Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1983 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 2644 Records

• 1983 (12) TMI 311
  
  Issues:
  1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.
  2. Entitlement to refund of duty paid on hessian cloth.
  3. Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules for rebate claims.
  
  Condonation of Delay:
  The appellant filed appeals before the Collector (Appeals) within the stipulated period, believing it was the correct authority based on previous judgments. The appellant, a sole proprietor, stated that the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal was due to unfamiliarity with Tribunal procedures. The appellant pleaded that the delay was due to sufficient cause and should be condoned. The Tribunal agreed to condone the delay in filing the appeals.
  
  Entitlement to Refund:
  The appellant, a small-scale manufacturer of jute bags, claimed duty paid on hessian cloth as rebate. The appellant had exported jute bags without possessing a Central Excise license or complying with formalities under the Central Excise Act and Rules. The appellant argued that being registered with the Jute Commissioner and filing refund claims in time entitled them to the refund. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the appellant did not comply with Chapter IX procedures and lacked the necessary license, making them ineligible for the refund. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that mere registration with the Jute Commissioner was insufficient for refund entitlement.
  
  Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules:
  The Departmental Representative highlighted the appellant's failure to follow Chapter IX procedures and Rule 185 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Referring to relevant judgments, the Representative argued that the appellant did not meet the statutory requirements for refund eligibility. The appellant countered that as they were not registered with Central Excise Authorities, the obligation to furnish certain documents did not apply. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, held that the appellant's non-compliance with procedural requirements rendered them ineligible for the refund. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 310
  
  Issues:
  1. Refund claim of excise duty filed by Hindustan Motors Ltd. on a car converted into a taxi.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal involved a refund claim by Hindustan Motors Ltd. for excise duty paid on a car converted into a taxi. The claim was based on a Notification exempting certain motor cars used as taxis from excess excise duty. The appellant's claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred, as the claim was filed beyond six months. The appellant contended that the claim was within time as they had submitted the necessary documents to the Superintendent of Central Excise within the stipulated period. The appellant also relied on a letter from the Assistant Collector allowing a procedure for clearance of cars as taxis. However, the Department argued that the claim should have been filed directly with the Assistant Collector as per Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Department emphasized that compliance with statutory procedures was mandatory.
  
  The Tribunal examined the conditions of the Notification and the statutory provisions. The Notification required the manufacturer to provide a certificate from the State Transport Authority within three months of clearance of the car for use as a taxi. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had filed the necessary documents with the Superintendent of Central Excise but failed to file the refund claim directly with the Assistant Collector within the prescribed time. The Tribunal cited Section 11B, which mandates filing refund claims directly with the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal concurred with the Department's argument that the claim filed with the Superintendent had no legal value as per the statutory requirement. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the claim, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures and the specific requirement to file refund claims before the Assistant Collector within the specified time limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the clear provisions of Section 11B and the precedent set by the Calcutta High Court in similar cases.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of strict adherence to statutory procedures in filing refund claims for excise duty. The judgment emphasized the mandatory requirement to file such claims directly with the Assistant Collector within the specified time limit, as outlined in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision was based on the explicit statutory provisions and the established legal precedent, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 309
  
  Issues:
  1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.
  2. Claim for refund of Central Excise duty on Moped tubes.
  3. Provisional assessment and entitlement to refund.
  4. Proof of re-warehousing and its impact on refund claim.
  
  Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay:
  The appellant filed a Revision petition with the Ministry, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. The appeal was filed in the proper form after a mistaken belief of law. The appellant sought condonation of delay, stating ignorance of the Tribunal's rules. The Tribunal held that the delay was due to a bona fide mistake, and the filing of the appeal in the correct form rectified the error. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal excused the delay, considering the circumstances.
  
  Claim for refund of Central Excise duty on Moped tubes:
  The appellant, a tyre manufacturer, claimed a refund of duty paid on Moped tubes supplied to another company. The tubes were delivered to the customer without using the prescribed procedure, leading to a refund claim. The appellant argued that the duty was paid provisionally and within the time limit. The appellant contended that the duty was paid twice as a precaution and that the refund claim was valid under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  Provisional assessment and entitlement to refund:
  The respondent challenged the appellant's claim, arguing that the duty payment was not provisional and that the appellant failed to prove re-warehousing as required by Rule 156B. The respondent emphasized discrepancies in payment amounts and lack of re-warehousing certification. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, citing the necessity of satisfying conditions for refund, including proof of re-warehousing. The absence of re-warehousing and insufficient proof of payment led to the dismissal of the appeal.
  
  Proof of re-warehousing and its impact on refund claim:
  The Tribunal highlighted the requirement under Rule 156B for proof of re-warehousing to be eligible for a refund. The absence of re-warehousing certification by the consignee and lack of sufficient proof of payment led to the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the importance of meeting the conditions for refund, including re-warehousing certification and satisfactory proof of payment. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the appellant's failure to fulfill these requirements.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 308
  
  The judgment dealt with the classification of imported Carbon Rings under customs headings. The appellants claimed classification under Heading 90.24, but lower authorities classified them under Heading 85.18/27(1). The tribunal found that the goods did not qualify under Heading 90.24 as they were accessories of Air Compressors, not instruments or apparatus for control. The appeal was dismissed.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 307
  
  Issues:
  1. Maintainability of reference applications under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  2. Classification of blended yarn and determination of excise duty rate.
  3. Interpretation of the term "having relation to the rate of excise duty" under Section 35G of the Act.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment pertains to the request made by the appellants for a statement of case to be drawn up under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants sought to refer questions of law to the High Court regarding certain orders dated 22-6-1983. However, the appellants did not appear for the hearing, and a request for adjournment was made. The respondent raised an objection stating that the reference applications were not maintainable as they related to the determination of excise duty rates. The Tribunal noted the absence of the appellants and the objection raised by the respondent.
  
  2. The dispute in the reference applications revolved around the classification of blended yarn containing less than 90% cotton and the payment of excise duty on such yarn. The Department initially classified the yarn under Tariff Item 18E and levied duty based on the weight at the presized stage. Subsequently, the Department changed its stance, demanding duty based on the weight after sizing but at the rate applicable before sizing. A significant amount of differential duty was demanded, leading to a dispute. The appellants contended that duty should be charged based on the count and weight of unsized yarn, citing a judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal analyzed the differing counts of yarn before and after sizing, highlighting the importance of duty calculation based on counts. The Tribunal emphasized the wide import of the term "having a relation to the rate of excise duty" in such cases.
  
  3. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court ruling to establish that a question relating to the determination of excise duty rate, even if not explicitly addressed by the Tribunal, is deemed to have been dealt with. The Tribunal found that the orders in question indeed related to the rate of excise duty, as argued by the appellants themselves in their grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the reference applications under Section 35G of the Act, stating that they were not applicable due to the nature of the issues raised. The judgment highlighted the significance of the classification and rate of duty in excise matters and the application of relevant legal provisions to such disputes.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 306
  
  Issues:
  1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal.
  2. Interpretation of import policies regarding Micro Crystalline Wax.
  3. Application of promissory estoppel in changing government policies.
  4. Imposition of penalty and reduction thereof.
  
  Condonation of Delay:
  The appellant, a company, filed a revision petition before the Government of India, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. The appellant was directed to file an appeal on a prescribed form with the required fee. The appellant requested condonation of delay, citing a genuine belief that the revision petition was to be filed before the Government. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, condoned the delay and directed the revenue to refund the excess fee paid by the appellant.
  
  Interpretation of Import Policies:
  The case involved the importation of Micro Crystalline Wax by the appellant under Open General Licence (O.G.L). The Assistant Collector held that the importation was unauthorized as the item fell under canalized goods. The appellant argued that the change in policy from earlier years amounted to promissory estoppel, citing Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal, after analyzing the import policies, concluded that Micro Crystalline Wax was a canalized item for the relevant policy year, falling outside the scope of O.G.L.
  
  Application of Promissory Estoppel:
  The appellant contended that the sudden change in import policy created a promissory estoppel against the government. However, the Tribunal held that estoppel cannot be applied against a statute. The judgments cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant in this context. The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant, considering them as an actual user, and directed a partial refund of the penalty amount.
  
  Imposition of Penalty:
  The Assistant Collector had imposed a penalty on the appellant for unauthorized importation. The Tribunal found the penalty excessive and reduced it significantly, considering the appellant's status as an actual user. The Tribunal directed the revenue to refund a portion of the penalty amount to the appellant within a specified timeframe. The appeal was dismissed with the modified penalty amount.
  
  Overall, the Tribunal addressed the issues of delay condonation, interpretation of import policies, application of promissory estoppel, and the imposition of penalties, providing a detailed analysis of each aspect based on the arguments presented by both parties and relevant legal principles.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 305
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether goods manufactured before a notification imposing duty are liable for excise duty at the time of removal?
  2. Whether the exemption at the time of manufacture absolves the liability for excise duty at the time of removal?
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a revision application that was treated as an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The dispute arose regarding the liability of excise duty on goods manufactured before a specific notification imposing duty. The appellants, who manufactured cotton fabrics, argued that the goods produced during a certain period were duty-exempt under a notification issued on 18-6-1977. However, due to procedural delays, the goods were cleared after a subsequent notification on 15-7-1977, making them liable for duty. The main contention was whether the liability for excise duty should be determined at the time of manufacture or at the time of removal from the factory.
  
  The appellants relied on a previous court decision where goods fully exempt from excise duty at the time of manufacture were held not liable for duty upon removal post-withdrawal of exemption. Conversely, the Respondent argued that duty liability should be based on the removal date, not the manufacture date, citing various legal precedents supporting this view.
  
  The Tribunal emphasized that excise duty liability is triggered at the time of actual removal of goods from the factory, as per Section 3 and relevant rules. It was clarified that even if goods were exempt from duty at the time of manufacture, the duty becomes exigible at the time of removal. The Tribunal distinguished cases where exemption notifications did not absolve goods from excisability. The judgment highlighted that the date of removal is crucial for determining duty liability, and a 'Nil' assessment is valid under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal concluded that the goods, though manufactured before the duty notification, were liable for duty upon removal after the notification date, thus dismissing the appeal.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty liability on goods cleared post-notification, emphasizing the significance of the removal date for determining excise duty liability, even if the goods were exempt at the time of manufacture. The decision underscores the legal principle that excise duty is leviable at the point of removal from the factory, as per relevant statutory provisions and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 304
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether acrylic sheets crushed scrap attracts countervailing (CV) duty under Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff (CET).
  2. The applicability of previous Tribunal decisions and the principle of res judicata in this context.
  3. The classification of acrylic crushed scrap as plastic sheets or waste/scrap under the CET.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether acrylic sheets crushed scrap attracts countervailing (CV) duty under Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff (CET):
  
  The core issue in the appeal was whether acrylic sheets crushed scrap should be subjected to CV duty under Item 15A of the CET. The appellant argued that acrylic crushed scrap is not leviable to CV duty under Item 15A, as it is waste/scrap and not a manufactured good. The Tribunal had previously decided in two cases (Order No. 330/83-C and 1983 E.L.T. 845) that CV duty was not leviable on acrylic crushed scrap. The appellant emphasized that the nature of the goods as waste/scrap exempts them from CV duty, as no one manufactures scrap intentionally.
  
  The Department countered that the crushed scrap arose during the manufacture of prime sheets and should be classified under Item 15A, which covers goods in any form, including scrap. They argued that acrylic plastics, being thermoplastic, can be reformed and remoulded, thus falling under Item 15A.
  
  The Tribunal concluded that crushed scrap cannot be considered as sheets since their utility as sheets was destroyed when they were crushed to sizes of 1" x 1" or less. The Tribunal held that the assessment to CV duty under Item 15A(2) was incorrect and should be struck down.
  
  2. The applicability of previous Tribunal decisions and the principle of res judicata in this context:
  
  The appellant referred to previous Tribunal decisions (Order No. 330/83-C and 1983 E.L.T. 845) where it was held that acrylic crushed scrap was not leviable to CV duty. The Department argued that these decisions were based on incorrect assessments and that new facts, such as the capability of acrylic sheets to be directly moulded, were being presented.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the principle of res judicata, as discussed in the Supreme Court, applies to changes in laws relating to assessment. However, there was no change in central excise law, only the addition of "waste or scrap" to Tariff Item No. 15A in 1982. The Tribunal emphasized that decisions given by the Tribunal should conform to one another to avoid conflict.
  
  3. The classification of acrylic crushed scrap as plastic sheets or waste/scrap under the CET:
  
  The Department argued that Item 15A(1) of the CET was wide enough to cover mouldable or formable scrap and that the inclusion of waste and scrap in 1982 was merely clarificatory. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessment of the goods under sub-item (2) of Item 15A was incorrect, as waste and scrap were not included in this sub-item before 1982.
  
  The Tribunal concluded that pieces of 1" by 1" cannot qualify as sheets under Item 15A(2) and that the assessment to CV duty under this item was wrong. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and allowed the Custom House to re-examine whether the crushed sheet scrap could be re-assessed to CV duty under any other suitable item of the CET.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal held that the assessment of acrylic sheets crushed scrap to CV duty under Item 15A(2) was incorrect and ordered it to be struck down. The Tribunal allowed the Custom House to re-examine the classification of the crushed sheet scrap under any other suitable item of the CET. All eight appeals were disposed of in this manner.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 303
  
  Issues: Assessment of Central Excise duty on the value of manufactured product, application of Notification No. 119/75, significance of materials supplied by job worker, labor and power usage in manufacturing process.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Assessment of Central Excise Duty: The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment of Central Excise duty on the value of the manufactured product, starting resistors. The appellant contended that they had initially paid duty on the job work value but later faced a demand for duty on the entire value of the resistors. The argument centered around whether duty should be levied on the job work value or the final product value.
  
  2. Application of Notification No. 119/75: The appellant relied on the case of M/s. Madura Coats v. Union of India to argue that duty should be levied only on the job work value when materials are supplied to the job worker. The Departmental Representative, however, argued that the materials supplied by the appellants played a substantial role in the manufacturing process, disqualifying them from the exemption under Notification No. 119/75.
  
  3. Significance of Materials Supplied: The Departmental Representative emphasized the substantial value and importance of the materials supplied by the appellants in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal agreed with this assessment, noting that the appellants provided labor, expertise, and a significant proportion of raw materials, without evidence to the contrary.
  
  4. Labor and Power Usage: An argument regarding the number of workers and absence of power usage in the manufacturing process was raised by the appellant. However, since this issue was not raised before the Collector of Central Excise and lacked evidence, the Tribunal did not delve into this matter, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on the other considerations.
  
  Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Appellate order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, dismissing the appeal of the appellant. The decision was based on the significant role played by the appellants in supplying materials and labor for the manufacturing process, leading to the imposition of Central Excise duty on the value of the final product.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 302
  
  The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi involved M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. importing 'Gleason Blades' and claiming refund of countervailing duty. The tribunal ruled that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 51A of the Central Excise Tariff as 'milling cutters', dismissing the appeal.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 301
  
  Issues: Classification of imported machinery under sub-heading (1) or sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40 of C.T.A., 1975
  
  In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT NEW DELHI, the issue at hand was the classification of machinery imported by the appellants under sub-heading (1) or sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants argued that the imported machinery, which included a Steam Press with a portable boiler along with steam ironing and cleaning tables, should be classified under sub-heading (1) as "Not elsewhere specified" since it was Industrial laundry and dry-cleaning machinery. On the other hand, the lower authorities had classified the machinery under sub-heading (2) which covers Domestic Washing machine, laundry, and dry-cleaning machinery.
  
  The appellants contended that the use of the word "Domestic" in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40 qualified not only washing machines but also laundry and dry-cleaning machinery. They argued that the punctuation used in the tariff was significant, and since only a comma separated "Domestic Washing machine" from "laundry and dry-cleaning machinery," it implied that the term "Domestic" applied to all three categories. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the inclusion of laundry and dry-cleaning machinery within brackets in the main part of Heading 84.40 meant that the heading encompassed all types of machinery, whether domestic or not. They asserted that the word "Domestic" did not qualify laundry and dry-cleaning machinery, and the intention of the Government was not to limit it to domestic machinery.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the word "Domestic" in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40 did not qualify laundry and dry-cleaning machinery. They emphasized that interpreting the tariff based on punctuation alone could lead to absurd results, as it would imply the existence of domestic laundry and dry-cleaning machinery, which was not known to exist. Since the appellants had imported Industrial laundry and dry-cleaning machinery, the lower authorities' classification under sub-heading (2) was deemed appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the classification under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 300
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of V.P. Latex under the Indian Customs Tariff (I.C.T.).
  2. Applicability of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the time limit for refund claims.
  3. Amendment of refund claims and its effect on the date of the original claim.
  4. Applicability of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to customs matters.
  5. Consequential refund and its limitations.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of V.P. Latex under the Indian Customs Tariff (I.C.T.):
  The appellants imported 10 consignments of V.P. Latex and initially classified them under Item 82(3) of I.C.T. with countervailing duty under T.I. 15A of C.E.T. They later sought re-classification under Item 78 I.C.T., which was rejected. Upon appeal, they claimed classification under Item 39 of I.C.T., which was also rejected. The Supreme Court, in M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, held that V.P. Latex should be classified under Item 39 of I.C.T. The Tribunal accepted this classification for the appellants' goods based on the Supreme Court judgment and the concession by the Departmental Representative.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the time limit for refund claims:
  Section 27(1) prescribes a six-month time limit for refund claims. The appellants initially claimed a refund under Item 87 of I.C.T. and later sought re-classification under Item 39 I.C.T. after the time limit had expired. The Tribunal had to determine whether the limitation period would apply when the proper classification was found to be under a different item after the expiry of the time limit.
  
  3. Amendment of refund claims and its effect on the date of the original claim:
  The Tribunal examined whether an amendment to the claim could be made after the expiry of the limitation period and whether such an amendment would take effect from the date of the original claim. The Tribunal referred to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The Tribunal concluded that amendments could relate back to the date of the original claim if they did not introduce a new cause of action or work injustice to the other side.
  
  4. Applicability of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to customs matters:
  The Tribunal held that the principles of Order 6, Rule 17, which allow amendments to pleadings, apply to customs matters. The Tribunal cited various precedents where similar provisions were applied to different types of proceedings, including those under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal concluded that the rule would be applicable to claims made under the Customs Act, 1962, before the Tribunal.
  
  5. Consequential refund and its limitations:
  The Tribunal held that if proper classification resulted in a larger refund than originally claimed, the larger amount should be refunded. The Tribunal emphasized that the government could not retain excess amounts without authority of law, as it would violate Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the collection of tax except by authority of law. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants were interveners in the Supreme Court case of M/s. Dunlop India Ltd., and thus, they should receive the full benefit of the judgment.
  
  Minority Judgment:
  One member dissented, arguing that the Customs Act is a complete code and does not incorporate Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. The dissenting member held that the appellants could not claim a larger refund after the six-month time limit had expired, as it would amount to making a supplementary claim, which is not permissible under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The dissenting opinion emphasized that the Tribunal had no authority to waive or relax the time-bar.
  
  Conclusion:
  The majority judgment allowed the appeal partly, holding that the goods were classifiable under Item 39 of I.C.T. with consequential refund for customs duty. The classification for additional duty (C.V.D.) under Item 15A of the C.E.T. was upheld. The minority opinion, however, restricted the refund to the amount claimed within the six-month time limit.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 299
  
  Issues involved: Determination of whether the appellants are the manufacturers of electrical stampings and laminations u/s 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, applicability of time-bar of six months u/s 11A of the Central Excises Act, and the correctness of the penalty imposed and appropriation of security money.
  
  Manufacturing of Electrical Laminations:
  The appeal arose from an order imposing a penalty and demanding duty on the appellants for Electrical Laminations cleared during a specific period. The Collector held that the appellants were the real manufacturers based on the fact that the second Company manufactured the goods as per the appellants' specifications and returned the entire production to them. The appellants contended that supplying raw material to a subcontractor does not make them the real manufacturer, citing relevant case laws.
  
  Appellants' Arguments and Case Laws:
  The appellants argued that they are not the manufacturers as per Section 2(f) of the Act and challenged the vagueness of the original authority's order. They cited a judgment of the Madras High Court and contended that their case aligns with it, emphasizing that the second Company is an independent unit regardless of the material used for manufacturing.
  
  Department's Submission and Supreme Court Precedent:
  The Department submitted that a Supreme Court judgment governs the case, even though it was not cited before the Madras High Court. The appellants argued that the Supreme Court judgment is irrelevant to their case, and the Madras High Court did not consider it for the same reason.
  
  Judicial Analysis and Precedents:
  The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and analyzed the facts of the case. They referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court, which found relevance in the present case as the appellants supplied raw material and specifications to the second Company, similar to the case before the High Court. The Tribunal also referenced a Supreme Court judgment where the appellants were deemed the real manufacturers based on specific circumstances, which differed from the present case.
  
  Decision and Conclusion:
  After evaluating the facts and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants' case aligns with the judgment of the Madras High Court. They found no evidence to support the claim that the second Company was a dummy of the appellants, emphasizing that supplying raw material and specifications does not automatically make one the manufacturer. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 298
  
  Issues:
  Assessment under Tariff Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff for Hot Cups and Stainless Steel Rectangular Beverage Jugs. Interpretation of Explanation I to Tariff Item 33C. Applicability of Notification No. 33/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969. Confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal involved the assessment under Tariff Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff for Hot Cups and Stainless Steel Rectangular Beverage Jugs. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise had ordered that these items should be assessed under T.I. 33 and subjected to Central Excise Duty under Notification No. 33/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969. The Appellate Collector upheld this order and imposed confiscation, fine, and penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants challenged this decision before the Tribunal. The issue was whether these items fell under the specified tariff items and notification for duty imposition.
  
  The Advocate for the appellants argued that the items could not be classified as 'Domestic Electrical Appliances' under T.I. 33C. She contended that the items did not fit the description of 'Kettles or Food warming cabinets' under the notification. The argument was supported by citing relevant legal authorities emphasizing the importance of trade and popular meaning in tax interpretation. The contention was that the items should not be subjected to Central Excise duty and the penalties should be remitted.
  
  The Departmental Representative argued that Explanation I broadened the scope of 'Domestic Electrical Appliances' to include similar appliances used in various settings. He asserted that the items in question were essentially 'Kettles and food warming cabinets' even if used in specific contexts like aircraft. The representative distinguished a legal case to emphasize the importance of the article's use in the present case.
  
  After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that Explanation I expanded the definition of 'Domestic Electrical Appliances' to cover items used in diverse environments. However, regarding the specific duty liability under the notification, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants. It was noted that the lower authorities failed to provide evidence or reasoning to support the classification of Hot Cups and Beverage Jugs under the notification. Additionally, a Tariff Advice and subsequent amendment to the notification were referenced to support the appellants' position. The Tribunal concluded that the items in question were distinct from Electric Kettles and Food Warming Cabinets, overturning the lower authorities' decision and directing a refund of duty, fine, and penalty to the appellants.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants by setting aside the lower authorities' orders and ordering the refund of duty, fine, and penalty.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 297
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector, Allahabad.
  2. Validity of the show-cause notice issued after six months from the date of seizure.
  3. Legality of the corrigendum issued to the show-cause notice.
  4. Impact of non-issuance of show-cause notice within the prescribed period on the penalty and confiscation proceedings.
  5. Effect of the criminal proceedings and discharge of the accused on the customs adjudication.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector, Allahabad:
  
  The primary contention was whether the Deputy Collector, Allahabad had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case after the creation of the Patna Customs Collectorate in 1972. The appellant argued that Notification No. 35 of 4-3-1972 extinguished the jurisdiction of the Allahabad Collectorate over Lucknow District. However, it was concluded that the notification did not supersede or modify the earlier Notification No. 37 of 1963, which appointed the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, as the Collector of Customs for the Allahabad Collectorate. Therefore, the Deputy Collector, Allahabad retained jurisdiction. The minority opinion disagreed, stating that the later notification implicitly repealed the earlier one, thus divesting the Allahabad Collectorate of jurisdiction over Lucknow.
  
  2. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice Issued After Six Months:
  
  The appellant argued that the show-cause notice issued on 27-1-1970, more than six months after the seizure on 12-5-1969, was invalid as the extension was granted without giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause against it. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Charan Das Malhotra (A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 689), which mandates that the extension of the period for issuing a show-cause notice must be done after giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard. The failure to do so rendered the extension and subsequent proceedings invalid.
  
  3. Legality of the Corrigendum Issued to the Show-Cause Notice:
  
  The appellant contended that the corrigendum issued on 27-12-1978, which required the appellant to show cause to the Deputy Collector, Allahabad, was without jurisdiction as it was issued beyond the six-month period. The Tribunal found this argument without substance, stating that the corrigendum merely directed the appellant to the appropriate authority and did not affect the validity of the proceedings.
  
  4. Impact of Non-Issuance of Show-Cause Notice Within the Prescribed Period on the Penalty and Confiscation Proceedings:
  
  The Tribunal noted conflicting judgments from various High Courts on whether the non-issuance of a show-cause notice within six months invalidates the confiscation and penalty proceedings. The Calcutta High Court (1982 E.L.T. 902) and Delhi High Court (1983 E.L.T. 1715) held that such non-compliance renders the proceedings illegal. Conversely, the Madras High Court (A.I.R. 1975 Madras 43) held that the department could proceed with confiscation and penalty despite the delay. The Tribunal followed the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts' decisions, setting aside the confiscation but upholding the penalty as the adjudicating officer had recorded a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation.
  
  5. Effect of the Criminal Proceedings and Discharge of the Accused on the Customs Adjudication:
  
  The appellant mentioned that a criminal complaint was filed, but the accused was discharged due to the prosecution's failure to present evidence. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue extensively, as it was not addressed by the appellant's counsel during the hearing. The discharge in the criminal case did not automatically invalidate the customs adjudication proceedings.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeal was partly allowed. The order of confiscation of the watches was set aside due to the invalid extension of the period for issuing the show-cause notice. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant was upheld as the adjudicating officer had found the goods liable to confiscation, and the appellant's counsel did not contest the merits of the evidence against the appellant. The jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector, Allahabad, to adjudicate the case was affirmed by the majority, but the minority opinion held that the jurisdiction had shifted to the Patna Collectorate.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 296
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of white offset printing paper under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 17(2) or 17(3).
  2. Entitlement to refund of differential duty.
  3. Validity of the Assistant Collector's reclassification decision.
  4. Applicability of trade notice regarding tolerance in grammage.
  5. Impact of customer recovery on refund claim.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of White Offset Printing Paper:
  The primary issue revolves around whether the white offset printing paper should be classified under Tariff Item No. 17(2) or 17(3). The Sirpur Paper Mills argued that their product should be classified under Item 17(3) as it had been in the past, while the Assistant Collector classified it under Item 17(2) based on its grammage. The Tribunal examined various authoritative texts which described both cartridge paper and offset printing paper. It noted that although there are similarities between the two types of paper, there are also significant differences. The Tribunal concluded that the classification based solely on grammage was unscientific and lacked legal support. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the correct classification should be under Item 17(3) as originally claimed by the assessee.
  
  2. Entitlement to Refund of Differential Duty:
  The appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 13,588.96, arguing that the paper was incorrectly classified under a higher duty category. The Tribunal observed that the refund claim was initially prompted by the Assistant Collector's instructions. However, the Tribunal found that the refund could not arise under Rule 11 as there was no error, inadvertence, or misconstruction in the duty payment. Instead, the duty was paid following the reclassification by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, directing a refund of Rs. 11,088.00 based on gate-pass No. 249, dated 14-4-1973.
  
  3. Validity of the Assistant Collector's Reclassification Decision:
  The Assistant Collector reclassified the paper from Item 17(3) to Item 17(2) without notifying the manufacturer, which the appellant argued was arbitrary. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Collector's decision was based solely on the grammage of the paper and did not consider other characteristics. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment should not be based solely on grammage and that the Assistant Collector's reclassification was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the correct assessment was under Item 17(3).
  
  4. Applicability of Trade Notice Regarding Tolerance in Grammage:
  The appellant demanded a tolerance of 6% over the grammage based on a trade notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. The Assistant Collector rejected this demand, stating that his collectorate had not issued any such notice. The Tribunal clarified that such tolerances are applicable only when there is a dispute about the declared grammage, not to alter the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal found the demand for tolerance unacceptable.
  
  5. Impact of Customer Recovery on Refund Claim:
  The department argued that since the duty had been recovered from the customers, the refund would result in undeserved enrichment. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument but noted that the factory was compelled to pay the higher duty due to the Assistant Collector's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the department could not deny the refund based on the recovery from customers, as the higher duty payment was a result of the department's own action.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing a refund of Rs. 11,088.00 to the assessee. The Tribunal held that the white offset printing paper should be classified under Tariff Item No. 17(3) and found the Assistant Collector's reclassification decision to be incorrect. The Tribunal also clarified the limited applicability of tolerance in grammage and rejected the department's argument against the refund based on customer recovery.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 295
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice.
  2. Classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff.
  3. Applicability of Notification No. 68/76.
  4. Competence and jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to review an approved classification list.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
  The Counsel for M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters argued that the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd January 1979 was unsatisfactory as it did not specify why the Central Government viewed PVC coating as different from printing of color under Notification No. 68/76. The absence of reasons made it difficult for the notice receiver to contest the action.
  
  2. Classification of the Product:
  The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, had classified the plastic-coated paper under Tariff Item 17(2) and ordered the recovery of Central Excise duty for the period '74-'76. The Appellate Collector, however, had overruled this classification. The Tribunal found that the paper used by M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters was initially classified under sub-item 17(1) and not 17(2). Therefore, the duty charged under 17(2) was not a case of charging duty twice.
  
  3. Applicability of Notification No. 68/76:
  The Counsel for M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters argued that PVC coating on the paper should qualify as printing with color, thus earning the exemption under Notification No. 68/76. However, the Tribunal held that merely adhering a colored PVC sheet to the paper did not amount to printing with color as required by the notification. The paper itself must partake of the color, which was not the case here.
  
  4. Competence and Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector:
  The dissenting opinion by M. Gouri Shankar Murthy highlighted that the Assistant Collector did not have the jurisdiction to review an approved classification list. The power of review must be expressly or implicitly granted, which was not the case here. The Assistant Collector's order was void, and subsequent proceedings arising from it were of no consequence.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal set aside the Appellate Collector's order and restored the Assistant Collector's order, holding that the product by M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters was correctly classified under Tariff Item 17(2) and was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 68/76. The dissenting opinion emphasized the lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to review the classification list.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 294
  
  The case involves the import of a machine with accessories and spares. The appellants claimed a refund for the higher Customs duty charged on some accessories and spares. The dispute centered on the classification of the accessories and spares under Tariff Heading 84.45/48. The tribunal found that the accessories were not compulsorily supplied and had separate prices in the invoice. However, the tribunal noted that Heading 84.45/48 contained concessional rates for accessories and parts suitable for use with machine tools. The tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter for reevaluation by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in light of this finding.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 293
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Item No. 34A.
  2. Exemption under Notification No. 75/79 and Notification No. 76/79.
  3. Compliance with statutory procedures for claiming exemptions.
  4. Imposition of duty and penalty for non-compliance.
  
  Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Item No. 34A:
  The case involved a small scale manufacturer of Motor Vehicle Parts initially not specified under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 34A but later included under Item No. 68. The dispute arose regarding the liability to duty for parts cleared before and after the restructuring of the tariff item. The Assistant Collector observed that the appellants had contravened certain rules by clearing parts without a license and demanded duty for the period before they obtained a license.
  
  Exemption under Notification No. 75/79 and Notification No. 76/79:
  The appellants argued that they were entitled to exemption from duty under Notification No. 75/79 and Notification No. 76/79 for parts supplied to motor vehicle manufacturers. They contended that the parts were used as original equipment in motor vehicles and were covered under the said notifications. The delay in obtaining a license and following the prescribed procedure was attributed to administrative reasons, and they claimed there was no mala fide intention to evade duty.
  
  Compliance with statutory procedures for claiming exemptions:
  The Respondent emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures for claiming exemptions under the Central Excise laws. They argued that the failure to comply with the prescribed procedures, such as licensing requirements and removal under Chapter X procedure, justified the demand raised by the department.
  
  Imposition of duty and penalty for non-compliance:
  The Tribunal considered the legal position at the time of restructuring of the tariff item and the confusion regarding the liability to duty of exempted parts. Despite technical irregularities in the clearances, the Tribunal noted that the goods were entitled to relief from duty and the Chapter X procedure requirements were met. The Tribunal concluded that equity and justice should prevail over a purely technical view, especially considering the lack of loss of revenue and the legitimate nature of the appellants' claims. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the Appellate Collector was set aside.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues surrounding the interpretation of tariff items, exemptions under notifications, compliance with statutory procedures, and the imposition of duty and penalties in the context of Central Excise laws.

  ---

• 1983 (12) TMI 292
  
  Issues: Inclusion of the value of a mobile crane in the computation of the total investment made in plant and machinery for exemption from Central Excise duty under a government notification.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The Appellants, a company licensed for manufacturing floating vessels, contested the inclusion of a mobile crane's value in the calculation of the total investment in plant and machinery for Central Excise duty exemption. The dispute arose as the total value of plant and machinery exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, resulting in a demand for duty payment of Rs. 56,000 by the Assistant Collector. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, leading the Appellants to file a Revision petition, subsequently transferred to the Tribunal as an Appeal.
  
  2. The Appellants argued that the mobile crane should be categorized as a conveyance and not part of the plant and machinery in the factory. Citing legal precedents and definitions of "installed," they contended that since the crane was mobile and not fixed to the ground, it should not be considered installed machinery. The Respondent, citing legal cases, argued that machinery encompasses all mechanical contrivances for generating power except stock-in-trade, and the crane, being integral to the industrial operations, should be included in the plant and machinery category.
  
  3. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and legal references presented by both parties. It determined that the mobile crane, utilized within the industrial unit for operational transport purposes, qualifies as an essential component of the plant and machinery installed in the factory. The Tribunal emphasized that the crane's functionality in handling manufacturing components demonstrated its integral role in industrial activities. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the value of the mobile crane should be factored into the total investment in plant and machinery, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal and upholding the duty payment requirement.

  ---

123456........ 133