Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1991 1991 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 141 to 160 of 385 Records

• 1991 (1) TMI 262
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of grids, connectors, straps, and terminals.
  2. Determination of whether the items are cast articles or wrought lead.
  3. Applicability of Tariff Item (T.I.) 68 versus T.I. 27A(5).
  4. Validity of the demand notice and the issue of limitation.
  5. Jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue the show cause notice.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Grids, Connectors, Straps, and Terminals:
  The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of grids, connectors, straps, and terminals manufactured by the appellants for use in electric storage batteries. The appellant contends that these items fall under T.I. 68, while the Department has classified them under T.I. 27A(5) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
  
  2. Determination of Whether the Items are Cast Articles or Wrought Lead:
  The appellant argues that the items are cast articles and not of wrought lead. They assert that the items are not machined beyond casting, except for the grids which are guillotined, passed through wooden rollers, and trimmed. The Department, however, contends that the process of strengthening in the conveyor amounts to further working, rendering the items as wrought lead.
  
  3. Applicability of Tariff Item (T.I.) 68 versus T.I. 27A(5):
  The appellant maintains that the items should be classified under T.I. 68, which is a residuary entry, whereas the Department argues for classification under T.I. 27A(5), which covers wrought lead in the form of shapes, sections, angles, etc. The Tribunal examined the definitions and explanatory notes from various sources, including the Brussels Trade Nomenclature and technical dictionaries, to determine the meaning of "wrought" and the specific forms of metals.
  
  4. Validity of the Demand Notice and the Issue of Limitation:
  The appellant contends that the demand is time-barred in the absence of suppression, as they have regularly filed classification lists under T.I. 68 since 1975. The Department issued a show cause notice on 29-4-1986 demanding duty for the period from 1-8-1984 to 31-1-1986. The Tribunal found that the demand is barred by limitation as the allegation of suppression was not established by the Department.
  
  5. Jurisdiction of the Proper Officer to Issue the Show Cause Notice:
  The appellant argues that the show cause notice suffers from lack of jurisdiction as it was issued by the Assistant Collector, who ceased to be the proper officer for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sec. 11A subsequent to 27-11-1985. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, noting that the Assistant Collector was not competent to issue the notice invoking the extended period of limitation after the amendment of Section 11A on 27-11-1985.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in E/A/2989/87B1, allowing the appeal of the appellant. They upheld the order of the Collector in E/A/3357/87B1 and E/A/2424/87B1, dismissing these two appeals. The Tribunal concluded that the items in question do not fall within the definition of wrought lead under T.I. 27A(5) and are correctly classifiable under T.I. 68. Additionally, the demand for duty was found to be time-barred and issued without proper jurisdiction.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 261
  
  Issues: Determination of correct value for customs duty calculation of imported goods.
  
  In this case, the main issue was the determination of the correct value for customs duty calculation of imported goods, specifically polystyrene resin High Impact Grade No. HR 60. The appellants declared a value of US $1050 PMT CIF, but the Customs authorities believed that the price was not correctly declared. The Customs sought to determine the assessable value under Rule 11 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, read with Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they felt the declared price did not align with the evidence available. The Assistant Collector fixed the price at US $1200 PMT, citing discrepancies in the declared value and evidence available.
  
  The first issue addressed was the Customs' decision to enhance the value of the imported goods to US $1200 PMT under Rule 11 read with Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector based this decision on the belief that the importer's declared price did not align with the evidence available with the department. The appellants argued that the Customs authorities erred in rejecting the transaction value by comparing incomparable goods and ignoring evidence of invoices by the same supplier for the same goods. The appellants contended that Rule 11 was improperly applied and that the declared value should have been accepted as the price for assessment purposes.
  
  The second issue involved the Collector (Appeals) upholding the Customs' decision, noting that the high impact Grade No. HR 60 was considered costlier than general purpose polystyrene resin GP 125 and G 144. The Collector could not accept that the same supplier would charge different prices to different parties for similar goods. However, the appellants argued that the goods compared were of different grades, imported at different times, on different vessels, and from different suppliers. The appellants emphasized that the Customs ignored evidence supporting their declared value.
  
  The third issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with the Valuation Rules. The Customs authorities justified their decision to enhance the value based on Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules, stating that the declared value did not satisfy Section 14(1). The appellants contested this application of Rule 11, asserting that the transaction value should be accepted if at arm's length and in accordance with the valuation rules.
  
  In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal held that the declared value of US $1050 should be accepted for customs duty calculation purposes. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented, including invoices from the same supplier and importation prices of similar goods, supported the appellants' declared value. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following Section 14(1)(A) read with Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules in determining the value of imported goods, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 260
  
  Issues: Classification of imported Synthetic Plasticizer under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved the classification of Synthetic Plasticizer (aromatic) imported in 1985 under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The main issue was whether the product should be assessed under Heading 39.01/06 as contended by the Revenue or under Heading 38.01/19 as claimed by the respondents. The respondents sought a refund of excess duty paid, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector but allowed by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.
  
  The Tribunal considered the nature of the product, described as a Synthetic Plasticizer in the manufacturers' literature and tested by the Customs Laboratory in 1987. The technical opinion described the product as an Aromatic Polyether with a molecular weight of about 500, used as a rubber plasticizer. The appellant-Collector argued that the substance should be classified under Heading 39.01/06 as a polymer, emphasizing that the use of the substance as a plasticizer was irrelevant. The Collector contended that Chapter 38 is a residuary chapter for chemical products, while polyethers are specifically covered by Chapter 39.
  
  Referring to a previous case involving the classification of plasticizers, the Tribunal noted that the product in question did not conform to the definition of polymerization products under Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 39. Despite the Collector's argument that the product in the present case was different from the previous case as it was a polymer and not a resin, the Tribunal found no significant distinction. The Tribunal emphasized that the crucial aspect was whether the product met the definition of polymerization products for the purpose of Heading 39.01/06, which the Revenue failed to establish.
  
  Based on the discussion and precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under Heading 38.01/19(6) rather than Heading 39.01/06 as contended by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order allowing the refund and dismissed the appeal brought by the Collector.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 259
  
  Issues:
  1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Sec. 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  2. Applicability of inter-departmental communication as a sufficient cause for delay.
  3. Comparison of judgments related to delay in filing appeals.
  4. Interpretation of the legal provisions on condonation of delay and substantial justice.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The Collector of Customs, Bombay filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appeal was received after a delay of 108 days, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant attributed the delay to administrative delays in various departments involved in processing the appeal, emphasizing the technical and legal complexities of the case. The appellant requested condonation of the delay under Sec. 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  
  2. The appellant argued that the delay was due to inter-departmental communication issues, citing a Supreme Court judgment that emphasized not requiring an explanation for each day's delay. The appellant contended that the delay was not due to negligence or carelessness, and the delay should be condoned based on bona fide intentions.
  
  3. The respondent opposed the condonation of delay, citing a judgment applicable to the facts of the case. Additionally, the respondent relied on various judgments, including those related to other cases of delay in filing appeals. The respondent argued for the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, asserting that the appeal was time-barred.
  
  4. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances of the case, noting discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the appeal records. Referring to relevant legal precedents, including judgments by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of the expiration of the limitation period and the need for a sufficient cause to excuse delay. The Tribunal concluded that there was negligence on the part of the appellant, and no sufficient cause existed for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred without delving into its merits, based on the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of delay in filing appeals, the significance of inter-departmental communication as a cause for delay, and the application of legal principles regarding condonation of delay and substantial justice in the context of customs law.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 258
  
  Issues:
  Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delay.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original dated 9-2-1990 by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. The appellants sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, stating that a Writ Petition directed them to file the appeal within ten days from 28-8-1990. The appellants argued that the appeal was filed on 21-9-1990, within ten days of receiving the certified copy of the order on 12-9-1990. The respondent contended that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated ten days and should be dismissed as time-barred. The respondent emphasized that the certified copy was received on 29-8-1990, not 12-9-1990 as claimed by the appellants. The respondent argued that there was no legal requirement to enclose the certified copy with the appeal and that the appellants could have filed the appeal within ten days, mentioning the High Court's direction in the appeal itself.
  
  The Tribunal noted that appeals under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 must be filed within three months of the communicated order, with provision for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The appellants claimed that the High Court's direction in the Writ Petition allowed them to file the appeal within ten days from 28-8-1990. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal was not filed within ten days of the order, as required. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the ten-day period should be counted from the receipt of the certified copy, stating that there was no legal necessity to enclose the certified copy with the appeal. The Tribunal held that the appellants' delay in applying for the certified copy of the High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 141 of 1990 showed negligence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. No other points were raised during the hearing, and the application for condonation of delay was rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and related applications.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 257
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of pipes and pipe fittings (specifically sockets).
  2. Application of exemption Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1-8-1983.
  3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A.
  4. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Pipes and Pipe Fittings:
  The core issue revolves around the classification of 'Iron and Steel Pipe fittings (Sockets).' The appellants contended that prior to 1-8-1983, these goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(iv) as pipes and tubes (including blanks therefor) and post 1-8-1983, under Tariff Item 25(15). After 1-3-1986, they argued that the classification should be under 73.03 as Tubes and Pipes and Blanks therefor, of iron or steel. The department, however, classified these items under Tariff Item 68 prior to 28-2-1986 and under sub-heading 7305.00 after 28-2-1986.
  
  The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Forge & Press Industries v. C.C.E., which covered similar issues. The Supreme Court held that pipes/tubes under heading T.I. 26AA(iv) encompass all types of pipes and pipe fittings. The Tribunal agreed that prior to 1-3-1986, the goods should be classified under T.I. 26AA(iv) and T.I. 25(15), rejecting the department's classification under T.I. 68. However, post 1-3-1986, the Tribunal found that the specific heading 7305.00 for fittings for tubes and pipes was applicable, making it the correct classification for the sockets.
  
  2. Application of Exemption Notification No. 208/83-CE:
  The appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1-8-1983. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the application of this notification in the judgment, focusing instead on the classification issues. However, by determining the correct classification, the Tribunal indirectly influenced the applicability of any exemptions tied to specific tariff headings.
  
  3. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation under Section 11A:
  The department invoked the extended period under Section 11A, citing the appellant's failure to obtain a Central Excise license and comply with excise formalities. The Tribunal majority found that the extended period was justified, as the appellant's actions amounted to evasion of duty. However, one member dissented, arguing that the prevailing practice and lack of deliberate intent to evade duty should limit the demand to six months prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.
  
  4. Imposition of Penalty and Confiscation of Goods:
  The Principal Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 and ordered the confiscation of 4122 pieces of Iron and Steel pipe fittings, allowing redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal majority upheld the penalty but reduced it to Rs. 25,000, while the dissenting member argued against any penalty or confiscation, citing the lack of deliberate intent to evade duty.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal concluded that:
  - Prior to 1-8-1983, the goods should be classified under T.I. 26AA(iv).
  - Between 1-8-1983 and 1-3-1986, the classification should be under T.I. 25(15).
  - Post 1-3-1986, the classification should be under Heading 7305.
  - The demand for duty should be limited to a period of six months prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.
  - The penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000, and the confiscation and fine were upheld.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of accurate classification in determining the applicability of exemptions and the invocation of extended periods for duty demands.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 256
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to legality of judgment, interpretation of Import-Export Policy, rejection of blanket permit application, compliance with export requirements, entitlement to blanket permit, authority of Reserve Bank, refusal of export house certificate, grant of relief to respondents.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment involves an appeal by the Joint Controller, Reserve Bank of India, Exchange Control Department, challenging the legality of a previous judgment that quashed a decision regarding the issuance of a blanket permit under the Import-Export Policy. The dispute arose from the rejection of a blanket permit application made by the respondents based on the provisions of the Policy for the year 1978-79.
  
  To understand the respondents' claim, it is essential to review the background facts. The Government announced an Import-Export Policy in 1978, including provisions for registration of Export Houses and utilization of foreign exchange. The respondents applied for an export house certificate, which was initially rejected by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. However, a subsequent court judgment set aside this rejection, and the certificate was eventually issued.
  
  Following the receipt of the export house certificate, the respondents applied for a blanket permit for promotional activities abroad. The application was rejected on the grounds that the permit was not available for the year 1983 for earlier years. Despite representations made by the respondents, the appellants declined to reconsider the decision, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
  
  The appellants argued that the decision to refuse the blanket permit was justified, citing the year-specific nature of the permit under the I.T.C. Scheme. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the entitlement to the permit was based on compliance with export requirements and the issuance of the export house certificate. The court held that the refusal to grant the permit due to delays in certificate issuance was unjustifiable.
  
  Furthermore, the court rejected the appellants' attempt to disassociate from the Chief Controller's error in refusing the export house certificate, emphasizing the interconnected roles of the authorities under the import-export policy. The court upheld the previous judgments and directed the appellants to issue the blanket permit in accordance with the Policy for the relevant period.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were instructed to issue the blanket permit as per the Import-Export Policy's provisions for the specified year, emphasizing the respondents' entitlement based on compliance with export requirements and the court's previous decisions.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 255
  
  The issue in the appeals was whether Sodium Hypochlorite is eligible for exemption as Bleach Liquor. The Tribunal upheld that Bleach Liquor includes both Calcium and Sodium Hypochlorite based on industry understanding. The appeals were dismissed. The so-called cross objections by the respondents were dismissed as well.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 254
  
  Issues:
  1. Application of tolerance in test results for classification of goods.
  2. Liability of respondents to pay duty based on the classification of goods.
  3. Time limitation for issuing demand notice.
  4. Allegation of deliberate mis-statement of fabric composition to evade duty.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The case revolves around the application of tolerance in test results to determine the classification of goods. The respondents declared a quantity of shirting cloth as man-made fabrics, but upon testing, it was found to have a composition of 51.3% wool fibers and 48.7% non-cellulosic fibers. The Assistant Collector classified it as woollen fabric and demanded differential duty. However, the respondents claimed tolerance under a circular allowing 2.5% tolerance in mixed fabrics, which the lower authority did not extend. The Tribunal noted that test results may not always be accurate, and the tolerance factor should be applied in favor of the assessee, as per the circular guidelines.
  
  2. The appellant argued that even after allowing the tolerance, wool remained the predominant fiber in the fabric. The Tribunal analyzed the composition based on the tolerance factor and concluded that the correct composition of the fabric favored the respondents. The appellant alleged that the respondents deliberately misstated the fabric composition to evade duty, invoking an extended period of limitation. However, the Tribunal found no tangible evidence supporting this claim and upheld the respondents' position.
  
  3. Regarding the time limitation for issuing a demand notice, the Tribunal observed that the notice was issued after the standard 6-month period. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of deliberate mis-declaration by the respondents to justify the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Without such evidence, the Tribunal found the demand notice to be time-barred.
  
  4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order in favor of the respondents, dismissing the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of applying tolerance in test results, the lack of evidence supporting deliberate misstatement by the respondents, and the adherence to time limitations for issuing demand notices.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 253
  
  Issues:
  Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to decide duty exemption matter under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  Competence and jurisdiction of the Collector to re-open proceedings and review the Assistant Collector's order under the amended Section 11A of the Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The case involved a dispute where the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, confirmed a demand against the appellants under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, related to availing duty exemption on Vegetable Product. The appellants failed to give timely notice to the Assistant Collector, leading to a demand for recovery. The Assistant Collector initially accepted the appellants' contention and dropped the demand. However, the Collector intervened, claiming that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction due to an amendment to Section 11A. The Collector re-opened the proceedings, asserting his powers under the proviso to Section 11A. The appellants contested this action, leading to further adjudication by the Collector.
  
  During the proceedings, it was observed that the Assistant Collector had indeed acted beyond his jurisdiction by not transferring the matter to the Collector for adjudication. However, the legality of the Collector's actions under the amended Section 11A was questioned. The Tribunal noted that the Collector, despite criticizing the Assistant Collector's actions, also exceeded his jurisdiction by re-opening the dropped proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that at the relevant time, the Collector had no authority to review or revise the Assistant Collector's order. The Collector could only direct the Assistant Collector to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for further determination, as per the provisions of the Act. The amended Section 11A did not empower the Collector to unilaterally re-open or review decisions made by subordinates.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Collector had acted beyond his jurisdiction in re-opening the proceedings and reviewing the Assistant Collector's order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed legal procedures and limitations on the powers of different authorities within the Central Excise framework.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 252
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Limitation for demand of duty u/s 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
  2. Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellants.
  3. Clubbing of clearances for determining eligibility for small scale industries exemption.
  4. Imposition of personal penalties on the appellants.
  
  Summary:
  
  Limitation for Demand of Duty:
  The appellants argued that the demand for duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the six-month period specified u/s 11A. The Tribunal held that the extended period for demand was not justified because the appellants had informed the authorities about their entitlement to exemption and had submitted classification lists that were approved by the Department. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression of facts by the appellants.
  
  Allegation of Suppression of Facts:
  The Department alleged that the appellants suppressed facts about their inter-relationship with Medley Pharmaceuticals to wrongly avail of the small scale industries exemption. The Tribunal found that the appellants had communicated their status and provided necessary documents to the Department, which had conducted investigations and approved the classification lists. Therefore, the charge of suppression of facts was not sustainable.
  
  Clubbing of Clearances:
  The Department contended that the appellants' firms should be treated as a single entity for the purpose of determining eligibility for small scale industries exemption, citing mutual business interests and inter-locking management. The Tribunal observed that the firms were separate legal entities with distinct registrations and no conclusive evidence of financial flow-back among them. The Tribunal referred to precedents which emphasized that common management or pooling of resources alone does not justify clubbing of clearances unless there is evidence of financial control or ownership by a single entity. The Tribunal held that the clearances of the appellants' firms should not be clubbed.
  
  Imposition of Personal Penalties:
  The Department imposed penalties on the appellants, Sami Khatib and Sohel Khatib, under Rule 209A without amending the show cause notice to include this rule. The Tribunal found no specific allegations or evidence against these individuals to justify the penalties. Consequently, the personal penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the demand for duty and penalties imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal held that the extended period for demand was not justified, there was no suppression of facts, and the clearances of the firms should not be clubbed.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 251
  
  Issues: Classification of account books and other registers
  
  In this case, the main issue revolves around the classification of account books, registers, canteen coupons, and other similar products under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute arises from the conflicting interpretations of whether these products should be classified under Chapter 48 or Chapter 49 of the Tariff, which has implications on the applicable duty rates and exemptions.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  The Assistant Collector initially classified the products under consideration as falling within Chapter 48, specifically under sub-heading 4818.90, based on the argument that these items were primarily meant for maintaining day-to-day accounts and were akin to exercise books or stationery. The Assistant Collector emphasized that the printing on these products was incidental to their primary use, leading to the exclusion of these items from Chapter 49 as per Note 8 to Chapter 48.
  
  Upon appeal, the Collector (Appeals) differed in opinion and classified the products under Chapter 49, specifically under Heading 48.18, considering them as products of the printing industry due to being printed. This classification was supported by Note 2 to Chapter 49, which covers products of the printing industry like printed books and newspapers.
  
  The Department filed an appeal against the Collector (Appeals) decision, advocating for the restoration of the Assistant Collector's order classifying the products under Chapter Heading 4818. The Department argued that the products were not products of the printing industry under Chapter 49 but were instead used for maintaining daily accounts, justifying their classification under Chapter Heading 48.18. The Department highlighted the exemption from duty applicable to these items before a specific notification dated 1-3-1987.
  
  During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments citing relevant notifications and provisions. The Departmental Representative referred to Explanatory Notes of HSN to support the classification under Chapter 48.20, while the respondents' Counsel mentioned exemptions under Notification No. 43/86 and Notification No. 28/89-C.E., (NT) to support their stance on the classification of the products.
  
  After careful consideration of the submissions and relevant notifications, the Tribunal concluded that registers, account books, and similar items were correctly classifiable under Chapter 48. The Tribunal highlighted the notifications recognizing the classification under Chapter 48 and exempting these items from duty, ultimately disposing of the appeal in favor of the Department's classification under Chapter 48.
  
  In summary, the judgment clarifies the classification of account books and registers under the Central Excise Tariff Act, emphasizing the importance of relevant notifications and provisions in determining the appropriate classification and duty implications for such products.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 250
  
  Issues:
  1. Stay application and pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
  2. Early hearing application filed before the Tribunal.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Stay Application and Pre-deposit Challenge:
  - Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. filed an appeal against the order by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, and a stay application was registered.
  - The Tribunal initially disposed of the stay application due to the lack of demand quantification.
  - A fresh stay application was filed requesting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, which was conditionally granted by the Tribunal.
  - The applicant challenged this stay order before the Delhi High Court through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227.
  - The High Court issued a notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of the Collector's order.
  - Arguments were made regarding the applicability of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the financial implications on the applicant.
  - The Tribunal considered the merits of the case, previous judgments, and the interim stay order by the High Court.
  - The Tribunal found it inappropriate to express views on early hearing until the High Court's final decision on the matter.
  
  2. Early Hearing Application:
  - The applicant requested early hearing of the appeal based on various grounds, including the matter being time-barred and having a recurring effect.
  - The respondent argued that the previous Tribunal judgment cited by the applicant was distinguishable and the High Court's order was interim.
  - The Tribunal examined the stay application and the High Court's order, emphasizing the need to await the High Court's final decision before considering early hearing.
  - Relevant legal provisions, including Section 35F, were cited and discussed in relation to the pre-deposit requirement pending appeal.
  - The Tribunal deferred the consideration of early hearing until after the High Court's ruling, listing the matter for mention post the High Court's decision.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment involved challenges to a stay order and pre-deposit conditions before the Delhi High Court, alongside an application for early hearing before the Tribunal. The legal arguments revolved around the interpretation of relevant provisions, previous judgments, and the impact on the appellant. The Tribunal opted to await the High Court's final decision before addressing the request for early hearing, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 249
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Nature and scope of the agreement under which the appellants manufacture the biscuits.
  2. Determination of assessable value.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Nature and Scope of the Agreement:
  The appellants, engaged in manufacturing and selling biscuits, entered into a job work agreement with M/s. Britania Inds. Ltd. (BIL). As per the agreement dated 15th December 1986, BIL supplies raw materials and controls the manufacturing process, including quality control and specifications. The appellants are paid job work charges and are responsible for compliance with Central Excise Act provisions. The agreement stipulates that the title to the manufactured biscuits vests in BIL immediately upon completion of the manufacturing process, indicating that the appellants act as agents for BIL rather than independent manufacturers.
  
  2. Determination of Assessable Value:
  The appellants submitted price lists based on the cost of raw materials and conversion charges following the Supreme Court's judgment in Ujagar Prints. The Asstt. Collector issued a show cause notice proposing to disapprove these price lists, arguing that the assessable value should be based on the wholesale price at which BIL sells the biscuits. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this view, stating that the appellants are essentially an extended arm of BIL and not independent sellers. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the relationship between the appellants and BIL is that of principal and agent. Consequently, the assessable value should be the price at which BIL sells the biscuits in the wholesale market, as the goods are not sold by the appellants to BIL in a wholesale trade.
  
  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellants are agents of BIL and the assessable value should be based on the price at which BIL sells the biscuits in the open market. The judgment emphasized that the appellants' contention for determining the assessable value based on job work charges alone would result in an incongruous situation where identical products would be assessed at different values depending on the manufacturer.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 248
  
  Issues:
  - Valuation of imported transistors
  - Nexus in time between importations
  - Reliability of quotations as evidence
  - Quantity discount consideration
  - Mis-declaration of value by Customs
  - Evidence of illegal remittance of foreign exchange
  - Fair negotiation of import price
  
  Valuation of imported transistors:
  The case involved a dispute over the value of transistors imported by the appellants, which was initially declared at Rs. 1,06,160 but was enhanced by Customs to Rs. 2,13,841.78. The appellants argued that the transistors were critical components for dish antennas and were manufactured by only two units globally. They contended that the Customs' valuation was based on insufficient evidence, including an earlier import by another party and quotations from Singapore and Hong Kong. The appellants emphasized the uniqueness of the transistors and the lack of nexus in time and quantity between the earlier import and their own, challenging the reliability of the quotations provided by Customs.
  
  Nexus in time between importations:
  The Tribunal noted the lack of a temporal connection between the earlier importation used by Customs as a basis for valuation and the current importation by the appellants. While the Customs relied on a past import by another entity for 200 transistors, the appellants imported a significantly larger quantity (6000 pieces) at a different time. The Tribunal considered the absence of evidence regarding quantity discounts and highlighted the discrepancy in scale between the two importations as a relevant factor in assessing the valuation.
  
  Reliability of quotations as evidence:
  The Tribunal scrutinized the quotations provided by Customs as evidence of the transistors' value. It found one quotation to be illegible and questioned the clarity of the sender of the second quotation. Considering the controlled nature of the item's sales and the lack of clarity on the source of the quotations, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence was unreliable and could not serve as a basis for valuation. The Tribunal also highlighted the appellants' submission regarding the questionable nature of the quotations, which was not adequately addressed by the adjudicating officer.
  
  Mis-declaration of value by Customs:
  The Tribunal assessed the Customs' decision to enhance the value of the imported transistors and found it lacking in acceptable evidence. It emphasized that the impugned order was not based on substantiated facts or reliable evidence, particularly regarding the valuation of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the Customs had not conclusively proved mis-declaration of value by the appellants and set aside the impugned order, directing relief for the appellants.
  
  Evidence of illegal remittance of foreign exchange:
  The Tribunal acknowledged the complexity of proving illegal remittances of foreign exchange and noted the absence of concrete evidence in the case. Despite the appellants' importation of a monopoly item, the Tribunal highlighted the lack of material to support a finding that the import price was not fairly negotiated. It considered the appellants' arguments and the absence of evidence justifying the Customs' actions regarding the valuation of the imported goods.
  
  Fair negotiation of import price:
  In evaluating the fairness of the import price negotiated by the appellants, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence indicating any wrongdoing or irregularity in the pricing. It noted the absence of proof that others could not have imported the goods at similar prices under comparable circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that there was no substantiated evidence to support the Customs' valuation decision and ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and directing appropriate relief.
  
  This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal issues and the Tribunal's comprehensive assessment of the evidence and arguments presented in the case concerning the valuation of imported transistors and related matters.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 247
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Justification of relying on stock reports for proving clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods.
  2. Consideration of averments made in the plaint before the Delhi High Court as conclusive proof.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Justification of relying on stock reports for proving clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods.
  
  The appellants, M/s. Roxy Enterprises (P) Limited, were charged with suppressing the production of electric wires and cables valued at Rs. 86,97,946.80 and evading Central Excise duty of Rs. 10,31,772/-. The Department's case was based on discrepancies between stock reports submitted to the State Bank of India and the entries in the RG-1 Register. The appellants argued that the inflated stock figures were for obtaining more credit from the bank and that the records were destroyed in a fire. The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.
  
  The Tribunal found that the Department had not discharged the burden of proving clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. The reliance solely on stock reports from the bank was deemed insufficient without corroborative evidence of actual production and clearance. Previous cases cited by the appellants supported the view that mere discrepancies in stock reports do not constitute proof of clandestine manufacture. Therefore, the Department was not justified in levying duty and penalty based solely on these reports.
  
  Issue 2: Consideration of averments made in the plaint before the Delhi High Court as conclusive proof.
  
  The Department argued that the averments made by the appellants in a plaint before the Delhi High Court, which indicated higher production and sales figures, constituted an admission of clandestine manufacture. The appellants contended that these statements were made in a different context and should not be considered as conclusive evidence. The Tribunal held that admissions made in different contexts could not be taken as conclusive proof without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof remained with the Department to substantiate the charges with concrete evidence, which was not done in this case.
  
  Separate Judgment:
  
  The Technical Member, however, disagreed, emphasizing that the appellants failed to provide any evidence of purchasing the goods from the market. The Technical Member found the stock reports and the statements of bank officials credible and sufficient to support the charges. The Technical Member upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
  
  The President of CEGAT referred the point of difference to another Member, who agreed with the Technical Member, concluding that the stock verification report, authenticated by the appellants and bank officials, constituted adequate evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the majority finding that the stock verification report and the statements of bank officials provided sufficient evidence to support the charges of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 246
  
  Issues: Classification of imported goods under Tariff Heading 59.16/17 or 59.01/15.
  
  In this case, the appellants imported goods described as "Dust Catcher Bags Tubing (Non Woven Filter Media) Dia 4.5" polyester T/560/TSS in random length of 50 mtrs." The appellants claimed the assessment of the goods under Tariff Heading 59.16/17 as textile fabrics commonly used in machinery or plant. However, the department assessed the goods under Tariff Heading 59.01/15, which includes felt. The lower appellate authority held that the goods, being in running lengths and not cut to shape and size, do not qualify as textile articles commonly used in machinery or plant, falling under Tariff Heading 59.01/15.
  
  The appellants argued that the imported goods are industrial fabrics with special treatments for dust collection purposes, relying on a catalogue and a manufacturer's certificate detailing special treatments like acid-resistant finish, fume collection efficiency, dust release efficiency, flame retardant finish, liquid repellant finish, antistatic finish, and surface treatment. The consultant contended that these special finishes make the fabric suitable only for machinery purposes, justifying classification under Tariff Heading 59.16/17.
  
  The SDR, on the other hand, referred to Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 59, defining "Textile Fabrics and Textile articles of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant." The SDR argued that the imported goods did not meet the criteria specified in the note, thus falling outside Tariff Heading 59.16/17 and under Tariff Heading 59.01/15. The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that while the goods were indeed a type of textile fabric commonly used in machinery or plant, the definition in Chapter Note 4 had to be strictly applied.
  
  The Tribunal reviewed Chapter Note 4(a) to Chapter 59, which lists specific textile products falling under Tariff Heading 59.16/17, such as textile fabrics coated with rubber, bolting cloth, and woven fabrics for paper-making machinery. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods did not align with any of the descriptions in the note, especially noting that the liquid repellant finish treatment made them unsuitable for certain machinery uses. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the department's classification under Tariff Heading 59.01/15, emphasizing the importance of Chapter Notes in tariff classification.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the department's classification of the imported goods under Tariff Heading 59.01/15 based on the specific criteria outlined in Chapter Note 4 and the inapplicability of Tariff Heading 59.16/17 to the goods in question.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 245
  
  Issues:
  Classification of imported printed aptitude test booklets under Tariff Item 49.01 of ICT or Heading 48.01/21(1) of ICT.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, regarding the classification of imported printed aptitude test booklets. The dispute was whether the booklets fell under Tariff Item 49.01 as claimed by the appellants or under Heading 48.01/21(1) as held by the Department. The Deputy Collector classified the booklets as stationery material under Tariff Item 48.01/21(1) and ordered confiscation. The appellants argued that the booklets were educational in nature, not stationery, and should be classified under Tariff Item 49.01. They emphasized the distinction between exercise books and the imported booklets, highlighting the educational purpose and copyright protection of the booklets.
  
  The Department justified the classification under Heading 48.01/21(1) based on the booklets' potential use as exercise/answer books. They argued that the term "stationery" should be interpreted broadly, considering international standards. They also referenced CCN Explanatory Note 48.18 to support their classification. The appellants refuted these claims, stating that the booklets were not mere answer books and should not be classified as stationery. They pointed out errors in the impugned order's reference to Tariff Item 48.14 instead of 48.18 and disagreed with the classification as a note book.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed both entries in the Customs Tariff, noting that Tariff Entry 48.01/21 covers general paper products, while Chapter 49 specifically covers printed books, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, and leaflets. After examining the booklets and submissions, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the booklets were educational printed material, not stationery. They found that the specific description under Tariff Entry 49.01 aligned with the booklets' nature and held that specific description should prevail over general headings. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal confirmed that even sheets with a continuous link could be classified as books under Chapter 49. Consequently, the Tribunal classified the imported booklets as printed books under Heading 49.01.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the imported printed aptitude test booklets were classified under Tariff Item 49.01 as printed books, granting consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 244
  

  Whether the confirmation of detention order upon accepting the report of the Advisory Board renders itself invalid solely on the ground that the representation of the detenu was not considered and the subsequent consideration of the representation would not cure that invalidity?

  Held that:- The confirmation of the order of detention is not conclusive as against the detenu. It can be revoked suo motu under Section 11 or upon a representation of the detenu. It seems to us therefore, that so long as the representation is independently considered by the Government and if there is no delay in considering the representation, the fact that it is considered after the confirmation of detention makes little difference on the validity of the detention or confirmation of the detention. The confirmation cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that the representation is considered subsequent to confirmation of the detention. Nor it could be presumed that such consideration is not an independent consideration.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 243
  

  Whether the restrictions placed on the powers of the Court to grant bail in certain offences under the amended Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable to the High Court?

  Held that:- The powers of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439 are subject to the limitations contained in the amended Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the restrictions placed on the powers of the Court under the said Section are applicable to the High Court also in the matter of granting bail. The point of law is ordered accordingly.

  The two accused respondents in these two appeals have been on bail pursuant to the order of the High Court, for a long time. The learned counsel appearing for the Narcotics Control Bureau, the appellants herein, is also not pressing cancellation of the bail. Therefore, we are not remitting the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration. Pending the proceedings, they would continue to be on bail. Subject to the above clarification of law, the appeals are disposed of.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 20