|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 229 Records
-
1990 (4) TMI 137 - CEGAT, DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... gligence on the part of the applicant. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185, I hold that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In that matter there was a delay of four days. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields reported in AIR 1962 SC 361, the appellant is not expected to explain his conduct till the last date of hearing. After the expiry of limitation, the appellant has to explain each and every day rsquo s delay. In the present matter, the last day of limitation in terms of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 was 28th February, 1990. The appeal was filed on 1st March, 1990. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. The delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned.
-
1990 (4) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... been expanded by indicating that they are other than forging quality, and also indicated that they are for manufacture of bars and rods. Therefore, those cases are clearly distinguishable. In these circumstances, we find that the Collector rsquo s order is reasonable wherein he had found that although the appellants were not eligible for Notification 213/85 yet had found that another notification which is unconditional for the goods, namely, Notification 86/86 was available for the goods imported, and had extended the benefit of exemption to the goods imported. The Collector had further found that there was no case for proceeding against the appellants for violation of Import Trade Control Policy provisions. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector and the appeal is accordingly rejected. The Cross-objection filed by the department, which is supportive of the Collector rsquo s order, is mis-conceived and is dismissed as such.
-
1990 (4) TMI 135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Prosecution - Bail ... ... ... ... ..... e criminal application No. 684 of 1990 for relaxation of the terms of bail is liable to be rejected. Criminal Application No. 650 of 1990 is partly allowed. The bail granted in Criminal Application No. 378 of 1990 will continue on additional conditions i.e. on accused furnishing within a period of two weeks from today bail bonds in the additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) with one surety of the like amount or option of the cash deposit of the like amount. This will be in addition to the cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) deposited as per the order passed on Criminal Application No. 378 of 1990. While on bail the accused will report to the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Mittal Chambers, Bombay - 400 021 every day for a period of 3 months and thereafter once in a week initially for a period of six months. Rule in Criminal Application No. 650 of 1990 is made abosolute in the above terms. Rule in Criminal Application No. 684 of 1990 is discharged.
-
1990 (4) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Wholesale dealers ... ... ... ... ..... , an agreement cannot amount to a contract unless it is enforceable in law, an agreement to sell goods in terms of Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act presupposes that it is enforceable in law and hence, in reality, a contract to sell goods. A contract for sale of goods is, however, one of completed sale by the change in the title to and ownership in the goods . In the light of the ratio of the decision, it is found that what is termed as contract is merely a confirmation order signed only by the appellants and as such, on this very basis, it cannot be held to be a contract. It only shows the placement of orders with the appellants and their confirmation thereof. In this view of the matter, we find a lot of force in the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that the contracted parties are not in any way different from the other wholesale dealers and in this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.
-
1990 (4) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... al of the classification list on 1-3-1977 lost its validity when in fact it was never referrd to by the approving authority while approving the classification list. If that is so, the question of applying the time limit of six months prescribed under erstwhile Rule 11, ibid does not arise and since the refund claim of the appellants was allowed by the Assistant Collector on merits and also on limitation and the Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim only as time barred, we following the ratio of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of The Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, supra allow the appeal and hold that the refund claim of the appellants was not time barred in view of the said letter of protest under the saving clause of the said erstwhile Rule 11. 7. In view of the above we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assistant Collector with consequential relief.
-
1990 (4) TMI 132 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand of duty illegal on goods lost or destroyed due to natural causes ... ... ... ... ..... have become unfit for consumption or for marketing. It is also observed that the Collector has granted permission for destruction as is evident from the letters produced by the learned advocate. Though in these letters the Collector has indicated that this permission is without prejudice to the right of the Department for recovery of duty, this cannot be construed as a condition for permitting destruction because the proviso contemplates that there may not be any demand for duty on such goods claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing. Duty liability on such goods gets extinguished by virtue of this proviso, once such goods are ordered for destruction and they have been destroyed by following the prescribed procedure and conditions. In view of these provisions also we hold that even otherwise duty is not liable to be paid by the appellants. We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside both the orders of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad.
-
1990 (4) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nder Heading 90.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. rdquo 9. It appears that the decision (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided the case of M/s. Print Asia Corporation v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 574 which has been relied upon before us by the learned DR. 10. The item under reference does not contain one of the essential requisites of photocopying, i.e. contact between the copy negative and the aluminium plate, and it has also not been established that it is an apparatus or equipment of a kind used in photographic or cinematographic laboratories. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nyloprint Engravers (supra) is applicable on all fours to the case. Following the above cited decision, we hold that the imported goods fall for classification under Heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 11. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Collector of Customs and dismiss the appeal.
-
1990 (4) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... g out discrepancies in the transport challans covering the movement of the goods with regard to their serial numbers, overwritings and dates. His conclusions have been questioned by the appellants. We, however, do not propose to deal with them, as we feel that the same, as also the rival contentions regarding the place of seizure of the goods in question tend to recede into the background in view of our decision on the basic question that the process carried out namely cropping or shearing is covered by the exemption Notification. 10. For the reasons discussed by us, we hold that the process of shearing or cropping carried out on the knitted acrylic fabrics does not attract duty being covered by exemption Notification No. 109/86-C.E., dated 27-2-1986, as amended, read with Notification No. 297/79, dated 24-11-1979, as subsequently amended. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Collector and allow the appeal. The appellants would be entitled to the consequential benefits.
-
1990 (4) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ford English Dictionary clearly reveals that a vehicle is a self-propelled wheeled vehicle to move people or goods for use on or off the road. 7. Tariff Item 16-I(i) (at the relevant time) read as follows -Tyres of motor vehicles, and tyres for vehicles or equipment designed for use off the road. The cranes and front end loaders are equipment designed for use off the road and therefore the tyres for such equipment comes squarely within the purview of Tariff Item 16-I(i). We do not see any force in the contention of the appellants that the word ldquo equipment rdquo contained in the above mentioned Tariff Item is capable of too wide an interpretation as the emphasis is on design and not on actual use of the equipment. As long as the equipment is designed for use off the road, as in the present case, it will fall within the scope of Tariff Item 16-I(i). 8. The tyres are classifiable under Tariff Item 16-I(i). 9. In the result we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1990 (4) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tyres - Aero tyres and tyres for Animal Drawn Vehicles (ADV) ... ... ... ... ..... r such. Here admittedly the tyres were designed as aero tyres and, therefore, specifications and standards therefor as Vehemently and repeatedly submitted by the appellants, were different and superior. In fact ADVs require poorest quality whereas aero tyres should be of the highest quality. The argument that the actual use is for ADV or that the explanation to the words ldquo for ADV rdquo should be considered to satisfy the notification are referred to only to be dismissed. Any amount of argument cannot change the fact that the tyres in question are not designed for use of ADV. Therefore, we dismiss the pleas of the appellants in this regard. 9. In these circumstances, the main ground of the appeal fails. We uphold the demand for duty as also the confiscation of the seized tyres. However, considering that actual misuse of the tyres has not been proved, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh only. The appeal is allowed to this extent and is otherwise dismissed.
-
1990 (4) TMI 127 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... the issue in their favour finally. It is also apparent that the Retrospective Legislation had been made and a Notification No. 217/86 has also been issued granting exemption of captive consumption of the inputs covered by MODVAT scheme. These developments could not have been foreseen by the applicants when they got the classification list approved nor they could have foreseen the Retrospective Legislation for deciding to file an appeal against the earlier classification. Moreover, the Retrospective Legislation also contemplates grant of duty refund. In view of this, we are prima facie satisfied that the Collector has been unjust in confirming the demand and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs. We also observe that what the Government seeks to give by Retrospective Legislation, the Collector seems to have denied on account of minor technicalities, which also do not have any force. We, therefore, grant unconditional stay and waiver of recovery of both duty and penalty amounts.
-
1990 (4) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... xposure unit which was decided for being classified under 90.10. The ratio cannot be extended as the decision was with reference to the extension of Notification No.11/77-Cus., dated 15-1-1977, no merits on classification have been discussed. (ii) 1989 (43) E.L.T. 574 - in the case of M/s. Printasia Corporation v. Collector of Customs. The item involved therein is for classification of plate processor, which was held to be classifiable as photographic item under Heading 90.10, CTA, as photographic principle was involved - It is stated therein that the ultra-violet rays, negative and photo sensitive plastic plate is used. The item made reference viz. ldquo Developing Machine rdquo has different principles as already elicited and hence the ratio is not applicable. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Developing Machine imported by the appellants do not fall under Heading 90.10, C.T.A., its classification under Heading 84.34 is appropriate. Appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1990 (4) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Validator-10 imported with special and standard accessories ... ... ... ... ..... measurements, the entry at Sl. No. 9 of the notification has to be interpreted to mean that the machine should be capable, with the help of accessories, if necessary, of conducting the measurement listed therein. It is the imported machine rsquo s design and capacity for measurement that matters not the presence or absence of accessories where such accessories are needed and used for measurements listed in the notification. In this view we hold that the imported goods are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/78-Cus. We order accordingly and allow this appeal with consequential relief. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 01-03-1978. Description is in conformity with Sl. No. 9 of the item mentioned in the said notification. We do not find any merit in the Revenue rsquo s Appeal. The same is dismissed. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1990 (4) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Insecticides - Paushamycin ... ... ... ... ..... the evidence produced by the respondents that streptocycline or lsquo Paushamycin rsquo as it is called by the respondents is a bactericide used on plants. Bactericides are covered by the expression lsquo pesticides rsquo . The discussions in the Agromore case revolved round the question whether a disinfectant could be said to come within the scope of the expression lsquo insecticides rsquo . Those discussions are not, in our view, relevant or applicable to the facts of the present case. Here we have what is evidently a bactericide or a pesticide. Pesticides are covered by Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 and other relevant notifications. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. 8. Since the Collector (Appeals) had extended relief to the respondents, there was no cause for the so-called lsquo cross-objection rsquo which we have treated as only the respondents rsquo written submissions.
-
1990 (4) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ty had himself admitted to have signed the order in his capacity as Additional Collector and finding of the Tribunal is based upon that admitted fact. Here the very fact is in dispute and it is strongly contended by the Department that the impugned order is signed by Shri Sinha as the Dy. Collector and not Additional Collector. So, the citation is not helpful to the appellants in the present case. 6. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We are aware of the peculiar circumstances of the case and we are also aware that the appellant is a Foreigner of Indian Origin and she has come with the return ticket and is to leave India immediately and so it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice that the matter should be decided on top priority. So we hope that power that may be will decide the matter as expeditiously as possible as and when the occasion arises. 7. Order dictated pronounced in the Open Court.
-
1990 (4) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the fact that micronutrients are dealt with separate from nitrogenous, phosphatic and potassic fertilizers in technical book like lsquo Manures and Fertilizers rsquo cannot be an argument to say that trace elements (micronutrients) are not fertilizers. The Tribunal rsquo s decision is one which had considered whether micronutrients can be called fertilizer or not in general, in trade parlance and also technically. Therefore, the scope of its decision is not to be confined only to Item 14-HH of-Central Excise Tariff and its relevance in the present case is because of the fact, as we have pointed out above, Notification 81/75 does not specify the Chapter or the Tariff Heading with reference to the fertilizers. In this view of the matter, we see a lot of force in the contentions of the appellants and accordingly, hold that sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of zinc sulphate is eligible for exemption under Notification 81/75 dated 22-3-1975. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1990 (4) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... muggling. In view of this finding of the Adjudicating Authority she has urged that substantial reduction in the quantum of fine of Rs. 50,000/- be made in the instant case. 4. We have considered this plea of the learned Advocate carefully. But we are unable to accept it. The quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of a vehicle is dependent on the overall facts and circumstances of each case. No general rule can be laid down in this connection. It would depend not only upon the knowledge or otherwise of the owner of the vehicle but also on the nature and quantum of goods found on the vehicle used as a means of transport in smuggling of goods. In the instant case the goods found were silver to the tune of 566.500 Kgs. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to disturb the fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority in lieu of confiscation of the truck. 5. This order would be made a part of the Tribunal rsquo s aforesaid order No. A/463-465/89-NRB dated 10-11-1989.
-
1990 (4) TMI 120 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Protest ... ... ... ... ..... roducts would not fall under Item No. 68 of the Schedule during the aforesaid period. 26. Following the above discussion, I would propose an order setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remanding the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for de novo disposal in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity to the appellants. In disposing of the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) shall bear in mind the findings of the Tribunal contained in this order. Assent per G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) . - I agree with the reasoning and decision arrived at by the Hon rsquo ble President and accordingly the matter has to be remanded. FINAL ORDER OF THE BENCH In view of the majority opinion, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the matter remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for de novo disposal in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity to the appellants. In disposing of the appeal the Collector (Appeals) shall bear in mind the findings contained in this order.
-
1990 (4) TMI 119 - ITAT PUNE
Attributable To, Carrying On Business, Co-operative Society, Earned Income ... ... ... ... ..... Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Raipur Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. IT Appeal No. 219 (Pune) 1982 dated 6-5-1986 while holding that income by way of commission earned by a co-operative society carrying on business of banking was not includible in total income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In this connection, we may also refer to decision of Supreme Court in Broach District Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT 1985 77 CTR 70 where it has been held that object of section 81(i) which is pari materia with section 80P(1) was to encourage and promote the growth of co-operative societies and as such a liberal construction must be given to the operation of that provision. We follow these decisions and hold that income by way of commission in the present case was income attributable to business of banking carried on by assessee and as such relief u/s. 80P(1) read with section 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowable to the assessee. We direct the ITO to allow the same. 7. The appeal is allowed
-
1990 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Concessional Rate, Industrial Company, Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Manufacture Or Processing Of Goods, Profits And Gains
............
|
