|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 2242 Records
-
1982 (12) TMI 211 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ormer, he was not able to do so although he was given sufficient time. Further, he could not answer the questions put by the Tribunal. Furthermore, he was not able to adduce any argument in support of the grounds urged in the memorandum of Revision Application. There is thus nothing to show that the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. Considering the foregoing the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Tribunal consider it proper to point out to appellants Central Railways that in matters like this it would be appreciated if a responsible Officer fully conversant with the facts of the case is deputed to attend the hearings in future and such matters are not entrusted to persons like Shri Todi Lal, who having regard to the nature of his qualifications and responsibilities, could be of no help to the Tribunal or to Appellant Department for decision of the matter in dispute. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 210 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants is not correct. The notification places an overall ceiling on the factory’s entitlement to the concession which is to be not more than 75 per cent of the licensed capacity of the factory for the financial year 1978-79. To that ceiling, the quantity already cleared, if any, at concessional rate under notification No. 198/76 during the period from 1-4-1978 to 13-7-1978 is to be debited and only the remaining net ceiling is available within which clearances of tyres could take place at the concessional rate provided for in notification No. 142/78. The notification does not state anywhere that the net ceiling or entitlement is available from 1-4-1978. Consequently, following the rule that an exemption notification is applicable from the date of its issue, the conclusion is inescapable that concessional-rated clearances within the net ceiling under notification No. 142/78 could take place only on and from 14-7-1978. 8. Accordingly, we reject the appeal.
-
1982 (12) TMI 209 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tion to certain code words appearing in the invoice like “EKW” and “SCC” followed by the figure 800 in the invoice. They claimed that the code words referred to grit size. Here again, they had nothing to show by way of evidence that these code words represented the grit size. On the other hand, the Department produced the printed and illustrated catalogue of M/s DELAPANA which listed various types of grinding stones under the heading “Honing stones” and one of the types so listed was graphite impregnated honing stones which performed the functions of super finishing on various types of metals. In view of the appellants’ failure to substantiate their case with acceptable documentary evidence and in view of the Department having proved that super finishing stones could also be a category of honing stones, we are hardly in a position to find fault with the findings of the Appellate Authority. 10. Accordingly, we reject the appeal.
-
1982 (12) TMI 208 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... act that the appellants had paid only 18.15 to the extent of 5,000 M.Ts as per the Supplier’s good ‘gesture’ shown in the fresh agreement. Nobody, including the appellants could deny the fact that the price of the sulphur had gone upto 60 per L.T. at the time and place of importation. Whether the importation of 5,000 M. Ts of sulphur was under the old contract or under fresh agreement or whether the quantity amounting to 5,000 M. Ts was imported at the old price because of good gesture on the part of the supplier was not at all relevant for the purpose of levy of duty of customs. The invoice or the contract or any other document could only be an important factor which may be taken into consideration to arrive at the ordinarily prevailing price at which the relevant goods were sold or offered for sale. We, therefore, decide that the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras is correct in law and based on facts. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 207 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... quo;hand” qualified only polishing stones and that, therefore, all types of hones, whether hand-operated or machine-operated, were excluded from sub-heading (2) and were thus correctly classified by the Department under sub-heading (1). 6. We have given our earnest consideration to the matter. We find force in the Department’s contention that since Explanatory Notes to the BTN have not been incorporated into the Customs Tariff, the matter would have to be decided on the basis of the plain interpretation of the Tariff itself. The plain interpretation of the expression “but excluding hand polishing stones, whetstones, oil stones and hones” is that the word “hand” qualifies only polishing stones. Accordingly, we hold that the Department is right in saying that both machine-operated as well as hand-operated hones are excluded from sub-heading (2) and their assessment under sub-heading (1) is, therefore, correct. 7. Appeal rejected.
-
1982 (12) TMI 206 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and was, therefore, hit by the limitation under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is against this order that the Food Corporation of India had come to the Tribunal for relief. The only explanation given by the representative of the appellants is that they had entered into a protracted correspondence with their Ministry, viz., the Ministry of Agriculture, to find out the exact quantum of inspection charges which was ultimately found to be nil. 3. We have carefully gone through the arguments advanced by the appellants. We uphold the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, that since the ground for modifying the inspection charges from 0.50% to 0.35% was raised for the first time on 3-8-1979, whereas the duty in the instant case had been paid on 8-1-1979, the claim was barred by limitation under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the result, the appeal is rejected on the ground of limitation alone without going into the merits of the case.
-
1982 (12) TMI 205 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s are carried out on materials, components and full-scale aircraft structures to ascertain whether they can withstand the maximum loads expected in services without failure or permanent deformation. The actuator is used for the purpose of such tests. 8. From the description of the function and purpose of the actuator as given in the catalogue and explained by the appellants’ representative, the Tribunal finds that it clearly falls within the description of Heading No. 90.22. By virtue of Note 1(1) to Section XVI, articles falling within Chapter 90 are excluded from the scope of that Section, within which Heading No. 84.59 falls. The Tribunal accordingly finds that there is substance in the claim of the appellants that the goods should be classified under Heading No. 90.22. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Customs authorities at Madras are directed to grant consequential refund to the appellants within two months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1982 (12) TMI 204 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ng the goods from the scope of heading No. 85.18/27. 9. The Tribunal accordingly considers that the classification of the goods under heading No. 85.18/27 was not correct. The goods should appropriately fall within Chapter 90, which covers, among other things, measuring and checking instruments and apparatus. Question that remains is whether they should more appropriately be classified under heading No. 90.24(1) as claimed by the appellants, or 90.29(1) as contended by Shri Iyer. This is a somewhat academic question, since the rate of duty in either case would be the same. There is no doubt that the appellants are entitled to re-assessment of the goods at the rate of duty claimed by them, i.e., that applicable to heading No. 90.24(l) at the material time. In the result, the Tribunal allows the appeal and directs that consequential refund of duty be granted by the Customs authorities to the appellants within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1982 (12) TMI 203 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nnot be classified by reference to descriptions, notes or Rules bearing on the goods. In the present case, it is quite clear that sub-heading (2) to Heading No. 84.59 is not applicable to the goods in question, and therefore sub-heading (1) would apply. It is not the case that sub-headings (1) and (2) equally merit consideration. Rule 3(c), therefore, has no application to the present case. 18. In the result, the Tribunal finds that of the alternative Headings claimed by the appellants, neither Heading No. 84.36 nor Heading No. 38(1) is applicable to the goods under consideration. They fully satisfy the description in Heading No. 84.59 of being machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling under any other Heading of Chapter 84. For the reasons given above, sub-heading (2) of this Heading is not applicable. Accordingly they are correctly classifiable under sub-heading (1) ibid as has already been done. The appeal therefore falls and is rejected.
-
1982 (12) TMI 202 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ion of mind by the lower authorities. Shri Iyer, therefore, submitted that the classification already made was correct and the appeal should be rejected. 9. The Tribunal has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by both sides. The parts in question have been described in the invoice as “Canter shaft splined”, “Sleeve main shaft gear”, “Clutch main shaft slinger”, “Gear main shaft low” and “Bushing main shaft gear”. The Tribunal considers that the Appellate Collector was right in holding that even though these may be parts for purpose of transmission they are not parts of the engine. Accordingly, they have to be treated as parts of Special purpose motor vehicles, viz. fire tenders, which fall within Heading No. 87.03 and classified under the same heading. The Appellate Collector’s order was, therefore, correct and the Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
-
1982 (12) TMI 201 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d that the correct classification of the subject goods was under the heading No. 85.18/27(3) as “Electrical apparatus for making and breaking electrical circuits, for the protection of electrical circuits...” designed for use in Circuits of 400 Volts or above. 4. Shri Iyer on behalf of the Respondent did not controvert the evidence adduced by the Appellants. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the Appellants and the evidence produced in support of their contention. It is observed that the subject “Differential Relays” are designed for use in the protection of Generators in Circuits of 400 Volts and above. The goods are, therefore, correctly classifiable under the heading 85.18/27 (3) of the Customs Tariff Schedule. In the result, we allow the appeal and direct that the Customs authorities at Bombay shall refund the differential duty involved to the Appellants within two months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1982 (12) TMI 200 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ining. The question whether such post-importation processes which may have to be performed before the goods imported can be fitted or attached are such as to change their essential character, or are of such a minor nature that they can be ignored for the purpose of classification, is one which depends on the facts of each case. In the present case, having regard to the composition of the goods, the use for which they were intended and to which they have been put, the description in the invoice, and the relatively minor alteration effected by the post-importation process, i.e., machining, the Tribunal considers that this machining can be ignored and would not vitiate the Classification of the goods as “parts” within the meaning of the Notification. In the result, the Tribunal allows the appeal and directs that consequential refund of duty be granted to the Appellants by the Customs authorities at Madras within 2 months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1982 (12) TMI 199 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... effect that they were classifiable under Item 15A(2) as an article made of plastic precisely on the ground that the plastic material constituting, as it does, only 10% to 15% of the total quantity of a tile, is not its principal or predominant ingredient. It acts only as a binding agent. The ratio of the said decision is, undisputadly applicable to the mixture sought to be assessed to duty in these proceedings. If the ultimate product, “Marblex Tiles”, cannot be an article made of plastics because plastic material is not the principal or predominant ingredient, much less can an intermediate product be a “plastic material” for the same reason. 11. In the result, the Appeal succeeds and is allowed. We hold that “Master Batch Chips”-the mixture in question-is not proved to be excisable at the relevant time-much less under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the First Schedule to the Act. The Appellant should be given all consequential reliefs, if any.
-
1982 (12) TMI 198 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... id notification, are exempt from so much of that portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule (Basic duty of Customs) as is in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in Col. (3) of the said Table. In others words, all goods falling under the sub-heading referred to items other than those specified in Col. (4) of the Table annexed to the said notification, would attract the concessional rate of Basic duty of 60% ad valorem. The imported goods, by themselves, do not fall within the scope of any of the items listed in the said Col. (4). We are, therefore, of the view that the imported goods are eligible for the benefit of the concessional rate of duty in terms of the said notification. In the result the appeal is allowed. The Customs authorities should re-assess the goods in terms of this Order and refund the differential amount to the Appellants within two months from the date of communication of this Order.
-
1982 (12) TMI 197 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... it is made. In our view, the copolymer resins in this case which have been imparted a special ability i.e. to cause exchange of ions, can no longer be regarded as merely artificial resins but as a class of products which have been given characteristics that make their use appropriate only in a particular respect and for a particular purpose, namely ion exchange, rather than as a general purpose resin. In view of the above we consider that the ion exchange copolymerisation products imported by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are correctly assessable under item 38.01(9) as water treatment chemicals and not as artificial resins assessable under Chapter 39. Correspondingly the assessment under Item 15A of Central Excise Tariff must be held to be inappropriate and that Item 68 is a more appropriate head. 11. We, accordingly, direct that the assessment should be made in accordance with this judgment and that all consequential refunds be given to the importer. 12. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 196 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... reated as a normal and genuine transaction. We, however, agree with the submission made by the representative of the respondent that an inspection of the original contract between M/s. Hira Lall and Sons and the foreign suppliers is necessary before final assessment and consequential relief is granted to the appellants. Accordingly, we order that the order No. S/49-199/80-R, dated 24-3-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, be set aside and the impugned goods be assessed at the contract price of US 174 per MT subject to the condition that the appellants shall produce before the Assistant Collector of Customs the original contract No. 1-08/E/2/IV, dated 18-7-1979 between M/s. Hira Lall and Sons and Chemi Imports and other relevant documents like the indent placed by the appellants, invoices, etc., evidencing the import having been effected in terms of the said original contract, for verification to his satisfaction about their genuineness and authenticity.
-
1982 (12) TMI 195 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... toms who in terms in his order of 27th of December, 1976 recorded that the petitioner agitated that the same product could not be subjected to two different tariff rates which language clearly implied that two tariffs were charged on the same value. 9. Without going into further details and the merits we hope to be understood in proper perspective if we only observe that orders which can be subject matter of review or appeal should be speaking ones and it is not sufficient in law if summary contents is recorded and decision given without detailing corresponding relevant facts. The order of the Appellate Collector is vacated with the directions that he shall pass a fresh order within 4 months of the receipt of this judgment giving all the facts and reasons for his decision. We are not binding the Appellate Collector in any manner but for the period prescribed for him to decide the case afresh as observed above. 10. For purposes of statistics, the appeal is treated as allowed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 194 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t so far as authorities by Special Act are concerned, they are bound by the time-limit provided therein and the general law of limitation of three years could be invoked if a suit was filed by reference to Section 72 of the Contract Act, before the Civil Court or High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction may apply principles thereof, and direct refund on the basis that State could not be allowed undue enrichment at the cost of a party. 10. There is an authority of the Supreme Court, reported as AIR 1976 SC page 638 with direct reference to Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, holding that application for refund having been made after the expiry of the period provided by said Section, had been rightly rejected. 11. The claim for refund was, therefore, rightly rejected as being filed beyond the time prescribed by Section 27(1) of the Customs Act and we do not find any infirmity in the view held by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 193 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... iginal Authority first on the issue of countervailing duty and to revive their appeal thereon. 3. We have carefully considered the matter. It is a statutory requirement under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 that for claiming refund of any customs duty collected, the assessee should file a specific refund application to the Assistant Collector within the prescribed time-limit. No such refund application was filed in this case. The appellants have admitted as much in their written memorandum of appeal when they state that their claim for refund was ‘implied’ when the Appellate Collector accepted their contention that the goods were not weld metal electrodes. The Order. in-Original WA confined to the matter of Import Trade Control violation and there WA nothing in the said order relating to the matter of assessment of countervailing duty. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. Accordingly, we reject the appeal.
-
1982 (12) TMI 192 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... re the concerned authority for relief, in case a definite period of time has been provided by Legislation. The case of the appellant is all the more weaker than the one before the Mysore High Court, because the scheme of the Customs Act indicates that there is no provision even for condonation of delay for moving such applications, apart from the fact that even if there was any such provision, the ground being urged in this case, by itself, would not have constituted sufficient ground for condoning this delay. The authorities cited by the Company in the grounds of revision, though nobody has turned up to elaborate the point made, also do not seems to be having any bearing on the facts of the present case, because there is a case at the most of erroneous view having been held by the Appraiser at the time of assessment of duty, and not a case of absolute want of authority of law to levy this duty. 9. As a result, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
........
|
