Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1991 1991 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 286 Records

• 1991 (9) TMI 202
  
  Issues:
  - Admissibility of MODVAT credit for runners & risers not specifically mentioned in the declaration under Rule 57G
  - Interpretation of Rule 57G regarding the declaration of inputs for availing MODVAT credit
  
  Analysis:
  
  The case involved an appeal against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh's order regarding the admissibility of MODVAT credit for runners & risers not explicitly mentioned in the declaration under Rule 57G. M/s. Ganesh Steel Industries, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, received runners & risers but did not mention them in the declaration. The Assistant Collector disallowed the credit, but the appeal to the Collector (Appeals) was allowed, stating that runners & risers were covered by the relevant tariff heading. The Revenue argued that the declaration must specifically mention inputs, citing Rule 57G and a previous Tribunal decision in Paro Food Products v. CCE. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the runners & risers should be covered under the declaration as they were related to the declared ingots. They referenced decisions in Madras Fabricators v. CCE and CCE, Bombay v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints to support their argument.
  
  The Member (T) analyzed the case, focusing on whether the omission of mentioning runners & risers in the declaration under Rule 57G was a procedural lapse or a bar to availing MODVAT credit. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions in Paro Food Products and Usha Marin Industries Ltd., it was established that a manufacturer must specify inputs in the declaration to claim credit. The Member (T) rejected the argument that the mentioning of the relevant tariff heading was sufficient, emphasizing the importance of a detailed declaration. The Tribunal's decision in CCE, Bombay v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints was distinguished based on the specific facts of the case. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, affirming the necessity of a comprehensive declaration under Rule 57G for availing MODVAT credit, as per established legal precedents.
  
  This judgment clarifies the stringent requirement of Rule 57G for manufacturers to specify inputs in their declaration to claim MODVAT credit, emphasizing the importance of accurate and detailed declarations. The case highlights that a mere mention of the relevant tariff heading is not sufficient, and any omission in the declaration can lead to the disallowance of credit. The decision reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is crucial in availing tax benefits under the MODVAT Scheme, as established through various Tribunal precedents and legal interpretations.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 201
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Waiver of pre-deposit of differential duty.
  2. Effective date of the customs duty notification.
  3. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent.
  4. Competency of the Inspector to demand differential duty.
  5. Time-barred nature of the show cause notice.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Waiver of Pre-deposit of Differential Duty:
  The stay application was filed for the waiver of the pre-deposit of Rs. 7,23,820/- demanded by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune II, and confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appellant requested the waiver on the grounds that the notification was made available to the public only on 1-11-1985, thus, they should only be liable for differential duty from that date onward.
  
  2. Effective Date of the Customs Duty Notification:
  The appellant argued that the effective date for any change in customs duty is the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette, not the date appearing on the notification. They cited the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. and provided evidence from the Assistant Controller (Periodicals) that the notification was made available on 1-11-1985. The Tribunal noted that although the appellants were aware of the notification on 8-10-1985, they continued to pay duty at the unamended rate throughout October. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Jaya Bharat International Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, holding that the date of publication is not relevant when the withdrawal of exemption is known to the assessee. Therefore, the duty was held to be valid from 8-10-1985.
  
  3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued by the Superintendent:
  The appellant contended that the show cause notice issued on 16-9-1988 was time-barred as it sought to recover differential duty beyond six months. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice was a continuation of ongoing correspondence initiated by the appellants themselves. The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta High Court judgment in Tarek Nath Sen v. U.O.I., stating that the notice issued by the Superintendent was an intimation of a proceeding without involving any judicial determination. Thus, the notice was valid.
  
  4. Competency of the Inspector to Demand Differential Duty:
  The appellant questioned the competency of the Inspector to issue a show cause notice demanding differential duty. The Tribunal noted that the Inspector, as the proper Bonding Officer, was competent to demand duty and that the appellants had partially complied with the demand, treating it as an intimation from the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Inspector's intimation.
  
  5. Time-barred Nature of the Show Cause Notice:
  The appellant argued that the demand for differential duty was time-barred in the absence of a show cause notice served within the stipulated period of six months. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued on 16-9-1988 was the culmination of continuing correspondence and was not time-barred. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants had requested a formal show cause notice if the Assistant Collector still felt that the revised differential duty was payable.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal rejected the appeal and held that the appellants were liable to pay the differential duty from 8-10-1985. The stay application was disposed of as the issue in the appeal was decided. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 200
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 3161/88 dated 29-8-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.
  - Dispute over abatement in value of imported PVC Resin due to damage during voyage.
  - Determination of extent of damage and appropriate abatement under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  - Consideration of test reports, credit notes, and other evidence in assessing the value of damaged goods.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, concerning the abatement in value of 1875 M. Tons of PVC Resin imported from Yugoslavia due to damage during the voyage. The appellants claimed 50% abatement in value due to contamination and damage to the goods. The Deputy Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had determined the abatement at 30% based on the analysis of samples by the Customs Laboratory, showing contamination to the extent of 6.4%. The appellants contended that the goods were rendered useless for manufacturing standard quality items and should be valued with a 50% abatement based on a credit note from the supplier acknowledging the damage.
  
  The appellants argued that the test report relied upon by the Department was not provided to them, and the samples taken were not representative of the entire lot. They maintained that the percentage of contamination was irrelevant as any level of contamination would make the consignment unusable. The Department countered, stating that the samples were drawn in the presence of the party and retested upon request, revealing specific percentages of impurities. The Department relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support the validity of the test report and emphasized that the value determination should be based on the actual damage caused.
  
  The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented and examined the evidence on record. It noted that while there was no dispute about the damage to the goods, the crucial issue was the extent of damage for the purpose of abatement under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the Department's approach of determining the abatement based on the test report's findings of 6.4% contamination was justified. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants' reliance on the supplier's credit note was not conclusive evidence of the extent of depreciation in value. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that a significant portion of the goods was in sound condition, and the overall depreciation in value should be reasonably assessed at 30%, as determined by the lower authorities based on the test reports of the contaminated goods.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concurring with the lower authorities' decision on the abatement in value of the damaged PVC Resin. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering objective evidence, such as test reports, in determining the extent of damage and appropriate abatement under the Customs Act.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 199
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of Ayur Shakti and Santalin-D under Central Excise Tariff.
  2. Use of synthetic ingredients in Ayurvedic preparations.
  3. Applicability of extended period for demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
  4. Validity of certificates from Ayurvedic practitioners.
  5. Burden of proof regarding the classification of products.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Ayur Shakti and Santalin-D under Central Excise Tariff:
  The primary issue was whether Ayur Shakti and Santalin-D should be classified under TI 14E of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff as Patent or Proprietary (P. or P.) medicines, rather than Ayurvedic medicines. The learned Collector concluded that these products were not exclusively Ayurvedic due to the presence of synthetic ingredients. The Tribunal upheld this classification, noting that the products did not meet the criteria for Ayurvedic drugs as defined in Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which requires that Ayurvedic drugs be processed and manufactured exclusively according to formulae described in authoritative Ayurvedic texts.
  
  2. Use of Synthetic Ingredients in Ayurvedic Preparations:
  The Tribunal examined whether the use of synthetic ingredients like paraffin wax, petroleum jelly, and various other synthetic substances in Ayur Shakti and Santalin-D disqualified them from being classified as Ayurvedic medicines. The Tribunal referenced previous rulings, including Amrutanjan Ltd. v. CCE, which stated that the presence of synthetic ingredients not recognized in Ayurvedic texts would render the product non-Ayurvedic. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof was on the manufacturer to demonstrate that the synthetic ingredients used were recognized in Ayurvedic treatises and established by usage and tradition, which the appellants failed to do.
  
  3. Applicability of Extended Period for Demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act:
  The Tribunal noted that the learned Collector found no suppression of facts by the assessee and thus, the extended period of five years under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act was not applicable. Consequently, no penalty was imposable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  4. Validity of Certificates from Ayurvedic Practitioners:
  The Tribunal reviewed the certificates provided by several Ayurvedic practitioners, which claimed that Ayur Shakti and Santalin-D were purely Ayurvedic medicines. However, the Tribunal found that these certificates did not refer to any authoritative Ayurvedic texts listed in Schedule I to Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. As such, the certificates were not considered reliable evidence for classifying the products as Ayurvedic.
  
  5. Burden of Proof Regarding the Classification of Products:
  The Tribunal reiterated that the initial burden of proof regarding the classification of the products lay with the department, which had been discharged by pointing out the synthetic ingredients. The burden then shifted to the manufacturer to prove that the products were exclusively Ayurvedic, which they failed to do. The Tribunal emphasized that the manufacturer did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the synthetic ingredients were recognized as Ayurvedic by authoritative texts or established by usage and tradition.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the classification of Ayur Shakti and Santalin-D under TI 14E as P. or P. medicines, confirming that the products were not exclusively Ayurvedic due to the presence of synthetic ingredients. The appeal was rejected, and the Tribunal found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 198
  
  Issues:
  - Entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue: Entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82
  The appeals revolved around the question of whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82. In one appeal, the appellants, who were manufacturers of P.P. foods, used 58 mm closures to pack their products and were availing credit under the said Notification. The authorities denied the benefit post-amendment, stating that not every element used in packing could be considered raw material or component parts. In another appeal, the appellants used duty-paid Coproco adhesive to fix labels on unit containers for P.P. foods. The appellants argued, citing legal precedents, that anything essential to the manufacturing process or making the product marketable should be deemed raw material or component parts. The respondent did not contest this argument in light of the legal judgments presented by the appellants.
  
  The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to the Apex Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper Inds. Ltd., which emphasized that anything integral to the manufacturing process and necessary to make the product marketable should be deemed raw material or component parts. Since the manufacture of P.P. foods was completed by packing them in unit containers, the 58 mm caps and Coproco adhesive used by the appellants were considered raw materials. Relying on the Apex Court's ruling, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief if applicable.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 197
  
  Issues:
  1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962
  2. Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962
  3. Reliance on statement of co-accused as evidence
  4. Lack of corroboration in evidence
  5. Proper investigation by the authorities
  
  Analysis:
  
  Confiscation of Goods under Customs Act, 1962:
  The appeal challenged the order of confiscation of video cassette sets and remote controls under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant denied any connection with certain seized goods and argued that the evidence against him was based solely on the statement of a co-accused. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was found in possession of foreign goods that were contraband under the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000 considering the benefit of doubt due to lack of corroboration in the evidence.
  
  Imposition of Penalty under Customs Act, 1962:
  The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified as the evidence against him was solely based on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty but reduced it to Rs. 20,000, considering the lack of corroboration in the evidence linking the appellant to the seized goods.
  
  Reliance on Statement of Co-accused as Evidence:
  The appellant contended that the reliance on the statement of a co-accused as the sole basis for imposing a penalty was improper. The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar to argue that a co-accused's confession cannot be treated as substantive evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of corroboration in the evidence and reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant.
  
  Lack of Corroboration in Evidence:
  The Tribunal noted that the only evidence connecting the appellant to the seized goods was the uncorroborated statement of the co-accused. The investigating agency failed to collect crucial evidence, such as the Lease Deed for the premises in question, which could have corroborated the statement. Due to the lack of corroboration, the Tribunal gave the appellant the benefit of doubt and reduced the penalty imposed.
  
  Proper Investigation by the Authorities:
  The Tribunal highlighted the inadequacy of the investigation conducted by the authorities. They noted that crucial evidence, such as the Lease Deed for the premises in question, was not collected, which could have clarified the appellant's involvement. The Tribunal directed the Director General, Revenue Intelligence, to investigate the reasons for this lapse and sent a copy of the order for further action.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal and the Tribunal's decision regarding the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, reliance on evidence, lack of corroboration, and the need for proper investigation by the authorities.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 196
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against Order-in-Original No. 23/89 for clandestine removal of TV sets, denial of principles of natural justice, charges of non-accountal of picture tubes, clearances on forged invoices, gate passes, duplicate sales invoices, repairs exceeding production, under-valuation, service charges, confiscation of TV sets, and imposition of personal penalty.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original for alleged clandestine removal of TV sets. Central Excise Officers conducted visits and seized records related to production, clearance, and sales. Charges included non-accountal of picture tubes, clearances on forged documents, under-valuation, and improper accountal of service charges. The Principal Collector confirmed charges, imposed excise duty, ordered confiscation of seized TV sets, and imposed a hefty personal penalty. The appellants challenged the order citing denial of principles of natural justice, specifically lack of cross-examination of witnesses and non-supply of relevant documents for rebuttal.
  
  The appellants argued that denial of cross-examination and non-supply of crucial documents violated natural justice principles. The Collector's reliance on seized documents and statements without allowing cross-examination was deemed unjust. The defense claimed a conspiracy by competitors and disgruntled staff, emphasizing the need for fair procedure. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, directing the Collector to allow cross-examination and provide necessary documents for a fair hearing.
  
  In a separate assent, another Member highlighted the importance of observing natural justice principles in quasi-judicial proceedings. Emphasizing the seriousness of forgery charges, the need for supplying alleged forged documents for inspection was underscored. The Member called for a re-examination of defective tubes and undervaluation charges, stressing the necessity of detailed findings and clear orders on reassessment. The Collector was advised to consider these observations during the re-adjudication process and ensure a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of upholding natural justice principles, providing relevant documents, and ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 195
  
  Issues:
  - Confiscation of seized goods under Customs Act, 1962
  - Penalty imposition on the appellants
  - Compliance with Chapter IVA of the Customs Act
  - Ownership and source of seized goods
  - Benefit of doubt for seized VCR
  
  Confiscation of Seized Goods under Customs Act, 1962:
  The case involved the confiscation of foreign-origin goods seized during searches at various premises. The Deputy Collector of Customs & Excise had initially ordered absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with penalties imposed on the proprietors. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) later modified the order, releasing the goods on payment and reducing the penalties. The Tribunal reviewed the case and upheld the confiscation of video cassettes under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962, as Chapter IVA requirements were not met.
  
  Penalty Imposition on the Appellants:
  The appellants contested the fines and penalties imposed, arguing that they were excessive for technical violations and that the burden of proving smuggling rested with the department. They presented documentary evidence to establish ownership of some seized cassettes. The Tribunal reduced the personal penalties on each appellant to Rs. 500 only, considering the circumstances and compliance issues.
  
  Compliance with Chapter IVA of the Customs Act:
  The Tribunal noted that the seized video cassettes required compliance with Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, as they were notified goods. Since this compliance was lacking, the order upholding the confiscation of cassettes under Section 111(p) was deemed legal and sustainable.
  
  Ownership and Source of Seized Goods:
  Statements from the proprietors revealed conflicting claims regarding ownership of the seized goods. While some disclaimed ownership, others admitted to acquiring the goods from specific sources without proper documentation. The Tribunal considered these statements in determining the legitimacy of the confiscation and penalties imposed.
  
  Benefit of Doubt for Seized VCR:
  Regarding the seized VCR, conflicting claims were made about ownership and repairs. Ultimately, the Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, ordering the release of the VCR to the owner and setting aside its confiscation. However, the confiscation of the video cassettes was confirmed, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the confiscation of the VCR, confirming the confiscation of video cassettes, and reducing the penalties imposed on the appellants, considering the evidence, compliance issues, and ownership claims presented during the proceedings.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 194
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood prior to amendment, in conjunction with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  2. Whether the cases covered under Rule 57-I for recovery of wrongly availed MODVAT credit are governed by Section 11A.
  3. Whether the general provision of Section 11A prevails over the specific cases covered under Rule 57-I.
  4. Retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 57-I.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Applicability of Rule 57-I in conjunction with Section 11A:
  The Tribunal examined whether Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood before its amendment on 6-10-1988, should be read in conjunction with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Department contended that the MODVAT Scheme, introduced in 1986, was independent and should not be read with Section 11A. However, the Tribunal held that MODVAT credit availed wrongfully, which results in short levy of duty on the final product, should invoke the provisions of Section 11A. This was based on previous decisions, including the TELCO case, where it was held that Rule 57-I is subject to the provisions of Section 11A when it is silent about the limitation period for demand.
  
  2. Governing of cases under Rule 57-I by Section 11A:
  The Tribunal noted that Section 11A provides for recovery of duties in cases of short levy, short paid, or non-paid duties, and under-assessment. The Department argued that MODVAT credit, being a special provision, should not be governed by Section 11A. The Tribunal, however, held that since MODVAT credit results in short levy of duty on the final product, the provisions of Section 11A would apply. This was supported by the Karnataka High Court's decision in the Thungabadra Steel Products case, which upheld the Tribunal's view on the issue.
  
  3. Prevalence of Section 11A over Rule 57-I:
  The Tribunal considered whether the general provision of Section 11A should prevail over the specific provisions of Rule 57-I. The Department argued that the MODVAT Scheme, being a special scheme with its own provisions, should not be subject to Section 11A. However, the Tribunal held that Rule 57-I, being part of the Central Excise Rules, is subject to the provisions of Section 11A when it is silent about the limitation period for demand. The Tribunal also noted that the Bombay High Court, in the Zenith Tin Works case, held that Rule 56A (analogous to the MODVAT Scheme) is subject to the time limit under the erstwhile Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules.
  
  4. Retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 57-I:
  The Department conceded that the question of the retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 57-I does not arise from the Tribunal's order, as there was no finding on this issue. Therefore, this question was not considered further.
  
  Conclusion and Proposal for Reference to the Supreme Court:
  The Tribunal observed conflicting views from the Gujarat High Court and the Karnataka High Court on whether Rule 57-I prior to amendment is subject to Section 11A. The Gujarat High Court, in the Torrent Laboratories case, held that Rule 57-I should not be read in conjunction with Section 11A, but also recognized the need for a reasonable period for issuing show cause notices. The Karnataka High Court, however, upheld the Tribunal's view that Section 11A applies to Rule 57-I.
  
  Given these conflicting views, the Tribunal proposed to refer the following question of law to the Supreme Court for resolution:
  "Whether Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood prior to amendment effected on 6-10-1988, is subject to the provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or whether it is independent of Section 11A and can be invoked for recovery of MODVAT credits even covering the period beyond six months from the date of credit?"

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 193
  
  Issues:
  Classification of ribbons and spare parts pack for laser comp imported in a consignment of Monotype system Phototype Setting Machine with Accessories.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal challenged the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in assessing ribbons and spare parts pack separately under appropriate tariff headings. The goods were initially assessed under sub-heading 8442.10, but the department appealed for separate assessment based on various grounds.
  
  2. The grounds presented in the appeal included arguments that ribbons were specially designed for the printer part of the type setter, not similar to typewriter ribbons, and the spare parts pack was essential for the Monotype Photo Typesetter, deserving assessment under the same tariff heading.
  
  3. The investigation revealed discrepancies in valuation and classification due to withheld proforma invoice details, indicating separate values for ribbons and spare parts. The Accessories (Condition) Rules were invoked to determine if the items qualified as accessories, which required compulsory supply with the main unit without separate charges.
  
  4. The Senior Advocate argued that ribbons should be treated as accessories per the Accessories (Condition) Rules, citing a Supreme Court decision. He contended that the same principle should apply to the spare parts pack imported with the Photo Type Setter.
  
  5. The Respondent emphasized that classification should adhere to customs law definitions, highlighting the broad coverage of Heading 96.12, which includes ribbons for various printing devices. The contention was that the ribbons in question met the criteria for classification under this heading.
  
  6. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments, considering the requirements of the Accessories (Condition) Rules and the Explanatory Note to Heading 96.12. It was noted that the proforma invoice details were crucial in determining the compulsory nature of the items supplied with the main unit.
  
  7. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, concluding that the ribbons and spare parts pack did not meet the criteria to be classified as accessories. The classification under Heading 96.12 was deemed appropriate based on the common function of the ribbons for printing devices, despite the specific design for the printer part of the type setter. The appeal was dismissed.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 192
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Determination of the assessable value of imported Selenium Metal Powder.
  2. Validity of the declared invoice price as the transaction value.
  3. Justification for adopting a higher price based on contemporaneous imports.
  4. Onus of proving misdeclaration and the role of computer print-outs as evidence.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Determination of the assessable value of imported Selenium Metal Powder:
  The main issue revolves around whether the invoice price of US $ 7.50 per kg. (CIF) should be accepted as the assessable value or if a higher price of US $ 16.53 per kg. (CIF) should be adopted based on other contemporaneous imports. The Additional Collector determined the assessable value to be US $ 16.53 per kg. under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, based on the transaction values of identical goods imported during the relevant period.
  
  2. Validity of the declared invoice price as the transaction value:
  The appellants argued that the declared invoice price should be accepted as the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, as there was no evidence of any relationship between the buyer and seller, nor any additional payments made beyond the invoice price. However, the Additional Collector found that the contract for importing 25 tonnes of Selenium Metal Powder at US $ 7.50 per kg. was not substantiated, and only 1.5 tonnes were imported without evidence of the remaining quantity. Therefore, the declared price could not be accepted as the transaction value under Rule 4.
  
  3. Justification for adopting a higher price based on contemporaneous imports:
  The adjudicating authority relied on a computer print-out showing imports of identical goods at prices ranging between US $ 17.16 and US $ 21 per kg. CIF during March-April 1989 and another consignment at US $ 16.53 per kg. CIF in July 1989. The appellants contested this by presenting evidence of imports at lower prices, but these were not contemporaneous with the disputed import. The tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's decision to adopt the lower of the contemporaneous prices, US $ 16.53 per kg., as the transaction value under Rule 5.
  
  4. Onus of proving misdeclaration and the role of computer print-outs as evidence:
  The appellants argued that the department did not provide sufficient opportunity to examine the Bill of Entry related to the consignment cleared by M/s. Amco Batteries and that the onus of proving misdeclaration was not met. The department, however, relied on Section 138 (C) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing the use of computer print-outs as legitimate evidence. The tribunal found that the department had adequately justified the higher assessable value based on contemporaneous imports and that the appellants' evidence of lower prices was not contemporaneous.
  
  Conclusion:
  The tribunal concluded that the assessable value of the imported Selenium Metal Powder should be determined based on a CIF price of US $ 16.53 per kg., as justified by contemporaneous imports. The appeal was otherwise rejected, affirming the Additional Collector's decision.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 191
  
  Issues:
  1. Refund eligibility under Rule 57F(3) for duty paid through RG 23A Part II.
  2. Interpretation of Rule 57F(3) regarding duty liability discharge.
  3. Applicability of MODVAT credit and refund provisions under the MODVAT Scheme.
  4. Dispute over refund for duty paid on exported goods packed in OTS Cans.
  5. DEEC Scheme implications on duty payment and refund eligibility.
  
  Issue 1: Refund eligibility under Rule 57F(3) for duty paid through RG 23A Part II
  
  The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, regarding the grant of refund under Rule 57F(3) for duty paid on exported Instant Coffee packed in OTS Cans. The Department contended that the refund granted should not cover duty paid through RG 23A Part II. The Tribunal held that the refund eligibility under Rule 57F(3) does not differentiate between duty paid through PLA or RG 23A Part II. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the refund cannot be denied based on the method of duty payment when MODVAT credit is availed and refund is claimed under Rule 57F(3).
  
  Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 57F(3) regarding duty liability discharge
  
  The Tribunal considered the submissions made by both parties regarding the discharge of duty liability under Rule 57F(3). The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the refund claim, highlighting that the duty was paid by the suppliers of OTS Cans through RG 23A Part II. The Tribunal observed that the Trade Notice clarified that rebate could be sanctioned for duties paid through RG 23A Part II under the MODVAT Scheme. The Tribunal concluded that the duty payment method should not restrict the refund eligibility under Rule 57F(3, emphasizing that the duty liability discharge method does not impact the refund entitlement.
  
  Issue 3: Applicability of MODVAT credit and refund provisions under the MODVAT Scheme
  
  The Tribunal addressed the utilization of MODVAT credit and the refund provisions under the MODVAT Scheme in the context of the refund claim for duty paid on exported goods. It was noted that the respondent, an exporting unit, had availed MODVAT credit and sought a refund under Rule 57F(3). The Tribunal emphasized that the MODVAT credit utilization should not affect the refund entitlement, especially when the duty liability on exported goods had been discharged. The Tribunal upheld the refund claim, emphasizing that the MODVAT credit utilization should not hinder the refund process under Rule 57F(3).
  
  Issue 4: Dispute over refund for duty paid on exported goods packed in OTS Cans
  
  The dispute revolved around the refund claim for duty paid on goods exported in OTS Cans. The Department contested the refund eligibility based on the duty payment method through RG 23A Part II. However, the Tribunal held that the refund claim for duty paid on exported goods should not be restricted based on the method of duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty payment method should not impede the refund entitlement under Rule 57F(3) when the duty liability on exported goods has been discharged.
  
  Issue 5: DEEC Scheme implications on duty payment and refund eligibility
  
  The appellant-Collector raised concerns regarding the DEEC Scheme implications on duty payment and refund eligibility for goods exported in OTS Cans. The appellant argued that the suppliers of the Cans, operating under the DEEC Scheme, were not entitled to a refund for duty paid through RG 23A Part II. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods exported had discharged the full duty liability, and the duty payment method should not hinder the refund entitlement. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the DEEC Scheme should not impact the refund eligibility under Rule 57F(3) when the duty liability on exported goods has been fulfilled.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 190
  
  The Collector of Central Excise, Patna, appealed against an order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, citing denial of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the argument and remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh decision within 3 months, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing. The Cross-objection filed by the respondents was also disposed of. (Case Citation: 1991 (9) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 189
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Interpretation of Notification 172/72-C.E.
  2. Applicability of Notifications 53/72-C.E. and 272/83-C.E.
  3. Segregation of waste yarn (hard waste) and its impact on exemption.
  4. Definition and classification of waste yarn (hard waste).
  5. Validity of the show cause notices based on audit objections.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Interpretation of Notification 172/72-C.E.:
  
  The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification 172/72-C.E., dated 24-7-1972, which exempts hard waste falling under specific items of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule from duty. The appellants argued that the notification did not stipulate any segregation of waste yarn arising at different stages of manufacture. They contended that the absence of such a restriction indicated the legislature's intent to provide a broad exemption for all types of waste yarn. The Tribunal observed that the notification did not define waste yarn (hard waste) or restrict the stage at which such waste becomes eligible for exemption. Therefore, the exemption should apply to waste yarn arising during the manufacture of non-cellulosic man-made filament yarn falling under Item 18II.
  
  2. Applicability of Notifications 53/72-C.E. and 272/83-C.E.:
  
  The appellants argued that Notifications 53/72-C.E. and 272/83-C.E. were not applicable to their case since these notifications pertained to different types of waste. Notification 53/72-C.E. exempted specified varieties of waste generated in a composite textile mill, while Notification 272/83-C.E. exempted non-cellulosic waste not in the form of waste yarn. The Assistant Collector initially alleged that Notification 53/72-C.E. applied but later concluded that Notification 272/83-C.E. was applicable. The Tribunal found that the show cause notices did not provide a basis for applying Notification 272/83-C.E. and that the Assistant Collector's conclusion lacked evidence.
  
  3. Segregation of Waste Yarn (Hard Waste) and Its Impact on Exemption:
  
  The Department argued that the exemption under Notification 172/72-C.E. could not be extended to mixed waste yarn arising at different stages of manufacture due to the lack of segregation. The Tribunal noted that the notification did not require segregation of waste yarn and that the authorities had not conducted any investigation to identify and quantify the waste. The Tribunal concluded that denying the exemption based on non-segregation was unjustified and without any provision in the notification.
  
  4. Definition and Classification of Waste Yarn (Hard Waste):
  
  The appellants relied on various textile dictionaries to define hard waste and argued that the waste generated in their factory qualified as waste yarn (hard waste). The Assistant Collector's order dated 31-10-1983 had classified the waste into soft waste and hard waste, and the appellants had complied with this classification. The Tribunal observed that the authorities had not challenged the classification or conducted any investigation to redefine the waste.
  
  5. Validity of the Show Cause Notices Based on Audit Objections:
  
  The appellants argued that the show cause notices were issued based on audit objections without any independent investigation. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the authorities had not undertaken any investigation to identify the nature and quantity of waste yarn. The Tribunal cited the decision in Indian Plastics Ltd. & Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, which held that show cause notices issued merely on audit objections without investigation were liable to be quashed.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellants. It concluded that the authorities had not provided a basis for denying the exemption under Notification 172/72-C.E. and had not conducted any investigation to support their allegations. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification did not require segregation of waste yarn and that the appellants were entitled to the exemption. The Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of in light of the order allowing the appeal.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 188
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of Polypropylene Liner Cloth.
  2. Applicability of countervailing duty on Polypropylene Liner Cloth.
  3. Entitlement to exemption under Notification 110/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Polypropylene Liner Cloth:
  The primary issue is the classification of Polypropylene Liner Cloth imported by the appellants in July 1981. Initially assessed under Heading 51.04 of the Customs Tariff, the appellants sought reclassification under Heading 59.16/17, claiming it as a textile fabric commonly used in machinery or plant. The Tribunal examined the supplier's write-up, which described the cloth as a separator for rubber-coated tyre cord fabric, emphasizing its qualities such as light weight, easy handling, and low moisture absorption. However, the Tribunal found no evidence in the write-up or any other technical literature to support the claim that the cloth was used in calendering machines. The Tribunal concluded that the goods did not meet the criteria for classification under Heading 59.16/17, as they were not demonstrated to be commonly used in machinery or plant.
  
  2. Applicability of Countervailing Duty on Polypropylene Liner Cloth:
  The appellants argued that countervailing duty was not applicable as Polypropylene Liner Cloth was not manufactured in India at the relevant time. The Tribunal referred to Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which mandates the levy of additional duty equal to the excise duty on a like article if produced in India. The Explanation to Section 3 clarifies that even if the goods are not manufactured in India, additional duty is levied on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs, at the highest rate applicable. The Tribunal found that the claim for exemption from countervailing duty was untenable as the statutory provision clearly mandated the levy of such duty.
  
  3. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification 110/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975:
  The appellants claimed exemption under Notification 110/75-C.E., which exempts processed man-made fabrics from duty. The Tribunal examined the definition of "processed" as per Notification 108/75-C.E., noting that the appellants failed to provide evidence that the Polypropylene Liner Cloth met the criteria for processed man-made fabrics. The supplier's write-up did not indicate any processing that would qualify the cloth for exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the claim for exemption under Notification 110/75-C.E.
  
  Conclusion:
  After thorough consideration, the Tribunal rejected the appeal on all grounds. The classification under Heading 51.04 was upheld, and the applicability of countervailing duty was confirmed. The claim for exemption under Notification 110/75-C.E. was also denied due to lack of supporting evidence. The appeal was thus dismissed in its entirety.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 187
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs.
  2. Miscellaneous application filed for impleading a party in the appeal.
  3. Confiscation of Rs. 1,00,000 under the Customs Act.
  4. Scope of show cause notice and imposition of penalty.
  5. Claim of ownership of the confiscated amount.
  6. Locus standi of a party in the appeal.
  7. Validity of the confiscation and penalty imposed.
  
  Issue 1: Appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs
  
  The appellants filed appeals against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Indo-Nepal Border, Muzaffarpur. An aggrieved party, not initially involved, filed a Miscellaneous Application to be heard alongside another appeal. The Tribunal allowed the application, leading to a joint hearing of both appeals.
  
  Issue 2: Miscellaneous application for impleading a party in the appeal
  
  Another Miscellaneous Application was filed for impleading a party in the appeal initiated by the original appellant. However, this application was dismissed as the party had separately filed another appeal. Both Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly.
  
  Issue 3: Confiscation of Rs. 1,00,000 under the Customs Act
  
  The Customs Officers intercepted the appellant and confiscated Rs. 1,00,000, alleging a violation of the Gold Control Act and Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. The appellant's confessional statement implicated his father in acquiring the money from gold transactions. The Adjudicating Officer confiscated the amount and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal.
  
  Issue 4: Scope of show cause notice and imposition of penalty
  
  The appellant argued that the order exceeded the show cause notice's scope and failed to consider his replies. It was contended that the confiscated amount belonged to another individual, questioning the lack of notice to this party. The appellant also raised concerns about the timing of the notice issuance and the penalty imposition.
  
  Issue 5: Claim of ownership of the confiscated amount
  
  The party claiming ownership of the confiscated amount did not make a claim before the Adjudicating Authority and was not a party during the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal found that this party lacked standing, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
  
  Issue 6: Locus standi of a party in the appeal
  
  The Tribunal determined that the party lacking standing did not assert any claim before the Adjudicating Authority and remained silent throughout the proceedings. As a result, the appeal filed by this party was dismissed.
  
  Issue 7: Validity of the confiscation and penalty imposed
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the show cause notice and found discrepancies in the confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act. It was noted that the appellant was not accused of attempting to illegally export currency, as alleged. Due to procedural errors and lack of evidence linking the money to smuggled gold, the confiscation and penalty were set aside, ordering the return of the confiscated amount to the appellant.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, ensuring the scope of orders aligns with show cause notices, and establishing ownership claims during customs-related proceedings.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 186
  
  Issues:
  Classification of Servo Brake Valve and Shut Off Cock under Heading 87.08 or Heading 8481.80.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The appeal concerns the classification of Servo Brake Valve and Shut Off Cock under Heading 87.08 or Heading 8481.80. The Assistant Collector classified the products under Heading 8708.00, emphasizing the valve assembly's function in controlling the output of the Servo and converting air-pressure energy to mechanical energy. The Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that the valve assembly's function is predominant, leading to the correct classification under Heading 8481.80 for both products and their parts under Heading 8481.99. The appellant argued that the products are composite assemblies, with only specific parts qualifying as valves. The appellant contended that the goods are parts of the brake system of motor vehicles, aligning with the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN).
  
  In response, the respondent highlighted the function of the Servo Brake Valve in gradually applying balance and releasing brakes in an air over hydraulic system. The respondent argued that the valve's primary function should determine its classification under Heading 84.81. The respondent differentiated between Servo Brakes and Servo Brake Valves, asserting that the latter are valves under Heading 84.81 and not part of Chapter 87. The respondent emphasized that the Shut Off Cock is a manually operated on-off valve, classified under Tariff sub-heading 8481.80 for its function in regulating fluid flow.
  
  Upon careful consideration of the arguments, the Tribunal examined the detailed description and characteristics of the Servo Brake Valves. It noted that the valve assemblies' primary function is to regulate the flow of air in pipes, aligning with devices under Heading 84.81 for pipes, tanks, vats, or similar appliances. The Tribunal referenced Notes 3 to 5 of Section XVI, emphasizing that classification should be based on the principal function of the component in composite machinery. Additionally, Section Note 2(e) to Section XVII excludes articles of Heading 84.81 as parts of vehicles. The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, classifying the Servo Brake Valve and Shut Off Cock under sub-heading 8481.80 and their parts under 8481.99, dismissing the Department's appeal based on the exclusion from the corresponding General Explanatory Note for motor vehicle parts.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision affirms the classification of the Servo Brake Valve and Shut Off Cock under Heading 8481.80, emphasizing their function as valves for regulating fluid flow in pipes, tanks, or similar appliances, rather than as parts of motor vehicles under Heading 87.08.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 185
  
  Issues:
  1. Eligibility of inputs used for the manufacture of Caustic Soda lye, eventually used for PVC resin, for MODVAT credit.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras to determine whether inputs used for the production of Caustic Soda lye, further utilized in the manufacturing of PVC resin, are entitled to MODVAT credit under an exemption notification. The original authority and the Collector (Appeals) both concluded that as long as the conditions of the MODVAT procedure are met, credit cannot be denied merely because certain intermediary products emerge during the manufacturing process and are exempt from duty temporarily. The Collector (Appeals) emphasized that the term "final product" in Rule 57C should be interpreted concerning the manufacturer, not the marketability of the product. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed that the caustic soda lye and flakes are not the final products of the manufacturer, allowing the benefit of Rule 57D(2) to the manufacturer.
  
  The Appellant-Collector challenged the decision, arguing that caustic soda lye and flakes are not intermediate products as per Rule 57D(2) since they are the end products of the manufacturing process, not intermediate ones. The Appellant-Collector contended that since caustic soda lye and flakes are exempt from duty under specific notifications, MODVAT credit should not be available to the assessee as per Rule 57C. The Tribunal noted that the inputs were indeed used to produce caustic soda lye and flakes, which were subsequently utilized in a process exempt from duty. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the caustic soda lye and flakes should be considered as intermediate products under Rule 57C, making the manufacturer eligible for input credit due to their specific use in the manufacturing process.
  
  The Tribunal emphasized that the determination of whether a product is intermediate or final should be based on the manufacturing process of the individual assessee. As long as it can be demonstrated that inputs were used to create in-process materials that further contribute to the final product, the materials produced from the inputs before being used in the final product's manufacture should be treated as intermediate products. Since there was no evidence to suggest that the caustic soda lye and flakes were not utilized as in-process materials for the declared final product, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision as legally valid and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 184
  
  Issues:
  1. Transfer of unutilized balance of credit from RG-23 account to RG-23A account after the extension of Modvat Credit to cement.
  2. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act regarding the right accrued before the rescission of Notification 201/79.
  3. Interpretation of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules in the context of transferring credit of duty paid on inputs.
  
  Issue 1: Transfer of unutilized balance of credit from RG-23 account to RG-23A account after the extension of Modvat Credit to cement.
  
  The appeals by The Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. contested the rejection of their appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the utilization of unutilized balance in their RG-23 account towards payment of duty on cement post the extension of Modvat Credit to cement from 1-3-1987. The appellants argued that the unutilized credit should be admissible for duty payment on cement under the Modvat Scheme. The respondent, Senior Departmental Representative, opposed this, stating that the unutilized balance should lapse after the rescission of the relevant exemption notification on 1-3-1986. The Tribunal noted the arguments but ruled against the appellants, emphasizing that the rescission of the notification meant the exemption was no longer available, and the unutilized credit could only be used until the withdrawal of the benefit on 28-2-1986.
  
  Issue 2: Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act regarding the right accrued before the rescission of Notification 201/79.
  
  The appellants relied on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to argue that the right accrued to them before the rescission of Notification 201/79 should not be denied. However, the Tribunal found this argument unconvincing, stating that the exemption under the notification ceased when it was rescinded on 1-3-1986. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants did not seek the credit facility from 1-3-1986 but only from 1-3-1987 when the Modvat Facility was extended to cement. The Collector (Appeals) noted that the appellants did not provide any authority for utilizing the unutilized credit towards duty payment on cement from 1-3-1986.
  
  Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules in the context of transferring credit of duty paid on inputs.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules concerning the transfer of credit of duty paid on inputs. The appellants sought to transfer the unutilized balance of credit from RG-23 Part III account to their new RG-23 Part II account. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants were not availing the credit facility immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration in March 1987, as required by Rule 57H(3). The inputs contributing to the credit were exempt from duty, making them ineligible for the Modvat Scheme. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellants did not have a case for transferring the unutilized credit based on the provisions of Rule 57H and the circumstances of the case.

  ---

• 1991 (9) TMI 183
  
  Issues:
  Delay in filing the appeal, service of the order-in-original, condonation of delay, evidence of receipt of order, compliance with Customs Act, 1962.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal involved a delay in filing, with one party claiming the order was received late, while the other party contended they had already received it. The advocate for the appellants argued that the delay should be condoned due to the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the order-in-original. The Department, represented by the Junior Departmental Representative, presented evidence suggesting that the order was dispatched and should have been received within a reasonable time frame.
  
  2. The advocate for the appellants emphasized the lack of evidence from the Department to counter the claims made by the applicants regarding the receipt of the order-in-original. He pointed out the absence of proper service as required under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. The argument was centered on the necessity of sending the order by registered or ordinary post to ensure proper service.
  
  3. The Department's representative contended that since one party had received the order sent by ordinary post, there was no reason why the other party should not have received it. This raised questions about the adequacy of the service and the presumption of receipt based on the method of dispatch.
  
  4. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides, particularly focusing on the delay in filing the appeal and the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the order-in-original. The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the delay was due to postal transit issues, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
  
  5. The Department's representative relied on past decisions and presumptions regarding the receipt of documents sent by post. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of concrete evidence, such as postal receipts or proof of dispatch method, to support the presumption of receipt. The Tribunal also highlighted discrepancies in the content of the letters exchanged, emphasizing the need for proper documentation.
  
  6. The debate continued regarding the payment made by one of the applicants for a certified copy of the order-in-original. While the Department argued that this indicated prior receipt of the order, the appellants' advocate maintained that it did not necessarily imply prior knowledge of the order.
  
  7. Ultimately, the Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt to the applicants, considering the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the service of the order-in-original. The Tribunal emphasized the requirements under the Customs Act, 1962 for proper service of orders and decisions, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
  
  8. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, granting relief to both parties. The Stay Petition arising from the original appeal was scheduled for further proceedings, marking the resolution of the issues related to the delay in filing and the service of the order-in-original.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 15