|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 209 Records
-
1983 (4) TMI 283 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... msp; (c) Laboratory glassware (Heading No. 70.17/18) machinery and appliances and parts thereof, of glass (Heading No. 70.20 or 70.21); (d) (e) Thus even accepting the appellants’ contention that the gauge glasses in question are of a special nature and can be used only with and as parts of boilers, the statutory note referred to above makes it clear that the gauge glasses would fall within heading No. 70.21. If support was needed for this conclusion - we do not think that there is really any need to look for any support - the Explanatroy Notes to the CCCN under heading 70.21 referred to by the Departmental Representative clinches the issue. As such there is no merit in the appellants’ contention and the appeal is rejected.
-
1983 (4) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rate consumed during the same period, pertaining to the Mills of the same area. 21. We, therefore, think it to be a fit case where, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the same rate of ₹ 5/- per quintal ought to be taken and we further direct that since this product known as bagasse, whether consumed as a fuel or as raw-material for paper and paper board, etc., assumed identity only when dried up, the water percentage has to be excluded and for that record of the company prepared at the relevant time can be the only basis. We, therefore while dismissing the appeal on merits, direct that there shall be re-assessment of the excise duty on the value of ₹ 5/- per quintal and on fresh calculation of weight, after excluding the water content as revealed by the record of the appellant-company indicated in para (d) at page 7 of the grounds of appeal. Consequential relief be given accordingly within two moths of the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (4) TMI 281 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e principles of classification as embodied in the statutory Rule 2(a) and Rule 3(a) of the “Rules for Interpretation of this Schedule” as given in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the majority decision appears to be correct in as much as the carbon rings cannot be sued for any other purposes except as part of machines, thus, for their classification, the Heading 84.65 is more specific rather than Heading 68.01/16. Even the statutory notes of Chapter 68 gives an analogy to this effect in Note (f) by excluding Lethographic stones of Heading 84.34 from the purview of Chapter 68 of the Customs Tariff Act. The statutory note for Chapter 84, as referred to in the Dissenting Order of Member (Technical) is irrelevant for the purpose of resolving the present controversy in as much as the goods in question are not specifically covered under Chapter 68. Therefore there cannot be any question for their exclusion from Chapter 84 on the basis of Statutory Note 1(a) of Chapter 84.
-
1983 (4) TMI 280 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... whether or not cut to shape or sewn or otherwise made up”. In this context, they have referred to Board’s Tariff Advice of 31-7-1971 holding that diamond dressing tools, diamond drilling bits and diamond indentors do not fall within the purview of Item No. 51 of the C.E.T. We do not have benefit of the basis which led to these conclusions. From a plain reading of the wording of Item No. 51 (1) of the C.E.T. it is clear that the subject goods which consisted of fine diamond grains impregnated or bonded on a base of spring steel wire and which are “made up” and are in a ready-to-use condition, fall for classification under that Item. It is not quite clear from the record whether the goods were assessed under sub-item (1) or sub-item (2) of Item No. 51 of C.E.T., but this, for all practical purposes; is an academic issue since the rate of duty was the same for both the sub-items. 10. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we reject the appeals.
-
1983 (4) TMI 279 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he scope of Tariff Item 49 of C.E.T. for deciding whether assembly under consideration is covered by scope of this item. Tariff Item 49 reads “ROLLER BEARING, I.E., TO SAY, BALL OR ROLLER BEARINGS, ALL SORTS”. A plain reading is sufficient to say that scope of Tariff Item 49 is only to cover Ball and Roller Bearings. Ball and Roller Bearings normally consist of concentric rings (races) enclosing the balls or roller and a cage which keep them in place and ensure that their spacing remains constant. In the case before us, bearing assembly is a type of Bush Bearing which does not have concentric rings and balls/rollers. This aspect of the case is clear from the drawing of bearing. 9. As observed above, even the Revenue Representative Shri Kunnikrishnan accepted that the imported bearing assemblies were of the type of bush bearings, neither having rings nor ball. Therefore, we accept the Appeal and direct that no countervailing duty was leviable. Appeal allowed.
-
1983 (4) TMI 278 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... icability of Limitation Act. The decision of Bench B’ appears to be more sound as is based on the court decisions reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 36; AIR 1975 S.C. 1039; AIR 1970 Supreme Court 209; 1981 E.L.T. 592; 1979 E.L.T. (J 602), 1978 E.L.T. (J 61A) and 1983 ECR 42. Moreover, under old Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (which is relevant in the context of present controversy) there was no provision which authorised the Appellate authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory time limit. However, such powers have now been conferred under the new Section 35, therefore, this material fact cannot be overlooked. It is advisable that the controversy whether the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under the Central Excises and Customs Act, either for the purposes of refund claim or for condoning delay should be decided by a larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in order to resolve the conflicting decisions of Special Benches.
-
1983 (4) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nsel for the appellants, in the course of the hearing, made a grievance of the fact that though the Show Cause Notice dated 6-8-1977 had asked the appellants to show cause why the said goods should not be classified under Item 51-A-CET and why their claim for classification under Item No. 68-CET should not be rejected, the order passed by the Assistant Collector proceeded to classify the goods under Item 62-CET. Prima facie, the appellants’ grievance seems to be justified. In any event, as we have observed, the Appellate Collector’s order does not deal with the appellants’ contentions in relation to the classification of Carbide plugs and Rods. We direct that the Appellate Collector should deal with the appellants’ contentions afresh and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the appellants of being heard. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the light of the observations and directions given above. 13. Statistics-Appeal allowed.
-
1983 (4) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the appellant’s plea that letter of 30th June, 1975 addressed by the Deputy Collector cannot be considered as an order of adjudication. We could understand if the Appellate Collector has referred to the assessee’s communications filed before the Collector of Central Excise and had come to the conclusion that representations were not correct, but the type of orders which has been passed and which was made the subject matter of revision application before the Government and is, therefore, before us under appeal, cannot be said to be proper. 5. We, therefore, direct the Appellate Collector to pass a fresh speaking order, adjudicating the dispute of classification. His decision that the assessee’s appeal was barred by limitation is accordingly vacated. Since we are restoring the matter back to the first appellate authority, i.e., Appellate Collector, which has the effect of vacating the Order; for purpose of statistics Appeal should be treated as allowed.
-
1983 (4) TMI 275 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 42-CET, without payment of duty and without compliance with excise formalities, the question of time-bar would not arise. The fact that they had contested the decision of the Assistant Collector as communicated to them by the Inspector and later reiterated by the Superintendent would not absolve them from their responsibility under the Central Excise Rules, especially when they were specifically asked to take out a licence, observe formalities and pay duty. 20. In the present case, the Show Cause Notice had invoked the provisions of Rule 9(2) and at the relevant time i.e., when the subject goods were manufactured and cleared without payment of duty and without observance of excise formalities, there was no time-limit for raising demands for duty on goods which had been cleared without observance of Central Excise formalities. In the result, we have to answer the 2nd and 3rd issues in the negative. 21. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we reject the appeal
-
1983 (4) TMI 274 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... that Entry 22F was nowhere in contemplation so far as these specific goods are concerned. 10. From a cumulative reading of the facts which remain uncontroverted, we are of our well-considered view that the intention, after deletion of Entry 59 dealing specifically with these goods, was to treat them as falling under Item 68. The period in dispute is shortly after this notification of 18-6-1977. Thus the intention as expressed by the aforesaid Notification No. 174/77 can certainly be pressed into aid by the appellant. We, therefore, hold that the view taken by the lower Customs authorities classifying these goods for the purposes of countervailing duty, to be falling under Item 22F of the CET was certainly erroneous, and that excise duty was leviable only under Item 68 of the CET, and so would be the countervailing duty. We accordingly allow the appeal and direct that consequential refund be given to the appellant within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1983 (4) TMI 273 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... quo;unveneered particle board”, as contemplated by Notification No. 16/68-C.E. This question of fact cannot be opened at this stage of second appeal, when was not urged before the original authority or before the first appellate authority. The sample as shown during hearing on face of it, makes it look like a laminated wall board and it is admittedly used as a cargoliner in the aeroplanes and the observations of the Customs Authorities that it was only a wall board of wood fibre has not been questioned at the right stage. From this it appears that the description Starto Glass’ was only a name, as given in the Bill of Entry, and the goods were substantially laminated wall board which consequently fall within the classification of Item 16B(ii) of the CET, as then applicable. Countervailing duty treating them to be so was thus rightly levied and there is no merit in the appellant’s contention. The appeal thus liable for dismissal, and is dismissed accordingly.
-
1983 (4) TMI 272 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... not explained the basis on which they have contended that countervailing duty should have been levied only at the rate of ₹ 1.60 per kg. and not at 30% ad val. The item in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule which corresponds to Heading No. 48.01/21 of the Customs Tariff Schedule is Item No. 17. The specific rate of duty which was in force till the 1976 budget, was changed to ad val. levy of 30 % in that year’s budget. We find that the Customs authorities have correctly levied countervailing duty at 30% ad val. equal to the excise duty leviable under Item No. 17 on paper and paper board, all sorts, other than uncoated and coated printing and writing paper. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities as regards the claim of the appellants in the matter of refund of countervailing duty. 5. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we do not see any merit in the appeal which is, therefore, rejected.
-
1983 (4) TMI 271 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is entitled to the benefit of the Transfer of Residence concession in respect of these two articles. We accordingly allow the appeal. Corrigendum to Order No. 162/1983-C, dated 22nd April 1983 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Special Bench C’) on appeal No. CD(SB)(T) A. No. 94/83A. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Tribunal hereby makes the following amendment in the aforesaid Order - In the last sentence in paragraph 11 of the Order, for the words “Barring such extreme cases, we are of the view that satisfactory possession or use of the article” that following words shall be substituted - “Barring such extreme cases, we are of the view that satisfactory evidence of possession of article” SD/- SD/- SD/- (A.J.F. D’Souza) (S.D. Jha) (S. Venkatesan) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Senior Vice-President 27-6-1983 27-6-1983 27-6-1983
-
1983 (4) TMI 270 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of CET as that item covered only aluminium products and not aluminium alloy products. 4. Shri Bhaktavatsalam, on behalf of the appellants, contended that the goods imported were not only not covered under Item No. 27 but were also not known as Aluminium Manufactures in trade. He further argued that if the intention were to levy c.v. duty on Aluminium Alloy and manufactures, the wording in the CET would have been similar to the wording of Item 26A of CET which related to copper and copper alloys. 5. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the matter. From the invoice description it is clear that the goods were made of aluminium predominantly (93% aluminium) and, therefore, the Collector of countervailing duty under Item 27, CET was in order. The analogy with copper alloys, which go by a definite trade name, such as brass, bronze, ball metal etc. is misplaced. Hence we upheld the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs and reject the appeal.
-
1983 (4) TMI 269 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Fasteners and others v. Union of India and others 1980 E.L.T. 693 (Bom.) at para 4. In that case His Lordship of the Bombay High Court was dealing with the order of the Appellate Collector before whom a decision of the Bombay High Court in similar case had been cited but the Appellate Collector did not take note of it. The Court observed that in those circumstances “the said order of the Appellate Collector is, to say the least, dishonest”. The reference does not seem to be apt, as the situation before us; the decision of the Delhi High Court in the Sialkot Industrial Corporation case has been traversed by us at length in our decision in the case of Bharat Electronics Ltd. 8. It is accepted that the shortage was not discovered before the proper officer made an order for clearance of the goods for home consumption. The orders of the authorities below are maintainable on the facts of the case and is in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (4) TMI 268 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... mmonia gas, hydrogenchloride gas etc. under O.G.L. as contended by the Advocate. Hence there is no warrant in treating the solution as separate from the Sorbitol powder. In this view we find that the licences are not valid for the import of the goods in question and that the Deputy Collector’s order of levying fine is quite correct and legal. As regards the request of the appellants for issue of the detention certificate, we find that the same is not governed by the Customs Act and therefore, the grant or denial of such a certificate is not a decision or order under the Customs Act and the same cannot be a subject matter of the appeal to the Tribunal. It is for this purpose that this aspect is not included in the Deputy Collector’s order or the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs. There is, therefore, no question of our taking note of this request in the appeal. In view of these facts, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities and dismiss the appeal.
-
1983 (4) TMI 267 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... re on the part of the Appellant Company, to comply with the mandatory provisions of law and having failed to seek an order of the Tribunal, for keeping in abeyance the operation of the order, so far as it related to Duty and Penalty, this lapse on their part, will entail dismissal of the appeal because it cannot be entertained, in the absence of statutory provisions having been complied with. The only event when this requirement could be dispensed with was an order of the Tribunal, as envisaged by proviso to Section 35F, but the appellant has not even attempted to avail of the same as there is no stay Petition till the date of hearing. It is not even a case where the appellant could plead ignorance because contents of Para 9 of the appeal appearing before Statement of Facts, indicates they were aware of the requirements of Law. It is thus a clear case of wanton disregard of the provisions. 5. The appeal is therefore rendered unentertainable and is dismissed accordingly.
-
1983 (4) TMI 266 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d, for this purpose, the Indian Standards and British Standards relevant to paper and board for electrical purposes amply make it clear that the thickness of presspahn paper could range from 0.10 mm. to 0.50 mm. In the case of the imported goods are the subject matter of this batch of appeals, the thickness of the imported paper ranges from 0.18 mm. to 0.40 mm. The publication referred to by the Departmental Representative does not clearly spell out the distinction between presspaper and pressboard and we do not feel inclined to go by the definition of pressboard as contained in it in the face of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the appellants in the shape of Indian and British Standards. 7. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we set aside the orders appealed against, allow the appeals and direct that the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay shall grant the consequential relief to the appellants within 2 months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (4) TMI 265 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... icone rubber, merely because it is less durable than an article of some other material. 6. As regards the objection that the goods are in the nature of raw material, it appears to us that it would be totally inappropriate to apply that expression to goods of this nature. The objection is really that the sleeving is not cut to length and ready for use. There is substance in the contention of the appellants that, considering the multifarious uses of the sleeving, it would not be feasible to import it in cut lengths. Even if it were feasible, it would not only lead to avoidable wastage but also to avoidable expenditure of foreign exchange. But apart from these general aspects, we consider that the term “equipments” in the notification, taken with the evident objective of that notification can be considered as wide enough to cover the silicone rubber sleeving in running length. 7. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (4) TMI 264 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... inting of fabrics. To get over this difficulty, the appellants would like us to read the latter half of entry 21 as “cylinders to be engraved for use by textile industry”. We see no warrant for adding any words in the entry when the meaning of the entry read as a whole is already clear. There is no doubt in our mind that the word “or” used in this entry is expository and the entry as a whole prescribes three conditions to be fulfilled before rollers or cylinders can be exempted thereunder - (1) They should be made of copper, (2) They should be engraved, and (3) They should be for use in textile industry. Since the copper cylinders manufactured by the appellants are not engraved and since, in the un-engraved condition in which they are cleared from their factory, they cannot be used by textile industry, we hold that they are not entitled to exemption under entry 21 of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. 6. Accordingly, we reject the appeal.
........
|
