Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 281 Records
-
1988 (2) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... eceived by the adjudicating authority, the whole matter was dealt with in a very casual and leisurely manner. No explanation has been given for the period taken in the scrutiny and obtaining Dy. Chief Chemist rsquo s opinion which took about seven weeks and also we do not understand as to why the Collectorate should have taken over month rsquo s time for preparing the appeal after obtaining approval of the Collector for filing the same. There is no plea from the Collector that anybody had acted mala fide. All we can say is that the machinery in the Custom House has been allowed to function at its own leisurely pace and no attempt seems to have been made by authorities concerned to see that the appeal is filed in time. We, therefore, find that no case of sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal has been made out. We therefore reject the application for condonation of delay. Inasmuch as we have not condoned the delay the appeals are also rejected as barred by limitation.
-
1988 (2) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim time barred if filed after six months from the date of payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... rial Corporation Ltd., Supra, this Tribunal after considering the various provisions of the Central Excises Act and the Rules made thereunder and also noticing the case law on the point had concluded that the period of six months as prescribed for claiming the refund is computable from the date of payment of duty and not from the completion of assessment on RT-12 returns. 10. On our careful consideration the case of Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Supra, applies on all fours to the instant case and supports the contention of the appellants. The case of K.L. Thirani was also discussed in that case but was distinguished. In our opinion the said decision does not require reconsideration. 11. In view of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., (Supra), we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the claim of the respondent as time-barred.
-
1988 (2) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Valuation
... ... ... ... ..... give an opportunity to the appellants to clarify the point with evidence before the Assistant Collector. This should be done within three months from the date of receipt of this order. If the appellants can show that it was open to a customer to purchase the machine without the service at a lower price, the said lower price of the machine should be taken as the basis of assessment. If, however, the position emerges that there was no option available to the customer and even if he did not want the service he had yet to pay the full composite price inclusive of the service element, the said composite price should form the basis of assessment. This would be justified for the simple reason that the machine was not ordinarily sold or offered for sale in the course of international trade for delivery at the time and place of importation at any lesser price. 8. In the result, we allow the appeal partly in the above terms. The consequential relief should be granted to the appellants.
-
1988 (2) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o them. On the arguments urged by Shri Sindhi, we do not think that the ratio of the decision should be held inapplicable to the present appeal even though it relates to a period after amendment of Tariff Item 15A on 28-2-1982. 16. In view of our finding above, it is not necessary to consider and record a finding on Smt. Chander rsquo s contention as to duty liability again on goods falling under the same item or sub-item and reliance for this argument on Tribunal decision in Guardian Plasticote Ltd rsquo s (supra) case. Following the Tribunal decision in National Organic Chemical Industries, we hold that master batches are classifiable under residuary Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 14I(l)(ii) as claimed by Revenue or Tariff Item 15A(1) claimed by appellants. We order accordingly. The appellants classification list shall be approved in the foregoing terms with consequential relief and adjustment as may be called for. The appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms.
-
1988 (2) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... . 1,37,650/- is imposed. In the case of Manohar Lal T. Punjabi, supra goods worth- Rs. 9,873/- were absolutely confiscated for violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A by the adjudicating authority. On appeal this Tribunal modified the order of absolute confiscation by giving an option to the party to redeem the same on payment of the value of the goods that is to say, Rs. 9,873/-. It deserves to be mentioned here that it is only on account of intelligence report that the said violation was detected by the authorities concerned for which the appellants have no defence except the lame excuse of ignorance of the provisions of Chapter IV-A. More particularly when it is admitted to the appellant in the memorandum of appeal that the appellant is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and exporting ready-made garments fabricated out of Indian as well as foreign fabrics. 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
-
1988 (2) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cotton Fabrics - Fents and rags ... ... ... ... ..... lower authorities rsquo finding to the effect that ldquo the value of cotton fabrics will form a basis of valuation of fents and rags rdquo as mentioned in the order-in-appeal No. 85/ 81, dated 31-3-1981 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise relied upon in the impugned order or the finding ldquo cotton fabrics per sq. mtr.1 has to be taken as the base for calculating the value of fents and rags rdquo in original authority rsquo s order are not valid. The value of fents and rags is to be determined in terms of Section 4 of the Act, and it is only to that value that the relevant rate of duty specified in Column (3) of the Table has to be applied. Value of the cotton fabrics cannot form .the basis of valuation of fents and rags. As stated earlier, valuation of cotton fabrics is relevant only for determining any one of the five categories of fents and rags into which such fents and rags have been divided in Sl. No. B of the Table. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1988 (2) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s to their marketability, being goods or having resinous or plastic character to me appears to be not necessary. I would therefore not propose a remand as has been done by Brother Gulati for finding out the resinous or plasticity character of DVB beads for classifying them under 15A(1)(ii) as they stood at the material time. I would uphold its classification under Item 15A(1)(ii). 18. I agree with Brother Gulati on his observations as to demand against the appellants being permissible only under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and not on the strength of earlier Order-in-Appeal dated 23-2-1981 when Collector (Appeals) was dealing with the question of Ion Exchange and was not called upon to decide the classification of co-polymer beads. 19. In the result, I would uphold the demand up to a period of six months preceding the show cause notice but otherwise dismiss the appeal. Dated 2-2-1988 Sd/- (S.D. Jha) Vice-President (J) Sd/- (Harish Chander) Member (J)
-
1988 (2) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Masticated rubber not different from natural rubber ... ... ... ... ..... ut that is not the point. The point is whether, as a result of mastication, the raw material, namely, natural rubber undergoes such a change in its nature as to have resulted in a new product having a different name, character and use and known also differently in trade and commerce. On this point we have the benefit, as already noted, of the Kerala High Court rsquo s judgment directly on the point at issue. 6. In the circumstances, and respectfully following the Kerala High Court rsquo s judgment (supra), we hold that the process of mastication of natural rubber followed by the respondents did not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and that such masticated rubber was not excisable under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Collector rsquo s contention to the contrary is rejected. 7. In view of above conclusion, it is not necessary for us to consider the aspect of limitation. 8. In the result, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1988 (2) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... 2324/83-A that the margin of profit should be added on the goods manufactured and captively consumed by the appellant and not on the end product. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to recalculate the margin of profit on the basis of computation as to, the manufacturing cost filed by the Chartered Accountant in accordance with accountancy principles and add margin of profit on the goods captively consumed viz. acetylene gas and not on the end product while re-adjudicating the Assistant Collector shall not be bound by anything done or anything ordered by him or by the Appellate Collector/Collector (Appeals) in the past in these proceedings. In this matter too, we shall appreciate if the readjudication is done within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. In the result, the above captioned appeals are allowed by way of remand and revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1988 (2) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Medicaments - Vicks VapoRub and Vicks Inhaler ... ... ... ... ..... ssary extracts from the authoritative books on Ayurveda to show that all the ingredients of this product are mentioned in thos books, but the Collector has not considered them at all. This being the position, we remand this matter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, who should examine whether in the common parlance Vicks Inhaler is known as an Ayurvedic medicine and whether all the ingredients of this product are mentioned in the authoritative book(s) on Ayurvedic medicines. For this purpose, the Assistant Collector should allow the appellants and also the Department to adduce necessary evidence and he should also give the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants before taking de-novo decision. 14. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to Assistant Collector for de-novo examination. He should complete the de-novo proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1988 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Phenol formaldehyde moulding powder and Urea formaldehyde moulding powder ... ... ... ... ..... s on the limitation point only, it was necessary for them to substantiate the ground of their appeal by producing necessary documents. They have not done so, nor have they produced a copy of the show cause notice with its annexure at the time of hearing before us. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to examine the grounds of their appeal. Since we remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, he should examine this point as well and give a finding after giving necessary opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their respective claims. 8. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matters to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay for de-novo examination of the case in the light of our above observations and after giving necessary opportunity of personal hearing to the parties. De-novo proceedings should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1988 (2) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Laminated cotton fabrics, laminated man made fabrics and laminated paper ... ... ... ... ..... e would be justified in invoking 5-year time limit against the appellants in raising demand of duty. 16. As for penalty, imposition of penalty against the appellants would not have been justified if the appellants had disclosed full facts and claimed that in view of the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court decision, value of clearances of laminated cotton fabrics and laminated man made fabrics were not includible in the value of clearances. The appellants, however, did not disclose full facts at the proper stage. Considering all this imposition of penalty against the appellants would be justified but the amount of rupees one lakh appears excessive. It should, in our view, be reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand). As, however, we have found in favour of the appellants on Point No.l - show cause notice and the order confirming the same were in violation of the law laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court, we set aside the impugned order in toto and allow the appeal.
-
1988 (2) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... language used in the pre-amended notification, the graphite rods/moulds were used in the manufacture of other dutiable goods, rdquo It is not disputed that the electrodes in question participate directly in the manufacturing process as a part of the Electrolytic cell and over a period are consumed in the manufacturing process. No doubt that electrodes do not enter in the spectrum of manufacture as raw materials or participate in the production process as ingredients for the end product but these participate in the reaction which leads to the production of the intended end product namely the Caustic Soda. In view of the nature of the goods and their nexus with the production process following, the ratio of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the observations of Supreme Court in the judgment cited, we hold that the Collector (Appeals) was right in allowing the respondents rsquo appeal for the benefit of Notification 201/79. We, therefore, reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1988 (2) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... riginal that the appellants accepted the position before the Asstt. Collector that packing charges, wherever recovered from the customer, were includible in the assessable value. Before us also, the appellants stated that since the packing used by them was the primary packing for their delicate glassware, they would accept inclusion of the packing charges in the assessable value. In the circumstances, we hold that the packing charges were includible in the assessable value. 10. No other point was pressed by either side. 11. In the result, we dismiss all the 5 appeals of the department and allow all the 5 appeals of the appellants with the rider, however, that packing charges would be includible in the assessable value. Consequential relief shall be given to the appellants. The one cross objection filed by the department seeks no additional relief. The prayer therein was to dismiss the appeal of the appellants. The cross objection does not survive and is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 208 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Computation of time limit for filing appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ing the nature of the order passed, nobody can file any appeal. Therefore, it is neither the date of the order nor the date of despatch which is relevant and the date relevant is the date of knowledge of the order. In the instant case the appellant has come to know of the order only on 4-9-1984. Therefore, the appeal filed on 3-12-1984 is within the period of limitation. 9. Assuming that the communication was on 3-9-1984 as has been stated by the Collector (Appeals) even then the appeal filed on 3-12-1984 is also within the period of limitation, since the actual date of receipt of the order is required to be excluded for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation. 10. The Collector (Appeals), in our opinion, had committed an error in law in holding that the appeal filed by the present appellant was barred by time. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the Collector (Appeals) rsquo order and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for consideration on merits.
-
1988 (2) TMI 207 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Writ petition dismissed but with direction to file appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ification. In addition, the Appellants will pay to the Collector of Customs 50 per cent of the amounts ordered under the order of the Additional Collector viz. Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) (being 50 per cent of Rs. 2,00,000/-) and Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) (being 50 per cent of Rs. 50,000/-). In respect of the balance, the Appellants to give bank guarantee in favour of the Collector of Customs. The Appellants to keep the bank guarantee alive till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal and for four weeks thereafter. The clearance to be permitted after the bank guarantees are given. The clearance, the payment and the furnishing of the bank guarantee will be without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions. The payments are obviously without prejudice to the Appellants rsquo rights in the appeal and the Tribunal will give necessary directions for refund if the Appellants succeed in the appeal. Parties to bear their own costs of the Petition and of the Appeal.
-
1988 (2) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... espondingly under Item 68 of the CET. Hence the appeal. But in retrospect, it would appear that the Assistant Collector has not put forward any reason as to why he had confirmed arbitrarily the assessment of the product to Custom duty earlier done in the Customs House under Heading 29.01/45(1) of C.T.A., 1975, even though the relevant literature embodying the export opinion on the imported product had been submitted to the concerned group in the Customs House. It is a patent case where the assessing authorities were not bothered to go through the literature on the product supplied by the importers to them and had resorted to the assessment of the product in a whimsical manner. rdquo 7. It is curious that the said additional reason has not been challenged by the appellants either in the memorandum of appeal or during the hearing of the appeal-before us. Thus on this count also the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the result, we dismiss the appeal being devoid of any merits.
-
1988 (2) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... 0. In the present matters, no submission was made in the light of the decision in Bharat Commerce of Industries Limited case or the other cases now referred to before us on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, there has been no error or mistake in the face of record on this point. 9. As regards the claim to the benefit of Notification No. 364-Cus/ 76 dated, 2.8.76, the fact is that it was the Bench that had raised a query as regards the consequence of classification of the goods under Item 68 and the learned advocate had responded by saying that the goods would be exempted from duty but he did not submit any arguments on this point. Certainly, no plea had been made on behalf of the appellants for decision or orders on this point. Therefore, there has been no mistake in the face of record in not passing orders on this point. 10. Accordingly, this ROM is disposed of by amending the judgment in terms of Para 7 supra, read with the observations contained in Paras 8 and 9 supra.
-
1988 (2) TMI 204 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Ex parte order set aside ... ... ... ... ..... entirely on the appellants. Whatever be the position, the cause of justice suffered as the decision against the appellants was taken without their advancing evidence and arguments in their own defence. The many claims of the appellants were decided without their participation. They were, as a result, asked to pay huge amounts which were adjudicated in absentia. 14. For this reason we cannot sustain the impugned orders. We set aside the two orders in so far as they relate to the appellants. We direct that the proceedings should continue from the stage of the show cause notice. The Collector should now give the appellants an opportunity to be heard. He should, as provided by law, allow cross examination and examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence. If inspite of a reasonable and liberal opportunity being given the appellants do not appear and put forward their defence the Collector may then pass such order as he deems fit. 15. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1988 (2) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drugs and medicines ... ... ... ... ..... Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as also in Supreme Court. He also urged that the appellants -did not held L-4 licence for manufacture of drugs. They were only traders. He reiterated the contentions as found in the order of the lower appellate authority as also those urged before the Bombay High Court when it took the two aforesaid decisions. He, however, agreed that if the Bombay High Court decisions in the two precedents cited above were followed ldquo Sorbitol rdquo imported by the appellants would be eligible to benefit of exemption under the notifications. 5. So far as Tribunal is concerned there would appear no reason not to follow the Bombay High Court decisions. Following the same ldquo Sorbitol rdquo imported by the appellants is held to be drug intermediate eligible to benefit of exemption in respect of additional duty under the two notifications referred to above. 6. The appeals are allowed in the foregoing terms with consequential relief to the appellants.
............
|