|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 248 Records
-
1988 (7) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Transfer of goods to sister concerns by book adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... s should necessarily be marked, numbered and labelled with description, weight etc. of the contents. In fact, if the manufacture is for supply to a particular buyer for consumption in further manufacture, such marking, numbering and labeling would obviously be wholly unnecessary. In any case, this is not required as per the Tariff Schedule. Nor is it quite relevant to make any comparison between the manner of sale of other products of the respondents, and of the impugned products. 11. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that a statute has to be interpreted according to its plain language. Nothing should be added to it nor should anything be subtracted unless there are adequate grounds to infer that the legislature clearly so intended. 12. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned Collector (Appeals) and uphold the order of the Assistant Collector to the effect that the impugned products are correctly classifiable under the sub-heading 2001.10-CET. Appeal allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... allowed thereunder cannot be in any way reduced by a prohibition regarding the benefit available under another Rule or Notification unless this specifically provides for the same. 13. The only proviso to the notification relates to the procedure to be followed. The procedure provides for the mechanics of availing of the exemption and the extent of exemption given cannot be reduced or nullified by reading the provision of Rule 56A into it, unless it were specifically warranted by the wording of the notification. 14. In the present case, we do not read any such meaning in the wording of Notification No. 103/61, as amended. The procedural compliance in terms of Rule 56A can only be read to mean the manner in which the benefit of exemption can be availed of but it has nothing to do with the extent of exemption that is available under the notification. 15. In view of this, we find that the lower authorities order is not maintainable and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1988 (7) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification list claiming exemption on the basis of value of clearance filed and approved ... ... ... ... ..... not in his defence invoke the approval of the classification list which approved the exemption because the approval was conditional and limited to the value of clearances upto Rs. 5 lakhs as provided in the notification. 7. What is more is the fact that the respondents in this case cleared their rubber sheets without preparing and issuing gate passes. Again, the value of the clearances of rubber sheets cleared at nil rate of duty was not reported in the R.T. 12 Returns. All this cannot be so innocent, as it could be intended only to suppress the information from the department as regards the clearances in respect of rubber sheets with a view to avoid payment of duty. Accordingly, we hold that the Collector (Appeals) has erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no question of any suppression of facts or mis-statement with intention to evade payment of duty and that the demand of duty is barred by the time limit of six months. We set aside the order and allow the appeal.
-
1988 (7) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Claasification ... ... ... ... ..... ld that the goods as held by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be held to be assessable under Heading 26.02/04 of the CTA. 22. The revenue has claimed the assessment of the goods under Chapter 38. This chapter deals with miscellaneous chemical products. 23. We find that the Item 38.01/19(1) covers chemical products and preparations of chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products not elsewhere specified or included) residual products of the chemical allied industries not elsewhere specified or included. 24. We observe that the goods imported are a mixture prepared out of the chemicals which are fused together and are, therefore, chemical products and can be taken to be products of the chemical or allied industries. 25. In view of this, we hold that the goods are assessable under Heading 38.01/19(1) as pleaded by the revenue. 26. In view of the above, we allow the appeal of the revenue and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals).
-
1988 (7) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... process of manufacture goes into the obtaining of such wastes and that keeping in view the decision of this Tribunal in their Orders No. 160 and 161/88-D, dated the 17th Feb., 1988 in the case of M/s. L.M.L. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur and Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Modi Rubber Limited (supra), these should not be considered as excisable, also requires to be gone into fully by the lower authority, after examining the nature of each variety of waste. 22. In view of this position, we have no alternative but to accept the suggestion of the learned SDR and to remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration and adjudication after fully considering the various aspects as indicated in this order. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector. Appeals allowed by remand.
-
1988 (7) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication and Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... espondent-Collector, has reiterated the reasons given by the Collector of Customs, Cochin in the impugned orders. 6. We have considered the records of the cases before us and the arguments of both sides. On the question of jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Cochin these cases are squarely covered by the earlier decisions of this Tribunal relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellants. We do not find any reason to take a different view. Following the earlier decisions cited in paragraph 4 (supra), we hold that the Collector of Customs, Cochin had no jurisdiction to adjudicate these cases, demand duty and impose penalty. On this ground of jurisdiction itself, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals. 7. As we have allowed the appeals on the question of jurisdiction, we do not consider it necessary to discuss other points raised by the learned Advocate before us during the hearing and also the points raised by the appellants in the appeal memorandum.
-
1988 (7) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... se were durable and returnable and, for that reason, their cost was deductible from the assessable value, the cost has to be the full cost of packing which should take in not only the initial purchase price of the container but also the further expenses on its maintenance and repairs. We find it admitted in the department rsquo s own show cause notice dated 2-11-1983, impugned in the present proceedings, that ldquo maintenance and service charges are cost of packing rdquo . The department cannot, therefore, reasonably plead that only a part of the cost of packing of durable and returnable containers should be deducted and not their full cost. All that the department can insist on is that in the guise of cost of packing a part of the. real value of the goods should not be kept out of the assessment, by inflating the cost of packing. We find nothing in the record to suggest that the cost of packing was inflated by the respondents. 3. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1988 (7) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... into tools for machine tools, e.g. into reamers or milling cutters, are included in the heading. The notes themselves give examples of the types of knives otherwise sought to be included knives for machines for cutting paper, textiles, plastics etc., for agricultural machines, tobacco - shredding machines, etc. The present goods do not fit into any of these types. On the other hand, milling machines which work on a plane or profile surface by means of rotating tools (known as milling cutters) are listed in the C.C.C.N. notes as machine tools under Heading 84.45. It is clear, nor is it in dispute, that the subject goods are rotating tools and they are designed to be fitted into machine tools. And, such tools designed to be fitted into machine tools, clearly fall under Item No. 51A(iii), CET. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the goods in question fell under item No. 51 A(iii), CET. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1988 (7) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Late filing of classification/Price list - ... ... ... ... ..... ted the department to go through these particulars and to advise them in the matter. The learned JDR fairly concedes that in view of the Central Excise licence issued to the respondents and the letter of 16th March, 1982, the allegation of suppression or mis-statement of facts is difficult to maintain. 7. Obviously, there was a procedural failure on the part of the respondents in their not submitting the classification list in time. However, in view of their application for Central Excise licence, which was duly granted by the department as well as the letter of 16th March, 1982 giving full information regarding the nature and volume of goods manufactured, the charge of suppression/mis-statement of facts must fail. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned Collector (Appeals) was right in taking the view that the demand of duty in this case should be restricted to the period of six month. The order-in-appeal is upheld 9. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drugs - Culture media ... ... ... ... ..... hat no evidence has been produced to show that the culture media imported is for diagnostic purposes. Only in a general way it has been argued that the imported goods are for growing the bacterial culture. Now this exercise for growing the bacteria is done for various purposes including agricultural purposes and research, etc. also. The Learned Consultant of the appellants could not give the specific use of the goods imported. The extracts of literature produced from the Suppliers is Manual .titled ndash DIFCO MANUAL of Dehydrated Culture Media and Reagents for Microbiological and Clinical Laboratory Products 12. No specific use of the materials imported has been shown in the copies of the literature produced. We also observe that the materials imported do not conform to any pharmacopoeial standards. 13. In view of our discussions above, we hold that the goods imported cannot be considered as a drug for the purpose of Notification 55/75. 14. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1988 (7) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... to give a decision in the background of the case on the merits of the classification, unfortunately, the Departmental Representative and the appellants both feel that they do not have all the facts on record to be able to argue the matter on merits. We are therefore, constrained to order remand in the matter to the Collector (Appeals). We direct that he should go into the classification issue with reference to the two competing items i.e. 4406.90 and 4410.90 and taking into consideration the nature of the goods manufactured, he should give clear findings in regard to the classification under one of the two headings and pass an unambiguous order which can be understood and also implemented by the lower authorities. He is directed to give opportunity to the appellants to lead evidence in support of their pleas if they so choose to do. The Collector is at liberty to call for any evidence. The order of the lower authority is therefore, set aside and the appeals allowed by remand.
-
1988 (7) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Claasification ... ... ... ... ..... ufactured by them are considered as mosaic tiles in the common parlance. The learned S.D.R. for the Revenue has not produced any material to rebut the contention of the appellants. The learned S.D.R. has very fairly conceded that the appellants rsquo case is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1984 ECR 2437 and also by Bombay High Court decision reported in 1981 E.L.T. 147 (Bom.), which have been relied on by the learned Consultant for the appellants. 6. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any justifiable reason for taking a view different from that already taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Empire Industries Limited (Supra). We, accordingly, hold that the glass tiles manufactured by the appellants were not classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 23-A as glass and glassware, but the same were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 23-D as mosaic tiles. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal.
-
1988 (7) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... tion. 6. Smt. Zutshi, Senior Departmental Representative who appears on behalf of the Department, has referred to the following case laws - 1. Sainet Private Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Another mdash 1984 (18) E.L.T.141 (Bom.) 2. Mohanlal Roopchand Parmar v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II mdash 1986 (25) E.L.T. 54 (Trib.) Neither of these cases are of any help to the department in the present matter as they do not throw any light on the basic question whether, and, if so, how, the use of gauze in the manufacture of such products can make them processed fabrics. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, has also not been able to convince us that the use of the gauze is a separate process. Accordingly, even on merits, the order of the lower authorities classifying the products as processed fabrics under 21(1)(b) and 22(1)(b) in the case of non-woven woollen fabrics and non-woven man-made fabrics has to be set aside. We order accordingly. Appeal allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plastics - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... egard will necessarily require to be gone into by the lower authorities. No useful purpose will be served by re-opening the hearing for this limited purpose. In view of this, we do not find the necessity to re-open the hearing. We take this plea of the appellants on record. We hold in view of the facts on record that there has been a failure on the part of the lower authorities in not taking note of the same and for not giving any findings on the merits of this plea. To that extent, therefore, impugned order is bad in law. 5. We, therefore, set aside the order of the lower authority and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for passing appropriate orders on this plea of the appellants after considering the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of the two notifications after allowing them opportunity to adduce evidence in the matter. This remand is only for the limited purpose of considering this plea. The appeal is therefore allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
1988 (7) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tives. rdquo 18. We wish samples of the goods in dispute had been drawn and tested. Be that as it may, there can be little doubt that squashes and cordials which the present goods admittedly are, are not fruit juice as such but preparations thereof. 19. The Assistant Collector, in our view, is not right when he says that the word ldquo preparations rdquo in the entry in Heading No. 20.01 does not qualify the words ldquo fruit juices and vegetable juices, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter rdquo . This result flows from the arrangement of the words and punctuation rsquo s employed. Given this position, and having regard to the fact that Heading No. 21.07 is a residual heading, we are of the opinion that the subject squashes and cordials which are preparations of fruit juices are correctly classifiable under Heading No. 20.01, sub-heading No. 2001.10. 20. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... second affidavit is that of Shri J.P. Kaushik, the appellants rsquo technical manager testifying to the fact that the subject goods were used only for electrical insulation purposes and not for any other purpose. The department has not placed on record any material contradicting these averments and supporting its own stand. If electrical insulating tapes are not known in commerce and trade as adhesive tapes, they cannot be classified as self-adhesive tapes for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty so long as there is no statutory guideline in the shape of section notes, chapter notes and rules of interpretation to the contrary. And, none of this nature has been pointed out to us by the Revenue. 13. In the result, we hold that the subject electrical insulating tapes, covered by classification list No. 774/86 were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 85.46, sub-heading 8546.00. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the present appeal.
-
1988 (7) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... was in the knowledge of the Department and as such the availment of the proforma credit was to be treated as having occurred on account of error/omission on the part of the Department to which the appellant has not contributed by any deliberate mischief. In the absence of special circumstances warranting the invoking of the extended period, having brought out the demands for the period beyond 6 months are hit by limitation and could not have been confirmed. No materials have been produced before us to rebut the above findings of the Collector (Appeals). Accordingly, demands could be raised within 6 months from the dates of credits. We, therefore, hold that the demands to the extent raised beyond six months from the dates of the credits are hit by limitation under Rule 56A(5)(i). 6. In the light of the foregoing discussions, while dismissing the appeal on merits, we direct that the demands for duty should be recalculated in the light of our findings in the preceding paragraph.
-
1988 (7) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... the averments made in these affidavits, he should call the deponents for being cross-examined or test the correctness of the averments by any other means open to him and it would not be proper for the officer to arbitrarily reject these affidavits as incorrect. The method followed by the Assistant Collector in dealing with the experts rsquo affidavits and trade opinions is clearly contrary to these observations. He has summarily rejected them and based his conclusion not on any material to the contrary but on his own subjective opinion without disclosing any basis therefor. 10. In the above state of evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the rolls of cloth subjected to the process of release coating with plastic materials on one side did not fall under either Item 19-I(b) or Item 19 III of the CET. In fact, the goods not being marketable were not liable to be charged to any excise duty. In this view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (7) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation or pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e notices should be issued only by the Collector of Central Excise and not by an officer lower in rank than the Collector. In a case where such a show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court in their judgment at 1988 (34) E.L.T. 442 (Guj.) - Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others, held that the show cause notice was in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 11-A of the Act and was illegal and quash-able. In view of this legal position, the appellants have a prima facie point in their favour on the legal ground. 2. Accordingly, we allow the Stay Application and order waiver of the condition of pre-deposit as well as stay of recovery of the demand for duty as well as penalty till the disposal of the appeal. 3. We also allow the 2 Miscellaneous Applications in which a prayer was made by the appellants for adding the aforesaid legal ground in the appeal and the Stay Application.
-
1988 (7) TMI 170 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ly indicates that both the appellants have been transacting in gold without a valid licence by taking orders from various third parties and manufacturing new ornaments through four persons, of whom one Sri Mondal is a certified goldsmith. Even the certified goldsmith, Sri Mondal is only a front or facade or name lender for the appellants. We, therefore, hold that it is established beyond doubt by the evidence on record that the appellants have been dealing in gold without a licence contravening Section 27(1) of the Act. Possession of primary gold is an offence and the possession of primary gold of 156.500 grams is also admitted by the appellants. The private accounts, as already stated, evidenced transaction in a very large scale. Taking all these factors into consideration, we impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant, Sri P.K. Das, and Rs. 25,000/- on Sri N.C. Das. Except for the above modifications, the appeals are otherwise dismissed. Pronounced in the open court.
............
|
