|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 312 Records
-
1995 (7) TMI 165
Issues Involved:
1. Marketability and excisability of poly pouches.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 132/86-C.E.
3. Classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Issue 1: Marketability and Excisability of Poly Pouches
The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original dated 11-12-1987, arguing that the poly pouches used for filling liquid milk were marketable and thus excisable. They contended that these pouches were classifiable under sub-heading No. 3922.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as "other articles of plastics." The Revenue argued that the poly pouches emerged as identifiable products from the poly films, which were the raw materials, and were capable of being bought and sold in the market.
The respondent countered that the poly pouches did not come into existence as a separate marketable product before the milk was filled. They described the process of manufacture, emphasizing that the forming, filling, and sealing of the pouches occurred in a continuous and automatic process, making the pouches inseparable from the milk-filled product.
The Tribunal held that no marketable and excisable product came into existence before the liquid milk was filled in the poly pouch. They noted that the process was automatic and simultaneous, and the poly pouches, as they emerged in the FFS machine, were not capable of being sold or marketed independently.
Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 132/86-C.E.
The respondent argued that even if the pouches were considered goods, they would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 132/86-C.E., as the films used were duty-paid. The Revenue contended that this notification did not apply because it exempted articles made of plastics only if they were made out of specified goods on which Central Excise duty had already been paid.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order regarding the applicability of Notification No. 132/86-C.E. They noted that the respondents were using duty-paid co-extruded poly films falling under Heading No. 3920.31, and the milk-filled poly pouch was manufactured out of such duty-paid films. The Tribunal referred to Trade Notice No. 27(MP)/plastics/2/1986, which clarified that exemption would be available even if intermediate products emerged during the manufacture of articles of plastics.
Issue 3: Classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
The Revenue classified the poly pouches under sub-heading No. 3922.90, which covers "other articles of plastics." The respondent argued that no specific article of plastic came into existence during the manufacturing process.
The Tribunal agreed with the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, that no marketable excisable goods came into existence before the liquid milk was filled in the poly pouch. They concluded that the poly pouches, as they emerged in the FFS machine, were not identifiable products capable of being marketed independently.
Separate Judgment by Vice President
The Vice President dissented, stating that the process of making milk-filled poly packs showed that a poly pouch came into existence before the milk was filled. He argued that the pouch was marketable and excisable, as it was sold along with the milk in a sealed form. He classified the pouches under Heading 39.22 as "other articles of plastics" and held that the benefit of Notification No. 132/86 was not available because the pouches were made from materials falling under Heading 3910.31, not Headings 3901 to 39.04.
Conclusion
In view of the majority opinion, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, upholding the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.
-
1995 (7) TMI 164
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay regarding refund of duty and demand raised by the department.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 179/72, dated 24-7-1972 regarding concession in duty for man-made fabrics.
3. Barred by time for filing a refund claim.
4. Failure to provide evidence to support the case.
Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Collector (Appeals) decision, where the Collector accepted the assessee's appeal seeking a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 982.44 and Rs. 1677.11. The department had also raised a demand for duty of Rs. 2645.40, confirmed by the Assistant Collector, which the Collector set aside. The dispute involved two original orders, one dealing with the refund claim and the other with a show cause notice for duty demand.
2. The first order-in-original dated 19th March, 1983 addressed the refund claim. The assessee had cleared man-made fabrics after cutting fents, claiming a duty concession under Notification No. 179/72, dated 24-7-1972. The department found discrepancies and demanded payment. The Collector, after hearing, concluded that the fabrics were cleared after cutting, denying the refund claim.
3. The second order-in-original dated 30-3-1983 related to a demand raised in a show cause notice. The Assistant Collector found that the fabrics were not cleared as lump packing but after cutting fents, leading to a demand of Rs. 2645.40. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the assessee's plea, stating there was no evidence of cutting fents in the records, and allowed the refund claim.
4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting the refund claim was time-barred and lacked evidence supporting the claim. The Assistant Collector's findings were deemed correct, as evidence showed the fabrics were cleared after cutting. The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Collector's orders, rejecting the Collector (Appeals) decision and allowing the Revenue's appeals.
This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the legal aspects and findings of the Tribunal regarding the refund claim, duty demands, interpretation of the notification, time limitation for claims, and the importance of providing evidence in support of claims.
-
1995 (7) TMI 163
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86.
2. Refund claims for duty paid under protest.
3. Incidence of duty passed on to customers.
4. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Admissibility of trade discounts.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 175/86:
The appellants, manufacturers of medicaments, claimed exemption for Small Scale Industrial units under Notification No. 175/86. The excise authorities denied this exemption, arguing that the appellants' clearances should be clubbed with those of other appellants, which would exceed the exemption limit. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the clearances should not be clubbed, and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.
2. Refund Claims for Duty Paid Under Protest:
Following the Tribunal's favorable ruling, the appellants filed for refunds of the duty paid under protest during 1989-90 and 1990-91. The amounts claimed were Rs. 8,08,172.68, Rs. 9,63,500.04, and Rs. 7,53,803.64 for three different appellant companies. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector issued Show Cause Notices to reject these refund claims, alleging that the incidence of excise duty had been passed on to the buyers.
3. Incidence of Duty Passed on to Customers:
The Assistant Collector argued that the appellants had not proven that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the customers. The appellants contended that their price lists were approved by the Department and that their selling prices remained constant before and after paying duty under protest. They provided Sale Invoices, Balance Sheets, and Profit and Loss accounts as evidence. However, the Assistant Collector rejected these contentions, noting that the appellants had made a profit during the relevant period, indicating that the duty burden was passed on to the buyers.
4. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The appellants argued that their refund claims fell outside the scope of Section 11B, as the duty paid under protest should be adjusted against the final duty amount determined after the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal, however, held that the payment of duty under protest does not equate to provisional assessment and that Section 11B applies to all refund claims. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Jain Spinners had held that the amended provisions of Section 11B apply to all earlier orders and directions for refund.
5. Admissibility of Trade Discounts:
The Assistant Collector found that the appellants had not claimed trade discounts in their price lists filed during 1989-90 and 1990-91. The appellants argued that the discounts were reflected in their net prices in the invoices. The Tribunal noted that it is for the appropriate officer to determine the assessable value and that the appellants must declare all elements of price, including discounts, in the price list. The case was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) to verify whether the discounts were claimed and allowed in the price lists and to consider other evidence provided by the appellants.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh decision, directing the appellants to furnish required invoices and other relevant documents to establish their claim of maintaining constant prices and not passing on the duty burden to customers. The Collector (Appeals) was also instructed to consider the appellants' evidence regarding the bridge loan and provisions in the profit and loss account. The appeals were disposed of by remand.
-
1995 (7) TMI 162
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Alternative plea to treat the appeal as a cross-objection.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, sought condonation of a 43-day delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 12-3-1993. The appeal should have been filed by 16-6-1993 but was received on 29-7-1993. The reasons cited were the absence of the concerned Collector due to leave and transfers, and the complexity and national importance of the issue, which required thorough consideration.
The application for condonation highlighted the absence of the Collector, Sri Moheb Ali, from 3-5-1993 to 18-6-1993, and the subsequent transfers and tours of other Collectors. The Principal Collector was also on tour during critical periods.
The department argued that the complexity of the issue, involving conflicting judgments on the classification of products with Ayurvedic ingredients, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. They referenced previous Tribunal decisions, such as the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Gujarat State Fertilisers Corporation Limited, which held that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.
The respondents, however, contended that the delay was due to routine handling of the matter and that there was no detailed explanation of the actions taken during the delay period. They cited several cases where delays by the government were not condoned, emphasizing that each case must establish sufficient cause.
The Tribunal noted that while government functioning might inherently involve delays, each case must still demonstrate sufficient cause. In this instance, the absence of detailed processing information during the critical period weakened the Collector's case. The Tribunal concluded that simply listing the dates of tours and transfers did not justify the delay.
2. Alternative Plea to Treat the Appeal as a Cross-Objection:
The department also requested that if the delay was not condoned, the appeal should be treated as a cross-objection to an existing appeal filed by the respondents, M/s. Procter & Gamble India Limited. The respondents opposed this, arguing it was not permissible.
One member of the Tribunal, however, supported the department's alternative plea, noting that the appeal was filed within 45 days of receiving the respondent's appeal notice. He argued that the absence of the concerned officers due to tours and transfers constituted a valid reason for the delay, and that the appeal should be heard on merits to advance substantial justice.
The majority of the Tribunal agreed with this view, citing the need for a pragmatic approach to condonation of delay, especially when substantial justice is at stake. They referenced the Supreme Court's justice-oriented approach in cases like Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, which emphasized that procedural delays should not impede substantive justice.
Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the department. The Registry was directed to link this appeal with the existing appeal filed by the respondents (Appeal No. E/865/93-C) to be heard together.
-
1995 (7) TMI 161
Issues:
1. Interpretation of dutiability of cotton yarn processed in a factory for clearance as plain reel hank yarn.
2. Applicability of Central Excise duty on yarn used for manufacturing twisted yarn.
3. Examination of exemptions under Central Excise Rules for cotton yarn in different forms.
4. Determination of whether a new product emerges from processes undertaken in the factory.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the dutiability of cotton yarn processed in a factory for clearance as plain reel hank yarn. The appellant argued that their finished product, the straight reel hank yarn, was exempt from Central Excise duty as it was the result of preparatory processes. They cited a Tribunal decision supporting their position.
2. The respondent contended that there was no exemption for yarn before its conversion into hank yarn, citing retrospective amendments in the Central Excise Rules. They relied on previous Tribunal decisions where twisting of yarn was considered manufacturing, leading to duty liability under specific Tariff entries.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the old Central Excise Tariff where cotton yarn was classified under specific entries. Exemptions were provided for cotton yarn in plain reel hank form, benefiting handloom industries. The Tribunal reviewed the conditions for exemption and the scheme's intent to relieve duty on plain reel hank yarn.
4. The Tribunal examined whether the processes undertaken in the factory resulted in the emergence of a new product. It was noted that no new product was created, and the intermediate goods were not used for weaving or manufacturing other commodities. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to determine when a new product emerges after processing and concluded that no new product emerged in this case.
5. Considering all relevant factors, including previous Tribunal decisions and legal principles, the Tribunal accepted the appeal and set aside the previous order demanding Central Excise duty on the processed yarn. The decision was based on the lack of duty liability for the in-process goods, which were not cleared for consumption or used in manufacturing other commodities beyond cotton yarn.
-
1995 (7) TMI 160
Issues Involved:
The appeal against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise confirming duty demand based on lean gas supply to M/s Kribhco Fertilizers and the issue of limitation.
Issue 1: Duty Demand on Lean Gas Supply
The appellant filed a classification list for lean gas, approved by the Assistant Collector, indicating nil duty under Notification 175/85. The gas supplied to M/s. Kribhco was intended for fertilizer manufacture, but the classification list did not specify use outside the factory. The appellant informed the Department of lean gas production and exemption claim before the period in question. The Superintendent's letter in March 1988 initiated the enquiry, to which the appellant promptly responded with details of gas supply to Kribhco. Despite the Department's awareness of the gas supply, the show cause notice was issued over 2 years later in 1991. The delay in issuing the notice, coupled with the appellant's cooperation and lack of wilful suppression, led to the conclusion that the appellant did not intend to evade duty.
Issue 2: Limitation
The appellant, a Commission under the Central Government, supplied gas to a public sector undertaking for fertilizer production, indicating no benefit from evading duty. Referring to the Rainbow Industries case, the Tribunal emphasized the need for wilful suppression and intention to evade duty for the extended period to apply. Finding no intention to evade duty or wilful suppression, the Tribunal held the demand barred by limitation. Consequently, the Collector's Order confirming duty and penalty was set aside, allowing the appeal.
-
1995 (7) TMI 159
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of hose assemblies under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of Chapter and Section Notes for classification.
3. Relevance of previous judicial decisions.
4. Evidentiary value of additional documents in classification.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Hose Assemblies under the Central Excise Tariff:
The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of hydraulic hose assemblies manufactured by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The company claimed classification under Heading 84.31 as parts of excavators, while the Central Excise department classified them under Heading 4009.92. The Assistant Collector confirmed the department's classification and demanded differential duty, a decision upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. Applicability of Chapter and Section Notes for Classification:
The advocate for the respondent argued that the hose assemblies are specifically designed for excavators, making them parts of machinery under Section XVI. He contended that Note 2(a) to Section XVI should classify the goods as component parts of machinery, and that Note 2(b) to Chapter 40 should not apply since it is limited to hardened rubber. The advocate also cited the non-interchangeable nature of the hose assemblies to support their classification as parts of excavators.
The department countered that if the legislature intended to exclude items of rubber other than hard rubber from Chapter 40, Note 2(d) would not be restricted to hard rubber. They argued that the classification should be based on Chapter 40 notes, not Section XVI, and that the explanatory notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) clarify that tubes, pipes, and hoses remain under Chapter 40 even if provided with fittings and cut to size.
3. Relevance of Previous Judicial Decisions:
The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the Track Parts Corporation case, which had considered the classification of rubber hose in detail. The Tribunal concluded that the classification under Heading 40.09, sub-heading 4009.50, was correct, as these hoses are made of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber with fittings. The Tribunal emphasized that parts of mechanical appliances of hard rubber are excluded from Chapter 40, but not those made of other types of rubber.
The Tribunal also addressed the advocate's reliance on the Aerolex Hose decision, noting that the Supreme Court had set aside the Aerolex decision but that the Track Parts decision stood independently.
4. Evidentiary Value of Additional Documents in Classification:
In a related appeal involving M/s. Aerolex Hose (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after considering additional evidence. The respondent provided a certificate from the Rubber Board indicating that the hose assemblies were made of hardened vulcanized rubber. However, the Tribunal found that the certificate did not establish that the hose assemblies in dispute were made from the same hose tested by the Rubber Board. The Tribunal noted that the samples were sent for testing after the original orders were passed and that the respondent had not claimed at any stage that the hose assemblies were made of hardened rubber.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the classification of the hose assemblies under sub-heading 4009.92, rejecting the company's appeal. The Tribunal also set aside the Collector (Appeals)' order in the Aerolex Hose case and restored the Assistant Collector's order, classifying the goods under sub-heading 4009.92. The Tribunal emphasized that the specific description in Heading 40.09 should be preferred over the general description in Heading 84.31, and that the essential character of the hose assemblies as tubes, pipes, and hoses with fittings justified their classification under Chapter 40.
-
1995 (7) TMI 158
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 181/88-C.E.
2. Misdeclaration of goods as SMP instead of partially SMP.
3. Applicability of Rule 196 and Section 11A for duty demand.
4. Provisional assessment and limitation period for duty demand.
5. Liability for duty payment under Chapter X Procedure.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 181/88-C.E.:
M/s. DIL claimed exemption for metal containers used for packing sweetened-vitaminised partially skimmed milk powder (SMP) under Notification No. 181/88-C.E., which exempts metal containers (other than those of aluminum) used for packing SMP from Central Excise duty. However, the exemption does not extend to partially SMP. The Tribunal noted that the appellants declared their product as SMP to avail the exemption, even though their product was partially SMP, which is not covered by the exemption notification. The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be construed strictly as per the plain language used therein, with no room for intendment.
2. Misdeclaration of goods as SMP instead of partially SMP:
The appellants declared their product as SMP to obtain CT 2 certificates for receiving metal containers without payment of Central Excise duty. However, for the purpose of levying Central Excise duty, they claimed their product was partially SMP, which carried a nil rate of duty. The Tribunal found this to be a case of misdeclaration, as the appellants continued to claim their product as SMP for remission of duty while contesting that it was partially SMP for levying duty. The Tribunal held that the appellants could not claim their product to be non-dutiable partially SMP for one purpose and SMP for another to avail benefits.
3. Applicability of Rule 196 and Section 11A for duty demand:
The Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, confirmed the duty demand under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the non-mentioning of Section 11A in the show cause notice does not vitiate the proceedings and the demand. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where similar issues were addressed, establishing that the demand for duty under Rule 196 read with B-8 bond was not subject to any time limit.
4. Provisional assessment and limitation period for duty demand:
The assessments in this case were provisional, and the goods were cleared under Rule 9B of the Rules, subject to execution of bond and bank guarantee. The Tribunal held that once the assessment is provisional, it is provisional for all purposes, and the limitation starts from the date of final assessment. The Tribunal cited several decisions supporting this view, including the Supreme Court's decision in Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad.
5. Liability for duty payment under Chapter X Procedure:
Under Chapter X Procedure, the liability in case of misuse of the concession is cast on the user, i.e., the L6 licensee, who uses the goods, and not the manufacturer of the said goods. The Tribunal held that the appellants, as L6 licensees, were liable for the duty as they used the metal containers for packing partially SMP, which was not covered by the exemption notification. The Tribunal cited previous decisions where similar liabilities were upheld, emphasizing that actual use must follow intention to earn the concession.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments. The appellants were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 181/88-C.E. for metal containers used for packing partially SMP. The misdeclaration of goods and the provisional nature of the assessments did not absolve the appellants of their liability to pay the demanded duty.
-
1995 (7) TMI 157
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Excise Duty Exemption under Notification No. 124/87-C.E.
2. Definition and Interpretation of "New Factory" under the Central Excise Law.
3. Whether modernisation and expansion qualify as establishing a new factory.
4. Application of Promissory Estoppel.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Excise Duty Exemption under Notification No. 124/87-C.E.:
The appellants, M/s Kanoria Industries Ltd., claimed excise duty exemption under Notification No. 124/87-C.E., dated 29-4-1987, which provided partial excise duty exemption to cement manufactured in a factory that commenced production between 1-1-1982 and 31-3-1986. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gulbarga, and subsequently the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore, rejected the appellants' claim on the grounds that their factory did not qualify as a new factory that commenced production during the specified period. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the appellants' factory was merely modernised and expanded, not newly established.
2. Definition and Interpretation of "New Factory" under the Central Excise Law:
The term "factory" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, includes any premises where excisable goods are manufactured. The Tribunal emphasized that a new factory must be established without merely expanding or modernising an existing factory. The Supreme Court's decision in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, AIR 1992 SC 1622, was cited, which stated that a new undertaking should not be formed by transferring existing machinery or material. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' factory did not meet this criterion as it was an existing unit that underwent modernisation and expansion.
3. Whether Modernisation and Expansion Qualify as Establishing a New Factory:
The Tribunal examined various documents and communications from the appellants, which indicated that the factory underwent substantial expansion and modernisation, including the installation of new equipment worth Rs. 14.50 crore. However, the Tribunal noted that a significant portion of the old equipment remained in use, and no new licences were obtained under the Factory Act or Central Excise Law. The Tribunal referred to the Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular dated 17-4-1989, which stated that substantial expansion or modernisation does not qualify for excise duty exemption unless a new factory comes into existence. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' factory was not a new factory but an existing one that had been modernised.
4. Application of Promissory Estoppel:
The appellants argued that they were under the impression that their modernised factory would qualify as a new factory for excise duty exemption, based on various communications from the Ministry of Industry. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 572 (SC), which held that the government is under no obligation to grant tax exemption and that promissory estoppel cannot operate against legislative functions. The Tribunal concluded that there was no representation by the government that the appellants' modernised factory would qualify for the exemption, and thus, the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellants' claim for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 124/87-C.E. The Tribunal found that the appellants' factory did not qualify as a new factory that commenced production during the specified period, as it was an existing unit that underwent modernisation and expansion. The Tribunal also rejected the appellants' argument based on promissory estoppel, stating that there was no representation by the government that their modernised factory would qualify for the exemption. Both appeals were dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 156
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of 'Paper based Decorative Laminated Sheets' for the benefit of Notification No. 135/89.
2. Eligibility of 'Paper based Decorative Laminated Sheets' for the benefit of Notification No. 49/87.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Eligibility of 'Paper based Decorative Laminated Sheets' for the benefit of Notification No. 135/89
The appellants contended that their product is not impregnated with plastics but with a combination of paper and chemicals such as Phenol Formaldehyde Solution and Melamine Formaldehyde solution. They argued that the chemical solutions used are not resins and polymerization occurs only at a later stage under heat and pressure, thus the product should not fall within the excluded category of the notification.
The Tribunal, however, noted that the manufacturing process involves passing paper through a resin bath, impregnating it with resin, and then compressing it under heat and pressure. This process results in the final product being impregnated with plastics. The Tribunal referred to Note 1 to Chapter 39, defining plastics, and concluded that the appellants' product is impregnated with plastics, thus falling within the exclusion category of Notification No. 135/89.
The Tribunal also considered the argument that the chemical solutions are not "goods" within the meaning of excise law but rejected it, stating that the key test is whether the final product is impregnated with plastics. The Tribunal held that the product is impregnated with plastics, referencing the manufacturing process and previous Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal concluded that the paper-based decorative laminated sheets are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 135/89 as they fall within the excluded category.
Issue 2: Eligibility of 'Paper based Decorative Laminated Sheets' for the benefit of Notification No. 49/87
The appellants argued that their product is a type of converted paper or paper board, thus eligible for total exemption from duty under Notification No. 49/87. They contended that even if the product is considered impregnated with plastics, the benefit of the notification should be available until 19-3-1990, as the exclusion of such products from the notification's scope occurred only with the issue of Notification No. 45/90 on 20th March 1990.
The Tribunal agreed with this contention, noting that the benefit of Notification No. 49/87 is available to the appellants' product for the period up to 19th March 1990. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions extending the benefit of similar notifications to products treated as converted types of paper/paper board.
The Tribunal held that the paper-based decorative laminated sheets are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 49/87 up to 19-3-1990, but not beyond that date due to the exclusion introduced by Notification No. 45/90.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the paper-based decorative laminated sheets are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 135/89 due to being impregnated with plastics. However, they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 49/87 up to 19-3-1990. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (7) TMI 155
Issues:
Admissibility of modvat credit on oxygen gas used in the manufacture of S.S. ingots.
Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the admissibility of modvat credit on oxygen gas used in the manufacture of ingots. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on settled issues and previous judgments, permitting modvat credit on oxygen gas when used for cutting purposes. The respondents, engaged in ingot manufacturing, had filed a refund claim for the period of October 1986 to July 1988, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector but later accepted by the Collector (Appeals) citing Trade Notice No. 68/90.
The appellant argued that the Trade Notice was not directly relevant to the case as it pertained to cutting of runners and risers from ingots, not cutting raw materials for ingots. The appellant contended that oxygen was a consumable item and not an input directly related to ingot manufacturing, citing tribunal decisions. As the respondents did not appear, the case proceeded ex parte. The Tribunal analyzed the use of oxygen for cutting scrap into smaller pieces, determining whether it was integral to the ingot manufacturing process.
The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including one related to ship breaking, to assess the eligibility of modvat credit for oxygen gas. It was concluded that oxygen used for cutting scrap was not an essential part of the ingot manufacturing process and therefore not eligible for modvat credit. The Tribunal distinguished the case from previous judgments and clarified that oxygen use for welding purposes or cutting runners and risers of ingots did not align with the Trade Notice cited by the Collector (Appeals).
Examining the necessity of oxygen in the ingot manufacturing process, the Tribunal found that oxygen was not essentially required for ingot production and therefore, modvat credit was not applicable. Based on the evidence and legal analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling against the availability of modvat credit for the respondents.
-
1995 (7) TMI 154
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 2/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994.
3. Interpretation of the terms "beverage" and "preparation for beverages" under the Central Excise Tariff.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of the product 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' under the Central Excise Tariff:
The appellants, M/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, classified 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' under sub-heading 2202.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, which covers "other non-alcoholic beverages not including fruit or vegetable juices of Heading No. 20.01". The Revenue, however, classified the product under sub-heading 2107.91, which includes "edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included".
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the classification under sub-heading 2107.91, arguing that 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' is a syrup and not a beverage. The product contains an 80% inert sugar base and 8% pineapple juice, and is used in various food preparations without the need for additional sugar.
The Tribunal majority agreed with this classification, noting that 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' is marketed as a syrup and its label and manufacturing process support this classification. The Tribunal also referenced Chapter Note 5(j) under Chapter 21, which includes preparations for beverages consisting of syrups.
2. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 2/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994:
The appellants sought a concessional rate of excise duty under exemption Notification No. 2/94-C.E., which they claimed applied to their product under sub-heading 2202.90. However, the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) denied this benefit, arguing that the product was correctly classified under sub-heading 2107.91 and thus not eligible for the exemption.
The Tribunal majority upheld this decision, stating that the exemption notification cannot change the classification of the product. The product must be classified based on its nature and the applicable tariff headings, not based on the exemption notification.
3. Interpretation of the terms "beverage" and "preparation for beverages" under the Central Excise Tariff:
The appellants argued that 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' should be classified as a beverage under sub-heading 2202.90. They cited Supreme Court decisions and other legal precedents to support their claim that the product is a beverage concentrate.
The Tribunal majority, however, found that 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' is a syrup and not a beverage. They referenced the product's label, manufacturing process, and usage, concluding that it fits the description of preparations for beverages under Chapter Note 5(j) of Chapter 21. The Tribunal also noted that the product's classification should be based on its general usage and known trade denominations.
Separate Judgments:
- Majority Decision (Lajja Ram and G.A. Brahma Deva): The product 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' is classified under sub-heading 2107.91 as a syrup and is not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 2/94-C.E. The appeal is dismissed.
- Dissenting Opinion (K. Sankararaman): The product should be classified under sub-heading 2202.90 as a non-alcoholic beverage. The appeal should be allowed.
Conclusion:
In view of the majority decision, 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' is classified under sub-heading 2107.91 of the Central Excise Tariff and is not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 2/94-C.E. The decision of the Collector (Appeals) is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 153
Issues Involved:
1. Application for production of additional evidence.
2. Clubbing of clearances for exemption purposes.
3. Validity of the Collector's findings on manufacturing activities and power supply.
4. Credibility of evidence and statements.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Application for Production of Additional Evidence:
The appellants sought to introduce new documents that were available during the proceedings but were not presented. They claimed ignorance of the basis on which the Collector would form his opinion. The Tribunal, referencing the case of *Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs* and other precedents, emphasized that additional evidence should not be allowed to fill gaps in the original case unless justified by exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for introducing new evidence at this stage and thus rejected the application.
2. Clubbing of Clearances for Exemption Purposes:
The appellants argued that the Collector inconsistently treated the clearances of M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and M/s. National Machine Works. While the proceedings against Jayalakshmi Machine Works were dropped, those against National Machine Works were upheld. The Collector distinguished the two cases based on the lack of three-phase power connection and the non-operational status of National Machine Works' premises. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, noting the specific circumstances and evidence that justified treating the clearances of National Machine Works as part of the appellants' clearances.
3. Validity of the Collector's Findings on Manufacturing Activities and Power Supply:
The Collector found that National Machine Works did not have the requisite three-phase power connection or sufficient machinery to manufacture the claimed products. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector's assessment that the evidence, including the Mahazar and statements from key personnel, indicated that National Machine Works could not have produced the sophisticated machinery. The Tribunal found the claims about diesel-powered generation and job work fabrication unconvincing and supported the Collector's conclusion that the appellants were the actual manufacturers.
4. Credibility of Evidence and Statements:
The appellants contended that the statements from Shri Venkatapathy and Smt. Indira were coerced. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this claim, emphasizing that the individuals were educated and unlikely to be forced into making false statements. The Tribunal supported the Collector's reliance on these statements, which corroborated the findings that the machinery was produced by the appellants and not by National Machine Works.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Collector's findings and confirmed the impugned order, rejecting the appeal. The detailed reasoning provided by the Collector on the various points raised by the appellants was upheld, including the determination that the machinery claimed to have been manufactured and sold by National Machine Works was actually produced by the appellants.
-
1995 (7) TMI 152
Issues:
1. Condonation of technical delay in filing the appeal.
2. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.
3. Interpretation of Notification 175/86 regarding Modvat Credit for branded goods.
Condonation of Technical Delay:
The judgment addresses the technical delay in filing the appeal and condones it based on the reasons stated in the petitions. The order is per S. Kalyanam, Vice President of the Tribunal.
Stay Petition for Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty:
The petitioner, a small-scale manufacturer of branded goods, filed a Stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of a duty amount levied under the original order of the AC Tanjore and confirmed in appeal by the Collector (Appeals), Trichy. The petitioner clears branded goods under the brand name 'NUTRINE' and their own brand 'EXCEL,' availing Modvat Credit for 'NUTRINE' but claiming exemption for 'EXCEL.' The authorities rejected the petitioner's claim based on Modvat Credit availed for 'NUTRINE.' The Tribunal, after considering submissions and records, finds the petitioner's contention well-founded, citing a circular by the Central Board permitting Modvat credit for exported goods even if full exemption is availed for goods cleared for home consumption under Notification 175/86. Consequently, the Tribunal grants waiver of pre-deposit of duty pending appeal due to the petitioner not availing Modvat Credit for their own branded goods.
Interpretation of Notification 175/86 on Modvat Credit:
The Tribunal examined the circular issued by the Central Board clarifying the position on Modvat Credit for small-scale units availing full exemption under Notification 175/86 for goods cleared for home consumption. The circular allows small-scale units to avail Modvat credit on inputs used for exported goods even if full exemption is claimed for goods cleared for home consumption. The Tribunal emphasized that if the assessee maintains separate accounts for export and home consumption production, they can take credit of duty paid on inputs for exported goods and use it for payment of duty on similar products after crossing the exemption limit or claim a refund as per Rule 57F(3). Based on this interpretation and the fact that the petitioner did not avail Modvat Credit for their own branded goods, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of duty pending appeal.
-
1995 (7) TMI 151
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the import license for the imported goods.
2. Liability of the imported goods for confiscation.
3. Correctness of the declared value of the imported goods.
4. Determination of assessable value.
5. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Import License:
The appellants imported two second-hand Spline Milling Machines and claimed clearance under the Import Policy 1992-97, asserting that the import was covered by their import license. The customs authorities found discrepancies, noting that the goods were 1986 make while the license specified 1984 make. The appellants argued that the discrepancy was clerical and insignificant. However, the Tribunal held that the year of manufacture is vital for valuation and compliance with import restrictions, and the failure to amend the license to reflect the correct year made the license invalid for the imported goods.
2. Liability for Confiscation:
The customs authorities argued that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were imported without a valid license. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the import of second-hand capital goods required a specific license, which was not valid in this case. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Public Notice No. 48/(PN)/92-97, which allowed such imports without a license, came into effect after the goods were shipped and landed, thus not applicable to this import.
3. Correctness of Declared Value:
The appellants declared the value of the goods based on the supplier's invoice. The customs authorities questioned this value, noting that the supplier was not the manufacturer and required the appellants to produce the manufacturer's invoice. The Tribunal found that the declared value was not acceptable as it pertained to machines of 1984 make, whereas the imported machines were of 1986 make.
4. Determination of Assessable Value:
The customs authorities enhanced the value of the imported goods for assessment purposes. The appellants argued that the transaction value should be accepted under Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. The Tribunal held that the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied in conjunction with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Given that the imported machines were second-hand and reconditioned, the Tribunal found that the customs authorities rightly determined the value using the manufacturer's price and allowing depreciation.
5. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to allow redemption of the machines on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. However, it found the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be on the higher side, considering the offense was more technical than substantive. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order with a modification, reducing the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (7) TMI 150
Issues:
Admissibility of modvat credit on oxygen and acetylene gas used for carbonising inside moulds for steel ingots.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh challenging the decision of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the admissibility of modvat credit on oxygen and acetylene gas used for carbonising inside moulds for steel ingots. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing steel ingots, had availed modvat credit on various inputs including oxygen and acetylene gas. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand on some inputs but allowed the credit on oxygen and acetylene gas. The Collector (Appeals) disagreed on the admissibility of credit for certain inputs but allowed it for oxygen and acetylene gas. The JDR for the Revenue argued that oxygen and acetylene gas were used for maintenance of ingot moulds, which are not considered inputs for the final product, hence not eligible for modvat credit. The JDR referred to the Ministry's letter and Trade Notice to support this argument.
The JDR contended that since oxygen and acetylene gas were used for maintenance of moulds, which are not considered inputs under Rule 57A, they should not qualify for modvat credit. The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the credit for oxygen and acetylene gas but not for other items like ingot moulds, ceramics, and refractory. The JDR argued that the gases were not used in the manufacturing process of steel ingots but for maintaining the moulds, which are equipment themselves. As no one appeared for the respondents during the hearing, the case was decided ex parte.
After considering the arguments and evidence, the judge found that oxygen and acetylene gas were used for carbonising inside the moulds to improve the surface of steel ingots. The judge disagreed with the Collector (Appeals) and held that the gases were not being used for cutting or welding purposes, as mentioned in the Collector (Appeals) order. The judge emphasized that the moulds are apparatus or equipment for maintaining proper conditions and their upkeep is separate from the manufacturing process. Therefore, the use of oxygen and acetylene gas for maintaining the moulds did not qualify as an input for modvat credit. The judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling that modvat credit on oxygen and acetylene gas was not admissible in this case.
-
1995 (7) TMI 149
Issues Involved:
1. Evasion of duty and confiscation of goods and truck.
2. Imposition of penalties on partners without specific show cause notice.
3. Confiscation of the truck.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Evasion of Duty and Confiscation of Goods and Truck:
The appellants, M/s. Punjab Bottling Company, were found to have cleared substantial quantities of aerated water without payment of duty by using unauthorized duplicate gate passes with forged Central Excise Inspector's signatures. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the evasion of duty based on detailed findings, including the statements of Sh. Charanjit Singh. The appellants did not seriously contest the levy of duty and gave up the claim of benefit under Notification No. 31/92. Consequently, the confiscation of 1188 crates of aerated water and Truck No. DEL-1377, along with the levy of duty, was upheld.
2. Imposition of Penalties on Partners Without Specific Show Cause Notice:
The main contention was that no specific show cause notice was issued to Sh. Charanjit Singh Anand and Sh. S.S. Dhanjal, partners of M/s. Punjab Bottling Company, for the imposition of penalties. The show cause notice was addressed to the firm but not explicitly to the partners. The Tribunal in previous cases (Mukha Mal Gokal Chand v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi and Kallatra Mahin v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore) held that issuing a show cause notice to the person concerned before imposing a penalty is mandatory. The absence of such a notice to the partners rendered the penalties imposed on them unsustainable. Therefore, the penalties on Sh. Charanjit Singh Anand and Sh. S.S. Dhanjal were set aside.
3. Confiscation of the Truck:
The truck used for transporting the goods was confiscated. However, the appellants contended that they employed a driver for plying the truck on hire and had no knowledge that the gate pass covering the consignment was not genuine. The learned DR could not provide specific evidence of connivance or knowledge. The Tribunal found that mere suspicion was insufficient for confiscation, fine, or penalty. Hence, the confiscation of the truck was set aside, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Separate Judgments Delivered:
1. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J): Confirmed the duty demand and confiscation of goods and truck but set aside the penalties on the partners due to the absence of specific show cause notice to them.
2. S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President: Agreed with the confiscation of goods and truck but opined that the matter of penalties should be remanded for de novo consideration after issuing fresh notices to the partners.
3. Harish Chander, President: Concurred with Member (J) that no specific show cause notice was issued to the partners for penalty, making the penalties invalid. Confirmed the confiscation of the truck as no arguments against it were advanced.
Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the demand of duty and the confiscation of the goods and the truck is confirmed, but the penalties imposed on Sh. Charanjit Singh Anand and Sh. S.S. Dhanjal are set aside.
-
1995 (7) TMI 148
Issues: Classification of printed labels and wrappers for duty chargeability.
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the classification and duty chargeability of printed labels and wrappers. The appellants argued that the printed labels, which were flat pieces of paper used for indicating product details, should be classified under 4818.90 and exempted from duty under specific notifications. They relied on a judgment from the Bombay High Court to support their classification. Additionally, the appellants contended that the printed wrappers should also be classified as printed labels under 4818.90 and be exempt from duty based on previous tribunal decisions and notifications.
The respondent, however, argued that the printed labels were actually containers or cases, not just labels, as they were used to contain cigarettes within an aluminum foil wrapper. Therefore, the respondent asserted that the labels should be classified as cigarette cases under 4818.13 and were not eligible for the duty exemption applicable to printed labels. Regarding the wrappers, the respondent contended that they were printed paper used for wrapping, falling under Chapter 48 classifications and not qualifying for the benefit of specific notifications due to lack of evidence showing their converted paper status.
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. For the printed labels, the Tribunal agreed with the respondent that the product functioned as a container or case rather than a mere label, leading to their classification under 4818.13 and exclusion from duty exemptions meant for labels. As for the wrappers, the Tribunal acknowledged their use for wrapping but also noted that they were a converted type of paper used for specific purposes. The Tribunal referenced a circular from the Board recognizing such conversion activities and concluded that the wrappers should be classified under 48.17 as articles of paper used for wrapping, not qualifying for the benefit of a specific notification applicable post-March 1987.
Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of based on the above analysis, affirming the classification of printed labels as containers and the classification of wrappers as converted paper articles used for wrapping, without eligibility for certain duty exemptions.
-
1995 (7) TMI 147
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the status of the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP) instead of a registered firm.
2. Applicability of Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for registration under the Income-tax Act.
4. Assessment year for taxing the capital gains.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the Status of the Assessee as an AOP:
The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1991-92, declaring an income of Rs. 4,45,000 and claimed the status of a registered firm. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) determined the status as an Association of Persons (AOP) and denied the benefit of registration. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, agreeing that the assessee should be assessed as an AOP. The Tribunal found that since the firm was dissolved on 6-4-1989, there was no partnership deed or application for registration for the assessment year 1991-92, making the registration or continuation thereof legally impossible. Therefore, the assessee was rightly assessed as an AOP.
2. Applicability of Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that the provisions of Section 45(4) should deem the firm as a registered firm for tax purposes. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 45(4) is a deeming provision created to tax the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution on the dissolution of a firm. This fiction was for the limited purpose of bringing such capital gains to tax and could not be extended to treat the dissolved firm as a registered firm. The Tribunal emphasized that the fiction in Section 45(4) does not override the requirements for registration under Sections 182 to 185 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Registration:
The Tribunal noted that for a firm to be treated as registered, it must comply with specific procedural requirements, including the existence of a partnership deed and an application for registration. In this case, the firm was dissolved, and there was no partnership deed or application for registration for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal held that the benefit of registration could not be extended to the assessee due to the lack of compliance with these procedural requirements. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not file any condonation petition for the delay in filing Form No. 12.
4. Assessment Year for Taxing the Capital Gains:
The assessee contended that if the income on distribution of capital assets was chargeable in the year of dissolution (1989), the income for the assessment year 1991-92 should be assessed at 'NIL.' The Tribunal clarified that the capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution on dissolution are chargeable to tax in the previous year in which the transfer took place. Since the transfer took place on 11-8-1990, relevant to the assessment year 1991-92, the assessment was correctly made for the year under appeal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment should have been made for the assessment year 1990-91.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee was rightly assessed as an AOP, and the provisions of Section 45(4) did not entitle the assessee to be treated as a registered firm. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements for registration and clarified the correct assessment year for taxing the capital gains.
-
1995 (7) TMI 146
Issues Involved:
1. Accrual of income and taxability of Rs. 12,50,000.
2. Method of accounting (accrual vs. receipt basis).
3. Jurisdiction under Section 263.
4. Rate of tax applicable to the income.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Accrual of Income and Taxability of Rs. 12,50,000:
The primary issue was whether the income of Rs. 12,50,000 had accrued to the foreign company and was thus taxable in the assessment year 1984-85. The CIT held that the income accrued in India and was taxable under Section 5(2)(b), despite the foreign company's claim that the income should be taxed on a receipt basis. The Tribunal concluded that no income had in fact accrued to the foreign company, as the agreement between the Indian and foreign companies was rescinded ab initio, and the project did not proceed. Consequently, there was no right to receive the payment, and thus, no income to be taxed.
2. Method of Accounting (Accrual vs. Receipt Basis):
The foreign company had consistently declared its income on a receipt basis. The CIT directed that the income should be taxed on an accrual basis, which was challenged by the foreign company. The Tribunal found that the method of accounting could not be changed for part of the income for the same year. The foreign company's income on a receipt basis exceeded the disputed amount, and thus, the assessment order was not prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the method of accounting should remain consistent, and the income should not be taxed on an accrual basis.
3. Jurisdiction under Section 263:
The CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, claiming the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT did not record a post-hearing finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The foreign company had been offering its income on a receipt basis, and the CIT did not consider the non-accounting of Rs. 12,50,000 in the context of other income accounted for on that basis. Thus, the Tribunal quashed the CIT's order due to this procedural deficiency.
4. Rate of Tax Applicable to the Income:
The dispute also involved the rate of tax applicable to the income of Rs. 12,50,000. The CIT(A) held that the proper rate was 20% under Section 115A(1)(b)(ii)(1), while the Assessing Officer had taxed it at 40%. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the income, if taxable, should be taxed at 20% as it was a lump sum payment for know-how transferred outside India. The Tribunal also noted that the payment was not for outright sale but for the right to use technical know-how, thus constituting royalty.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the income of Rs. 12,50,000 had not accrued to the foreign company and was not taxable in the assessment year 1984-85. The method of accounting should remain on a receipt basis, and the CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed due to procedural deficiencies. If the income were taxable, the appropriate rate would be 20%. The foreign company's appeal was allowed, and the department's appeal was dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
