|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 288 Records
-
1990 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... and used in the process of manufacture of fertilizer/ammonia. The ld. SDR, Shri Jayaraman, while not disputing this, however, would reiterate the submissions already made by the department before the Tribunal. On a consideration of the submissions made and on a perusal of the Tribunal rsquo s order No. 859/90-C, cited supra, we find that in that order identical issue as in this appeal, has been decided in disposal of the appeal filed by this very same appellants the ratio of which is applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we follow that ratio and allow this appeal.
-
1990 (10) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... y the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. -1988 (37) E.L.T. 480 (S.C.). It is also seen from the Assistant Collector rsquo s order that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had held the view that carbon paper was classifiable under Item 68, CET, by its Tariff Advice 5/76. It was on 25-9-1979 that the Board revised this view and held that carbon paper was classifiable under Item 17(2), CET, by Tariff Advice 40/79. 6. In the above background, we do not think that it will be correct to hold that the appellants acted with any intent to evade duty in the present case. In this view of the matter, the demand of duty can be enforced only for the period of six months counting backwards from the date of receipt by the appellants of the show cause notice dated 24-10-1983. The rest of the demand is not sustainable and is set aside. The penalty imposed on the appellants is also set aside. 7. The appeal is allowed to the extent set out above.
-
1990 (10) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty and valuation ... ... ... ... ..... manifest does not appear to be correct because as far as Section 15 is concerned, such a consideration would not be valid. Where a Bill of Entry is filed it is only the date of filing the Bill of Entry that should be the relevant consideration. We also cannot agree with the Appellate Collector rsquo s finding that the goods on which demand is made was part and parcel of the same importation, having been physically cleared on an earlier date. If it were so, the correct procedure would have been to amend the Bill of Entry for which the Respondents do not seem to have made any attempt. The grounds in the Collector rsquo s Appeal also show that the manifest was amended to show the excess quantity and separate line numbers were allotted. The further ground of appeal that supplementary bills of entry must be treated like any other Bills of Entry is also a valid plea. For these reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order.
-
1990 (10) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classifcation ... ... ... ... ..... hna Carbon Paper Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur-1988 (37) E.L.T. 480 holding that carbon paper, a sort of coated paper, was covered by the Central Excise Tariff entry for paper, all kinds, including coated and impregnated paper. In our view, this decision is of no help to the Revenue. The Central Excise Tariff at the relevant time did not have a specific entry for printing plates. In the present case, we have to choose between printing plates and coated paper. We think the former is more specific. 15. The fact that the tariff in force from 28-2-1986 has a specific heading for offset printing plates of paper is also not relevant to the dispute in the present case which relates to a period prior to 28-2-1986. 16. In the result, we hold that the paper offset printing plates imported by the appellants were classifiable under Heading 84.34 and not under Heading 48.01/21. We set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (10) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... on classifying the product under heading 3922.90 upto 9-2-1987 and under heading 3924.90 from 10-2-1987 on the provisions of Rule 33 for interpretation of the tariff on classification of goods consisting of a mixture or combination of more than one material. Since the products contain 51- 57 of plastic material, the Collector has correctly held that they should be classified as articles of plastics. However, we fail to see how an article which is considered as an article of plastics for the Tariff heading should not be so considered for the purpose of the notification because the notification also talks of articles of plastic falling under the specified headings. We, therefore, hold that the goods are eligible for exemption in terms of 81. No. 38 of Notification No. 132/86, dated 1-3-1986 upto 1-3-1988 and Sl. No. 39 of Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 from 1-3-1988. Incidentally, we observe that the Board rsquo s circular is also on the same lines. We allow the appeal.
-
1990 (10) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Supplementary appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... stoms duty is not the manufacture of goods. The expression ldquo excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India rdquo as occurring in Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is only the measure of duty leviable on the imported articles and does not determine the nature of duty. Section 12 of the Customs Act is the charging section and Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act does not require that the imported article should be such as to be capable of being produced or manufactured in India. Therefore, for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs, the concept of manufacture is irrelevant and accordingly the levy of additional duty of customs on the brass scrap cannot be challenged on this ground. In view of the above discussion, we, very respectfully, follow the judgment of the Supreme Court and held that additional duty of customs was leviable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the Revenue rsquo s appeals.
-
1990 (10) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing of internal Combustion Engines ... ... ... ... ..... ther they are sold to other users or taken to their own factory, the engines are inevitably sent in crates establishes on one hand they cannot be sent without the crate and on the other hand they go to the market only with crate. 13. The idea of the packing in the crate is to protect the goods and to allow transportation. At the same time it is quite clear that when they are sold they are sold in crates only. No instance of any engine having been sold otherwise of crate has been brought to our notice. 14. Therefore, after considering the case law cited by both sides we feel that the facts of this matter warrant the inclusion of the cost of crates in the value of the goods. As observed by the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International (para 51) the questions relating to inclusion of the value of packing have to be decided with reference to the facts of each matter. In the facts of this matter value of the wooden crate has to be included. 15. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
-
1990 (10) TMI 192 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... the market or consumption and measures to ensure that object are to be prescribed by way of conditions. This is what is contemplated in the second proviso and there is no dispute that this condition has been complied with by the appellants. The entire quantity has been destroyed under proper supervision. Hence the appeal is to be allowed on merits itself. Moreover, we find that in this case a specific assessment has been made on RT-12 by the Supdt., by approving classification at nil rate. Hence if that assessment is required to be distrubed by way of demand, it should have been issued within the period of time limit of six months. It is not a case where the extended period is alleged to be applicable. Since the RT-12 clearly indicates assessment of duty at nil rate, the normal time limit of six months prescribed under Section 11A is inescapable. Hence the appeal is required to be allowed even on this ground. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Collector is set aside.
-
1990 (10) TMI 191 - CEGAT, DELHI
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... been returned to the factory from which they were received. Hence, the Department has got a good prima facie case. Further the appellant has not pleaded any financial hardship. As such there was no cause for grant of stay. 13. We observe that the learned S.D.R rsquo s contentions have strong force. 14. The applicants have admitted that they have not maintained statutory records and they have not followed the prescribed procedure. They have not even cared to intimate the excise department. Under these circumstances, it is the Department and not the appellant who has a strong prima facie case. No financial hardship has been pleaded. 15. Hence, we see no reason to interfere at this stage. The stay application is, accordingly, rejected. 16. The appellants should deposit the duty amount in question within one month from today failing which the appeal shall be liable to be dismissed without any further notice. 17. To come up for mention about the report of compliance on 14.11.1990.
-
1990 (10) TMI 190 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Benefit of doubt ... ... ... ... ..... s entirely wrong to think that a confession can lead nowhere. We are sorry to find such careless statements in the judgment of a High Court rdquo . It is thus clear that, though the statement of a co-accused can be relied on against the other accused, that alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the other accused is guilty. But the statement of the co-accused may also be taken into consideration along with the other evidence. But in this case, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the gold in question except the confessional statement of Murtaza Hossain, which is an unreliable one. Accordingly, we extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants, and the penalties imposed on them both under the Customs Act, 1962 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968, are hereby set aside. We are informed that the appellants had already deposited the penalties in question. If so, the penalty deposited be refunded to them. In the result all the appeals are allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 189 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Redemption fine in lieu of confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... led a lsquo make believe rsquo story. Moreover, the Collector rsquo s finding that these goods have been ordered is based only on a surmise and presumption and is without any tangible evidence. In the circumstances, even without going into the question whether the goods are figuring in the OGL list or otherwise, we are of the view that the Collector is not justified in imposing a huge redemption fine. Even assuming that it is technically held that the goods are liable to confiscation, in the context of the facts and circumstances, where there are enough evidences to prove that the goods have not been ordered by them and the correspondences in this regard show this position, and the appellants right from the beginning sought for re-shipment even before filing the B/E, the goods should have been allowed re-shipment without any fine. In view of this, we allow the appeal and set aside the order imposing redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/-, with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (10) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunals’ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ture, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Explanation-II. - For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place. 10. In view of the above discussion, we hold that we do not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction vests with the Central Government. 11. Madras High Court in the case of India Piston Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 651 has held that when an appeal is filed in a wrong forum, the appeal so filed has to be returned to the appellant for filing before the proper forum. In view of the observations of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court and earlier decisions of the Tribunal, we order the registry to return the appeal, stay application and other connected paper filed by the appellant to the appellant.
-
1990 (10) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty pending appeal ... ... ... ... ..... s of both the sides. Whether Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 prescribes the inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value has to be decided at the time of final hearing. Prima facie, it appears to us that those charges, which are payable only when the importer cannot clear the goods in time, may not be includible. The Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Limited (supra) supports this view. We, therefore, in this prima facie view, waive the pre-deposit of the duty amount and grant the stay on its realisation during the pendency of these proceedings. 5. The learned advocate stated that it is a recurring problem and seeks early hearing. We direct him to make an application after verifying the number of appeals on this point pending in the Tribunal. As and when such an application is filed we shall consider and decide if out of turn hearing is to be granted, depending on the number of appeals on the same issue.
-
1990 (10) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Partnership Firm - Licence for manufacture of foreign liquor ... ... ... ... ..... viving partner is neither heir, legal representative or assignee. The Collector accepted the petitioner as partner of the licence in the year 1975 and it is impossible to appreciate how such a partner can be denied advantage of the licence on the death of the other partner who was the original licensee. In our judgment, the order of the Collector of entirely unsustainable and is required to be quashed. 4. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the impugned order dated February 4,1982, a copy of which is annexed as Ex. lsquo F rsquo to the petition, passed by the Collector, Thane is set aside and the Collector is directed to permit the petitioner to enjoy the privileges of the licence by deletion of name of deceased Tarabai. It is made clear that this order would not take away the right of the licensing authority to take any action against the petitioner in case any of the conditions of licence are violated. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rom that limit in expressing his opinion in the form of an order regarding the classification of the product. It is hoped that such exercises are avoided. 13. The Revenue has sought for restoration of the order-in-original. As rightly pointed out by the learned Collector, the lower authorities have not given any speaking order at all. The importers had made several requests for issue of speaking order which has also not been responded to Shri K.L. Jain was at pains to explain how they were put to irrepairable loss and damage on account of the attitude of Revenue in this case and on which account, the goods had to be left uncleared on account of its completion of shelf life. It is rather unfortunate that the importers have been made to suffer in this regard on account of the administrative lapses on the part of the Department. 14. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Collector (Appeals), Madras and dismiss the appeal.
-
1990 (10) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electricity - Transmission loss taking place within generating stations not to be condoned ... ... ... ... ..... e stated that the said concession is admissible provided the electricity is supplied for agricultural purposes and the Assistant Collector is satisfied that such electricity has been supplied for agricultural purposes. It was not disputed before us that the quantum of electricity supplied for agricultural purposes was measured and fixed at the point of generation (supply) and therefore, in our considered opinion there was no justification for reducing it by the assumed losses of 65 in transformation as claimed by the appellants. Permitting the appellants to avail the losses of 65 in transformation would mean granting exemption to electricity not supplied for agricultural purposes, something beyond the purview of the Notification. The case law cited by the learned Counsel is not apt to the present case and the extracts of the books relied upon by the learned Counsel do not advance the case of appellants further. In the result the appeal is rejected and so the Cross-Objections.
-
1990 (10) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Art paper ... ... ... ... ..... unal rsquo s Order No. 1188 to 1199/90C dated 30-10-1990, it is apparent that the goods are to be treated as printing and writing paper and not as paperboard since the GSM is well below 225. Accordingly, the goods are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 in view of the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of Sunrise Agencies 1986 (26) E.L.T. 286 . 2. Hence the appeal is rejected.
-
1990 (10) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... aid canvas hood jeep into a FRP jeep build body. It has, therefore, been rightly held by the lower appellate authority that no new product emerges but for sub-heading 8707.00 the duty would not have been chargeable at all for the aforesaid activities of the respondent because of non-involvement of manufacturing process inasmuch as no new product having a different name, character or use was being brought into existence by the respondent. It is because of sub-heading 8707.00 that duty becomes leviable on the product under consideration because that Heading pertains to bodies and this is what has been built afresh by the respondent company. It is separately dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 8707.00. No comparison can be made with regard to bodies built on non-duty paid chassis received by the respondent company from Mahindra and Mahindra under Rule 56-B. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Part of electromechanical domestic appliances ... ... ... ... ..... d the manufacturer rsquo s action or inaction is based on their belief that they were required or not required to carry out such action or inaction, the period beyond six months cannot be made applicable. rdquo Applying this ratio, since no conscious or deliberate withholding of information has been made out by the department, the extended period under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 is not applicable. The demand has to be restricted to a period of 6 months. But, however, they are liable for imposition of penalty under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules for removal of goods without payment of duty which is not a mere technical offence and hence the penalty is upheld, but it is reduced to Rs. 2,50,000/- The confiscation of plant and machinery is set-aside with consequential relief in redemption fine. The order of the Collector in all other respects is maintainable and is upheld. 11. The appeal is modified to this extent only and is otherwise rejected.
-
1990 (10) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... each instalment a fortnight after the last date for the payment of the instalment. For the balance duty and penalty amount it is further ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the applicant shall not alienate or put to encumbrance any immovable or movable assets except the stock-in-trade without the prior permission of the Tribunal. It is further made clear that for the furnishing of the bank guarantee and payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000.00 (Rs. two crores only) the applicant may dispose of or put to further encumbrance any immovable or movable assets up to the value of Rs. 3,00,00,000.00 (Rs. three crores only) for the payment of excise duty and furnishing of bank guarantee as ordered above. It is also ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings for the balance duty and penalty amount. In case the applicant fails to comply with the terms of this order, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated.
............
|
