Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 294 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... ued by the representative that the failure of natural justice inasmuch as Dy. C.C. report has not been given to him as this if shown to him, he could have liberty to retract it (sic). 5. emsp In my view natural justice cannot be treated in a strait jacket. The finding of the lower authorities is based on the chemical process described by the appellant rsquo s themselves in page 18. The reference to Dy. C.C. does not militant against the processes mentioned by the appellants. In my view therefore, since Lithium Metal does not form part of the end product, even though it may have participated in the processes of manufacturer cannot be treated as drug intermediate. It is stated that the decision cited by the ld. DR in between the raw material stage and the end product, I am not convinced that the appellants have made out a case. No doubt it is true that earlier consignment was cleared by the Customs in my view no two wrongs can make a thing right. I therefore dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (1) TMI 293 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability of goods used in testing ... ... ... ... ..... in accordance with specifications and is required under rules. It should be obvious, therefore, that these cylinders could not be conceivably marketed unless such tests are carried out by statutory authorities. It can not, therefore, be said that any duty was leviable at that stage. There was no effective removal of goods which could be termed as excisable goods at the stage prior to testing. 5. emsp For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, we are satisfied that Collector (Appeals) was correct in holding against the Revenue Appellant and in favour of the respondents. Incidentally, it may also be mentioned that the authorisation issued by the Collector is also defective in that it merely authorises an officer to appeal without indicating whether Collector has applied his mind to the issue before him and arrived at a finding that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is not legal and proper. In the circumstances, we reject the Revenue Appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1997 (1) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Kum-kum - “Sticker Kum-kum (Bindi)” ... ... ... ... ..... , dated 19-7-1990. 7. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that Kum-kum including velvet sticker Kum-kum and circular stickers of different materials having Kum-kum are covered by the Tribunal rsquo s above order in the case of Tips and Toes Cosmetics Ltd. (supra) cited by the ld. Counsel. The department has not produced any material to show that the appellant rsquo s product was in any way different from the one covered by the aforesaid order of the tribunal. 8. emsp Therefore, respectfully following the ratio thereof, we hold that the same was covered by Notification No. 235/86 as amended till the said notification was in force and by the Notification No. 27/90 for the remaining period. 9. emsp Further, we clarify that in this order we have dealt with the impugned order only insofar as it relates to the order-in-original No. 19th July, 1990 since this particular appeal has arisen only w.r.t. the said order. 10. emsp The appeal is allowed in above terms.
-
1997 (1) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... ng and cleaning etc. which indicate that it has properties which should not be found in a conveyor belt. A letter dated 23-10-1990 of the Bombay Textile Research Association also says that the rubber blanket is a specialised endless blanket made of special fabrics got with rubber used for textile printing. It is thus evident that the rubber blankets are understood in the trade and technically are for use in textile printing and the goods imported, being such rubber blankets, would be covered by this entry. The contention fo the Departmental Representative that it is only those blankets which are not endless which would be covered by this entry is not supported by the wording of the entry. It is evident that the framers of the policy makers had recognised the difference between conveyor belts and rubber blankets, which have specialised use and limited application. The appellant was therefore entitled to clear the goods under OGL. Appeal allowed. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1997 (1) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... time clearly provides that the owner or person from whom the goods seized ordered to be confiscated and permitted to be redeemed on fine shall be liable to pay any duty and charges payable. He further contends that it can be hardly questioned that duty is payable on goods imported into the country. 4. emsp I agree with both these points. It appears that the Collector (Appeals) rsquo view that there is no provision in law for recovery of duty on such confiscated goods apparently overlooks this provision. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (1) TMI 289 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... in view thereof drawn our attention specifically to the Chapter Note 1(f) which reads as follows - Paper-reinforced stratified plastic sheeting or one layer of paper or paper board coated or covered with a layer of plastics, the latter constituting more than half the total thickness. 10. emsp In the present case according to the order of the Collector (Appeals), it is the paper material which constitutes more than 68 by weight and thickness and the resin content is less than 40 . In view of this position, the product of the respondents is not hit by Chapter Note 1(f) referred to in the Board rsquo s tariff advice. Since these type of products are already covered by the Tribunal rsquo s orders cited by ld. Collector (Appeals), and we have no reason to differ from the ratio of these orders, respectfully following the same we reject the department rsquo s appeal and uphold the orders of the Collector (Appeals). 11. emsp The Cross Objection is also disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (1) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Interpretation of exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... ssued, therefore, the Addl. Collector was at that time justified in his view that the benefit could be extended to only such blocks and sheets which were so used for manufacture of other articles of thermocol. However, since subsequently the amending Notification 13/91, dated 20-3-1991 has been issued the two notifications have to be read together in the context of the fact that they are 11C notifications which always relate to a past period and are beneficiary in nature inasmuch as they extend relief to the assessees. In our opinion it is required to be seen that the intended benefit is not otherwise denied and the purpose is not defeated. In the above circumstances, we hold that the 11C notifications put together cover the products and the period in question and therefore, the demand, even if otherwise due, was not required to be enforced. In view of this position, we need not enter into other issues relating to time bar etc. at this stage. The appeal is therefore accepted.
-
1997 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Wiper motor with tubular links ... ... ... ... ..... ese and not examined the issue in depth with reference to the aspects as above. What is required to be decided is as to what is the scope of Chapter note 2 to Section 85 and what are the items of Heading 85.01 which are taken to have been drawn out to Heading 85.12 by virtue of Chapter note (2) and whether the parts falling under Heading 85.12 be a motor or otherwise would fall under Heading 85.12 or by reason of the specific entry for electric motor under Heading 85.01 the motor would be assessable under Heading 85.01. All this not having been adverted to, we hold that the order of the learned lower authority cannot be said to be a proper order and in this view, we set aside the order of the learned lower appellate authority and remand the matter to the said authority for de novo adjudication after giving the respondents an opportunity of being heard and also an opportunity to the deptt. to put forth the case if they choose to do. The appeals are therefore allowed by remand.
-
1997 (1) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... een proceeded with for short levy by issue of show cause notice by Supdt. on 16-12-1985. This was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector who dropped the proceedings by his order-in-original. This was reviewed by the Collector by his memorandum dated 20-1-1988 and issued a fresh show cause notice alleging evasion of duty by wilful statement and suppression of facts. We find that the readjudication of proceedings on this ground is not available to the department, as the relevant facts have also been found from the records of the assessee itself and further the Asstt. Collector himself had dropped the proceedings as demands being barred by time. Reopening the proceedings by the Collector by issue of memorandum dated 20-1-1988 is beyond the jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. We upheld the assessee rsquo s contention that there is no suppression of facts or mis-statement to reopen the proceedings. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (1) TMI 285 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ay be present in the metallic ores. It is this slag, ash and residue which will be covered under this heading. The goods in question admittedly have not been obtained in the processing of metallic ores but were obtained in the electrolytic process where the zinc sheets after they had served out their purpose from electrocution were taken out as residue. We observe that the NARI Circular NF-82 referred to by the appellants carries the heading Standard classifications for non-ferrous scrap metals even though the items in this has been described by different code numbers. The classification given in that has to be taken to be that for scrap metals. The appellants on their own have relied upon a document which describes their goods as scrap. In view of the fact that we have ruled out the classification under Chapter 26 we hold that in the light of our discussions the appellants rsquo goods have been rightly classified under Tariff Heading 79.01. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of first clearances how to be computed ... ... ... ... ..... This stand is not correct. Notification No. 245/83 exempted patent or proprietary medicines from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon at the tariff rate as is in excess of the amount of duty calculated on the basis of the value arrived at after allowing discount of 15 on the retail prices of the medicines specified in the price list referred to therein. This does not prescribe a method of valuation different from the methods prescribed in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The requirement of adopting the retail prices and discounting the same by 15 was only for the purpose of arriving at the extent of exemption. That has no impact on the assessable value of the goods cleared under the notification and, therefore, even in regard to those goods, the proper valuation under Section 4 of the Act has to be adopted in reckoning the excess over the limit of clearances prescribed in Notification No. 83/83. 8. emsp The appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... iciency of the declaration under the Modvat Scheme is a question of law. Noting that the Department has accepted that Sapcostat Finish i.e. the input on which credit was availed is a type of Spin Finish Oil and further noting that the applicants had declared Spin Finish Oils by various trade names and further noting that Chapter 34 has been declared in their 57G declaration, I agree with the applicants that a question of law arises for reference to the concerned High Court i.e. the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Raj- asthan and accordingly forward the following question for reference thereto ldquo Whether the declaration filed on 29-7-1991 under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is to be accepted for the purpose of extending Modvat credit, when the description of goods therein is of a general nature viz. Spin Finish Oil (by various trade names), while the goods received bear the specific trade name viz. Sapcostat 2152P, both falling under Chapter 34 of the CETA, 1985 .
-
1997 (1) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classication ... ... ... ... ..... arn spun from silk waste, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. Chapter 56 refers to wadding, felt and non-wovens, special yarns, twine cordage, ropes, etc. Further sub-heading 5601.00 specifies that wadding of textile materials and articles thereof e.g. sanitary towels and tampons, textile fibres not exceeding 5 mm in length (flock), textile dust and mill neps. In view of the specific description that textile fibres and wadding of textiles not exceeding 5 mm in length, it cannot be classified under Heading 56 and sub-heading 5601.00. In the facts and circumstances and particularly in view of the HSN Notes and in the absence of specific entry for the item, in question, authorities were right in classifying the items under Heading 5001 of Central Excise Tariff Act. We concur with their view and accordingly, we up-hold the impugned order and in the result, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) ibid for captive consumption available ... ... ... ... ..... (1) and 49(4) can be extended to HDPE sacks manufactured out of HDPE tapes. We find that an identical issue was before this Tribunal in the case Auroplast (India) Ltd. and the Tribunal held that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) can be extended to HDPE sacks manufactured out of HDPE tapes. The relevant portion of the order has already been quoted in the preceding paragraph. We also observe that this decision of the Tribunal was further followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Primo Pick N Pick (P) Ltd. also cited above. Following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the benefit of Rules 9(1) and 49(4) shall be admissible to the appellants. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law. The impugned order disposes of two appeals. However, the other appeal is not listed before us and, therefore, this order will be applicable to M/s. Narmada Plastics (P) Ltd. only.
-
1997 (1) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... re us in full. 5. emsp On this ground alone, the order would deserve to be set aside. Even then we take into account the further submissions of Shri Gujral that the demand issued under the show cause notice is barred by limitation and also that the notice having been signed by the Supdt. cannot become a legal notice. We find that the show cause notice was made for confirmation of demand for the period more than six months prior to the date of the show cause notice. Rule 9(2), at the material time, referred to the period of limitation under Section 11A and as suggested by Shri Gujral, the requirements under the provision of that Section including those as to who were empowered to sign the show cause notice would apply. Since the show cause notice, which was required to be issued by the Collector, was issued by Supdt., it ceases to be a valid show cause notice. 6. emsp Thus, on both counts, the appeal succeeds. The lower orders are set aside and consequential relief is ordered.
-
1997 (1) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... to the price charged to the wholesalers since the advance was received not from the wholesalers but from persons placing orders and the appellants had kept the money out of its own control by investing the entire amount in the securities and the question of advances having nexus with the price to the wholesale dealer could not arise. It is further pointed out that in connection with the decision relied on by the lower authorities that was a case where deposit of advances was received apart from the price and there was no evidence to support the stand taken that the amounts had not been utilised in the manufacture of excisable goods and on both these counts the decision is inapplicable. 4. emsp Having considered the above submissions, we are of the prima facie view that the applicant has made out an arguable case. We, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit and stay the collection of the amount of differential duty during the pendency of appeal. Application is allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... force in the plea of the ld. Counsel of the appellant that no fair and effective opportunity of hearing has been given because notice of hearing itself was received on the date of hearing. This fact has been substantially corroborated by the evidence brought on record by the appellant. Therefore, we find that principle of natural justice had not been followed and fair and effective opportunity of hearing had not been granted to the appellant. In addition to this, the relied upon documents demanded by the appellant has also not been supplied to them. In view of the discussion above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Lucknow for deciding the case afresh after supplying the relied upon documents to the appellant and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The appellants are at liberty to raise all the legal and factual pleas before the adjudicating authority. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
1997 (1) TMI 277 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... , is liable to be penalised. So what is be proved is that the appellant abetted the above said persons in taking out this currency from India to another country. The evidence on record only shows that the appellant converted the Indian currency into foreign currency at the instance of those two persons. There is absolutely nothing in the statement to show that the appellant abetted them in doing this act of taking out of this currency from India to an outside country. There is also no evidence to show as to how the appellant abetted the above said persons in the commission of any such offence. In view of this fact, we are of the view that no case is made out against the appellant and we hold that no evidence is brought on record to implicate the appellant with respect to this act and therefore the imposition of penalty is not legal. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of imposition of penalty. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by department ... ... ... ... ..... Collector taking a new ground. The approach of the order passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), cannot be fault with. When the time bar has been held against the Department by the Asstt. Collector and the same not having been questioned by the Department, in law, how can the Department question the entire matter on merits? Because even if we have to accept for one moment for the sake of argument on merits the department has good case, if the claim is barred by limitation then the Department cannot succeed. To put it in other way, the Department has to succeed not only on the basis of the merits but also satisfy the adjudicating authority that it is not barred by limitation. If one of the conditions viz. limitation is not fulfilled then the Department will fail in this case. The finding of the Asstt. Collector having become final against the Department in respect of limitation, he cannot be challengeable on merits. Hence the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... D. G. sets and the D.G. sets are made operational only by use of these two inputs. Therefore, on a plain interpretation of the term inputs used as fuel rsquo , it means ldquo fuel rdquo which generates heat which could be in the form of electricity also. Since electricity is self generated, which comes into existence as an intermediary product, its utilisation for production of final product being crucial hence the Modvat on RFO and LDO used in its production cannot be denied. 13. emsp It is also the department rsquo s claim that the inputs are used in the furnace as well, during various stages of production when this be the case, then its direct use in the furnace during manufacture of final product also cannot be denied. 14. emsp In that view of the matter, I do not find the reasoning given by the lower authorities justifiable to uphold the order. The contentions of the appellants requires acceptance. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
............
|