Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 3458 Records
-
1991 (12) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s in lump form, it gets excluded from Chapter 69. The only other place where it would then be classifiable is Chapter 38 as Miscellaneous Chemical Products. The appellants as well as the Ld. S.D.R. have advocated classification under sub-heading 38.01/19(1) which is as under ldquo Chemical products and preparation of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included residual products of the chemical or allied industries not elsewhere specified or included (1) Not elsewhere specified. 10. We observe that none of the sub-items (2) to (9) of sub-heading 38.01/19 covers the goods by its composition or description. In these circumstances, it has to be taken to the residuary entry (1). We, accordingly, direct the classification of Ankerhearth NB-70 under sub-heading 38.01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1991 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... can be taken to form a credit pool from which the appellants can go on drawing for the purpose of paying duty on the declared specified finished product. The authorities have allowed the clearance of spent acid free of duty without applying their mind as to whether under the Scheme of MODVAT under the Rules this could be allowed. The issue posed before us is not in the context of the free clearance of the spent acid but in the context of only that portion of the input not consumed in the manufacturing process. As mentioned earlier, in case the portion of the input which came out unutilised in the same form, the Rules clearly provide for payment of duty on the same under Rule 57F in case the same was being cleared from the factory or for being treated as waste under Rule 57F(4). For the purpose of the appeal before us we hold that the order demanding the amount from the appellants is not maintainable in law. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ed in the table annexed thereto and falling within chapter 39 of the CTA 1975 from payment of duty. Sl. No. 4 of the Table specifies the article exempted as lsquo Polypropylene rsquo . The goods in this case were Vestolen P. 6522 Grey and Vestolen 6502, which was classified under Chapter 39 of the CTA 1975. The department had urged that these goods are block co-polymer as distinct from polypropylene and hence not eligible for exemption. This Bench after examining the case, held that the goods were marketed as polypropylene. It was also observed that the notification did not specify the sub-heading but only required the goods should fall within Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 of which there was no doubt. Therefore, it was held that both these goods were entitled for the benefit of the notification. 8. In view of the above discussion and the rulings cited, the appellant rsquo s contention has to be accepted by allowing these appeals with consequential relief, if any.
-
1991 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit of customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand) towards the penalty levied on or before 28th February, 1992 and report compliance subject to which pre-deposit of the balance of duty and penalty shall stand dispensed with pending appeals. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the penalties in terms of the impugned order imposed on the other applicants before us pending disposal of their appeals. 7. The matter will be called on 28th February, 1992 for reporting compliance of this order. 8. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that the Departmental authorities have not taken note of the accruals from the G.P. chicks viz. the eggs and chicks produced from these G.P. chicks and the disposal thereof by the applicants particularly in the light of the seizure effected by the authorities and the directions of the Hon rsquo ble High Court given in the interim order passed in the Writ Petition filed by the applicants.
-
1991 (12) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Contraband goods - Burden to prove ... ... ... ... ..... registered letter to the authorities. In the absence of bona fide conduct on the part of the appellant, who advertised that he had customs duty-paid air conditioners for sale, we do not consider that the goods were legally acquired by the appellant. In these circumstances, the appellant himself has chosen to take the burden of proving that his goods were lawfully imported and he has himself to squarely discharge it. We cannot be led to any other conclusion except that the contradictory stand taken by the appellant proves that the goods were not lawfully acquired and the order of confiscation was, therefore, rightly passed by the Additional Collector. By his conduct of offering to sell customs duty-paid goods for which he put an advertisement, the appellant had further compounded the matter. The imposition of penalty on him, in these circumstances, is also fully justified and we do not think that the penalty imposed was excessive. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 155 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... l of two decisions relating to Associated Cement Companies Ltd. which have been reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 295 and 1991 (55) E.L.T. 415 do not point to a decision regarding the grinding medium (steel balls). Further the arguments advanced in the Straw Products case and in the present case were not so advanced in the said cases. Hence the argument advanced by Shri Biswas, based on the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. case is not of relevance. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the coated abrasive paper used for polishing plywood is not an excluded type of inputs and as such eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit. Accordingly, I dismiss the department rsquo s appeal and uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 10. The Cross-Objection filed by the respondents is not really in the nature of a regular Cross-Objection. It only contains arguments as to why the appeal should be dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed, as stated above, the Cros-Objection is disposed of.
-
1991 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... price and the price at depot and the differential duty payable. It does not indicate the difference between the ex-factory price approved and ex-factory price at which the goods are actually sold. Therefore, the finding of the Collector is not based on evidence. Secondly, the Collector has not referred to any evidence in his order, he does not give any particulars as to how the approved ex-factory price is lower than the factory gate price at which the goods are sold in the absence of which the finding of the Collector that the factory gate price is not genuine, is not acceptable. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessable value in respect of depot sales should be on the basis of the approved price lists under Part I. As regards the limitation, when once the assessable value is the factory gate price then the question of suppression of fact and invoking larger period of limitation does not arise. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector and allow the appeal.
-
1991 (12) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... by the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal had held in para 8 of its order that lsquo Active 25 rsquo which was a food preparation of milk and cream was not classifiable as lsquo milk rsquo under Heading 0401 because of various additions. There is nothing in this decision to suggest that the presence of malt alone had led to this decision. In fact, cocoa, malt, vitamins and minerals were the other additions besides permissible addition of sugar. A similar view is therefore, possible in respect of lsquo Surje rsquo which has vitamins as an additive which is not permitted by Note (4) besides other constitutes which are not natural milk constituents. Thus, having considered all the arguments placed before us, we come to the conclusion that the product manufactured by the respondents viz., lsquo Surje rsquo is not classifiable under sub-heading 0404.10, as an edible product of animal origin. It appropriately falls under Chapter Heading 2107.91. The appeal is therefore, allowed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... s India Ltd. is the degree of secondary packing which is necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition in which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory gate is the degree of packing whose cost can be included. We, therefore, direct the Asstt. Collector to make an inquiry to find out whether the secondary packing is necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition in which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory gate and if so, include the same. 6. It is an admitted fact that the appellants rsquo products were available at the factory gate to all wholesale dealers without any special packing in the form of wooden crates. Hence, on the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision quoted above we hold that the cost of extra packing in the form of wooden crates provided by the respondents on the request of outstation dealers did not form a part of the assessable value of the goods. 7. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1991 (12) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... d by the Cabinet Secretary and not to be heard by the Tribunal will not apply in these cases where a regular judicial order has been passed and the right of the filing of appeal is given by the statute. Shri S.K. Roy, the learned SDR, who appeared on behalf of the Revenue, has fairly stated that the issue appears to be covered by the earlier decisions and as such he has no objection if these matters are also taken up with the other matters already listed. 2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and submissions of the learned senior Advocate that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision for not hearing matters in respect of Public Sector Undertakings will not apply to these cases where a regular judicial order has been passed and the right of the filing of appeal is being vested by the statute to a citizen/Public Sector Undertaking. In the interest of justice, the matters are listed on 10-3-1992. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications are allowed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... f the view that the case of M/s. Sanjay Trades Concern v. Collector of Customs (Appeals) (supra) cited by the appellants does not help them since in that case the question before the Tribunal was whether in respect of goods entered for warehousing. Section 15(l)(b) would come into play when they are cleared against the same warehousing Bill of Entry without having been physically warehoused. In the case before us the facts are different inasmuch as the Bill of Entry for warehousing was substituted and the Home Consumption Bill of Entry was filed only on 23-10-1986 under Section 46(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 13. In view of the above discussion we hold that the rates of duty leviable in terms of Notifications No. 439 and 440-Cus., dated 6-10-1986 were attracted on the goods imported against bill of entry No. I-1114 which was re-noted as home consumption bill of entry on 23-10-1986. 14. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1991 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication - Order final if not appealed against ... ... ... ... ..... the shortage is to be condoned, he cannot have, on his own, disregarded that order. In view of this, the demand either on the exporter or on the manufacturer cannot be sustained. Moreover, in this case, it is not correct to hold that the manufacturer is liable to pay duty. As per the scheme laid down in Rule 13 and Rule 14A, if the manufacturer has removed the goods for export and he has furnished the bond, he would be liable to pay duty in case the goods are not exported. In this case, goods have been removed by M/s. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. and bond for export has also been executed by them. Hence any demand with regard to any quantity not exported can be raised only against M/s. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. as per Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, the appellants, who are manufacturers and who have not removed the goods for export under bond cannot be fastened with duty liability. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities below.
-
1991 (12) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Use of pin or screw during manufacture not to take the product out of the scope of notification
-
1991 (12) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... in terms of Section 15(1) (a) the rate of duty applicable to the goods in question will be the rate in force on 23-10-1986. 11. We are of the view that the case of M/s. Sanjay Trade Concern v. Collector of Customs (Appeals) (supra) cited by the appellants does not help them since in that case the question before the Tribunal was whether in respect of goods entered, for ware-housing, Section 15(l)(b) would come into play when they are cleared against the same warehousing Bill of Entry without having been physically warehoused. In the case before us the facts are different inasmuch as the Bill of Entry for warehousing was substituted and the Home Consumption Bill of Entry was filed only on 23-10-1986 under Section 46(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. In view of the above discussions we hold that the rates of duties leviable in terms of Notification Nos. 439 and 440-Cus dated 6-10-1986 were attracted on the goods imported by the appellants. 13. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1991 (12) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... Advocate, Shri Asthana. In fact, the case of the appellant is on a stronger footing in respect of testing/inspection charges carried out subsequent to what is necessary for putting the goods in wholesale market that what it is in the case of special secondary packing. In the case of packing there is a legal provision for including the cost thereof and yet the Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. has held that value of special secondary packing which is not a part of the normal feature of wholesale trade should not be included in the value of the excisable goods. Following the same analogy, we are of the view, in the face of the admitted facts that the goods already stood fully manufactured, ready for delivery in wholesale market and were actually sold to other wholesale customers, that cost of testing/inspection carried out by the DOS and D at the instance of specific customers, namely, PHED, Rajas-than should not be included in the value of the goods.
-
1991 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Custom House Agent Licence ... ... ... ... ..... d to the appellants for their connivance with M/s. MHI and M/s. ACKM and Pithawala in under-valuation and fraudulent clearance of goods vide Bill of Entry No. 252592 dated 7-9-1990. Thus the receipt of the said letter dated 27-8-1991 is of no consequence. 8. Before I part it may also be stated that for the reasons mentioned by my learned brother and by me as aforesaid, this unexplained inordinate delay in passing the order of suspension vitiates the impugned Order as it has become tainted with colourable exercise of power. See Radheysham v. State of Haryana - AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 519 (FB) and also the case of Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak - (1984) 1 SCC 125 wherein it was held that when the power is conferred to effectuate the purpose it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time though no limitation may be prescribed in this behalf. 9. In the result I too allow the appeal.
-
1991 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... eld that the appellants were guilty of suppression of facts and admittedly did not maintain any accounts in respect of Filter Bags, so manufactured by them nor has issued any proper gate pass thereby violating the provisions of Rule 226 and 52A respectively, consequently liable for penalty under Rule 173Q. We have considered the submissions. It is on record that the appellants never disclosed to the Department that they were manufacturing the Filter Bags. It is an admitted fact that they did not maintain any accounts in respect of these goods nor issued any proper gate passes. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Counsel that the Additional Collector was not right in imposing the penalty. Looking to the amount of excise duty involved and the act and omission of the appellants, we do not think that the penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed upon them is on higher side. 12. In the result, the appeal is rejected being devoid of any merit.
-
1991 (12) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional ground ... ... ... ... ..... application for stay is decided by the Appellate authority, the impugned order will not be enforced. The appellate authority will also consider, at the time of deciding the stay application, whether the amount demanded is correctly calculated. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. rdquo The effect of this order is that the quantification of demand merges with the classification issue. In addition the Tribunal while passing stay order No. 141/89-B1 dated 18-7-1989 in the classification appeal took into account the quantification and then dispensed with the predeposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1.64 crores on the condition of the appellants depositing Rs. 25 lakhs within 12 weeks from the date of the stay order. 9. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that a separate appeal against the quantification is required in the eye of law. The preliminary objection in this regard is overruled. 10. The preliminary objections are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (12) TMI 142 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Rule 3 of the Jute Cess Rules is a case of legislation by reference and that in such a case the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder as they were obtaining on the date of making of Rule 3 continue in the same form, unaffected by subsequent amendments or changes in the Central Excise Act and Rules
Held that:- the language of Rule 3 of Jute Cess Rules is altogether different. It indicates a continuing applicability of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules. What was levied was a ‘duty of excise’ and it was to be levied and collected in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules. The effect is as if the words “for the time being in force” were there after the words “the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the Rules made thereunder” in Rule 3. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the amendment of Rules 9 and 49 made in 1982 (with retrospective effect from 1944) is equally applicable in the matter of levy and collection of cess under the Act. The contentions urged by Shri Ganesan are accordingly rejected.
Under the Schedule to the Central Excise Act, jute was taxed with reference to weight. So also was jute yarn; vide Entry 22A and 18D of the Schedule. Even the 1985 Act taxes jute and jute yarn by weight alone. The nature of the cess imposable under Section 9 is really that of duty of Central Excise, as emphasised hereinbefore. Evidently, for that reason the principle obtaining under the Central Excise Act has been adopted by this Act in the matter of levy of cess. We cannot agree with Shri Salve that according to Section 9, the cess can be levied on the basis of value alone and on no other basis. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (12) TMI 141 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ding the demand of duty was not maintainable as no show cause notice had been issued under Section 11A and the consequent demand raised by the Superintendent also for that reason not maintainable. We hold that the appellants had been put on notice regarding the classification of the goods and they participated in the proceedings before the original authority who classified the goods under the heading under which the demand of duty has been raised and the appellants have not challenged the classification in the appellate proceedings. The consequent action of quantification of demand after that could not be considered bad in law. The plea raised before us is that the demand was out of time on grounds of limitation as the assessments could not be taken to be on provisional basis. This plea, as we have held above, is not maintainable. In view of the above, we hold the orders of the learned lower appellate authority are not maintainable in law and allow the appeals of the Revenue.
........
|