Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 317 Records
-
1987 (3) TMI 306 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... l. No. (iii) against Sl. No. (4) in the Notification No. 172/76-Cus. Therefore, prior to 26-12-1978 there was no specific entry ldquo parts made of ferrites rdquo under Custom rsquo s Notification No. 172/77-Cus. Shri Koshy submitted that in view of this position prior to issue of the Notification No. 245/78 the cores would not fall under the notification. 3. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR had nothing to say in the matter in view of an earlier Order of the Tribunal No. 1041/86-B2. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The legal position as explained by Shri Koshy is correct. The Notification 172/77-Cus. as it existed on the date of importation and clearance of the goods refer to only Inductors and not parts of inductor. Soft Ferrite Cores alone does not constitute Inductor and loading coil. We also took note of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal No. 1041/86-B2 (supra). 5. In view of these observations, we allow the appeal and order consequentional relief.
-
1987 (3) TMI 305 - CEGAT. NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... dia in Washington. Paragraph 1 of the letter reads as follows ldquo Sea shipment requires robust packing which needs wood crating. This naturally costs more. The contract price includes the cost of this mode of packing according to the mode of shipment. Therefore, the firm offers 6 discount when an air shipment is made because it (air shipment) costs them less in packing and forwarding. rdquo 6. It is, therefore, clear that this 6 reduction was being granted to all purchasers whenever the shipment was by air, taking into consideration the fact that packing is lighter and of lesser expense in case of air freight. 7. In the above circumstances we hold that the appellants were right in contending that the assessable value should have been arrived at after taking into consideration this 6 reduction in packing charges. The orders of the lower authorities are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector for disposal in the light of the above findings.
-
1987 (3) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n of sub-heading under which imported goods should be classified. Sub-item (2) covers ldquo Spray Guns and similar appliances for spraying paint, varnish, oil, distemper or cement fire extinguisher (charged or not) rdquo . The appellants rsquo argument is that the Spray Gun in question does not spray any of the article listed under sub-heading. But, on reading the heading, we fed that the correct interpretation is that all Spray Guns are covered by this sub-heading and also similar appliances for spraying the various things mentioned therein, are covered. The words ldquo for spraying paint, varnish............... rdquo qualify the words ldquo Similar appliances rdquo and not ldquo Spray Gun rdquo . This is because the word ldquo Spray Gun rdquo itself specifies a class of goods whereas the rest of the description is of general nature. In this view, we uphold the classification of the imported goods under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.21. 7. As a result, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the description of valves in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61. Accordingly we hold that lower authorities were correct in holding that the 3-way cock falls under Heading 84.61(1) of the CTA. The appellant rsquo s plea in this regard is rejected. 6. For potential contact plate, the appellant had contended before the lower authorities that the same falls under Heading 84.09 and the appellants withdrew its claim for assessment under Heading 84.09 and makes a claim under Heading 85.18/27(3). Potential contact plate is rated for 25 KV. This means the same is for use in circuits of 400 volts or above. Shri Gopinath had fairly stated that the potential contact plate falls under Heading 85.18/27(3). Accordingly we hold that the potential contact plate falls under Heading 85.18/27(3). Accordingly the order passed by the lower authorities is modified to this extent. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 302 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose.............. This was in preference to Item 71(a) covering ldquo tools and parts thereof rdquo . Heading No. 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule refers to machine tools and accessories and parts suitable for use solely or principally with those machine tools. As against this, Heading No. 82.05 covers interchangeable tools for hand tools, machine tools etc., that is, tools which can be used for more than one hand tool or machine tool. Heading No. 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule is clearly analogous to Item No. 72(3) of the ICT, under which the Madras High Court had held the goods to be classifiable. We respectfully follow the ratio of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court and held that the goods should have been classified under Heading No. 84.45/48. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct that consequential relief be granted.
-
1987 (3) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nctions, not falling within any other heading of this Chapter and sub-heading (1) relates to lsquo not elsewhere specified rsquo . Shri Gopinath states that the items imported by the appellants do not fall in any of the items appearing in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.59 and the orders passed by the lower authorities are correct in law and the appeal filed by the appellants needs to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned SDR and have gone through the records. The items imported by the appellants are parts of aero tyre retreading machine and the function of the machine is not for the production of a commodity or machinery for treating metals, wood or similar materials. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal. We hold that the parts imported for aero tyre retreading machine are assessable under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed. 6. Pronounced in open court.
-
1987 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Classification of goods for import ... ... ... ... ..... t was specifically stated that the Asstt. Collector at the time of original adjudication had checked up and found that the earlier releases referred to by the respondent herein were not in respect of identical goods. If the respondents herein were not aggreeable to the observations contained in the show cause notice, they should have produced a Bill of Entry along with their reply notice so that the revisional authority could verify the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the review show cause notice. The respondents did not choose to produce the said Bill of Entry. Even assuming that similar goods were allowed in a B/E, that would not constitute a practice or that any relief could be claimed on the basis of a single B/E. The Customs are entitled to correct their earlier mistake if any committed by them. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Collector is set aside. The order passed by the Asstt. Collector is confirmed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appellate order non-speaking and not proper disposal of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... r accepting or rejecting the contentions. It is unfortunate that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the instant case did not consider the appellant rsquo s contention as to the practice that was prevailing in the Customs House or as to the contention that the order of absolute confiscation in the circumstances of the case was unjustified. In the circumstances I consider it to be a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 7. In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals), to consider as to whether the facts and circumstance justify absolute confiscation of the goods in question. He shall further consider as to the alleged past practice followed by the Customs authorities. The appellant is at liberty to produce evidence before the Collector (Appeals) regarding the past practice. The Collector (Appeals) shall thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.
-
1987 (3) TMI 270 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Detention certificate ... ... ... ... ..... cordingly the Appeal is admitted. Mr. Chinoy and Mr. Dalal on behalf of the respondents waive service. By consent the Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. 4. For the reasons, which are earlier indicated, the Appeal is allowed and the order rejecting the Writ Petition, passed by the Single Judge, is set aside and will stand substituted by the following order - Rule. Respondents waive service. Return to be filed on or before 30th June, 1987. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed by the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. Writ Petition to appear for hearing in regular course. Costs of the appeal to be costs in the Writ Petition. Any observations made by us regarding the merit in the contention in respect of Section 48 or even as regards the question of delay, are tentative and prima-facie observations, and at the hearing of the Rule, the Single Judge or the Bench hearing the matter will dispose of same after fuller arguments and having the return before it. Sd/- R.R. Ajinkya.
-
1987 (3) TMI 269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bond - Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ions have no scope in interpreting the terms of the surety bonds. 12. It is apparent that in many cases the Court Officers or Presiding Officers in trial Courts do not take due care and caution while getting bonds executed before them. Such a careless act, even done unintentionally, is likely to result in great loss to the state exchequer. It is therefore directed that these observations be circulated to all the criminal Courts at Bombay and other mofussil places and with a direction that in future they must take all necessary precaution and care even at the simple formality of execution of bond. 13. In view of the discussion above, the impugned order forfeiting the sum of money of Rs. one lakh fifty thousand from the petitioner surety will have to be quashed and set aside for want of a specific condition in the bail bond itself. 14. The revision application is, therefore allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner surety is discharged. Rule absolute.
-
1987 (3) TMI 268 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Classification dispute ... ... ... ... ..... g rsquo while happens fairly often. As soon as Government Officers learn of a party having approached a Court of law, they seem to become frozen in their tracks. The proper order to be passed in the above circumstances will be to direct an expedition in the issue of a show cause notice and a decision thereupon by respondent No. 4, who shall be a person other than M/s. Sharma and Pandey referred to earlier. The show cause notice, if any, be issued within a week from today and petitioner be heard in the next week and a decision thereupon be given within two weeks of the completion of the hearing of the petitioner by respondent No. 4. This will not prevent the petitioner from coming to this Court after it has exhausted its statutory remedies under the Customs Act of even earlier if there is any undue delay on the part of the statutory authorities. Hence the order. ORDER Rule discharged except to the limited extent indicated above, with parties being left to bear their own costs.
-
1987 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... steel pipe than less. Therefore, the cement coating has not led to the emergence of a product different from the steel pipe. The steel pipe remains a steel pipe there has been no manufacture and no duty can be charged under Item 68. 4. A further weakness in the department rsquo s case is that the tariff offers two items one item of steel pipes and another item for goods not elsewhere specified. It is a fundamental rule of assessment that a product should be assessed under the heading which covers it most appropriately or with goods to which it is most akin. There can be little doubt that the heading for steel pipes is a better cover than the heading for goods not elsewhere specified. Even if it is a cement coated steel pipe, it is nevertheless a steel pipe, only coated with cement therefore, as a steel pipe it is better for it to be placed in the steel pipe house, rather than in the house that is not meant for any specific thing. 5. The government rsquo s notice is set aside.
-
1987 (3) TMI 258 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - Open General Licence ... ... ... ... ..... llant is that the power of approval should not have been given to the Drugs Controller but to some other agency, the authority before whom that grievance could be ventilated will not be either the Customs or the adjudicating authority or even the Appellate Tribunal. 16. For the purpose of this appeal, I need not consider the contentions urged by Shri Pal nor it is necessary even to go into the question whether the imported goods, namely, Sea Tangle Tents is or is not Intra Uterine Contraceptive Devices. It is not sufficient if the appellant establishes that the imported goods is an Intra Uterine Contraceptive Device. It is further necessary for the appellant to establish that the IUCD was approved by the Drugs Controller of India and no evidence was adduced to establish that the Drugs Controller had approved the goods in question as an IUCD. 17. For the reasons stated above, agreeing with Brother Dilipsinhji, I confirm the order passed by the Collector and reject this appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Process carried on with the aid of machine ... ... ... ... ..... nting. But the concept of machine printing as stated earlier is the process which is ordinarily conducted with the aid of machines. It is in respect of those manufacturers, having suitable machinery and resorting to advanced and modern methods of printing, that the benefit of Notification has been denied. We also find that the Professor of the Textile Department of I.I.T, Delhi, who had an occasion to see the printing house of the appellants has certified that the appellants are purely following hand-printing methods and that there is no, heat setting process. We do not agree that these processes could be classified as machine printing. The appellants would, therefore, be entitled to the benefit of the notification. 9. In the view taken by us on the main issue, it is unnecessary to consider the other aspects whether the penalty and the redemption fine were justified. We hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
-
1987 (3) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Motor Vehicle parts supplies to be used as original equipment parts ... ... ... ... ..... ndestine removal, the demand cannot be sustained. The SDR urged that Rule 9(2) referred to a written demand and not a show cause notice. But in this case, the Revenue has issued show cause notices and the contention of the SDR is not tenable. 21. emsp Hence on a careful consideration of the contentions, we hold that the matter has to be remanded to the Asstt. Collector for determining the applicability of Notification No. 75/79 in respect of period 1-3-1979 to 30-4-1979. The demand for the remaining period cannot be sustained. The Appellate Collector has set aside the penalty but has by mistake referred to the amount as Rs. 150/- instead of Rs. 1,500/-. We direct the entire penalty of Rs. 1,500/- be set aside. The impugned orders are modified and the matter is remanded to the Asstt. Collector for determining the applicability of Notification No. 75/79 for the period 1-3-1979 to 30-4-1979. The demand is set aside for the remaining period. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (3) TMI 249 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Goods manufactured on behalf of raw material suppliers by the appellants ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta relied upon by the learned DR is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case because that was a case where the finding had been reached that the manufacture and sale was not ldquo on principal to principal basis but one unit employing another unit on hired labour basis rdquo . In the instant case it cannot be gain-said that there is absolutely no connection whatever between the two units namely the units supplying the raw material and the appellants who are manufacturing finished goods. Therefore on consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case in relation to the goods manufactured by the appellants and following the ratio decided in the various ruling referred to supra we are inclined to hold that the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the notification cited supra and in this view of the matter the respective impugned orders appealed against are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... intend to rely in support of their defence. 3. M/s NOCIL, Thane should also indicate in the writing whether they wish to be heard in-person before the case is adjudicated. 4. emsp If no cause is shown against the action proposed to be taken within thirty days of the receipt of this Notice or they do not appear before the Adjudicating Officer, when the case is posted for hearing the case will be decided exparte. 5. This show cause-cum-demand notice is issued in suppression, of the earlier show cause-cum-demand notice issued to NOCIL, Thane under this office letter No. S.C./NOCIL/PVCMB/79, dated 7th May, 1979 which should be treated as revised to the above extent. Sd/- Superintendent Central Excise Received 30th Sept., lsquo 84 Nocil - Site Place Thane Range X Thane-II division Date 29th Sept. 1980 Thane. To, M/s. National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd., Thane. Copy submitted to A.C. C. Ex. Thane II Div. w.r.t. his No. V(ISR)3-6/79 dated 11-9-1980, for favour of information.
-
1987 (3) TMI 244 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... involved where the notice itself mentions only Section 75. To hold as such would be wholly repugnant to all sense of fair play, equity and justice and hence must be emphatically denied. 9. emsp In that view of the matter, it must be held that order imposing penalty under Section 74 of the Act cannot be sustained and notice having been issued under Section 75 of the Act, the penalty imposed must be in accordance with that Section. The infraction of statute complained of being two in number, the maximum penalty imposable under Section 75 would be Rs. 2,000/- only. The mention of Section 36 in the order imposing the penalty is not an independent violation by itself and had also not been mentioned in the notice. We would thus, while vacating the order imposing the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- reduce the same to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only. A writ be issued accordingly. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-. G.B. Pattnaik, J. I agree.
-
1987 (3) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Countervailing duty - Additional duty of Customs ... ... ... ... ..... f the specification in the invoice is not sufficient to entitle the oil to the exemption. 10. emsp So far as the appellants rsquo claim for preferential rate of duty is concerned it is clearly admissible in view of the Notification No. 352/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. Learned J.D.R. has also very fairly conceded to this position during the hearing before us. We, therefore, hold that the appellants were entitled to assessment of the goods at the preferential rate of duty. 11. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we order as follows - (i) The goods should be re-assessed to basic Customs Duty at the preferential rate of duty subject to satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods were of Singapore origin and consequential refund be allowed, if otherwise admissible. (ii) Claim for refund of additional duty was not admissible and as such, the same has been correctly rejected by the authorities below. 12. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms.
-
1987 (3) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI`
Classification and valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ng been appealed against. A final order of assessment and a refund order inconsistent with it cannot co-exist (k) on a difference between two of us, the Hon rsquo ble President had occasion to deal with the aforesaid issues in Appeals Nos. 1E/l24/ 76-A,E/2450 - 2460/63-A (M/s. Modi Rayon and Silk Mills, Modi Nagar v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut). It was categorically held by him that an assessee, who does not agree with a decision on a classification list or a price list can challenge it directly by appealing against that decision and not indirectly by filing a refund claim on an assessment based on that decision (l) agreeing with him in the aforesaid view it had necessarily to be held that the application for refund in the instant appeal cannot sustain, the assessments having become final. 7. emsp Without, therefore, going into the merits of the determination of the assessable value originally, I hold that the Appeal cannot sustain and, therefore, is to be dismissed.
............
|