|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 569 Records
-
1997 (7) TMI 149
The appeal relates to registration of a contract under Project Import Regulations for concessional custom duty. The Assistant Collector refused registration due to lack of project import endorsement on the Import Licence. The Collector held that registration should have been allowed. The Tribunal's judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, dismissing the appeal.
-
1997 (7) TMI 148
Whether the appellants were not entitled to exemption of Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated April 30, 1975 since they did not fulfil the conditions of investment and turnover ingrained therein?
Held that:- In view of the decision of this Court in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. (1994 (9) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and having regard to the findings that have been recorded by the Assistant Collector in the present case that the appellants were getting the newsprint from Tarun Bharat and the editing was also being by Tarun Bharat and only printing job was to be done by the appellants in the press, it must be held that the job-work which was being done by the appellants fell within the ambit of Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated April 30, 1975 and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the said Notification. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the judgment of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is restored.
-
1997 (7) TMI 147
The Supreme Court held that customs duty is payable based on the date of breaking up of the ship, not the date of import. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and duty is payable by the respondent on the date of breaking or granting of permission, whichever is earlier. The respondent must pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant. (Case: Union of India v. Jalyan Udyog)
-
1997 (7) TMI 146
The Supreme Court considered whether a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act needs to be issued within the period specified under Section 110(1), as extended under the proviso. The Court held that Section 124 does not prescribe any time limit for issuing the notice. The decision is in line with previous judgments and the appeals were dismissed. (Case: 1997 (7) TMI 146 - Supreme Court)
-
1997 (7) TMI 145
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals against the Tribunal's decision, stating that the facts regarding the excise duty were not properly recorded. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.
-
1997 (7) TMI 144
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to show that the price in the invoices did not include excise duty. The appellant's claim for relief was denied. (Citation: 1997 (7) TMI 144 - SC)
-
1997 (7) TMI 143
Applicability of the Notifications No. 439/86 and No. 440/86, dated October 6, 1986 whereby partial exemption admissible in respect of basic customs duty and auxiliary customs duty on wood and articles of wood falling under Heading No. 40.08 of the Customs Tariff under Notifications No. 62-Cus., dated March 17, 1985 and No. 311/86-Cus., dated May 13, 1986 was withdrawn.
Held that:- In the present case the original Bill of Entry that was submitted by the appellant on October 9, 1986 was for warehousing. The said Bill of Entry was treated as for home consumption only on October 23, 1986 by the Assistant Collector. This does not mean that the Bill of Entry for the goods for home consumption has to be treated to have been presented on October 9, 1986. Since the Bill of Entry was noted as for home consumption on October 23, 1986 it has to be as presented for that purpose on October 23, 1986. The duty was, therefore, payable on the basis of the rates in force on October 23, 1986. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held Notifications dated October 6, 1986 were applicable and the appellant was not entitled to refund of duty. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. In the circumstances we do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness of the view of the Tribunal that the Notifications dated October 6, 1986 did not come into operation till October 13, 1986 when the copy of the Gazette in which the said Notifications were published was made available for sale to the public. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 142
Whether the letter dated November 30, 1976 sent by the Divisional Engineer, Central Workshop of the Electricity Board can be regarded as a protest against payment of excise duty for the purpose of second proviso to Section 11B of the Act?
Held that:- The said letter has to be read as a whole in the context in which the requirement for obtaining licence was being insisted, namely, that the goods manufactured at the Central Workshop were leviable to excise duty under T.I. 68, which liability was disputed by the Divisional Engineer. The letter of the Divisional Engineer dated November 30, 1975 must, therefore, be construed to mean that protest was lodged in the said letter both against obtaining the licence as well as against liability to payment of excise duty. In these circumstances we are unable to agree with the Tribunal that payment of duty was not made under protest. On that view of the matter the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot he upheld and has to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 141
Whether the appellants can claim the benefit of concessional rate of customs duty under Tariff Heading 84.66 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975?
Held that:- Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires that the importer of any goods, other than goods included for transit or transhipment, shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer a Bill of Entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form. The goods were not intended for transit or transhipment when they were imported in January, 1983. The Bill of Entry dated January 15, 1983 presented by M/s. Kohli Graphic Systems was not for warehousing because the goods were to be cleared. The said Bill of Entry must, therefore, be treated to be for home consumption. There could not be a second Bill of Entry for home consumption in respect of the same goods. The appellants cannot, therefore, avail the benefit of concessional duty under T.H. 84.66 on the basis of the subsequent Bill of Entry dated June 20, 1983. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly found that the appellants were liable to pay customs duty at the normal rate in accordance with the Notification No. 116/79, dated June 1, 1979 on the basis of which the goods had been imported. Against assessee.
-
1997 (7) TMI 140
The Supreme Court allowed the revenue's appeal in a case involving evasion of excise duty by a respondent who cleared dutiable goods as 'waste'. The Tribunal's decision was set aside for misdirection, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
-
1997 (7) TMI 139
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5146 of 1990 regarding the classification of yarn made from viscose staple fibre and polyester waste under Heading No. 55.05 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal's classification was accepted by the revenue and a circular was issued confirming it. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 1992 was also dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 138
Issues involved: Classification of printed labels for exemption from excise duty under Notification dated November 1, 1982.
The Supreme Court heard appeals against the judgment of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated March 13, 1995. The appellants, who are manufacturers of printed labels, claimed exemption from excise duty under Serial No. 24 of the Schedule to a Notification dated November 1, 1982. The Tribunal had denied their claim based on a previous judgment in Matagraphs Pvt. Ltd. 1986 (26) E.L.T. 66 (Tribunal). However, the Supreme Court, in a separate case, had ruled in Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.), that printed labels are products of the printing industry and serve a definite purpose by communicating information to customers. The Court found that the printing on labels is primary and not merely incidental to their use. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and that of the Collector, Central Excise. No costs were awarded.
In Civil Appeal No. 10979 of 1996, Shri Mehrotra, the senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the appeal falls within the purview of the Court's decision in Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.). Following the reasoning in that judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (7) TMI 137
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves appeals arising from writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash show cause notices issued to the assessees, who deny liability to pay excise duty.
Summary:
Issue 1: Justification for filing writ petitions
The assessees filed writ petitions to challenge show cause notices, claiming a trade notice left no scope for the departmental authorities to accept their contentions. The Supreme Court held that the trade notice was not decisive, and the appropriate course was for the assessees to reply to the show cause notices to enable authorities to record findings of fact.
Issue 2: Requirement for findings of fact
The Court emphasized that the question of excise duty exigibility depended on facts related to the process of creating the end product. It noted the absence of findings of fact by any authority regarding the items or goods in question. The Court directed the matters to go back to the Assistant Collector for the decision of factual questions.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the assessees to submit replies to the adjudicating authority within four weeks. The adjudicating authority was instructed to decide based on law, with further remedies available to aggrieved parties as per legal provisions.
-
1997 (7) TMI 136
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of yarn under Item 18(ii) CET, upholding the Tribunal's decision that duty demand prior to the show cause notice was not enforceable.
-
1997 (7) TMI 135
The dispute was about the classification of goods between March 1, 1975, and December 2, 1975. The goods were classified under Tariff Item No. 26A. The classification list dated 26-2-1976 was approved based on a Trade Notice. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Tribunal's orders as the Department failed to provide any material to support its view.
-
1997 (7) TMI 134
The Supreme Court held that excise duty is not payable on calcium carbide used in captive consumption for manufacturing acetylene black. The decision was based on a previous judgment in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside. No costs were awarded.
-
1997 (7) TMI 133
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 68/76 for exemption from duty on plastic coated paper.
Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of plastic coated paper, sought exemption from duty under Notification No. 68/76. The notification provided for nil duty on specific types of paper, including plastic coated paper, subject to the condition that appropriate excise duty had been paid on the paper used in their manufacture. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim, stating that the paper had not been subjected to printing of colors on one side, thus denying the exemption. The Supreme Court analyzed the notification and held that the requirement of printing colors on one side was not necessary for plastic coated paper. The Court interpreted that the additional requirement applied to converted types of paper known by names other than imitation flint paper, leatherette paper, or plastic coated paper. As the appellant's product fell under the category of plastic coated paper, the benefit of exemption was deemed applicable.
The Court emphasized that the specific names mentioned in the notification, such as plastic coated paper, did not necessitate the additional condition of color printing on one side. The requirement applied to paper types known by different names. Therefore, the appellant, manufacturing plastic coated paper, was entitled to the exemption from duty as per the notification. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal's decision and granting the appellant the benefit of exemption from duty on their plastic coated paper.
-
1997 (7) TMI 132
Issues:
Levy of excise duty on Acetylene gas produced during manufacturing process.
Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Calcium Carbide and Acetylene Black, argued that the Acetylene gas produced during the process was not marketable due to impurities and specific conditions required for marketability. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the gas was marketable and liable for duty under Tariff Item No. 14H(vi). The appellant challenged this finding, citing a previous case where marketability was a crucial factor in determining excisability. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal only considered material from the Departmental representative, disregarding appellant's evidence of excessive impurities making the gas unsafe and unmarketable. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remitted the matter for a fresh finding on the marketability of the Acetylene gas produced by the appellant. The Court emphasized the need to consider all evidence presented by the appellant in determining marketability for excise duty purposes.
This case highlights the importance of establishing marketability for excisability under Tariff Item No. 14H(vi). The appellant's argument regarding impurities making the gas unsafe and unmarketable was not adequately considered by the Tribunal, leading to the Supreme Court's decision to remit the matter for a fresh finding. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that goods must be marketable or capable of being marketed to be subject to excise duty. The judgment underscores the requirement for a clear finding on marketability based on all evidence presented, ensuring a fair assessment of excisability. The decision serves as a reminder of the need for a comprehensive evaluation of factors affecting marketability in excise duty cases, balancing the interests of manufacturers and tax authorities.
-
1997 (7) TMI 131
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in a case involving duty on printed aluminium containers manufactured before June 19, 1980 but removed after that date. The Court held that the taxable event is the manufacture of goods, not their removal, citing a previous decision. The appeal was dismissed with no costs. (Case Citation: 1997 (7) TMI 131 - SC)
-
1997 (7) TMI 130
The Supreme Court allowed the substitution of M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited for M/s. Tata Oil Mills Co. Limited in appeals. The Court classified toilet soap under Tariff Item No. 15(1) as household soap, setting aside the Customs Tribunal's decision. Refund matters to be handled as per Mafatlal Industries case. No costs awarded.
............
|
9911796707
