Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 354 Records
-
1990 (8) TMI 273 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... he context of slab rates as prescribed in the Notification as referring to the order in which different rates have to be applied and nothing more. In the above view of the matter we hold that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in holding that the appellants rsquo clearance during March were not eligible for the benefit of Notification 175/86 for the reason of these being not first clearances. It is observed that the lower authority has not examined the appellants rsquo claim from the point of view of other parameters set out in the Notification nor are any facts available in the records. We, therefore, while holding that the reason for which the appellants have been denied the benefit of Notification 175/86 is not maintainable remand the matter to the learned lower appellate authority to decide de novo in the light of our above observation, and in case they satisfy other parameters set out in the Notification 175/86 to allow the appeal. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1990 (8) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... the same to be treated as a part of manufacturing process of specified end product under Notfn. No. 217/86. With a view to draw line as to what constitutes the input in or in relation to the manufacture of a product, it can be safely held that the process which are indispensable to the emergence of the final product and which are inextricably linked up with the production stream of the end-product upto the stage of its emergence and the inputs which are so used in those processes without which the end-product may be difficult to be manufactured have to be held as used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Inputs which are used after the emergence of the final product and which may be required to be used in the process at the post manufacturing stage of the end-product will have to be considered as a separate process for a different purpose. In the above view of the matter, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1990 (8) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... aim for refund claiming classification under a particular Heading or Item and later the proper classification is found to be under some other heading or item - such classification resulting in refund of larger amount than admissible under the heading or item originally claimed, whether the differential amount as a result of such proper classification should be refunded to the appellant or refund should be limited to the amount which would have been admissible under the item or heading originally claimed. The present case is not one of amendment, but of claiming refund of basic duty for the first time after the expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. This being the factual position, we are of the view that the claim for reassessment of basic duty is barred by limitation by virtue of Section 27(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and we confirm the same. 8. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1990 (8) TMI 270 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act I however reduce the personal penalty to Rs. 5000/-. 9. So far as imposition of penalty under the Gold (Control) Act is concerned, there is no cogent evidence that appellant Shri Mohmedbhai had possessed the gold in violation of the provisions of Gold (Control) Act. The offence under the provisions of the said Act can be attributed only to Mrs. Nurjahanben, who has not preferred any appeal in that regard. The penalty imposed on the appellant Mohmedbhai for breach of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act is therefore not sustainable and is set aside. 10. With the modification that penalties imposed on Mr. Mohmedbhai and Mrs. Nurjahanben, under the provisions of the Customs Act are reduced to Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and penalty imposed on Mr. Mohmedbhai under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act is set aside, the orders appealed against are confirmed, and appeals are disposed of accordingly. Consequential reliefs to follow.
-
1990 (8) TMI 269 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit Deemed Credit ... ... ... ... ..... he Rules, it has to be held the term ldquo non-duty paid rdquo refers to the goods where numerically no duty has been paid. As it is under Rule 57C no credit of duty is to be allowed if the final product is exempt from the whole of excise duty leviable thereon or if chargeable to Nil rate of duty. Thus if the inputs are used for the exempted goods, the inputs are not eligible for the benefit of MODVAT credit and the question of carrying forward the duty paid on the inputs, which resulted in the production of the exempted goods and which in turn are used in the manufacture of specified finished product, cannot arise. The case law cited by the learned Chartered Accountant Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Electrical Switchgears (P)Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1990 (27) ECR 398 (Cegat NRB) , is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. In this view of the matter the appellants rsquo plea has no force and is therefore, rejected. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
-
1990 (8) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... f Rs. 100, an amount of Rs. 150 as excise duty. Excise duty is not a confiscatory tax and therefore, whatever accrual is there to the assessee only a part of it, major or minor according to the rate of duty, would have to be paid as excise duty. This would be achieved only if the extra accrual is added to the price and not if it is added to the assessable value. 26. In this view, we find that the second issue in favour of the Respondents and direct that the extra accruals should be added to the wholesale price and not to the assessable value. The other argument of the Respondents that only cost of manufacture and manufacturing profits should be the assessable value are referred to only to be rejected as the Supreme Court in various Judgments (Bombay Tyres, Hindustan Polymers etc. etc.) found to the contrary. 27. These orders will apply to all the three Respondents to the extent they are relevant. The Cross-Objections filed by each of them are also disposed of by these orders.
-
1990 (8) TMI 267 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjudication Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... t that time. The Collector could have verified with regard to other items, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, on this ground also, the proceedings were vitiated and the order is liable to be set aside. Shri A. K. Bandyopadhyay, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the show cause notice had not made any allegation in regard to the contravention under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.1 have gone through the show cause notice and I find that an allegation has been made in the first para and as such this ground has to be rejected. I have taken a view that show cause notice has not been issued within six months and the order dated 5-2-1969 is not a proper order, and therefore, is void in the eye of law. In the circumstances, the contention of the appellant that subsequent proceedings are void and illegal, has got to be upheld. 8. In view of the findings, the second question gets answered in favour of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1990 (8) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ing in ldquo glassware rdquo does not ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, etc., which articles though made of glass, are normally available in medical stores or with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely that consumer would ask for such articles from a glassware shop. In popular sense when one talks of glassware such specialised articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like do not come up to one rsquo s mind. Applying the aforesaid test, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the clinical syringes which the assessee manufactures and sells cannot be considered as ldquo glassware rdquo falling within Entry 39 of the First Schedule of the Act. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Meniscus Lenses for the purposes of countervailing duty fall under Tariff Item 68. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the revenue rsquo s appeal. The same is dismissed.
-
1990 (8) TMI 265 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... if they have unauthorisedly imported. However, it has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case and merely because the import is considered as unauthorised, confiscation and imposition of fine is not an unavoidable exigency. Here the Department themselves are satisfied about the bona fides and therefore considering the guidelines laid down in the decision cited by the learned advocate, I hold that it is not necessary to order confiscation and imposition of the redemption fine. Under the circumstances the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine for the purpose of re-export is set aside. It is reported that the goods have already been re-exported and hence there is no question of their being brought to India. It is, however, made it clear that it is only on account of the prayer for re-export, that I am inclined to take the view that the order of confiscation and imposition of fine is unnecessary. The appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (8) TMI 264 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... vailable to Polymer Corpn. Thereafter till the issue of show cause notice on 7-3-1989 i.e. after a period of four years, the department does not seem to have taken any action. On the other hand, they have transferred all the licences in the name of the appellant company. They have even permitted the appellant company to use the forms and registers of Polymer Corpn. This being the factual position, it cannot be assumed that the department was unaware of the situation. In any case, there was no deliberate misstatement or suppression or withholding of information which could enable to invoke the extended period. 5. Under the circumstances, the demand appears to be time barred and hence the invocation of the extended period is not available to the Department. The demand raised under the circumstances is not enforceable. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Addl. Collector. 6. When I allow this appeal on this short point, I need not think it necessary to go into other aspects.
-
1990 (8) TMI 263 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation of T.V. ... ... ... ... ..... purchasing any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation are liable to be penalised. In this case, the appellant cannot be said to be a person who was in the knowledge that the TV was liable for confiscation as he had given a baggage declaration and had cleared the same from the Airport. As far as the video camera is concerned he was a bona fide purchaser and he being a high officer in the Government of Nagaland, one cannot expect that he had the knowledge that the purchase was made by him with the knowledge that the video camera in question was liable for confiscation under, Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, we extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant and the imposition of penalty on him is hereby set aside. The appellant has already deposited Rs. 3000/- towards penalty, as per the stay order passed by this Tribunal. This amount of Rs. 3000/- shall be refunded to the appellant. 13. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1990 (8) TMI 262 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... cer, is wholly unconvincing. No person who is not known to the appellant can keep such a huge amount in the counter of the appellant and the appellant would not have allowed a stranger to keep the same in the counter. In such circumstances, the arguments of Shri K.P. Dey cannot be accepted as rightly contended by the learned Departmental Representative, Shri M.N. Biswas. The same is deemed to be in the possession of the appellant and there is no other conclusion which could be drawn from the facts of the case. Accordingly, the foreign currencies are liable for confiscation and the appellant is liable to be penalised under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Collector has taken into account that the value of the foreign currencies is Rs. 67,293. 10p. and he held that the personal penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 is not excessive. We are also of the view that it cannot be said that the personal penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 is excessive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (8) TMI 261 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Short levy ... ... ... ... ..... si-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law . In the circumstances, we feel that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) has got to be set aside for failure to meet the principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection are allowed. The effect of this will be that the order in appeal holding that the demand is hit by limitation is set aside. The allowing of cross objection is to the extent of setting aside the order in appeal holding that the appellants before the Collector (Appeals) do not have a case on merit. The matter is now remanded to that authority for de novo decision on merits meeting the requirements of natural justice taking into account the submissions made by the appellants (before him) regarding their eligibility for the benefit of the appropriate exemption notifications during the relevant periods in March 1986.
-
1990 (8) TMI 260 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjudication - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... This confession of the appellant that the foreign currency represents the sale proceeds of the smuggled gold is sufficient to hold that he was dealing in smuggled gold and was purchasing and selling the same. It was contended that the appellant is only an accomplice and his statement requires corroboration, but as far as Rabiul Islam is concerned, the statement of the appellant can be said to be the statement of a co-accused. But as far as the appellant himself is concerned, he is not an accomplice with respect to his statement. In the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the appellant reported in AIR 1970 SC 940, the Supreme Court had held that the statement given to a Customs Officer is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and they are admissible. In such circumstances, the imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112 is in accordance with law, and the same is maintained. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms stated above.
-
1990 (8) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Denatured ethyl alcohol imported for industrial purposes ... ... ... ... ..... Indian Contract Act. However, in this case, the question is not production of any goods but payment of duty which is capable of being paid and which is chargeable on the quantity of 17.340 kilolitres. 6. The second citation -1987 (32) E.L.T. 116 - Sarada Plywood Industries Ltd., Calcutta v. C.C.E. and Customs, Shillong - is also of no avail to the appellants as that case related to loss or destruction of excisable goods due to fire within licensed premises (emphasis supplied) while, in the present appeal, the goods had already been cleared out of Customs control. 7. As there is no provision in the Customs Act for remission of duty in the event of loss due to accident or evaporation occurring after clearance of goods from Customs control (save as found in Section 70) duty is leviable on the quantity of 17.340 kilolitres of denatured ethyl alcohol, as demanded. 8. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and uphold the same. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1990 (8) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Amendment thereto when prospective or retrospective ... ... ... ... ..... ich is clarificatory in nature, operates with retrospective effect. The learned consultant rsquo s contention can not be accepted as the purport of the explanation is to give greater relief than what was admissible in terms of proviso (v) to Notification 36/79. The benefit offered by the explanation is to the extent of Rupees 1.25 per kg. whereas the benefit under proviso (v) prior to the explanation was only to the extent of 0.75 paise per kg. In view of this, it cannot be said that the explanation contained in Notification 240/79 merely sought to clarify ambiguity in proviso (v) to Notification 36/79. Notification 240/79 being substantive in effect, it is not merely in the, nature of a clarification. We see no substance in the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel and reject the same. We hold that Notification 240/79 will operate with prospective and not with retrospective effect. 7. In the result, the appeal is rejected. The cross objection is disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (8) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of comparable goods ... ... ... ... ..... . We, therefore, hold that there has not been any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the appellants warranting invocation of larger period for demand of duty under Section 11A. Hence, we hold that the demand is entirely time-barred, corrigendum dated 29-11-85 to the show cause notice having been issued beyond 6 months period of the last date of clearance of Sodium Silicate. 7. On the third issue, the appellant rsquo s learned advocate has stated that by the amended show cause notice as set out above, there was no proposal to impose any penalty on the appellants. Hence, imposition of penalty in the absence of any proposal to impose it in the show cause notice is illegal. Learned SDR has no comments to make on this issue. We agree with the learned advocate for the appellants and we set aside the penalty. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside .with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
1990 (8) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand show cause notice illegal ... ... ... ... ..... the assessable value of the fabrics manufactured out of such yarn, even if the duty on Ae yarn and fabric is collected at one stage. This is more so because the concession under the Compounded Levy Scheme is not an exemption from duty but is purely a matter of convenience and facility to composite mills and does not amount to double taxation. 9. Therefore, it follows that the respondents are entitled to included the duty payable on yarn in the assessable value of the fabrics, though the demands cannot be enforced. 10. Though, it is not necessary to deal with the second and third contentions, in the light of the view which we have taken, we have dealt with these contentions as both sides have advanced elaborate arguments on these two contentions. 11. However, since we are setting aside the three demand show cause notices, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhumilan Syntex (supra), we allow the appeals and set aside the demands. We, accordingly, allow the appeals.
-
1990 (8) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI `
Stay/Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... r. Accordingly, in view of the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Uptron Powertronics v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 61 and M/s. Jaya Shree Insulators Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 279, we dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount ofRs. 1,85,470.60 and further order that during the pendency of the appeal the Revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings. 7. During the course of arguments, Shri Arora, the Ld. JDR had made a prayer for the grant of early hearing and Shri A.M. Guha does not object to the same. We order that the appeal to be heard on merits on 12th September, 1990. It is made clear that no adjournment will be granted in any case. In the result, the above three Stay Applications are allowed. Shri Arora further made a statement across the Bar that he waives the right of filing of cross objection. And he does not propose to file any cross objection.
-
1990 (8) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta vide Order No. 128/90-B2 dated 19th December, 1989. Para No. 4 from the said judgment is reproduced below ldquo 4. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that there was denial of principles of natural justice. The appellant should be given an opportunity to explain whether they satisfy the conditions laid down in the Notification No. 80/70-Cus. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction. While readjudicating the matter, he shall observe principles of natural justice and also grant personal hearing to the appellant. rdquo 8. A simple perusal of the Para No. 4 of the said judgment which is operative part of the judgment shows that the Tribunal had remanded the matter for denial of principles of natural justice. In our view, this order does not become a precedent. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
............
|