|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 534 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 134
The judgment discusses the issue of whether the Appellate Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to award interest. Two cases involving claims for interest on delayed refund and pre-deposit were considered. The Tribunal decided to return the reference to the West Regional Bench for further consideration on the merits of the appeals regarding the rejection of interest claims.
-
2002 (9) TMI 133
Issues Involved:
1. Assessable value determination of processed fabrics.
2. Misdeclaration of weight per metre of grey fabric.
Summary:
Issue 1: Assessable Value Determination of Processed Fabrics
The appeals arose from orders by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur, which allowed the assessee's appeals based on the Tribunal's decision in Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur. The Tribunal had held that the trader's declared selling price of processed fabric must be accepted by the job worker for duty payment purposes, and the Excise authorities cannot go beyond that declared value. The Revenue challenged this, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ujagar Prints Etc. v. Union of India & Others, which necessitated a re-evaluation by a Larger Bench.
The respondent, M/s. Bhilwara Processors Ltd., processed fabrics on a job work basis, determining the assessable value using the cost construction method. The Revenue argued that the actual cost of yarn should be included in the cost of grey fabric for duty purposes, and any provisional assessments should be revised accordingly. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Sangam Processors, stating that the Excise authorities cannot question the declared value and that the processors were unaware of the provisional assessment of yarn.
The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Ujagar Prints mandates that the assessable value includes the value of grey cloth, job work, manufacturing profit, and expenses. The Tribunal found no support for the view that the Revenue cannot verify the declared value of grey cloth. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing correct valuation compliance.
Issue 2: Misdeclaration of Weight Per Metre of Grey Fabric
The appellants were found to have misdeclared the weight of grey fabrics per metre in their price declarations, leading to short-payment of Central Excise duty. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demands, noting discrepancies in the actual weight of grey fabric compared to declared weights. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside this order, referencing the Sangam Processors decision.
The Tribunal noted that the issue in Sangam Processors related to the binding nature of the trader's declared selling price, not the weight per metre of grey fabric. The Tribunal held that any variation in weight per metre affects the assessable value of grey fabric and, consequently, the processed fabric's deemed price. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration on merits.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed by remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-evaluate the cases in light of the Tribunal's observations and the Supreme Court's guidelines in Ujagar Prints.
-
2002 (9) TMI 132
Issues involved: Challenge to circular under Central Excise Act and Constitution of India regarding classification and levy of duty on Ready Mix Concrete.
Summary:
The petitioner sought a writ of declaration to challenge a circular issued by the 2nd respondent under Sections 55-A and 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, operating a Ready Mix Concrete unit, faced classification and duty issues as the product was not specified in Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The confusion was addressed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, classifying Ready Mix Concrete under sub-heading 3824.20. The circular in question clarified the distinction between Ready Mix Concrete and Concrete Mix, stating that Ready Mix Concrete is chargeable to excise duty even if manufactured at the construction site. The respondents argued that duty is leviable on Ready Mix Concrete if manufactured in a unit installed for that purpose and transported to construction sites. The court disposed of the petition based on the representation made by the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, concluding that Ready Mix Concrete is exempted only if manufactured at the site for one's own construction.
-
2002 (9) TMI 131
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of enhanced excise duty on pre-budget stock.
2. Legal interpretation of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid under protest.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of enhanced excise duty on pre-budget stock:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing malted milk food, contended that the pre-budget stock of goods manufactured before 1-3-1979 should not be liable to the enhanced duty imposed by the Finance Act, 1979. The company argued that the duty payable should be governed by the law as applicable on 28-2-1979. The respondents, however, rejected this claim, stating that the rate of duty applicable is the rate in force on the date of actual removal of goods from the factory, as per Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Legal interpretation of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The petitioners argued that excise duty is payable on the date of manufacture and not on the date of clearance. Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act states that duties of excise shall be levied and collected on all excisable goods produced or manufactured in India. Rule 9A(1) specifies that the rate of duty and tariff valuation applicable to any excisable goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date of actual removal of such goods from the factory. The court noted that while Rule 9A provides for the computation of duty as on the date of clearance, it must be read subject to Section 3 of the Act, which indicates that chargeability would be according to the law prevailing on the date of manufacture.
3. Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid under protest:
The petitioners made representations for a refund of the excise duty paid under protest, which were rejected by the respondents. The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India v. State of Mysore, CCE, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., and Ponds India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which established that the levy of excise duty is on the manufacture or production of goods, not on their removal. The court concluded that the duty is chargeable at the point of manufacture, and the date of payment is deferred to the date of clearance. Consequently, the impugned judgment was not sustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to a refund of the excise duty paid.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to refund the amount of excise duty paid by the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. There was no order as to costs. The judgment underscored that the imposition of duty must align with the date of manufacture, and Rule 9A must be interpreted in conjunction with Section 3 of the Central Excise Act.
-
2002 (9) TMI 130
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh considered a petition filed by the Department under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding Modvat credit for certain items. The court ruled in favor of the assessee based on a previous Division Bench judgment. The petition was dismissed as no referable question arose from the Tribunal's order.
-
2002 (9) TMI 129
Issues:
Refund application for customs duty paid, withdrawal of petition based on Supreme Court judgments, direction to bring back refunded amount with interest, calculation of interest rate, encashment of bank guarantee, payment of interest to revenue, refusal to grant stay on the order.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed refund applications for customs duty paid on goods cleared between Aug. 1986 to Dec. 1986, based on decisions of other importers. The petition was filed before the refund application could be decided, and the court directed the respondents to deposit the refund amount in court with a bank guarantee.
2. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition after 12 years, citing Supreme Court judgments that answered the issues against the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn but noted that the refunded amount must be returned with interest to compensate the revenue for the interim refund granted earlier.
3. The court found that the petitioner had withdrawn the refunded amount on furnishing a bank guarantee but failed to renew it promptly. The petitioner later renewed the bank guarantee and claimed to have earned interest on the refunded amount during this period.
4. The petitioner provided details of interest earned on the fixed deposit amount, confirming interest earned from 6-3-1991 to 6-3-2002 at a rate of 15% per annum. The court decided that the petitioner must return the principal amount with interest to compensate the revenue.
5. Considering the interest rate, the court directed the refund with interest at 12% per annum, deducting expenses for obtaining the bank guarantee. The court ordered the encashment of the bank guarantee and payment of the realized amount to the revenue, with the petitioner required to pay the interest amount to the revenue within a specified time.
6. The court rejected the petitioner's request for a stay on the order, noting that the petitioner had already earned interest on the refunded amount. The court emphasized that the refund with interest was necessary since the petition failed, unlike cases where petitioners succeeded, and bank guarantees were returned without interest.
7. The court clarified that the relief was granted under writ jurisdiction, and the refund was subject to the petition's result. The court highlighted the distinction between cases where petitioners succeeded and were entitled to return of bank guarantees without interest, unlike the present case where the refunded amount must be returned with interest to the revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 128
Issues Involved:
1. Whether hair dyes were covered under Tariff Item No. 14F of the Central Excise Tariff at the relevant time.
2. What should be the monetary liability for the petitioner in either of the situations.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue (a): Whether hair dyes were covered under Tariff Item No. 14F of the Central Excise Tariff at the relevant time
The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing cosmetics, challenged the classification of their hair dye product under Tariff Item No. 14F, which imposed a higher excise duty. The petitioner argued that hair dyes were not explicitly mentioned under Tariff Item No. 14F before 1st April 1985 and should not be classified under "hair lotions," thus attracting a lower duty under the residuary entry No. 68.
The court examined the interpretation of the term "namely" in Tariff Item 14F, agreeing with the Single Judge's view in the Vasmol case that the term was used restrictively, not illustratively. Therefore, unless hair dyes were specifically mentioned, they could not be classified under hair lotions, creams, and pomades.
However, the court also considered the Division Bench judgment in Chimanlal Mehta's case, which had a broader interpretation, suggesting that hair dyes could be considered hair lotions based on their composition and commercial interchangeability. The respondent No. 1 followed this broader interpretation, classifying hair dyes as hair lotions.
The court concluded that the respondent No. 1's approach was not perverse, given the Division Bench's observations. Therefore, the court upheld the classification of hair dyes under Tariff Item 14F, accepting that the broader interpretation was reasonable.
Issue (b): What should be the monetary liability for the petitioner in either of the situations
The petitioner had collected excise duty at the rate of 105% from customers but paid only 8% to the government, arguing that they were protecting themselves against potential liability. The court examined Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, which provides for the valuation of excisable goods, excluding the amount of duty from the wholesale price to arrive at the assessable value.
The court found that the petitioner had consciously deducted 105% excise duty while calculating the assessable value, retaining the excess amount collected from customers. This act was not innocent or mistaken, as the petitioner was aware of the possible liability and chose to shift the burden onto customers.
The court emphasized the principle of unjust enrichment, stating that no one can retain an amount collected as tax if it was not paid to the state. The petitioner's conduct of collecting and retaining the excess duty was deemed unjust enrichment, and they were required to pay the collected amount to the government.
The court dismissed the petition, holding that hair dyes were covered under Tariff Item No. 14F at the relevant time. Even if classified under the residuary Entry No. 68, the petitioner was liable to pay the duty at 105% since they collected it from consumers. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the interim order was vacated, allowing the respondents to recover the excise duty as per the impugned order and notices. The court granted an 8-week continuation of the interim injunction to allow the petitioner to seek further relief.
-
2002 (9) TMI 127
Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Collector of Customs
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty
3. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions regarding confiscation of conveyances
4. Responsibility of person-in-charge of conveyance
5. Invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Analysis:
1. The case involves a foreign Airways Company and its General Manager challenging an order passed by the Collector of Customs. The matter was heard multiple times, and ultimately, the Court examined the merit of the case.
2. The factual background includes the discovery of gold bars concealed in an aircraft during a rummage by Customs Officers. The Captain and crew members failed to provide information about the gold bars. The authority confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine and penalty. The key issue is whether the imposition of these fines is legally sustainable.
3. The judgment discusses the provisions of the Customs Act related to confiscation of conveyances. The amendment in 1988 removed certain clauses, and the current law requires proving that the conveyance was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner or the person-in-charge. In this case, since the Captain was released from the charge, the Court questions the validity of confiscating the conveyance.
4. The responsibility of the person-in-charge, in this case, the Captain, is analyzed. The Court concludes that if the Captain is not held responsible, the conveyance itself cannot be liable for improper importation. The judgment questions the logic behind holding the aircraft responsible for the actions of individuals.
5. The judgment addresses the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It clarifies that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court's jurisdiction. In this case, the Court entertained the writ petition considering both the availability of alternative remedies and the merits of the case.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues surrounding the challenge to the Customs order, the confiscation of goods, the interpretation of relevant provisions, the responsibility of the person-in-charge, and the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
-
2002 (9) TMI 126
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of two Show Cause Notices issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise.
2. Determination of the assessable value for excise duty purposes.
3. Inclusion of sales depot prices, after-sales service charges, dealer's margin, marketing and selling expenses, and excess freight in the assessable value.
4. Classification of sales depots as related persons.
5. Availability of alternative remedies.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Validity of Show Cause Notices:
The petition challenged the legality and validity of two Show Cause Notices issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The first notice dated 12th July 1985, covered the period from 1982 to 1985 but did not quantify the duty demanded. It alleged that the petitioners sold duty-paid stocks from their depots at higher prices and did not include certain charges in the assessable value. The second notice dated 4th February 1986, covered the period from 1st August 1985 to 31st October 1985 and demanded Rs. 20,00,754.40, containing similar grounds as the first notice.
2. Determination of Assessable Value:
The main question was whether the Department was justified in demanding excise duty based on higher prices at which tractors were sold from depots. Under the statutory provisions existing at the time, the assessable value was the normal price at which goods were sold at the place of removal, defined as the factory or warehouse. The petitioners argued that the ex-factory price was ascertainable and should form the basis of the assessable value. The court agreed, noting that 20% of the tractors were sold at the factory gate, making the ex-factory price ascertainable.
3. Inclusion of Additional Charges in Assessable Value:
The Show Cause Notices alleged that the petitioners did not include after-sales service charges, dealer's margin, marketing and selling expenses, and excess freight in the assessable value. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of C.E., which held that transportation costs and other post-manufacturing expenses are irrelevant for determining the assessable value when the ex-factory price is available. The court concluded that since the ex-factory price was ascertainable, these additional charges could not be included in the assessable value.
4. Classification of Sales Depots as Related Persons:
The Department contended that the sales depots were related persons and their prices should be considered for assessable value. The petitioners argued that the depots were part of their organization and not separate entities. The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the depots were not buyers but part of the petitioners' organization, and thus could not be considered related persons under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.
5. Availability of Alternative Remedies:
The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy to challenge the notices before the CEGAT. The court noted that this option was previously declined by the respondents when offered by the Division Bench admitting the petition. Thus, the respondents could not raise this submission at this stage.
Conclusion:
The court held that under the law as it stood prior to the 1996 amendments, the ex-factory price was the basis for determining the assessable value. The additions over the factory gate price while selling through depots were irrelevant for excise duty purposes. The two Show Cause Notices were deemed bad in law and were quashed. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 125
Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 regarding warehousing of imported goods, specifically regarding re-export of goods after the expiry of the prescribed period.
Summary:
1. The petitioners sought permission to re-export imported goods after the expiry of the warehousing period as per Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The petitioners argued that the goods should still be considered as 'warehoused goods' under Section 69 of the Act, allowing for re-export.
3. However, the court held that Section 72(b) of the Act addresses situations where goods have not been removed from the warehouse after the prescribed period, requiring payment of duties and penalties.
4. The court clarified that Section 69 operates only during the validity period of warehousing under Section 61, and after expiry, Section 72, particularly Section 72(b), comes into effect.
5. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit, with no costs imposed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 124
Issues:
Release of passport for travel abroad, violation of fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis:
The petitioner, on anticipatory bail, sought the release of his passport to travel abroad for business purposes. He was accused in a case related to fraudulent export activities causing revenue loss. Customs Authorities failed to file charges within the required period, leading to his release on bail. Anticipatory bail was granted later, with conditions including surrendering the passport. The petitioner requested passport release for a Dubai trip, permitted by the Sessions Judge. Customs Authorities challenged this decision through a revision petition, which was allowed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Fundamental Right Contention:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the restriction on foreign travel violated his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing legal precedent, it was contended that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty and cannot be curtailed without due process. The lack of a hearing before impounding the passport was highlighted as a violation of the petitioner's rights.
Government's Argument:
The Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India opposed the petitioner's travel, citing concerns about potential evasion of duty and non-return. It was suggested that permission should have been sought from the Court of Session initially. Previous refusals of travel permission and dismissal of appeals were also mentioned to support the argument against allowing the petitioner to go abroad.
Judgment:
The High Court considered the petitioner's past travel history, business interests in India, and the nature of his export-oriented business. It was noted that the petitioner had returned from previous trips and had substantial stakes in domestic enterprises. Given the legitimate business reasons for travel and the absence of evidence tampering concerns, the Court allowed the petitioner to visit Turkey and Egypt for one month. The release of the passport was ordered, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and surety to ensure his return after the specified period.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment outlines the issues, legal arguments, and the Court's decision regarding the release of the passport for foreign travel and the alleged violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty.
-
2002 (9) TMI 123
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notices for wrongly availing Modvat credit.
Analysis:
The petitioners challenged three show cause notices issued by the respondents questioning the availing of Modvat credit. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing final products under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff, had informed the authorities about their entitlement to Modvat benefits in 1986. Subsequently, they filed declarations for availing Modvat credit, which were accepted by the excise authorities without any objections. However, the respondents issued show cause notices alleging that the petitioners did not properly describe the inputs in their declarations as required under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners contended that since there was no specific format prescribed for declarations under Rule 57G(1), their declarations were valid, and all Modvat conditions were met. They argued that the show cause notices were unjustified, especially considering the acceptance of their declarations in the past.
In response to the petition, the revenue contended that the petitioners could raise their arguments during adjudication and that there was no need for interference at the show cause notice stage. The court sought clarification from the revenue on whether the denial of Modvat benefit was due to a technical breach or a lack of merit. The revenue admitted that without adjudication, they could not make a definitive statement. The court held that since the petitioners' declarations were accepted previously, the revenue could not deny Modvat credit based on a defective declaration, especially when no specific format was prescribed by the statute. The court noted that there was no evidence of the petitioners being asked to revise their declarations in a specific format. Consequently, the court quashed the show cause notices that sought to deny Modvat benefits based on declaration format issues but allowed the revenue to adjudicate the Modvat credit's admissibility on merit.
In conclusion, the court partially allowed the petition, setting aside the show cause notices that questioned the Modvat benefits based on declaration format issues. The respondents were directed to adjudicate the matter on merit after giving the petitioners a chance to respond. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 122
Issues:
Challenge to the order of attachment of premises under Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
The writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution sought to challenge the order directing attachment of premises purchased in the name of two entities towards pending recovery of Government dues from specific firms involved in duty drawback fraud. The facts revealed the fraudulent activities of certain individuals and the subsequent transfer of funds to purchase properties, leading to the issuance of demands and attachment orders by the Customs Department.
The legal battle involved multiple petitions, appeals, and revisions challenging the attachment orders issued by the Customs Department. The initial petitions were withdrawn to explore statutory remedies, but subsequent appeals and revisions faced dismissals due to jurisdictional issues and the nature of the issues raised. The petitioners then filed fresh writ petitions challenging the legality and propriety of the attachment orders, leading to a detailed examination by the Court.
The Court analyzed the contentions raised by both parties, focusing on the principles of constructive res judicata and the sufficiency of evidence and notices issued by the Customs Department. The Court found that there was prima facie evidence of fraud and collusion leading to the acquisition of properties with fraudulently obtained funds. The Court ruled that the proceedings were not barred by res judicata and directed the department to issue fresh show cause notices, allowing for replies and personal hearings before passing appropriate orders.
In conclusion, the Court quashed the impugned order of attachment, directing the department to initiate fresh proceedings while continuing the attachment during the adjudication process. The judgment clarified the tentative nature of the observations made and emphasized the need for due process and adherence to the law in further proceedings.
-
2002 (9) TMI 121
Issues: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act
Issue 1: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act
The petition challenged the classification of goods under heading 39.26 instead of heading 85.47 of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA). The petitioners argued that the goods, used for insulating joints and ends of cables, were specifically designed for insulating purposes and wholly made of insulating material with minor metal components. They contended that the correct classification should be under heading 85.47, as per the General Rules for interpretation of entries in the CTA. Expert opinion and certificates from consumers supported the classification under heading 85.47, emphasizing the insulating property of the goods. The petitioners also cited the judgment in XL Telecom P. Ltd. v. Union of India, which highlighted the principle of "Generalia Specialibus non Derogant" and the identification of goods by users in determining classification.
Issue 2: Past Practice and Precedents
The petitioners relied on past practice and precedents to support their claim. They mentioned previous importations and clearances of the goods under heading 85.47, emphasizing the consistency in classification at various ports and Customs Houses. The judgment in XL Telecom P. Ltd. v. Union of India was cited as a precedent where goods similar to the present case were classified under heading 85.47, emphasizing the acceptance of such classification by the Revenue. The petitioners argued that the Revenue's circular and acceptance of the judgment indicated a uniform classification under heading 85.47, irrespective of the form in which the goods were imported.
Judgment Analysis:
The High Court analyzed the contentions raised by the petitioners and referred to the judgment in XL Telecom P. Ltd. v. Union of India to address the classification issue. The Court highlighted the principle of "Generalia Specialibus non Derogant" and the importance of how the goods were identified by users in determining classification. The Court noted that the goods imported by the petitioners were for jointing and terminating cables, aligning with the classification under heading 85.47. The Court emphasized the acceptance of the judgment in XL Telecom P. Ltd. by the Revenue, indicating a consistent classification under heading 85.47. The Court concluded that the impugned order, classifying the goods under heading 39.26, could not withstand legal scrutiny, considering the uniform classification under heading 85.47. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and made it absolute in favor of the petitioners.
This detailed analysis of the judgment reflects the Court's thorough consideration of the classification issue under the Customs Tariff Act, past practices, precedents, and expert opinions to arrive at a reasoned decision in favor of the petitioners.
-
2002 (9) TMI 120
Issues:
Contempt application regarding non-renewal of Bank guarantee and violation of court orders.
Analysis:
1. The contempt application was based on the failure to renew a Bank guarantee as per court orders dated 12-3-82 and 12-3-87. The respondents were authorized to encash the Bank guarantee if payment was not received by 25-3-1987. The respondents confirmed that the Bank guarantee was indeed encashed.
2. The contemners argued that all sums directed by the court were paid after the contempt application was filed, making it moot. They cited legal precedents to emphasize that contempt proceedings should not be used for monetary recovery. The Supreme Court's stance was highlighted, stating that a contempt application cannot be a means to recover money.
3. The contemners contended confusion regarding the Bank guarantee terms, believing renewal was automatic due to the court order. They expressed willingness to apologize if any violation occurred. On the other hand, it was argued that the Bank guarantee had been renewed previously, making the subsequent non-renewal a deliberate violation.
4. The judge noted a discrepancy in the wording of the court order dated 12-3-1987 and the actions taken, particularly regarding the term "unwillingness." However, with the goods delivered and full payment made, the dispute was considered resolved. Consequently, the judge decided to dispose of the contempt application upon accepting the contemners' unconditional apology, without imposing any penalties but ordering costs of Rs. 10,200 to be paid by the petitioners.
5. The judgment concluded by permanently dispensing with the personal presence of the contemners and closing the contempt matter without further consequences.
-
2002 (9) TMI 119
Issues Involved:
1. Continuation of prosecution under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 after exoneration in adjudication proceedings.
2. Validity of prosecution based on the same set of facts and evidence after departmental exoneration.
3. Applicability of the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 138A of the Customs Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Continuation of prosecution under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 after exoneration in adjudication proceedings.
The court examined whether the prosecution should continue after the petitioners were exonerated in adjudication proceedings. The facts of CRLM (M) 1132/2002 involved the importation of decorative paper for laminate, which was later found to be wallpaper, leading to the seizure of goods and initiation of adjudication and criminal proceedings. The Tribunal eventually accepted the declared value of the goods, exonerating the petitioners. Similarly, in CRL. R. Nos. 157, 271-272/2002, foreign currency was seized, and the petitioners were penalized, but the Appellate Authority later exonerated them, finding no involvement in the attempted export.
Issue 2: Validity of prosecution based on the same set of facts and evidence after departmental exoneration.
The court noted that the departmental authorities are not courts within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, and their findings do not bar prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act. However, the court emphasized the desirability of continuing prosecution after departmental failure in adjudication proceedings. Citing previous judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, the court highlighted that if the department fails in adjudication, it is unjust to proceed with criminal prosecution on the same facts and evidence. The court referenced cases like P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar and Uttam Chand v. Income Tax Officer, where prosecution was quashed following departmental exoneration.
Issue 3: Applicability of the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 138A of the Customs Act.
The court considered whether the presumption of culpable mental state could strengthen the prosecution's case. It concluded that mere guilty intention without any overt unlawful act is not punishable. Since the departmental Tribunal did not find facts that could make the petitioners liable for punishment, raising a presumption of guilty state of mind would not aid the prosecution. The court emphasized that in the absence of recovery of contraband articles or any overt act, the presumption under Section 138A is insufficient to sustain prosecution.
Conclusion:
The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, finding no cogent reason to continue prosecution after departmental exoneration and in the absence of any overt unlawful act. The petitions CRL. R. 157/2002, CRL. R. 271/2002, CRL. R. 272/2002, and CRLM (M) 1132/2002 were allowed, and the proceedings in the Court of learned ACMM, Patiala House, New Delhi, were quashed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 118
Issues involved:
Challenge to validity of Show Cause Notice under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules.
Summary:
Issue 1:
The petitioners challenged the validity of a Show Cause Notice dated 29th September, 1988, seeking to levy penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.
Details:
The petitioners held high-ranking positions in a company manufacturing Programmable Controllers. The company had obtained necessary approvals for the classification of the goods under the Central Excise Tariff. Subsequent to changes in the Tariff Act, the company sought reclassification which was duly approved by the Excise authorities. However, a show cause notice was issued in 1988, calling for reclassification of the goods and demanding differential duty, along with imposing penalties under Rule 209A.
Issue 2:
Jurisdictional aspect of invoking Rule 209A for penal action.
Details:
The petitioners argued that the conditions for invoking Rule 209A were not met as the goods were cleared as per approved classifications, and no confiscation was involved. The Excise authorities had consistently approved the classification lists submitted by the company. The show cause notice did not provide any basis for believing the goods were liable for confiscation, as required under Rule 209A.
Judgment:
The High Court found that the show cause notice lacked merit in penalizing the petitioners under Rule 209A. The Court held that since the goods were cleared based on approved classifications and no clandestine activities were involved, invoking penal action was unjustified. Consequently, the Court quashed the show cause notice pertaining to penal action under Rule 209A.
Conclusion:
The petition succeeded, and the impugned show cause notice was quashed in relation to penal action under Rule 209A. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
2002 (9) TMI 117
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of importing fresh garlic without a license.
2. Validity of public notices and circulars issued by the Customs Authorities.
3. Discretion of the Customs Officer under Section 125 of the Customs Act.
4. Applicability of international agreements and principles of reasonableness.
5. Availability and adequacy of appellate remedies.
Summary:
1. Legality of Importing Fresh Garlic Without a License:
The petitioners imported fresh garlic, a restricted item, without obtaining the necessary license, knowing that the goods were liable to be confiscated. They expected to be given the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, a public notice dated 20-06-2002 and a circular dated 25-06-2002 mandated re-export of such goods without the option of paying a fine.
2. Validity of Public Notices and Circulars:
The petitioners argued that the public notices and circulars were ultra vires Section 125 of the Customs Act and lacked legal sanction. They contended that policy decisions should be made by the Ministry of Commerce, not the Ministry of Agriculture, and that the notices were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found that the public notice and circular were not published in the official gazette as required u/s 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, making them invalid.
3. Discretion of the Customs Officer Under Section 125 of the Customs Act:
Section 125(1) of the Customs Act provides the Customs Officer with discretion to offer the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation for prohibited goods. The court held that this discretion cannot be taken away by executive orders or public notices. The officer must adjudicate each case individually to decide whether to allow the option to pay a fine or to order absolute confiscation.
4. Applicability of International Agreements and Principles of Reasonableness:
The petitioners argued that re-exporting garlic imported from China would violate GATT principles and be discriminatory. The court noted that international agreements apply only if consistent with domestic law. The domestic law treated fresh garlic as a prohibited item, and the petitioners had no fundamental right to import without a license.
5. Availability and Adequacy of Appellate Remedies:
The court acknowledged that the appellate remedy might be ineffective due to the binding nature of the impugned circulars on the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable.
Conclusion:
The public notice dated 20-06-2002 and the circular dated 25-06-2002 were quashed. The matter was remanded to the Collector of Customs to exercise his discretion u/s 125 of the Customs Act and decide whether to permit the petitioners to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation or to order absolute confiscation of the goods. The writ petitions were partially allowed, and no costs were awarded.
-
2002 (9) TMI 116
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme and duty rates.
2. Principle of promissory estoppel.
3. Prospective vs. retrospective application of the duty scheme.
4. Validity of the importation process and customs notifications.
5. Entitlement to refund of duty paid.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme and Duty Rates:
The petitioner company applied for a license to import capital goods under the EPCG scheme at a 10% ad valorem customs duty rate on 14th January 1999, which was approved on 18th February 1999. However, from 1st April 1999 to 31st March 2000, the Government of India amended the duty to 0%. The petitioner argued that since the goods were released on 31st August 1999, when the 0% duty scheme was effective, they should not pay any duty and should receive a refund for the duty already paid on one machine.
2. Principle of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioners invoked the principle of promissory estoppel, arguing that the authorities had promised to grant the license under the 0% duty scheme by a letter dated 29th June 1999. The withdrawal of this promise by the authorities was challenged as a violation of promissory estoppel. The petitioners cited several judgments to support their claim, emphasizing that the doctrine of fairness and Section 115 of the Evidence Act should prevent the authorities from reneging on their promise.
3. Prospective vs. Retrospective Application of the Duty Scheme:
The authorities contended that the policy was prospective and could not be applied retrospectively. They clarified that the customs notification extending the 0% duty benefit to the textile sector was issued on 4th November 1999, making it prospective. Thus, the petitioners' EPCG license issued on 10th March 1999 could not be converted to a 0% duty license.
4. Validity of the Importation Process and Customs Notifications:
The court examined the importation process and the customs notifications. It was noted that the bill of entry is crucial for determining the legal importation date. The court referred to a previous judgment, emphasizing that the arrival of goods and their legal entry are distinct. The transitional period during which goods are examined does not constitute valid importation for duty imposition.
5. Entitlement to Refund of Duty Paid:
The petitioners sought a refund of Rs. 1,24,45,091.80 along with interest, arguing that the duty was paid under the 10% scheme before the 0% scheme became effective. The respondents argued that the communication dated 24th June 1999 was for the issuance of an import license, not for the 0% duty scheme. The court found the authorities' explanations inconsistent and noted that the exemption scheme for the textile sector should cover the petitioners' capital goods.
Conclusion:
The court directed the appropriate respondent authority to provide a hearing and pass a reasoned order within one month, addressing why the exemption could not be granted and whether the duty paid should be refunded. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the reasoning, they may appeal or seek a review. If the authority finds the petitioners' grievance genuine, relief should be granted without a reasoned order, superseding earlier rejections. No order as to costs was passed, and certified copies of the judgment were to be provided within seven days.
Operative Part:
The writ petition is disposed of with directions for a reasoned order and potential relief, with provisions for appeal or review if necessary. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the judgment's operative part.
-
2002 (9) TMI 115
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification dated 3-8-2001.
2. Discriminatory nature of the Notification.
3. Interim orders and subsequent appeals.
4. Exhaustion of alternative remedies.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Notification dated 3-8-2001:
The petitioners challenged the notification dated 3-8-2001 u/s 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which raised the tariff value for RBD Palmolein to 372 US$ per metric ton. They argued that the notification was not published in the Official Gazette on 3-8-2001 but rather on or after 6-8-2001. The respondents contended that the notification was published on 3-8-2001 itself. The Court found that the notification was not published and offered for sale on 3-8-2001, as required by law, and thus could not be effective from that date. The Court held that the notification dated 3-8-2001 did not acquire the elements of operativeness and enforceability on 3-8-2001 and hence additional duty imposed by the notification could not be levied on 3-8-2001.
2. Discriminatory nature of the Notification:
The petitioners argued that the notification was discriminatory as it raised the tariff value only for certain goods like RBD Palmolein, RBD Palm Oil, and Crude Palm Oil, while leaving out other similar goods such as sunflower, safflower, cotton seed oil, rapeseed oil, and soybean oil. The Court found that such discriminatory fixation of trend value for only part of a class of goods is not authorized by statute and is not sustainable in the absence of any reasonable explanation and materials justifying the same.
3. Interim orders and subsequent appeals:
The petitioners sought an interim order to stay the demand for differential tariff amounts. The learned Single Judge rejected this prayer, leading the petitioners to file writ appeals. The Court initially granted an interim order allowing the release of goods upon furnishing solvent security. However, the respondents did not accept the solvency certificate, leading to further legal proceedings. Eventually, the Court ordered the release of goods upon furnishing 25% of the value of the goods as a bank guarantee.
4. Exhaustion of alternative remedies:
The respondents argued that the petitioners should exhaust the remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act by filing an appeal before the Commissioner. However, the Court noted that alternative remedy is not a bar if the issuance of the notification is bad and ultra vires on its face.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned notification dated 3-8-2001, and the consequent demand for differential duty. The security and bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners were ordered to be canceled. The writ appeals and contempt petitions were disposed of accordingly.
............
|
9911796707
