|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 292 Records
-
1990 (3) TMI 92
Issues:
1. Validity of assessment orders passed by different ITOs for the same assessment year.
2. Jurisdiction of the ITO to pass the subsequent assessment order.
3. Interpretation of the law regarding the validity of multiple assessment orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved two assessment orders for the same assessment year, with the first order passed under section 144 by one ITO and the second under section 143(3) by another ITO. The appellant challenged the AAC's decision that the first assessment order was invalid due to a subsequent regular assessment. The appellant had appealed on grounds of invalidity and merits of the first order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The AAC did not decide on merits but held the first order invalid due to the subsequent assessment. The appellant's counsel argued that the case was transferred between ITOs, leading to the second assessment order. The Tribunal found the second order invalid as it was passed while the first order was in existence, making the second order non est. The matter was remanded to the AAC to decide on the grounds of appeal.
2. The appellant's counsel argued that the ITO who passed the subsequent assessment order had jurisdiction, as the appellant filed a duplicate return upon the ITO's request without knowledge of the first assessment. The counsel contended that the second order was valid, citing the Hon'ble High Court's decision in a similar case. The Tribunal agreed that the ITO's jurisdiction was valid and that administrative arrangements did not affect the assessment order's validity. However, the Tribunal found the second order invalid as it was passed while the first order was in effect, rendering it non est.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of law regarding the validity of multiple assessment orders. It emphasized that the passing of the second order led to the situation of two assessment orders, making the second order invalid as it was passed while the first order was in existence. The Tribunal distinguished a previous decision where the first order was found collusive and invalid, allowing for the validity of a subsequent order. In this case, the Tribunal held that the first order should not have been set aside, and the second order was invalid. The matter was remanded to the AAC for further consideration based on the grounds of appeal.
-
1990 (3) TMI 91
Whether the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 stood extended to and was in force in the State of Mizoram?
Held that:- On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the question whether the interlocutory order in the suit was overborne by this Court's order dated 29-4-1988 or not was not a matter of concern in the writ petition in the High Court and that, that question would require to be considered in the forum before it was sought to be raised. It is quite possible that the order dated 29-4-1988 had the effect of neutralising the order in the suit. It was not necessary for the High Court to have gone into that question as it is not for us to do that here either. The observations of the High Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment excerpted above were therefore unnecessary for the purposes of the case before it. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Act stood extended to and remained operative in the State of Mizoram. That was sufficient to dispose of the controversy before it. We, accordingly, delete the said observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 form the judgment of the High Court.
The certificate dated 7th August, 1987, issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl, it is hardly necessary to emphasise, would not survive after the judgment of the High Court was rendered. The observation of the High Curt in para 8 of its judgment implying that matter had to be clarified only in the suit is wholly erroneous. Accordingly, the observations of the High Court in para 8 of the judgment are also deleted.
-
1990 (3) TMI 90
The petition under Section 482 sought to set aside the order rejecting disposal of seized goods. Accused did not oppose selling seized goods before trial. Goods seized under Customs Act. Court allowed petition, directed sale of goods except for trial purposes.
-
1990 (3) TMI 89
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the real manufacturer of electrical laminations.
2. Validity of the excise authorities' directions and show cause notice.
3. Legality of the prosecution against Apex Electricals.
Summary:
1. Determination of the Real Manufacturer of Electrical Laminations:
The central issue was whether Apex Electricals was the real manufacturer of electrical laminations produced by six processors. The court examined whether the six processors were independent entities or merely dummies of Apex Electricals. The excise authorities argued that Apex Electricals was the real manufacturer since the processors worked on a job work basis, merely receiving labor charges. However, the court found no evidence that Apex Electricals had financial or managerial control over the processors. The processors were independently managed, purchased their machinery without financial help from Apex Electricals, and also worked for other companies. The court concluded that the transactions between Apex Electricals and the processors were on a principal-to-principal basis, and the processors were not dummies of Apex Electricals.
2. Validity of the Excise Authorities' Directions and Show Cause Notice:
The excise authorities directed Apex Electricals to apply for a loan license and follow the prescribed procedure, treating the declarations filed by the processors as unacceptable. Apex Electricals challenged these directions, arguing that the processors were independent entities. The court found that the excise authorities' reliance on certain circumstances (e.g., simultaneous approach by processors, identical declarations, and purchase of machinery) was insufficient to conclude that the processors were dummies of Apex Electricals. The court held that the show cause notice issued to Apex Electricals was time-barred and without jurisdiction, as there was no suppression or concealment of material facts by the processors or Apex Electricals.
3. Legality of the Prosecution Against Apex Electricals:
The court also addressed the prosecution launched against Apex Electricals based on the order of the Collector. Since the court found that the processors were independent entities and there was no justification for treating Apex Electricals as the real manufacturer, the prosecution was deemed unjustified. The court quashed the show cause notice, the order passed by the Collector, and the prosecution against Apex Electricals.
Conclusion:
The court allowed all the petitions, declaring the actions of the excise authorities as illegal. The show cause notice and the order dated 27-11-1984 passed by the Collector were quashed, and the prosecution against Apex Electricals was also set aside. The rule in each petition was made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 88
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the real manufacturer of electrical laminations.
2. Validity of the show cause notice issued to Apex Electricals.
3. Legality of the prosecution against Apex Electricals.
Summary:
Issue 1: Determination of the Real Manufacturer
Apex Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and six other petitioners challenged the view that Apex Electricals was the real manufacturer of electrical laminations produced by six processors. The respondents argued that the processors were manufacturing the laminations for and on behalf of Apex Electricals, making Apex Electricals the real manufacturer. The court found no material evidence to support that the processors were financially or otherwise controlled by Apex Electricals. The processors were independent entities, managed independently, and carried out job work without Apex Electricals' control or supervision. The court concluded that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis, and the processors were not dummies of Apex Electricals.
Issue 2: Validity of the Show Cause Notice
The show cause notice issued to Apex Electricals was challenged as time-barred and without jurisdiction. The court noted that the processors had disclosed all relevant facts to the excise authorities, and there was no suppression or concealment of true facts. Therefore, the show cause notice issued within the extended period of five years was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the show cause notice and the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise were quashed and set aside.
Issue 3: Legality of the Prosecution
The prosecution against Apex Electricals, based on the Collector's order, was also challenged. Given the court's finding that Apex Electricals did not commit the alleged offense, the prosecution was quashed.
Conclusion:
The court declared the actions of the excise authorities as illegal, quashed the show cause notice and the Collector's order, and set aside the prosecution against Apex Electricals. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 87
Issues:
1. Interpretation of import tariff classification for parts of pumps
2. Consideration of duty on Mechanical Seals as parts of Centrifugal Pumps
3. Applicability of Notification No. 155/86-Cus. and Notification No. 59/87-Cus.
4. Question of limitation in refund of duty
Interpretation of Import Tariff Classification:
The judgment is based on a previous decision of the court in the petitioners' case, which was accepted by the appellants. The appellants argued that parts of all kinds of pumps fall under Entry No. 8413.91, requiring consideration. However, this argument was not raised before the Single Judge. The court found that even if the argument was valid, it would not impact the case significantly.
Consideration of Duty on Mechanical Seals:
The petitioners manufacture Mechanical Seals for fitment into Centrifugal Pumps only. The dispute revolves around whether Mechanical Seals, considered as parts of pumps, should be subject to the same duty as Centrifugal Pumps under Entry No. 8413.70. The court analyzed the relevant notifications and the certification by the Director of Industries that Mechanical Seals are used as parts of Centrifugal Pumps. It concluded that the duty on Mechanical Seals should be the same as that on Centrifugal Pumps under the applicable notifications.
Applicability of Notifications:
The court clarified that Notification No. 155/86-Cus. is applicable, along with other notifications such as Notification No. 59/87-Cus. The explanation provided in the notifications states that duty on a part should not exceed the duty on the article it is a part of, provided the main article is covered in the notification. The court emphasized that Mechanical Seals are used in Centrifugal Pumps and are certified for such use, thus warranting the same duty treatment.
Question of Limitation in Refund of Duty:
Regarding the limitation in refund of duty, the petitioners applied for a refund following the court's earlier judgment. The assessments made until March 1988 were provisional, and the final order in June 1990 did not raise the issue of limitation. Therefore, the court held that the question of limitation did not apply in this case and rejected the appeal while extending the time for granting the refund.
This judgment clarifies the classification of parts of pumps, the duty treatment of Mechanical Seals, the applicability of specific notifications, and the issue of limitation in refund claims, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case.
-
1990 (3) TMI 86
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of almonds under Customs Laws.
2. Validity of REP (replenishment) licence for importing almonds.
3. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities versus Licensing Authorities.
4. Interpretation of almonds as seeds or dry fruits.
5. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Almonds under Customs Laws:
The primary issue in this case is whether almonds are classified as seeds or dry fruits under the Customs Laws. The Petitioners imported two consignments of almonds and described them as 'Seed of Almonds-Non Pareil Quality' in the Bills of Entry for Home Consumption. The Customs Authorities issued Show Cause Notices and later confiscated the consignments, classifying them as dry fruits under Chapter 8, clause 0802.11 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, rather than seeds under Chapter 12.
2. Validity of REP (Replenishment) Licence for Importing Almonds:
The Petitioners contended that almonds were seeds and thus covered under Clause G.2 (i)(a)(d) of Appendix 17 of the Import & Export Policy (April 1985 - March 1988), which permits the import of seeds under a REP licence. However, the Customs Authorities concluded that the consignments were not covered by valid licences and confiscated the goods, offering an option to clear them on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities versus Licensing Authorities:
The Petitioners argued that the Customs Authorities had impinged upon the jurisdiction of the Licensing Authority by questioning the description of the goods. They relied on several rulings, including Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros., which emphasized that Customs Authorities should not interpret licensing policy. However, the court held that the Customs Authorities had merely carried out their duty as prescribed by the Customs Act by concluding that the consignments were not covered by the REP licences.
4. Interpretation of Almonds as Seeds or Dry Fruits:
The Petitioners produced various certificates and references from authorities like the California Almond Growers Exchange, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Encyclopaedia Britannica to support their claim that almonds were seeds. Despite this, the court found that almonds are classified under Chapter 8 (Edible fruit and nuts) and not under Chapter 12 (Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The court emphasized that the classification should be based on the relevant Acts and not on external references.
5. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Petitioners requested the court to set aside the redemption fine and penalty. However, the court held that once it was found that the goods were attempted to be cleared under an invalid licence, it could not interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs. The court dismissed the Writ Petition with costs and stayed the operative part of the order till 23-4-1990.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that almonds are classified as dry fruits under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and not as seeds under Chapter 12. The REP licences produced by the Petitioners did not cover the import of almonds. The Customs Authorities acted within their jurisdiction, and the redemption fine and penalty imposed were justified. The Writ Petition was dismissed with costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 85
Issues Involved:
1. Import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas.
2. Amendment of Import General Manifest (I.G.M.).
3. Validity of bills of entry and determination of customs duty rates.
4. Allegations of fraud and abuse of process of court.
5. Entitlement to reduced customs duty under Notification No. 263/89-Customs.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas:
All writ petitions pertain to the import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas, with the cargo arriving in Bombay prior to 18th October 1989.
2. Amendment of Import General Manifest (I.G.M.):
In Writ Petition No. 3288/89, the original importer, M/s. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills, filed a Bill of Entry on 24th October 1989. After the contract was allegedly canceled, the petitioner, Miss Anjali Shantilal Lunkad, claimed to have purchased the cargo and sought to amend the I.G.M. to reflect her as the importer. The Customs authorities refused the amendment and the fresh bill of entry. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 719/90, the steamer agents' application to amend the I.G.M. to substitute the petitioners, M/s. Agrimpex India Pvt. Ltd., was refused. In Writ Petition No. 71/90, the petitioners, M/s. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills, sought to amend the I.G.M. for six consignments, but the Customs authorities accepted only three bills of entry filed post-1st November 1989.
3. Validity of bills of entry and determination of customs duty rates:
The court emphasized that the rate of duty is determined by the date of presentation of the bill of entry for home consumption under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. For Writ Petition No. 3288/89, the original bill of entry was filed on 24th October 1989, prior to the new notification, making the petitioner liable to pay the duty rate prevailing on that date. In Writ Petition No. 719/90 and Writ Petition No. 71/90, the bills of entry were presented by the original importers before 1st November 1989. Thus, the rate of duty applicable was the one in force in October 1989.
4. Allegations of fraud and abuse of process of court:
The respondents alleged that a fraud was perpetrated to avail the benefit of the reduced customs duty notification by transferring the cargo to the daughter of a partner of the original importer. The court found the petition to be a gross abuse of the process of court and dismissed it, ordering the petitioner to pay the differential duty and exemplary costs.
5. Entitlement to reduced customs duty under Notification No. 263/89-Customs:
The petitioners in all cases claimed entitlement to the reduced customs duty under Notification No. 263/89-Customs effective from 1st November 1989. However, the court held that the relevant date for determining the rate of duty is the date when the original bill of entry was filed. Since the bills of entry were filed before the notification, the reduced duty was not applicable. The court cited the case of Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India to support the principle that the duty is quantified with reference to the date the bill of entry is first filed.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed all petitions, ruling that the petitioners are liable to pay customs duty at the rate prevailing in October 1989. The petitioners were ordered to pay differential duty and exemplary costs, and the respondents were given liberty to encash the bank guarantees provided by the petitioners.
Final Orders:
1. Writ Petition No. 3288/89 is dismissed.
2. Writ Petition Nos. 71/90 and 719/90 are dismissed.
3. Rule is discharged.
4. Bank guarantees not to be encashed for two weeks, with petitioners undertaking to keep them alive for at least four weeks.
-
1990 (3) TMI 84
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Classification and excisability of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
3. Marketability of goods for excise duty applicability.
4. Mens rea in the commission of alleged offenses.
5. Impact of pending appeal before the Central Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) on criminal proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Quashing of Proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The petitioners sought to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, arguing that the prosecution was not maintainable and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The court, however, found that the issues raised required detailed examination of evidence, which could not be done at this preliminary stage. Therefore, the petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed.
2. Classification and Excisability of Goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:
The prosecution classified the goods manufactured by the petitioners as parts of mixies, wet grinders, and television sets, which would attract excise duty under Chapters 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioners contended that their goods were exempt under Chapter 39, which pertains to plastics and articles thereof. The court noted that the classification of goods and their excisability depended on the nature, quality, use, and effectiveness of the articles, which required evidence to be brought on record. Therefore, the court could not quash the proceedings based on the classification issue at this stage.
3. Marketability of Goods for Excise Duty Applicability:
The petitioners argued that the goods manufactured were not marketable as they were produced against specific orders and not involved in any marketing activity. The court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Union Carbide India Limited v. Union of India and Others and Bhor Industries Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, which held that marketability is an essential ingredient for excise duty applicability. However, the court found that the question of marketability required evidence to be adduced before the trial court and could not be determined in the petition under Section 482.
4. Mens Rea in the Commission of Alleged Offenses:
The petitioners contended that there was no mens rea (guilty mind) as they acted based on the opinion of their excise consultant and the lack of indication from excise officials during inspections. The court noted that mens rea is a matter of inference from all facts and circumstances arising out of the evidence to be presented during the trial. The presumption of culpable mental state under Section 9C of the Central Excise Act could not be overlooked at this stage. Therefore, the issue of mens rea could not be a ground for quashing the proceedings at this preliminary stage.
5. Impact of Pending Appeal before CEGAT on Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioners argued that the criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of their appeal before the CEGAT. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in P. Jayappan v. S.K. Peruimal, which held that the pendency of an appeal does not bar criminal proceedings but may warrant an adjournment or postponement of the criminal case in appropriate circumstances. The court found that this was an appropriate case to stay the criminal proceedings for a reasonable period to facilitate the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the court directed a stay of the proceedings in C.C. No. 31 of 1989 for six months.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings but granted a stay of the criminal proceedings for six months to allow the petitioners to pursue their appeal before the CEGAT. The issues of classification, marketability, and mens rea were deemed to require detailed examination of evidence, which would be addressed during the trial.
-
1990 (3) TMI 83
Issues Involved:
1. Whether partly skimmed milk powder is a separate marketable commodity as compared to skimmed milk powder.
2. Whether both commodities are subject to levy of excise duty u/s 0401.13 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Jurisdiction of the respondents to levy central excise on partly skimmed milk powder.
4. Refund of the excise duty collected from the petitioner.
Summary:
1. Separate Marketable Commodity:
The court examined whether partly skimmed milk powder is distinct from skimmed milk powder. It was noted that the Central Excise Tariff, ISI standards, PFA Rules, and International Standards all recognize partly skimmed milk powder as a separate commodity. The court concluded that partly skimmed milk powder is commercially known as a separate marketable commodity.
2. Levy of Excise Duty:
The court analyzed the relevant sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff. Skimmed milk powder is subject to excise duty u/s 0401.13, but there is no specific sub-clause for partly skimmed milk powder. The petitioner argued that partly skimmed milk powder should fall under the residuary sub-heading 0401.19, which is duty-free. The court agreed, stating that partly skimmed milk powder is not covered by sub-heading 0401.13 and should be classified under sub-heading 0401.19.
3. Jurisdiction to Levy Excise:
The court addressed the jurisdiction of the respondents to levy excise duty on partly skimmed milk powder. It was determined that the collection of excise duty on partly skimmed milk powder under sub-heading 0401.13 was without jurisdiction, as it should be classified under the duty-free sub-heading 0401.19.
4. Refund of Excise Duty:
The court ordered the respondents to refund the excise duty collected from the petitioner on partly skimmed milk powder from 1-3-1989. The refund is to be made within six months, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and a writ of prohibition was issued restraining the respondents from collecting excise duty on partly skimmed milk powder. The court held that under the existing Tariff, no excise duty is leviable on the commodity in dispute.
-
1990 (3) TMI 82
Issues: Challenge against orders under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Classification of PVC coated paper; Contravention of Central Excise Rules; Show cause notice validity; Appeal against penalty and confiscation.
Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged orders under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, issued against a company manufacturing PVC coated paper. The dispute centered on the classification of the product and compliance with excise duty notifications.
2. The petitioner company operated two units, one in Borivli and the other in Bhor, Pune, manufacturing PVC coated paper under brand names "Paplast" and "Muralon." The controversy arose when the Excise department alleged discrepancies in the goods cleared by the company compared to the classification list filed.
3. The show cause notice accused the company of contravening Central Excise Rules by not filing the classification list, price list, and failing to determine duty liability for the PVC coated paper cleared without payment of excise duty. The notice also mentioned the seizure of goods and issued penalties and duty recovery demands.
4. The Collector of Central Excise, Pune, found the company in violation of the rules and imposed penalties and confiscation of goods. The company contended that their goods complied with the classification list and were eligible for duty exemption under specific notifications.
5. The company appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs in New Delhi, which modified the Collector's order, citing leniency due to lack of evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the company. The Board directed invoking Rule 10 for duty demand instead of Rule 9(2) based on the company's bona fides.
6. The petitioner challenged the modified order in a writ petition, arguing that the show cause notice referred to Rule 9(1) but the order was based on Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J. The court held that the notice's contents were not in line with Rule 10 requirements, thus invalidating the order.
7. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order and allowing the Assistant Collector to invoke Rule 10 if legally permissible for duty demand. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the show cause notice under Rule 9(1) and the requirements of Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J.
-
1990 (3) TMI 81
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of countervailing/additional duty of Customs.
2. Interest on the refund.
3. Legality of the levy of additional duty.
4. Limitation period for refund claims.
5. Jurisdiction of the writ court under Article 226.
6. Entitlement to interest on the refund amount.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Refund of Countervailing/Additional Duty of Customs:
The petitioners, a manufacturing company, imported certain raw materials and paid additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. Later, they discovered through a circular dated 1st October 1984 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs that no such duty was payable on the imported goods. They applied for a refund, which was initially rejected for 131 Bills of Entry by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the grounds of limitation but allowed for 3 Bills of Entry.
2. Interest on the Refund:
The petitioners also sought interest on the refunded amount. The judgment concluded that since the duty was collected unlawfully, the respondents must compensate for the use of the money by paying interest at the rate of 10% from the date the refund applications were rejected until the date of payment.
3. Legality of the Levy of Additional Duty:
The court found that the imposition of countervailing duty on the imported goods was unauthorized and illegal. The Central Board of Excise and Customs' circular clarified that alcohols of all kinds, whether potable or otherwise, are excluded from Tariff Item 68. Thus, the levy was based on a misinterpretation of the law.
4. Limitation Period for Refund Claims:
The court held that the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply when the levy is without jurisdiction and illegal. The petitioners became aware of the illegality only in January 1985, and they promptly filed for a refund. Hence, their claims were within the limitation period prescribed by the general law, i.e., three years from the date of knowledge of the illegality.
5. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226:
The court asserted its jurisdiction to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the procedure prescribed by the Customs Act. It emphasized that when a levy is in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution, the authorities cannot retain the money illegally realized. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable, and the petitioner was entitled to seek a refund through this extraordinary remedy.
6. Entitlement to Interest on the Refund Amount:
The court ruled that the respondents must pay interest on the refunded amount as they had unlawfully retained the money. Interest was deemed as compensation for the use and detention of money, and thus, the respondents were directed to pay interest at 10% from the date of rejection of the refund applications until the date of payment.
Conclusion:
The High Court directed the respondents to re-process the refund applications for the 131 Bills of Entry within a week and grant the refund within two weeks thereafter, along with interest. The court also provided a conditional stay on the judgment, requiring the respondents to deposit the refund amount with interest in a fixed deposit account by 15th April 1990.
-
1990 (3) TMI 80
Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 135 of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.
Analysis:
The State appealed against the acquittal of several accused individuals for offenses related to smuggling goods into India and evading duties. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy involving various accused parties. The goods were smuggled into India and stored in a godown. Accused individuals were charged under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, Customs Act, and Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The trial court convicted some accused but acquitted others. The State appealed against the acquittal of one accused, arguing that evidence linked him to the smuggling operation. The State contended that the accused directed actions related to the smuggling and had a connection to the godown where the goods were stored.
The trial court acquitted the accused based on the evaluation of evidence. The court found the evidence against the accused not cogent and consistent. The prosecution relied on witness statements and a leave and license agreement to establish the accused's involvement. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to link the accused directly to the smuggling activities. The court noted that merely signing a document as a witness does not prove direct involvement in criminal activities. The court also considered a confessional statement by another accused, which was retracted. The court emphasized that an uncorroborated retracted statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The trial court's decision was based on a lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the smuggling operation.
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the accused. The court found that the trial court's evaluation of the evidence was reasonable and did not warrant interference. The High Court concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to establish the accused's direct involvement in the smuggling operation. Therefore, the State's appeal against the acquittal of the accused failed, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 79
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a petition regarding the classification of cotton textile goods. The petitioner can continue to clear "Grey Bed Sheets" under Tariff Item 52.05 with a bank guarantee until the Assistant Collector issues a reasoned order.
-
1990 (3) TMI 78
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the order of the Customs, Excise, and Gold Control Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of the term "aggrieved persons" under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. The right of the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to file an appeal under Section 129-A.
4. The distinction between original proceedings and appeal proceedings under the Customs Act.
5. The role and powers of the Board and the Collector of Customs under Section 129-D of the Customs Act.
6. The impact of public interest on the interpretation of "aggrieved persons".
7. The procedural aspects and implications of the Tribunal's decision.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and validity of the order of the Customs, Excise, and Gold Control Tribunal:
The Tribunal held that neither the Union of India nor M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. are 'aggrieved persons' for filing an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners challenged the importation of 59 jumbo rolls of "Cinematographic Colour Films (unexposed) Positive" by M/s. Northern Plastics Limited, claiming it was illegal. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. are indeed 'aggrieved persons' with the right to appeal under Section 129-A.
2. Interpretation of the term "aggrieved persons" under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The High Court held that the term "aggrieved persons" should be liberally construed. The Court referred to various decisions, including J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar and S.P. Gupta v. The President of India, to emphasize that the term denotes an elastic and elusive concept that cannot be confined within rigid bounds. The Court concluded that the Union of India and its instrumentalities, given their role in protecting national and public interest, qualify as 'aggrieved persons'.
3. The right of the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to file an appeal under Section 129-A:
The Court found that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. have a vital interest in the protection of national and public interest, particularly in matters of illegal importation. The Court emphasized that the Central Government has the power to prohibit imports under Sections 11 and 11-A of the Customs Act, and thus, it has the right to file an appeal against such importation under Section 129-A.
4. The distinction between original proceedings and appeal proceedings under the Customs Act:
The Tribunal had distinguished between original proceedings in the High Court and appeal proceedings, stating that its powers were not as wide as those of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The High Court disagreed, stating that the principles of locus standi apply equally to both original and appeal proceedings. The Court held that the Tribunal's approach was erroneous and that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. should be allowed to contest the appeals.
5. The role and powers of the Board and the Collector of Customs under Section 129-D of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal and the respondents argued that only the Board or the Collector of Customs could file an appeal under Section 129-D. The High Court clarified that Section 129-D is not a substitute for Section 129-A and that it provides a sui generis procedure for the Board to direct the Collector to apply to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the legislative history of Chapter XV indicates that the right of appeal under Section 129-A is broader and not limited to the Board or the Collector of Customs.
6. The impact of public interest on the interpretation of "aggrieved persons":
The Court highlighted that public interest is a guiding star in determining whether a person is an 'aggrieved person'. The Court noted that the Central Government has higher obligations regarding national economy, foreign trade, and protection of indigenous industries. The Court concluded that the Union of India and its instrumentalities, given their duty to protect public interest, should be recognized as 'aggrieved persons' under Section 129-A.
7. The procedural aspects and implications of the Tribunal's decision:
The High Court criticized the Tribunal for not permitting the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to contest the appeals. The Court noted that similar orders for impleadment were passed by the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, and Delhi, and confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have followed these precedents and allowed the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to participate in the appeal proceedings.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Union of India and M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. are 'aggrieved persons' within the meaning of Section 129-A and are fully competent to maintain and file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court directed that the imported goods should not be released until the main question of the legality of importation is finally disposed of. The writ petition was partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
1990 (3) TMI 77
Issues:
1. Whether a manufacturer of goods listed in the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act is required to obtain a license under Section 6 of the Central Excises & Salt Act.
2. Whether exemption from payment of excise duty on certain goods absolves the manufacturer from the obligation to obtain a license.
3. Whether a search and seizure conducted by the Central Excise Department constitutes coercive action.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of spectacle frames, claimed that their goods fell under a tariff sub-heading exempt from duty. However, they had operated without a license under Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Court held that manufacturing goods listed in the First Schedule of the Tariff Act necessitates obtaining a license, irrespective of duty exemption.
2. The petitioner cited a ruling from the Allahabad High Court, arguing that duty exemption obviated the need for a license. The Court distinguished the ruling, emphasizing that exemption from duty does not negate the requirement for a license under Section 6 or Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. Licensing is essential for revenue control, regardless of duty exemptions.
3. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of coercion due to a search and seizure, noting that the petitioner, a company, had ample opportunity to defend against prosecution for operating without a license. The Court emphasized that fear of prosecution does not justify obtaining a license under duress. The petitioner's failure to obtain a license as required by law led to the dismissal of the writ petitions.
-
1990 (3) TMI 76
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Order dated 7th October 1985 u/s 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Validity of the Order dated 8th August 1989 by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Order dated 7th October 1985 u/s 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The Petitioners, manufacturers of rubber products known as "aprons" and "cots", challenged the Order made by Respondent No. 1 (Collector of Central Excise) on 7th October 1985, which reversed the Order of Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Collector of Central Excise) dated 21st May 1981. The Respondent No. 1 held that aprons and cots are excisable under the residuary Tariff Item No. 68 and are not exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 197/67 dated 29th August 1967. The Court found that aprons and cots are components of textile machinery and do not perform the function of conveying air, gas, or fluids. They are the result of converting piping and tubing into smaller units known as "Aprons" and "Cots" within the Petitioners' factory, thus falling within the exemption granted by Notification No. 197/67. Consequently, the Order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 7th October 1985 was set aside.
2. Validity of the Order dated 8th August 1989 by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal:
The Petitioners also challenged the Order of the Tribunal dated 8th August 1989, which upheld the demand of excise duty of Rs. 36,55,234.80 and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed by Respondent No. 1. Since the Court held that aprons and cots are not excisable, the demand, penalty, and the Tribunal's Order were deemed illegal and were set aside.
Additional Observations by Sharad Manohar, J.:
Sharad Manohar, J. agreed with the judgment but highlighted additional anomalies. He noted that the stay of the Assistant Collector's Order was meaningless as it did not result in any actionable outcome. He also pointed out that the entire proceedings were handled casually, and the Collector's change of stance from considering aprons and cots as components to accessories without proper notice was perverse. The Tribunal's handling of the issue of alleged fraud or suppression of facts by the Petitioners was also criticized, though the point was left open as the primary issue of exemption was decided in favor of the Petitioners.
Conclusion:
The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, setting aside the Orders dated 7th October 1985 and 8th August 1989, and declared that aprons and cots are exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 197/67. The Petitioners were awarded costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
-
1990 (3) TMI 75
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector (Appeals) in a Central Excise duty case. The petitioner was directed to deposit the undisputed amount of Rs. 47,262.79 with the respondent within one month for the appeal to be restored. Stay was granted for the remaining amount payable by the petitioner until the appeal decision within three months.
-
1990 (3) TMI 74
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Finance Act, 1982.
3. Legality of the Directive issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
4. Legality of the direction to debit the credit taken in respect of exempted tyres.
Summary:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedies available under the amended Act. However, the court accepted the contention of the petitioners that they are challenging the Directive issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which is the highest Administrative Authority under the Act. The court held that the writ petition is maintainable.
2. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Finance Act, 1982:
The main question was whether the exemption of set off granted under the notification should be availed of first and the special duty calculated thereafter, or vice versa. The court held that the exemption by set off was first to be given effect and special excise duty was to be calculated thereafter. The court interpreted Section 50(1) of the Finance Act, 1982, stating that the special duty of excise is to be levied and collected equal to ten percent of the amount "so chargeable" on such goods, meaning after giving effect to the exemption notifications.
3. Legality of the Directive issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs:
The court found that the clarification given by the impugned Directive issued by respondent No. 2 was not correct. The Directive stated that the special duty of excise was to be calculated first, and the exemption by way of set off availed of subsequently. The court held that this interpretation was contrary to the true meaning of Section 50 of the Finance Act, 1982.
4. Legality of the direction to debit the credit taken in respect of exempted tyres:
The court held that the direction given by the Assistant Collector to debit the credit taken in respect of exempted tyres, tubes, and flaps under the notification was illegal and contrary to law. The court noted that under Notification No. 201/79 and Rule 56-A of the Rules, there is no requirement for correlation between the inputs and the final product. The credit can be utilized for payment of duty against any excisable products brought from the factory, and no debit can be claimed after the credit has been taken on goods brought into the factory.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute. The court found the Directive issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the direction to debit the credit taken in respect of exempted tyres to be illegal and contrary to law. No order as to costs was made.
-
1990 (3) TMI 73
Are the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under Section 53 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act?
Held that:- if the investigation is conducted by the police, it would conclude in a police report but if the investigation is made by an officer of any other department including the DRI, the Special Court would take cognizance of the offence upon a formal complaint made by such authorised officer of the concerned Government. Needless to say that such a complaint would have to be under Section 190 of the Code. This clause, in our view, clinches the matter. We must, therefore, negative the contention that an officer appointed under Section 53 of the Act, other than a police officer, is entitled to exercise 'all' the powers under Chapter XII of the Code, including the power to submit a report or charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code. Appeal dismissed.
....
|
9911796707
