|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 281 Records
-
1988 (2) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... ine from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 40,000 (Rs. Forty thousand) and the penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand). Appellant Chandukutty is given time to exercise the option of redemption within two months from the date of receipt of this order and is further directed to convert the primary gold into ornaments through a licensed Gold Dealer or a certified goldsmith as per law within a month thereafter and report compliance to the adjudicating authority, falling which the same will be liable for absolute confiscation. Taking into consideration that appellants Manoharan and Sudhakaran are only certified goldsmiths, we reduce the penalty on each of them from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000 (Rs. One thousand) each. So far as appellants Nakulan and Dayanandan are concerned, for the reasons given above we give them the benefit of doubt in regard to the charge of abetment against them and exonerate them of the charge and allow their appeals. 12. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (2) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Show cause notice issued to licence-holder, being a division of a company ... ... ... ... ..... imposed has also to be set aside. We would only observe that even if the liability for payment of duty is to be confirmed the imposition of the penalty appears tohave been without justification. The appellants had filed a classification list giving full details and oh adjudication an order had been passed by the Assistant Collector which was, at the time of adjudication by the Collector, the subject matter of an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). Thus there was a difference of opinion between the assessee and the department and at the time of the order of the Collector, the issue was still .being disputed before the Collector (Appeals). In the circumstances the imposition of penalty appears in any event to be unjustified. As earlier mentioned the penalty has to be set aside on the very ground.that the demand for duty is itself being set aside. 15. Both appeals are accordingly allowed and the orders of the tower authorities are set aside with consequential relief, if any.
-
1988 (2) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ervations of the Gold Control Administrator in the Ministry rsquo s letter referred to above hereunder ldquo I think the views expressed by CCE, Madurai deserve careful consideration. We should be circumspect about taking a step so drastic as cancellation of a licence of a dealer for indulging in repeated infractions of the Law and for being convicted in prosecution proceedings launched under the Gold Control Act. If licences are cancelled/not renewed in terms of the instructions of 9th July, 1986 the punishment would be disproportionate to the offence, unless the judgment is exercised depending upon the merits of the case. rdquo Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to hold that for the non-accountal of the gold ornaments the extreme and drastic step of non-renewal of the licence is not called for. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against in regard to non-renewal and allow the appeal.
-
1988 (2) TMI 269 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... 6) E.L.T. 756 has held that approval of classification list and price list are formal decisions made under the Act and are crucial ones in the process of assessment of manufactured goods. 6. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Madhumilan Syntex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India -1987 (32) E.L.T. 489 (M.P.) has held that ldquo In our opinion, though giving of a notice is not prescribed by any provision of the Act or the Rules, the principles of natural justice require that the person to be affected by any action of a statutory authority, should have opportunity to represent his case before such action is taken. rdquo 7. In the light of the above decisions, we are inclined to hold that the impugned order appealed against is not sustainable in law and we therefore set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the original authority for reconsideration of the matter after affording the appellants an opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.
-
1988 (2) TMI 268 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference Application vis-a-vis Review ... ... ... ... ..... their attempted import or export was without payment of duty or in violation of any restrictions or prohibition relating to the entry into or out of India. 10. Since the Collector himself did not record a clear finding that the truck was used as a means of transport in the smuggling or in the carriage of the smuggled goods and since the Board did not even record any finding as to the liability of the truck to confiscation, and since this Bench did not find attempted export of silver it had set aside the order of confiscation of the truck. 11. The above apart, as stated earlier the question of law that is required to be referred should arise from the order. During the hearing of the appeal, no contention was taken that because of the violation of Chapter IVB, the truck became liable to confiscation. On this ground also the first question is not required to be referred. 12. On consideration of all the aspects, I see no merit in the application and accordingly I reject the same.
-
1988 (2) TMI 267 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... lating to the correctness of the classification is at large in a lis by way of an appeal before a competent appellate authority, the original order in regard to classification would get merged with the order of the appellate authority under the doctrine of merger and therefore the order of the appellate authority which has become final would come into operation on and from the date when the classification list was filed. In other words, it is the final order of Collector (Appeals) that correctly decides the question regarding classification and therefore, the erroneous order of the Assistant Collector wrongly classifying the product of the appellant which was set aside in appeal in a manner known to law cannot be given effect to when the same was superseded in appeal by an appellate order by a competent appellate authority. This position in law does not admit of any controversy. We, therefore, hold that there is no substance in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.
-
1988 (2) TMI 266 - CEGAT, MADRAS
stamps lost/unaccounted ... ... ... ... ..... stamps are lost/unaccounted, we are inclined to agree with the view that the ldquo full price rdquo which has to be paid back on demand by the proper officer under Rule 66 should be the effective rate applicable to that variety (colour) of stamps only. In other words ldquo full price rdquo should refer to the maximum duty which would be payable in the case of a manufacturer, who is authorised to use the Central Excise stamp of a particular colour. In coming to this view we also bear in mind that lost/unaccounted match excise stamps have potential for diversion and misuse. The above view is also in accord with the fact that under the match excise system, obtaining Central Excise stamps on credit is a special facility, and manufacturers availing of it have a correspondingly higher responsibility under Rule 66 Central Excise Rules in keeping the Central Excise stamps secure. In the result, we find a lot of force in the appeal filed by the Department which is accordingly allowed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import licence for ‘spares for agricultural machinery’ not valid for import of tractor parts
-
1988 (2) TMI 254 - KERALA HIGH COURT
FERA - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... of every man, woman and child in the country, such an Act, apprehend, should be construed so as to make it workable it would however, receive a fair construction, doing no violence to the language employed by the legislature. It was said that if two constructions are possible the one that is in favour of the subject should be accepted. It is not necessary to pronounce on this proposition for I have come to the conclusion that there is one true construction of Section 12(1). But I should not be taken to be assenting to this proposition insofar as it is applicable to an enactment like the Exchange Act, for no subject has a right to shortage the national economy rdquo . We are bound by the above observations. We feel that we are duty bound to accept that interpretation, which will subserve the conservation of foreign exchange resources. We have, therefore, no hesitation in finding that on the merits as well the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We dismiss this appeal with costs.
-
1988 (2) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drugs and medicines ... ... ... ... ..... Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as also in Supreme Court. He also urged that the appellants did not held. L-4 licence for manufacture of drugs. They were only traders. He reiterated the contentions as found in the order of the lower appellate authority as also those urged before the Bombay High Court when it took the two aforesaid decisions. He, however, agreed that if the Bombay High Court decisions in the two precedents cited above were followed ldquo Sorbitol rdquo imported by the appellants would be eligible to benefit of exemption under the notifications. 5. So far as Tribunal is concerned there would appear no reason not to follow the Bombay High Court decisions. Following the same ldquo Sorbitol rdquo imported by the appellants is held to be drug intermediate eligible to benefit of exemption in respect of additional duty under the two notifications referred to above. 6. The appeals are allowed in the foregoing terms with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (2) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearance ... ... ... ... ..... 30.48 per kilogram. This amounted to suppression of facts warranting application of longer time-limit of 5 years under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. The demand for duty if any is not, therefore, hit by limitation. 15. In the light of the above discussions, we uphold the order of the Collector (Appeals) relating to valuation of the. goods and his findings on the question of limitation. We, however, remand the case to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for re-determination of the value of clearances after excluding the value of the goods supplied to M/s. HOC Ltd. and actually exported by the latter to the extent the appellants, by producing documentary evidence, can establish that the goods supplied by them were actually exported. For this limited purpose, the appellants should be allowed necessary opportunity to produce evidence and they should also be given the opportunity of personal hearing before the Assistant Collector re-determines the value of clearances.
-
1988 (2) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the goods was wrong. They showed that on Telex representation the suppliers refunded part of the value. The appellants also explained how they committed a series of errors resulting in the invoice showing the higher price. Besides, the return of the money by the exporters has not been disproved at any stage. This fact should go in the appellants rsquo favour. 9. I also feel that the alleged admission by the appellants that at the material time the State Trading Corporation was importing Caprolactum at U.S. 2654.32 per M.T. has remained unsubstantiated. Such admission was denied by the appellants rsquo representative during the course of hearing. No evidence pertaining to importation by S.T.C. has placed before us. 10. I feel that after careful evaluation of the evidence on both sides this appeal deserves to be allowed. I hold accordingly. TRIBUNAL rsquo S ORDER In view of the orders of the majority of the Members, who have heard these matters, the three appeals are dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... period March 1982 to February 1986 has been issued only on 31 -3-1987, after a delay of more than a year after the Department came to know of the manufacture of strips by petitioners. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the relevant factors and attendant circumstances and without going into the merits of the issue and assuming for the purpose of argument that the goods in question are excisable, we are inclined to hold that there is force in the submissions of the learned Consultant for the petitioners that the charge of suppression is not borne out prima facie by the evidence on record taking this view prima facie in regard to the question relating to suppression, we direct the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs (Rs. Twenty-five lakhs) on or before 30th March 1988 and report compliance, subject to which pre-deposit of the balance of duty and the entire penalty would stand dispensed with pending appeal. The appeal will be called on 30th March, 1988.
-
1988 (2) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... r the charge levelled against him, later on, the department assured the appellants that such enquiries as had been made are not being relied upon in taking a view in the matter. 22. But the question arises that if the information so collected was not to be relied upon, what remained for the department to fall back upon, to sustain the charge against the appellants? Nothing at all, it seems to us. 23. We do not agree that hank yarn cannot go waste or merely because such wasted yarn happens to be in hank form, therefore, it would merit classification as good yarn or normal serviceable yarn. The fact that the appellants are licenced for weaving is no evidence against them. Nor, we feel, is it essential for them to furnish evidence that such waste is to be subjected to garnetting. 24. All in all, this is one of those cases in which the department has denied the classification claimed by the importer, on the basis of a charge which remains entirely unsubstantiated. Appeal allowed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Investment on plant and machinery ... ... ... ... ..... n of benefit under Notification 89/79 has been referred to by the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after taking into account our observation on capital investment on plant and machinery, we direct that the said authority will also re-examine alternatively the question of extension of benefit of notification 201 /79, after considering that the formality of declaration in terms of appendix to the said notification is hereby condoned. We condone this formality because this is merely a procedural formality and the appellants in the first instance were given a clarification by the Superintendent that the benefit of Notification 120/75, dated 30.4.75 would be applicable in respect of solvent cement cleared free of cost to DGS and D alongwtth PVC pipes and tubes. In view of this clarification by the Superintendent there was no occasion for them to claim the benefit, inter alia, of other Notification 201/79. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1988 (2) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... , we agree with the Collector that the case called for infliction of a deterrant fine and penalty. The appellant mentioned that heavy demurrage and container charges had accrued on the goods which were still under detention. If so, it is entirely due to the appellant rsquo s own fault in not having got the goods redeemed on payment of duty, fine and penalty. Redemption option had been given to him by the Collector. It is not the appellant rsquo s case before us that the fine imposed was more than the market value of the goods net of customs duty. Still, however, considering that some demurrage would have been unavoidable because of investigations and adjudication process, we would like to give some relief in the amount of redemption fine. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) in each of the five cases, i.e., Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) in all. Except for this relief, we up-hold the lower orders and dismiss all the 5 appeals
-
1988 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the mined ore from the mining site to the riverside and from the riverside to the Marmagoa harbour fall within the description of goods intended for use in processing of ore for sale within the meaning of, Section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13. If any of these items of goods are purchased by the assessee as being intended for use as ldquo machinery, plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, stores, accessories, fuel or lubricants rdquo in carrying the mined ore from the mining site to the riverside and from the riverside to the Marmagoa harbour, they would qualify for inclusion in the certificate of registration. The decision related to a case of mining. Following the ratio of the decision and taking into consideration the use of the words ldquo brought in connection with the manufacture of articles rdquo used in the Notification we are of the view that the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Madras is in order and does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1988 (2) TMI 245 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Stay/payment of refund amount ... ... ... ... ..... urts assigned that work. In our opinion, if necessary return is not filed expediously, ft would be a factor which the Court can take into account for expediting the hearing of the Writ Petition. However, these are matters in the discretion of the single Judges assigned Writ work. They know the position of their boards and will have to consider whether this Writ Petition of 1987 which is by a very solvent Company for refund of an amount from Government deserves expeditious disposal and priority over the other Writ Petitioners who are made to wait for no fault of theirs. 3. Subject to these observations, the Appeal is allowed and the order directing the Respondents to the Writ Petition to deposit the sum of Rs. 12,53,811.63 p. and giving liberty to the Petitioners to withdraw the same on furnishing bank guarantee is vacated. The Respondents will have liberty to apply for expeditious disposal of the Writ Petition as indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs of the Appeal.
-
1988 (2) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
manufacturing process ... ... ... ... ..... lled were an integral and essential part of the manufacturing process leading to nylon and polyester yarn has not been satisfactorily rebutted or controverted by the Collector except to say, without any basis disclosed therefor, that these activities were not connected with the manufacturing activities. The counsel for the appellants had cited the Andhra Pradesh High Court rsquo s judgment in V.R. Industries Tea-Packing Unit (Duncans) v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Vijayawada, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 260 (A.P.). The issue involved in that case was whether the process of preparing packaged tea exigible to duty under Item No. 3(2) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule could be considered as manufacture. The contention for the petitioner was that packing of loose tea could not be considered as manufacture. We have perused this judgment and we do not think that this judgment has relevance to the present case. 12. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1988 (2) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ial relief to the appellants. 23. Order per K. Prakash Anand, Member (T) . - For the reasons given in the judgment itself, I see no reason to depart from my findings, on the issue in the present matter, recorded by me in the case of Gokal Chand Rattan Chand Woollen Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (supra). 24. I, therefore, hold that the yarn in question in the present appeals is classifiable under Item 18(ii) CET as it stood at the relevant time and not under Item 18(1) CET. 25. I agree with brother Raghavachari that the demand for duty could be enforced only from the date of the Show Cause Notice. In other words, the demand in the instant case cannot be upheld. Appeals partly allowed. In view of the majority opinion, the yarn in question in the present appeals is classifiable under Item 18(ii) CET as it stood at the relevant time. However, the demand for duty cannot be upheld and is not enforceable. The appeals are, in the result, disposed of in the above terms.
............
|
