|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 474 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 432 - SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANS
De-notification of notified person ... ... ... ... ..... ise of the Custodian is entirely irrelevant. In my view, even if it is shown to the Court that the Custodian was adequately satisfied, the Court can on the material before it still come to the conclusion that there is no justification for Notification. Even in cases where it is established that on adequate material the Custodian was satisfied, the Court can still de-notify a party if the Court is satisfied that a Notification is not justified or not required any longer. Under these circumstances, I am in agreement with Mr. Setalwad that no question arises of cross-examining the Custodian in these Petitions. The Petitioners have to make out a case before this Court. They must at least show that they are not involved in any offence and/or that there is no nexus with any of the notified party. It is then for the Court to decide what steps to take and what orders to pass. 22. Under these circumstances, I dismiss all the applications with no order as to costs. SCL q DECEMBER, 1996
-
1996 (7) TMI 421 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Countervailing duty - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... case, however, the importers did not have proper CT 2 Certificates with regard to the goods imported. Accordingly, we consider that the imports in question were not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 244/67-C.E. and for full exemption under Notification No. 38/73-C.E. however, insofar as the polymer polyester chips falling under Item 15A were concerned, they were exempted from duty un-conditionally under Notification No. 38/73-C.E., dt. 1-3-1973. As with regard to this exemption notification and polymer polyester chips there was no requirement of following the procedure of Chapter X, we consider that if the goods were imported during the currency of that notification, then they would be eligible for exemption under that notification. 33. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, subject to the observations made above in para 32, we don rsquo t find any merit in all these appeals. All the appeals are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (7) TMI 414 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ntry and there is a great demand for such items, it could not be true that these goods could not have been sold for more than a year. Therefore, the contention of M/s. Natural Products Export Corpn. that the goods seized from M/s Tamania Traders were not the goods imported under Bills of Entry appears to be true, correct and acceptable. The explanation given by the appellants does not merit acceptance, as the said explanation is too shaky, bald and not corroborated. It is clear that the goods which have been sold by M/s. Tamania Traders to M/s. Metcon Engg. is not legal import of goods under licence under proper import documents. Therefore, the order of confiscation and also grant of redemption of fine is justified. The penalty which is imposed is quite meager to the extent of gravity of offence alleged against the appellants. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeals and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, these appeals are dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 413 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Sample - Validity ... ... ... ... ..... pondents have stated that he has no objection to the ratio of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court to be applied and he has urged that the respondents had drawn sample from time to time and test results of the count should be taken into consideration while demanding duty. 2. emsp I have considered the pleas made. In view of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madras the duty demandable is for the period between the dates of drawal of sample in the present case that of next sample drawn for the same count of yarn. While demanding duty the ld. lower authority should take note of the sample drawn by the appellants from time to time for the same count of yarn and of the test results. If the same are acceptable to the authority, the demand in respect of the same should be considered in the light of the judg- ment above. The appellants should be given an opportunity of hearing in this regard. The appeal of the revenue is allowed subject to the above observation.
-
1996 (7) TMI 406 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Court. We, therefore, informed both the parties that we propose to dispose of the appeals. We have heard both sides. 5. emsp It is contended for the Department that Calcium Carbide is included in the Tariff list and is known to the market and is marketable and, therefore, must be regarded as goods and excisable. The High Court of Delhi has held that activity in connection with Calcium Carbide is governed by the Carbide of Calcium Rules, 1937 made under the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Rules prohibit sale of Calcium Carbide which is not commercially pure as regarded by the Rules, that the Calcium Carbide produced by the respondent fall short of the purity contemplated by the Rules and, therefore, in law has no marketability. It was on this ground that the High Court held against the Department. We follow the view taken by the High Court of Delhi and hold that the Calcium Carbide produced by the respondent is not excisable goods. In view of this finding the appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 404 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... licant contends that it is not possible to establish any clear relationship between the cost of the tooling and the number of items manufactured. He relies upon the interim order of this Tribunal reported in Automotive Axles Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 275 and the observations in an earlier decision. 3. emsp The Deptartmental Representative contends that these two decisions are distinguishable because in one case there had been no manufacture and in the other case the cost of tooling had been included. Neither of these two decisions have been satisfied in the present case. 4. emsp The issues involved in this appeal are arguable. We do not find a prima facie case in favour of the applicant. We, therefore, order that the duty be secured by bank guarantee to be submitted before the Commissioner within two months from orders. On this being done waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty is granted and its recovery stayed. 5. emsp To come up for compliance on 17th September, 1996.
-
1996 (7) TMI 402 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Rate of duty - Relevant date ... ... ... ... ..... e statute and cannot grant the relief prayed for. In this view of the matter, the rate of duty applicable will be the one applicable on the date of clearance of the goods. At this stage, the learned Consultant pleaded that the appellants should have been given the benefit of exemption Notification 176/86. We observe that the appellants have not taken this plea before the lower authority and therefore, this plea cannot be urged at the appellate stage. We, therefore, hold that so far as the ratio of the ruling of the Hon rsquo ble Calcutta High Court is concerned, the relief was granted under the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Hon rsquo ble High Court. The Tribunal being a creature of the statute has to necesarily go by the statutory provisions as interpreted by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. Following, therefore, the ratio of the decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court cited supra, we hold that the impugned order is sustainable in law and we dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (7) TMI 400 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Compounded rubber in crumb form not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 71/58-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... per the chapter notes to Chapter 40 is a primary form would not be eligible to the benefit of this notification. The notification available for these goods is 377/86 and the benefit in respect of the same has been allowed by the learned Lower Authority. 4. emsp We have gone through the facts of the case and the pleas in the appeal memorandum. Taking into consideration, the form of the appellants product we hold that concession under Notification 71/58 has been rightly denied to the appellants. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 399 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... aded that in the case referred to supra the appeal of the the appeal of the revenue has also been dismissed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and the classification under Tariff Heading 3506 stands confirmed by the ruling of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. A130 (S.C.). She pleads that the goods involved in the present case are similar to the goods involved in that case. 3. emsp We, therefore, following the ratio of the decision of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. A130 (S.C.) hold that there is no force in the plea of the learned DR and dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (7) TMI 398 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r maintaining machinery and it cannot be said that that was used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished products and the same has not gone into the main stream of the manufacturing process and, accordingly, the department was justified in disallowing the Modvat credit. 5. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. In the case of Pragati Paper Mills (P) Ltd., it was observed that the use of lubricating oil is in relation to the manufacture even if it is not directly in the manufacturing process as raw material. Without the use of such lubricating oil in the course of manufacture of finished product, final product will never come into being, following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision. In the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the judicial discipline and following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, I accept the plea of the appellants. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and in the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 397 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Spert exempted under Notification No. 17/70-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... onclusion that its product does not fall within the mischief of entry No. 14. 6. emsp We also find that this order of the Tribunal was further followed by this Tribunal in the case of respondents herein themselves for an earlier period. 7. emsp We find that the Tribunal has already considered the contention of the department whether ldquo spert rdquo is a milk food or not and the Tribunal came to the conclusion after examining the various affidavits expert opinions and other matters including the ISI specification relied upon by the department and came to the conclusion that the product described as ldquo spert rdquo by the respondents herein is not milk food and that for the purpose of Notification 17/70 it was an exempted item. Following the ratio of the judgments of this Tribunal we hold that ldquo spert rdquo is not a milk food and is entitled to exemption under Notification 17/70. 8. emsp In the above view of the matter we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1996 (7) TMI 396 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e before adjudicating the case. The appellant has only taken this plea before us without producing any literature or technical evidence in support of his plea. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhor Industries v. Collector reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.) has had held that for holding the product as marketable it is not necessary that it should have been sold in the market but has enough shelf life and can be brought to the market for sale. Nothing has been shown by the appellant to establish that the goods i.e. demineralised water has no marketability or market though in the instant case, it has been used only for captive consumption. It is well known that the goods in question are stable product and the same continue to be water which is economically a stable product and for that reason it has to be considered a stable product. We, therefore, find no force in the plea taken by the appellant in his submission before us. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 395 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - When goods do not go physically to the dealer’s premises ... ... ... ... ..... prayer for dispensation is therefore allowed. Since the issue lies in a short campass, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties. 4. emsp It is observed that the invoice of the manufacturer shows, the appellants is the consignee and it has all the particulars prescribed for the purpose of Modvat, under Notification No. 15/94, and this document in the light of the clarification of the Board as above can be considered as a valid document under Rule 57G. The appellants also produced dealers invoice. In view of the clarification given so long as the document under which goods are despatched is acceptable in terms of the clarification, it makes no difference, if the goods physically do not go to the dealers premises. Same decision has been taken by the Tribunal in almost similar circumstances in Appeal No. E/91/96 in the case of Eveready Industries India Limited. In the above view of the matter the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1996 (7) TMI 394 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Duty paying documents - Verification of ... ... ... ... ..... March, 1993. Necessary verification would have been done by the authorities in regard to the documents filed. It is not as if voluminous documents were there and in respect of which verification in the file could not be done. In view of the fact that acknowledgement has been given, necessary verification would have been done in regard to the gate passes being there evidencing duty paid nature of the goods. We, therefore, hold that the appellants rsquo plea has force. In any case the appellants have also produced certified copy of the gate passes which could be verified by the authorities for its genuineness. Once it is satisfied that the goods have suffered duty there is no reason why Modvat in the circumstances of the case, should not be allowed. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellants have a good case and their plea has to be allowed subject to verification of payment of duty in respect of the goods. The appeal is therefore, allowed in the above terms.
-
1996 (7) TMI 393 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand for Modvat - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ssued beyond the period of 6 months. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal cited supra wherein the Tribunal in the context of limitation has held as under Therefore, keeping in mind that the statutory obligations are cast on the assessee in filing monthly RT 12 returns with relevant documents with extracts of RG 23A Parts I and II registers with other documents relating to Modvat credit and since RT 12 return is a statutory document for assessment purposes, we hold that the relevant date for reckoning the reasonable period of limitation should commence from the date the RT 12 returns are filed or should have been filed whichever is earlier. Even on the basis of this, taking into consideration the date of issue of show cause notice we observe that the demand would be barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued beyond the period of six months of the date of filing of RT 12 return. The appeal, is therefore, dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 392 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appellate Tribunal - Powers to amend its order - Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... proceeds be refunded to the appellant, subject to deduction of other statutory expenses if any. (b) emsp National Colour Video Camera has been stolen. It was confiscated by the Tribunal with an option to the appellant to redeem it on payment of Rs. 8,000/-. Since the said Camera cannot be given back to the appellant by the Department on payment of fine of Rs. 8,000/- by the appellant, Rs. 8,000/- is not required to be paid by the appellant. By this order, we are not striking down the liability to confiscation of the same Camera. (c) emsp In respect of lsquo Cassettes rsquo ordered to be released and sold by the Revenue, the appellant should be refunded the sale proceeds subject to deduction of statutory expenses, if any. (d) emsp In respect of two lsquo Cassettes rsquo ordered to be released but stolen from the godown, no further action is required to be taken. 12. emsp This order be read as a part of the Tribunal rsquo s Order dated 31-7-1992 read with Order dated 24-9-1993.
-
1996 (7) TMI 391 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... assumption that the information supplied thereunder was false in relation to the price so as to attract penalty under Rule 173Q. The Collector rsquo s finding that the appellant had declared that the fact that two different models, System I and System II were manufactured and that the price of critical components was not declared at all has to be viewed in the light of the averments made by the appellant about the disclosure of the supply of SADH and installation kit and the price charged therefor coupled with the existence of factors like Assistant Collector rsquo s decision denying them proforma credit for SADH and Tribunal decision in the case of photoreceptor drum which would justify the appellant excluding their value in the assessable value of photocopiers. In the circumstances, the longer time limit was not applicable and the duty demand was barred by limitation. Imposition of penalty was not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1996 (7) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. The direction was fully justified. 15. emsp In the light of our findings, we agree that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty. But penalty has to be quantified afresh after determining the extent of differential duty. 16. emsp (i) The impugned order is set aside. (ii) It is directed that the assessable value of TV sets cleared by appellant from July, 1984 till 16-3-1985 shall be based on the prices paid by NELCO on the ostensible purchases from M/s. Leader Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others of Colour TV sets manufactured by the appellants. The correct prices and assessable value shall be determined by the Commissioner. (iii) Element of Sales Tax and Excise duty paid shall be deducted from the value. (iv) Differential duty and amount of penalty shall be determined afresh. (v) The case is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. (vi) Appeal No. E/650/87-A is allowed. Appeals No. E/1463 and E/2103/88-A are dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 389 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ry for us to deal with the same, except to say that those imports also did not relate to lining material of Code No. 4610. It is pointed out for the Department that the price list produced by the appellant did not mention the price of the particular goods with Code No. 4610 but mentioned the price of goods only under Code Nos. 4611 and 4612. There is no indication that the appellant was called upon to produce any price list. That being so, there was nothing to prevent the Department from procuring the latest price list which would show the price of goods with Code No. 4610 also. 6. emsp In the light of what we have indicated above, the value fixed by the Additional Collector cannot be supported. ITC angle in the case arises only on the alleged shortfall estimated at Rs. 14000 and odd. The value determined by the Additional Collector is rejected. The finding regarding valuation also cannot stand. 7. emsp In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 388 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Reflectors for Cine Projectors ... ... ... ... ..... igin being not correct had not been put across to the appellants as there was no challenge in the show cause notice. Accordingly that was never dealt in the impugned order of that case. The Bench observed that though the brand name was the same, the countries of origin were different and that the brand name being the same does not necessarily lead to the inference that the manufacturer was the same. In the present case also, it is the stand of the learned counsel of the appellants that merely because the goods in question bear YKK brand it cannot asserted that they were of Japanese origin. Coupled with this is the difference in time which was also a factor present in the earlier case. In line with the approach taken in the earlier order dated 9-7-1996 in the case of Haseen Movies, we are of the view that the enhancement of value of the subject goods on the basis of imports effected from Japan was not justified. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
............
|
