|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 106 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Exemption - Retrospective effect - Departmental Circular
... ... ... ... ..... 29-5-1989 holding that this order of the South Regional Bench was passed per incuriam. 21.It may also be noted from the above discussion that the Tribunal decision in the case of Mysore Cork Industry (supra) stands over-ruled by the ratio of the Allahabad High Court judgment referred to above. Therefore, respectfully agreeing with the views expressed by Hon ble Member (Technical) above, it is held that Notification No. 212/86 would be applicable for the whole of the month of March, 1986. 22. Assent per G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) . - On going through the separate orders proposed by my Brothers, as aforesaid, I agree with the views expressed by Shri K.S. Venkataramani, Member (Technical). Consequently, I too hold that Notification No. 212/86 would be applicable for the whole of the month of March, 1986. 23. Assent per G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) . - I agree with the view expressed by the Members that Notification No. 212/86 would be applicable for the whole month of March, 1986.
-
1994 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT
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 - SC ORDER
Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... letter issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Central Excise, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-I to the rejoinder affidavit, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding afresh, he fairly stated that the letter was not on record either before the Tribunal or any other subordinate authority and the departmental representative had conceded before the Tribunal that no show cause notice was issued. In view of this it does not appear appropriate to enter into the controversy at this stage as to whether the annexure filed with the rejoinder affidavit was in fact a show cause notice or not. Nor it appears necessary to decide whether Form D.D. 2 could be deemed to be a show cause notice as prima facie in the relevant year these forms were issued in pursuance of Rules 9, 10A, etc. of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which were provisions dealing with recovery of dues. 3.In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT
Adjudication - Show cause notice - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... on that the notice issued by the Department was barred by time. However, once the Department found that the appellant had not used the power in processing the fabrics and there was no mention in the show cause notice that the appellant was using steam and the claim of the appellant has been rejected because of his own admission, it was a case in which a lenient view should have been taken so far the penalty is concerned. 4. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we are of opinion that the appeal is liable to be allowed in part and the amount of penalty stands reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 5. We are informed that the Collector had granted time for calculation of duty etc. which expired long ago. Therefore, if details have not been worked out and the appellant has not furnished the information as yet, it may furnish now. The time to comply with the order of the Collector is extended by a period of two months from today. 6. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... convenience of the appellants. The exemption was available to a paper mill which did not have a plant attached to it for making bamboo pulp and wood pulp, and by temporary dis-connecting such a plant of discontinuing its use, the paper mill did not undergo a change in its character or eligibility. 3. In our view, in the first place, this is a matter of appreciation of evidence as to whether or not the aforesaid condition was satisfied. We find no fault in the appreciation of the evidence on record by the Tribunal and its reasoning in that behalf. Secondly, it is very significant that the most relevant evidence was not produced by the appellants, namely, the evidence, either on affidavit or in person, of a technically qualified man who could authoritatively say that the plant for manufacturing bamboo pulp or wood pulp had been rendered totally disfunctional. 4. No other point has been canvassed by the appellants. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT
Marble slabs and tiles - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ld give to the respondents the opportunity of a hearing and then pass a fresh assessment order. Needless to say, it shall be open to the respondents to challenge the same, if so, advised. It will be open to the respondents to place before the Assistant Collector such evidence as they may deem fit and such evidence shall be considered before the assessment order is made. We direct the respondents to appear before the Assistant Collector on 24th October, 1994 at 12.00 noon. In the event that that date and time does not suit the Assistant Collector, he shall intimate to the respondents a fresh date on that day. The Asstt. Collector shall pass the assessment order without reference to the judgment of the High Court and his earlier assessment orders. Nor shall he take anything that we have said in this order as reflecting on the merits. 5. The appeal is allowed as aforestated. The judgment and order of the High Court under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... s of manufacture of goods or products to put it under the umbrella of charging section. After all, law has to remain on talking terms with justice. 24.In the result, I find that the show cause notices demanding duty and penalty are without jurisdiction and deserve to be mortalised. 25.Ex-consequenti, I allow this as well as all the aforesaid writ petitions and quash the show cause notices (Annexure A) in M.P. No. 779/89, (Annexure C) in M.P. No. 1350/88, (Annexure A) in M.P. No. 1101/88, (Annexure-A) in M.P. No. 933/90, (Annexure A) in M.P. No. 1076/90 and (Annexure A) in M.P. No. 932/90, demanding duty and penalty as being without authority of law and thus, being without jurisdiction. 26.In the circumstances of the case, I find it fit to leave the parties to bear their own costs of these petitions as incurred. Security cost shall be refunded to each petitioner after due verification. 27.A copy of this order shall be retained in the records of each of the aforesaid petitions.
-
1994 (9) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Small Scale Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e brand name or trade name, registered or otherwise, of some other person. It appears that the writ petitioner was using its own registered brand name or trade name of Vulkan and the writ petitioner had acquired the exclusive right to use the trade name Vulkan . It will also appear that other manufacturers, including the said German firm, cannot use the trade name Vulkan in India without the consent of the writ petitioner. We are, therefore, in agreement with the views taken by the learned Trial Judge in the judgment under appeal. The learned Trial Judge rightly quashed the said notice to show-cause dated 3-3-1992 and also the letter dated 9-3-1992 issued pursuant to the said notice to show cause. 11.We affirm the Judgment and Order dated 14-5-1992 passed by the learned Trial Judge. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 12.There will be no order as to costs. 13.All parties shall act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this Judgment upon usual undertaking.
-
1994 (9) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the burden to prove that circumstance is on the person claiming exemption. Corrugated board manufactured by the appellant was dutiable item unless it was manufactured out of kraft paper which suffered duty of 37.5 . To get this benefit the appellant wrote a letter to the department intimating it that it shall be using duty paid kraft paper for manufacture of the board. It was on this letter that the goods were cleared. When appellant was required to prove that the kraft paper used by it was duty paid then it took up peculiar plea that the gate pass etc. had been eaten by book-worms. It was not accepted and the authorities found that in fact kraft paper used by appellant had enjoyed exemption under other notification. Thus the boards were manufactured of kraft paper which had not suffered duty of 37.5 . The Tribunal therefore did not commit any error of law in dismissing the appeal. 3. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT
Value of clearances - Computation of - Manufacture - Change in form or shape ... ... ... ... ..... ound bars through slight narrow diameter resulted in change of form and shape and since this transformation of round bars into bright bars resulted in bringing out a distinct and different commodity, the appellant was liable to pay duty on it. This finding does not appear to be correct in law as in absence of any material on record or any finding by the Tribunal that mere drawing of a round bar through a slight narrow diameter resulted in bringing out a new commodity, the finding that it changed in form or shape without any evidence cannot be accepted. In the absence of any material to show that in commercial circle the bars and bright bars are different, the inference drawn by the Tribunal cannot be upheld. 4. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. It is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the value of sales of bright bars and bright bar scrap could not be aggregated in the value of sales of nuts and bolts. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT
Adjudication - Evidence - Public document ... ... ... ... ..... showing the clearance of LOY/POY yarn are made at take-up stage and the duty is paid on take-up denierages. 3.So far as Items I and 3 are concerned, they are the documents filed by that particular assessee in those proceedings. We are of the opinion that the appellant cannot seek to summon nor can he obtain copies of those documents. But so far as document 2 is concerned (i.e. refund order dated 13-2-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Baroda), it is a public document of which copies can be applied for by interested parties. It is, therefore, open to the appellant to apply to the Assistant Collector, Baroda for a copy of the said order which may be supplied to him in accordance with the rules. If, however, the copy is refused to be furnished by the said Assistant Collector, it may then be open to the appellant to request the Assistant Collector, Ujjain to summon the same from the other Assistant Collector. 4.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction - Review petition vis-a-vis writ appeal ... ... ... ... ..... same ground. 4.In the review petition, it is tried to contend that inspite of the fact that the Assistant Collector has rejected the petition for refund and that there is a right of appeal provided against that, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to refund the duty and also the additional sales tax. 5.It is necessary to find out that apart from the right of appeal, the amount has to be determined as to how much the petitioner is entitled to by way of refund. All these questions can be decided in the appeal. It is not possible to appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to continue the proceeding under Article 226, even though it was specifically pointed out to him by the very Assistant Collector in the very opening portion of his order by way of specific note that the order was appealable. Therefore, we do not see any ground to review the judgment. The review petition is accordingly rejected.
-
1994 (9) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
S.S.I. Exemption - Modvat credit vis-a-vis full exemption from duty - Judicial review of fiscal policy - Writ Petition
-
1994 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Detention Certificate - Import trade control - Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... , 1991 it was directed that the imported goods be released to the petitioner on his paying a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Customs Authority and thereafter, after release of the goods, the petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee for another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. It was also mentioned that in case of petitioner s success he would be entitled to refund of the amount so paid with interest at the rate of 17.5 per annum. We are told that the petitioner could not comply with this order and the goods still lie confiscated with the second respondent. Since we have held the action of the Customs Authority to be illegal, we further direct that the goods in question be released to the petitioner without payment by it of any detention or demurrage charges. In ordering so we are following the decision of the Supreme Court in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161. Petitioner would also be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,500/- Rule is made absolute.
-
1994 (9) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Customs - Writ jurisdiction - Interim order ... ... ... ... ..... cause notice. I think in the facts and circumstances of the present case the writ petitioners respondents could only secure release of the goods on furnishing an appropriate bank guarantee covering the sum of Rs. 22,90,001/-. In case the respondent writ petitioners are unable to secure the release of such goods on furnishing such bank guarantee within a fortnight they have to wait till the final assessment is made, which I direct the appellate authorities to complete within a period of one month from this date. Final Order . - Hence Ordered Sd/- (Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J. 23.In view of the difference between ourselves, however much minor the point of difference may be, we should direct the matter to be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice for assignment of this matter before a learned third Judge. Let a xerox copy of this judgment be made available to the learned advocates on record for both the parties on usual undertaking. Sd/- (Ruma Pal, J.) (Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J.)
-
1994 (9) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Staples - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... hich went into the production of the articles imported, the manufactured articles themselves answer the description of goods enumerated in and will fall only under 83.05. The stand taken for the Department not only conforms to the scope and purport of the entry as it stands after the amendment with effect from 28-2-1986, but also is acceptable to common sense as well as reason and the contentions to the contrary do not merit the acceptance of this Court. 6.The plea on behalf of the petitioner that when there is possibility of more than one construction, that which is favourable to the citizen, should be adopted, does not apply to this case on hand. After the amendment noticed supra, there can be only one method of construction and that is the construction that has been placed by the Department with reference to the goods in question. 7.For all the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the above writ petition. The writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rate of Customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... P.K. Dash, Assistant Collector of Customs has filed return sworn on August 10, 1994. The return claims that the notification was printed in the Gazette and was available for sale to the public from October 10, 1988. In support of assertion, telex message received from the Government of India is annexed as exhibit. Once it is established that the notification dated October 3, 1988 was available prior to the date of filing of bills of entry by the petitioners, then it is obvious that the petitioners are liable to pay duty in accordance with the notification. 2. The issue was considered by Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Pendse, J.) was a party in the decision reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 15 (Bom.) (M/s. Chemifine v. Union of India) and we respectfully agree with the said decision. In view of the Division Bench judgment, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 3. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged but there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... e and also place all evidence on record that supports him. A reading of the show cause notice, in my view, does not show that the authorities have concluded anything on merits. The statements made therein are for the prima facie purpose of issuing a show cause notice. They should not be construed as conclusions arrived at by the authorities. It is always open to the petitioner to show cause to the said show cause notice and urge all the contentions that are available to him, as indicated in the show cause notice itself. The petitioner can also place any evidence that supports him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the authorities should decide about the classification list filed by the petitioner as early as on 1-3-1993. It is for the authorities to deal with the said classification list in accordance with law and on its merits but expeditiously. 4. In this view, this writ petition is rejected at the stage of admission, subject to what is stated above.
-
1994 (9) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Import Policy - Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ct be given to the order of the Collector of Customs and that the necessary endorsement be made in the DEEC Book. To safeguard the interest of the respondents in case of the petitioner losing in the appeal, we direct that on petitioner s executing a legal undertaking as mentioned in para 118 of the Handbook of Procedure issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, the necessary endorsement on the DEEC Book be made by the respondents and that legal undertaking shall be kept alive for a period of one month after the orders are made by CEGAT. No further orders are required on this petition. It stands disposed of. 2. Mr. Aggarwal says that instead of legal undertaking the petitioner should have been asked to give the bank guarantee and further that a direction should be issued to the CEGAT to dispose of the appeal filed by the department within a certain period. We do not agree with any of these submissions. The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms abovementioned.
-
1994 (9) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Natural justice - Classification list provisionally approved - Evidence - Hearing ... ... ... ... ..... enquiry as he may deem necessary. 7. The ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to file an appeal within six weeks from today and the Collector (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. It goes without saying that opportunity of hearing includes opportunity to lead such evidence as the parties may deem proper. 8. Accordingly the petition is disposed of with the observations that if the petitioner files an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 within a period of six weeks from today, the said appeal shall be entertained and disposed of on merits treating the same within time and the petitioner shall not be required to deposit any amount under Section 35F of the Act. The Collector (Appeals) shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of filing the appeal and the interim order dated 20-7-1991 will remain operative till the disposal of the appeal.
............
|
