if their answers are likely to incriminate them. This aligns with the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as established in K.K. Goenka v. Superintendent of Customs Preventive.
5. Applicability of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act to Statements Recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The respondents argued that Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a bar to the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court clarified that Section 24 applies to any person who subsequently becomes accused, provided criminal proceedings were in prospect at the time of making the statement, as elucidated in State of U.P. v. Deoman.
6. Maintainability of Writ Petitions in the Context of Imminent Penal Action:
The court addressed the maintainability of the writ petitions, noting that penal action had already been initiated against the petitioners. The court cited S.M.D. Kiran Pasha v. Govt. of A.P., emphasizing that Article 226 of the Constitution allows for pre-violation protection of rights. The court concluded that the writ petitions were maintainable to prevent further action based on the inadmissible statements.
Conclusion:
The court directed the issuance of writs forbidding the respondents from using or acting upon the impugned statements for launching or continuing any penal action or prosecution under any enactment against the petitioners. The writ petitions were allowed, and no costs were awarded.
-
1991 (4) TMI 136
Issues:
The judgment involves the question of whether the petitioner can avail of the concessional rate of duty under Heading 84.66 of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Import of Empty Gas Cylinders
The petitioner started new units for manufacturing gases but faced constraints in importing gas cylinders required for achieving full licensed capacity. The petitioner applied for import approval, and the Ministry forwarded the papers to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The petitioner sought endorsement for project import under the Indian Customs Tariff, which was later replaced by Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Issue 2: Registration of Contract
The petitioner entered into a contract with a Japanese firm for the supply of gas cylinders and applied for registration under the Project Imports Regulations. However, the respondent refused to register the contract, leading to the petitioner's challenge through an application in 1979.
Issue 3: Interpretation of 'Initial Setting Up'
The Customs Authorities contended that 'initial setting up' should refer to the first commissioning, while the petitioner argued for a broader interpretation to include phased implementation. The judgment rejected the Customs Authorities' narrow interpretation, emphasizing that 'setting up' means completion and includes phased implementation for the first time.
Issue 4: Construction of Regulations
The judgment highlighted that the phrase 'initial setting up' should be construed liberally to promote industrialization, in line with the Supreme Court's stance on concessional rates for encouraging industrial activity. It also emphasized the mandatory nature of registering contracts under the Project Imports Regulations to ensure the benefits of Heading 84.66 are not undermined.
In conclusion, the judgment set aside the respondent's decision, ruling in favor of the petitioner's entitlement to the concessional rate under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
-
1991 (4) TMI 135
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dt. 17-2-1986.
2. Whether the imported Bottle Labelling Machine qualifies for exemption under the said notification.
3. Preliminary objections raised by the respondents regarding alternative remedies, waiver, and prematurity of the writ petition.
4. Definition and scope of "food article" within the context of the notification.
5. Procedural irregularities in the decision-making process of the Customs Authority.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dt. 17-2-1986:
The primary issue is the interpretation of Notification No. 125/86-Cus., which exempts certain goods from customs duty when imported for use in processing/packaging of food articles. The petitioner imported a fully automatic Bottle Labelling Machine and claimed exemption under this notification. The Customs Authority rejected this claim, leading to the present writ petition.
2. Whether the Imported Bottle Labelling Machine Qualifies for Exemption:
The petitioner argued that the machine should be exempted as it is used in the packaging of beer, which they contended is a food article. The Customs Authority did not dispute the classification of the machine under Tariff Heading No. 8422.20 or its coverage under Item No. 20 of the notification but questioned whether beer qualifies as a food article.
3. Preliminary Objections Raised by the Respondents:
- Alternative Remedy: The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. However, the court found that relegating the petitioner to this remedy would serve no useful purpose, as the Customs Authority had already categorically rejected the petitioner's contentions.
- Waiver and Estoppel: The respondents claimed that the petitioner waived its right to claim exemption by a letter from its agent. The court found that the Customs Authority did not treat the matter as concluded by this letter, as they still offered a personal hearing.
- Prematurity of the Writ Petition: The respondents argued that the writ petition was premature since the Customs Authority had offered a personal hearing. The court disagreed, noting that the assessment on the Bill of Entry was final and the Customs Authority had already formed a view on the matter.
4. Definition and Scope of "Food Article":
- Object and Context of the Notification: The court examined the broader context, including the Agricultural and Processed Food Product Export Development Authority Act, 1985, and the establishment of the Ministry of Food Processing Industry. Both included beer as a food product, indicating that the term "food article" in the notification should encompass beer.
- Literal Construction: The court noted that "food" has no fixed definition and varies by statute. It cited various sources, including the New Encyclopaedia Britannica and an article in Brewers Digest, which recognized beer's nutritional value.
- Common Parlance: The court considered whether beer is understood as food by those who deal with it, including Customs Authorities, export/import authorities, and food departments. The court found that beer is treated as a food article by these authorities and in certain social contexts.
5. Procedural Irregularities:
The petitioner argued that the Customs Authority's decision was procedurally flawed as they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The court agreed, noting that this procedural irregularity justified interference under Article 226.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that beer is a food article within the meaning of the said notification. It found the Customs Authority's decision to be perverse and set aside the assessment made on the Bill of Entry. The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of the notification and release the machine upon payment of the duty as per the notification. No order as to costs was made, and the petitioner was instructed not to dispose of or encumber the machine for three weeks.
Operative Part:
The respondents were directed to release the machine forthwith, and all parties were to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment.
-
1991 (4) TMI 134
Issues:
1. Import of stamping foil for leather industry.
2. Requirement of manufacturer's catalogue/literature for Customs clearance.
3. Legal validity of impugned show cause notice.
Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner, engaged in manufacturing leather products, imported stamping foil from West Germany for use in their factory. The goods arrived at the port of Calcutta in April 1989, and the petitioner duly filed a Bill of Entry for Home consumption. The Customs authorities provisionally assessed the goods under an exemption notification and warehoused them pending determination of end-use in the leather industry. Despite representations, clearance was not granted.
2. The Customs authorities insisted on the production of manufacturer's catalogue/literature to establish the intended use of the stamping foils in the leather industry. They cited instances of misuse of similar exemptions, leading to revenue loss. The petitioner argued that as per previous judgments, the production of such catalogues was not necessary for release, and an end-use bond sufficed to ensure proper utilization in the leather industry.
3. The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and refusal to release the imported goods, asserting that the requirement for manufacturer's catalogue/literature was unfounded based on past court decisions. The Court, referring to previous rulings, held that the Customs authorities cannot demand such documentation for clearance. The impugned show cause notice was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to provide end-use bonds and certificates of consumption to ensure proper utilization in the leather industry.
This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the Customs clearance of imported goods intended for specific industries, emphasizing the importance of end-use bonds over the production of manufacturer's catalogues/literature. The Court's decision provides guidance on the documentation required for Customs clearance in cases involving goods meant for specific industrial purposes, ensuring compliance with relevant regulations while preventing unnecessary delays in the clearance process.
-
1991 (4) TMI 133
The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard a case where the petitioner failed to comply with an order to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as directed by the Tribunal. The Court allowed the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 50,000 by 31-7-1991 to have the appeal restored. Failure to do so would result in the continuation of recovery proceedings by the respondent.
-
1991 (4) TMI 132
The High Court of Judicature, Madras reviewed a case involving Central Excise duty. The petitioner was found liable to pay a sum and penalty, leading to detention of goods. The Court considered a Tribunal's order requiring a deposit and directed the petitioner to address the Tribunal for any modifications or extensions. No costs were awarded.
............
|
9911796707
