Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 300 Records
-
1989 (9) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... quo Converting rsquo is a term used specifically in the paper industry to refer to (1) modification or raw paper by coating, impregnating, laminating and corrugating (wet converting) and (2) fabrication of a multitude of finished products such as bags, cartons, packaging materials, napkins, facial tissues, cups, plates and the like (dry converting). A couple of other similar authorities have been cited before us which are almost on similar lines. There is little doubt, therefore, that the process of slitting is a process of conversion as understood in the paper industry. If this be so, then, the slitted paper in reels manufactured by the appellants fall within the description of converted types of paper for the purpose of Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987. The subject goods are, therefore, eligible for duty exemption in terms of the said notification. 21. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1989 (9) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation & MODVAT ... ... ... ... ..... f the contract? If so, in what manner can the terms be altered. Should it be by entering into a fresh contract or by merely issuing a letter? We do not also know whether the price once entered can be altered with retrospective effect. In the absence of these particulars which can be decided after examining the contract, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondents. 21. We, therefore, direct the Asstt. Collector to re-examine terms of the original contract, 1) whether it contains a provision to alter the rate of contract with retrospective effect, 2) whether it can be altered by means of a letter. He should also call for any other relevant material for the purpose of arriving at decision in the light of above discussion. The respondents should give all the assistance by filing the relevant documents. 22. We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector for disposal according to law.
-
1989 (9) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... e especially when regard is had to the words ldquo cut to size or shape rdquo (in the main text of Heading No. 48.17) which are unqualified. We have already held that the subject goods are not ldquo articles of paper rdquo for the purposes of the erstwhile Tariff and no argument has been urged before us to take a different view for the purpose of the Schedule of 1985. 18. The appellants rsquo main contention, as noted earlier, is that the slitting, pleating and cutting of resin-impregnated base paper are processes of lsquo conversion rsquo . This is also the purport of the certificates issued by the Institute of Paper Technology, Saharanpur and the Indian Standards Institution. Thus, though there is no process of ldquo manufacture rdquo involved, there is conversion. Therefore, the end-product in the instant case is not liable to be charged to duty. 19. In the result, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
1989 (9) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 220-221/89-C, dated 5-6-1989 in appeals No. E/1573/85-C and E/2097/87-C (M/s. Jindal Paper and Plastic Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut). In the said case, the Tribunal held that in respect of the goods which were manufactured when duty was fully exempted by virtue of notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but were cleared during the period when there was no such exemption, no Central Excise duty was payable at the time of clearance. The situation in the present case is exactly similar. In the said case, the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Maheswari Mills was considered. We do not find any strong reason to take a view different from the view taken by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jindal Paper and Plastic Ltd. Following the said judgment, we hold that no duty was payable in the impugned goods and hence, refund claim was admissible. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1989 (9) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay grantable if rejection results in stoppage of production ... ... ... ... ..... that the production of ammonia may not come to a standstill. Accordingly, we stay the operation of the impugned order to the extent it withdraws the concession, during the pendency of this appeal. Having regard to the large revenue involved as well as the need even otherwise for early decision in the matter, the hearing of the appeal is fixed peremptorily for 19th October, 1989. It has been made clear to the Counsel for the appellants that they should ensure representation before the Tribunal on that date and hearing would not be adjourned on any count. 4. The Registry will place this appeal on the top of the list of regular matters for 19-10-1989. 5. The Department will be at liberty to issue show cause notices for the amount of duty involved on the raw naphtha received by the appellants in terms of this order in order to safeguard revenue. However, the notices will not be adjudicated pending disposal of this appeal. 6. A copy of this order shall be furnished to both sides.
-
1989 (9) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... res start with the letter lsquo S rsquo and the adjoining letters are not clearly legible. Also, a perusal of the appellant rsquo s signatures in the reply to Show Cause Notice and in the Sale Deed Agreement reveals that they are clearly visible as rsquo S. Chaeden rsquo and almost round in shape. Shri Jain also stated that in view of this difference in signatures it is doubtful whether the appellant has actually signed the Appeal Memo. and the Vakalatnama. 15. We do not have any positive finding on this aspect though we find that there is some dissimilarity in the signature of the appellant in the Appeal Memo. and the Vakalatnama with her admitted signature in the reply to Show Cause Notice. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions and for the reasons as mentioned above, we are of the opinion that there is no case made out for interference with the orders passed by the learned Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
-
1989 (9) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay - Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... inputs and therefore the duty is correctly demandable even though he concedes that the description of the goods given by the applicants before the lower authorities was correct while applying for the scheme of MODVAT credit. As regards the plea of time bar the learned SDR points out that since the credit was, ab initio, not available, the question of time bar should not arise. For this proposition he relies on two judgments reported in (i) 1989 (42) E.L.T. 701 and (ii) 1989 (21) ECR 177 SC. 3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We are inclined to agree with the learned advocate that they have a strong prima facie case inasmuch as the correct description of the inputs have been made and admitted by the department. On the question of time bar he has a strong case and the citations given by the learned SDR are not quite relevant to the issue under consideration here. Accordingly we are inclined to grant unconditional stay and we are ordering so.
-
1989 (9) TMI 230 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Dealing in gold without licence ... ... ... ... ..... their part about commission of any offence in order to attract at the contravention of the provisions of the Gold Control Act and for this purpose, they should have been issued with show cause notice and there is nothing on record to show that they had the knowledge of connivance on their part for the contravention of the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, on that ground also, the confiscation of the gold is bad in law. The third point is answered accordingly. Point No. (iv) As far as the Point No. (iv) is concerned we hold that in view of the findings which we have arrived at in Point Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii), the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The confiscation of the gold imposing a Redemption Fine of Rupees one lakh on the appellant and imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellant under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 is hereby set aside. The gold in question be released in favour of the appellant.
-
1989 (9) TMI 229 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Import - Loaded printed circuit boards ... ... ... ... ..... he position. But as far as the appellant is concerned it imported the said goods under OGL as it was clearly and specifically permitted under Serial No. 565(15) of Appendix 6 List 8 Part I. Even otherwise if due to overlapping of different entries there is any scope for any confusion the principle is now well settled that the interpretation favourable to the subject should be given. In view of the above reasonings as per Point No. 1, I hold that the ldquo printed circuit boards rdquo which are the subject matter in these two appeals are fully covered by Serial No. 565(15) of Appendix 6 List 8 Part I and are not excluded by Serial No. 113 of Appendix 2 Part B. Point No. 2 In view of the finding arrived at by me with respect to point No. 1, I hold that the confiscation of the goods in question involved in the two appeals are not justified and is not in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the appeals are accepted and the appellants be given the consequential reliefs thereon.
-
1989 (9) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... benefit of Notification No. 217/86 should be made available to the appellants with effect from 8-5-1987, the date of filing the classification list, in appeal No. 3313/87-C. A classification list can be approved only prospective to the date of filing thereof. If an assessee has not filed a classification list for a certain period, he has to bear the consequences, if any, in terms of the law. 9. As regards the 2nd appeal E/1929/88-C pertaining to classification list for the period 1-4-1984 to 1-4-1986, we observe from the impugned order that the learned lower appellate authority has not discussed anything at all about this aspect. We also do not know what points were taken by the appellants herein before the Collector (Appeals) in connection with the said classification list effective from 1-4-1984 to 1-4-1986. Collector (Appeals), is directed to pass a speaking order on the appeal filed before him on the said classification list. 10. The two appeals are disposed of as above.
-
1989 (9) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... pellants to show as to whether the same is durable and returnable. There is no evidence on record as to this and hence the remand on this question also for consideration. 18. As regards the Petroleum jelly, the said product is squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal reported in the case of Oil Dale Trading (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1835 . In this case, it is held that there is no need for taking prior licence from the Drug Controller for manufacture or importing drugs for the assessment of goods under Item 68. Hence, the contention of Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan that drug licence is required for grant of exemption to Petroleum jelly does not require consideration. 19. The matter is remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration on the lines indicated in preceding paragraphs. The appeal is allowed by remand for de novo consideration and redetermine the demand for duty for a period of six months prior to date of show cause notice only.
-
1989 (9) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of suit cases ... ... ... ... ..... succeed on this point. 10. As regards second issue, it is very well settled principle of law that when once goods were approved and cleared from the place of removal after considering the place and time of their removal, the same goods could not be subject to levy duty on assessable value at the subsequent stage irrespective of variation in prices. Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, defines the place of removal which includes a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods and accordingly, the goods cleared from factory on payment of duty could not be subject to tax for difference when it was sold subsequently at Depot. We fully concur with the arguments advanced by the appellants rsquo counsel on this point. Hence, the appellants succeed on the second point also. 11. In the result, we set aside the impugned order by answering the above two issues in favour of the appellants and accordingly, the appeal is allowed
-
1989 (9) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of the applicants depositing Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. ten lacs only) in five equal monthly instalments as under - Instalment Amount Due date 1st instalment Rs. 2,00,000.00 15th October, 1989 2nd instalment Rs. 2,00,000.00 15th November, 1989 3rd instalment Rs. 2,00,000.00 15th December, 1989 4th instalment Rs. 2,00,000.00 15th January, 1990 5th instalment Rs. 2,00,000.00 15th February, 1990 The applicants shall report compliance of the payment of the instalments to the Registry. It is further directed that the applicants shall not alienate or put to encumbrance any fixed asset (movable or immovable) except stock-in-trade without the prior permission of the Tribunal during the pendency of the appeal. It is also directed that during the pendency of the appeal, the revenue authorities will not pursue the recovery proceedings for the balance duty and penalty amounts. In case the applicants fail to comply with the terms of this order, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated.
-
1989 (9) TMI 223 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... permission of authorities are required and he read out the relevant rules. If no such permission is obtained, the parties should have been proceeded on that basis by issuing a Show Cause Notice. But there is no whisper about it in the Show Cause Notice. If the relevant permission is not obtained the parties can be proceeded against for such contravention and that is not a material to conclude that there was a sale of the said car in favour of Shri Hemraj Agarwalla. This contention of Shri Biswas cannot, therefore, be accepted by us as a sound one. 20. In the result, we hereby accept these two appeals and it is hereby ordered that the seized Toyota car No. BWP-6252, which is absolutely confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 is hereby ordered to be released to the appellant Major L.B. Sunuwar, the appellant in Appeal No. C-428/88 and further the order of penalty imposed on the Appellant Shri Hemraj Agarwalla in Appeal No. C-427/88, is also hereby set aside.
-
1989 (9) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Short landing - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ause notice being out-turn report for short-landing where Port Trust Authorities have not prepared tally sheets. Further this aspect was strengthened by the ruling of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd., Bombay, cited (supra) where it has been clearly observed that the tally sheets establish beyond doubt that the entire-cargo was unloaded and in face of these sheets, it was futile to rely upon the out turn report of the Port Trust authorities. Accordingly, High Court of Bombay has taken a consistant view that when there is a discrepancy between the tally sheet and out-turn report, out-turn report would become superfluous. 6. Following the guidelines and ratio of the decisions cited (Supra), we hold that tally sheet is an authenticated document which has to be relied upon in this case and Additional Collector was not justified in levying penalty based on out-turn report. 7. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1989 (9) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... or identical goods imported contemporaneously but the department had also not given any finding with regard to the evidence produced by the appellants to the effect that values comparable to those declared by them had been accepted in Bombay Customs House for the same goods. In the circumstances, therefore, merely based on the prices published in Metal Bulletin, which itself declares in the preamble ldquo the following table represents our evaluation of current market values in the U.K.......Owing to the nature of scrap market it is impossible to quote precise prices and it is important that the indication should be read in conjunction with the relevant market comment rdquo and without any supporting evidence of contemporaneous import, the value so determined will not be in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In this view of the matter, therefore, the Addl. Collector rsquo s order is not maintainable. It is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Collector passing orders as a ‘reviewing authority’ and not as an ‘adjudicating authority ... ... ... ... ..... ce between an adjudicating authority and a revising authority is well understood and the role of adjudicating authority in the field of central excise is comparable to trial court in civil law and criminal law rdquo . It was held by the Tribunal that the Board rsquo s jurisdiction under Section 35E(1) of the Act was limited to cases where the Collector passed an order as an adjudicating authority and not as a revisionary authority. Our view is the same. Since in the present case the Collector of Central Excise, Madras passed his order dated 3/5-1-1985 as a reviewing authority and not as an adjudicating authority, the Board could not exercise its review power under Section 35E(1) of the Act to review said order of the Collector and issue direction to file an application under Section 35E(4) before this Tribunal. In view of this legal position, the application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras before us is not maintainable. 5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 212 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant’s product being an Ayurvedic preparation could be a drug for being included in the definition of medicinal preparation for the purpose of the Act?
Held that:- The High Court accepted the submission that it provided a self-contained definition of `patent and proprietary medicines’ for the purpose of the main Act and severed the connection between the provisions of the Drugs Act as was contemplated in earlier Explanation I, and consequently one need not look to the Drugs Act at all for its interpretation and the Schedule was thence to be interpreted as it existed along with that self-containing definition in Explanation I. In doing so, the position that “Patent and Proprietary medicines” means “any medicinal preparation” which very “Medicinal preparation” includes all drugs which are a remedy or prescription etc. as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. So a reference to the Drugs Act was still necessary. No doubt this is an inclusive definition. To enlarge its denotation a specific provision to include Ayurvedic preparations containing self-generated alcohol which are not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverages was necessary. That having not been done by the Explanation itself, it was not permissible to include it by the Circular. The Explanation I could not have been in conflict with the provisions of the Act and the Circular could not have been in conflict with the Explanation, the Schedule, the Rules and the Act. Appeal allowed. Set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore those of the Civil Judge decreeing the suit.
-
1989 (9) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ing pronouncements of the Supreme Court, cited by the Counsel for the appellants. The facts are not in dispute. The demands raised on the Assessment (RT12) Returns were not preceded by show cause notices. The show cause notice, when it was issued, was barred by limitation. The letters issued to the appellants might have served as an alert to the appellants but cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the requirement of a show cause notice because those letters only said that the issue was under consideration and awaiting decision of the higher authority. In this view of the matter, the demand raised against the appellants is not enforceable. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 11. Since we have allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, we have not considered it necessary to go into the other contentions put forth by the Counsel for the appellants.
-
1989 (9) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Revision ... ... ... ... ..... h the powers of review often found statutes). He might have had an arguable case for doing so if at least there were some new facts or material which, if they had been taken into consideration, would have rendered the impugned order illegal or improper. Such, however, does not seem to be the case here. The Board rsquo s order does not reveal that any new facts or material have come to light. It only proceeds on a different view of the matter, based on the available facts and material. Shri Rangwani should not, therefore, have adopted the course which he did. If at all, the Board considered the impugned order to be illegal or improper, the order under Section 35E(l) could have been passed by a Member of the Board other than Shri Rangwani. 7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Board was not proper and correct and the application made by the Collector in pursuance of the said order is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly.
............
|