|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s been observed that nomex is referred to as a sheet having the appearance of paper or paper-board used mainly for electrical insulating. Here what is imported is not nomex paper but a product called Trivoltherm-N which is described in the related catalogue under the heading ldquo electrical insulation rdquo . The goods imported is a composite article made up of polyester film glued on either side with nomex paper. The technical write-up extracted above also brings out essential character of the goods as an electrical insulation. In the circumstances, classification of the goods in the proposed order of the Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) under sub-heading 85.46 is agreed to. Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) Dated 21-4-1994 Member (T) FINAL ORDER 25. emsp In view of the majority opinion the subject goods ldquo Trivoltherm-N-O are classifiable under sub-heading 85.46 and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) (Lajja Ram) Dated -4-1994 Member (J) Member (T)
-
1994 (4) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... These two sub-headings clearly draw a distinction between coffee and its substitutes, the former to fall under sub-heading 2101.10 and the latter to fall under sub-heading 2101.30. We have already taken the view that this mixture is not a coffee substitute. It is modified coffee inclusive of coffee and chicory. In other words it is an adulterated coffee with mixture whether this was sold as instant coffee or instant coffee chicory blend it is more akin to the description given in Tariff Entry 2101.10. It is an admitted fact that it is a mixture prepared from coffee-chicory powder. Since it was prepared with a basis of coffee extract and in view of the description in sub-heading 2101.10 that preparations with a basis of these extracts, essences or concentrates or with a basis of coffee, we are of the view that the Department was justified in classifying this coffee chicory mixture under sub-heading 2101.10 of Central Excise Tariff. These two appeals are dismissed accordingly.
-
1994 (4) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the category of such bricks as it was rightly pointed out by the Senior Departmental Representative. Apart from this fact plain reading of the Notification No. 242/76-Cus. it is clear that it exempts refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnace falling under Heading 69.01/02 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We find that in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 173 while considering the issue whether refractory blocks are exempted from Notification No. 242/76-Cus. it was held that refractory bricks and blocks are separate entity and have separate existence and Notification 242/76-Cus. exempts bricks and not blocks. Accordingly since notification exempts bricks and not beams, we do not find any merit in the claim of the appellants. In the view, we have taken we uphold the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the party is hereby rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ubjected to any further processing. Tariff Headings under consideration under CETA 1985 are quite clear and unambiguous. We have to strictly construe them and should not bring any extraneous matters such as concept of grey fabric rsquo etc. HSN notes are also not applicable in view of the Scheme of CETA, 1985 under the aforesaid Headings being different from the Scheme of HSN. Accordingly, I hold that the learned Judicial Member is correct in his view that the jacquered towels made out of dyed/bleached yarn and not subjected to any further process after the manufacture are classifiable under Heading 5802.11 Dated 11-4-1994 Sd/- P.C. Jain Member (T) FINAL ORDER 18. In the light of the majority view, it is held that jacquered towels made out of dyed/bleached yarn and not subjected to any further process are classifiable under sub-heading 5802.11 CETA, 1985 and the appeal is accordingly allowed. Dated 15-4-1994 Sd/- G.A. Brahma Deva Member (J) Sd/- K.S. Venkataramani Member (T)
-
1994 (4) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... .C. value to variable values of D.C. There is sufficient force in the pleas of the learned SDR that the goods control motor speeds and helps in the effective functioning of the various machines and machine tools with which it works in conjunction. The function of the goods, therefore, is specific irrespective of the goods with which the goods are used its function remains the same. It is, therefore, a complete appliance by itself having an individual function. In our view, therefore, Tariff Heading 85.18/27(1) CTA, 1975 is more appropriate than the Tariff Heading 85.01(1) CTA, 1975. Hence the appeal of the Revenue is allowed with consequential effects thereof. rdquo Under the present CTA Tariff Heading 85.43 is corresponding to Tariff Heading 85.18/27(1). Accordingly, we hold the classification of the goods under consideration under Tariff Heading 85.43, as prayed for by the appellant-Collector. Hence while setting aside the impugned order, we allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1994 (4) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... computers and computer system is governed by para 41 of the import policy 90-93 whereby a specific import licence is required for the import of the goods in question, besides a specific no-objection certificate from the Deptt. of Electronics is required. In view of the matter, the order passed under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 is sustainable. However, as there was no mis-declaration of the case, the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs is excessive and the same is reduced to one lakh. As regards the confiscation fine, it is to be seen that the importer has imported the same for their own use and there is no profit element in such an import, the imposition of Rs. 40 lakhs of fine as against the value of Rs. 48 lakhs also appears to be very excessive. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The appeal is thus disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classication ... ... ... ... ..... ir bottles are supplied to laboratories and for research and not available commonly in the market the composition of the glass is different from ordinary glass which is fully neutral which has no effect of alkality. In the face of such submissions, the department is not justified in rejecting the appellants rsquo claim for classification merely based on the Assistant Collector rsquo s personal view on perusal of a sample that the bottles cannot be said to be used exclusively for laboratory purposes. The department should have conducted enquiries regarding the claim could have got the goods tested as regards its special composition claimed and the claim that because of that also it is not same as ordinary glass bottles. The appellants having fully discharged the burden case upon them as above the department has to effectively rebut their claim. The department has failed to do this. We, therefore, find no substance in the department rsquo s appeal which is accordingly rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Wool - Scoured wool ... ... ... ... ..... ost entirely by washing with hot water and soap or other detergents or with alkaline solutions. Therefore, wool, raw as given in our Tariff should cover scoured wool also. The Chief Chemist has referred to the ASTM, which describes wool, raw as wool or hair of sheep in the greased, pulled or scoured wool. It further goes on to say that scoured wool, even though it is no longer in its original raw state, is generally accepted as raw wool. Therefore, it can be held that Item 53.01/05(2) covers scoured wool. This clarification is issued for the proper interpretation of the Notification No. 64/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985. rsquo rsquo In such a situation, the claim of Punjab Wool Combers that no new excisable product emerges out of removal of grease from raw wool by scouring has to be accepted. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Punjab Wool Combers is allowed. The appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh is rejected. Operative portion of the order announced in Court.
-
1994 (4) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... per Order No. 361/93-C, dated 10-11-1993 in appeal No. C-1902/92-C filed by the Department. 5. emsp We have considered the matter. We find that this issue had come up for consideration earlier in the said case of Ganesh Oil Mills and on consideration of the similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that since the test report shows mineral oil content of imported goods was in excess of 70 by weight and its flash point was over 94oC and in view of the fact that the goods had the characteristics of Lubricating Oil, the items in question are covered by the specific Heading 2710.60 of the Central Excise Tariff in preference to the residuary Heading 2710.99. It was also held that import of used lubricating oil was not permissible under O.G.L. in terms of Section 3(2) of the Import-Export (Control) Act, 1947. Since the issue has been well considered we are not inclined to take a different view. Following the precedent, we hold the issue accordingly by dismissing the appeal.
-
1994 (4) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Slides for cigarette packets ... ... ... ... ..... gh Court, the slides in question could not be held as excisable rsquo . 3. On behalf of the respondents Shri Somesh Arora, Ld. JDR pleaded for the rejection of the appeal on the ground that the matter was fully covered against the appellants by the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 76/94-C, dated 28-2-1994. 4. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that in the Final Order No. 76/94-C, dated 28-2-1994, in the case of M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay 1994 (71) E.L.T. 478 (Tri.) , the Tribunal has held slides for cigarette packets rsquo as excisable under sub-heading 4818.90. In arriving at this finding the Tribunal has held that the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Zupiter Printing v. Union of India (Supra) and Madras High Court judgment in the case of Asia Tobacco reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 418 are distinguishable. 5. In view of the foregoing, we follow the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 76/94-C, dated 28-2-1994 and dismiss the appeal.
-
1994 (4) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cotton fabrics - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ant Collector has observed that the process undertaken by the party is not only zero-zero process but something more than that. While processing the fabrics on zero-zero machine nowhere (in other units) any solution, chem or water is used during the process of zero-zero. It is an admitted fact that special device foam spray machine was attached by using Alkosin-SR to zero-zero machine to get desired shrinkage and extra softness. The process carried out by the appellants cannot be termed as calendering or damping covered vide Sl. Nos. 1 and 4 respectively of the table attached to Notification No. 253/82, as it was rightly observed by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. Since we are of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellants is a process other than processes mentioned in the table, the exemption under the notification is not available to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the party is dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Question regarding rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... of the Tribunal No. 340/93-C it is clear that the question of the rate of duty and the interpretation of two Notifications, namely, No. 235/85-C.E., and No. 40/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 are involved in the present appeal and under sub-section (1) of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 it is not maintainable since the said order has relation amongst other things to the rate of duty of excise as well as the interpretation of the said two Notifications. 4. emsp In view of legal position as stated above we are of the view that the present application is not maintainable in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 35G ibid. Consequently, we reject the captioned application for reference as not maintainable.
-
1994 (4) TMI 123 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure of smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... e any document and therefore, the confiscation is valid. 4. I have considered the submissions of both sides. Item No. 1 i.e. Stereo Radio Cassette Recorder is not a notified item, as contended by the learned SDR, Shri Saha. What is notified is Cassette Recorder. Hence both these goods are not notified items. The appellant is only a passenger in a luxury bus and when he was moving with these two items, it cannot be said that there was any reasonable belief to seize the same. Item No. 2 i.e. T.V. Game, is not marked with any foreign origin. A stray version of the appellant that the same is foreign, is not sufficient to hold that it is foreign in origin. Even if it is foreign in origin, the burden is on the Department to prove that these are smuggled goods. That burden is not discharged by the Department in this case. Accordingly, the confiscation of the goods in question is not in accordance with law. The same is set aside. The goods are ordered to be returned to the appellant.
-
1994 (4) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... esentative Shri M.K. Jain and on perusal of the written submissions of the respondents, we find that their claim that the issue is already settled in their favour by the Tribunal rsquo s order No. E/522/90-D, dated 12-7-1990, is correct. The Tribunal rsquo s order disposes of the appeal by the respondents herein against the very same order of the Collector. In that order, the Tribunal has held that the goods in question, is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 23A(4). In view of this position, nothing survives in the Department rsquo s present appeal before us which is only on the question of limitation arising out of the situation, if, the goods are classified under Tariff Item 23A(4) as has been held by the Collector in the impugned order. Since, however, the classification has been already held in favour of the respondents herein, no question of demand would arise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. 3. Order dictated in Court.
-
1994 (4) TMI 121 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Applied To, Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Full Bench, Partner In Firm, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1994 (4) TMI 119 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Sales Promotion Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... activities directed towards the market in general, the public at large. The aim may be to push a totally new product. The aim may even be to obtain a larger market share for an existing product. The target population will naturally vary according to the product whose sales is sought to be promoted. Even so, the focus of such promotional activities is the market as a whole, and not an individual buyer or an individual item of sale. 10. Sales discount/sales commission, on the contrary, are paid when sales actually take place. Here the focus is on a particular sale, a particular buyer. For a fact, the aggregate quantum of discount allowed or commission paid may indeed be a direct measure of the success of the sales promotion drive undertaken earlier. It should, therefore, follow that sales/discount/sales commission cannot be brought under the blanket head of sales promotion. 11. In view of the foregoing, we decline to interfere in the matter and dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
1994 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-A
A Firm, A Partner, Accounting Year, Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Protective Assessment
-
1994 (4) TMI 114 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Assessing Capital Gains, Assessing Officer, Representative Assessee, Sale Proceeds, Tax Liability, Wealth Tax
-
1994 (4) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... first ground of appeal the assessee has contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in not allowing full deduction claimed on account of commission paid to Shri O.P. Gupta. The claim of the assessee at Rs. 1,50,000 was reasonable and, hence, should have been allowed in its entirety. We have discussed this issue in paragraphs 10 and 11 hereinabove. We have held that the entire claim of the assessee in this respect is allowable. Accordingly, the addition sustained at Rs. 75,000 stands deleted. 21. In second ground of appeal the assessee agitated against the interest charged under s. 215 of the Act. No serious arguments have been advanced against the charging of interest under s. 215. It was only submitted that consequential relief should be allowed. 22. We agree with the submissions made. While we uphold charging of interest under s. 215, we direct the Assessing Officer to modify interest in the light of relief as allowed. 23. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... of Rs. 79,97,294 be taken out from the provisions of s. 37(3) of the IT Act. This already stands discussed and decided in favour of the assessee in paras 24.1 to 24.5 of this order. As such, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 48. The last grievance of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in directing that actual payment on account of sales-tax during the accounting period ending on30th Sept., 1983be allowed. 49. We have heard the rival submission and have perused the relevant record. After having held that the sales-tax realised by the assessee constituted its trading receipts, the learned CIT(A), in our view took the correct view in allowing assessee s claim that the amount actually paid by way of sales-tax for the relevant assessment year is an allowable deduction. We, therefore, do not find any material to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned CIT(A). Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 50. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
............
|
