Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1986 1986 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 225 Records

• 1986 (12) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  CLASSIFICATION

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... iew of the above discussion we hold that the lsquo Soni Cassette Duplicating Machine rsquo falls under Heading 92.01/ 13. Interpretative Rule 3A of the Customs Tariff clearly lays down that the heading which provides the most specific description lsquo shall be preferred. The Revenue had not issued any review show cause notice. The Appellate Collector of Customs had assessed the same under Heading 85.18/27(1) which carried the rate of duty at the rate of 60 at the relevant time whereas under Heading 92.01/13 the rate of duty is 100 . Since no review proceedings were started by the Revenue we further direct that the Revenue will not withdraw the benefit already granted by the Appellate Collector of Customs. We further hold that the classificaton given by the Appellate Collector of Customs under Heading 85.18/27(1) was not correct in Law and the imported goods do not fall under Heading 84.59(2) of CTA as claimed by the appellants. With these observations the appeal is rejected.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Manufacture

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... extender. The departmental representative contended that the respondent should be put to strict proof of the use of the substance for the purpose of exemption under the notification. Looking at the notification, it does not appear to us that such use should be proved. What appears to be relevant is that the substance should be known to be used or employed as extender, suspending agent etc. There are several exemption notifications under Central Excise Rule 8(1) which set out specific procedures to be complied with in order that exemption may be earned. In the present notification there is no such stipulation. rdquo 12. emsp We are in respectful agreement with the above observation. Accordingly we hold that so far as the present respondents are concerned they are entitled to the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated 29-4-1955 in respect of their product for the period for which demand had been raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Customs - Valuation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ver, we agree with them that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the adjudicating Collector used the evidence of other importations against them without putting such evidence to them and hearing them thereon. We are conscious that this is an 11 years old matter and remand would further delay its disposal. But we feel that we would not be justified in over-looking a violation of principles of natural justice for that reason. We wish the appellants had taken this objection before the first appellate forum itself. That would have saved many years delay. Nevertheless, the objection having been taken before us and the appellants themselves having expressed a desire for remand, we consider it our. duty to set aside the impugned orders and direct the Collector to adjudicate upon the matter afresh. We so order. The Collector should finalise the re-adjudication proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 8.The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r (J) . - While 1 agree with Brother Rekhi that the Appeal is to be dismissed, I hold that - (a) in the facts and circumstances of the case, S. 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is inapplicable for a determination of the assessable value of the goods in question. I adhere to my views upon interpretation of the aforesaid provision set forth in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 429 1986 (7) ECR 179 (Consolidated Coffee v. Collector of Customs) and the earlier decisions cited therein (b) it is only a best judgment assessment under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules that is possible (c) even so, a best judgment assessment cannot be arbitrary. It has to take only relevant facts into consideration (d) the royalty that may become payable for the components, if and lsquo when manufactured in India, under the licence agreement, has no nexus or relevance whatsoever to the determination of the assessable value of goods imported even in the case of a best judgment assessment in accordance with Rule 8.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Machines - Universal measuring machine

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... instrument. The appellants, in support of this contention, had compared the provisions of I.T.C. Policy from the years 1978-79 to 1980-81. In 1978 the same has been described as universal measuring machine instrument whereas in the ITC Policy for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 the same has been described as universal measuring machine. We feel that for extending the benefit of Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 the function of the imported item is more important than the description given in the invoice and Bill of Entry. From the perusal of the catalogue filed along with the Revision Application we are satisfied that the function of the universal measuring machine 200 imported by the appellant is to measure tools, jigs and components thereof and also for checking the gauges too. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/78-Cus. dated 1-3-1978. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 171 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Tribunal - Administrative Tribunal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... igh Court had the necessary jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes relating to service matters including the power to deal with all questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of such laws as offending Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. That being so, the contention advanced by the petitioners that the Administrative Tribunal had no authority or jurisdiction to strike down the impugned notification dated March 15, 1980 purporting to amend Rule 4 of the Central Hindi Directorate (Class III and Class IV) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1961 reserving 100 per cent vacancies to the post of Superintendent to be filled by the Head Clerks and thereby debarring Stenographers (Sr.) from being considered for promotion to that post, as being wholly mala fide, arbitrary and irrational and thus offending Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, must therefore fail. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Samples - Test report - Testing of woollen blended yarn

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d subsequently. 12. emsp Smt. Wadhwa further contended that so far as penalty is concerned the Board should have set aside the entire penalty in view of its own finding that it accepted the appellant rsquo s submission that the increased use nylon fibre was unintentional. The Board had found as a question of fact that the appellants had no intention to evade duty by using more of nylon fibre than was permissible under TI 18-B(i), CET. We agree that on this finding the order of the Collector regarding imposition of penalty should have been fully set aside and not merely partly. 13. emsp Accordingly we hold that the appeal should be allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty in full and also modifying the orders of the lower authorities in respect of demand for duty by confining the demand under TI-18-B(ii) CET with reference to yarn spun out of the quantity of the blended fibre from which the sample had been drawn on 15.7.1980. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Exemptions - Two notifications issued separately

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... o ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others reported in 1978 E.L.T. J 350 had held that it is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. If the tax payer is within the plain terms of an exemption he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. In a court of Law or Equality what the legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable or necessary implication. 7. emsp Keeping in view the above discussion, the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and earlier judgment of the Tribunal we allow both the appeals. The orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside. The Revenue Authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Export under bond not amounting to waiver of duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e appellant. Under Rule 12 full duty is paid and under Rule 13 no duty is paid but in both the cases rebatable (unrebatable?) amount is recovered as per Notification No. 203/67. Rules 12 and 13 are inter-linked and have to be read together. The Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation v. Superintendent of Central Excise, MORT II Mirzapur and others reported in 1981 ECR 208D had held that Rule 13 is a procedural provision and gives an additional facility to the person who exports under bond to remove goods without payment of duty in the first instance. But that he is not liable for the excise duty if the goods are excisable. For the purpose of liability for payment of excise duty, the petitioner can only claim exemption to the extent mentioned in the notification of 17.5.1969 and it cannot claim total exemption. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is rejected.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Liquid Paraffin

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... F by Red Wood I Viscometer and were free from bituminous content, would not qualify for assessment under Item 8 nor under Item 11A Ibid but under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the other judgment cited by the appellant viz. in the case of Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd. and Sudarshan Chemicals (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1985 ECR 336, the Tribunal has confirmed its earlier view. We have gone through the Bill of Entry, indent and other documents incorporated in the paper book filed by the appellant. Nowhere the appellant has been able to establish that the goods were of pharmaceutical standard. In the present matter there is no dispute as to its falling under Tariff Item 68. The certificate of analysis issued by Witco International at page 23 of the paper book does not have any mention that the imported good are of pharmaceutical standard. In the result we uphold the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appellate Tribunal Procedure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ision, the Tribunal would be justified in not pursuing this proposal for constitution of a 5 Member Bench. True effect of the decisions could, however, be appreciated only when the appeals are heard on merit. For the aforesaid reasons we do not think that in the changed situation we should accept Shri Vaidyanathan rsquo s prayer for referring the matter to the President for constitution of a 5 Member Bench. 12. emsp There can be no quarrel with the abstract proposition urged by Shri Vaidyanathan that the President acting administratively cannot undo a decision taken by a Bench judicially but in considering the present prayer we cannot overlook the change in situation since order dated 13-3-1984 which, in fact, is a gist of the order of reference that was proposed to be made and which, in fact, was not made was passed. 13. emsp We reject the prayer. The appeal is now set down for hearing on merits. Registry shall fix a suitable date and issue notice of the same to the parties.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Order - Correction of clerical errors etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... an him or by the Collector (Appeals) if the assessment had been made by the Assistant Collector. Conversely, the same is true of short levy collection under Section 28 also. The customs officer who had made the assessment cannot himself review his order so as to result in grant of refund or collection of short levy. The view canvassed by the appellants that the assessing customs officer should rectify his order of assessment under Section 154 and consequent upon such rectification refund of Rs. 1,61,527.79 should be paid to them ignoring the provisions of Section 27 is, therefore, unacceptable. The doctrine of harmonious construction requires that the rectification envisaged under Section 154 should be such as not to involve refund or short levy demand. For the latter, the specific provisions of Section 27 and Section 28 have to prevail. 8. As the claim of the appellants for refund was clearly time-barred under Section 27(1), we uphold the lower orders and reject this appeal.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal - Condonation of delay

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... appeal could not be submitted in time rsquo in the absence of any details or the reasons thereof as stated above, it appears that the appellants have concocted a story of mischief attributing to the said Shri Mehta. 4. emsp Before I part with this application it deserves to be mentioned here that no party can claim the condonation of delay in preferring the appeal as a matter of right and a litigant should not be easily permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time and the Court or Authority hearing the appeal has no power to extend the time as a matter of indulgence. 5. emsp In the result the application for condonation of delay is rejected as the appellants have failed to make out any sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period prescribed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred. Since the appeal itself is dismissed as time barred, no separate order on the Stay Application is required to be passed.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rately going into the matter and after setting out the respective contentions the Tribunal had held that captive consumption for manufacture of further articles in the same factory would amount to removal within the meaning of even the unamended Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules and that the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951 authorised levy of cess on all goods produced or manufactured in any scheduled industry and in the circumstances even if the retrospective amendment of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules may not be applicable to the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976, yet the cess would be payable on such goods removed for captive consumption in view of such removals being removals that would attract liability for duty and cess. We are in agreement with the said conclusion. 7.Hence following the said decision we hold that the orders of the lower authorities were right. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Evidence - Cross Examination

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... appellants have no objection to the matter being remanded to the Collector for re-adjudication. He also appreciates that the witnesses who might then have been relied upon by either side may not be available now and does not express any objection to other witnesses being relied upon, or evidence taken into account, so long as the principles of natural justice are fully complied with. We accordingly set aside the Additional Collector rsquo s Order under appeal without going into the merits of the case, and remand the matter back to the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, for re-adjudication after giving full opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine any experts on whose evidence the Department proposes to rely, and to allow the appellants to produce expert evidence in rebuttal. It is made clear that in the de novo re-adjudication neither the Department nor the appellants will be restricted to the evidence or material already placed on record. Announced in open court.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether bar of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 affects the provision for judicial review?

  Held that:- The debates and deliberations spread over almost two decades for exploring ways and means for relieving the High Courts of the load of backlog of cases and for assuring quick settlement of service disputes in the interest of the public servants as also the country cannot be lost sight of while considering this aspect. It has not been disputed before us - and perhaps could not have been - that the Tribunal under the scheme of the Act would take over a part of the existing backlog and a share of the normal load of the High Courts. The Tribunal has been contemplated as a substitute and not as supplemental to the High Court in the scheme of administration of justice. To provide the Tribunal as an additional forum from where parties could go to the High Court would certainly have been a retrogade step considering the situation and circumstances to meet which the innovation has been brought about. Thus barring of the jurisdiction of the High Court can indeed not be a valid ground of attack.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Search and seizure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ry of India. Going by this peculiar definition of ornament under the Gold (Control) Act, it has to be held that the goods in question are lsquo articles rsquo of gold as defined in Section 2(b). The quantity of the goods under confiscation also exceeds 50 gms., the limit prescribed under Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act above which a declaration has to be made by a person holding or possessing the said articles of gold. Admittedly no declaration has been made in respect of these articles. The goods are, therefore, rightly confiscable under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the peculiar controversy whether the goods are ornaments or otherwise and the possibility of the appellant entertaining a belief that the goods are ornaments, I take somewhat lenient view and give the owner of the goods an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2000/-. 4.The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Caps - Pilferage proof caps -

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... imit of clearances had not been crossed. In the absence of any suppression or mis-statement of fact the demand could not be raised under Rule 9(2). 16. emsp Shri Laxmikumaran contends that the order for confiscation of the seized goods we are also not proper. As already seen the manufacture and clearances were in terms of the earlier order of the Assistant Collector under which the goods were classifiable under TI 68 CET and were exempt in view of the clearances not having crossed the exemption limit. In view of the circumstances there had been no case made out of infraction of any statutory provision making the goods liable for confiscation. We, therefore, hold that the order for confiscation was also not proper. 17. emsp In the light of the above discussion we hold that the order of the Collector is liable to be set aside on the several grounds discussed earlier. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order of the Collector is set aside with consequential relief if any.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Central Excise - Dutiability - Non-marketability no criterion

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the manufacture is completed (in these cases there may not be a physical removal from the factory), leaving him free to change his mind later and use the machines in the assembly line. If this possibility, which would clearly defeat the purpose of the exemption, is taken into account, the exemption would have to be considered as a conditional one to be allowed only so long as the machine is not used for production or processing. There is however no indication in the notification that it is meant to be conditional. 18. emsp We are accordingly of the view that the expression ldquo meant for producing or processing any goods rdquo in Notification No. 118/75 should be interpreted as referring to the class or nature of the machine and not to the intention of the particular manufacturer. In this view the two machines in question were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification and the orders of the lower authorities were correct. We accordingly reject the two appeals.

  ---

• 1986 (12) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Machines not designed for production of commodity or for treating metals

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s are, therefore, distinguishable and in the circumstances, we are unable to apply that decision to the present case. 8. emsp The learned advocate has cited paragraph 68 of this Tribunal rsquo s decision in Bakellite Hylam Ltd., Bombay and another v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and another, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 240, to support his argument that the burden of establishing classification is on the revenue. In our opinion, that burden was discharged by the Assistant Collector in his Order-in-original. In this order, we have discussed the reasons for our findings that the correct classification of the machine is Tariff Heading 84.59 (1). 9. emsp In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) should be set aside, the Order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector should be restored and the appeal filed by the Collector is to be allowed. We order accordingly. 10. The appeal before us is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 12