|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 4740 Records
-
1996 (12) TMI 84
Whether both natural colour polystyrene and the corresponding coloured grain had been classified under Tariff Item 15A(1)(ii)?
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellants should pay excise duty as at the coloured stage, but limiting the quantum thereof to that which would have been paid had the demand under Tariff Item 68 been sustained?
Held that:- The Tribunal should not, in this case, have passed an order which proceeded upon a basis that is altogether different from that of the demand made upon the appellants. That is not "moulding" relief. The demand that was made upon the appellants was under Tariff Item 68 and it proceeded upon the basis that there was a process of manufacture of coloured polystyrene from uncoloured polystyrene. Having come to a conclusion against the Revenue on these counts, the appropriate order for the Tribunal to have passed was to have set aside the demand and left it open to the Revenue to proceed against the appellants, as permissible under the law. The appellants would then have had the opportunity of meeting the precise case made out by the Revenue. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 83
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding short levy of duty on rectified spirit used in manufacturing medicinal and toilet preparations. The High Court judgment was upheld, stating that the notice for duty payment fell within the six-month recovery period. The circular on duty levy was found to be enforceable prospectively, and the appellants were estopped from challenging the revised demand notice. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 82
Issues involved:
The classification of the product 'Boroline' under Tariff Item 14E or 14F, interpretation of statutory provisions post the Tariff Act of 1985, determination of 'Boroline' as a drug or cosmetic product, reliance on exemption notification dated 1st October, 1985, and the impact of previous settlement and appellate court orders on the classification.
Summary:
The appeal challenged the Trial Judge's order allowing the writ application regarding the classification of 'Boroline'. The Trial Judge, based on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, concluded 'Boroline' to be a drug classified under Tariff Item 14E. The appellant argued that post the Tariff Act of 1985, 'Boroline' should not be classified under 14E. However, the Court found no change warranting a different classification. The chemical composition and usage of 'Boroline' supported its classification as a drug rather than a cosmetic product.
The appellant contended that 'Boroline' is a cosmetic preparation, not a medicine, citing the product label and composition. However, the Trial Judge determined 'Boroline' to be an antiseptic boric ointment, indicating its medicinal nature. The Court disagreed with the appellant's argument, emphasizing the previous judgment under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Regarding the exemption notification, the appellant claimed that the respondent had availed of the exemption for 'Boroline' falling under 30.03, not 33.04. However, the Court noted that the appellate court's order directed clearance under 33.04, allowing the benefit of any applicable exemptions. The Court highlighted that the acceptance of the appellate court's order did not waive the right to contest the classification.
The appellant relied on a Tribunal judgment stating that an erroneous classification can be rectified, but the Court found no grounds for reclassification in this case. Another Supreme Court judgment emphasized interpreting statutes based on popular meaning, supporting the Trial Judge's conclusion that 'Boroline' is a medicine, not a cosmetic product.
Ultimately, the Court upheld the Trial Judge's order, dismissing the appeal. Any excess excise duty paid would be addressed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The prayer for stay of the order's operation was refused.
-
1996 (12) TMI 81
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the import of firearms without a valid import license.
2. Applicability of Customs Notification 146/94 for exemption from customs duty.
3. Correctness of the valuation of the imported firearms.
4. Liability for personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition without exhausting alternative remedies.
6. Entitlement to compensation and punitive damages.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Import of Firearms Without a Valid Import License:
The court held that the import of firearms, even by renowned shooters, requires an import license in terms of the Import-Export Policy. The appellant's claim that the firearms could be imported without an import license was rejected, and the court affirmed that the import of firearms as accompanied baggage also required a valid import license. The court noted that the Baggage Rules specifically excluded firearms from being imported without a license, and thus, the import was in contravention of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Customs Notification 146/94 for Exemption from Customs Duty:
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Customs Notification 146/94. The appellant's claim that the firearms were exempted from payment of duty under this notification was found to be unsustainable. The court noted that the notification did not apply to the appellant's case as the import was not in accordance with the required import-export policy and did not meet the conditions set out in the notification.
3. Correctness of the Valuation of the Imported Firearms:
The court upheld the valuation of the firearms as determined by the customs authorities. Since the appellant did not declare the value of the goods, the department conducted market inquiries and referred to price catalogues to ascertain the value. The court found the valuation proposed in the show cause notice to be correct, fair, and reasonable, and held that the appellant did not provide any acceptable documentary evidence to challenge the valuation.
4. Liability for Personal Penalty Under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act:
The court confirmed the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The court noted that the appellant had imported the firearms without a valid import license, thereby violating the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The penalty was considered lenient given that the appellant had declared the goods upon arrival.
5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Without Exhausting Alternative Remedies:
The court discussed the general principle that when an act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order, it can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court acknowledged that the appellant had a right to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within three months from the date of receipt of the order. However, the court made an exception in this case and decided to hear the matter on merits due to the appellant's claim that his fundamental right to pursue his avocation as a sportsman was affected.
6. Entitlement to Compensation and Punitive Damages:
The court rejected the appellant's claim for compensation and punitive damages. The court held that the legal provisions clearly prohibited the import of firearms except in accordance with a valid license or customs clearance permit. The court found no basis for awarding compensation or punitive damages as the appellant's import was in violation of the statutory provisions.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the order of confiscation and the imposition of a penalty. The court held that the import of firearms without a valid import license was not permissible under the current rules and regulations. The court also upheld the valuation of the firearms and the imposition of a personal penalty. The court clarified that the decision to hear the case on merits should not be construed as a precedent for bypassing the alternative remedy provided under the law. The court found no grounds to grant compensation or punitive damages to the appellant.
-
1996 (12) TMI 80
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order for stay of duty payment as duty and penalty were not quantified. The petitioner's appeal against the Central Excise order was dismissed, and the Court found no grounds for interference under Article 226, dismissing the writ petition.
-
1996 (12) TMI 79
The petition seeks quashing of an impugned demand due to lack of order notification. The petitioners claim no knowledge of the demand raised against them. The court directs the petitioners to make a representation to the Superintendent of Central Excise within 10 days for a decision within one month. The petitioners can also request a stay on the recovery directly from Respondent No. 1.
-
1996 (12) TMI 78
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed the Central Excise Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the appeal within ten days or on the stay application if not possible within that period. Recovery proceedings against the petitioner will remain stayed until a decision is made. Failure to comply will vacate the stay order. Certified copies of the order will be provided to the parties upon payment.
-
1996 (12) TMI 77
Issues involved: Determination of whether the process undertaken by M/s. Pressure Cookers and Appliances Limited (PCA) amounts to manufacturing for the purpose of attracting excise duty.
Summary:
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by S.C. Sen, J., addressed the dispute between M/s. Pressure Cookers and Appliances Limited (PCA) and the Revenue regarding the manufacturing process of certain assembled goods. The Tribunal initially accepted that PCA only packed goods bought from different suppliers, but still considered this process as manufacturing, contrary to the Collector's view that a manufacturing process had indeed taken place. The Court found the Tribunal's order to be erroneous as it failed to determine if a new product emerged from PCA's activities, a crucial factor in establishing manufacturing for excise duty purposes. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the case back to the Collector for a fresh hearing, allowing both parties to present additional evidence if necessary. The appeal was thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 76
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of Customs authorities in different states, refund of amount paid by respondents, initiation of proceedings by Customs authorities in Paradip, valuation of goods cleared in Bombay.
Jurisdiction of Customs authorities: The goods imported by the respondents were cleared at Paradip Port in Orissa but were seized in Howrah, West Bengal by Customs authorities on the basis of fictitious licenses. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the Customs authorities in West Bengal had no jurisdiction to pass such order, stating that it was for the Customs authorities at Paradip to initiate proceedings against the respondents for importing goods on fictitious licenses.
Refund of amount: The Calcutta High Court had ordered the appellants to refund Rs. 50 lakhs paid by the respondents in connection with the proceedings before the West Bengal Customs authorities. The Supreme Court directed that the respondents would be entitled to the refund if they furnished adequate security to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Calcutta High Court, for repayment of the refunded amount.
Initiation of proceedings by Customs authorities in Paradip: The Supreme Court directed that appropriate action against the respondents should be initiated by the Customs authorities in Paradip within 6 weeks. If such action is initiated, the security furnished by the respondents for the refund shall be kept alive until the proceedings are concluded and for 4 weeks thereafter. If the respondents fail to furnish security, the refunded amount shall be retained by the Registrar for the Customs authorities.
Valuation of goods cleared in Bombay: In another case, the goods cleared in Bombay were subject to valuation issues. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order that the valuation of goods cleared in Bombay should be decided by the Customs authorities in Bombay. The Customs authorities in Bombay were given liberty to initiate proceedings against the respondents for valuation of the goods within six weeks.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in both cases with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional clarity and proper initiation of proceedings by the respective Customs authorities.
-
1996 (12) TMI 75
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice for Central Excise Duty and penal action under Central Excise Rules based on pricing of tractors sold by dealers. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petition against the show cause notice.
Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing tractors under the brand name 'Swaraj,' sought to quash a show cause notice demanding Central Excise Duty and penal action for alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules. The petitioners contended that the demand based on the prices at which dealers sold tractors to retail customers was ultra vires of the law and the Constitution. The respondents argued that the writ petition was premature as the petitioners had the opportunity to present their case before Excise authorities. The Court noted the absence of substantial records to determine the maintainability of the writ petition.
The petitioners claimed that the margin retained by dealers upon selling tractors to customers was not assessable under Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing the principal-to-principal nature of their dealings with dealers. They cited case law to support their argument that excise duty should be based on manufacturing cost and profit, excluding post-manufacturing profits. However, the Court distinguished a previous case where wholesale dealings were with specific entities, unlike the present scenario where dealers sold the entire production. The Court held that the authorities should ascertain whether the margin was company profit or dealer commission.
The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on additional case laws and highlighted the petitioners' failure to deposit the demanded tax amount as agreed. This failure, along with the lack of evidence that the show cause notice was ultra vires, led the Court to dismiss the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the matter required factual inquiry by the authorities to determine tax liability. The Court concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated clean intentions and could not seek extraordinary writ jurisdiction without sufficient basis.
In summary, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice for Central Excise Duty, emphasizing the need for factual inquiry by the authorities to determine tax liability based on the pricing of tractors sold by dealers. The Court found the petitioners' failure to deposit the tax amount and lack of evidence supporting the petition as grounds for dismissal, highlighting the requirement for a thorough investigation by the authorities.
-
1996 (12) TMI 74
The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ruled that internal combustion engines fitted to forklift trucks fall under Tariff Item 29(i) of the Central Excise Tariff, designed for use as prime movers for transport vehicles. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that forklift trucks are considered transport vehicles as they carry goods. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 73
Issues:
Petition for quashment of show cause notice and seizure memo, legality of Circular No. 194/28/96-CX.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a public limited company manufacturing explosives, sought to exclude interest component from excise duty based on Supreme Court decisions. The Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs was challenged as contradictory to established law. The petitioner contended that interest being receivable, excise duty should not apply. The Superintendent of Central Excise was urged to consider this argument but instead issued a show cause notice for penalty and seizure.
The respondents argued that the Supreme Court's earlier decision had been reviewed and interest on receivables was to be paid only after 21 days as per the terms of payment. The department requested evidence from the petitioner to show that payments were received after the stipulated period, which the petitioner failed to provide. The Court noted that if such evidence is presented, the interest could be excluded from excise duty as per the law.
The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the assessing authority with evidence that interest on the sold commodities was received after the stipulated period. The assessing authority was instructed to consider this evidence and pass appropriate orders in line with the Supreme Court's decisions. The petitioner was given the opportunity to file a fresh representation and the assessing authority was required to decide after providing a hearing to the petitioner.
In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with no costs, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to provide evidence to support their claim regarding the timing of interest payments to potentially exclude it from excise duty.
-
1996 (12) TMI 72
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh ruled on the liability of excise duty on packing and handling of Vanaspati under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court cited previous decisions upholding the validity of the provisions and dismissed the writ petition challenging the excise duty on packing charges. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions stating that the cost of secondary packing cannot be deducted from the wholesale cash price of the excisable article at the factory gate. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 71
Issues:
Prosecution for evasion of Central Excise Duty, Appeal against penalty and re-assessment, Application for dropping prosecution and discharge, Stay of trial proceedings, Consideration of appellate tribunal's judgment.
Analysis:
The petitioner, M/s. Bata India Ltd., faced prosecution under section 9 of the Central Excises & Salt Act for evasion of Central Excise Duty between specific periods. The Collector of Customs found evasion of Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7.70 lacs in six cases and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lac. An appeal was made to the Customs (Central) Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the penalty and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
Subsequently, the Collector re-assessed the duty to Rs. 2.25 lacs and imposed a new penalty of Rs. 40,000. Another appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal, and a stay of proceedings was obtained. The petitioner then sought to drop the prosecution, arguing that the basis for prosecution had vanished due to the tribunal's decision. However, the Magistrate rejected the plea, leading to the current petition.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the trial should be stayed until the Appellate Tribunal's final decision to avoid potential unjust conviction. It was highlighted that without a final determination of the evaded duty, the trial court couldn't pass a lawful sentence under the Act. Despite some witnesses being examined, the High Court directed the Magistrate to continue examining all prosecution witnesses but stay further proceedings until the Appellate Tribunal's judgment.
The High Court emphasized that once the Appellate Tribunal's decision is rendered, the Magistrate must consider it and proceed with the case accordingly. With these directives, the petitions were disposed of, and the trial court records were to be returned promptly at the state's expense.
-
1996 (12) TMI 70
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of imported equipment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. The court found that the appellants did not fall within the category of a "specified industrial plant" as required by the tariff. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 69
The Supreme Court interpreted Tariff Item 14D of the Central Excise Tariff, concluding that the words "used in any dyeing process" only apply to synthetic organic derivatives, not dyestuffs. The Customs Tribunal's previous judgment was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 68
Whether anaesthetics, including Xylocaine, were covered by the definition of a narcotic drug or narcotic in Section 2(h); hence, medicinal preparations containing Xylocaine were assessable to duty under the said Act?
Held that:- In the present case, it is not enough for the Revenue to state that the said medicinal preparations contain Xylocaine and Xylocaine has the properties mentioned in Section 2(h). What must be set out is : what is it that is contained in Xylocaine which contains these properties and, by reason thereof, makes the said medicinal preparations dutiable.
As anaesthetics are ingredients of the medicinal preparations sought to be made dutiable. As in the case of Xylocaine, what it is within the anaesthetics that produces drowsiness or sleep or stupefaction or insensibility was not identified. For the reasons aforestated , these appeals must also be dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 67
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of an assessee who imported horological machinery for a watch making factory. The Court held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of a specific exemption notification for horological machines, despite clearing goods under a project import classification. The Tribunal's decision was deemed erroneous. The Court ordered a refund to be made in accordance with the law.
-
1996 (12) TMI 66
The Supreme Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding two exemption notifications benefiting the assessee. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. (1996 (12) TMI 66 - SC)
-
1996 (12) TMI 65
Issues:
Discrepancy in cargo discharge at Madras Port, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, denial of personal hearing during revision petition.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a steamer agency, faced a discrepancy in cargo discharge at Madras Port, with 24 excess bales and one excess pallet recorded. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs. 61,192.88 was imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act for the short landing of 117 bales of natural raw rubber. Despite explanations and appeals, the penalty was upheld by the authorities.
2. The petitioner contended that the tally receipts did not indicate any short landing, but the appellate authority and Government relied on the out turn statement issued by the Port Trust. The petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to support its claim, leading to the confirmation of the penalty by the appellate authority and Government.
3. The petitioner sought a revision petition before the Government of India, reiterating the grounds and requesting a personal hearing. However, the request for a personal hearing was denied by the Government, citing the lack of complex issues. The Government emphasized that the petitioner had opportunities for personal hearings during the proceedings before lower authorities, which were not fully utilized.
4. The petitioner argued that the Government should have granted a personal hearing during the revision petition. The Government justified its decision by highlighting the previous personal hearings accorded to the petitioner and the lack of substantiation of the case by the petitioner during those hearings. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Government maintained that not every stage necessitates a personal hearing.
5. The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the authorities did not commit any apparent error of law in relying on the out turn statement issued by the Port Trust. The Court found no reason to doubt the authenticity of the information provided by the Port Trust, as evidenced by the details in the out turn statements. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of providing substantiated evidence during proceedings and highlighting the discretionary nature of granting personal hearings at different stages of the legal process.
............
|
9911796707
