|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 195 Records
-
1988 (5) TMI 283
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants M/s. Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. in a dispute regarding duty payment on bagasse produced. The demand for the period 1-3-1975 to 29-4-1975 was considered time-barred, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower authorities' orders for that period.
-
1988 (5) TMI 280
The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta regarding the eligibility of flame proof well glasses for a customs duty benefit. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the glass shells for electric lamps are excluded from Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff Act and therefore not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 106/77-Cus. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the goods do not fall under Chapter 85 CTA.
-
1988 (5) TMI 279
Issues: Classification of refractory bricks for customs duty under Notification No. 242 dated 2-8-1976.
In this case, the appellants imported Mark-GK-7 Well Block Bricks made of special quality refractory material for use in the construction of teeming ladles of open hearth furnaces. The customs authorities assessed the goods under Heading 69.01/02 of the Customs Tariff Act, but the appellants claimed the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 242, dated 2-8-1976, for refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use in industrial furnaces. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, stating the bricks were for ladles, not furnaces. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that ladles were not considered industrial furnaces. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments based on CCCN Explanatory Notes and statutory notes to Chapters 69 and 84 of the Customs Tariff Schedule to determine the classification. The Tribunal held that the ladles were separate from furnaces, and the bricks were correctly classified under Heading 69.01/02 without the benefit of the concessional duty notification. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower authorities' classification decision.
This case involved the interpretation of the scope of Notification No. 242 dated 2-8-1976 for customs duty classification of refractory bricks. The key issue was whether the bricks used in constructing teeming ladles were eligible for the concessional rate of duty specified for industrial furnaces under the notification. The appellants argued that ladles were integral parts of furnaces, citing CCCN Explanatory Notes under Heading 84.14. However, the Departmental Representative contended that ladles were separate receptacles for molten metal, covered under Heading 84.43. The Tribunal considered the Explanatory Notes, emphasizing that for an article to be considered an industrial furnace, it must be incorporated into the furnace's construction. The Tribunal concluded that ladles were not integral parts of furnaces, as per expert literature and statutory notes, leading to the correct classification under Heading 69.01/02 without the benefit of the notification.
The Tribunal analyzed the arguments regarding the classification of refractory bricks under different headings of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The appellants suggested classifying the bricks under Heading 84.43 as parts of ladles if not eligible under the concessional duty notification. However, the Tribunal highlighted statutory note 1(b) to Chapter 84, excluding ceramic material parts from Chapter 84, thereby placing refractory bricks under Heading 69.01/02. Additionally, the CCCN Explanatory Notes clarified that refractory bricks specially designed for industrial plant construction fell under Heading 69.02, which aligned with the classification decision. The Tribunal affirmed that the bricks were correctly classified under Heading 69.01/02, emphasizing the exclusion of ceramic parts from Chapter 84, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the lower authorities' classification decision.
-
1988 (5) TMI 278
Issues:
1. Whether the work undertaken by the respondents involves fabrication or only installation.
2. Whether the goods supplied for the construction of immovable property are subject to excise duty.
3. Whether duty is leviable on goods produced or manufactured as part of a comprehensive contract.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case is whether the work undertaken by the respondents involves fabrication or only installation. The contract between the parties indicated that fabrication of structurals and roofing with A.C. sheeting was part of the project. The Collector of Central Excise found that the completed project indeed involved both fabrication and erection, as per the terms of the contract. Even though the invoices were raised for part of the work yet to be completed, the material and work connected to it cannot be viewed in isolation but in the context of the entire project. Therefore, the plea that only erection was involved and not chargeable to duty was deemed unacceptable.
Issue 2:
Regarding the contention that the goods supplied for the construction of immovable property should not be subject to excise duty, the Collector referred to the definition of "excisable goods" under the Central Excise Tariff. It was emphasized that excise duty is leviable on goods produced or manufactured, irrespective of whether they are for movable or immovable property. The argument that the AC guttering and down-take pipes were not manufactured by the respondents did not exempt them from duty, as per the provisions of the law.
Issue 3:
The Collector, in his appeal, reiterated the grounds related to fabrication and erection work as per the contract. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no specific evidence presented regarding the nature of the fabrication work done or the emergence of any new products for the levy of excise duty. Referring to a previous order in favor of the same party, the Tribunal concluded that no new goods emerged for excise levy purposes. Therefore, based on the lack of evidence and following the precedent set by the Tribunal, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld that the work undertaken by the respondents involved both fabrication and erection, making it subject to excise duty. Additionally, the goods supplied for the construction of immovable property were deemed liable for excise duty as per the provisions of the law. The lack of evidence regarding the nature of fabrication work and the emergence of new goods led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 273
The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi as the appellant was not given an opportunity to affix the necessary court fee stamp. The matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for further proceedings. (Case: 1988 (5) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1988 (5) TMI 272
Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Cochin in a case involving the violation of conditions of the Advance Licensing Scheme for imported goods through Madras Port.
Summary:
The appellants imported White Cardboard under the Advance Licensing Scheme for export purposes and cleared the goods duty-free through Madras Port. The Collector of Customs, Cochin alleged a violation of scheme conditions and issued an order. The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, arguing that the proper authority for such matters is the Collector of Customs, Madras, citing precedents like Metro Exports [1988 (14) E.C.R. 169] and M/s. Relish Food Pvt. Ltd. The revenue department conceded on the jurisdiction issue, although reiterating the adjudicating authority's findings. The Tribunal, considering previous decisions, allowed the appeal solely on the question of jurisdiction, without delving into the merits, thereby setting aside the impugned order.
-
1988 (5) TMI 271
Issues: Classification under Central Excise Tariff for additional duty of customs of TPP Powder, eligibility for exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E.
In this case, the primary issue was the classification of TPP Powder under the Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of additional duty of customs. The importer claimed classification under T.I. 14E CET Patent or Proprietary Medicines, while the lower authorities classified it under the residuary Tariff Item 68. The question was whether the importer could claim exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 if classified under Tariff Item 68.
The importer had imported TPP Powder, a bulk drug, and claimed classification under T.I. 14E for additional duty. The Assistant Collector, however, classified it under T.I. 68, which would not allow the importer to claim set-off of duty under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The importer approached the High Court, which directed clearance under Tariff Item 14E and allowed the importer to avail of departmental remedy for the classification dispute.
The advocate for the importer argued that TPP Powder met the definition of Patent or Proprietary Medicines under Explanation I to Tariff Item 14E, as it was used for the prevention of ailments and not mentioned in any official publication. Alternatively, if classified under T.I. 68, the importer should be granted exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 for bulk drugs not elsewhere specified.
The respondent contended that the classification under T.I. 68 was correct. Regarding the alternative claim for exemption under the notification, it was argued that the claim was not made earlier and could not be raised as an additional ground, citing precedents where such claims were not allowed at later stages.
The Tribunal held that TPP Powder, being a bulk drug, did not qualify as Patent or Proprietary Medicines under Tariff Item 14E, as it did not meet the specific requirements outlined in Explanation I. Therefore, it was properly classifiable under Tariff Item 68. However, on the issue of exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E., the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer. The Tribunal reasoned that the benefit of exemption should not be denied based on the classification claimed by the importer, as the Revenue's acceptance of classification under T.I. 68 made the importer eligible for the exemption. Additionally, it was noted that the Revenue could not take contradictory positions on classification and exemption, and the benefit of exemption flowed from the Revenue's classification decision.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, disposing of the case in favor of the importer and granting the benefit of exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982.
-
1988 (5) TMI 270
The judgment pertains to liability for payment of additional duty of customs on wind-shield glasses imported by M/s. Anand Motors. The Assistant Collector demanded duty under item 23-A(4) CET, but the appeal against it was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal was made against this order. The Appellate Tribunal held that wind-shield glasses are classifiable under item 68-CET, not under item 23-A(4). The appeal was allowed, lower authorities' orders were set aside, and assessment was directed under item 68-CET for the additional duty of customs.
-
1988 (5) TMI 269
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on the appellant.
2. Reliance on retracted confessional statement as the sole basis for proving charges.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order.
4. Lack of corroborative evidence against the appellant.
5. Benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellant, a licensed gold dealer, was found connected to gold ornaments recovered from an individual, Chidambaram, who initially claimed the ornaments belonged to the appellant but later retracted his statement. The proceedings resulted in the confiscation of the ornaments with an option to redeem them. The appeal focused solely on the penalty under the Act.
2. The appellant contended that the charge against him relied heavily on the retracted statement of Chidambaram, without any supporting evidence. The appellant argued that penal proceedings cannot be based solely on a retracted confessional statement, citing legal precedents. The appellant also raised concerns about the lack of disclosure of certain evidence, specifically chits recovered from Chidambaram, which were not provided to the appellant as part of the evidence against him.
3. The appellant further argued that even if the chits were considered, they did not align with the ornaments under seizure in terms of quantity or weight. The appellant emphasized the violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-disclosure of crucial evidence and lack of corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offense. The appellant's counsel highlighted the importance of fair procedures and the need for evidence to be explicitly presented in the show cause notice.
4. The adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority had relied on the retracted statement of Chidambaram and the chits as evidence against the appellant. However, the appellate tribunal found that apart from the retracted statement, there was no other evidence connecting the appellant to the offense. The tribunal emphasized that penal actions cannot be solely based on retracted statements without corroborative evidence. The tribunal also noted that the chits were not proven to be written by the appellant and did not align with the seized ornaments.
5. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, giving him the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of substantial evidence against him. The tribunal concluded that the retracted statement and the chits were insufficient to prove the charges, and exonerated the appellant of all accusations. The impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
-
1988 (5) TMI 268
Issues:
1. Confiscation of a brand new motor cycle claimed as un-accompanied baggage.
2. Applicability of Baggage Rules and import regulations.
3. Proof of ownership and possession of the motor cycle.
4. Justification for the order of confiscation.
5. Request for release on payment of fine.
Analysis:
1. The appellant's brand new motor cycle, claimed as un-accompanied baggage, was confiscated by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) due to lack of proof of ownership and unauthorized import.
2. The appellant argued that the motor cycle was for personal use and should be released on nominal fine, citing Rule 9 of the Baggage Rules permitting the import of motor cycles. However, the authorities contended that the motor cycle was not declared as un-accompanied baggage and lacked necessary documentation like a landing certificate or Customs Clearance Permit (CCP).
3. The appellant failed to provide evidence of ownership, purchase date, or possession of the motor cycle abroad before arriving in India, essential for claiming under Rule 7 governing unaccompanied baggage. The absence of a CCP for the import further supported the decision of confiscation by the authorities.
4. The Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation, stating that the appellant did not meet the requirements to establish the motor cycle as unaccompanied baggage, and the unauthorized import violated the Import (Control) Order. The possibility of misuse and lack of proof of personal use further justified the confiscation.
5. The appellant's request for release on payment of a fine was rejected, emphasizing the serious violation of import regulations and the potential misuse of the motor cycle. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal failed, and the confiscation order was upheld, denying the release of the motor cycle on payment of a fine.
-
1988 (5) TMI 255
Issues:
1. Interpretation of import policy regarding amoxycillin trihydrate.
2. Applicability of definition clause to drug entries in Appendices.
3. Consideration of earlier order reducing redemption fine.
4. Relevance of statutory order and definition clause in determining import eligibility.
5. Comparison with a previous tribunal order on policy amendments.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the interpretation of the import policy concerning amoxycillin trihydrate. The appellants imported the drug during a period when it was canalised, leading to confiscation and a redemption fine. The issue revolved around whether the drug fell under the Open General Licence (OGL) or Appendix 9 of the Import Policy of 1979-80, which specified canalised items.
2. The tribunal considered the applicability of a definition clause to drug entries in Appendices. The appellants argued that the drug's salt, not the base, was imported, and therefore, it should not be considered canalised. The departmental representative cited paragraph 195 (iv) of the policy, stating that drug items in Appendices included salts, esters, and derivatives. The tribunal analyzed the scope of the definition clause in determining the eligibility of the imported drug.
3. The judgment discussed the consideration of an earlier order by the Central Board of Excise & Customs that reduced the redemption fine based on a similar case of late shipment. The appellants sought full remission based on this precedent. However, the tribunal noted the absence of the earlier order on record and highlighted the importance of understanding the facts and extent of remission in that case.
4. The relevance of the statutory order and definition clause in determining import eligibility was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The tribunal emphasized that the statutory order's reference to Appendix 9 implied inclusion of the definitions in paragraph 195 (iv). The appellants' argument that the clause should be repeated in each relevant Appendix was rejected, emphasizing the purpose of a definition clause to avoid repetition.
5. A comparison was drawn with a previous tribunal order concerning policy amendments. The tribunal clarified that the earlier order's context of post-statutory order amendments was not relevant to the current case, which focused on the policy's interpretation at the time of the statutory order. The judgment highlighted the specificity required in analyzing policy provisions based on the relevant timeframe.
In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding that the import of amoxycillin trihydrate was canalised under Appendix 9 of the policy, making the appellants ineligible for import in June 1979. The tribunal acknowledged the substantial relief already granted by reducing the redemption fine and deemed no further relief warranted in this case.
-
1988 (5) TMI 254
The appellants filed refund claims for additional customs duty paid on Palmolien after the time limit. Their main plea was that the duty was collected without authority, but the tribunal disagreed. The tribunal upheld lower authorities' rejection of the claims as time-barred, citing the Customs Act's limitation provisions. All nine appeals were dismissed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 253
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Duty liability on the manufacture of crude sodium sulphate without power.
3. Interpretation of exemption notification No. 179/77.
4. Time-barred demand for Central Excise duty.
5. Applicability of previous judgments on the use of power in manufacturing processes.
Analysis:
1. The case involved two appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi. The issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal arose as the Collector claimed that the appellate order was received late. The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the limitation period, as the appellate order was deemed to have been received on 27-2-1984, and the appeal was filed in time, so the question of condonation of delay did not arise.
2. The primary issue for consideration was the duty liability on the manufacture of crude sodium sulphate without the use of power. The respondents were manufacturing crude sodium sulphate during the process of salt production. The Collector (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that no duty was payable as the power used was only for pumping brine, not in the actual manufacture of sodium sulphate. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the judgment of the Gujarat High Court and Notification No. 179/77.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 179/77, which exempts goods manufactured without the aid of power from Central Excise duty. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the power used for pumping brine did not disqualify the respondents from the exemption, as per the Gujarat High Court judgment and the notification.
4. The respondents argued that the demand for duty was time-barred, relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in a similar case. The Tribunal examined the facts and held that the manufacture of sodium sulphate by the respondents was without the aid of power, aligning with the Gujarat High Court's interpretation, and thus, no duty was leviable.
5. In a separate order, another judge concurred with the dismissal of the appeals. The judge discussed the timeline for filing appeals under the Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing that the limitation period did not commence until the order was directly communicated to the Collector of Central Excise, not when the Executive Collector obtained a copy through the Assistant Collector. Therefore, no question of condonation of delay arose in this instance.
-
1988 (5) TMI 252
Issues involved: Determination of duty liability on manufacture of bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG for captive consumption, time bar on demand for duty payment, alleged suppression by the factory.
Duty liability on manufacture of bare aluminium wires: The case involved the manufacture of ACSR electrical conductors using bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG for captive consumption. The factory argued that the process of manufacturing wires finer than 10 SWG involved continuous manufacturing stages, permitted under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules. The department contended that the factory misled them by not declaring the thicker wires, leading to duty evasion, citing relevant judgments to support their stance.
Time bar on demand for duty payment: The factory claimed that the demand for duty payment was time-barred as there was no suppression or willful misleading of the department. They referred to a specific paragraph from a previous judgment to support their argument. The Collector, however, alleged suppression by the factory regarding the manufacture of bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG, which the factory contested by stating that they had declared EC wire in their classification list, which should have been sufficient disclosure.
Alleged suppression by the factory: The factory maintained that there was no deception or concealment on their part regarding the production of bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG. They argued that the central excise officers should have been aware of the manufacturing process, where wires of finer gauges are produced sequentially from thicker gauges. The factory emphasized that they did not conceal any material fact and did not deceive the department intentionally to evade duty. The judgment ultimately ruled in favor of the factory, annulling the demand for duty payment as it was deemed time-barred due to the lack of deception or suppression.
-
1988 (5) TMI 251
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the revision application.
2. Voluntariness and evidentiary value of the confessional statements.
3. Independence of adjudication proceedings from criminal prosecution.
4. Sufficiency of independent evidence to support the penalty.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Timeliness of the Revision Application:
The primary issue was whether the revision application filed by the appellant was barred by time. The Board's order was dated 27-3-1981, and the revision was filed on 16-8-1982. According to Section 131(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the application for revision should have been filed within six months from the date of communication of the order, with an additional condonable period of six months. Since the revision application was filed beyond this period, the Central Government had no power to condone the delay. Therefore, the objection raised by the Departmental Representative was sustained, and the appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation alone.
2. Voluntariness and Evidentiary Value of the Confessional Statements:
The appellant contended that the penalty was imposed based on two confessional statements, which the High Court of Bombay had found to be secured by coercive methods and therefore lacked evidentiary value. The High Court's judgment highlighted that the confessional statements were not voluntary, as corroborated by the testimony of an independent witness who indicated that the appellant was assaulted and threatened. The High Court concluded that the statements were given under duress and lacked independent corroboration, thus having no evidentiary value.
3. Independence of Adjudication Proceedings from Criminal Prosecution:
The respondent argued that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent, and the findings of one authority are not binding on the other. The High Court's judgment in the case of Maniklal Pokhraj Jain v. Collector of Customs (P) Bombay supported this view, stating that the two proceedings are independent and can be based on different sets of evidence. The adjudicating authority is not bound by the provisions of the Evidence Act, which apply to criminal courts. Therefore, the findings of the High Court in the criminal case did not preclude the adjudicating authority from relying on the confessional statements and other evidence.
4. Sufficiency of Independent Evidence to Support the Penalty:
The adjudicating authority did not solely rely on the confessional statements but also considered the evidence of independent witnesses. Two witnesses testified that the bag containing 99 gold slabs was found on the appellant's lap. The appellant did not cross-examine these witnesses during the adjudication proceedings. The Collector's order indicated that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the seized gold. The Board, while reducing the penalty, did not discuss the evidence in detail, possibly due to the nature of the contentions urged before it. The appellant's argument before the Board was that he was a mere carrier and did not deserve heavy punishment.
Conclusion:
The appeal was ultimately rejected on the ground of limitation. On merits, the adjudicating authority's reliance on independent evidence and the independence of adjudication proceedings from criminal prosecution were upheld. The appellant's contentions regarding the involuntariness of the confessional statements and the lack of corroboration were not accepted, as the adjudicating authority had sufficient evidence to impose the penalty.
-
1988 (5) TMI 250
Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-appeal rejecting refund claim of duty on replaced parts
- Claim for refund barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act
- Duty paid on replaced parts
- Time limitation for refund claim
Analysis:
The appeal in question arises from an order-in-appeal issued by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, rejecting the appellant's claim for a refund of duty on replaced parts. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector, citing limitation as the grounds for rejection. The appellant imported automatic card sets, cleared them on payment of duty, and later found certain parts defective. The defective parts were replaced by the supplier free of charge, but duty was paid on the replaced parts upon clearance. The main contention of the appellant was that the refund application was made within six months of payment for the replacement parts, thus not barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
During the appeal hearing, the appellant's representative reiterated the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, emphasizing that no duty should have been levied on the replaced parts as they were supplied free of cost. On the other hand, the Collector's representative opposed the appeal, arguing that the claim was time-barred. The Member (J) carefully considered the submissions and reviewed the case records.
It was established that the appellant did not notify customs about the defective parts before physical clearance, and only later sought a refund for duty paid on the replaced parts. The Member (J) concluded that the duty on the replacement parts was rightly levied and paid, as the duty payment is not contingent on the parts being supplied free of charge. The appellant's failure to notify customs about the defects earlier rendered any claim for refund on the defective parts time-barred. However, since the refund claim was specifically for the duty paid on replacement parts, which was within the time limit, the claim was not barred under Section 27. Despite this, the Member (J) rejected the appeal, stating that the refund claim for duty on replacement parts lacked a legal basis, as the duty was rightfully paid on those parts. The appellant was deemed liable for duty on the replacement parts and had no grounds for a refund, thereby dismissing the appeal on different grounds than those cited by the lower authorities.
-
1988 (5) TMI 249
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that M/s. Eagle Smelting Co. was not entitled to a notification for scrap import. The dispute centered on clause (b) of the notification, which required evidence of the products from which the waste and scrap arose. Since the importers failed to provide this evidence, the appeal was declined.
-
1988 (5) TMI 248
Issues: Classification of the product "Stabilizer OS 25" under Customs Tariff Schedule, exclusion of landing charges from assessable value, charging additional duty of customs only on CIF value.
The appeal was filed against the rejection of the claim by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras regarding the classification of the product "Stabilizer OS 25" and other related issues. The appellants claimed that the product should be classified under Heading 34.01/07(3) of the Customs Tariff Schedule or alternatively under Heading 38.01/19(1). The lower authorities rejected the claim on all three grounds presented by the appellants. During the hearing, the appellants dropped the claims related to the exclusion of landing charges and charging additional duty of customs only on CIF value, focusing solely on the classification issue.
The product in question, described as a foam stabilizer, was found to be a thick colorless liquid based on Silicones with surface active properties. The appellants argued for the classification based on recent Tribunal decisions, stating that the product was not covered under Central Excise Notification No. 208/69. The respondent agreed that the Tribunal decisions applied to the case and suggested remanding the matter to the lower authorities for further determination.
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal concluded that there was no need to remand the matter as all necessary facts were available on record. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, it was established that only silicone in its primary states would fall under specific tariff items. Since the product was a silicone-based complex organic compound with surface active properties, the correct classification was determined to be under Heading 34.01/07(3) of the Customs Tariff Schedule, contrary to the Department's contention. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.
-
1988 (5) TMI 247
Issues:
The issue in this appeal is whether the cutting of jumbo rolls into strips amounts to manufacture.
Details:
The respondents are engaged in the production of "Key Board paper in spools for use on the monotype machine" through a process involving slitting, re-winding, and perforation of Monospool paper received in jumbo sized reels. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that this process does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
The appellant argued that the process of slitting into strips amounts to manufacture, citing relevant legal precedents. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the process does not amount to manufacture as the goods are not sold before perforation and that slitted paper falls under a specific item in the Central Excise Tariff.
In a previous case, the Bombay High Court held that cutting large rolls of paper into specific sizes and dimensions with power-driven machines amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act. The Tribunal also differentiated between similar products to determine their classification under the Tariff.
The Tribunal concluded that the process of slitting, re-winding, and perforation does not result in the emergence of a new product with distinct characteristics, name, and use. Therefore, it does not constitute manufacture under the Act, and no fresh duty is chargeable.
A separate order by another Member of the Tribunal concurred with the decision to dismiss the appeal. The Member clarified that the legal precedents cited by the appellant were not directly applicable to the current case due to amendments in the Tariff Item post-1976, thus upholding the original decision.
In summary, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) decision, ruling that the process in question does not amount to manufacture under the Act, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 228
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal by the Collector of Customs regarding the clearance of a revolver as a baggage item. The Tribunal found that, as per the Customs Act amendment in 1984, no appeal lies with the Tribunal for baggage-related cases. The appellant's appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the appeal papers were directed to be returned for presentation to the proper forum.
........
|
9911796707
