|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 106
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 212/86 for the entire month of March 1986.
2. Interpretation of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986.
3. Validity of demands raised by the Department for the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986.
4. Whether Notification No. 175/86 was applicable during the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986.
5. The effect of the suspension of Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 202/86.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 212/86 for the Entire Month of March 1986:
The Tribunal examined whether Notification No. 212/86, which was issued on 25-3-1986, should be applied retrospectively from 1-3-1986. The Tribunal concluded that Notification No. 212/86, which restored the rates of duty prevailing before 1-3-1986, was applicable for the entire month of March 1986. This conclusion was based on the provisions of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, which aimed to maintain the effective rates of duties at the level obtaining prior to 1-3-1986.
2. Interpretation of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986:
The Tribunal interpreted the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, to mean that any notification issued between 3-3-1986 and 8-8-1986, which aimed to restore the rates of duty to the level before 1-3-1986, would be deemed effective from 1-3-1986. Notification No. 212/86 fell within this period and restored the rates to those prevailing under Notification No. 85/85, dated 17-3-1985. Therefore, it was deemed effective from 1-3-1986.
3. Validity of Demands Raised by the Department for the Period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986:
The Tribunal upheld the demands raised by the Department for the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986, based on Notification No. 212/86. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, only provided relief to assessees and did not empower the Department to raise additional demands. The clear language of the statute indicated that the rates of duties should be maintained at the level prior to 1-3-1986, which justified the demands for differential duty.
4. Whether Notification No. 175/86 was Applicable During the Period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986:
The Tribunal found that Notification No. 175/86, which prescribed different rates of duty, was not applicable during the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. This was because Notification No. 212/86, which restored the rates to those prevailing before 1-3-1986, was deemed effective from 1-3-1986 under the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. Therefore, the rates under Notification No. 175/86 were not applicable for this period.
5. The Effect of the Suspension of Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 202/86:
Notification No. 202/86 suspended the operation of Notification No. 175/86 for the period from 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. The Tribunal held that this suspension was temporary and did not affect the retrospective application of Notification No. 212/86. The Tribunal emphasized that the suspension period alone was relevant for determining the applicability of Notification No. 175/86, and the retrospective application of Notification No. 212/86 was in accordance with the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, concluding that Notification No. 212/86 was applicable for the entire month of March 1986. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the interpretation of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, which aimed to maintain the effective rates of duties at the level obtaining prior to 1-3-1986. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the Act only provided relief to assessees and did not empower the Department to raise additional demands. The Tribunal's decision was further supported by the Allahabad High Court's judgment in a similar case and the Tribunal's own previous decisions.
-
1994 (9) TMI 105
Constitutional validity of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
Held that:- Section 12 opens with the words "except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force". Thus, Section 12 is subject to Section 15 among others. Secondly, Section 12 does not purport to prescribe the date with reference to which rate of duty shall be determined. It only says that duties of customs shall be levied at such rate as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act on goods imported. It is Section 15 that prescribes the date with reference to which the rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods shall be determined. A reading of Sections 15, 46 and 68 makes it clear that they provide an option to the importer either to file a bill of entry for home consumption straightaway (in which case he has to pay the duty determined with reference to that date) or to file a bill of entry for warehousing. In the latter case, the goods are merely warehoused. The import duty will be levied at the rate and on the basis of the valuation determined in accordance with the provisions prevailing on the date of clearance from the warehouse for which purpose the importer has to file a fresh bill of entry for home consumption. In other words, it is the date of filing the bill of entry for home consumption which determines the rate of duty in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 15. Thus no room for any legitimate grievance of discrimination. Appeal dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 104
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, regarding the validity of proceedings initiated without a show cause notice. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the proceedings were null and void due to the absence of a show cause notice. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.
-
1994 (9) TMI 103
Issues:
1. Contravention of Central Excise Rules regarding processing of fabrics with power or steam.
2. Claim of exemption from duty based on processing method.
3. Timeliness of the notice issued by the Department.
4. Penalty imposed on the appellant.
5. Reduction of penalty amount.
6. Extension of time for compliance with the Collector's order.
Analysis:
1. The appellant-firm was accused of contravening Central Excise Rules by processing cotton fabrics with power or steam without the required license. The appellant contested the claim, stating that power was not used, but steam was employed for heating dye and wax solutions. The Tribunal found no evidence of power usage but concluded that steam was utilized, leading to duty liability.
2. The Tribunal determined the processing method based on the appellant's statement that the fabric was not coarse and that steam was used. The claim for duty exemption hinged on the absence of power usage. As the Tribunal's decision was factual and supported by the appellant's admission of steam usage, it was deemed legally sound.
3. The appellant argued that the Department's notice was time-barred, but the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing the appellant's admission of steam usage. Despite this, leniency was suggested regarding the penalty due to the circumstances.
4. In light of the case specifics, the Court decided to partially allow the appeal and reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 5,000.
5. The Court granted an extension for the appellant to provide any outstanding details or information required for compliance with the Collector's order, extending the deadline by two months.
6. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, concluding the judgment on the Central Excise matter involving fabric processing methods and duty liability.
-
1994 (9) TMI 102
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the paper manufacturer for excise duty exemption, as they failed to prove that their factory did not have a plant for making bamboo pulp or wood pulp. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that temporary disconnection of such plant did not change the factory's eligibility. The appellants did not provide crucial evidence to support their claim. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 101
Issues involved: Manufacturing process of marble agglomerated blocks, excise duty liability, properties of agglomerated marble compared to excavated marble.
Manufacturing Process and Excise Duty Liability: The respondents manufacture marble agglomerated blocks using a process involving crushing marble, mixing pigments and binding agents, pouring the mixture into moulds, and applying pressure. The issue was whether agglomerated marble should be subject to excise duty under Tariff Heading 68.07. The High Court allowed a Writ Petition stating that the product was not liable for excise duty. The Supreme Court found that the question of whether the properties of agglomerated marble differ from excavated marble is a question of fact best left to the fact-finding authorities. The High Court should not have interfered at the show cause notice stage.
Assessment Order and Opportunity of Hearing: The excise authorities were permitted to proceed with the assessment but not enforce it without permission. An assessment order was passed without giving the respondents a hearing, leading to a dispute. The Supreme Court directed the cancellation of the assessment order and instructed the Assistant Collector to provide the respondents with a hearing before passing a fresh assessment order. The respondents were given the opportunity to challenge the new assessment order and present any evidence they deemed fit. The Assistant Collector was directed to pass the assessment order without reference to the High Court judgment or previous orders.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order without any costs imposed. The respondents were directed to appear before the Assistant Collector for a fresh assessment, ensuring a fair opportunity for a hearing and consideration of evidence.
-
1994 (9) TMI 100
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notices regarding excise duty on construction activity
Analysis:
The judgment involved multiple connected writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued by the Respondent (Additional Collector) regarding the imposition of excise duty on construction activities conducted by the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the construction of sheds using iron and steel did not amount to "manufacture" as defined under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They argued that the process of fabrication did not attract excise duty. The Respondents opposed the petitions, treating them as a response to the show cause notices.
The Counsel for the petitioners relied on various judgments to support their argument that the construction activity did not constitute "manufacture" under the law. They emphasized that the process of making trusses, beams, and other articles from raw materials like iron and steel was fabrication and not manufacturing as per the legal definition.
The Court, after considering the arguments and legal precedents, concluded that the Respondents erred in equating fabrication with manufacture for the purpose of levying excise duty. The judgment highlighted the distinction between fabrication and manufacture, emphasizing that only the latter is subject to excise duty. The Court noted that the burden of proof was on the department, which failed to establish that the construction activity amounted to manufacture.
The judgment further delved into the constitutional aspect of taxation, citing precedents that emphasized the need for every stage of the taxation process to be authorized by law. It underscored the importance of fairness and reasonableness in the exercise of discretionary powers by authorities, ensuring that legitimate rights of individuals are not unjustly infringed.
Ultimately, the Court held that the construction of sheds by the petitioners did not amount to manufacturing goods liable for excise duty. It quashed the show cause notices, ruling them as without jurisdiction and not backed by legal authority. The judgment emphasized the need for correct interpretation of tax laws to prevent undue burden on taxpayers and maintain adherence to legal principles.
In conclusion, the Court allowed all the writ petitions, quashing the show cause notices demanding duty and penalty. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and security costs were to be refunded. The judgment was to be retained in the records of each petition for reference.
-
1994 (9) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to a show-cause notice issued by the Central Excise Department under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the use of a registered trade mark in relation to manufacturing and sale of specified goods, and the entitlement to exemption under a Notification.
Details of the Judgment:
1. Challenge to Show-Cause Notice:
The respondents, manufacturers of mechanical power transmission equipment, were challenged by a show-cause notice alleging the use of another person's trade mark, thereby questioning their entitlement to exemption under a Notification. The Trial Judge quashed the show-cause notice and related letter based on the respondents' exclusive right to use the registered trade mark 'Vulkan' under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
2. Exclusive Right to Trade Mark:
The respondents, as the registered proprietors of the trade mark 'Vulkan,' claimed the exclusive right to use it in relation to their products nationwide. They had availed of central excise duty exemption as a small scale industrial unit and possessed the necessary Central Excise License.
3. Legal Findings:
The Trial Judge confirmed that the respondents had legitimately benefited from the exemption due to their small scale status and ownership of the trade mark 'Vulkan.' The Judge emphasized that the respondents' use of their own registered trade mark entitled them to relief against any infringement under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
4. Interpretation of Notification:
Paragraph 7 of the Notification stated that exemption would not apply if specified goods were affixed with a brand name of another person ineligible for exemption. The Court determined that the respondents, being the registered owners of the trade mark 'Vulkan,' were not using another person's brand name, thus upholding their entitlement to the exemption.
5. Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:
The Court affirmed the Trial Judge's decision to quash the show-cause notice and the related letter, dismissing the appeal. No costs were awarded, and all parties were instructed to act upon the judgment accordingly.
This judgment clarifies the importance of ownership rights to registered trade marks in determining entitlement to exemptions under relevant notifications, safeguarding the exclusive rights of registered owners against unauthorized use by others.
-
1994 (9) TMI 98
The Supreme Court upheld the Customs Tribunal's decision that a corrugated board manufacturer was not entitled to exemption as the kraft paper used had not paid the required duty. The appellant failed to prove the duty payment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 97
Issues involved: Determination of total value of sales for a small-scale unit manufacturing nuts and bolts; inclusion of sales of exempted items in the total value; imposition of penalty for wrongly declared value; classification and taxation of bright bars and bright bar scrap.
Issue 1 - Valuation of Sales:
The appellant, a small-scale unit manufacturing nuts and bolts, received a show cause notice from the Assistant Collector regarding the inclusion of the valuation of goods in determining the total value of sales. The appellant argued that the sale of bright bars and bright bar scrap should not be subjected to fresh duty as they were essentially the same as bars purchased from the market. However, both the Assistant Collector and the Tribunal rejected the appellant's objections.
Issue 2 - Aggregation of Sales of Exempted Items:
The appellant contended that the sales of exempted items, such as rivets, C.I. castings, washers, scrap, etc., should not be aggregated with the sales of nuts and bolts to determine if the total sales value exceeded the specified limit. The Tribunal ruled that the exemption granted to a particular item does not make it non-excisable, and therefore, the sales of exempted items could be aggregated for valuation purposes.
Issue 3 - Taxation of Bright Bars and Bright Bar Scrap:
The Tribunal found that the transformation of duty-paid round bars into bright bars by passing them through a narrow die resulted in a distinct and different commodity, thus subjecting them to duty. However, the Court disagreed with this finding, stating that there was no evidence to support the claim that bright bars were a different commodity. Consequently, the Court held that the value of sales of bright bars and bright bar scrap should not be aggregated with the sales of nuts and bolts.
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and it was held that the value of sales of bright bars and bright bar scrap should not be included in the total sales value of nuts and bolts.
-
1994 (9) TMI 96
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the High Court's order dismissing a writ petition related to an interlocutory order by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The appellant sought to summon specific documents, and the Court allowed access to one public document while denying access to others. The appellant can apply for a copy of the refund order directly from the Assistant Collector, Baroda, and if refused, can request the Assistant Collector, Ujjain, to summon it. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 95
The High Court rejected the review petition seeking to overturn a judgment that dismissed a writ appeal related to a refund of duty and sales tax, stating that the matter should be pursued through the appeal process rather than under Article 226 jurisdiction. The petition was denied as the issues could be addressed in an appeal.
-
1994 (9) TMI 94
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
2. Alternative remedy of appeal.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 202/88.
4. Method of computing aggregate value of clearances.
5. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
The petitioners sought exemption for their rerolled products under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., which is not available if the aggregate value of clearances exceeded Rs. 200 lakhs in the preceding financial year. The key dispute was about the method of computing the aggregate value of clearances, specifically whether clearances of goods exempted under Notification No. 202/88 should be included.
2. Alternative Remedy of Appeal
The court addressed the respondents' objection regarding the maintainability of the petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Sections 35 and 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court held that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the petitions involve interpretation of notifications and allegations of discrimination, which are beyond the appellate authorities' competence.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 202/88
Notification No. 202/88 provided total exemption from duty on final products if two conditions were met: the inputs had suffered duty, and no credit of the duty paid on the inputs was taken under Rule 56A or Rule 57A. The court noted that the first condition was rendered ineffective by the deeming provision in the Explanation to the notification, which assumed duty was paid on all inputs unless proven otherwise. The court found that the second condition was intended to prevent double benefits but did not justify treating manufacturers opting for the Modvat Scheme differently.
4. Method of Computing Aggregate Value of Clearances
The court emphasized that the subsequent Notification No. 1/93 required excluding the value of clearances of goods exempted from the whole of duty while computing the aggregate value. The court held that the petitioners, who opted for the Modvat Scheme, should not be treated differently from those who claimed total exemption under Notification No. 202/88, as the resultant benefit under both schemes was essentially the same. The court directed the respondents to give the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 to the petitioners by excluding clearances of excisable goods exempted from duty but for which Modvat credits were taken.
5. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
The court rejected the argument that Notification No. 1/93 violated Article 14 of the Constitution by creating unreasonable classification among manufacturers. The court found that the differential treatment arose from a misinterpretation of the notification's language, not from the notification itself. Therefore, there was no basis to quash Notification No. 1/93 on grounds of discrimination.
Conclusion
The court allowed the petitions, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 to the petitioners and others who opted for the Modvat Scheme. The court quashed the adjudication orders impugned in the petitions and instructed the 3rd respondent to re-compute the aggregate value of clearances in light of the court's interpretation.
-
1994 (9) TMI 93
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Customs Authority's confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
2. Legality of the Import Trade Control Authority's enhancement of export obligations.
3. Jurisdiction of the Customs Authority in questioning the validity of the import licence.
4. Compliance with the Import and Export Policy and related notifications.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Customs Authority's confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged the Customs Authority's order confiscating 5,376 kgs. of polyester filament yarn and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Authority argued that the petitioner was entitled to import only 10,365 kgs. of polyester filament yarn based on the actual quantity used in the resultant products, and thus, the import licence for duty-free import of 15,741 kgs. was wrongly issued. The High Court held that the Customs Authority could not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the Import Trade Control Authority and adjudicate the imports as unauthorized.
2. Legality of the Import Trade Control Authority's enhancement of export obligations:
The Import Trade Control Authority increased the export obligation from 14,497.5 kgs. to 22,330 kgs. without notice to the petitioner. The High Court found this action illegal, as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner while increasing the export obligation limit. The court emphasized that the Import Trade Control Authority failed to notice that for the grant of an advance licence, there had to be a firm order from a foreign buyer, which was absent for the enhanced quantity.
3. Jurisdiction of the Customs Authority in questioning the validity of the import licence:
The Customs Authority's principal objection was that the licence had been wrongly issued and was against the provisions of the Duty Exemption Scheme as per the Policy. The High Court ruled that the Customs Authority could not go behind the licence issued by the Import Trade Control Authority and that the import was valid as per the terms of the advance licence and the DEEC Book. The court cited various judgments to support the view that the Customs Authority could not question the validity of the licence issued by the Import Trade Control Authority.
4. Compliance with the Import and Export Policy and related notifications:
The High Court noted that the petitioner had met the export obligations and that the goods satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the advance licence and the DEEC Book. The court held that the Customs Authority's action was wrong and that the Appellate Tribunal also failed to correctly exercise its jurisdiction. The petition was allowed, and the orders of the Additional Collector of Customs and the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal were set aside. The court directed the release of the goods to the petitioner without payment of any detention or demurrage charges, following the Supreme Court's decision in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Additional Collector of Customs and the Appellate Tribunal, and directed the release of the goods to the petitioner without any detention or demurrage charges. The petitioner was also entitled to costs, with counsel fee fixed at Rs. 2,500/-.
-
1994 (9) TMI 92
Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of Customs Authorities to release goods despite provisional duty payment.
2. Legality of granting ad interim orders at the interim stage.
3. Discretionary power of Customs Authorities under Section 47 of the Customs Act.
4. Validity of provisional assessment and its revision.
5. Conditions for release of goods pending final assessment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Refusal of Customs Authorities to release goods despite provisional duty payment:
The writ petitioner imported goods from Singapore, which arrived at Calcutta Port in September 1993. A Bill of Entry was filed, and the goods were provisionally assessed to duty on 7th October 1993. The petitioner paid Rs. 3,17,999/- as provisionally assessed and executed a bond for Rs. 1,89,285.00. Despite this, the Customs Authorities did not release the goods. The petitioner filed a writ application under Article 226 challenging the refusal to clear the goods, and an interim order was passed on 23rd November 1993 directing the release of the goods within a week. However, the respondents did not comply, leading to contempt proceedings and an appeal.
2. Legality of granting ad interim orders at the interim stage:
The appellant argued that the order was incorrectly passed at the ad interim stage without considering the fact that the provisional assessment was made without scrutinizing the goods. The court noted that ad interim orders can be granted in certain circumstances in ordinary civil proceedings, even if it amounts to decreeing the suit, provided there is no dispute as to the facts and the law is sufficiently clear. The court found no reason why the same principle should not be applied to writ proceedings.
3. Discretionary power of Customs Authorities under Section 47 of the Customs Act:
The court noted that the right of the Customs Authorities to refuse clearance under Section 47 is discretionary but statutorily regulated. Section 47 requires the proper officer to be satisfied that the goods are not prohibited and that the importer has paid the import duty assessed. In this case, the goods were not prohibited, and the provisional duty had been paid. Therefore, the court concluded that clearance under Section 47 could not be refused.
4. Validity of provisional assessment and its revision:
The appellant submitted that the provisional assessment can be revised under Section 17(4) of the Act. However, the court observed that there is no scope for implying the power of revision for provisional assessments, particularly given the specific provision for final assessments. The court emphasized that unless the final assessment is made, there is no scope for taking action under Sections 111(m) or 112(a) of the Act.
5. Conditions for release of goods pending final assessment:
The court noted that the writ petitioners were agreeable to furnish a bond for the excess duty claimed in the show cause notice. Consequently, the court affirmed the order under appeal and directed the release of the goods subject to the undertaking given in the court below and the execution of a bond for the sum alleged to be due on account of excess duty. The clearance was to be allowed within a week from the date of execution of such bond.
Separate Judgments Delivered:
Judgment by Ruma Pal, J.:
Ruma Pal, J. agreed with the reasoning and affirmed the order under appeal, directing the release of the goods subject to the execution of a bond for the excess duty claimed.
Judgment by Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J.:
Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. agreed with the reasoning but disagreed with the ultimate direction regarding the release of the goods. He emphasized the need for circumspection in granting interim orders, particularly in matters of public revenue. He suggested that the writ petitioners should furnish a bank guarantee covering the sum of Rs. 22,90,001/- for the release of the goods. If unable to do so, they should wait for the final assessment, which he directed the authorities to complete within a month.
Final Order:
Due to the difference in opinions, the matter was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for assignment to a learned third Judge.
-
1994 (9) TMI 91
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of ready-made garments for export, imported staples classified under Heading 73.17 of the Customs Tariff Act. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by Venkataswami, J., which held similar goods under Tariff Item 73.31. However, the Department contended that post-amendment in 1986, the goods should be classified under Heading 83.05. The court noted the substantial difference in language and content of the entries pre and post-amendment. The current Heading 73.17 excludes goods falling under 83.05. The court held that goods under 83.05 would attract regardless of the base material. The dispute centered on the base material used in manufacturing the goods. The court agreed with the Department's classification under 83.05 post-amendment, rejecting the petitioner's claim under 73.17. The court emphasized that the Department's interpretation aligned with the post-amendment entry and common sense, dismissing the petitioner's contentions.
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that a citizen-favorable construction should apply when there are multiple interpretations. Post-amendment, only one construction method is valid, as per the Department's interpretation. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it without costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 90
The High Court of Bombay determined the relevant date for the rate of duty payable on imported goods in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rate was increased from 10% to 35% ad valorem by a notification on October 3, 1988. The petitioners filed bills of entry on October 24, 1988, claiming they were unaware of the notification. The court held that since the notification was available before the filing date, the petitioners are liable to pay duty per the notification. A previous Division Bench decision supported this, denying relief to the petitioners. The petition was dismissed without costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 89
The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition challenging a show cause notice, stating that the notice does not conclude on any issues and provides an opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence and arguments. The court emphasized that the authorities should decide on the classification list filed by the petitioner promptly and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was rejected at the admission stage. (Citation: 1994 (9) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)
-
1994 (9) TMI 88
The petitioner sought direction to implement Collector of Customs' order dropping proceedings. An appeal was contemplated, but stay application was dismissed by CEGAT. Petitioner to provide legal undertaking for endorsement in DEEC Book. Petition allowed as per above terms.
-
1994 (9) TMI 87
Issues:
1. Classification of products under Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Final approval of classification and alteration of Central Excise Duty rate.
3. Breach of principles of natural justice in passing the final order.
4. Entitlement to opportunity of hearing before finalization of provisional approval.
5. Alternative remedy of appeal under Sec. 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed classification lists for their products under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.30, seeking Nil rate of duty. The provisional approval was granted for the classification. Later, the Assistant Collector finalized the classification and altered the duty rate, leading to demand notices for a significant amount of duty.
2. The impugned order dated 27-4-1991 and subsequent notices were challenged on the grounds of breach of natural justice. The petitioner argued that no show cause notice or hearing was provided before modifying the classification to their detriment. The respondent countered that the finalization was done after considering all relevant factors and Chemical Examiner's Test Reports.
3. The respondent contended that the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before finalization, citing provisions in the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. They highlighted that the Collector (Appeals) had the authority to modify or annul the decision, making the appeal process an effective remedy.
4. The court acknowledged the statutory remedy of appeal under Sec. 35 of the Act, emphasizing the Collector (Appeals)' wide powers to review and modify orders. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within six weeks, ensuring a fair hearing and opportunity to present evidence.
5. The judgment disposed of the petition, instructing the Collector (Appeals) to decide on the appeal within three months. The interim order dated 20-7-1991 would remain in effect until the appeal's resolution, with the petitioner exempt from depositing any amount under Section 35F of the Act.
............
|
9911796707
