|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 2885 Records
-
1992 (12) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import Policy ... ... ... ... ..... nal Collector, the goods shall be classified under Heading 39.21. (iii) The value of the goods shall be determined by the Additional Collector under Customs Valuation (Determination of the Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 in de novo proceedings, having regard to the observations made by us. (iv) The assessable value of the goods shall be determined having regard to the weight of the goods found on actual weighment. (v) The question whether the appellants are liable for penalty shall be decided by the Additional Collector having regard to our observations on the question of the difference in actual and ascertained weight of the goods and his findings in regard to the assessable value of the goods in de novo proceedings. 30. The appeal is, therefore, partially allowed by way of remand. Since the goods are under detention, we shall appreciate if the matter is disposed of in de novo proceedings in accordance with law within two months of the date of the receipt of this order.
-
1992 (12) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ic Radio v. Union of India and that of the Tribunal in the case of P.N. Monga Bottlers P. Ltd. (supra) is in a different context i.e. the orders of the authority becoming final, but the ratio does not deal with the effect of amendments having retrospective effect in respect of procedural laws affecting Appellate forums, as noted in preceding paras. In the result, I hold that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. 18. Order per . N.K. Bajpai, Member (T) . -I have had the benefit of reading the orders written by learned brothers. I agree with the views expressed by the learned Member (T), Shri K.S. Venkataramani. Final Order 19. In the light of the majority view as above, it is held that the appeals in these cases will lie to the Tribunal. The Stay applications may accordingly be listed before the respective Benches for further disposal. Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) Member (Technical) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (Judicial) Sd/- (N.K. Bajpai) Member (Technical)
-
1992 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Plant and Machinery - Computation of value ... ... ... ... ..... n to the manufacture of a product, it would be seen that processes which are integrally connected with the manufacture of a product has to be held to be part of manufacturing process. In the present case, as we have stated above, this is the position and following the ratio of the ruling of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, we hold that the learned lower authority has correctly held that the appellants had installed in their factory machinery in excess of the limits prescribed in the two notifications referred to supra. We, therefore, uphold the demand of duty as held by the lower authority. We also hold that since the appellants did not come forward with necessary information to the authorities regarding installation of Crane, they are liable to penalty as held by the learned lower authority. However, we hold that interests of justice would be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand). But for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the excise duty will be levied would be the value as per the price list submitted by the company excluding the effective duty which means the duty which is prescribed under the Act minus the exemption granted in regard to the same. Similar view was taken by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., supra, wherein it was held that ldquo ..... if in a given case, notwithstanding the grant of exemption from payment of excise duty or reduction of excise duty it is found that a manufacturer has actually charged and collected excise duty by not passing on the benefit of exemption or reduction to the buyers, as the amount so collected does not fall under any of the deductible items specified in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) the same has to be added to the value for purposes of levy of excise duty - Para 14(2) rdquo . In view of this, we uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) and reject the appeal.
-
1992 (12) TMI 128 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Goods destroyed due to fire accident but intimation not sent to Department ... ... ... ... ..... he goods mentioned as having been damaged therein, were not really damaged and the excisable goods had actually been cleared clandestinely and falsely claimed to have been damaged. The first proviso to Rule 49(1) does not support the Department rsquo s stand in the present case as there is no finding that certain excisable goods had not been shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed in the fire accident in question. It is not that certain goods were unaccounted and then the manufacturer/appellants had trotted the explanation of fire accident and the officer was not satisfied about the loss or destruction of goods in the accident. Here the Department rsquo s knowledge and finding about any loss begins and ends with the fire accident documented in the appellants rsquo Annual Report. In the given circumstances, their contention deserves to be accepted by giving them the benefit of doubt. I accordingly set aside the order and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (12) TMI 127 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... y lsquo 91 and therefore in the above circumstances the goods could not be imported under OGL since the appellant was not armed with a licence for taking clearance of the goods notwithstanding the change in the policy. Therefore, in the above circumstances I am inclined to hold that the import of the goods was not covered by and valid licence and therefore, in this view of the matter, I uphold the finding of the adjudicating authority in regard to confiscability of the goods under the Act. However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is the actual user of the goods and was actuated by the bona fides and had placed the order with the supplier on 10-9-1990 and had made application for opening irrevocable letter of Credit as early as 5-10- 1990, I am inclined to think that a lenient view is called for and in this view of the matter, I reduce the fine to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand). Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste and Scrap of aluminium - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... e letter of the Ministry/Board by itself does not have the force of law. Be that as it may. In so far as the present case is concerned the grounds on which the learned Collector has denied them refund are not well taken inasmuch as the documents produced do show that the input entries had borne the incidence of additional duty and the output had been classified by the officers themselves under 76.02. Further neither the Collector nor the DR has challenged the authority or applicability of the letter of the Ministry/CBEC. 16. Similarly the DR rsquo s arguments that they had paid the duty voluntarily does not hold water. 17. Before parting, it may be mentioned that the department has neither claimed nor shown that the refund claim was barred by time. 18. In view of the above facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, I accept the appeal as already announced in the open Court and I agree with the Member (J) that the appellants are entitled to consequential relief if any due.
-
1992 (12) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - MODVAT credit ... ... ... ... ..... visit to the Central Excise office was purely unintentional and the lapse was, therefore, essentially technical in nature. On these considerations prima facie it appears that the applicants have a good case on merits. They have already deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 1,50,523/- demanded in terms of the impugned order. Under these circumstances I am of the view that requiring the applicants to deposit the balance amount of duty pending the disposal of the appeal will amount to undue hardship. I, therefore, agree with the learned Member Judicial) that pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty should be dispensed with and the recovery thereof stayed till the pendency of the appeal. Sd/- Dated 1st December, 1992 P.K. Kapoor, Member (T) In view of the majority order, pre-deposit of balance amount of duty is dispensed with and recovery thereof stayed till the pendency of the appeal. Sd/- (N.K. Bajpai) Member (Tech.) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (Judl.)
-
1992 (12) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ially distinct commodities is merely based on their being called lsquo poles rsquo . They are also available in the same market in which normally pipes and tubes are otherwise available. Neither the circumstance that certain processes to the ldquo mother rdquo pipes or tubes nor the fact that in order to identify the particular type of tube or pipe one needs, one may use different names is sufficient to treat the article as a commercially different commodity. 9. In view of our foregoing conclusion and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that these steel tubes poles are not classifiable under Tariff Heading 7308.90 and accept the contention of the parties that the goods in question are assessable to duty under sub-heading 7306.90. In the above view it is not necessary to go into other issues including limitation which have been raised before us by the assessee-appellant. 10. These appeals and Cross Objections are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (12) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Heading itself i.e. furniture, doors, staircases etc. but as held above, aluminium rolled products under consideration would be covered by Tariff Heading 8302.50 within the expression lsquo similar fixtures rsquo . Lastly, learned advocate reliance in support of his plea on the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Interarch Buildings, mentioned supra, is not correct. In the said decision, the Tribunal was dealing with classification of the rolled products of aluminium under Tariff Item 27(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff read with the applicability Notification 183/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984 vis-a-vis their classification under Tariff Item 68. That judgment has, therefore, no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Tariff Heading 83.02 is more specific to the articles in question than Tariff Heading under Chapter 76 claimed by the appellant. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and we accordingly reject it.
-
1992 (12) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ents would be assessable at the highest price under Section 4(l)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Evidently, this decision of the Tribunal is also not relevant to the issue under consideration in this case. 11. The only requirement under Section 4(l)(a) of the Act is that the price to be charged should be such at which the goods are ordinarily sold in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal and not a favoured price based on any extra-commercial consideration. It has, therefore, to be held that impugned order holding that price declared by the appellants in respect of the goods in question in the price list in Part-1 did not represent the assessable value under Section 4(1) of the Act, solely on the grounds that it was lower than the value determined under the first proviso to Section 4(1 )(a) in respect of sales to a particular class of buyers is not sustainable. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (12) TMI 121 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit - MODVAT credit ... ... ... ... ..... d it has rightly been denied by the authorities below. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We feel the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Departmental Representative are valid. The decision cited by the learned Counsel were rendered in the context of other deemed credit orders where the criterion of wholly exempt from duty was not there. Further, the interpretation of the words, ldquo wholly exempt from duty rdquo as meaning wholly and unconditionally exempt from duty, does not appeal to us. That would be supplying an omission in the wording of the Notification. They have already paid 50 of the amount in question. As we are not satisfied about their having a prima facie case and the plea of hardship not being substantiated, we decline to grant the stay. The Petitioners should deposit the amount due from them in terms of the orders of the authorities below within two months of receipt of this order. Posted for 26-2-1993 for reporting compliance.
-
1992 (12) TMI 120 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... l the applicants have not made out a prima facie cases either on merits or on the ground of limitation. On the contrary, the department rsquo s case appears to be valid, in the circumstances, we reject the plea for grant of waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demanded. On the question of financial hardship also, we find from their Balance Sheet as on 31-3-1991 made available by them that they have appreciable sales turnover of the order of Rs. 98 lakhs. The Gross Profit is Rs. 15 lakhs approximately. They have cash and bank balance of Rs. 1.86 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 3.41 lakhs as Sundry Debts due to them from their debtors. We, therefore, direct them to deposit the amount of duty demanded and report compliance on 15th February, 1993. Subject to compliance with the order, the appeal will be taken up for disposal on 7-5-1993. In the event of failure to deposit the amount in question, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
-
1992 (12) TMI 119 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation of currency ... ... ... ... ..... ute confiscation of the same in terms of the impugned order. The appellant has not made any claim on the gold biscuit and has indeed disowned it and its confiscation is not challenged. 6. Even as per the appellant rsquo s statement he was only entrusted with the gold by his son-in-law. Since the gold and the currency have been absolutely confiscated and the appellant was merely entrusted with the custody of the same by his son-in-law and the appellant himself did not have any role in procuring the same, I am of the view that the interests of justice would be met if the penalty on the appellant, in the above circumstances, under the Customs Act, is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) and the amount in excess of Rs. 1,000/- will be refunded to the appellant. While giving reduction in penalty I also take note of the fact that the appellant was in jail and was prosecuted in criminal court and was fined. Except for the above modification the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 118 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Exemption Notification - Date of effect ... ... ... ... ..... d Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in 1987 1 SCC 658. A reading of the above ruling and the explanation in the said rulings would show that public notice bringing cloves under the canalised item from the OGL has to be published in the Gazette as per law and the Gazette Notification also should be made available to the public and it is only after the twin conditions are satisfied, the Notification would become operative. We further note that if the appellants had entered into any contractual commitment prior to the said date, the appellants rsquo rights under law in regard to the goods will have to be considered in accordance with law and the import policy prevailing then. Since factual data are not available, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration in the light of the pleas urged and in the light of the authorities cited above in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
-
1992 (12) TMI 117 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... o file the appeal before the Collector (Appeals). This will bring a anomalous position. In order to remove this doubt, Section 115 of the Finance Bill, 1992 is enacted stating that the provisions of Chapter XV shall continue to apply in so far as they relate to any decision or order passed by an Additional Collector of Customs, immediately before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1992 receives the assent of the President. 14. Viewed from these backgrounds, it becomes clear that the date of decision or order passed by the Additional Collector refers to the date on which he signs the same and not the date on which the same was communicated to the parties. In interpreting this Act, a harmonious construction of several provisions should be taken into consideration including Section 115 of the Finance Bill, 1992. 15. Accordingly, we hold that the above-captioned appeals are maintainable before this Tribunal. The Registry is directed to post the appeals for hearing in their turn.
-
1992 (12) TMI 116 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Import Policy ... ... ... ... ..... SC 59. That is a case which dealt with the recommendation of a High Court regarding the rules pertaining to reservations in the service of the High Court. I am unable to comprehend the applicability of this decision to the facts of the case before me. 47. Having rejected all the contentions of the respondents I make the rule absolute by directing the respondent authorities to allow clearance of the said goods subject to the petitioner making payment of the Customs duties as may be assessed by the respondent authorities within a fortnight from this judgment. In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs. 48. Prayer for stay of this judgment is made which is considered and is refused. 49. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking. 50. Let xerox copy of this judgment be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for the certified copy of this judgment and on payment of usual charges.
-
1992 (12) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
REP Licences - Revalidation of ... ... ... ... ..... P licences. The submission is not correct. Clause 80 of the Policy sets out that on certain occasions such as dockyard strike in the country of shipment when the importers face genuine difficulties and the goods cannot be shipped in time, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports may by a general authorisation extend the period of validity of any licence on an ad hoc basis for a specific period. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in holding that in case of genuine difficulties, it is open for the appellants to extend the period of validity. On the facts of the present case, the extension was sought for because the Bank which had opened letter of credit could not honour the same due to moratorium. The extension was sought not because of any fault of respondent No. 1. In these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal must fail. 4. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (12) TMI 114 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... pect of development rebate, development allowance and entertainment expenditure, but also in respect of investment allowance admissible under s. 32A. The learned Departmental Representative has also been duly heard. 5. After due consideration, we are of the opinion that there is force in the ground taken by the assessee. Even the provisions of s. 37(2A) are very clear, in that, Cls. (i), (ii) and (iii) mentioned within parenthesis the profits and gains of business computed before making any allowance under s. 32A or s. 33 or 33A or in respect of entertainment expenditure. The statutory prescription is very clear and the Commentary also supports the same. In the circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred in not giving such direction and, therefore, we modify the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction under s. 37(2A) with reference to profits and gains of business or profession before making any allowance under s. 32A. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 113 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ot dispute the retrospectivity of the aforesaid amendment from 1st April, 1983. 10. After due consideration, we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in the lgiht of the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 1992 carving out exception in favour of the bonus shares obtained in respect of shares forming part of the corpus of the trust as on 1st June, 1973, there is no justification for the CWT or CIT or the CIT(A) to hold otherwise. As a consequence, we hold that the revisional orders passed by the CWT and CIT and the appellate orders passed by the CIT(A) are not justified in law and, therefore, they are set aside and the assessee is entitled to succeed in all these appeals as its income and net wealth are exempt from taxation. 11. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has not raised any other arguments or pressed any other grounds. Hence, these are not considered. 12. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
........
|
