Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (11) 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 161 to 180 of 364 Records

• 1995 (11) TMI 215
  
  Issues Involved
  1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 224/85.
  2. Requirement of proof for actual use in the leather industry.
  3. Validity of the Assistant Collector's demand for recovery of short-levied duty.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
  
  1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 224/85
  The appellants imported metallic chains and brass fittings declared as embellishments for use in the leather industry. The initial clearance was granted under Notification No. 224/85, which exempted goods imported for use in the leather industry from additional customs duty and provided a 40% ad valorem exemption on basic customs duty. The notification described the specified goods as "Metallic embellishments other than zip fasteners."
  
  The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) later contested this exemption, arguing that the goods imported were brass chains in running length, which required further processing and could be used in products other than leather goods, such as imitation jewelry. Therefore, they did not qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal, however, found that the goods were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 224/85, as the term "for use" means intended use, not actual use, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation in the State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd.
  
  2. Requirement of Proof for Actual Use in the Leather Industry
  The notices for short levy under Section 28 of the Customs Act were issued on the grounds that there was no conclusive proof that the imported chains were used in the leather industry. The appellants argued that they held SSI Registration Certificates for manufacturing leather goods, which should suffice as proof of intended use.
  
  The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation that "for use" should be construed as intended use. The Tribunal also referenced its own decision in Asean Trading Agency v. Collector of Customs, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that proof of actual use is not a condition for exemption. The Tribunal found that the initial clearance was granted after examining the goods and that the SSI Registration Certificates supported the appellants' claim for exemption.
  
  3. Validity of the Assistant Collector's Demand for Recovery of Short-levied Duty
  The appellants contended that the Assistant Collector could not modify the original assessment and demand duty after the goods had been cleared. They argued that such an order should be appealed against or reviewed by a higher authority, citing judgments from the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court.
  
  The Tribunal, however, clarified that Section 28 of the Customs Act specifically empowers the Assistant Collector to recover duty short-levied. Therefore, the Assistant Collector's actions were within legal bounds. However, since the Tribunal concluded that the goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 224/85, the issue of short-levied duty did not arise.
  
  Conclusion
  The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, holding that the goods imported were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 224/85. The requirement for actual use proof was deemed unnecessary, as intended use sufficed for the exemption. Consequently, the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 214
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs House, Madras.
  2. Refund of additional duty on copper scrap under Notifications 33/81 and 35/81.
  3. Interpretation of Section 3 for levy of Customs duty.
  4. Classification of brass waste/scrap and levy of additional duty.
  5. Introduction of sub-heading 'waste and scrap' in Central Excise Tariff.
  6. Determination of 'manufacture' for levy of additional duty on imported scrap.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal was filed by the department against the order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs House, Madras. The respondents claimed a refund of additional duty on copper scrap based on Notifications 33/81 and 35/81 exempting duty on Indian copper scrap. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the claim, stating that the scraps were not manufactured articles and thus not subject to Central Excise duty.
  
  2. The scope of Section 3 for the levy of Customs duty was discussed, emphasizing that the additional duty of customs is not a countervailing duty. The concept of 'manufacture' was deemed irrelevant for the levy of additional duty on imported brass scrap. The judgment referred to a Supreme Court decision to support the argument that the levy of additional duty of customs is not contingent on the manufacturing process.
  
  3. The Collector (Appeals) found that brass waste/scrap was merely a collection of used, worn-out, and obsolete items, not resulting from a transformation process. The judgment highlighted that the scrap did not satisfy the economic sense of 'production' and 'manufacture,' as there was no deliberate effort leading to the generation of the scrap through labor or manipulation.
  
  4. It was noted that the introduction of the sub-heading 'waste and scrap' in the Central Excise Tariff did not impact the levy of additional duty on imported scrap. The judgment emphasized that the critical test of 'manufacture' was not met for these products, both before and after the introduction of the sub-heading. The decision in Khandelwal Metals was cited to differentiate between waste articles emerging during manufacturing and imported waste/scrap not undergoing a manufacturing process.
  
  5. The judgment concluded that the waste/scrap must arise as part of the manufacture of the prime product to fall within the scope of the entry for levy of additional duty. As the waste/scrap in question did not meet the criteria of transformation into an intermediate or finished product, the appeal filed by the department was rejected, upholding the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs House, Madras.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 213
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Admissibility of MODVAT Credit for steel balls used in manufacturing.
  2. Classification of steel balls as inputs, tools, or equipment under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Admissibility of MODVAT Credit for Steel Balls Used in Manufacturing
  
  Summary of Appeals:
  - Appeal No. E-38/94: The appellant company, M/s. Magnetix (I) Ltd., contested the order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, which denied MODVAT Credit for steel balls, stating they are neither raw materials nor inputs as per Rule 57A.
  - Appeal No. E-105/94: The appellant Collector challenged the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) decision, which allowed MODVAT Credit for steel balls, treating them as inputs integral to the finished product.
  - Appeal No. E-89/95: The appellant Collector contested a similar decision by the Collector (Appeals), which followed the reasoning in Appeal No. E-105/94, allowing MODVAT Credit for steel balls.
  
  Tribunal's Findings:
  - The Tribunal noted that steel balls are used as grinding media in the manufacturing process of "Hard Ferrites" and get corroded and absorbed into the final product.
  - The Department argued that steel balls are appliances and not inputs under Rule 57A, as they do not remain identifiable in the final product.
  - The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works*, which stated that any process integrally connected with the ultimate production is considered "in relation to the manufacture."
  
  Conclusion:
  - The Tribunal concluded that since steel balls are consumed and become part of the final product during the manufacturing process, they are to be treated as inputs.
  - Therefore, the steel balls qualify for MODVAT Credit under Rule 57A.
  
  Issue 2: Classification of Steel Balls as Inputs, Tools, or Equipment
  
  Arguments by the Department:
  - The Department contended that steel balls are appliances or tools used for grinding and do not qualify as inputs under Rule 57A.
  - They cited previous Tribunal decisions, including *Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise* and *Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd.*, to support their stance.
  
  Arguments by the Assessee:
  - The assessee argued that steel balls are not attached to any machine or tool and are integral to the production process, thus qualifying as inputs.
  - They referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in *Singh Alloys Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise*, which emphasized that items integral to the production process should be considered as inputs.
  
  Tribunal's Analysis:
  - The Tribunal distinguished the current case from *Electrosteel Castings Ltd.*, noting that steel balls in this case are not machine parts but are consumed in the manufacturing process.
  - The Tribunal also referenced the Calcutta High Court's interpretation that chemicals and other items integral to production should not be classified as machinery or tools.
  
  Conclusion:
  - The Tribunal concluded that steel balls do not fit the definitions of machinery, tools, or appliances as per the technical and judicial interpretations.
  - The steel balls are integral to the manufacturing process and thus qualify as inputs eligible for MODVAT Credit.
  
  Final Judgment:
  - Appeal Nos. E-105/94 and E-89/95 filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
  - Appeal No. E-38/94 filed by M/s. Magnetix (India) Ltd. was allowed with consequential reliefs.
  
  The Tribunal ruled that steel balls used in the manufacturing process qualify as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and are entitled to MODVAT Credit.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 212
  
  Issues:
  Classification of pellets under Tariff Item 51A(iii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment involves a dispute regarding the classification of pellets under Tariff Item 51A(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) held that the pellets should not be classified under this item as they are components of a tool and not the tool itself. The Collector emphasized that the pellets need to be fitted into a steel casing to become a die, and without this fitting, they do not qualify as tools falling under Tariff Item 51A(iii). The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that pellets themselves are dies and should be classified under Tariff Item 51A(iii) as they are the main functional items, with the shank being merely a casing to house the die.
  
  The appellants contended that pellets are not dies for wiredrawing in commercial parlance and are known only as pellets or dies, having no independent use. They argued that the pellets are components or parts of a tool and should not be classified under Tariff Item 51A(iii), which covers only specific tools and not their components. The appellants also raised jurisdictional issues regarding the approval of the classification list by the Assistant Collector and the issuance of a show cause notice by the Range Superintendent.
  
  Upon considering the submissions and relevant definitions, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)' decision. The Tribunal noted that Tariff Item 51A(iii) is meant for complete tools designed to be fitted into hand tools, machine tools, or other specified tools, including dies for wiredrawing and extrusion. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that pellets are components of a die and not complete tools by themselves. The judgment also highlighted the necessity of shank fitting in a steel casing for the pellets to function as a die, supporting the classification decision.
  
  The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the classification of pellets as components rather than complete tools aligns with technical understanding and trade practices. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Tariff Item, technical literature, and trade parlance. The judgment referenced previous rulings and the Government of India's decision in a related case to support the classification of pellets as components rather than standalone tools under Tariff Item 51A(iii).

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 207
  
  The appeals were filed by M/s. Indo Japan Steels Ltd. and Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta against an order holding the former liable to pay Central Excise duty on steel ingots cleared without payment. The Collector confirmed the duty and penalty, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed. (Case citation: 1995 (11) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 206
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 42/78-Cus. dated 1-3-1978 regarding the eligibility of a machine with multiple functions for exemption.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the interpretation of whether a machine imported, identified as a complete Super/Quick 18, Toggling and drying machine with 1500 Automatic toggles, was covered by exemption Notification No. 42/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay initially deemed the machine ineligible for exemption as it was used for toggling, drying, and cooling, beyond just drying. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the machine was eligible for exemption based on a certificate from the Small Industries Services Institute and ISI Specification.
  
  Upon hearing arguments from both sides, it was acknowledged that the primary function of the imported machine was drying, with toggling and cooling being additional functions. The Revenue argued that toggling and cooling were not covered under the exemption notification, which specifically mentioned automatic drying machines. Conversely, the Advocate for the respondents contended that toggling was essential for proper drying and that cooling was necessary post-drying. The Tribunal examined the technical aspects of the machine, noting that toggling was crucial for ensuring equal heat distribution to hides and skins during the drying process.
  
  The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving a wire twister and a film processor, where additional functions did not disqualify the machines from exemption if the primary function was covered. In the current case, the togglers were used before drying, and cooling occurred after the drying process. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that since the machine was primarily an automatic drier, it fell within the scope of the exemption Notification No. 42/78-Cus. dated 1-3-1978. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision to grant exemption to the imported machine.
  
  After considering all relevant aspects, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the Collector of Customs (Appeals) order. The judgment upheld the eligibility of the machine for exemption under the specified notification, emphasizing the primary function of drying as the determining factor for exemption qualification.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 205
  
  Issues: Classification of Gate Valves under Customs Tariff - Heading 84.61(1) or Heading 84.61(2)
  
  In this case, the Department appealed against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) regarding the classification of Gate Valves imported by the respondents. The dispute revolved around whether the Gate Valves made of alloy steel should be classified under Heading 84.61(1) of the Customs Tariff, as claimed by the Department, or under Heading 84.61(2) as per the assessee. The Department contended that the valves, not being Isolating Valves, should be classified under Heading 84.61(1) instead of 84.61(2) under which they were assessed. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the party's contention, ordering reassessment of the valves under sub-heading 2 of Heading 84.61. The Department argued that technical opinions confirmed the valves were not covered by Heading 84.61(2) and should be classified under Heading 84.61(1).
  
  Upon final hearing, with no appearance from the respondents, the Tribunal considered the submissions and records. The Department reiterated its grounds, citing technical opinions that the valves should be classified under Heading 84.61(1). However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the timing of the test report and lack of clarity regarding whether the Deputy Chief Chemist considered the item sample while giving the opinion. As the test report postdated the adjudicating authority's order and lacked evidence of being shared with the party, coupled with the reasons provided by the Collector (Appeals) for upholding the respondent's contention, the Tribunal found no merit in the Department's appeal and dismissed it.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 204
  
  The appeal was against the rejection of duty refund for imported "Stainless Steel Hypodermic Needles" under Notification No. 208/81 meant for life-saving drugs and equipment. The appellants failed to prove that the needles qualified as "intravenous canulae and tubing for long term use." The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating the imported item was only hypodermic needles, not covered by the notification.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 203
  
  Issues:
  Classification of animal glue, Proper sanction by the Collector, Correct classification under the Tariff, Interpretation of Trade Notices, Benefit of Notifications under Section 11C.
  
  Classification of Animal Glue:
  The appeal involved the classification of animal glue manufactured from tannery waste products under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The dispute arose when the Department sought to classify the goods under a different item than what the respondent had classified them under. The Asstt. Collector initially dropped the proceedings based on small scale exemption eligibility. However, after a review, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) directed reclassification. The Asstt. Collector then classified the animal glue as high polymer resins under a different Tariff item. The respondent appealed, arguing that their product fell under a specific Tariff item as per Trade Notices and Notifications.
  
  Proper Sanction by the Collector:
  A preliminary objection was raised regarding the sanction by the Collector for the appeal. The respondent's advocate argued that the sanction did not meet the requirements of the Act. The JDR for the appellant contended that the sanction was proper and referred to a Supreme Court decision to support this claim. Upon inspection of the file and considering the Supreme Court's decision, it was concluded that the sanction met the Act's requirements, allowing the arguments on the case's merits to proceed.
  
  Correct Classification under the Tariff:
  The appellant argued that post-1982 Budget changes, the goods were correctly classified under a specific Tariff item, supported by relevant tariff entries, Trade Notices, and Notifications providing exemptions. The respondent, however, maintained that the goods were correctly classified under a different Tariff item, referencing the show cause notice and Trade Notices to support their stance.
  
  Interpretation of Trade Notices:
  The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had relied on a Trade Notice to support the reclassification of the goods. However, the Tribunal found that the Trade Notice, which stated that glue flakes obtained from bones were classifiable under a specific Tariff item, was not applicable as the animal glue could also be made from hides and skins. The Tribunal disagreed with the strict interpretation of the Trade Notice and emphasized considering all relevant factors for proper classification.
  
  Benefit of Notifications under Section 11C:
  The Tribunal noted that the benefit of a specific Notification had already been extended to the respondent under Section 11C of the Act. After considering all relevant aspects, the Tribunal accepted the appeal filed by the Revenue, vacated the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), and confirmed the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise.
  
  This detailed analysis covers the issues of classification, proper sanction, correct Tariff classification, interpretation of Trade Notices, and the benefit of Notifications under Section 11C as addressed in the legal judgment.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 202
  
  Issues:
  Classification of PVC Compound and PVC Master batch under different sub-headings based on color content.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved two appeals concerning the classification of PVC Compound and PVC Master batch under sub-headings 3904.21/22 and 3204.19, respectively. In the first case (No. E/789/95-C), the Department contended that the product declared as PVC Master batch was actually PVC Compound due to the low color concentrate content of 2%, below the required 10% for Master batch classification. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification under sub-heading 3204.19, stating that the product met all criteria for Master batch classification. The Revenue appealed this decision.
  
  In the second case (No. E/529/95-C), the assessees were accused of evading duty by misrepresenting the color composition of the PVC Master batch, which had a color content of 3 to 5%, below the 10% threshold for Master batch classification. The Collector confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000 on the appellants. The assessees argued that the product was specialized and priced higher than PVC Compound, widely used for color dispersion in PVC Compounds. However, their contentions were rejected.
  
  Upon examination of the records and arguments presented, the Tribunal found merit in the assessees' claim that the disputed products, despite having less than 10% color content, could still be considered Master batch. The Collector's reliance on a circular prescribing the 10% colorant threshold was deemed insufficient, as the circular itself acknowledged the possibility of Master batch with less than 10% colorant. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the nature, use, and trade understanding of the product in question before classification.
  
  Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the adjudicating authorities for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessees are granted a personal hearing. The appeals and cross-objection were disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 196
  
  Issues:
  1. Application for direction to implement order and refund by Customs authorities.
  2. Validity of duty payment and refund entitlement based on collaboration agreement.
  3. Interpretation of orders by Assistant Commissioner, Collector (Appeals), and Tribunal.
  4. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities at different airports in following precedent.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appeal was filed by the Respondent seeking directions for the Customs authorities to implement the order passed in disposing of previous appeals and to make a refund in accordance with the decision of the Collector (Appeals) dated 30-5-1994. The Respondent also requested punishment for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 10th January, 1995. The Tribunal heard the arguments presented by the Respondent's Counsel, Shri K. Parasurampuria, and proceeded to analyze the situation.
  
  2. The applicant had entered into a collaboration agreement with a Japanese concern, leading to the examination of value by the Bombay Customs House. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Special Valuation Branch, Bombay, issued an order directing the invoice price to be loaded by specific percentages for imports from Japan. The appeals filed by the appellant against these orders were allowed by the Collector (Appeals), who accepted the invoice price for valuation purposes. The Department then filed appeals in the Tribunal, which were dismissed on 10-1-1995.
  
  3. The goods were imported at both Bombay Airport and New Delhi Airport as part of the collaboration agreement. The applicant claimed that duty was paid as per provisional demand, and since the original order of the Assistant Commissioner in Bombay was reversed by the Collector (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the applicant sought a refund of duty paid not only at Bombay but also at New Delhi. The Customs authority at New Delhi had refunded a part of the duty but was withholding the balance pending clarification from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which was deemed unnecessary by the Board. The applicant sought directions against the authorities at New Delhi for the refund.
  
  4. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner in Bombay, the Collector (Appeals) in Bombay, and the Tribunal's order in the appeals. It was noted that the issue in the appeals was the correctness of the decision by the Assistant Commissioner in Bombay regarding loading the invoice price by a specific percentage, which did not directly impact imports at New Delhi Airport. While the Customs authorities at New Delhi followed the precedent set by Bombay, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's remedy for seeking a refund from New Delhi authorities did not directly arise from the Tribunal's order in the appeals. Therefore, the application was dismissed, indicating that the applicant's remedy lies elsewhere.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 195
  
  Issues: Classification of imported machinery for the manufacture of polyster zip fastners under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) or 84.59(2).
  
  The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal allowing the respondents' appeal regarding the classification of imported machinery for manufacturing polyster zip fasteners. The dispute revolves around the classification of six machines under Heading 84.59(1) or 84.59(2) of the Tariff prevalent during 1984-85. The Revenue argues that each machine has individual functions and should not be classified as machinery designed for the production of a commodity. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the respondents' classification, leading to the appeal. The main contention is whether the machines should be classified under Heading 84.59(1) or 84.59(2).
  
  Upon examining the relevant Chapter Heading 84.59, it is noted that it covers machines and mechanical appliances with individual functions not falling under any other heading of Chapter 84. The judgment emphasizes that the disputed machines fall under Heading 84.59, and the dispute is solely about whether they should be classified under sub-item (1) or (2). Each machine is deemed to have an individual function, as suggested by the main heading of Heading 84.59. It is clarified that the manufacture of polyster zip fasteners requires each machine to perform a specific function designed for that purpose. The argument that two machines were not claimed under this heading is dismissed, as they may have individual functions specified elsewhere. The respondents' lack of objection to the classification of two machines does not negate the classification of other machines designed for manufacturing polyster zip fasteners under 84.59(2).
  
  The judgment concludes that there is no justification to overturn the Collector (Appeals)'s decision, and the appeal from the Revenue is dismissed. It affirms that the machines, designed for specific functions contributing to the production of polyster zip fasteners, should be classified under Heading 84.59(2) as machinery designed for the production of a commodity.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 194
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the parts replaced in Motor Cycles can be considered as waste and scrap.
  2. Whether the demand for Excise Duty on the replaced parts is justified.
  3. Whether the demand is time-barred.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The appeal challenged an order confirming the demand for Excise Duty on Motor Cycle parts replaced and sold as scrap. The appellants sought permission to replace Engine Sprockets and Fourth Gear in vehicles kept in the Bonded Store Room due to complaints about performance. The replaced parts were treated as scrap, leading to a demand of Rs. 27,183.06 under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) concluded that the replaced parts were not waste generated during manufacturing and rejected the appeal, stating they were not defective but were fitted in vehicles initially.
  
  The appellant's advocate argued that the replaced parts were declared as scrap under Rule 57G and referred to the definition of waste and scrap in the Central Excise Tariff Act. He contended that the parts, once non-usable, should be deemed as scrap, and Rules 196B and 173P were inapplicable. The SDR argued that the parts were not processed to be non-functional and thus did not qualify as scrap. The issue of limitation was raised but lacked adequate data for consideration, as the date of removal of parts as scrap was not provided.
  
  The main issue was whether the replaced parts constituted waste and scrap as defined in the Central Excise Tariff Act. The definition includes metal waste and scrap not usable due to various reasons. The appellants claimed the parts were not usable due to customer complaints, but the parts were functional and used in vehicles before replacement. The parts were removed without alterations and did not qualify as by-products. Consequently, the demand for Excise Duty was deemed justified, and the appeal was rejected.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment upheld the demand for Excise Duty on the replaced Motor Cycle parts sold as scrap, as the parts did not meet the criteria for waste and scrap under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The lack of evidence on the date of removal of parts as scrap affected the argument on time limitation, and the parts were considered usable before replacement, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 193
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Confiscation of seized silver under Sections 111(b), 111(d), 111(k) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  2. Confiscation of the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  3. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  4. Validity and credibility of the statements recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  5. Burden of proof regarding the smuggled nature of the silver.
  6. Legitimacy of the redemption fines and penalties imposed.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Confiscation of Seized Silver:
  The Deputy Collector ordered the absolute confiscation of the seized silver under Sections 111(b), 111(d), and 111(k) of the Customs Act, 1962, which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). The appellant argued that the silver was of Indian origin and legally purchased in 1979, supported by Bill No. 740 from Kamal Enterprises. The appellant contended that the silver did not bear any foreign markings and that the burden of proving its smuggled nature was on the Department, as silver was not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 at the relevant time. However, the Tribunal found that the silver was concealed in a cavity of the truck near the international border and that the cloth covering it was of Pakistani origin. Furthermore, the silver did not match the markings described by Kamal Enterprises, casting doubt on the appellant's claim. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras & Others v. D. Bhoormull, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation, concluding that the circumstantial evidence and the appellant's conduct reasonably indicated that the silver was smuggled.
  
  2. Confiscation of the Truck:
  The truck used for transporting the seized silver was ordered for absolute confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the truck was used without the owners' knowledge. However, the Tribunal found that the truck driver, Kana Ram, was acting in his capacity as the driver and was responsible for the concealed silver. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the truck, noting that the driver was in charge and the truck was used for smuggling activities.
  
  3. Imposition of Penalties:
  Penalties were imposed on Madan Lal, Ashok Kumar, Kishan Lal, and Kana Ram under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties on Ashok Kumar and Kishan Lal were reduced by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal found that Madan Lal knowingly dealt with the smuggled silver and arranged for its clandestine transportation. Therefore, the penalties on Madan Lal and Kana Ram were upheld. However, due to lack of evidence corroborating Kana Ram's statement that the truck owners were involved, the penalties on Ashok Kumar and Kishan Lal were remitted.
  
  4. Validity and Credibility of Statements:
  The statements recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were challenged by the appellants, claiming they were made under duress and coercion. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence to support this claim and relied on the statements as part of the circumstantial evidence supporting the smuggling charge.
  
  5. Burden of Proof:
  The Tribunal addressed the appellant's argument that the burden of proving the smuggled nature of the silver was on the Department. The Tribunal concluded that the Department had sufficiently discharged this burden through circumstantial evidence, including the location of the seizure, the concealment method, and the inconsistencies in the appellant's claims.
  
  6. Legitimacy of Redemption Fines and Penalties:
  The Tribunal modified the impugned order regarding the redemption fines. The confiscated silver was ordered to be released to the owner on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 20,000, and the truck was to be released on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000. The penalties on Kishan Lal and Ashok Kumar were remitted, while the penalties on Madan Lal and Kana Ram were upheld.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation of the seized silver and the truck, upheld the penalties on Madan Lal and Kana Ram, and remitted the penalties on Kishan Lal and Ashok Kumar. The redemption fines for the silver and the truck were also modified.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 192
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether waste liquor I and waste liquor II obtained as by-products are excisable and dutiable.
  2. Whether the demand is hit by limitation.
  3. Whether there was an estoppel for changing the approved classification.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue No. 1: Excisability and Dutiability of Waste Liquor I and Waste Liquor II
  
  The main contention revolves around whether waste liquor I and waste liquor II, generated as by-products in the manufacture of caprolactum, are excisable and subject to duty. The appellants argued that these by-products are hazardous, toxic, and not marketable, emphasizing that they are destroyed in a combustion unit to prevent pollution. They cited several judgments to support their claim that the by-products are not excisable, including the case of UOI v. Indian Aluminium Company, where the Supreme Court held that aluminium dross and skimmings, despite being sold occasionally, were not considered marketable goods.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the waste liquors were occasionally sold, but this did not necessarily make them marketable commodities. Citing the Supreme Court's definition of "goods" and the necessity for them to be marketable, the Tribunal concluded that waste liquor I and waste liquor II do not qualify as goods for the purpose of excise duty. Therefore, they are not excisable.
  
  Issue No. 2: Limitation
  
  The appellants argued that the demand for duty was time-barred since the show cause notice was issued on 2-1-1989 for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1987. They contended there was no suppression of facts, as they had consistently communicated with the Central Excise authorities about the production and destruction of waste liquors and the generation of steam. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellants had disclosed all relevant information to the Department, and there was no evidence of willful suppression or misstatement. Consequently, the demand was deemed to be hit by limitation and unsustainable in law.
  
  Issue No. 3: Estoppel for Changing the Approved Classification
  
  The appellants had initially classified the waste liquors under sub-heading 2909.90 of CETA, 1985, and later contested this classification. The Tribunal noted that the concept of estoppel does not apply in cases of classification. Given that the primary issues were resolved in favor of the appellants, the question of estoppel became academic and was not further addressed.
  
  Conclusion
  
  The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that waste liquor I and waste liquor II are not excisable goods and that the demand for duty was barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 191
  
  Issues:
  1. Refund claims for exemption on Woven Sacks.
  2. Interpretation of Notfn. No. 223/86 and subsequent notifications.
  3. Eligibility for exemption based on manufacturing process.
  4. Validity of refund claim and rejection by authorities.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved refund claims by manufacturers of HDPE Sacks seeking exemption on Woven Sacks under Notfn. No. 223/86 and subsequent notifications. The appellants filed two refund claims totaling Rs. 11,67,397.20, which were rejected by the authorities. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that sacks could only be complete on stitching, thus not directly manufactured on circular looms, making them ineligible for exemption.
  
  In response to the rejection, the appellants clarified that their current claim was restricted to Rs. 3,86,601.75 for duty paid during a specific period. The appellants argued that they did not manufacture sacks on circular looms and thus were eligible for the exemption. They referenced Notfn. No. 57/90, which clarified the interpretation of woven sacks made from fabrics woven on circular looms, indicating their eligibility for exemption.
  
  On the contrary, the JDR contended that sacks could not be manufactured on circular looms without stitching, aligning with the exclusion in Notfn. No. 3/87. Additionally, a subsequent clarificatory notification by the Government further supported the denial of exemption to the appellants.
  
  After considering the arguments and reviewing the relevant notifications, the Tribunal found that Notfn. No. 223/86 granted exemption to all Woven Sacks, but subsequent notifications restricted the exemption for sacks manufactured on flat knitting looms and excluded those made on circular looms. The Tribunal viewed Notfn. No. 57/90 as clarificatory and upheld the authorities' decision to reject the refund claim, as the appellants were manufacturing sacks from fabrics woven on circular looms, rendering them ineligible for exemption. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 190
  
  Issues:
  1. Revocation of Customs House Agent license under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.
  2. Allegations against the appellant regarding illegal removal of goods and demand for payment.
  3. Violation of principles of natural justice in reliance on statements and denial of cross-examination.
  4. Sustainability of the impugned order and the need for remand.
  5. Disturbing features of the case regarding the removal of goods and action against involved officers.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The judgment deals with an appeal against the revocation of a Customs House Agent's license by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant was alleged to have been involved in the illegal removal of goods and demanding payment for re-export and demurrage charges. The appeal raised issues regarding the legality of the revocation under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.
  
  2. The appellant's counsel argued that the reliance on certain statements in the impugned order violated principles of natural justice. The show cause notice excluded specific statements but the adjudicating authority relied on them, leading to a lack of application of mind and denial of the right to cross-examine. The appellant sought to challenge the correctness of the statements and their exclusion from the notice.
  
  3. The judgment highlighted the error in relying on excluded statements and the denial of cross-examination of key witnesses. The appellant's request to cross-examine individuals crucial to the case was not granted, affecting the fairness of the proceedings. The adjudicating authority failed to provide reasons for the unavailability of witnesses, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.
  
  4. Despite the suggestion of remand by the respondent, the judge deemed it unnecessary due to the time elapsed since the incident in 1990 and the suspension of the appellant's license. The impugned order was set aside based on the unsustainable grounds of reliance on excluded statements and denial of cross-examination, ultimately allowing the appeal.
  
  5. The judgment concluded by highlighting the disturbing aspects of the case, particularly the illegal removal of goods under the custody of customs authorities without the action against involved officers. The judge directed the Chairman of the CBEC to take necessary action against the officers involved in the removal of goods, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice and integrity in such matters.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues raised, the arguments presented, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 189
  
  The appeals were filed regarding the entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 178/88 for manufacturers of copper alloy sheets and circles. The issue was whether the use of a small quantity of zinc would disqualify them from the benefit. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating that copper alloys, including those with zinc, are covered under Chapter 74.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 188
  
  Issues:
  Classification of pellets under Tariff Item 51A(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involves a Revenue appeal against an order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras, concerning the classification of pellets under Tariff Item 51A(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) held that pellets do not fall under Tariff Item 51A(iii) unless they are fitted into hard steel casings. The Revenue contended that pellets themselves are dies and should be classified under Tariff Item 51A(iii). The appellants argued that pellets are components of tools and not tools themselves, thus should not be classified under Tariff Item 51A(iii).
  
  The Revenue argued that pellets are the main functional items and should be classified as tools under Tariff Item 51A(iii). They emphasized that pellets are essential components of dies and are used in wiredrawing and metal extrusion processes. The appellants, on the other hand, contended that pellets are not independently usable as tools and are known only as pellets or dies, not as tools for wiredrawing. They also challenged the jurisdiction of the Range Superintendent to issue a notice proposing to revise the classification list approved by the Assistant Collector.
  
  After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal considered the definition of pellets as per British and International Standard Institutions. The Tribunal noted that Tariff Item 51A(iii) is meant for complete tools designed to be fitted into hand tools, machine tools, or other specified tools. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that pellets are components of dies and not complete tools by themselves. The Tribunal also highlighted the necessity of shank fitting in hard steel casings for pellets to function as dies, supporting the Collector (Appeals)'s findings.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Collector (Appeals)'s decision that pellets are components and not complete tools under Tariff Item 51A(iii). The Tribunal relied on technical understanding and trade parlance to support this classification, emphasizing that pellets require shank fitting to become functional as dies. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and upheld the classification of pellets as per the Collector (Appeals)'s order and the Government of India's judgment in a related case.

  ---

• 1995 (11) TMI 187
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against rejection of project import registration under Heading 84.66 for imported items related to a Dairy Development Corporation's project.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of project import registration under Heading 84.66 for items imported by a Dairy Development Corporation. The Corporation imported items required for the extraction and preservation of semen from bulls for artificial insemination of cows. The Corporation claimed that the items were auxiliary equipment for setting up a plant under a project with the World Bank. The Corporation argued that the items were essential for their Bull Breeding Farm and Frozen Semen Bank established as part of their Dairy Development Project. However, the Assistant Collector rejected their application for project import registration and assessed the goods based on their merits, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
  
  The Corporation's main contention was that the imported items were necessary for the initial setup of the plant and should be considered auxiliary equipment for the project. They also argued that the items should be deemed to be covered under Heading 84.66. However, the Department contended that the Corporation failed to prove that the goods were meant for a project covered by 84.66 or that the conditions of the heading were satisfied. The Department highlighted discrepancies in the Corporation's application, indicating that the items imported did not qualify as equipment for initial plant setup under the project.
  
  During the proceedings, the Corporation accepted that the importation was for their Bull Breeding Farm and Frozen Semen Bank. They provided details of the project but did not submit a project report. The Corporation had previously imported a Nitrogen Plant under the same program but could not produce the relevant Bill of Entry. The Department argued that the imported items were not connected to the Nitrogen Plant importation and were solely for semen extraction and preservation, not for the activities covered under Heading 84.66.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the Corporation failed to demonstrate that the conditions of Heading 84.66 were met or that their project fell under the heading's scope. The Tribunal emphasized that the Corporation's declarations contradicted their submissions during the hearing. It was established that the imported equipment was specifically for the Frozen Semen Bank, and the Corporation was not manufacturing the straws for semen storage. The Tribunal clarified that the customs assessment must adhere to the Customs Act and Tariff, and project import benefits cannot be extended unless the conditions are met.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to overturn the lower authorities' decisions and rejected the appeal against the rejection of project import registration under Heading 84.66 for the imported items related to the Dairy Development Corporation's project.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 19