|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 136 Records
-
1985 (6) TMI 182 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... st principles with reference to a period when there were no separate items for un-processed and processed fabrics. The Court came to the conclusion that processed fabric was a variety of fabric different from the un-processed one and, that, therefore, the former was liable to be charged to duty under the item “cotton fabrics, all sorts”, even though the base un-processed fabric had already suffered duty. Having said this, the Court also held that the retrospective amendment of the two tariff items providing for separate levy of duty on processed and un-processed fabrics was not ultra vires. This was the decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in the present case, for the detailed analysis set out in the main Order, I agree that prilled ammonium nitrate would not be liable to be charged to duty under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule when it is made out of ammonium nitrate which had already suffered duty under the same Item No. 68.
-
1985 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of Sec. 4(a) of the Central Excise Act did not have application to the goods where the assessee does not sell in the course of wholesale trade at the price fixed under any law or the maximum price fixed under any such law. We have already held that indisputably there is no sale here by the appellants. We also held that the appellants did not show us that they were covered by the Aluminium Control Order. Therefore, this judgment cited by the learned D.R. supports the view we had already taken. 16. In the circumstances we hold that the appellants have to pay duty on the additional amounts they collected from the customers by debit notes. These amounts were part of the assessable value which was not declared and was liable to be included in the value for assessment of excise duty. We further hold that the demand would be valid for a period of five years prior to the date of show cause notice. In the light of these discussions, we see no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
-
1985 (6) TMI 180 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ccasions in the past and have clearly abetted in the contravention of the provisions of the Act. We find them guilty of Sections 8(1) and 27 of the Act. 16. In view of our above finding we uphold the confiscation of the primary gold in question and the redemption fine of ₹ 1,25,000 imposed on the appellant Ramesh Babu by the Collector of Central Excise. Regarding the penalty, we feel that interests of justice would be met if the same is brought on par with the one imposed on appellants Ramakrishnan, Srinath, Sarathy and Venkatesan since they were instrumental for the sale and purchase of primary gold through Ramesh Babu who acted as a carrier between them. We therefore reduce the penalty on Ramesh Babu from ₹ 50,000 to ₹ 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) and confirm the penalties imposed on the other appellants by the adjudicating authority. 17. Except for the above said reduction in the penalty on appellant Ramesh Babu, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 179 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t period should not be effected. It is probable that the Collector did not do so since the question of recovery in respect of past period would arise only after the basic issue, viz. the classification of frit, was adjudicated upon. We do not know. Be that as it may, once the Collector came to the conclusion and ordered reclassification of frit under Item 23A(4) CET, he was right in demanding payment of differential duty. However, recoveries of such amounts can be made only in respect of a period of 6 months preceding the date of the order, i.e. 30-4-1982, as determined with due regard to the provisions of Rule 11 or Section 11A as applicable to each assessment. The Central Excise authorities shall re-calculate the amount of short-levy in the light of these observations and communicate the figures to the appellants within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. 19. Subject only to the relief granted in the foregoing para, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1985 (6) TMI 178 - SUPREME COURT
Whether brass scrap can come into being during the process of manufacture?
Whether brass scrap can come into being during the process of manufacture?
Held that:- Brass, unquestionably, is most akin to copper and, therefore, brass scrap has to be classified as `Copper Waste and Scrap’.
According to Note 4, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in the First Schedule to a base metal is to be taken to include a reference to alloys which, by virtue of Note 3, are to be classified as alloys of that metal. Heading No. 74.01/02 of the First Schedule refers to copper waste and scrap. Copper is a base metal. Reference to copper in that Heading would include reference to Brass since, by virtue of Note 3, brass has to be classified as an alloy of copper. Therefore, `copper waste and scrap’ includes `Brass Scrap’.
Notification No. 156 of July 16, 1977 exempts `copper waste and scrap’ from so much of the duty of customs as is in excess of 80 per cent ad valorem. Since brass scrap is includible in the expression `copper waste and scrap’ and since, brass scrap is not a `Master alloy’, the appellants’ case would fall under this Notification. Accordingly, they would be entitled to exemption from customs duty to the extent of 20 per cent only.
-
1985 (6) TMI 177 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssam, who appears on behalf of the respondents in the instant case and leave the matter at that. 13.. For the reasons set forth above we hold that the petitioner has no legal right to claim any relief under section 37-A(2) of the Act . We hold that we cannot direct the State Government to grant relief to the petitioner under section 37-A(2) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14.. In the result the petition fails. It is dismissed with costs of Rs. 200 payable by the petitioner to the respondents. Learned Advocate-General submits that instead of making the payment to the State Government the said amount may be directed to be paid to the Gauhati High Court Legal Aid Committee. We highly appreciate the stance taken by the learned Advocate-General, Assam, to uphold and foster growth of the Legal Aid System in the State. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to pay the amount to the Secretary, Gauhati High Court Legal Aid Committee, within two months from today.
-
1985 (6) TMI 176 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o interfere with such a course of action, far from advancing the cause of justice, would definitely defeat the cause of justice and will not be in accord with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Shenoy and Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle-II, Bangalore 1985 60 STC 70 (SC) AIR 1985 SC 621. Even assuming that there is any merit in the contention of the petitioners on the question of limitation, then also these are not fit cases in which this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in their favour under article 226 of the Constitution. 19.. In the light of our above discussion, we hold that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, dismiss these writ petitions and discharge the rule. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. 20.. Let this order be communicated to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore, within 10 days from this day. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 175 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... livery supply or transfer is made and is deemed to be a sale, it is open to the Legislature, in the peculiar circumstances and for good reasons, to exclude the amount, if any, realised from such transfer, delivery or supply of goods from the taxable turnover. 13.. The agreement referred to in the order of the Tribunal provided that the assessee was to sell and the vendee to purchase the said three businesses as running concerns taking over all assets and liabilities of the said business as on 30th November, 1973. Each of the three businesses sold, though conducted under the same registration and proprietorship of the assessee, was a separate business. For each separate Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account used to be prepared to find out the trade results. The sale of each of the businesses was as a whole, and no part of the sold business was retained by the respondent (the assessee). In the light of the foregoing discussions, we dismiss this tax revision case. No costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Soap - Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... he learned Advocate will influence the issue under consideration in the present appeal. The case may, therefore, be remanded to the Collector of Customs and Central Excise. The second issue regarding classification of the soap will be no consequence. The learned Advocate for the appellants has also supported this. 5. emsp After careful consideration, of the matter and in view of the decision of the Special Bench-B reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 89 (T) 1984 (4) E.T.R. 892, it is desirable that the matter be re-examined by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise and remand the case to the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot for re-decision. The Collector will afford to the appellants an opportunity of personal hearing, if they so desire, before passing a fresh order. 6. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1985 (6) TMI 167 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ,000 as held by them by way of security respectively under orders of this court until further orders. In the event of a suit being filed or any other proceedings being initiated by the appellant against the respondent for establishing its said claim, then the respondent may raise a claim for the said sum of Rs. 18,000 by way of counter-claim or set off as it may be advised. If no such steps are taken by the appellant for establishing its claim within the said period of three months, the respondent will be at liberty to apply for withdrawal of the money held by the said advocates-on-record and the Registrar, Original Side, which, we have been told, has been invested in short-term fixed deposits with a nationalised bank and the interest accrued on the said sums in satisfaction of its claim against the appellant company. In the premises, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated August 3, 1982. There will be no order as to costs. R. N. Pyne J. mdash I agree.
-
1985 (6) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund Claim ... ... ... ... ..... uld not merit any consideration. It is a settled proposition of law that if an application is filed before an officer who does not have territorial jurisdiction, the application would not be ab initio either void or non est. Since, in our, view, a copy of the application of the appellant dated 20-6-1978 referred to supra in substance would constitute a refund application within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, we hold that the rejection of the appellants rsquo refund claim under the impugned order is not legally sustainable. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow this appeal. Since we have disposed of the appeal, on the ground that the copy of the appellant rsquo s letter dated 20-6-1978, to the Assistant Collector constitute a valid refund claim in law, we do not feel called upon to traverse and consider the other submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tuff and Chemical Industries, Madras v. Collector of Customs, Madras 1988 (18) E.L.T. 633 (Tribunal) 1984 ECR 2609 and submits that this decision is applicable to the present appeal. Shri Rakesh Bhatia representing the respondent agrees that the ratio in para 2 of the decision for classification of zinc ash under T.I. 68 of CET for imports prior to ... .81 would be applicable and CV duty would have to be worked out on that basis and not under T.I. 26B of CET. 3. ensp In view of the foregoing, the appellant rsquo s claim for classification of zinc ash under T.I. 68 is accepted. The goods would be classified under this Tariff Item and benefit of any exemption notification applicable to the goods shall be given to the appellants subject to fulfilment of the conditions if any of relevant notification. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. Refund admissible to the appellants shall be granted within a period of four months on receipt of this order in the Collectorate concerned.
-
1985 (6) TMI 153 - CEGAT, MADRAS
contraband goods ... ... ... ... ..... t of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, certain question said to be of law and arising from the order of this Tribunal (Annexure C). 5. We have heard both sides. As a result of discussion, it has been agreed that the only question of law that will arise from the order of the Tribunal is a modification of question (e) of the Application the rest are related to facts and have been dealt with by the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we refer the following question to the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where the adjudicating authority is satisfied that the contraband goods recovered from the ship are of such nature and quantity as could not be without the knowledge of the Master, the non-framing of the rules contemplated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be pleaded as a valid defense against action against the vessel under that Section. rdquo
-
1985 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dismiss in default of appearance ... ... ... ... ..... ants, representative Shri Mohan Singh Pal, Chief Executive. None is present for the appellant today. The appeal is dismissed in default of appellants appearance under Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
-
1985 (6) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... cation has been filed and in absence of an affidavit either of the clerk or of the SDR a verbal submission like this could not support the appellants. 6. ensp As to the contention made in the application that the delay had already been condoned and appeal admitted and that the Assistant Registrar of the Bench had communicated receipt of the appeal, we do not think that the ministerial act of acknowledging the receipt of memo of appeal could amount to admission of the appeal which admittedly is time-barred. No specific order condoning delay in filing appeal has been passed. This contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. 7. ensp From the foregoing we conclude that the appellants have failed to make out a case for condonation of delay. The application dated 14-3-1985 for condonation of delay and presented to us today is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by time. Shri D.N. Kohli does not pursue his cross-objection. This is also dismissed as withdrawn.
-
1985 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Adjournment not liable to be granted. ... ... ... ... ..... from the appellant - Collector of Customs. S/Shri S.D. Nanakani and L.U. Balani have come all the way from Bombay for arguing this appeal for the respondents and the reasons for making a request for adjournment by Shri Bhatia are not considered sufficient to accede to his request. We, therefore, reject the request for adjournment and decide the appeal on merits on the basis of available material. 4. emsp The Respondents have eproduced a photostat copy of Order No. C-421/84 dated 29th June 1984. There is no dispute by either party that this order by the Tribunal squarely covers the goods in question. We observe that Collector of Customs (Appeals) merely followed this order which has detailed discussion about the eligibility/classification of goods in question in paras 6 onwards of the order under the Notification. We see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay and dismiss the appeals filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.
-
1985 (6) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Job work - Goods produced on job work ... ... ... ... ..... e department argued before us during the hearing that the first three elements of cost specified in para 2 above do not exhaust all the elements that ought to go into the intrinsic value of the processed fabric. He argued that if the processed fabrics had belonged to the processing unit itself, it would have added the interest which it would have to bear on the investment cost of the grey fabrics. There could be other similar elements of cost also. While we do see some force in this argument, the case before us is not for inclusion of the interest on investment cost of the grey fabrics or of any other identifiable element of cost up to the stage of clearance of processed fabrics. The case before us is, on the other hand, for including the gross margin of profit of the garment exporter. For this we find no justification. 6. emsp In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. Since the cross objection of the respondent does not seek any further relief, the same is also dismissed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 134 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Short landed goods ... ... ... ... ..... refund application, the appellants have produced the shortlanding certificate dated 4th January, 1982 issued by the Port Trust. This was one of the documents required by the Asstt. Collector. The appellants have also produced the invoice. The invoice gives the required particulars. Therefore, it is not absolutely necessary to produce the specification to order refund. The late production of the BPT shortlanding certificate is condoned. Having regard to the shortlanding certificate and the invoice produced by the appellant, normally there should be no objection to grant refund but then the proper authority to consider the refund claim is the Asstt. Collector MCD. He has to be satisfied about the claim. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector MCD for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order and in the light of the documents produced by the appellants.
-
1985 (6) TMI 133 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Shortlanding ... ... ... ... ..... the case of cargo of this nature. In reply to the show cause notice the appellants herein had drawn the attention of the customs authorities that according to the outturn report, 1441 bags were landed in slack and torn condition. This remark is not supported by Hatch Survey report. Further, if that quantity of bags did land in lack and torn condition, as has been rightly contended by the appellants, there would have been sweepings, either in the ship or in the shed. The orders passed by the both the authorities is silent as to the existence of sweepings. The appellants had also contended that certain quantities has been taken out by the consignee and that quantity had not been accounted for. This contention was also not examined. In the circumstances, I allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remand the matter to the Additional Collector of Customs Ahmedabad for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order.
-
1985 (6) TMI 132 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Customs - Short shipment ... ... ... ... ..... n noticed in the consignee rsquo s premises. There was no contemporaneous documents to establish the shortshipment. The invoice originally filed did not contain details of the goods shipped. The appellants did not choose to produce packing specification. In the absence of the particulars of the goods shipped the contention that there was a short shipment cannot be accepted. Much reliance also cannot be placed on the subsequent supply by the suppliers of the alleged shortshipped goods. Strictly, the appellant rsquo s claim would not fall either under Section 13 or under Section 23, of even under Section 22 of the Act, which sections enable the appellants to claim refund. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence or convincing circumstances it is hazardous to rely on the evidence such as subsequent supply of the alleged shortshipped goods by the suppliers for the purpose of ordering refund of duty. 6. In the above view of the matter, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
........
|
