|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 88 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rty to seek for change in the tariff classification which is lawfully applicable to his goods. In this regard, she has cited the case of this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 41 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that the plea of reclassification of goods and their assessment at the concessional rate can be considered at the Appellate stage. She also referred to another case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., Patna v. CCE, Patna reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 844 (Tribunal) in which Dant Manjan (Lal, black or white) have been held not classifiable as Ayurvedic medicine or drug. Similarly 1997 (95) E.L.T. 14, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 505 (T) 2000 (38) R.L.T. 158 (Tribunal) is also on the point of classification. 8.In view of the above, we find that the product in question Gulkand is classifiable under the heading 2001 and not under the heading 3003. We order accordingly and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 87 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ntly they submitted triplicate copy to RBI. However, they contend that now they have been able to procure the same from Reserve Bank and can present the same to the Excise authorities, if an opportunity is given to that effect. In view what has been stated, we set aside this portion of the impugned order confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 33,67,431/- and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision after taking into consideration triplicate copy of Bill of Entry. 7. As regards personal penalty we find that the appellants have succeeded on three counts. In respect of confirmation of demand of duty to the tune of around 12 lakhs approximately, we note that the issue involved was not free from doubt at the relevant time and the law was only settled subsequenlty with the passing of judgment by the Larger Bench. As such we set aside the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants. 8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
2001 (6) TMI 86 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Import - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... very clear name of country of origin must be indicated on the goods themselves. Therefore we agree with the authorities below that the import of the goods in question is prohibited. The plea that the value of the goods has been correctly declared and the value cannot be loaded is also not acceptable in view of the fact that the loading was not contested by the appellants before the adjudicating authority. The plea that the order of the Additional Commissioner is violative of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the appellants also has no force since they were afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the Additional Commissioner and they did not object to the non-issue of show cause notice. 4. In the light of the above, we uphold the impugned order. However, having regard to the value of the goods, viz. Rs. 1.94 lakhs approximately, we reduce the fine to Rs. 50,000 and the penalty to Rs. 25,000. 5. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 85 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... present and thus about the sample and the manner of its drawing becomes doubtful. May be proper procedure was not followed by the Delhi Customs while drawing the sample but non-following of the proper procedure may be subject matter for administrative action against the officer concerned. But the fact remains that the test result of the sample drawn by the Delhi Customs at the time of permitting export was on chemical test found to contain Zinc Oxide as declared in the shipping bill by the appellants. Having regard to this aspect and looking to all the facts of the case, we do not find sufficient mert in the contention of the Revenue that only the samples drawn by the Hongkong Customs should be relied upon. In the circumstances, the benefit of doubt in regard to drawal of sample in Hongkong goes to the appellants, therefore the appeals are allowed. 6. The impugned order is set aside. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
2001 (6) TMI 84 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Seizure - Reasonable belief - Burden of proof ... ... ... ... ..... f foreign origin but not smuggled goods, having been lawfully acquired. An interpretation that tends to enable persons who deal with smuggled goods, to evade the above burden of proof and get away scot-free cannot be adopted. There appears to be nothing under Section 123(1) to support a view that the Customs authorities should prove foreign origin of the goods before asking the person concerned to discharge the burden of proof under that provision of law. To mount on the authorities such an initial burden can possibly encourage smugglers to bring into India from across the borders, goods without foreign markings so as to make it difficult for the authorities to establish the foreign origin of the goods. 10. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the correctness of the decision in the Kotharis case should be reviewed by a Larger Bench to be constituted by the Hon ble President. The Registry is, therefore, directed to place the matter before the Hon ble President.
-
2001 (6) TMI 82 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... leries Bhopal was sale to an independent buyer. It is also not disputed that the price of the goods was the sole consideration. In these circumstances we fail to understand how Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules has been pressed into service by the Department. The question of application of the basis of the price of comparable goods would arise only if the sale was not to an independent buyer and price was not the only consideration for sale. Further, sale to SOM Distilleries, Bhopal was sale in open auction and when the actual price of the goods is available there is no question of resorting to the value of comparable goods particularly when transaction value has not been rejected. We, therefore, hold that the differential duty demand is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside the demand and the penalty. Since we are allowing the appeal on merits, we are not recording any separate finding on limitation. 3. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 80 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n, nylon, etc., spun into strands for weaving, knitting or making thread. However, fibre, in order to answer the description of yarn must have two characteristics, firstly it should be spun strand and secondly such strand should be primarily meant for use in weaving, knitting or rope making. Another decision cited by the appellants is Sanghi Filaments Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex., Hyderabad reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 683 (T) . In the said case, the yarn monofilament was in issue and the monofilament yarn was found to be classifiable appropriately under the erstwhile T.I. No. 68 and it was held that filament and filament yarn are not the same and the classification of monofilament as filament yarn by the lower authorities was incorrect. 3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the case in hand is fully covered by the decision of the Tribunal (supra) and, accordingly, the impugned order has, therefore, to be set aside and appeal allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 79 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Cannula - Valuation (Customs) - Enhancement ... ... ... ... ..... have held that there is no case for demanding differential duty, therefore the question of imposition of penalties did not arise. In the circumstances, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside. 33. Shri L. P. Asthana, the ld. Counsel appearing for Shri Sunil Nanda of M/s. Poonam Cargo Services and Shri Rajeev Malik submitted that there is hardly any role attributed to these appellants as they had acted strictly under the law in terms of the description given in the invoices. He, submits that no case has been made out for imposition of penalty. He, therefore, prays that penalties may be set aside. The ld. DR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 34. We have heard the rival submissions. Since we have already held that Notification No. 23/98 was available to the importers. We do not see any reason for imposition of penalty. Therefore the order imposing penalty on the aforesaid appellants is set aside. 35. The 6 appeals are disposed in the above terms.
-
2001 (6) TMI 77 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... to 7-6-2001. Ld. Consultant submitted that no such request was made on behalf of the appellant and that the record note was wrong and must be rectified. 3. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR submits that there was mix up in the record note, dated 14-5-2001 inasmuch as the case of the present appellant was listed alongwith M/s. Malti Arts Pvt. Ltd. and that it was for on behalf of Malti Arts Pvt. Ltd. that this note was recorded on 14-5-2001. 4. We have heard ld. Intervener as also ld. DR. We find that 24-5-2001 is already over. Thus, no cause for any grievance lies as the case has come up on 7-6-2001. Moreover on 14-5-2001, it was only a recorded note of proceedings and was not a order in respect of the appeal. Thus, there should not be any cause for filing a ROM under Section 35C(2). Therefore, the Misc. application is allowed to the extent regarding applicability of Finance Bill, 2001. The appeals should come up for hearing on 23-7-2001. Notice should go to all the parties concerned.
-
2001 (6) TMI 76 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Repeal of Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under or in violation of any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed at if the rule, notification or order, as the case may be, had not been amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded. 3.In view of the foregoing the question referred to the Larger Bench has to be answered in the affirmative. The appeals relating to Modvat and pending before the Tribunal are required to be disposed of on merits. Accordingly, we send the matter back to the regular Bench for hearing of the appeal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 75 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... issue Show Cause Notice answerable to the bond accepting authority and forward to that authority complete details of clearances effected for taking appropriate action in the matter at his end. However, the Asst. Commissioner in charge of the factory of clearance for export could not taken upon himself to demand duty or impose penalty under Rule 14A of the CER, 1944, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Even now it is not too late, if the bond(s) is/are in force, to observe the appropriate procedure. But that would not validate the lower authorities action in the present case. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions Govt., is no adverse to set aside both the original and appellate orders and remand the matter to the original authority for ascertaining the proof of exports from the authority who had accepted the bond(s) and suggest to him possible course of action, if required, depending on the fact of submission/non-submission of proof of export. 7. So ordered.
-
2001 (6) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Recovery of Government ... ... ... ... ..... submissions which have been advanced by Shri Patankar contending that by virtue of Section 22 of SICA the distress which was challenged by the said writ petitions which were decided by the learned Single Judge could not be touched either by BIFR or AAIFR. We are unable to agree with him because that is not so as it has been pointed out by us in above mentioned paragraph. Apart from that, the challenge has been considered by the BIFR and AAIFR and again it has been considered by the learned Single Judge while deciding the Writ Petitions Bearing Nos. 1333/97 2000 (122) E.L.T. 338 (M.P.) and 849/98. When the judgments and orders which are being challenged, passed by the learned Single Judge are well reasoned and are dealing with all necessary facts of the matter, we do not find any ground for setting aside the said judgments and orders and, therefore, we do not come to the conclusion that these appeals are deserving to be allowed. 6. Both these appeals are dismissed with cost.
-
2001 (6) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Detained goods ... ... ... ... ..... ents to initiate and complete the same and such contemplated action does not have any bearing or relation to the goods which are sought to be re-exported, particularly when it is the admitted case of the respondents that the container was broken open, the sample had also been drawn from the container and the sample has been sent for analysis to various agencies including CLRI and reports have been received from them. Therefore, reserving the right of the respondents to take action against the importer, I do not think that there is any impediment in directing the re-export of the goods. The petitioner, would however, give an undertaking and personal bond, to subject themselves to any action that the respondents may initiate and also to bind themselves to the ultimate adjudication, of course subject to the right to challenge the said order as per the provisions of the Act. 22.The writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for. Consequently W.M.P. No. 1769 of 2001 is closed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... production of such documents or furnishing of such information or completion of such test or enquiry, the goods be assessed provisionally if the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, furnishes such security as the proper officer deems fit for the payment of the deficiency, if any. 9.As far as the present case is concerned the difference of duty as stated earlier is only Rs. 29 lakhs and the security has already been furnished to them. Hence, I am of the view that the goods could very well be cleared as per Section 18 of the Customs Act. 10.The third respondent is hereby directed to clear the goods on payment of duty as assessed by the respondent on 7-6-2001 and on production of the bond as directed by the second respondent on 6-6-2001. It is open to the third respondent to proceed further to adjudicate upon the issue in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 11.With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. No costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Interest on warehoused goods ... ... ... ... ..... eir Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Processor s, supra, and hence, the impugned order (Annexure J) has to be quashed. 22.In my opinion, claim of petitioner for interest on this amount is not acceptable. Firstly, the provision to pay interest was brought on Statute Book for the first time in 1995 onwards (22/95). Secondly, it is not a case of any direction where the authority had directed refund of duty paid but was not being refunded. 23.Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order Annexure J, passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division II, Indore is hereby set aside by issue of writ of certiorari. A writ of mandamus is issued against the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 22,85,793/- which the petitioners have claimed to have deposited on various dates as set out in Annexure G1 after making proper verifications. Let the amount be paid within six months from the date of order. No costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... out of the stands taken by the parties. But we find from the impugned order that though according to the Department duty was passed on to the consumers, we do not find any material at this stage to satisfy ourselves that it was actually done so. 4. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner-assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) as against Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs) as directed by the CEGAT, within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit being made by the petitioner, the CEGAT is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. No costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... the pre-deposit amount with interest for want of no provision to that effect. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Company is entitled to receive interest on the payment of pre-deposit amount. 8.Now, the question remains is whether the respondent-Company is entitled to receive interest at 18 or 15 as suggested. On consideration, we think that the respondent-Company is entitled to get 15 interest from the date of the order of CEGAT. The learned single Judge has awarded 18 interest. Under such circumstances, we modify the order of the learned single Judge and direct the appellant-Department to pay 15 interest on the pre-deposit from the date of the order of CEGAT i.e. 2-9-1999 up to 14-9-2000, within one month from today. In case, it is not paid within the stipulated time, the respondent-Company is entitled to receive 18 interest onwards, till the actual realisation. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hospital equipments ... ... ... ... ..... e, the authorities have to dispose of the pending applications, claiming the exemption of Duty under the Notification 64/88 in accordance with the Notification 122/94 and 55/95, as amended from time to time, since Notification 64/88 had been rescinded in March, 1994, it is not under dispute that the subsequent notification have extended the benefit of exemption of Duty for the life saving medical equipments. Hence the pending applications ought to have been considered and disposed of on merits in accordance with the subsequent notification. The learned Additional Solicitor General also has no serious objection for this. 53.For the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings in these writ petitions cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the second respondent Director General of Health Services for fresh disposal in the light of the directions issued above. No cost. Consequently W.M.P. Nos. 5233 and 5235/99 are closed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERA
Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... s governing interpretation/ construction of Statutes. The observation of the Supreme Court in para (41) of the judgment in the case of Grand Slam International (supra 1) noticed above, would in no way advance the last contention of the learned counsel. By that observation, the Apex Court has only stated that the Board or the Authority which may be the custodian, as the case may be, is entitled to charge the importer for the space provided by it for the occupation of the imported goods. That Judgment is not an authority to state that the customs area includes only that area or the premises in which the office and godowns of the custodian appointed under Section 45 of the Act are located and not the remaining space in the customs airport. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is rejected as untenable. 14.In the result and for the foregoing reasons we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... oing discussions, this Court, while declining to go into the merits of the writ petitions, and while holding that the writ petitions are highly belated that the petitioner is guilty of latches, further, that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the remedy of appeal and had approached the Court after six long years from the date of the impugned proceedings, that there are no bona fides in moving these writ petitions at the belated point of time and while pointing out that the petitioner had allowed the impugned proceedings to become final by keeping silent for six long years, it is not open to the petitioner to come before this Court and challenge the impugned proceedings. These are not fit cases where this Court would be justified in taking up the matter and examining the various contentions advanced by Mr. Ranka. 20.For the above reasons, all the three writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected W.M.P.s are also dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
....
|
