Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 295 Records
-
1992 (9) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to S.S.I. Units ... ... ... ... ..... he factory as then existing had been leased out to the present respondents. If the approved ground plan of M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals who were originally manufacturing the goods in the factory before the lease was given had been produced, it would have been possible to find out from it which parts of the factory, if any, has been leased out to the present respondents. In the absence of anything specific to establish that the factory which has been leased out to the respondents is the very same unit in which M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals were manufacturing Synthetic Organic Dye-stuffs, it is not possible to conclusively establish that the conditions stipulated in Clause 2(ii) of Notification 43/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 would come into play in the present case. For the same reason, denial of exemption to the respondents during the succeeding year on the same ground would also not appear to be permissible. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the Collector fails and is rejected.
-
1992 (9) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... guarantees to the petitioners within 10 days from today. On receipt of the said amount by the petitioners, they shall execute bank guarantee in favour of the Collector of Central Excise within two weeks thereafter. It is also made dear that until disposal of the stay application bank guarantee will continue and in the event if the Tribunal rejects the application for stay, the said order shall not be executed for a period of two weeks from the date of its service on the petitioners rdquo . In view of the above observations of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court, we order immediate release of the detained machinery items mentioned in the Mahazar dated 16-9-1992. This order we have passed after exercising our inherent powers in view of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of I.T.O. v. Mohd. Kunhi, reported in AIR 1969 S.C. 430. 4. In the result, the stay applications are allowed. Revenue authorities are directed to comply with the terms of the stay order.
-
1992 (9) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Piston Ring Kits ... ... ... ... ..... er clause (b) of Col. 3 from motor vehicles in clause (a). On this distinction, he submits that there is a difference between internal combustion engine of agricultural tractor and that of other motor vehicles. I do not find any force in this submission of the learned representative. On closer reading of the two entries under clauses (a) and (b) it is to be seen that clause (b) uses the expression lsquo other motor vehicles rsquo . The word lsquo other rsquo is very significant. This means this classification itself recognises that agricultural tractor and power tillers are also motor vehicles but they have been separately classified under S. No. 6 than other motor vehicles for the purpose of levying duty on internal combustion engines. No meaning in support of the general proposition put forward by the learned representative of the appellant firm can be drawn from this notification. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed as proposed by the learned sister.
-
1992 (9) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o have statutory force. The explanatory notes which are not part of the Schedule have no statutory force and are only of persuasive value. These notes, drawn up by experts in the field, are a valuable aid to the understanding of the scope of the headings and the sub-headings but if the entries in the Schedule (CET 1985), in the light of the aforesaid legal aids and in the light of case law, point to a conclusion contrary to, or different from that indicated by the explanatory notes, the former shall prevail. Therefore, reliance on explanatory notes has to be tempered with due regard to the aforesaid considerations. 14. In the light of the foregoing discussion we hold that the M.R. separators manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Heading 85.07 of the CETA 1985 and that the demand for duty is barred by limitation as already held in para 9.2 above. In these circumstances, penalty is also set aside. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (9) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... letter produced by the appellants shows that SAIL has filed appeals after clearance from the Administrative Ministry, and there is no clearance from the Cabinet Committee. Since the issue is pending before the Larger Bench it will not be proper for us to give our observation at this stage. The matters are adjourned and are to be listed after the decision of the Larger Bench. Let a copy of this order be given to both sides. 4. Shri Grover made a prayer that the demands for duty Rs.2,07,281/- and penalty Rs.20,000/- in the appeal No.4605/92-A and duty Rs. 18,50,827 /-and penalty Rs.1,50,000/- should be stayed till the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal or the departmental representative may give undertaking that no recovery will be pursued till the disposal of the appeals. We shall appreciate if the revenue authorities do not use any coercive method for recovery of the amounts during the pendency of the stay applications. Matters be listed for mention on 27th )anuary,1993.
-
1992 (9) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability of goods consumed during testing ... ... ... ... ..... hemphar Drugs and Liniments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 becomes applicable wherein the Supreme Court held that the longer period under Section 11A can be invoked only where a manufacturer had deliberately withheld relevant information from the Department. In this view of the matter, the demand for duty beyond six months will be hit by limitation. This will apply to the show cause notice dated 11-6-1984 for the period 21-10-1982 to 10-10-1983. In the other two cases, the Department has issued the show cause notice only for the period within six months. Therefore, they are not hit by limitation. As for the personal penalty on the appellants, herein, in view of the finding above on the question of suppression of facts and as the records and evidence do not disclose any mala fides on the part of the appellants in this respect, the order imposing penalty on them does appear harsh and it is, accordingly, set aside in all the three appeals. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (9) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ackage rdquo within the meaning of Section 168 of the erstwhile Sea Customs Act, 1878. In the instant case admittedly the bales of contraband goods were found loaded in the subject containers. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid cases we hold that the containers in which the bales of subject goods were found loaded are not ldquo packages rdquo within the meaning of Section 118(a) of the Act. Moreover, from the evidence on record we also find that these containers were hired for transporting the bales of contraband goods. Coupled with the fact that the instant Additional Collector has himself not imposed any penalty upon the appellants observing that there is no evidence on record to implicate them in the case for the purpose of penal liability. (See paragraph 26 of the impugned Order.) 6. In the result we set aside the impugned order so far as it relates to the confiscation of six containers in question and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1992 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... them from the Notification issued under Rule 57A. In our view, such a denial cannot be resorted to by means of a Trade Notice, especially when the provision of the Trade Notice are repugnant to the ratios of the decision of the Supreme Court and also against the very economic criterion behind the Modvat Scheme. 14. In the result, judged from all angles, we are satisfied that the appeals are required to be allowed. Hence we allow all the appeals on this main issue but would give the liberty to the Department to verify on the factual position, as to whether the dry cells are supplied only of the required number for each Clock and they are packed and sealed with the each Clock and the value of dry cell is included in the assessable value of the Quartz Clock. If, on such verification, the authorities find the position as stated by the appellants before us, they are directed to restore the Credits, which were earlier disallowed by them. Appeals are thus allowed in the above terms.
-
1992 (9) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... and place of removal in the course of wholesale trade as the value of goods on which duty is to be assessed. In other words, it envisages cash payment by the buyer of the goods to the assessee in lieu of delivery of the goods at the time and place of removal thereby it eliminates all expenses connected with recovery of such payment. Bank charges is nothing but an expense incurred by the assessee in realisation of the sale proceeds of the goods. These charges are recovered by the assessee from its customers. These would not therefore, form part of the value of goods in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. It is on this basis that interest on receivables has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Gas, supra, as not to form part of the assessable value of the goods. Analogy of the ratio of the said judgment would apply to the bank charges as well. Accordingly, we do not find any merit on this point as well. 3. In short, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s credit by them under Rule 173-I(2) in their account current, whereas in the Balaji Fasteners case the assessment was completed by the Superintendent which brought out the excess payment by the appellants therein. 12. In view of the difference in the facts and circumstances of the two cases I agree with the finding of my Learned Brother that the decision in the Balaji Fasteners case is distinguishable and has no application in the case before us. As pointed out therein, the payment of Balaji was in excess of the amount assessed as duty. Here, no payment in excess of what was assessed as duty has been paid. But there is finding and there cannot be one that all excess payments, irrespective of what had been declared and approved in the classification list, would be regulated under Rule 173-I and no refund claim under Sec. 11B would be necessary. That would banish Section 11B into cold storage. For these reasons, I agree with my Learned Brother that the appeal merits rejection.
-
1992 (9) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-import by post - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... n not imposing a penalty on the appellant and allowing the goods to be exported. However since the Customs have not filed any cross objection or cross appeal and there is no prayer from the Customs side for considering enhancement of punishment I am not persuing this aspect further. The goods however have been rightly confiscated and the importation thereof in the above circumstances could only be ascribed to the appellants (their post-facto withdrawal of claim or denial notwithstanding) and in fact looking to the seriousness of the case and violation a higher fine would have been justified in the circumstances of the case. In any eventuality there was no cause for setting aside the order of confiscation. The permission granted by the Additional Collector to re-export was only an act of leniency on his part. 32. Further in the above circumstances, the case law cited by the appellant does not help their case and their prayer was not justified. The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1992 (9) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... , it cannot be said that it is not a manufactured product or goods. The Collector (Appeals) finding that it is nothing but a chemical product classifiable under Heading 38.23 as chemical products and preparations of chemical or allied industries not elsewhere specified or included appears to be a correct one. We, therefore, hold that the spend acid is not sulphuric acid classifiable under Heading 28.07 but a chemical product classifiable under Heading 38.23. It also follows that Modvat credit taken or allowed in respect of sulphuric acid used as input in the manufacture of Nitrobenzene and Acid Slurry cannot be reversed as the provisions of Rule 57F are not applicable hereto. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are rightly entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit and that the Modvat credit is not to be restricted to the duty element on the concentrated sulphuric acid actually consumed in sulphonation reaction. 6. In the result all the 3 appeals are liable to be dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... f the notification, it will have to be held that the Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus is a Life Saving Equipment and it should answer that description and fulfil the requirements of Life Saving Equipment. Since the manufacturers themselves are not satisfied that this requirement is fulfilled, the claim for exemption from duty has rightly been denied by the learned Additional Collector. 10. The appellants have not placed any evidence before us in support of their claim that the fine in lieu of confiscation is high or is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. We find that the Additional Collector has recorded reasons for imposing penalty on the ground of deliberate mis-declaration with intention to evade payment of duty and circumvent the provisions of ITC regulations. The appellants, on the other hand, have not placed any material on record which would justify reduction of fine and penalty. The appeal, therefore, fails and is rejected.
-
1992 (9) TMI 194 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... We do not find any decision on the said lines under the above reference. However, we do not agree with the appellants rsquo contention regarding the scope of the corrective action under Rule 173-I. The said Rule which has been extracted by us in para 8 supra provides for further enquiry by the officer as he may consider necessary before he assesses the duty and complete the Assessment Memorandum. If a mere arithmetical rectification is all that is permissible under the said Rule, no such enquiry would appear to be necessary. Where the payment of duty reported in the RT-12 return is not consistent with the declaration in the classification list regarding the rate of duty including credit provisions, taking corrective action by indicating the short payment would be within the scope of the said Rule and a notice under Section 11A would not be required. This is the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order. We uphold this view and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
-
1992 (9) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... es not constitute an industrial plant as the activity viz. compilation of data on Floppies does not amount to manufacture or production within the meaning of Regulation 3(3)(b) of the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965. His objection does not held good in view of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Saraswati Stores v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 1985 (22) E.L.T. 68 (Tri.) 1985 (5) ECR 1891 which in turn follows the Madras Court decision in the Das Colour Labs case. In a recent decision in the case of DPS India P Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - Order No. C/100/92-B2, dated 4-8-1992, reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 837 (Tri.), the Tribunal has followed its earlier decision in the case of Saraswati Stores, holding that the service industries are not excluded from the scope and coverage of Project Import. 5. Following the ratio of the earlier orders we uphold the impugned order and reject and appeal of the Department.
-
1992 (9) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fting, handling, loading or unloading machinery, telphers and conveyors (for example, lifts, holds, winches, cranes, transporter cranes, jacks, pulley tackle, belt conveyors and teleferics) not being machinery falling within Heading No 84.23 . 3. This is a specific entry for handling machinery. Heading 84.59 which covers machines and mechanical appliance having individual functions not falling within any other heading of this chapter, is a residuary entry which cannot be preferred to a specific entry. There is no dispute that the machineries carry out the functions of pulling and tensioning the cable during the stringing operation and therefore, can rightly be considered as handling machinery. The learned SDR has not advanced any argument to dislodge the finding arrived at by the lower appellate authority, 4. In the light of the above discussions, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss these appeals.
-
1992 (9) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... here is no provision in the Act empowering the Board to issue directions to the assessing authorities or the appellate authorities in the matter of deciding disputes between the persons who are called upon to pay duty and the department. Therefore, trade notices as such issued by the Board are not relevant considerations. In the case of Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., 1987 (29) E.L.T. 182, it was held by this Tribunal that departmental instructions have no binding effect on the Tribunal. Thus, we reject the contention of the learned Counsel that the said Notification No. 242/76-Cus. exempts the Refractory Blocks also. In this view of the matter, we are not called upon to decide the alternative contention of the learned JDR that even otherwise no benefit of the Notification can be extended to the appellants since they do not satisfy the other conditions of the Notification. 6. In the result, we reject the appeal being devoid of any merit.
-
1992 (9) TMI 190 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... be taken only if the inputs were actually accompanied by the duty paying documents, in terms of the proviso clause. This was amended by Notification 25/87, dated 1-3-1987, which provided that the documents can follow within such period as the Collector may permit. After the amendment by Notification 117/87, the position has only been made simpler in that it is sufficient now if the inputs are received under the cover of the duty paying documents which means that the GP 1 or AR 1 etc may come first and the inputs may follow or vice versa. The interpretation placed by the Assistant Collector simply does not ograve i follow from the proviso as it reads now. Again, no power has been granted to the Assistant Collector to condone delay etc. if any in the receipt of the documents warranting the remarks of the Assistant Collector in the order. The Assistant Collector is clearly in error and his order cannot be sustained in law. ORDER For the reasons stated above, I allow the appeal.
-
1992 (9) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tannic Acid conforming to British Pharmacopoeia only as a reagent and not suitable for use as medicine
-
1992 (9) TMI 188 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... n granted as it was fully consistent with Rule 56A. There is no provision therein to limit the benefit to only clearances to their own unit for further use in the manufacture of wire rope. The Collector (Appeals) clearly fell in error in upholding the erroneous order of the Assistant Collector and also brought in Notification 95/83 dated 1-3-1983 which, as we have pointed out supra, had, not only, no application in the manufacture of wire rods from billets but had also not actually been applied for by the appellants themselves for their Jamshedpur unit. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allow the appeal. The effect of this will be that the appellants rsquo request made to the Assistant Collector vide their letter dated 21-11-1984 for the benefit under Rule 56A for the manufacture of dutiable wire rods from duty paid billets would stand allowed without any restriction as to the destination of the clearances of such duty paid wire rods.
............
|