Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tyres - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... urment 13 329.4 328.1 100.4 7.3 328.5 1031.9 16.0 15 330.2 318.9 110.4 7.3 373.3 1191.9 16.0 16 405.6 404.3 7.3 8. It is also seen that Sr. No. 11 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 41/89-C.E. dated 1-3-1989 refers to tubes for tyres of Rim Sizes below 20 inches, 20 inches and above 20 inches. Similarly Serial No. 12 of the Table relates to Rim Sizes rsquo not exceeding 25 inches. Having regard to the Rim Sizes rsquo referred to in the Table annexed to the Notification, we are inclined to agree with the learned SDR that for the purposes of the Notification the Rim Size rsquo has to be taken as representing the diameter of the Rim and not its width since the rim sizes of exceeding even 20 and 25 inches have been specified in the notification and rims of such large widths for automotive tyres are not used. 9. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector. The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... Appellant in respect of such inputs. 17. emsp Insistence of any statutory record at this stage was not justified as this was the period of inception of the scheme and the very purpose of Rule 57H is to take care of the difficulties during transitional period. In fact the Rule describes itself as transitional provisions. 18. emsp However, in so far as manufactured products in stocks were concerned, there is no provision in Rule 57H to allow benefit with reference to the same. Rule 57H(1)(ii) refers to inputs used in the manufacture of final products and not the final product themselves. 19. emsp In view of the above position, we uphold the order of the lower Authorities in so far as it relates to the credit claimed with reference to final products, but set aside the order and remand for re-consideration in accordance with law in respect of inputs said to be in stock on 1-3-1986 subject to the Appellant producin the relevant documents and AC rsquo s satisfaction in this regard.
-
1994 (4) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... te that this item is used in clinker cement plant, the classification under sub-heading 8474 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 has to be accepted. In this case the lower authorities had classified the items under sub-heading 72.08 as ldquo Round rough shaped forged balls rdquo . This is not an appropriate heading as the item is a fully finished item and used in the grinding mill as an integral part. The prayer for classification under sub-heading 7308.90 which is a residuary item ldquo other rdquo in the main Heading 73.03 which reads ldquo other articles of iron and steel rdquo is also not an appropriate heading, as held in the J.K. Synthetics Ltd. rsquo s case. The Tribunal has to determine the correct classification of the product. The same can be done even at the appellate stage. In that view of the matter, we hold the items as classifiable under sub-heading 8474.00 by applying the ratio of M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. rsquo s case. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exports - Rebate of duty on goods exported ... ... ... ... ..... efore us about the manufacture and export of the goods in respect of the consignments disputed by the deptt. Therefore, it is very clear that the original authorities had somehow made up their mind to deny the benefit. We are constrained to observe that this manner of disposal of the case will not meet the ends of justice and such attitude towards the manufacturers should be avoided in the interest of smooth administration. The matter having been remanded twice with specific direction by the Collector (Appeals) should have been adhered to and followed. Unfortunately, the Asstt. Collector had not been following the directions given in the remand. We have considered the pleas of the appellants and have also seen the documents and we are fully satisfied that the appellants have manufactured and exported the goods pertaining to the GPs, and consignments in dispute. In that event of the matter, we allow the appeal. 12. Operative portion of the order was dictated in the open Court.
-
1994 (4) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit - Waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... epartment that the party used the inputs for the manufacture of any item which was clandestinely removed by them and benefit cannot be denied on the ground of high percentage of wastage as it was observed by the Collector (Appeals). Since final product is BOPP films which is cleared on payment of duty and in the facts and circumstances of the case credit of inputs contained in waste arising during the manufacture of BOPP films is covered by Rule 57D irrespective of the quantum of waste, I am of the view that remand should not result in to cover the deficiencies or to make out a new case. Accordingly, the view expressed by Member (Judicial) is concurred with and the matter is sent back to the original Bench to pass an appropriate order. Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Dated 30-3-1994 Member (J) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion the impugned order is upheld and the appeals are rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) (S.K. Bhatnagar) Dated 18-4-1994 Member (J) Vice President
-
1994 (4) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hich applies to machine used in the milling industry. Machinery used in the milling industry cannot be considered as domestic items. Milling industry would clearly be a commercial industry and therefore, the item discussed in M/s. Vishvakarma (Emery Stones) Inds. (Pvt.) Ltd. rsquo s case pertained to the milling industry and the issue decided in that case being different, the ratio cannot be applied in the present case. In view of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and the description of erstwhile tariff being specific under sub-heading 85.09, the classification adopted by the lower authorities is to be confirmed. The appellants have claimed the benefit of modvat and also the benefit of clearances made below Rs. 15 lakhs as per SSI Notification No. 175/85. This claim has not been considered by the Revenue. Hence the matter is remanded to the original authorities to consider their claim. Thus the Appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... thout import licence. 6. emsp On reading of above Trade Notice it would be seen that the words are (Life saving and sight saving drugs, medicines and equipment as may be specified by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports) of the list of items which shall not be regarded as consumer goods in Chapter XV of the Export and Import Policy that what is not to be regarded as consumer goods must invariably be either a life saving or sight saving drug/medicines and equipment. Scanning the list of Life Saving equipment I find that imported item does not figure in that list. Admittedly, therefore, the item imported by the appellant does not qualify to be treated as an item other than consumer goods. Admittedly the item is a consumer goods as it directly satisfies the needs of the consumer. As consumer goods are borne on the Negative List, therefore, the import licence is essential in the instant case. Having regard to these aspects I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1994 (4) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... d, they alone have to be held to be answerable for payment of duty. The power of attorney under which the appellants operated was not merely for the purpose of clearance of the goods acting as the agent of the importers in terms of Sec. 147(3) but they acted as the owner of the goods as the title to the goods by virtue of power of attorney came to be vested in the hands of appellants as they had been given the power to dispose of the machinery or to deal with it. The appellants took over the goods for which they have paid duty and they had moved the Central Board for waiver of differential duty and before the authorities they were acting as if they were the importers and they also got extended the Bank guarantee whenever it expired. In view of the above we hold that the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. We, therefore uphold the order of the learned lower appellate authority and dismiss the appeal.
-
1994 (4) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ow that the goods were illegally imported goods and the percentage or content of the CHARAS is of no consequence except for the purpose of judging the seriousness and nature of offence. 11. Looking to the quantity, value and the nature of the goods, the offence is obviously of a very serious nature. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 12. Before parting, I may also mention en passant that the goods having been already confiscated absolutely under the Customs Act, 1962 vest in the Central Government and it is not clear how the same property has again been confiscated to the State by the order of the Additional Session Judge, Ferozepur. However, since none of the Appellants before us had claimed the goods and we have upheld the order of absolute confiscation passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, it is not necessary for us to go further into the matter. Dated 7-4-1994 (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1994 (4) TMI 146 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... but figured after the name of the supplying company rsquo s godown at Cuttack/Bhubaneswar or their agent in the Gate Passes it cannot be taken that the documents were not adequate for the purpose and that they needed to be endorsed in their favour. In fact, such an endorsement can be said to have been already there in the Gate Passes in the shape of the reference to the user factory of the Appellants. The availment of credit by them on the strength of the documents was a perfectly normal act and not a deliberate flouting of law and defrauding Government of its due, as harshly characterised by the Collector. The charge of collusion hurled against the Departmental Officers totally loses its string in view of the clear vindication of the role of the Appellants themselves. To say the least, the finding against the appellants and the Departmental Officers is totally unrealistic and uncalled for. The Appeal succeeds not only on the short question of limitation, but also on merits.
-
1994 (4) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... 3-6-1992. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that in the present case there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time before this Tribunal keeping in view the fact that immediately after the return of the appeal by the Collector (Appeals), the appellants filed the present appeal before this Tribunal after getting it drafted and finalised by their counsel. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. emsp Before we part, it may be stated for the record that, whether the Collector (Appeals) was legally right in returning the appeal filed by the present appellants before him or not, was not debated before us and the case of Om Prakash Arun Kumar v. Collector of Customs, supra, was decided keeping in view Section 115 of the Finance Bill, 1992 which became the Act on 14-5-1992 whereas while amending the definition of ldquo Collector rdquo in Rule 2(2) of the Central Excises Rules, no such provision was made in the Central Excise (Fourth) Amendment Rules, 1992.
-
1994 (4) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Food products - Abatement of duty payable on the cost of metal containers ... ... ... ... ..... arify as to what are the elements of cost to be considered while computing the ldquo cost of metal containers rdquo for the purpose of the notification. On the other hand, Para 1 of the instructions shows that the Explanation had been issued so as to specify the cost of metal containers ldquo of certain specified trade sizes rdquo , of cans which are used for packing P or P foods. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the Explanation does not exhaust the sizes of cans that are only eligible for the exemption. In this context, it is also relevant that the Ministry rsquo s clarification issued simultaneously with notification 191/83 introducing the Explanation can be useful guide for the interpretation thereof being in the nature of contemporaneous exposition of the understanding of the Government while inserting the Explanation to Notification 34/83. Therefore, the findings of Collector (Appeals) are not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... wer to impose redemption fine while permitting re-export of the goods is correct. I also find that in view of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s observations that if the condition imposed is severable, then the order can be modified. Accordingly the order passed by the ld. Collector to that extent is not correct. Hence the impugned order requires to be modified as it was done in the case of Padia Sales Corpn. I, thererfore, modify the order of the ld. Collector in the following manner - ldquo The goods are confiscated, but the appellants are entitled to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 35.000/-. rdquo 13. As regards re-exportation of the goods, the imposition of redemption fine validates the import as soon as they become an absolute owner of the goods on payment of redemption fine, they are free to export the same subject to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and they are permitted to re-export accordingly. 14. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Warehousing Bond - Shortage ... ... ... ... ..... ot found on verification in the warehouse, we uphold the plea of the deptt. that the party had not accounted for the goods as provided in the Act. The plea that internal documentation of the company would show that they have in fact placed on board the trawlers and hence exported in terms of Section 69 of the Act is not supported by documents prescribed under Act. The demand in respect of these goods has been correctly made and confirmed by the Addl. Collector. That part of the order is thus upheld. rdquo 6. emsp In the instant case, the goods were removed from the I.G.I. Airport after executing a bond under Section 59 of the Customs Act. Therefore proper accountal of the goods once they were examined before removal and found in accordance with the quantity shown in the invoice, then the duty liability squarely falls on the importer in terms of the bond executed under Section 59 of the Customs Act. In view of the above, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Readjudication by different officer invalid ... ... ... ... ..... ated the case. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason as to why the Collector of Customs took upon himself to re-adjudicate the case in the face of the specific directions of the order of the Tribunal. rdquo 6. In the instant case, I find that the direction in the order of remand was to the Asstt. Collector to examine the two issues namely the question of time bar and the question of filing a declaration on 1-3-1988. It was, therefore, the Asstt. Collector who was required to examine the issues. Agreeing with the ratio of the judgement of the Tribunal cited supra, I find that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction in the case to take up the case himself for adjudication, issue a fresh show cause notice adding some more points and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. However, the order of remand by the Collector (Appeals is still valid and has to be decided by the Asstt. Collector concerned.
-
1994 (4) TMI 140 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation - Import Trade Control- Negative list ... ... ... ... ..... provision, it is not necessary that it must always be imposed. The facts and circumstances of the case as a whole have to be borne in mind and it has to be ensured that absurd situations unintended by law do not result. There are innumerable cases in which goods are released on caution or warning when some technical violation or breach of provision is noticed and the imposition of fine or penalty is not warranted. Both in case of fine and penalty, it is the non-observance of law by the person concerned which is required to be established in the first instance. rdquo 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and our findings above we hold that the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and the observations of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court squarely apply. I to the facts of this case, and therefore, the order of confiscation and levy of redemption fine has to be set aside. We, therefore, allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1994 (4) TMI 139 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Dutiability - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... hy Asbestos Cement, of all products, should have found a specific mention in sub-rule (2) of Rule 56A as a specific illustration for the availment of the benefit under the said Rule when the difference in its Tariff classification and that of the materials used in its manufacture would have come in the way of its getting the said benefit. The possibility of Asbestos Cement products being used in the manufacture of other Asbestos Cement products, does not appear to lie within technological possibilities to warrant their specific inclusion in Notification 223/63 and more glaringly, as an illustration in the body of Rule 56A(2) itself. The example given was an obvious non-starter. Though subsequent developments like the introduction of the Modvat scheme and its extension to Asbestos Cement products from March 1987 have sorted out the matter, the continued figuring of a non-applicable example in Rule 56A(2) even now, is an anomally, rectification whereof will not be out of place.
-
1994 (4) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... . 343 (SC) also no such distinction has been made by the Honourable Supreme Court. 19. emsp In the case - Balvir Singh v. Collector of Customs, 1991 (56) E.L.T. 64 (Tribunal) the Tribunal had observed that while passing the adjudication order the adjudicating authority should have mentioned whether the penalty was being imposed under Section 112(a) or (b) of the Act. 20. emsp As discussed above, prima facie, we find that there is no ambiguity in the allegation and the appellant had expressed no difficulty in understanding the charge levelled against her. 21. emsp Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it to be a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, we dismiss the stay application. The applicant is directed to deposit the amount of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the appeal shall be liable for rejection.
-
1994 (4) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... amples were drawn when the goods were out of the control of the Customs authorities. The Revenue authorities had well discharged its onus for coming to a different classification in view of the Deputy Chief Chemist rsquo s report, the extract of which has been reproduced above. In view of these observations, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my Learned Brother K.S. Venkata- ramani, Member (T). I hold that the goods are to be classified as Inorganic Chemical Tungstate under Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act under Heading 28.51. There is no cross-objection by the Revenue or cross-appeal by the Revenue and as such it will not be proper for me to hold that the classification falls under different sub-heading. The matter now be placed before the original Bench for issuing final order. Sd/- (Harish Chander) Dated 30-3-1993 President In view of the majority decision, the appeal is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) (S.L. Peeran) Dated 6-4-1993 Member (T) Member (J)
-
1994 (4) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Fabrics, man-made - Processing ... ... ... ... ..... o not carry out any processes after the fabric is manufactured. The processes carried out by the appellants, namely, dyeing, coating, knitting, back coating, shearing, polishing etc. are integral processes for the manufacture of knitted fabrics. Chapter Heading 55.07 covers woven grey fabrics i.e. the fabrics which are complete and marketable and the fabric is saleable as it is. We have discussed above the scheme of Chapter 55. Initial headings of the Chapter relate to the products fibre and yarn which is not subjected to any processes. Grey fabric is subjected to further process which is subjected to finishing processes. Accordingly, we are of the view that the knitted fabrics obtained by the appellants are not subjected to any processes and hence are classifiable under Heading 55.07 and are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 109/86-C.E., dated 27th February, 1986 as amended by Notification No. 3/88-C.E., dated 19th January, 1988. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
............
|