|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 354 Records
-
1991 (2) TMI 156 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Short-landing ... ... ... ... ..... damaged on board the vessel the steamer agent was responsible ......... considering the fact that the extent of such damage of packages is not known, I reduce penalty.............. . 6. Satisfaction envisaged u/s 116 has to be an objective satisfaction based on proper appreciation of the evidence produced by a party and has to be what normally a reasonable person would accept as an explanation that may be offered by the Steamer Agent. In view of this, the above discussions and the observation of the Collector (Appeals) himself the Government feels that preponderance of evidence suggests that there has been no short-landing. As regards the damage the evidence relied upon by the department is rather belated and keeping in mind party s plea that the goods might have been damaged with the Port Trust premises the Government is inclined to give benefit of doubt to the party and accordingly sets aside the order of imposition of penalty in toto with consequential relief to the party.
-
1991 (2) TMI 155 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Short-landing of goods ... ... ... ... ..... nsible for any shortages which might have occurred while the goods were in the custody of C.P.T. Whether these alterations were made immediately at the time of landing or afterwards as contended cannot be confirmed at this stage. However, even on giving benefit to the party the condition of the goods at the time of unloading was TR i.e. some repair to packages was conducted prior to unloading. Under the circumstance the landing tally as it exists has to be accepted being a statutory document in preference to steamer survey Scindia Steam Navigation v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 538 (Tri.) . 4. It is observed that the goods landed on 29-1-1984 and discharge continued till 31-1-1984. The ex parte insurance survey was held on 17-2-1984. The survey was car ried in the presence of customs. There was no inordinate delay in survey after landing of the packages from the vessel. In view of the above the order-in-appeal has rightly held steamer agents responsible.
-
1991 (2) TMI 154 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Drawback - Hosiery goods exported ... ... ... ... ..... used was worsted yarn of the desired count. As mentioned by the Assistant Collector in his order-in-original goods were declared by the applicants as hosiery goods made out of 100 woollen worsted yarn but the same were found to be containing approximately 15 polyamide as per certificate from the Textiles Committee. This was beyond the tolerance limit of 5 for all wool in conformity with International Wool Secretariat and also Consumer Protection (Textile) Act, 1988. 5. The declaration being wrong and further as it was held that none of the representative samples drawn from the consignments had any embroidery work as claimed by the exporters in their letter dated 10-1-1989 it is clear that apart from claim being unmeritted on facts the party did not approach the department with clean hands and a necessary condition for sanction of drawback was not satisfied. In view of this matter rejection of their claim cannot be assailed and the Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
-
1991 (2) TMI 153 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... thorised agent has failed to comply with. 3. Government have gone through the records of the case and considered the arguments at the time of personal hearing. Power to relax compliance with the provisions of Drawback Rules, as provided under Rule 15 ibid is only in relation to the procedural requirements of compliance with the rules. Only such failure to comply with the provisions of the rules as is on account of an exporter can alone be relaxed. However, in the instant case and for whatever reasons the Government failed to include the goods i.e. cotton and embroidered fabrics in the Drawback Schedule during the relevant period the fact remains that there was no drawback admissible as per the Government notifications on the said goods. In that sense there was no substantive provision to sanction drawback on the embroidered fabrics during the relevant period. Therefore, Rule 15 is of little help to the party. 4. In view of the above discussions the Revision Application fails.
-
1991 (2) TMI 152 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... not make it a bag as has been claimed. Such exported article in the market are commonly known as boxes and not bags. In view of the above Government holds that the exported goods were boxes and not bags and have rightly been excluded from SS-2104(e) ibid. 5. As regards party s plea that only two out of thirteen pieces of items were taken for examination. There is nothing to indicate that other items were different in any material respects particularly as representative samples are shown to have been withdrawn. It is also not shown that the party took up the matter (of non-representative sampling as seems to be this plea now) at the time samples were taken. In the circumstances, Government has only to accept the fact of samples being truly representative. 6. Government, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which are correct in fact as well as in law. 7. In the result, the revision application having no merit is rejected and the impugned order upheld.
-
1991 (2) TMI 151 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Loss on destruction of goods ... ... ... ... ..... t stock taking and then molasses of more than 618 M.T. (Approx.) at the time of subsequent stock taking when only 16.200 M.T. could be recovered. Curiously, for both the differences in quantity, rain water permeating through the cracks is that reason. This added to the shifting of the quantity from katcha pits to pacca pits at one stage makes the whole sequence of events rather unbelievable. 6. Party s reliance on some case law and in particular of Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and 12 Other sugar factories 1987 (29) E.L.T. 22 (Tribunal) is also of no help because in that case the original authority had reached a definite finding that accident or destruction had taken place due to natural or unavoidable reasons. In this case there is no such finding available. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions the Government is not able to accept party s version and therefore, does not accept the reasons for shortages as given by them. The application is rejected.
-
1991 (2) TMI 150 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Export - Rebate on export ... ... ... ... ..... states that in the case of tea purchased other than in auctions the gate passes have to be annexed whereas in the case of tea purchased in auctions the broker s catalogue indicating the details of gate passes and the broker s contract relating to the purchase of tea broker s certificate has to be annexed with Form B . 6. Thus, in the circumstances of the case before the Government where tea is purchased in auctions it is apparent that insistence on gate passes is not mandatory. In that view of the matter order of Collector does not suffer from any infirmity and Govt. does not feel it necessary to interfere with impugned order. It is however, clarified that the decision of the Government relates only to the limited point raised by the Collector i.e. whether production of gate passes is necessary in relation to tea purchased in auctions. Other parameters or requirements of different Government notifications will naturally be observed both by the party and the Asstt. Collector.
-
1991 (2) TMI 149 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Export - Rebate on export - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t can have relation to the amount of rebate that may be available to the party once the protest is settled. Therefore, Government feel, and particularly as this is an export-oriented activity, that there is no time-limit applicable for filing rebate claims in respect of duty paid under protest. 5. In passing it may be mentioned that reliance on the Rule of harmonious construction by Collector (Appeals) seems rather misplaced because the said rule is applied when there is repugnancy between two provisions, which is not the case here. 6. For the aforesaid reasons the Government is inclined to hold that duty having been paid under protest the period of six months under Section 11B will not apply for the purposes of clause (5) of Notification No. 197/62. Even otherwise on a plain reading of Section 11B it is clear that if a duty is paid under protest the period of six months will not apply. 7. In the result the Revision Application succeeds with consequential relief to the party.
-
1991 (2) TMI 148 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Loss or destruction of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hibition and Excises and Stale Molasses Controller had ordered destruction of the same. The facts of the case is on all fours with that of M/s. Yashwant S.S.K. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 (49) E.L.T. 534 (Tribunal) (except that in that case the Collector had granted permission for destruction). Whereas here the same is given by another authority i.e. State Excise. There is no allegation that the goods had been removed in this case or there was negligence on the part of the party. This is, therefore, a clear case where the party has satisfactorily explained that the loss is on account of natural causes. Hence as held in the above case by the Tribunal second proviso to Rule 49(1) will operate and there should not be any demand for duty on molasses which are clearly found to be unfit for consumption or for marketing. 5. In view of the above discussions the party is entitled to full remission of duty under Rule 49. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (2) TMI 147 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... t-off Notification No. 95/83, was really not necessary. The said notification grants exemption subject inter alia to the condition that the procedure set out in Rule 56A is followed. This does not mean, on the face of it, that set off envisaged under Notification No. 95/83 would automatically tantamount to creation of credits for the purpose of proforma credit scheme. 8. In the result, Government holds that no duty was paid on the goods exported in view of the Notification No. 432/86. 9. The applicants thus not having paid any duty on the final product, they could not have been eligible for grant of any rebate under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules read with Notification 197/62 which besides other conditions lays down that rebate will be available to the extent of duty which is actually paid on the goods exported. 10. In the result, the Revision Application having no merit fails and is accordingly rejected and the appellate authority s decision in the impugned order is upheld.
-
1991 (2) TMI 146 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Prosecution - Quashing of ... ... ... ... ..... h according to law as nothing could be urged against the continuation of the present proceeding under the relevant section of the Gold (Control) Act. 5. We accordingly allow this revision in part to that extent, quash the charge framed against the accused under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act and send the case back to the court below with a direction to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law under Gold (Control) Act. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the Customs department, that the departmental proceedings under the Customs Act continued for about four years and the accused-petitioner had to face proceedings for these long years before the same terminated in his favour. We would accordingly direct the trial court to proceed with the trial in respect of the alleged offence under the Gold (Control) Act with utmost expedition. Records to go down at once.
-
1991 (2) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Demand - Limitation - Bonded warehouse ... ... ... ... ..... he Department that the present case attracted the aforesaid proviso. Shri A. Mohanty s case, instead, is that the factory of the petitioner has to be taken as a part of the bonded warehouse. Part I of Annexure 1 itself would indicate that a distinction was made by the Department between the factory and the bonded warehouse. Indeed, the dates mentioned in this part would show that the goods were being cleared from the bonded warehouse maintained by the petitioner for consumption of the same in the factory, indicating that the factory was not taken as a part of the bonded warehouse. 5. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that Annexure 1 had been issued beyond the period of limitation visualised by Section 28 of the Act. We would, therefore, set aside the same on this ground. Having come to this conclusion, we have not felt any necessity of examining the second submission advanced by Shri B.K. Mohanty. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 144 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... raise the claim for exemption under Notification No. 179/77 in these proceedings and suffered an adverse decision. It will, no doubt, be gone into by the CEGAT again. We may repeat that in its order dated 10/12-7-1990, the CEGAT has negatived the principal contention of the petitioner that the product Dant Manjan Lal is an Ayurvedic drug and, therefore, exempt from duty. It has held that it is dutiable under Tariff Item 68. (or its equivalent item now obtaining) and the only question left open was whether power was being used in its manufacture or not. 7.In the above circumstances, the plea of procedural irregularity or lack of competence or jurisdiction on the part of the Collector in passing the order now under appeal before the CEGAT, is unsustainable. However, the time prescribed in the Tribunal s order dated 24-12-1990 (on the stay petition) for depositing 75 duty is extended by another four weeks. 8.The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above modification.
-
1991 (2) TMI 143 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Writ appeals by Department ... ... ... ... ..... ee for the balance of two-thirds of the amount. The question of waiver of deposit shall be considered by the appellate authority who shall decide the appeal, as and when filed, uninfluenced by any of the observations of the learned single Judge made in the writ petition. We would also like to observe that the appellants, in case they are aggrieved of orders, should take expeditious steps to question them, as the delay in questioning such orders may result in financial hardship, as has been projected by Mr. R. Thyagarajan appearing for the respondent-caveator, by way of accrual of demurrage. 5.On the respondent complying with the modified conditions for the release of the goods, the appellants shall release the goods to the respondent within twenty four hours from the due compliance, so that no further demurrage is incurred by the respondent. 6.The writ appeal is disposed of and the order of the learned single Judge is modified in the terms indicated above in para 4. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 142 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court has gravely erred in allowing the second revision petitions filed by the respondent by ignoring the weighty reasons given by the Trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge (before whom the first revision was filed) and thereby in permitting the respondent - the Union of India - to examine the three witnesses as prayed by it, notwithstanding that the case was pending before the Trial Court for considerable length of time and the defence argument was concluded?
Held that:- It is seen from the evidence of PW-3 that he and others inclusive of Superintendent Mirchandani went to the house of the appellant and they seized the gold ornaments Dhalia, that is, primary gold under Panchnama and search list Exts. 24 and 25. Therefore, the appellant's grievance that he has been taken by surprise on the request of the prosecution for taking fresh evidence; that the evidence sought to be obtained is only for filling up the lacuna and the judgment, impugned is prejudicial to him cannot be countenanced. Of the three witnesses, permitted to be summoned and examined on the side of the Union of India, the Mint Master is only an assayer. In our considered opinion, the facts and circumstances of the case require the examination of these three witnesses for a just decision of the case as held by the High Court.
No illegality in summoning the witnesses after the closure of the defence arguments. It is seen from the order of the Trial Court that the argument of the prosecution has not yet begun. Since we feel that any further observation of ours in justification of this order may prejudice the defence of the appellant before the Trial Court, we are not inclined to discuss the evidence any further. The judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... -limit is provided. 22. Therefore, any proceeding under Section 11A involves three stages (i) issue of a show cause notice, (ii) adjudication by competent authority, and (iii) issue of a demand to recover the duty. 23. The other important requirement of the provision is that the notice itself must specify the amount liable to be paid by the assessee and the adjudicating authority has to determine the actual amount of central excise duty that may become payable after considering the representation made by the person concerned. 24. The other ground urged in the writ petition is about the competency of Respondent-2, Superintendent of Central Excise to issue the demand for a period beyond six months is a tenable objection taken as to his jurisdiction. This contention is also upheld. 25. For the reasons stated above, the demand, as per Annexure-F, is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the demand notice dated 17-8-1988 (Annexure- F), is set aside.
-
1991 (2) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT
Whether before obtaining clearance of the machinery imported under import licence dated February 14, 1979, the appellant had informed the customs authorities that the said machinery had been transferred to the Company under agreement dated July 31, 1979?
Held that:- The appellant, after getting goods cleared from the customs transferred the same to the Company and thereby the appellant failed to observe the condition on the basis of which the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff was obtained. The goods were, therefore, liable to confiscation under Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act and penalty could be imposed under Section 112 of the Act.
As mentioned earlier the difference between the duty payable and the duty actually paid by the appellant was ₹ 1,26,163.45 and the maximum amount of penalty that could be imposed was five times of that amount. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the Collector has imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- which imposition has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. We find no ground for interfering with the said direction about imposition of penalty. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 139 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Manufacture - Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... er of the Tribunal. 15. In the view that we have taken, we refrain from expressing any opinion as to whether the purchase in this case was of milk and not of cream arid since milk is exempt, the cream obtained from the exempted item would also be exempt. No factual basis for the submission is available on the record. No evidence was let in before the authorities below to show that what was actually purchased by the assessee was milk and not cream. On the contrary, we find that the authorities proceeded to deal with the cases and the assessee also understood its case in the manner that what was purchased by the assessee was cream and not milk. We, therefore, do not deal with that aspect of the case and in fairness to the learned counsel for the assessee record that he also submitted that the said question be left open to be decided in a proper case at the appropriate time. 16. In the result, both the revision petitions fail and are dismissed, but without any order as to cost.
-
1991 (2) TMI 138 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Transhipment of goods - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... Section 11. Besides that, it cannot be said that any deceptive practice was adopted in the present case. One of the purposes specified is the prevention of deceptive practices. The description of the goods given in the present case is Footwear and make-up . In some of the packages was Charlie Cologne Spray . It may be that it was taken as an item of make-up . So, in our opinion, the present case is not covered under clause (o) of sub-section (2) of Section 11. It is true that the impugned order was an appealable one. Normally, the petitioner should have exhausted the statutory remedy available in law. But having regard to the facts of the present case, where the order of confiscation is not sustainable in law, we think it proper to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Addl. Collector of Customs is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the goods within two weeks to be transhipped to Kabul.
-
1991 (2) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Stay/Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he form as indicated in my order dated 14-2-1991 it is presumed that the same is accepted by them. The encashment of the bond will remain subject to the final decision of the matter by the Special Bench at New Delhi. 16. As far as the deposit on account of penalty is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere with the same considering the gravity of the offence alleged. At this stage it cannot be said that the mere payment of Rs. 50,000/- during the search and seizure establish the bona fides of the petitioner warranting a waiver of the penalty. 17. I therefore reject the case of the petitioner in so far as it challenges the order of the Tribunal directing transfer of the case to the Special Bench at New Delhi. 18. The petitioner will furnish the bond and deposit the amount of Rs. 5,000/-within 2 weeks from date. In default writ application will stand dismissed. 19. The writ application is, therefore, partially allowed on the terms set out. There will be no order as to costs.
............
|
