Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 4698 Records
-
1996 (12) TMI 240 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... unable to accept it. The relevant entry (Appendix 1B Serial 12(13) which reads ldquo automatic component insertion/placement/mounting machine with accessories rdquo . The Additional Collector has held that since the operating manual indicates that the data can be fed either manually or through the teletypewriter into the machine, the teletypewriter is not a part. In that case it conforms to the definition of ldquo accessory rdquo . An accessory as contained in para 6(14) of the relevant policy, since it contributes to the more effective functioning of the component insertion machine. It would therefore be covered by the scope of the entry in the OGL. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1996 (12) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Zoacide Infusion - Sodium Chloride I.P. used only as a vehicle ... ... ... ... ..... The Board concluded that the product may be classified as a patent or proprietary rsquo medicines only if it satisfies the condition of Section Note 2(II) of Chapter 30 and not otherwise. 10. emsp On examination of the evidence in the case before us we find that the words MPC are identification of the manufacturer, which is compulsory in the drug rules. This monogram only identifies the manufacturer and in view of the ruling of the Apex Court cited (supra) we hold that MPC rsquo embossed on the bottles is not a product mark but it is only a house mark. Having regard to the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court cited Supra, we hold that medicines are not patent or proprietary medicines. 11. emsp Having regard to the above discussions we find that no case is made out for penalty. As there is no question of any short levy, therefore, the question of limitation becomes irrelevant. 12. emsp Having regard to the above finding we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (12) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported ... ... ... ... ..... ules 1992 confiscation of goods for contravention would not apply. Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade Regulations Rules and Section 50(2) of the Customs Act prescribe that the exporter should make a declaration certifying the correctness of the information furnished on the shipping bill. Even if the description of the goods initially made was wrong, the fact of misdeclaration would not render the goods covered by the shipping bill liable to confiscation since, going by either description, the export of the goods is not prohibited. Confiscation of the goods on this score is not sustainable. Consequently penalty was also not imposable. 7. emsp The advocate for the appellant stated that the goods had been removed from Nhava Sheva port, as the appellant was not able to ship the goods within the period prescribed in the contract and the question of export of these goods did not arise. 8. emsp We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1996 (12) TMI 237 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... n this case there is no dispute that the Vicat softening point was 60oC. The appellant contends that according to the opinion of the American Society for Testing Materials Vicat softening point is not recommended for PVC and some materials as they have a wide Vicat softening range. This opinion has not been produced. However, in any event, when the policy prescribes classification by means of a particular process, it is not possible to discard this on the ground that some technical literature advises against it. I can also not agree with the contention that the OGL entry is more specific and should prevail over the Appendix 3 entry. Para 21(f) of the Policy make it clear that any item in Appendices 2, 3, 5 and 8 with a specific or generic description would preclude eligibility to import of the item under OGL, except where the policy allows this theory. Since PVC ldquo all sorts rdquo fell in Appendix 3 the goods would not be covered by the OGL entry. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 236 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Clarification ... ... ... ... ..... rculars, the second circular which has prospective effect would not apply. 3. emsp It does not appear necessary for me to go into the question of whe- ther the Board rsquo s circular was prospective or not. Credit would be available on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product, so long as that the input and finished product are notified for this purpose, and the input is not excluded in the explanation to Rule 57A. There is no dispute that the thinner was used to dilute the paint, so that it could be applied effectively. In fact it is doubtful whether paint can rsquo t be applied without using the thinner. While the Board rsquo s circular may bind the officers it cannot restrict the provisions of the rules. Therefore the credit has been rightly taken by the assessee, and the contention that allowing credit for the past period would create difficulties for the Department hardly requires an answer. I decline to interfere. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 235 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Shortlanding ... ... ... ... ..... g the manifest and bill of lading is reasonable. When there is clear evidence on record showing the presence of an error in the bill of lading and hence the IGM and, as a result, it is established that there was in reality no shortage, the fact only that the BPT outturn was not suitably amended cannot sustain imposition of penalty. The BPT outturn may in practice be convenient for the Customs to rely upon and it is reasonable and practicable that it is generally relied upon. But it has no statutory authority under the Customs Act and when independent evidence shows that there has been no shortlanding such evidence cannot be disregarded. The failure to get the outturn amended itself cannot lead to penalty being imposable when otherwise the apparent shortage has been accounted for. The findings of the Additional Collector therefore is not sustainable. The penalty imposed in respect of this item is set aside. Consequential relief to follow. 5. emsp Appeal thus partially allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 234 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Reimportation of goods being rejected by consignee ... ... ... ... ..... the duty which has been paid on their re-importation. The Asst. Collector, whose order has been confirmed by Collector (Appeals) rejected the refund claim. Hence this appeal. 4. emsp The appellant contends that since the consignment has been exported, the appellant is entitled to refund on the duty paid. This claim is not tenable for the reason that there is no provision in the Customs Act for grant of refund for import duty paid on goods, which after import, are exported. A provision thus exists in Section 74 of the Customs Act for such duty to be returned as drawback. It is also to be noted that what was paid on importation of the goods was not excise duty, but customs duty equivalent to the excise duty payable on the goods, which was not paid by reason of their having been exported. Rejection of the refund claim is therefore in order. It appears that the appellant had not put forth its claim for drawback. 5. emsp We therefore decline to interfere. 6. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 233 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... -6-1996 had directed the appellants to predeposit an amount of Rs. 25,000.00 and that deposit of Rs. 25,000.00 having been made, be ordered to be refunded in view of the aforesaid findings, inasmuch as they have made the predeposit of the sum in question vide a Debit Entry in RG 23A Part-II Account on 21-6-1996 under Serial No. 23. 8. emsp I am not sure whether this Debit of Rs. 25,000.00 is out of the Credit of Rs. 2,31,116.60 which is in dispute before me. If such a Credit has been made out of the said amount then no refund of deposit of Rs. 25,000.00 will be given to the appellants herein. However, if the said Debit of Rs. 25,000.00 on 21-6-1996 vide Sl. No. 23 has been made from the Credit subsequent to 12-5-1994, then the appellants herein would also be entitled to the said refund of Rs. 25,000.00 inasmuch as I have accepted their appeal that they are entitled to the Modvat credit during the period from 1-3-1994 to 11-5-1994. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (12) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... act that in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has observed that the operators used for such treatment of effluent in a plant manufacturing a particular end product is part and parcel of the manufacturing process of the end product and, accordingly, he extended the benefit of Notification 187/61. Further, we observe that in the case of Steriware (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 509 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has taken the view that silicone spray used in injection moulding process is eligible for Modvat credit. In the facts and circumstances following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, we hold that item, in question, is eligible for Modvat credit and, accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the result, we uphold the impugned order dismissing the appeal filed by the department.
-
1996 (12) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... ssued in exercise of power conferred by Clause (d) of Note 7 of Chapter 98. This notification notified goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.83 as goods for the purpose of notification. These goods in otherwords are parts having general application. It is therefore clear that the goods which fall under Chapter 8483.90 cannot be classified under Chapter Heading 98.06. Notification 69/87, dated 1-3-1987 exempts parts falling under Heading 98.06 of certain machinery and equipments from Custom Duty. The fact remains that Notification No. 132/87 issued on 19-3-1987 categorically excludes Chapter Heading 84.83 from the purview of Chapter 98 and in view of this exemption Notification strictly considered cannot be extended to the appellants. It is well settled proposition of law that in case of exemption notification, the ambiguity or doubt will be resolved in favour of the Revenue and not in favour of the Assessee. In view of this we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1996 (12) TMI 230 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Lysine Mono hydrochloride ... ... ... ... ..... d as a reason for denying the benefit only the fact that the item did not figure in the Merck Index, his conclusion has to be overruled. Even if we consider the objection raised by the Assistant Collector that the product was a feed grade, it would be answered by the decision of this Tribunal in Eskayef Limited v. Collector of Central Excise in which it has been held that the fact of administration as the feed supplement would not restrict it from being considered as a drug, which is specified in the pharmacopoeia, being considered as a medicament under Item 14E of the erstwhile Tariff. The Supreme Court in Eskayef Limited v. CCE - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 649 (S.C.) upheld the classification by this Tribunal of furazolidol as a medicament notwithstanding the fact that it has described as an animal feed supplement by the manufacturer. At the very least, importer would be entitled to the doubt which exists being resolved in its favour. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1996 (12) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Remand when adjudication order not a speaking order ... ... ... ... ..... order with respect to the quotation and since there is no elaborate discussion as to how those goods which were covered by the quotation are comparable goods, we are of the view that this is a non-speaking order and in that view of the matter we find that in accordance with law the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. Accordingly we allow this appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority with the direction to set out details and to de novo adjudicate the same in the light of our above observations. The appeal is thus allowed by remand. 6. emsp The learned Advocate at this stage stated that the matter relates to import in 1991 and a time schedule may be fixed for de novo adjudication. We heard the learned SDR, Shri Victor Thyagaraj also. 7. emsp We have considered the submissions. We direct the adjudicating authority to dispose of the de novo adjudication proceedings without any delay and as expeditiously as possible.
-
1996 (12) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electric motor ... ... ... ... ..... he rotors and stators. Although, electric motor as such did not come into existence independently, it could not be denied that the rotors and stators had been manufactured and the duty had to be levied on such rotors and stators as part of the electric motors before their removal for the manufacture of monobloc pumps. 6. emsp The Tribunal in a number of decisions has taken a view that the driving mechanism in a monobloc centrifugal pump could not be considered as an identifiable electric motor and that while rotors and stators before their use in such driving mechanism had to discharge the duty as parts of electric motors, no further duty could be charged at the stage of the driving mechanism as electric motors. Tribunal rsquo s Final Order No. E/66/97-B, dated 22-11-1996 in A. No. E/2660/87-B1 - CCE, Coimbatore v. M/s. Balasundram and Foundry, Coimbatore. 7. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal by the Revenue and the same is rejected.
-
1996 (12) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... duty paid were clearly established from the challans issued by SAIL as recorded by the Collector (Appeals) in her order. She had also seen the originals produced by the appellants before her (respondents herein). She has noted that the Assistant Collector had referred to the subsidiary gate passes issued by Public Sector Undertakings whereas the documents in question in the present proceedings were challans issued by SAIL. It was accordingly held that the Assistant Collector rsquo s finding did not cover the case. It is the submission of the learned counsel of the respondents that the department has accepted as valid duty paying documents gate passes which bear two endorsements. Since the challans issued by SAIL are recognised as equivalent to gate passes, a similar treatment to challans in the matter of endorsements would be in order. I accordingly see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Collector (Appeals). The impugned order is upheld and the appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... rved the said notification is issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The exemption envisaged under this notification is neither based on value nor quantity of the goods but granted for specific use and observance of certain procedure. The interpretation by the Assistant Collector of Notification 167/79 is not legally sustainable. I, therefore, set aside both the orders of the lower authority and accept the appeals. rdquo 8. emsp We have discussed the provisions of Notification No. 167/79-C.E. and that of 77/85-C.E. The Notification No. 213/86-C.E. is couched in the same language as Notification No. 77/85-C.E. Keeping in view the above discussion we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 9. emsp As a result, we do not find any merit in both these appeals filed by the Revenue and the same are rejected. 10. emsp The cross objections filed by the Revenue are also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (12) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e as electric fans. We consider that every gadget which displaces air or provides air could not be an electric fan for the purposes of Item No. 33 of the old Tariff. 7. emsp In the case of Stormac India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 343 (Tribunal), the principal point of dispute before the Tribunal was, whether the electric blower/fan assembled by the appellants inside the drier chamber was liable to duty as fan. The Tribunal observed that the device had no separate existence as a fan nor it functioned independently as a fan in its own right. It could not be brought to the market for being bought and sold as fan. 8. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case into account, we consider that the emergency ventilator in question made out of the duty paid exhaust fan was correctly classifiable under Item No. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff. As a result, the appeal filed by M/s. Steelage lndus. Ltd. is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (12) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Zinc callots not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 152/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... No. 152/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 5. emsp We consider that the basic question is, whether the credit of the duty paid on the zinc and articles thereof had been taken under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The credit had been taken admittedly in respect of the inputs (although at a later date) and such credit in respect of the final products made a manufacturer ineligible to the benefit of the above notification. In the present case, the appellants did not receive duty paying documents from MMTC, although they utilised such inputs in the manufacture of zinc callots. They availed of the benefit of concessional rate of duty even when they took credit of the duty paid on the inputs which had gone in the manufacture of such zinc callots. 6. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the learned adjudicating authority had taken a correct view in the matter and that there is no merit in this appeal. 7. emsp As a result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1996 (12) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ficer in loose sheet, it indicated the intention to evade duty. The intention to evade duty can be concluded only on examination of the raw-material registers and other registers. From the admitted facts, it is clear that the vehicle had been broken down and there was entry of G.P. 1 as well as entries made in RG 1 Register. Therefore, the explanation given by the appellants that the vehicle had broken down and was under repair and had not been instructed to leave the factory is plausible and acceptable explanation. In that view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration of all the material facts pleaded by the appellants and thereafter give a detailed speaking order. The appellants shall be given an opportunity for hearing to put-forth their case on the basis of their submission and evidence which is already on the record. Thus, the appeal is remanded to original authority for de novo consideration.
-
1996 (12) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Cover paper used principally for book covers ... ... ... ... ..... ification in the light of an appellate order and could not be faulted on that score. 16. emsp The Collector (Appeals) has referred to his predecessor rsquo s order and the product description mentioned before his predecessor and himself and this has not been contradicted or shown to be wrong. It is on this basis that the Collector (Appeals) has in his findings recorded that the appellants rsquo product is manufactured in the form of loose sheets and heading No. 48.20 does not cover loose sheets or cards cut to size whether or not printed, embossed or perforated. 17. emsp In view of this position, the case law cited by the appellants do not advance their case And, Chapter Note 8 (now 9) is required to be applied As such, we have no reason to differ from the Tribunal rsquo s order already passed in respect of the same product in the appellants rsquo own case. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s order cited by the learned DR, we reject the appeal.
-
1996 (12) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ds that demurrage charges could not be included in the assessable value on the strength of a decision in Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (41) E.L.T. 550 (Tribunal). That case dealt with wharfage and demurrage charges paid to Port Trust and held that these charges cannot be regarded as landing charges and, therefore, cannot be included in the assessable value. This decision is of no assistance to the appellant, since the demurrage charges were not those paid to Port Trust but were charges for detention of vessel. In other words, they were charges which had to be paid for the detention of the vessel at the Port beyond the period contracted for. These charges are pre-landing stage charges and, therefore, would be part of the assessable value since there is nothing to indicate that they were not collected by the importer from the appellant. 6. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we decline to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
............
|