Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 354 Records
-
1991 (2) TMI 252 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Imports - Fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... of this, she had imported the car and had made an appeal before the adjudicating officer that a token fine may be imposed on her. Therefore, her action can be termed as one which is in defiance of law. 10. However, as a huge duty of Rs. 14,31,482/- was demanded from the appellant and the appellant had also purchased the car in order to import the same into India before the coming into effect of the new Policy w.e.f. 1-4-1990, the appellant deserves some consideration in the facts and circumstances of this case, as has been held by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case referred to supra, that discretion to impose a penalty has to be exercised judiciously. 11. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances which are very peculiar to this case, we hereby reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs.10 lakhs and the penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 5 lakhs. 12. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Buying Commission ... ... ... ... ..... ts shows mutual interest in the business of each other and especially the relationship which exists between the two. If such a relationship does not exist there was no reason why the U.K. Suppliers would not collect buying commission, which they were collecting in the past. In view of these factors the loading of 2-1/2 on the invoice value by the lower authorities is justified. 7. As regards the plea of limitation, it appears from the letter dated 16-1-1982 of the Assistant Collector that the authorities had decided to make provisional assessment of their imports and this decision was communicated in their letter dated 5-2-1981. Once they had completed re-examination of books of accounts and arrived at the final decision to load the value, the decision to make provisional assessment was simultaneously withdrawn. In these circumstances, there is no force in the plea that the proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 28. The appeal therefore, fails and it is rejected.
-
1991 (2) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... th the appeals and there is no need to examine the other minor points and case law cited by both sides. We partly allow the appeal filed by Essar as indicated in paragraph 45 and direct that the payment to Midrex as patent fee should not be added to the transaction value and that the supervision charges should be added. 47. We dismiss the appeal No. C/1975/90-A filed by the Department. 48. Miscellaneous application No. C/Misc/755-90-A which sought introduction of additional evidence stands disposed of in the light of our finding. Misc. application No. C/902/90-A is premature and is dismissed as such. Essar is at liberty to make a fresh application if they are so advised. 49. Before parting with the matter we place on record our deep appreciation of the pains taken by Shri Asthana, the learned Advocate for Essar and Shri Prabhat Kumar, the learned DR for the Department. Both assisted the Bench in the best possible manner in a matter where no case law is available for guidance.
-
1991 (2) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay-Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... filed details of personal assets and liabilities. 14. Taking all aspects of the matter into consideration, all that we can say at this stage is that the applicant have a good prima facie case and we therefore, dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 12,84,437.44 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- during the pendency of the appeal. We also direct that no coercive steps shall be taken by the authorities during the period. 15. In order to safeguard the interest of Revenue, we direct that the applicant shall not alienate his immovable or movable assets except the stock in trade without the prior permission of the Tribunal. The applicant should file complete details of all his movable and immovable assets as on 31-3-1990 duly supported by an affidavit to the effect that there are no other assets except those mentioned in the list. This should be submitted by 28th February, 1991 and the matter should be placed before the Bench for reporting compliance by 10th March, 1991.
-
1991 (2) TMI 248 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI exemption ... ... ... ... ..... o the manufacturing activity of similar groups in other units. In case the appellants are undertaking manufacturing activity in premises other than their own units, it was incumbent upon them to inform the same to the authorities. In view of this we hold that the plea that the longer time limit under Section 11A of the Act could not be invoked is not acceptable. The learned lower authority has rightly invoked the longer time limit under Section 11A of the Act. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the appellants. We, therefore, confirm the findings of the learned lower authority in regard to the demand of duty. 7. The penalty levied on the appellants under the impugned order is only Rs. 500/-. We feel the lower authority has taken a lenient view while imposing the penalty and, therefore, no reduction of the same is called for. We, therefore, uphold the levy of penalty. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... different reducing scales. 7. The purpose of this equipment is to complete testing of gears with the help of a computer at a greater speed than testing the gear by manually operated equipment. It is fitted with the main equipment and cannot by itself function independently, it is meant for the efficient working of the main equipment to produce better and accurate reading. The Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended, lists the type of goods which carry a concessional rate of duty. Sl. No. 2 of the table refers to ldquo Gear Profile and Helix Testers rdquo . An attachment which is used with the Tester cannot be excluded from the scope of the notification. No specific condition for such exclusion is mentioned, so long as it is imported along with the main equipment which is eligible for the exemption, it cannot be denied the concession. Invoicing separately does not carry any significance and as such the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and is dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ainst the Assistant Collector rsquo s order it was again stated that the manufacturing process involved passing the material through roller sheeting mill to obtain reclaimed rubber in sheets and that the goods were sold only in the form of sheets. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order does not touch on this aspect. It is also relevant to note that in the classification list the goods were described as Reclaimed Rubber Sheet/Un-hardened Unvulcanised and without questioning the description it had been approved for classification under Item 16A(2) of the CET. 5. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the goods were sheets of reclaimed rubber. Rubber sheets are specifically covered by sub-item (2) of Item 16A. There is nothing in the Tariff Schedule to indicate that sheets made out of reclaimed rubber are not covered by the entry. 6. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1991 (2) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand not sustainable ... ... ... ... ..... i M. Jayaraman and the learned advocate Shri J. S. Agarwal have now pointed out that the Tribunal in its Order No. 1270/90-C dated 19-11-1990 has held that the benefit of Notification No. 23/55, dated 29-4-1955 is applicable to lime stone powder, thus, setting aside the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Order No. 123 to 125-CE/MRT/89, dated 13-7-1989 in so.far as it applied to lime stone powder. 4. In other words, the issue whether lime stone powder is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 23/55, dated 29-4-1955 is no longer res integra in view of Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 1270/90-C, dated 19-11-1990, mentioned supra. Therefore, no demand of duty against the appellants herein would survive for clearance of the said lime stone powder during the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986 since the said lime stone powder stood exempted under Notification No. 23/55, dated 29-4-1955. Hence the appeals are rejected. 5. Operative part of the impugned order pronounced in the open Court.
-
1991 (2) TMI 244 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ... ... ... ..... ved on 16-8-1983 is in accordance with law. It is, further, seen that the total quantity received on 16th August, 1983 and on 17th August, 1983 is (11.130 2.156) 13.286 MT. But in the factory premises when the seizure was made the Department found a quantity of 15.3709 MT. Therefore, the excess quantity of aluminium ingots was also rightly confiscated. But the confiscation of 2.156 MT which are received on 17-8-1983 is not in accordance with law. Taking into consideration all the aspects we hereby reduce the Redemption Fine to Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) only from Rs. 45,000.00. The learned Additional Collector had appropriated the Security Amount of Rs. 45,000.00 towards the Redemption Fine. We order that the appropriation of this Security Amount be restricted to Rs. 25,000.00 only and the appellants are entitled for the refund of the balance amount of Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) only. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
-
1991 (2) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... tor because he granted refund of the duty paid on acetic acid. The Collector (Appeals) before whom the point was raised did not choose to determine the point. In the circumstances, we have to direct the Asstt. Collector to consider the matter with reference to Rule 56A after giving due opportunity to the appellants. On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, it is made clear that the fact that the appellants could not, and did not, apply for the benefit of Rule 56A and follow the procedure prescribed therein would not, in itself, debar the appellants from the benefit of the said Rule 56A if the appellants are able to satisfy the Assistant Collector by production of contemporaneous records and such other evidence as the Assistant Collector may permit as to the quantum of eligibility for the benefit of proforma credit of the duty paid on Acetic Anhydride used in the manufacture of Acetic Acid. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations and directions.
-
1991 (2) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Definition of - Collector ... ... ... ... ..... oduct to the appellants and their agents which is a vital factor in marketing of the product and the appellants cannot leave it to the Department to find out this fact without bringing it out in some manner in the classification list or at least by way of information to the Department. Therefore, it is to be held that there had been suppression of facts in having failed to give all relevant particulars for the classification of the product to the Department, and, therefore, the show cause notice is not hit by limitation. 7. emsp The Cross Objection filed in this connection being merely supportive of the Collector rsquo s order is mis-conceived and is accordingly dismissed. 8. emsp However, considering that no submissions had been made by the appellants on the merits of the case, it is felt that in the interests of justice such an opportunity should be given to them and accordingly the Registry is directed to fix a suitable date for the purpose and issue notice to the parties.
-
1991 (2) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Shri Sikri JJ expressed the minority view. The minority view of Shri Sikri was approved by a three Member Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, Shri V.R. Krishna Iyer and N.I. Untwalia, JJ in South India Coir Mills (supra). Therefore, the reliance placed by Shri Aggarwal on Shree Ram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. is of no consequence. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Beckar Gray and Co. v. U.O.I. (1971 AIR 116 SC) is also of no assistance to the appellants as the judgment followed the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Ram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. which was not agreed upon by the Supreme Court in South India Coir Mills. The judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by Shri Aggarwal are no longer good law in view of later judgment of the Supreme Court in South India Coir Mills (supra). 12. The contention of Shri Aggarwal that Section 113 is not applicable is, therefore, rejected in the light of the above. 13. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
1991 (2) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Money credit - Ethyl Alcohol captively consumed in the manufacture of acetone ... ... ... ... ..... ed prospectively. However, since the intention of the Government was to grant money credit in the aforesaid case also, it has decided that money credit should be permitted even prior to 1-11-1989 in cases where molasses, alcohol and chemicals have been manufactured by a unit within the same factory if on verification it is proved that duty on molasses has been paid at increased rates w.e.f. 1987. Besides this, the fact that the Notification 231/87 itself was amended to delete the provision under clause (ii) is also significant. Moreover, that the appellants have fulfilled the requirement that the duty should have been paid at the higher rate on molasses is not disputed. In such circumstances, having regard to the intention behind the Notification, it will be reasonable to hold that the appellants, herein, are eligible for money credit under Notification 231/87, and in this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable and is set aside, and the appeals are allowed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e omission of the word ldquo all sorts rdquo , will not be a deterrent as the Supreme Court has held that small pipes and tubes should also be considered as pipes and tubes in preference to a residuary item. Therefore, when the Apex Court holds that Tariff Item 68 is not applicable, there can be no alternative proposition that the products which are manufactured by castings, would get classified under Tariff Item 68, as they no longer remain castings. There is no dispute about the fact that what emerges after galvanizing and threading is a pipe fitting. The extract quoted in the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment supra which sums up the present situation is very relevant. To quote ldquo To sum up the true position, the process of manufacture of a product and the end-use to which it is put, cannot necessarily be determinative of the classification of that product under a fiscal schedule like the Central Excise Tariff. 7. The appeal filed by the Revenue in consequence is dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ufactured product under Item 68 CET, the appellants rsquo product cannot be so classified merely on the basis that the appellants rsquo products are of the bacteria category. In fact, in the literature relating to the product lsquo bactin rsquo , it is stated that the contents are, among other things, fungi which will include yeast. Therefore, from a totality of the circumstances, it is to be held that the process of producing the various branded products as soil inoculants from the starting point of separating out useful microbes from the soil to the point of packing and marketing, the processes involved are process of manufacture bringing into existence soil inoculants as formulated crop-specific branded products marketed as soil inoculants different from the starting material, namely, soil as the ecosystem consisting of biotic and abiotic factors. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.
-
1991 (2) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... der the said Notification. 14. The demands are also time-barred and there is no suppression or mis-representation in this matter since the appellants have been manufacturing this item for a long time and they have been filing the classification lists which have been approved from time to time. The RT-12 have all been filed which have been finalised and therefore the Department cannot be said to be not aware of the manufacture and clearances of this product. The Department should have made investigations at the time of the filing of the classification and before its approval. The fact that the appellants had submitted the copy of the drug licence and all other correspondence in this matter is not disputed by the Department. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the appellants have suppressed or mis-declared as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. In view of our findings, the appellants are entitled to succeed on merits and as well as on time-bar with consequential relief if any.
-
1991 (2) TMI 235 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Credit admissible ... ... ... ... ..... pparently to the manufacturer who manufactures the paper bags for sale outside no MODVAT Credit would be admissible for inputs going into the paper bags, as paper bags manufactured will have to be considered as final product for him and consequently the buyer of these who manufacture the package tea using these will have to go without the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of the input going into the manufacture of paper bags as the supplier of paper bags is not under the law in terms of Rule 57C eligible to the said MODVAT Credit. This will no doubt creates an anomaly in the availment of MODVAT Credit as two different assessees namely the one who buys the paper bags from outside and the other who manufactures the same himself get treated differently for Modvat credit purposes. But this anomaly is bound to be there in a situation like this when Rule 57C and 57D of Central Excise Rules as these are worded are applied to two categories of manufacturers of package tea as above.
-
1991 (2) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ore of the headings of those Chapters is to be classified under the heading which corresponds to the principal use of that part or accessory. and, therefore, to uphold the view that the part imported should be brought under the Heading 84.65 of the old Tariff or 8485.90 of the new Tariff as machinery parts. On perusal of this Chapter Note, it is seen that the references to parts or accessories under Chapters 86 to 88 do not apply to parts or accessories which are not suitable for use solely or principally with articles of those Chapters. The words ldquo which are not suitable for use solely or principally rdquo would indicate that if the parts are not meant for use solely or principally with the articles, they would go under the headings of the Chapter which corresponds to the principal use. In this case the parts are solely and principally suitable for use in motor vehicles. As such, therefore, there seems to be no controversy about the application of Note 3 of Section XVII.
-
1991 (2) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ations and observe the prescribed formalities. These lapses did not amount to deliberate suppression of material facts or willful intention of law with intent to evade payment of duty. We are fortified in this view by the observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments -1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (SC), wherein the Court observed as follows - ldquo Something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months. rdquo 8. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the demand for duty contained in the impugned order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of our finding regarding lsquo evasion rsquo of duty, we set aside the penalty also. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 232 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there has been any infraction of the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution as a result of Central Government’s omission to consider the detenu’s representation independent of its consideration by the Advisory Board?
Held that:- As it is not disputed that there has been a breach by the Central Government of its duty under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to consider and decide the representation independently of the Advisory Board’s opinion. The order of detention dated 25-1-1990 as well as the order dated 24-4-1990 of its confirmation passed by the Central Government are, therefore, quashed. This shall not, however, affect the detenu’s prosecution for the alleged offence and it shall also not be construed as a direction to release him in case he is in custody as a result of refusal of bail. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly.
............
|