|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 248 Records
-
1988 (7) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation ... ... ... ... ..... vered by the said order of the Tribunal on merits. He has also stated that according to the judgments of Allahabad High Court reported in 1985 (19) ELT 57 (Allahabad) and 1988 (33) ELT 58 (Allahabad) wholly exempted commodities are not dutiable goods. So, no penalty should have been imposed in the present case. Shri Santhanam has not pleaded for any financial hardship, but has argued on strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. We have also heard Smt. Zutshi, learned SDR for the respondent-Collector. In view of the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in order No. S - 4 and 5/88-D, dated 5-1-1988 and Order Nos. 160-161 of 1988/D dated 17-2-1988 in a similar case we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and stay the recovery thereof till the hearing of the main appeal. The learned SDR has requested for early hearing. Her request is granted. The appeal is listed for hearing on merits on 30-8-1988.
-
1988 (7) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Contrary to approved Classification List when justified ... ... ... ... ..... for the period 9th March, 1980 to 30th June, 1980 In respect of Items 3 to 7 and9 to t4. rdquo We observe that Section 11A provides for the recovery of duty short-levied and as pointed out by the Collector (Appeals), the fact Is that the notification had been amended and that the benefit of the set-off was not available, came to the notice of the Assistant Collector after the approval of the classification list and even the assessees omitted to take note of this amendment of the notification. 20. In view of this new fact having come to the notice of the authority concerned and, in law, demand m terms of Section 11A has been correctly raised in law. Inasmuch as the Collector (Appeals) has restricted the demand for a period of six months only, there cannot be any grievance on this account by the appellants. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, in the situation like his, has up-held the demand for six months. 21. In view of above, we find no merits in the appeal and reject the same.
-
1988 (7) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... der prepared by Shri K. Prakash Anand. I agree with his conclusions as recorded in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 27 and the reasonings given therefor earlier. I further agree with his conclusion as recorded in paragraph 22(3) about the in eligibility for exemption under Notification No.118/75-C.E. in the matter of additional duty of Customs. This is for the reason that Notification No. 118/75 grants relief on fulfilment of certain conditions and, in respect of an imported product, there can be no question of fulfilment of those conditions. Since, for the above reason, I agree that benefit of Notification No. 118/75 would not be available to the appellants, it appears to me to be unnecessary to go into the other questions as discussed in paragraph 19 of the order prepared by Shri Anand. I, therefore, do not express any opinion on the matters discussed in the said paragraphs. 24. In the result I agree with the disposal of the appeal as mentioned in paragraph 22 supra.
-
1988 (7) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT
Whether location of Mandal Headquarters was a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Held that:- The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram pahchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place ’X’ rather than place ‘Y’ as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than amininstrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners. Appeal allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification List Review ... ... ... ... ..... nt period, the Collector could have adjudicated on a demand for short levy, I still adhere to the view expressed by me in the case of M/s. Kuwality Containers (cited Supra). As pointed out by Shri Mandal, the other members of that Bench did not express any opinion on this issue in that decision and, therefore, my opinion as expressed in the decision could not be said to be that of the Tribunal. As Shri Mandal has pointed out this question came up for consideration before another Bench of this Tribunal in the case of U.P. Laminations (1988 Volume 11 ETR 661). In paragraph 13 of the said judgment the Bench held that the Collector could adjudicate in such instances and not merely the Assistant Collector. While I hold the contrary view, I respectfully follow the decision of the Bench, as I am bound to do, in the case of U.P. Laminations and therefore agree with the conclusion of Shri Mandal on that point. 16. I, therefore, concur with the order that the appeal is to be dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dies and Tools ... ... ... ... ..... 1981 when the Excise Authorities took up the matter again with the appellant. Quite obviously, therefore, the facts would appear to be firstly, that the department was fully aware of the fact of production of the impugned goods by the appellant company, secondly that the department apparently considered the goods to be exempted from duty and, therefore, did not press the assessee to pay duty or to comply with any procedures and, thirdly that the department itself was not clear for more than four years whether the appellant company was required to take out a Central Excise Licence. It was, therefore, that the department did not take any action .in the matter. 14. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there was any intention on the part of the appellant company to evade duty. Nor was there any deliberate intent to violate any other requirements of Central Excise procedures or Rules. Imposition of penalty therefore is not merited and is set aside. Ordered accordingly.
-
1988 (7) TMI 230 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Search and seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ady been directed by the said Nazir of Singapore. Therefore, on carefiri consideration of the above, we are-inclined to think that the charge against the appellant has been .brought home and in this view of the matter we confirm the.f.indnngsiOf the adjudicating authority against the appellant. 7. Having regard to the role played by the appellant in association with the other appellants viz. Elangovan and Jagubar Sidiq in transporting contraband gold to one Pandiyan of,Madurai, the quantum of penalty of Rs. 25,000 cannot be said to be either exorbitant o. excessive. However, taking note of the fact that a criminal prosecution is also pending against .the.appeilanttn the Criminal Court aod.that the. Appellant has not been proceeded against.on any-charge in the-past and also keeping in wndt that theappellant is only a house broker andjsa poornaan, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 15,000 (Rs. Fifteen thousand only). Exceptfor the above modtfK tioni.Jhe appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the view that in case the version of the assessee is to be accepted, he has to satisfy the adjudicating authority with each and every transaction of the transportation and exclusion of transportation charges for the assessable value has to be allowed on the basis of actuals since the appellants had volunteered to pay 10 of the freight, this ratio is applicable only in the present case. Accordingly we remand the matter to the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise to recompute the transport charges for the return journeys on the basis of actuals paid by the assessee and for the journeys where the actuals are not available, he should take 10 of the transport charges. We also direct that while taking the data for the actual transport charges for the return journey of the bottles, the Assistant-Collector should satisfy himself that the evidence and the records produced by the assessee are genuine. With these directions, both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (7) TMI 228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Vessel’s auction sale ... ... ... ... ..... are directed to hand over the possession of the said vessel within 24 hours to the 4th respondent. Save and except the above order no other order is called for on this motion. Motion accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. 18. Chamber Summons No. 538 of 1988 is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 19. Writ petition to stand summarily rejected. 20. Mr. Seervai applies for stay of this order for two weeks. Application granted. Operation of this order is accordingly stayed upto 3rd August 1988. 21. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, the 4th respondent would be entitled to keep his watchman or security guard to protect the said vessel. The 4th respondent is accordingly permitted to put his own guard or watchman on the said vessel. The petitioners will withdraw their watchman or guard but, however, they are permitted to keep them outside the said vessel. 22. Time to carry out the amendment is extended by one week.
-
1988 (7) TMI 227 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appear- Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... .2.1984,,we find that the petitioner has been prima facie implicated in regard to the clearances of goods without payment of duty. We have gone through the Balance Sheet and the financial position of the petitioner does not appear to be very comfortable. Therefore, on consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned DR. that the petitioner should be directed to make a pre-deposit of a sum of.Rs.3 lakhs an amount, which, even according to the statement of the petitioner rsquo s employee rsquo Balan, has been evaded, we direct the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) on or before 30.9.1988 and report rsquo compliance subject to which pre-deposit of the balance of duty and the .entire penalty on all the petitioners would stand dispensed with. We also grant stay of recovery of the balance amount subject to the petitioner complying with this order. The appeals will be called on 30.9.1988.
-
1988 (7) TMI 226 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n that the, party should be present during the adjudication. There is no provision in the Customs Act prohibiting the party being represented by his authorised agent. The procedure followed by the Collector is unknown to law and it has no sanction of law. The contention of Shri Mondal that the Collector had considered the defence of the appellant does not bold water since the Collector in unequivocal term has stated in his order that the defence put forth by the appellant rsquo s advocate was discarded for not keeping his client rsquo s presence, when he was asked to do so by him as well as, to his predecessor. Since the Collector had not considered the defence of the appellant, the penalty imposed on him is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of penalty on the appellant and remand the matter to the Collector to afford a fresh opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and thereafter to pass orders in accordance with law.
-
1988 (7) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of doubt if Import policy not clear ... ... ... ... ..... ows that the finding of the Additional Collector that the policy is-only with reference to Vceo is not correct. The policy does not specify whether the parameter should be Vceo or Vces. In the impugned order, he himself has held that there are two parameters in respect of Ttsanstetore, namely, Vceo and Vces. The photocopy of the catalogue submitted by the appellants shows that the maximum ratings are Vces 200 volts and Vceo 100 volts. In view of this and two parameters it cannot be catagorically. stated that the imported transistors are not with .Collector to emitter voltage have 100 volts. In the absence of any definite parameter as to whether it should be Vceo or Vces in the Import Policy, Serial No. 565 (65) of the Appendix 6,Llst 8, Part I, the benefit of doubt shoUtdbe given in favor of the appellants. Accordingly, I give benefit of doubt to the appellants, and set aside the impugned order of confiscation and, redemption tine and allow the appeal tiled by the appellants,
-
1988 (7) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of doubt if Import policy not clear ... ... ... ... ..... ows that the finding of the Additional Collector that the policy is-only with reference to Vceo is not correct. The policy does not specify whether the parameter should be Vceo or Vces. In the impugned order, he himself has held that there are two parameters in respect of Ttsanstetore, namely, Vceo and Vces. The photocopy of the catalogue submitted by the appellants shows that the maximum ratings are Vces 200 volts and Vceo 100 volts. In view of this and two parameters it cannot be catagorically. stated that the imported transistors are not with .Collector to emitter voltage have 100 volts. In the absence of any definite parameter as to whether it should be Vceo or Vces in the Import Policy, Serial No. 565 (65) of the Appendix 6,Llst 8, Part I, the benefit of doubt shoUtdbe given in favor of the appellants. Accordingly, I give benefit of doubt to the appellants, and set aside the impugned order of confiscation and, redemption tine and allow the appeal tiled by the appellants,
-
1988 (7) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plastic razor ... ... ... ... ..... product corrugated and plain roofing manufactured by the appellants having a composition of fibre glass mats and polyester resin, approximately in the ratio of 40 60, was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2). This decision cannot be followed in the present case in view of the Supreme Court decision (Supra). The Supreme Court decision was not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the Fiber Glass Industries case (supra)..As regards Supreme Court decision reported in 1977 ELT (J 61) relied on by the learned advocate we observe that the decision in the case of Jeep Flashlight Industries case being later in point of time, the same is required to be followed by us, 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the razor manufactured by the appellants herein is not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (7) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Coal tar pitch - Distinct from coal tar or partially distilled tar ... ... ... ... ..... one of their employees and also from Deputy Director, Central Fuel Institute and another person to show that pitch is considered a partially distilled tar. We observe that no basis has been laid in the evidence of these persons, as to on what consideration or for what reasons they have considered the pitch as partially distilled tar. The certificate obtained from the Deputy Director Central Fuel Institute was in the nature of a solicited document and even the wording was given to the Dy. Director for the purpose of phrasing the certificate. Inasmuch as, there is no rational basis laid in these certificates, affidavit, etc. for considering the pitch as partially distilled tar, we hold that evidence is of no value an assistance for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion in this matter. In view of what we have stated earlier, we hold that pitch cannot be considered as partially distilled tar and In that view of the matter, appellants plea fails and the appeals are dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay not sustainable if the delay in filing is more than 30 days ... ... ... ... ..... ction (2) of Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (as amended) in appeal filed under Section 78 of the said Act against the Orders of the Authorised Officer held that the Land Tribunal would not be competent to condone the delay where the Government rsquo s appeal was filed beyond 60 days of the date of the Order as Sub-Section (2) of Section 78 empowers the Tribunal to condone the delay no exceeding 30 days in filing of the appeal. 16. Thus I hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to the Reference Application filed under Section 35G and the Tribunal is not empowered to condone the delay beyond 30 days in terms of Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 35G and the case of Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality, supra, is distinguishable as the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decided the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the basis of the provisions available in the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
-
1988 (7) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Claasfication ... ... ... ... ..... rniture. The chapter specifically covers all furnitures and parts thereof and furniture have been defined to mean ldquo any movable articles (not included under other specific headings of the nomenclature) with the essential characteristic that they are constructed for placing on the floor or ground and which are used mainly with the utilitarian purpose to equip private dwellings, hotels, theaters, cinemas, offices, churches, schools, cafe, restaurants, laboratories, hospitals, dentists, surgeries, etc., or ships, aircraft, railway coaches, motor vehicles, caravans, trailers or similar means of transport rdquo . Significantly, it is added that for the purpose of this Chapter, articles are considered to be movable furniture even if they are designed for bolting, etc., to the floor of the vehicle. 94.01/04 specifically covers seats of a kind used for aircraft. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the classification ordered by the lower authority. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal’s Order ... ... ... ... ..... h by the competent authority in terms of that Section. Since we have held that there is no valid order of the West Regional Bench in pursuance of which further proceedings could be held under Section 129C(5), it appears to us that it would be unnecessary, for the purposes of this case, to go into the other questions such as the proper formulation of the points of difference or the validity of the order dated 8-12-1987 of the Senior Vice President constituting this Bench. As earlier mentioned, even if the findings on these two points are to be against the Department this Bench would not be entitled to hear the matter in view of our finding on the first point urged for the Department. Hence, we do not record any findings on points (ii) and (iii) urged by Shri Chandrasekharan. 17. Following the finding on point No. (i) urged for the Department, we hold that the proceedings before this Bench are incompetent and that appeals will have to be heard afresh by the West Regional Bench.
-
1988 (7) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Supreme Court in their judgment in the case of MRF Ltd. aforesaid. We agree that after the necessary verification by the Asstt. Collector, the calculations should proceed in accordance with the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s judgment. 10. No other plea was pressed for by the appellants before us. 11. In the result, we hold that within the mandate set by the Hon rsquo ble Patna High Court for identifying the post-manufacturing elements and their cost, the Asstt. Collector is entitled to rely on the judgments of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Tyres International Ltd., Godfrey Phillips (India) Ltd. and MRF Ltd., etc., In the light of our observations in the preceding paragraphs, we set aside the lower orders and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector for re-determination of the appellants rsquo duty liability in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. 12. The two appeals are, accordingly, allowed by way of remand in the above terms.
-
1988 (7) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Bimetal bearings imported ... ... ... ... ..... by the traders. Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473 has held that ldquo To our mind, there is a piece of evidence only as to the manner in which the product has to be treated for the purpose of specifications laid down by the Indian Standards Institution . We have also perused the definition of the thin walled bearings. The goods imported by the appellants are to be used in motorcars and other internal combustion engines. This Tribunal has repeatedly held that the tariff advice is not binding to say that bimetal bearings known in the trade as such cannot be called thin walled bearings would be going beyond the very definition of such bearings. We are of the view that the bearings imported by the appellants are thin walled bearings. Accordingly, we hold that the bimetal bearings imported by the appellants are thin walled bearings. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeals. The appeals are dismissed.
........
|
