|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 235 Records
-
1981 (1) TMI 275
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the Tribunal's findings regarding the donors' financial status and the nature of gifts are supported by evidence, and if the additions made by the Assessing Authority are sustainable.
Findings for Issue 1:
During the accounting year, the Assessing Authority found two deposits in the company's account, claimed as gifts from Sampuran Singh and Boota Ram. The donors stated their income was from agricultural land, but the ITO rejected this. The Tribunal found no satisfactory evidence to prove the donors' ownership of land or their alleged annual incomes. The assessee challenged this, claiming the Jamabandi copies were not considered. However, the Jamabandi entries did not conclusively prove ownership or income. The Tribunal's findings were upheld, except for the ownership of land.
Findings for Issue 2:
The Tribunal's rejection of the gifts' genuineness was based on valid reasons, such as the lack of relationship between one donor and the assessee, and the absence of a clear reason for the gifts. Even if the donors were men of means, the Tribunal's decision on the nature of gifts was justified. Therefore, the second question is answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.
Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
This judgment from the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed the challenges to the Tribunal's findings on the donors' financial status and the nature of gifts, emphasizing the importance of evidence and valid reasons in determining the legitimacy of income sources and gifts in tax assessments.
-
1981 (1) TMI 274
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of certain Rules framed under the Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973.
2. Reasonableness of the impugned provisions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Consistency of the impugned provisions with the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Certain Rules Framed Under the Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973:
The primary issue revolves around the constitutional validity of clause 13 and clause 4(bb) of the Tender Notice and the Statutory Agreement notified by the Bihar Government. The petitioners argued that these provisions amounted to an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental freedom to carry on trade or business in Kendu leaves, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court examined whether these provisions were integrally and essentially connected with the creation of the State monopoly or merely incidental to its operation.
2. Reasonableness of the Impugned Provisions Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The Court analyzed whether the impugned provisions satisfied the test of reasonableness under the first part of Article 19(6). The Court emphasized that the right to enter into a contract with the State is not a fundamental right. The Court observed that the impugned provisions were designed to ensure a minimum return to the public exchequer and to prevent collusion and fraud between purchasers and agents. The Court found that the provisions were reasonable and operated as an insurance against loss of public revenue.
3. Violation of Fundamental Rights Under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the impugned provisions violated their fundamental rights under Article 14 by treating unequals as equals and resulting in arbitrary and harsh treatment. The Court rejected this argument, stating that all tenderers or bidders were treated equally at the time of inviting tenders or bids. The Court held that the impugned provisions did not make any discerning distinction between honest and dishonest purchasers, and the principle of "qui approbat non reprobat" (one who approbates cannot reprobate) applied. The Court concluded that the challenge to the impugned provisions on the ground of Article 14 was unsustainable.
4. Consistency of the Impugned Provisions with the Proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act:
The Court found that clause 4(bb) of the Tender Notices and the statutory Agreement, which barred any objection from the purchaser regarding the quantity or quality of the leaves, was inconsistent with and repugnant to the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act. The proviso contained a built-in warranty that the Kendu leaves offered would be fit for manufacture of bidis. Therefore, the Court declared clause 4(bb) to be invalid.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all the writ petitions except to the extent that clause 4(bb) in the Tender Notices and the statutory Agreement was declared invalid. The Court upheld the validity of clause 13, finding it reasonable and in the public interest. The Court also dismissed the criminal appeal, affirming the validity of Condition 13 and remanding the case back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law.
-
1981 (1) TMI 273
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of restrictions on interviews with family members and legal advisers for detenus under COFEPOSA Act.
2. Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Distinction between preventive detention and punitive detention.
4. Rights of prisoners and detenus under the Constitution.
5. Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Restrictions on Interviews:
The petitioner, detained under the COFEPOSA Act, faced restrictions on interviews with her lawyer and family members. The petitioner challenged the validity of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order, which limited family interviews to once a month and required prior appointment and the presence of a Customs Officer for legal consultations. These restrictions were imposed by the Delhi Administration under an Order dated 23rd August 1975.
2. Violation of Articles 14 and 21:
The petitioner argued that these restrictions were arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to reasonable, fair, and just procedures. The petitioner contended that the restrictions were discriminatory when compared to the facilities provided to under-trial and convicted prisoners. Under-trial prisoners were allowed interviews twice a week, and convicted prisoners once a week, as per the Punjab Jail Manual Rules 559A and 550, respectively.
3. Distinction Between Preventive and Punitive Detention:
The Court emphasized the vital distinction between preventive and punitive detention. Preventive detention aims to pre-empt harmful conduct, while punitive detention punishes proven offenses. Preventive detention, recognized as a necessary evil, is subject to safeguards under Articles 21 and 22. The Court noted that restrictions on preventive detention must be minimal, consistent with the effectiveness of detention.
4. Rights of Prisoners and Detenus:
The Court affirmed that prisoners and detenus retain their fundamental rights, except those incompatible with incarceration. Fundamental rights do not vanish upon entering prison; they may only suffer necessary shrinkage. The Court cited previous judgments, including the Sunil Batra cases, to support this view. The Court also referenced U.S. Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that prisoners are entitled to constitutional protections unless lawfully curtailed.
5. Right to Life and Personal Liberty Under Article 21:
The Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, stating that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, encompassing basic necessities and the ability to communicate and socialize. Any form of torture or degrading treatment violates Article 21. The Court held that the right to have interviews with family and legal advisers is part of the right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, prison regulations must be reasonable, fair, and just.
Judgment:
The Court found sub-clause (ii) of clause 3(b) unreasonable and arbitrary, as it allowed only one interview per month for detenus, compared to more frequent interviews for under-trial and convicted prisoners. The Court held that detenus should be allowed at least two interviews per week with family and friends, without needing the District Magistrate's permission. Similarly, sub-clause (i) was deemed unconstitutional, as it imposed unreasonable requirements for legal consultations. The Court ruled that detenus should be able to meet their legal advisers at reasonable hours, with appointments arranged through the Jail Superintendent, without unnecessary delays or the mandatory presence of a Customs Officer.
Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the Court granted relief by declaring the contested sub-clauses unconstitutional and void. The Court directed that detenus be permitted more frequent and less restricted interviews with family and legal advisers, ensuring compliance with Articles 14 and 21.
-
1981 (1) TMI 272
Issues Involved: Appeal against judgment and order of acquittal, condonation of delay in filing appeal, conviction under sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, examination of evidence, interference with order of acquittal.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court of Gujarat's decision to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal by the trial court and convict the appellants for offenses u/s 302 read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code, and u/s 326 read with s. 34 of the Code. The case involved the murder of Manilal and injuries caused to Parmabhai, Bhulabhai, and Natwarlal by the appellants Ajit Singh, Balwant Singh, and Mohan Singh. The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred when Manilal refused to pay rent immediately, leading to a confrontation where the accused inflicted injuries on the victims. The trial court initially acquitted the accused, but the State filed an appeal in the High Court, resulting in the conviction of Ajit Singh and Balwant Singh while Mohan Singh's acquittal was upheld.
The appellants contended that the High Court erred in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, arguing that the appeal should have been dismissed as barred by limitation. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances and found that the State Government initially decided against filing an appeal, allowing the limitation period to lapse. Subsequently, the appeal was filed after the High Court's observations, three months after the expiration of the limitation period. The Court held that there was no sufficient cause for the delay as required by law and criticized the High Court's decision to condone the delay.
Moreover, the Supreme Court analyzed the merits of the appeal before the High Court and found no justification for overturning the trial court's acquittal order. The trial court had meticulously evaluated the evidence, highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case. It noted that the witnesses were related or from the same community, lacked independence, and had a history of hostility towards the accused. The trial court's reasoning for acquittal was deemed reasonable, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of innocence and the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for caution in disturbing acquittal orders and criticized the High Court for overlooking established legal principles in interfering with the trial court's judgment.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's acquittal order based on the lack of merit in the appeal before the High Court and the trial court's thorough analysis of the evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting the trial court's findings and the principles governing appeals against acquittals.
-
1981 (1) TMI 271
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include non-compliance with constitutional safeguards in a detention case, delay in disposing of the detenu's representation, and the necessity of supplying documents and materials to the detenu along with the grounds of detention.
Non-Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards:
The petition was filed by the detenu's sister seeking release due to non-compliance with constitutional safeguards. The detenu was arrested and served with grounds of detention on 20-10-1980, but the documents and materials forming the basis of detention were provided on 5-11-1980. The detenu's representation made on 18-11-1980 was disposed of on 15-12-1980, causing a delay. The Court held that failure to provide documents along with the grounds of detention violates Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention void. The Court emphasized the importance of detenu's access to all materials for making an effective representation.
Supply of Documents and Materials:
The Court referred to previous decisions emphasizing the need to supply documents and materials relied upon in the order of detention to the detenu without delay. It was held that the detenu must be informed of all materials considered against him for a meaningful opportunity to make a representation. Failure to provide these documents deprives the detenu of a fair chance to challenge the detention order. The Court reiterated that constitutional safeguards must be strictly observed before supporting an order of detention.
Interpretation of Legal Provisions:
The judgment highlighted the significance of Art. 22(5) and the need for a just and reasonable procedure in preventive detention cases. It was emphasized that the detenu should have a real and meaningful opportunity to present his case to the detaining authority. The Court stressed that any departure from the safeguards laid down by the Constitution would render the detention order void. The judgment underscored the importance of protecting the liberty of citizens unless absolutely necessary for preventing anti-national activities.
Compliance with Safeguards:
Despite repeated warnings, the detaining authorities were found to be non-compliant with constitutional safeguards. The Court expressed concern over the lack of adherence to the spirit of Art. 22(5) and suggested holding responsible those failing to comply with the safeguards. The judgment called for strict compliance with constitutional requirements and suggested taking action against officials responsible for non-compliance. In this case, the detaining authority's failure to supply documents promptly and the delay in disposing of the representation led to the detenu's release.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition, directing the detenu's immediate release due to the void nature of the continued detention. The judgment recommended sending a copy to relevant government officials for necessary action. The decision emphasized the need for strict adherence to constitutional safeguards in preventive detention cases to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
-
1981 (1) TMI 270
The revision application filed by M/s. Bharat Processors was disposed of by the Government of India. The petitioners were penalized for misdeclaring fabrics as Fents without paying duty. The Government upheld the penalty imposed by the Deputy Collector. However, the Government set aside the order on the question of duty demand due to lack of proper show cause notice, allowing the competent authority to reassess the duty demand after complying with natural justice principles.
-
1981 (1) TMI 269
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 179/77 for Central Excise Tariff exemption.
2. Determination of whether components were manufactured on behalf of the assessee.
3. Consideration of the use of power in the manufacture of goods for exemption eligibility.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Notification No. 179/77 under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to goods manufactured by the assessee, which were insulated wares and tiffin carriers. These goods fell under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and were claimed to be exempt from duty if manufactured without the aid of power. The Appellate Collector had initially ruled in favor of the assessee, granting them the exemption.
2. The Government issued a show cause notice to the assessee, alleging that since the components used in the manufacturing process were produced by outside parties with the aid of power, the goods were not eligible for the exemption. The assessee disputed this claim, arguing that they purchased the components from regular manufacturers on a principal-to-principal basis and did not supply raw materials for the component production. They contended that the mere specification of components did not imply manufacturing on their behalf.
3. During the hearing, the assessee cited a judgment from the Delhi Court in a similar case involving soap manufacturing, where the court clarified that the use of power exemption referred specifically to the final product and not to the power used in manufacturing raw materials. The assessee emphasized that as they did not use power in their factory for manufacturing the finished goods, they should qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 179/77. The Government, after considering the contentions and evidence presented, found merit in the assessee's arguments.
4. The Government concluded that the components were not conclusively proven to have been manufactured on behalf of the assessee, and since no power was used in the manufacturing process of the finished goods, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Consequently, the review proceedings were dropped, and the decision of the Appellate Collector in favor of the assessee was upheld.
-
1981 (1) TMI 268
The Central Government of India examined a case where duty was demanded by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras for clearances from March 1975 to January 1977. The petitioners had already paid duty at Dehra Dun for clearances from Salem. The Government directed the Collector to address the setting off of duty paid at Dehra Dun. It was held that any demand of duty for clearances prior to April 1976 is time-barred as Rule 9(2) was deemed not applicable.
-
1981 (1) TMI 267
The petitioners, manufacturers of woollen felts, contended that their products should be charged duty at a different rate. The Government found that the petitioners' unit was not a composite mill and the felt in question was not a woven product. Consequently, the Government allowed the revision application, setting aside the previous orders. (Case: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 1981 (1) TMI 267)
-
1981 (1) TMI 266
Issues:
1. Classification of product as 'Lake Colour' or 'Lime Colour' under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Interpretation of Exemption Notifications No. 23/55, 104/75, and 114/73.
3. Application of Notification No. 114/73 to goods classified under Item 14D of the Central Excise Tariff.
4. Review of the Appellate Collector's decision and restoration of the Assistant Collector's order.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the classification of a product as 'Lake Colour' or 'Lime Colour' under the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arose when an amending notification removed 'Lake Colours' from the scope of Exemption Notification No. 23/55, reclassifying them under Item 14D instead of Item 14. The Appellate Collector initially sided with the party, classifying the product as 'Lime Colour' eligible for the exemption. However, the Central Government intervened, questioning this classification and issuing a show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. The interpretation of Exemption Notifications No. 23/55, 104/75, and 114/73 was crucial in this case. The party argued that their product, though previously declared as 'Lake Colour,' should be considered 'Lime Colour' and thus eligible for the benefit of different notifications. They contended that Notification No. 114/73, which exempted mixtures falling under Item 14, should apply to their goods. However, the government analyzed technical literature and test reports, concluding that the product was indeed 'Lake Colour,' a pigment dyestuff falling under Item 14D.
3. The application of Notification No. 114/73 to goods classified under Item 14D of the Central Excise Tariff was a point of contention. The government clarified that since the product fell under Item 14D, specific to 'Lake Colours,' the benefit of Notification No. 114/73, applicable to Item 14 goods, could not extend to it. The government emphasized the specificity of the tariff items and the inapplicability of the notification to 'Lake Colours' as per the classification.
4. The review of the Appellate Collector's decision and the restoration of the Assistant Collector's order marked the final outcome. The Central Government, after considering all submissions and technical evidence, set aside the Appellate Collector's decision and reinstated the original order classifying the product as 'Lake Colour.' The government highlighted the rigid interpretation of exemption notifications and the necessity for goods to align with the specified tariff items for exemption eligibility.
-
1981 (1) TMI 265
The Central Government of India reviewed an appeal by M/s. Finlay Mills regarding duty payment on yarn in chindies. The Government dropped the review proceedings as the assessees had shown bona fide by mentioning exemption notification in their classification list. Rule 9(2) was not applicable, and Rule 10 was deemed appropriate for duty recovery. (Citation: 1981 (1) TMI 265 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
-
1981 (1) TMI 264
The Government of India considered a revision application regarding the classification of carburettors as motor vehicle parts under Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners claimed the carburettors should be classified under Item 34A, but the Asstt. Collector classified them under Item 68. After reviewing the case, the Government held that the carburettors are indeed motor vehicle parts and should be classified under Item 34A. The petitioners would not be eligible for a refund of duty paid under Item 68 for certain clearances. The revision application was disposed of accordingly. (Case: 1981 (1) TMI 264 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
-
1981 (1) TMI 263
Issues:
1. Assessment of assessable value for ammonia gas consumed internally by a company.
2. Determining the appropriate price for goods consumed internally based on sales to dealers and D.G.S. & D.
3. Interpretation of normal price for goods consumed internally under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Comparison of prices charged to different categories of buyers for goods consumed internally.
5. Application of Valuation Rules for determining the assessable value of goods captively consumed.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of assessing the assessable value for ammonia gas consumed internally by a company. The company, a manufacturer of ammonia gas, sold the gas to dealers and D.G.S. & D., with part of the gas being used internally in fertilizer production. The dispute arose regarding the appropriate price to determine the assessable value of the gas consumed internally. The Asstt. Collector initially used the price charged to dealers, while the Appellate Collector favored the price charged to D.G.S. & D. The Central Government tentatively opined that the normal price of goods sold to dealers should be considered for goods consumed internally, issuing a show cause notice to review the decision.
Further, the judgment delves into the interpretation of the normal price for goods consumed internally under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The company argued that the price charged to D.G.S. & D. was the normal price and should be used for internal consumption assessment. They also proposed a lower price based on Valuation Rules. The Government differentiated between prices for different categories of buyers, emphasizing that the assessable value for internally consumed goods should be based on the price charged to dealers, not D.G.S. & D. The judgment rejected the argument to apply the price of another manufacturer's goods for comparison, stating that the company's own goods should be considered.
Moreover, the judgment discusses the application of Valuation Rules in determining the assessable value of goods captively consumed. It was concluded that the order of the Asstt. Collector, setting the assessable value equal to the price charged to dealers, was correct. The Appellate Collector's order was overturned, and the Central Government confirmed the initial view in the show cause notice, reinstating the Asstt. Collector's decision. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the pricing considerations and interpretations under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in the context of goods consumed internally by a manufacturing company.
-
1981 (1) TMI 262
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing their revision application for the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 206/63. The petitioner, a manufacturer of iron and steel products, claimed the exemption for goods manufactured before the withdrawal of the notification but cleared after the withdrawal. The court accepted the petitioner's argument that they should not have been denied the benefit of the exemption due to procedural formalities.
-
1981 (1) TMI 261
The Government of India allowed the revision application stating that reconditioned telephone equipments should not be charged duty under Tariff Item 33D as they are similar to standard goods not charged duty by I.T.I. Bangalore.
-
1981 (1) TMI 260
The Central Government of India considered a Revision Application regarding a duty refund claim of Rs. 23,446.96. The Superintendent of Central Excise rejected the claim, and the Appellate Collector dismissed the appeal, advising the petitioners to seek a decision from the Assistant Collector. The Government set aside the Appellate Collector's decision and directed the Assistant Collector to reexamine the case and decide after following natural justice principles. (Case Citation: 1981 (1) TMI 260 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
-
1981 (1) TMI 259
The Government of India considered a case involving seizure of electric wires and cables from a transporting company's godown for lack of Central Excise gate passes. The goods were found to be associated with fictitious entities. The Deputy Collector confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, which was later overturned in a revision application. The Government found the penalty unjustified and allowed the revision application. (Case Citation: 1981 (1) TMI 259 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
-
1981 (1) TMI 258
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the importations under the Import Control Regulations and contravention of clause 3 of the Import Control Order, 1955.
2. Liability for Customs Duty on the goods imported.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of the Importations under the Import Control Regulations and Contravention of Clause 3 of the Import Control Order, 1955
1. Background: The Board reviewed the importation of "woollen rags" which were allowed as raw material for manufacturing "shoddy yarn" until 1967, after which the item was canalised through the State Trading Corporation (STC). Licenses for importing woollen rags were issued in STC's name, and the STC had control over the nature, quality, and price of the imported goods.
2. Customs Department's Understanding: The Customs Department defined "woollen rags" as worn-out, soiled, or torn articles beyond cleaning or repair, and if new, as cuttings or samples of new fabrics. In the consignments under consideration, the goods were described as "old woollen rags unserviceable and mutilated" but were found to contain a high percentage of serviceable garments and non-wool fibers, leading to their confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Appellants' Defense: The appellants relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in the Nagesh Hosiery Mills case, which quashed the confiscation of woollen rags. The Court held that "woollen rags" should be construed in the ordinary trade sense, not in a technical or scientific sense, and that the term could include items with some percentage of wool or even synthetic wool.
4. Court's Observations: The Court emphasized that the term "woollen rags" must be given its ordinary trade meaning and that if the Union Government desired any restriction, an express definition should have been provided. The Court also noted that the STC's global tenders included non-woollen items under the heading "woollen rags".
5. Board's Conclusion: The Board agreed with the Court's view and held that the imports under consideration were valid as they were made against STC's global tenders or indents approved by STC at a time when there was no statutory definition of "woollen rags". The Board set aside the orders of absolute confiscation but directed that the goods be mutilated to render them unserviceable before release.
Issue 2: Liability for Customs Duty on the Goods Imported
1. Customs Duty: The Board noted that the same principles applied to the liability for Customs Duty as those applied to the Import Control aspect. If the goods were to be treated as "woollen rags" for Import Control purposes, they should also be treated as such for Customs Duty purposes.
2. Tariff Advice: The Board considered a Tariff Advice suggesting that materials could be regarded as "woollen rags" if their wool content was not less than 60%. However, this advice had no statutory authority, and the term "woollen rags" was not defined in the Indian Customs Tariff (ICT). The Board noted that the only relevant statutory prescription was Item 51(1) of the ICT, which considered articles containing not less than 15% wool by weight as "woollen hosiery and woollen knitted apparel".
3. Sampling Methods: The Board reviewed the varied methods of sampling adopted by the Bombay Custom House, which included visual examinations and chemical tests. The Board acknowledged that the sampling methods were inconsistent and that more uniform and ample sampling might have shown some percentage of woollen content.
4. Benefit of Doubt: Given the inconsistencies in sampling and testing, the Board decided to give the appellants the benefit of doubt in the classification for duty purposes. The duty on the woollen rags would be governed by the exemption notification relevant at the time of importation, namely, Notification No. 59-Cus., dated 20-4-1966.
5. Sub-sections (i) and (m) of Section 111: The Board also set aside the charges relating to these sub-sections, which involved concealment of good quality garments among the rags and differences between the Bills of Entry declarations and the goods found during examination. The Board noted that the physical condition of the goods would have materially altered over time, rendering these charges irrelevant.
Summary:
The Board concluded that the importations of "woollen rags" were valid under the Import Control Regulations as they were made against STC's global tenders or approved indents at a time when there was no statutory definition of "woollen rags". The orders of absolute confiscation were set aside, and the goods were directed to be mutilated before release. For Customs Duty purposes, the goods were to be treated as "woollen rags" and the duty governed by the relevant exemption notification. The charges under sub-sections (i) and (m) of section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, were also set aside.
-
1981 (1) TMI 257
The appeal was filed by Saru Smelting Pvt. Limited against the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut's order regarding duty exemption under Notification No. 119/75-CE. The issue was the interpretation of the notification for goods manufactured on a job basis. The appellants claimed they were entitled to the exemption as they were only receiving job charges. The Department initially granted the benefit but later sought duty on the entire value of clearances. The Board allowed the appeal after considering the arguments and merits of the case.
-
1981 (1) TMI 256
Issues: Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty on manufacturing and sale of M.S. flats of less than 5mm thickness, imposition of penalty, reliance on statements of purchasers, lack of corroborative evidence, legality of evidence recorded by Central Excise Officers, imposition of heavy penalty without substantiated evidence.
The judgment pertains to an appeal by a steel rolling mills company against an order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, alleging evasion of Central Excise duty on the manufacturing and sale of M.S. flats of less than 5mm thickness. The company was accused of selling these flats to cycle part manufacturers under the guise of thicker flats, resulting in a shortfall of duty payment amounting to Rs. 30,997.928. The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the company under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The company contended that the goods were sold with proper documentation and that statements of purchasers were accepted without corroborative evidence. During cross-examination, purchasers admitted to purchasing similar flats from other sources as well, raising doubts on the exclusive use of thinner flats in manufacturing cycle parts. The purchasers also acknowledged subjecting the purchased goods to processes that indicated the use of thicker flats.
The company further argued that the statements recorded by Central Excise Officers were in English, while the individuals were illiterate or semi-literate, casting doubt on the voluntariness of the statements. They claimed that the evidence and conclusions relied upon by the Collector were legally unsound and insufficient.
After considering the submissions and evidence, the Board noted that the case relied solely on statements of purchasers recorded in English without independent witnesses or corroborative evidence. The Board found the allegations against the company unproven, based on presumptions and conjectures. It deemed the demand of duty and imposition of penalty unjustified due to the lack of collateral evidence.
The Board criticized the imposition of a hefty penalty disproportionate to the alleged evasion, highlighting the Collector's failure to use powers under Rule 173Q judiciously. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the allegation against the company was not established, overturning the orders for duty payment and penalty imposition. Consequently, the appeal succeeded in full, absolving the company of the accusations and penalties.
........
|
9911796707
