|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 476 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 459
Issues:
Permission under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to proceed with Arbitration Suit No. 17 of 1989 against the respondent company.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the applicant sought permission under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, to proceed with Arbitration Suit No. 17 of 1989 against the respondent company. The applicant claimed to be a secured creditor with priority of claim under section 48 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, due to hypothecation agreements for goods and machinery, with a significant sum outstanding. The winding-up order of the respondent company was issued in 1985, and the suit was filed in 1989. The applicant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bansidhar Shankarlal v. Mohd. Ibrahim to argue that leave of the court was not a precondition for commencing the suit and could be granted subsequently. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bansidhar Shankarlal v. Mohd. Ibrahim clarified that while a suit or proceeding initiated without leave may be considered ineffective until leave is obtained, once granted, the proceeding is deemed to have been instituted from the date of leave.
The official liquidator opposed the grant of permission under section 446(1), expressing concerns about potential floodgates of suits in various courts. Reference was made to the Gujarat High Court decision in Star Engineering Works Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, which highlighted that the decision to grant leave should be based on the merits of each case. However, the principle that leave should generally be granted when the claim is beyond the scope of investigation by the company court or judge handling company matters was acknowledged. In this case, the court granted leave to the applicant to proceed with Arbitration Suit No. 17 of 1989 against the respondent company, emphasizing that leave could only be given for a suit against the company and not other parties. Given the complexity of the dispute involving external parties, it was deemed appropriate to resolve the dispute against the company within the existing litigation. The applicant was directed to bear the counsel fees of the official liquidator amounting to Rs. 1,000.
In conclusion, the court granted permission to the applicant to pursue the arbitration suit against the respondent company under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The judgment underscored the flexibility in granting leave post-institution of proceedings, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The decision also highlighted the importance of considering the nature of the dispute and involvement of external parties when determining whether to allow a suit to proceed under section 446(1).
-
1996 (7) TMI 433
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the compensation application under the MRTP Act, 1969.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment concerns a compensation application filed by an individual against the Regional Director, National Savings Govt. of India, and the State Bank of India. The applicant alleged that a penalty was wrongly charged by the bank, seeking a refund and compensation. The issues framed included whether the respondents engaged in unfair trade practices, if the applicant suffered any loss due to such practices, and if the applicant is entitled to compensation. Additionally, a plea was made by the Regional Director regarding the maintainability of the compensation application under the MRTP Act, 1969. The Division Bench's observation highlighted the government's role as a service state, emphasizing the need for legal control over its activities to provide remedies to those affected by administration.
Further Analysis:
The respondent No. 1 contended that the provisions of the MRTP Act, 1969 were not applicable to them. However, citing a previous decision, the Commission held that government departments providing services fall within the purview of the Act concerning restrictive, unfair, and monopolistic trade practices. The judgment emphasized that while sovereign functions may be exempt, non-sovereign functions of government departments rendering services are subject to the provisions of the MRTP Act. Consequently, the objections raised by the respondents regarding the applicability of the Act were dismissed.
Conclusion:
The Commission concluded that the respondents, including the government department, were covered by the MRTP Act, 1969, and thus, the objections to the maintainability of the compensation application were not valid. The matter was scheduled for the evidence of the applicant, highlighting the importance of legal control over government activities to provide remedies for those affected by unfair trade practices.
-
1996 (7) TMI 432
Issues Involved:
1. Request for de-Notification of the applicants.
2. Summoning and cross-examination of the Custodian.
3. Application of principles of natural justice.
4. Interpretation of section 3(2) and section 4(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1962.
5. Judicial review of the Custodian's decision.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Request for de-Notification of the applicants:
The applicants sought de-Notification, arguing that the Custodian's satisfaction, which led to their Notification, was questionable. They emphasized that the Notification had caused grave prejudice, attaching their assets and properties. The applicants contended that the Custodian's decision lacked sufficient basis and was influenced by external directives, particularly a letter from the Ministry of Finance dated 8-6-1992.
2. Summoning and cross-examination of the Custodian:
The applicants requested that the Custodian be summoned for cross-examination to ascertain the basis of his satisfaction in issuing the Notification. They argued that cross-examination was essential for a just and effective determination of the main Petition, citing principles of natural justice and the necessity to understand the Custodian's mental state and knowledge at the time of Notification.
3. Application of principles of natural justice:
The applicants argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as they were not given a hearing before being notified, and the Act did not provide for a post-decisional hearing. They cited several cases to support their claim that a fair opportunity to explain, including cross-examination, is a fundamental aspect of natural justice.
4. Interpretation of section 3(2) and section 4(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1962:
The applicants contended that under section 3(2), the Custodian must be satisfied before notifying a person, and this satisfaction was in question. They argued that section 4(2) allowed the Court to review the Custodian's decision and that the Court should consider whether the Custodian had adequate material and satisfaction at the time of Notification. The respondents, however, argued that the Court's role under section 4(2) was to apply its own mind to the facts and circumstances, not to review the Custodian's satisfaction.
5. Judicial review of the Custodian's decision:
The respondents contended that the applications for de-Notification were essentially a judicial review of the Custodian's decision. They argued that judicial review focuses on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. They cited legal authorities to support their claim that cross-examination is rarely permitted in judicial review proceedings unless essential for justice.
Judgment Summary:
The Court dismissed all applications for cross-examination of the Custodian. It held that under section 4(2), the Court itself must apply its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances available, and the satisfaction of the Custodian is irrelevant. The Court emphasized that the applicants must make out a case before the Court, showing they are not involved in any offence or have no nexus with any notified party. The Court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the Act provided for a post-decisional hearing before the Special Court. The Court agreed with the respondents that no question of cross-examining the Custodian arises in these Petitions.
Conclusion:
All applications were dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court clarified that the role of the Special Court under section 4(2) is to make an independent determination based on the material before it, irrespective of the Custodian's satisfaction at the time of Notification.
-
1996 (7) TMI 421
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported polyester and polyamide chips under Item No. 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of countervailing (CV) duty on the imported goods.
3. Eligibility for refund of CV duty paid.
4. Applicability of exemption notifications No. 244/67-C.E. and No. 38/73-C.E.
5. Classification under residuary entry Item No. 87 of the Customs Tariff.
6. Consideration of imported goods as waste for exemption purposes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Imported Polyester and Polyamide Chips under Item No. 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff:
The appellants imported polyester polymer chips and polyamide chips for manufacturing polyester yarn and nylon yarn. They argued that these chips should not be classified under Item No. 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff, which covers artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials. They contended that the chips were not plastics but were raw materials for textile products. The Tribunal, however, noted that Item No. 15-A has a wide coverage, including artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials in any form. The Tribunal referred to various definitions and technical descriptions, concluding that the chips were indeed synthetic resins and fell under Item No. 15-A. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had also held that polyester polymer chips were synthetic resins liable to duty under Item No. 15-A.
2. Applicability of Countervailing (CV) Duty on the Imported Goods:
Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, mandates that imported goods are liable to customs duty equal to the excise duty leviable on similar goods manufactured in India. The Tribunal upheld that the imported polyester and polyamide chips were correctly classified under Item No. 15-A for CV duty purposes. The Tribunal referred to the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, which had overruled earlier Single Judge decisions and confirmed that polyester chips of textile grade were synthetic resins and thus subject to CV duty.
3. Eligibility for Refund of CV Duty Paid:
The appellants sought refunds on the grounds that the imported goods were not plastics and thus should not attract CV duty. The Tribunal found that the refund claims were rejected by the original authorities as unsubstantiated. The Tribunal upheld these rejections, noting that the goods were synthetic resins and correctly classified under Item No. 15-A, thus attracting CV duty.
4. Applicability of Exemption Notifications No. 244/67-C.E. and No. 38/73-C.E.:
The appellants argued that the imported goods should benefit from exemption notifications No. 244/67-C.E. and No. 38/73-C.E. The Tribunal noted that these notifications applied to indigenous goods and required compliance with Chapter X procedures. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Thermax Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that exemption notifications could apply to imported goods if the intended use could be established. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not have the necessary CT-2 certificates or L-6 licenses to claim these exemptions, except for polymer polyester chips imported during the currency of Notification No. 38/73-C.E., which were exempted unconditionally.
5. Classification under Residuary Entry Item No. 87 of the Customs Tariff:
The appellants sought classification under Item No. 87, a residuary entry for articles not otherwise specified. The Tribunal rejected this, citing the Supreme Court's principle that goods reasonably classifiable under an enumerated item should not be consigned to a residuary entry. The Tribunal found that the imported goods were synthetic resins and correctly classified under Item No. 15-A, not Item No. 87.
6. Consideration of Imported Goods as Waste for Exemption Purposes:
J.K. Synthetics claimed that their imported goods were waste and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 26-B/72-C.E. The Tribunal found no evidence that the goods were waste, noting that they were synthetic resins in granule form. The Tribunal held that the exemption for waste under Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff did not apply, as the goods were not classified under Item No. 18 and did not arise in the manufacture of fibres and yarns.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected all 14 appeals, upholding the classification of the imported polyester and polyamide chips under Item No. 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff and the applicability of CV duty. The Tribunal found no merit in the refund claims and held that the appellants did not meet the conditions for exemption under the cited notifications. The appeals were dismissed accordingly.
-
1996 (7) TMI 414
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Allegations of fabricated documents and afterthought claims.
4. Confiscation and imposition of penalties under Sections 111(d), 111(p), and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Validity of the High Seas Sale Agreement and related import documents.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Seizure of Goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted and seized four packages containing light emitting diodes (LEDs) of foreign origin at New Delhi Railway Station. These goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the absence of transport vouchers, memoranda, bills, or any evidence of lawful acquisition and transportation, leading to a reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.
2. Burden of Proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority held that LEDs are diodes and are notified under the Customs Act, thus placing the burden of proof on the party claiming ownership. The party failed to discharge this burden as the documents submitted did not correlate with the seized goods. The adjudicating authority noted that the markings on the packages did not match the documents provided, thus failing to establish the legality of the goods.
3. Allegations of Fabricated Documents and Afterthought Claims:
The department alleged that the documents provided by Shri Rishi Goswami and other parties were fabricated to escape penal action. The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the documents, such as mismatched licence numbers and the absence of the name "King Bright Electronics Co. Ltd., Taipei" on any submitted documents. The claims of lawful acquisition were deemed afterthoughts and unsupported by credible evidence.
4. Confiscation and Imposition of Penalties under Sections 111(d), 111(p), and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of 83,000 pcs. of LEDs valued at Rs. 1,11,000/- under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act. A redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Section 125. Additionally, penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each were imposed on Shri Rishi Goswami, M/s. Tamania Traders, and M/s. Metcon Engg. Co. under Section 112 for their role in dealing with the goods of foreign origin with prior knowledge of their liability to confiscation.
5. Validity of the High Seas Sale Agreement and Related Import Documents:
The appellants claimed that the goods were imported legally and covered by proper licences. However, the adjudicating authority found that the documents did not tally with the seized goods. The High Seas Sale Agreement and related import documents were found to be inconsistent and unreliable. M/s. Natural Products Export Corpn. denied any connection with the seized goods, further weakening the appellants' claims. The adjudicating authority concluded that the explanations provided by the appellants were unconvincing and uncorroborated, leading to the rejection of their claims.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed as the adjudicating authority's findings were based on substantial evidence and legal provisions. The confiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalties were upheld, and the appellants' claims were deemed unsupported by credible evidence.
-
1996 (7) TMI 413
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS ruled that duty should be charged based on the count of yarn ascertained from the date of the sample drawn until the next sample. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was applied, and the appeal of the revenue was allowed with the condition that the appellants be given an opportunity of hearing. (Citation: 1996 (7) TMI 413 - CEGAT, MADRAS)
-
1996 (7) TMI 406
Issues:
1. Dispute over the marketability of Calcium Carbide for excise duty.
2. Challenge to the valuation of Calcium Carbide for excise duty.
3. Preliminary contention regarding the timing of the review notice.
4. Pending Special Writ Petition before the Supreme Court.
5. Determination of marketability of Calcium Carbide for excise duty.
Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the marketability of Calcium Carbide for excise duty purposes. The appellant produced Calcium Carbide in the course of manufacturing Acetylene Gas, which was further used in making PVC Resin. The Department required the appellant to submit a price list for the Calcium Carbide, which was done under protest as the appellant contended that the product had no marketability and hence was not excisable goods. Previous disputes on this issue had been decided against the appellant, leading to the current appeal challenging the excisability of Calcium Carbide.
2. The valuation of the Calcium Carbide was also contested during the appeal process. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) initially deemed the product excisable and directed a fresh price list based on comparable goods. However, the Collector (Appeals) later set aside this direction, prompting the Department to challenge the decision, arguing that the valuation should be based on comparable goods.
3. A preliminary contention raised by the respondent questioned the timing of the review notice issued by the Government of India after a decision by the Delhi High Court that the Calcium Carbide produced by the respondent was not marketable and hence not excisable. This contention was a key aspect of the appeal process.
4. The appellant pointed out the existence of a pending Special Writ Petition before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi High Court, indicating that the matter was still under consideration by a higher court. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeals at hand, emphasizing that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) did not necessitate a stay on the ongoing proceedings.
5. The central issue of determining the marketability of Calcium Carbide for excise duty was crucial to the final decision. While the Department argued that the product was marketable and thus excisable, citing its inclusion in the Tariff list, the High Court of Delhi highlighted the restrictions imposed by the Carbide of Calcium Rules, 1937, which governed activities related to Calcium Carbide. The High Court held that the Calcium Carbide produced by the respondent did not meet the purity standards set by the Rules, rendering it non-marketable. The Tribunal concurred with the High Court's interpretation, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on the finding that the Calcium Carbide in question was not excisable goods.
-
1996 (7) TMI 404
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai imposed duty of Rs. 9.78 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs on the appellant for not including the cost of tooling in the assessable value of printed circuit boards. The Tribunal found no prima facie case in favor of the appellant and ordered the duty to be secured by a bank guarantee within two months. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty was granted, and its recovery stayed. Compliance was required by 17th September, 1996.
-
1996 (7) TMI 402
The appeal concerned the levy of duty on goods detained by authorities, with exemption withdrawn later. Appellants argued duty should be based on seizure date, citing a Calcutta High Court case. Department argued duty should be based on clearance date, citing Supreme Court rulings. Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal. (Case: 1996 (7) TMI 402 - CEGAT, MADRAS)
-
1996 (7) TMI 400
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS involved the eligibility of Compound Rubber in crumb form for the benefit of Notification 71/68. The Tribunal held that the product in crumb form does not qualify for the notification and dismissed the appeal. (1996 (7) TMI 400 - CEGAT, MADRAS)
-
1996 (7) TMI 399
The appeal relates to the classification of rubber solution under Heading 3506 vs. Tariff 4005. The Tribunal ruled in favor of classification under Heading 3506 based on a previous Supreme Court decision. The appeal by the department was dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 398
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Modvat credit for lubricating oil and hydraulic oil used in manufacturing process.
Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of Modvat credit for lubricating oil and hydraulic oil used in the manufacturing process. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of copper strips/foils, aluminum pressure cookers, and racks, used these oils during production. The Assistant Commissioner initially denied the credit, stating that only inputs directly used in or in relation to the final product's manufacture qualify. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.
Shri Yadav, representing the appellants, argued that the oils played a crucial role in the manufacturing process, citing a previous Tribunal case involving Pragati Paper Mills. The Tribunal in that case had held that if a material is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, Modvat credit should be allowed, regardless of its specific use. The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'in relation to the manufacture' has a broad meaning and includes materials that are integral to the production process.
On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the oils were only used for cleaning and maintenance, not in the main manufacturing process. However, the Tribunal, after considering both arguments, sided with the appellants. Citing the Pragati Paper Mills case and the principle that materials with a significant role in the final product's manufacture should qualify for Modvat credit, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The judgment emphasized that without the lubricating oil, the final product would not come into being, aligning with the Larger Bench's decision on the matter.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the previous orders and allowing the Modvat credit for the lubricating oil and hydraulic oil used in the manufacturing process. The decision was based on the principle that materials contributing significantly to the final product's manufacture should be eligible for credit, even if not directly part of the main manufacturing process.
-
1996 (7) TMI 397
Issues:
1. Classification of "spert" as a milk food under Entry 14 of Notification No. 17/70
2. Exemption of the product in question under the said notification
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the classification of a product called "spert" as a milk food under Entry 14 of Notification No. 17/70 and its exemption from excise duty. The Assistant Collector initially ruled that "spert" was a milk food and not exempt. However, the Collector (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to the department appealing to the Tribunal.
The Revenue argued that the product containing skimmed milk powder should be classified as a milk food under the notification, emphasizing the constituents of the product over its commercial nomenclature. They sought to set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and restore the Assistant Collector's decision.
Conversely, the respondents contended that "spert" was a protein-rich food supplement, not a milk food, citing a previous Tribunal order in their favor. They relied on the Tribunal's earlier judgment in a similar case involving "spert," which held the product was exempt from duty under the notification.
The Tribunal deliberated on the nature of "spert," with the department arguing it was a milk food, while the respondents maintained it was a protein supplement. The Tribunal referenced its previous decision where it determined that "spert" did not fall under Entry 14 of the notification and was thus exempt from duty. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of a precise definition of "milk food" in the context of the case.
Based on previous judgments and expert opinions, the Tribunal concluded that "spert" was not a milk food but a protein supplement, entitling it to exemption under Notification 17/70. Upholding the earlier order, the Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, affirming that "spert" was exempt from excise duty under the notification.
-
1996 (7) TMI 396
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of demineralised water as goods under Chapter Heading 2851.00. The appellant failed to prove that the water had limited shelf life or was non-marketable. The appeal was dismissed as the water was considered a stable product.
-
1996 (7) TMI 395
The appellant sought dispensation of pre-deposit of Rs. 80,900 taken as Modvat wrongly. The Board's clarification allowed for Modvat credit if goods were despatched directly to the appellant. The appeal was allowed as the appellant's case was covered by the Board's clarification, and the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.
-
1996 (7) TMI 394
Issues: Grant of Modvat credit based on submission of original gate passes with acknowledgment.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, involved the issue of whether the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit despite the department's claim of non-production of original gate passes. The appellants argued that they had submitted the required documents under Rule 57G of the Modvat Rules, with acknowledgment, and should not be denied the credit due to any administrative failures. The Tribunal noted that the acknowledgment by the Range Inspector should be considered valid for all documents submitted, and the appellants had also provided a certified true copy of the gate pass. The appellants' counsel emphasized that any missing documents might have been misplaced in the excise office, and they were willing to execute a bond to prevent double claims if the original gate passes were later found. The Department's representative mentioned that detailed scrutiny usually occurred during finalization of returns, not at the acknowledgment stage. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument, considering the acknowledgment and the certified copy of the gate pass provided. They held that once the duty payment was verified, Modvat credit should be allowed. The appeal was allowed, subject to the verification of duty payment for the goods in question.
In this case, the Tribunal carefully analyzed the submission of documents and acknowledgment by the Range Inspector to determine the appellants' entitlement to Modvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the acknowledgment of receipt should be considered as valid for all documents submitted, rejecting the Department's argument that individual scrutiny was necessary. The appellants' proactive approach in providing a certified true copy of the gate pass further supported their claim. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying duty payment for goods and held that once this verification was completed, the Modvat credit should be granted. The Tribunal's decision focused on ensuring that administrative lapses did not unfairly disadvantage the appellants, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with the Modvat Rules.
The judgment underscores the significance of proper documentation and acknowledgment in claiming Modvat credit. The Tribunal's analysis highlighted that the acknowledgment of receipt by the Range Inspector, coupled with the submission of a certified true copy of the gate pass, supported the appellants' case. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal was based on the principle that once duty payment was verified, the appellants should not be denied the Modvat credit. By emphasizing the need for verification of duty payment and genuine documents, the Tribunal ensured that the appellants were not unfairly penalized for any administrative oversights. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural compliance and the need for authorities to conduct thorough verifications before denying legitimate claims for benefits under the law.
-
1996 (7) TMI 393
The appeal related to Modvat credit taken before filing declaration and limitation period. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the demand was barred by limitation since show cause notice was issued beyond 6 months of filing RT 12 return. The decision was based on the case of M/s. Brakes India Ltd. and 28 Others. The appeal was represented by Shri Murugandi, DR.
-
1996 (7) TMI 392
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and redemption of seized goods.
2. Allegations of non-cooperation by the Collector.
3. Modification of Tribunal's order based on new facts.
4. Tribunal's power to grant compensation.
5. Rectification of mistakes in Tribunal's order.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation and Redemption of Seized Goods:
The Tribunal had previously ordered the confiscation of a Hitachi VCR and a National Colour Video Camera, with an option for the appellant to redeem them upon payment of a fine of Rs. 8,000 each. Other items, such as video and audio cassettes, were ordered to be released to the appellant. However, two video cassettes were absolutely confiscated due to their obscene content.
2. Allegations of Non-Cooperation by the Collector:
Shri Leeladhar Kejriwal alleged that he was willing to pay the redemption fine of Rs. 16,000 but was being prevented by the Collector from doing so. This led to an interim order seeking comments from the Collector on these allegations.
3. Modification of Tribunal's Order Based on New Facts:
The Commissioner of Central Excise filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the Tribunal's order on the grounds that certain facts were not presented earlier. These facts included:
- The goods were seized in 1983 and included electronic items prone to deterioration.
- The Hitachi VCR had been sold for Rs. 12,000.
- Most of the video cassettes had been sold, except for two.
- The National Colour Video Camera and two video cassettes were stolen from the godown.
4. Tribunal's Power to Grant Compensation:
The learned Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant should be compensated for the loss caused by the Department's actions. However, the Tribunal noted that it has no power to grant compensation, as held by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Golden Hind Shipping (I), Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal's orders could not be implemented due to the sale and theft of the goods.
5. Rectification of Mistakes in Tribunal's Order:
The Tribunal considered whether it has the power to modify its final order if certain facts, though already on record, were not made known at the time of the order. The Tribunal referred to its previous order in the case of Dilip Kumar Dey, which clarified that the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. This includes modifying the order if necessary.
Conclusion:
1. Confiscation and Redemption of Seized Goods: The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and allowed for redemption, but the goods were either sold or stolen, complicating the implementation of the order.
2. Allegations of Non-Cooperation by the Collector: The Tribunal sought comments from the Collector regarding the allegations of non-cooperation.
3. Modification of Tribunal's Order Based on New Facts: The Tribunal acknowledged that new facts, such as the sale and theft of goods, were not presented earlier and considered modifying its order accordingly.
4. Tribunal's Power to Grant Compensation: The Tribunal reiterated that it does not have the power to grant compensation for losses caused by the Department's actions.
5. Rectification of Mistakes in Tribunal's Order: The Tribunal confirmed its power to rectify mistakes in its order if such mistakes are brought to its notice, even if they are based on facts that occurred after the order was passed.
Orders Passed:
1. VCR (Hitachi): The sale proceeds of Rs. 12,000 should be refunded to the appellant after deducting the redemption fine of Rs. 8,000 and any statutory expenses.
2. National Colour Video Camera: Since the camera was stolen, the appellant is not required to pay the redemption fine of Rs. 8,000.
3. Cassettes: The sale proceeds of the cassettes should be refunded to the appellant after deducting any statutory expenses.
4. Stolen Cassettes: No further action is required for the stolen cassettes.
This order is to be read as part of the Tribunal's previous orders dated 31-7-1992 and 24-9-1993.
-
1996 (7) TMI 391
Issues:
- Central Excise duty demand on photocopier components
- Inclusion of Semi Automatic Document Handler (SADH) and installation kit in assessable value
- Application of extended period under Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act
- Barred by limitation due to lack of suppression or wilful misstatement
- Proper disclosure of relevant facts to jurisdictional officer
- Contention on the essentiality of components in photocopier functioning
- Dispute over inclusion of photoreceptor drum in assessable value
- Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions
- Imposition of penalty based on suppression allegations
Analysis:
The appeal involves a dispute over the Central Excise duty demand on photocopier components, specifically the Semi Automatic Document Handler (SADH) and installation kit, treated as essential component parts by the Collector. The appellant, M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., contested the duty demand, arguing that the SADH and installation kit were optional accessories supplied against specific orders, not integral to the photocopier's functioning. The Collector invoked the extended period under Section 11A, leading to the appeal.
The appellant's counsel contended that the show cause notice for the demand period was time-barred, lacking factors like suppression or wilful misstatement. They highlighted disclosures made to departmental officers regarding the supply of SADH and installation kits, emphasizing proper communication of relevant details. The appellant also referenced a Tribunal decision regarding the exclusion of the photoreceptor drum's value in the assessable value of photocopiers, supporting their case.
On the other hand, the Senior Departmental Representative argued in favor of the Collector's decision, asserting that the longer limitation period was correctly applied due to alleged non-disclosure of necessary details, constituting suppression. He supported the Collector's findings on the essentiality of SADH and the photoreceptor drum in the photocopier's functioning, citing statements from the appellant's executives and previous decisions.
The Tribunal examined the submissions and records, ultimately siding with the appellant on the limitation issue. The Tribunal found that the appellant had properly disclosed relevant facts to the department, refuting the allegations of suppression or misstatement. Additionally, the Tribunal compared the present case with past decisions, emphasizing the distinction between essential components like the photoreceptor drum and optional accessories like SADH in determining the assessable value of photocopiers.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalty. The decision rested on the lack of suppression, proper disclosure of facts, and the distinction between essential components and optional accessories in the photocopiers, as supported by previous Tribunal decisions and legal precedents.
-
1996 (7) TMI 390
Issues Involved:
1. Assessable value of TV sets.
2. Alleged under-valuation and shadow market.
3. Relationship between appellants and NELCO.
4. Invocation of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
6. Deduction of duty and tax element from the assessable value.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessable Value of TV Sets:
The appellants were selling Colour TV sets to NELCO and later to six other concerns at lower prices, which in turn sold the sets to NELCO at a profit. The Collector determined that the prices charged by NELCO to their customers should be the assessable value, treating them as cum-duty prices of the appellants. The Tribunal directed that the assessable value should be based on the prices paid by NELCO to the intermediaries, with deductions for sales tax and excise duty.
2. Alleged Under-valuation and Shadow Market:
The show cause notice alleged that the appellants created a shadow market by selling TV sets to six concerns at lower prices, which then sold to NELCO at higher prices. The Tribunal found that the transactions with these concerns were paper transactions to lower the duty burden, and the sales were actually made directly to NELCO.
3. Relationship Between Appellants and NELCO:
The Collector concluded that the appellants were "hired manufacturers" for NELCO and not the owners of the TV sets, based on the provision of technical knowhow and assistance by NELCO without fees. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis and at arm's length, and there was no special relationship or suppression of facts by the appellants.
4. Invocation of the Proviso to Section 11A:
The show cause notice alleged wilful suppression of facts and deliberate design to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A, as the facts proved deliberate under-valuation and creation of paper transactions.
5. Imposition of Penalty Under Rule 173Q:
The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs for suppressing relevant information and filing misleading price lists. The Tribunal agreed that the case warranted a penalty but directed that the penalty be quantified afresh after determining the differential duty.
6. Deduction of Duty and Tax Element from the Assessable Value:
The department appealed against the deduction of duty and tax elements from the assessable value. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's direction to deduct these elements, in accordance with Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act.
Final Judgment:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directed the assessable value to be based on the prices paid by NELCO to the intermediaries, with deductions for sales tax and excise duty. The differential duty and penalty were to be determined afresh by the Commissioner. The appeals filed by the department were dismissed, and the appeal by the manufacturer was allowed.
............
|
9911796707
