|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 410
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants, represented by Major L.D. Jamloki, in a case involving import of a machine by Central Ordanance Depot seeking exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 206/76-Cus. The tribunal held that the machine qualified as 'Military Stores' under the notification as it was imported by a unit of the armed forces. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellants. (1987 (7) TMI 410 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1987 (7) TMI 409
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi reclassified the imported Tensometer under Heading 90.22 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The accessories were also ordered to be reclassified by the Assistant Collector in accordance with Chapter 90 notes. Consequential relief was granted to the appellants. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (7) TMI 408
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 47/84 Cus. for concessional assessment of imported goods under specific categories.
Analysis:
The case involved the importation of an "Automatic Form Fill and Seal Machine for Flexible Packaging Materials with Gas flushing" (FFS) for packing food products, assessed under Heading 84.19 CTA. The dispute arose when the appellants sought the benefit of Notification No. 47/84 Cus. for the imported goods. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the request, stating that the machines were not eligible for concessional assessment under the notification as they did not meet the criteria specified for vacuumising and gas flushing. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the imported machines lacked vacuumising, a requirement for eligibility under serial No. 6 of the notification. The issue before the tribunal was whether the imported goods were entitled to the benefits of Notification 47/84, which provided exemptions from Customs Duty and Additional Duty for specified goods.
Upon review, the tribunal noted that the imported machine did not have vacuumising, eliminating eligibility under serial No. 6 of the notification. The lower authorities contended that serial No. 7 of the notification, covering gas flushing packaging systems for flexible packages, did not apply to the imported FFS gas flushing machines. However, the tribunal observed that the imported machine, equipped with a gas flushing device, was an automatic FFS machine for flexible packaging with gas flush, suitable for packing food products. The tribunal reasoned that the machine could be considered a packaging system, capable of forming, filling, and sealing, specifically designed for flexible packaging. The tribunal emphasized that the term "system" in the notification should be interpreted logically, without a strict differentiation between a system and a machine.
After thorough consideration, the tribunal concluded that the imported FFS machines, with gas flushing provision, constituted a packaging system performing the functions of Forming, Filling, and Sealing for flexible packaging. As the machines fell within the scope of serial No. 7 of Notification No. 47/84-Cus, the tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the concessional assessment under the notification.
-
1987 (7) TMI 407
The appellants imported Casting for Crank Case under Bill of Entry No. 3674. They claimed a refund as CV Duty was leviable under Tariff Item 26AA CET, not TI 63 CET. The Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector rejected the claim. The Tribunal found the goods were un-machined, correctly liable to CV Duty under TI 26AA CET. The appeal was allowed, and re-assessment directed for refund to the appellants.
-
1987 (7) TMI 406
The appellants imported "Cutter for Rotor" seeking re-classification under heading 85.45/48 CTA but were rejected. The goods were assessed under Heading 82.05(1) CTA as they were imported separately from the Rotor Milling Machine. The Tribunal upheld the order stating that goods under Chapter 82 cannot be classified under Chapter 84. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 405
The appellants imported "Tangye Hydropack," a piston type high pressure hydraulic pump classified under Heading 84.10(2) of the CTA. They sought re-classification under sub-head (i) but were rejected. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the classification under sub-head (2) as the goods were manually operated pumps. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 404
The appeal dealt with the classification of a "By Pass valve" imported by the appellants. The valve was assessed under heading 84.61(1) CTA, but the appellants sought re-classification under sub-heading 2 of the same heading. The appellants claimed the valve was made of special alloy steel that is corrosion resistant, but the Appellate Collector rejected this claim due to lack of evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 403
The appeal questioned the classification of a "System flow regulating valve" under heading 84.61 CTA. The imported article did not fit into any descriptions under sub-item (2) of the heading. The appeal was dismissed as there was no evidence to support its classification under sub-heading (2) of 84.61.
-
1987 (7) TMI 401
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT in New Delhi reviewed a case regarding the import of a Coordinate Measuring Machine by M/s. Sundaram Clayton Limited. The dispute centered around whether the machine qualified for exemption under a customs notification as a universal measuring instrument. The tribunal found in favor of the department, stating that the machine was primarily meant for measuring small workpieces with high accuracy, rather than being a universal measuring machine. The order of the Appellate Collector was set aside, and the Assistant Collector's decision was restored.
-
1987 (7) TMI 400
The appeal by M/s Hapjan Purbat Tea Estate was dismissed as unnecessary by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The appeal had been filed against an order of the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta, but the issues had already been resolved in a previous order. The Court fee paid on the appeal will be refunded to the appellants.
-
1987 (7) TMI 399
Issues:
Assessment of imported electrostatic precipitators under specific headings in the Customs Tariff.
Analysis:
The case involved the importation of electrostatic precipitators by M/s. Voltas Ltd., which were assessed by the Customs House under heading 84.18(2) instead of the claimed headings 84.17(1) or 84.01/02. The dispute arose as the importers argued that electrostatic precipitators should not be classified as air filters under 84.18(2) but rather under 84.17 or 84.01/02 due to their function of removing harmful particles from gas emitted by power station flues, not purifying air for use in a process. The department contended that heading 84.01/02 pertains to steam and other vapor generating boilers and auxiliary plants, which electrostatic precipitators do not qualify as, and heading 84.17 covers machinery for material treatment involving a change of temperature, which does not apply to the function of the precipitators.
The Customs House assessed the precipitators under sub-heading (2) of 84.18, which was deemed incorrect. The judgment highlighted that the CCCN specified electrostatic air and gas filters under 84.18, but the sub-heading was intended for air filters used in internal combustion engines, not for the purpose of the imported precipitators. The judgment emphasized that headings 84.01/02 and 84.17 were not suitable for classification, as they did not align with the function and purpose of the electrostatic precipitators. Despite the importers' request for assessment under these headings, they were deemed inappropriate due to the specific coverage of electrostatic precipitators under 84.18, which took precedence over other headings.
Ultimately, the judgment concluded that the action of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector in assessing the electrostatic precipitators under 84.18(2) was justified and should remain unchanged. The decision was based on the specificity and precision of heading 84.18 in relation to electrostatic precipitators, which made it the most appropriate classification compared to headings 84.01/02 and 84.17, as they did not accurately encompass the nature and function of the imported goods.
-
1987 (7) TMI 384
Issues: Classification for basic customs duty of printing plates and graphic art films.
In a judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand involved the classification for basic customs duty of printing plates and graphic art films. The appeals encompassed 44 cases, with specific focus on Toyobo Printing Plates, lithographic coated plates, and graphic art films. The appellants sought classification under Heading 84.34 of CTA 1975, while the Revenue had assessed the goods under Chapter 37 of CTA 75 as photographic goods. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the appellants' own case, where Toyobo Printing Plates were classified under Heading 84.34, and Graphic Art Film under Chapter 37. Both parties agreed that this decision was pertinent to the current appeals.
Regarding the classification of Toyobo Printing Plates and lithographic coated plates, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 84.34, as per the appellants' claim, over the Revenue's classification under Heading 37.01/08. The decision was based on the similarity in quality and character to Toyobo Printing Plates. However, for graphic art films, the classification under Heading 37.01/08 was maintained, despite arguments presented by the appellants based on a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting a different classification for graphic art films, ultimately dismissing the appeals related to graphic art films.
Both parties reiterated their grounds during the proceedings, ensuring their rights were preserved for potential further appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals concerning Toyobo Printing Plates and lithographic coated plates to be classified under Heading 84.34, while upholding the classification of graphic art films under Heading 37.01/08. The classification for additional duty was also upheld, as there were no challenges raised against it. The orders of the lower appellate authority were modified accordingly, with appeals for printing plates allowed and those for graphic art films dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 383
Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras involving the issue of valuation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case:
- The appellants manufacture watches and components, utilizing most parts for captive consumption and selling a small fraction in the open market.
- They filed price lists under Section 4(l)(a) for sales through dealers and under Rule 6 for captively consumed goods.
- Initially, authorities approved both price lists, but later issued a show cause notice for differential duty based on prices approved in Part I for sales through dealers.
2. Appellant's Argument:
- Appellant argued that over 99.8% of goods were captively consumed, so Part VI prices should apply, not Part I prices for sales.
- They claimed the high prices to dealers prevented misuse for assembly into watches.
- Mentioned inability to benefit from Notification 201/79 due to low duty on watches and high duty on parts.
3. Department's Argument:
- Department contended that when normal price under Section 4(l)(a) is available, Rule 6 need not be applied for captive goods.
- Cited cases to support using normal price for assessment, regardless of the percentage of goods sold in the open market.
- Stated that the value of captively consumed goods should be based on comparable goods sold in the open market.
4. Judgment and Analysis:
- Tribunal analyzed whether a separate price for captively consumed goods under Rule 6 could be adopted when normal price under Section 4(l)(a) was available.
- Found that Rule 6 can be used only when normal price is unascertainable, which was not the case here.
- Appellants themselves admitted that when normal price under Section 4(l)(a) is available, Rule 6 should not be applied.
- Tribunal emphasized that normal price, even if determined under Rule 6, would not significantly differ from prices charged to dealers.
- Rejected the appeal, stating that normal price under Section 4(l)(a) must be adopted for all clearances, regardless of the percentage of goods sold in different markets.
5. Conclusion:
- Tribunal ruled against the appellants, emphasizing the importance of using normal price under Section 4(l)(a) for assessment.
- Did not address the issue of eligibility for Notification 201/79 as it was not raised before them or in the lower authority's order.
-
1987 (7) TMI 382
The appellants requested to withdraw two appeals due to obtaining a judgment from the Supreme Court on the same issue. However, they did not pay the prescribed fee of Rs. 200/- for each appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as improperly filed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.
-
1987 (7) TMI 381
Issues:
- Determination of whether the processes of cutting unmanufactured tobacco leaf into small pieces, labeling with strings or rings bearing trade name, and packing into containers constitute "manufacture" of "Chewing tobacco" falling under a specific item of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
- Interpretation of the definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in relation to tobacco, including preparation of chewing tobacco and labeling or repacking of manufactured tobacco.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in the appeal was to decide whether the processes undertaken by the appellant, involving cutting unmanufactured tobacco leaf, labeling, and packing, amounted to the "manufacture" of "Chewing tobacco" as per the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellant claimed that no additional ingredients were added during these processes. The lower authorities had considered these processes as manufacturing of chewing tobacco, leading to the rejection of the appellant's duty refund claim on the clearance of such tobacco.
2. The definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was crucial in determining the applicability of the processes employed by the appellant. The section includes processes incidental to the completion of a manufactured product, such as the preparation of chewing tobacco and the labeling or repacking of manufactured tobacco to render it marketable. It was essential to establish whether the appellant's processes constituted the preparation of chewing tobacco to further analyze the application of the Act.
3. Reference was made to the Departmental Manual on Tobacco Excise Duty, which highlighted that cut tobacco without added ingredients and packed in containers for retail sale should not be considered as manufactured tobacco. Several Collector notices supported this view, emphasizing that mere cutting and tying of unmanufactured leaf with a brand label did not classify the product as chewing tobacco under the Tariff Schedule.
4. A previous case, Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Jaikisan Tobacco Company, Pune, was cited, where the Tribunal ruled that repacking and labeling unprocessed tobacco did not fall under the category of chewing tobacco. The Tribunal's decision was deemed applicable to the current case, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's product was not taxable as chewing tobacco under the specific item of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
5. Additionally, the appellant raised a contention regarding the limitation of the refund claim, arguing it was governed by general law rather than Central Excise law. The lower authorities did not address this contention, necessitating further examination into whether the duty was paid under protest. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector for a decision on the refund claim based on the classification decision and the limitation question, providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and precedents considered in determining the appellant's liability for excise duty on the processed tobacco product.
-
1987 (7) TMI 380
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants regarding the use of imported components for initial assembly of Synchronous Condenser. The department had no objection to the claim based on an Exemption Notification. The end product fell under Heading 85.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appeal was allowed, and consequential refund was ordered for the appellants. (1987 (7) TMI 380 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1987 (7) TMI 379
The appellants sought concessional customs duty rate under heading 84.66, but did not register the contract with customs as required by law. Appeal dismissed. (Case: Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, Citation: 1987 (7) TMI 379 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1987 (7) TMI 378
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled on the classification of two items:
1. Impeller packing: Classified under heading 84.11(1) instead of 73.33/40.
2. Shaft seal: Confirmed classification under heading 84.64.
Appeal allowed for Impeller packing, rejected for shaft seal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 377
The appeal involved the classification of an "N.K. Regulator equipped with 3-phase motor of 400 Volts." Customs classified it under Heading 85.18/27(1), but the appellants sought re-assessment under Heading 90.28 CTA. The tribunal found that the imported article was more than just a regulator, with features indicating it was an instrument for controlling electricity quantity. Thus, the goods were classified under Heading 90.28(2), and the appeal was allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 376
The appeal involved the classification of "Gear internal parts used for hoisting crane" under heading 84.63 CTA or 84.22 CTE. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the classification under heading 84.63 CTA based on the goods being specifically designed for hoisting and falling under Section Note 2(a) to Section XVI. The appeal was dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
