Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 164 Records
-
1992 (5) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Revision/Review by the Board - Scope of power ... ... ... ... ..... ot gone into the question whether the conditions of export had been complied with. If he had initiated proceedings on both counts, his record would have covered the other part too and, in that case, the Board would have been competent to proceed with the matter on the basis of that record in the absence of any order on the export obligation by the adjudicating authority. For non-fulfillment of the export obligation, the Board cannot, in exercise of its reversionary powers under Section 129D(1), travel beyond the record and sit in judgment on a matter on which no proceedings, whatsoever, have been initiated by the Additional Collector. Looking at the matter from this angle too, it is not permissible for the Board to direct proceedings being instituted on the re-export aspect. 26. In view of these finding we do not consider it necessary for us to go into various other contentions raised by Shri Sridharan and reject the appeal as not maintainable. The Cross-Objection is allowed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 113 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ceived, but under Rule 57H an exception has been made to enable the assessees to take MODVAT Credit even for inputs received before filing the declaration under Rule 57G. 6. The learned D.R. pointed out that it looks incongruous if the benefit is to be given to an assessee who has filed declaration after 31-3-1986 in respect of the inputs received upto 31-3-1986. We do not see any such incongruity. As already mentioned, the transitional provision does not require that a declaration should be filed within any particular period of time. It would be incongruous if some assessees are given the benefit of the transitional provision and others are denied the benefit just because they filed the declaration later than 1-4-1986. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is eligible for the MODVAT Credit in respect of the inputs received by him between 1-3-1986 and 31-3-1986 for claiming the benefit of transitional provisions under Rule 57H. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore dismissed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 112 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... d sufficient force in that plea. We, therefore, set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed in the impugned order. 3.3 As a last plea, the learned advocate has submitted that Customs authorities be directed to issue a detention certificate because a heavy demurrage of Rs. 25 lakhs is involved herein for no fault of the appellants. This is a matter to be considered by the Customs authorities themselves. The Tribunal does not normally come into the picture so far as the detention certificate is concerned because there is no provision in the Customs Act which allows granting of detention certificate. Nevertheless, we are of the view that the appellants rsquo request be considered sympathetically inasmuch as there has been a delay in readjudication proceedings despite an observation of the Tribunal that the Collector is expected to decide the case within four weeks of receipt of the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 168/89-A dated 2-5-1989. 4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (5) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Graphite powder/flakes ... ... ... ... ..... s mined. For this purpose, though Note (2) to Chapter 25 is not directly relevant for determining the question of exemption, it nevertheless supports the contention of the respondents that the goods have to be shown to be excisable before the question of exemption is considered. We also see force in the argument supported by the decision of the Tribunal in Western India Plywoods case (supra) that the general term used for describing the commodity covers that commodity in all its forms or varieties. 12. We are not impressed by the argument that the Department has a case because it has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Tribunal in T.P. Minerals case (supra). As we have seen, the contentions of the Department have even otherwise no force, quite apart from the fact that the decision of the Tribunal in T.P. Minerals case which was on a limited point was against them. Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Department rsquo s appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1992 (5) TMI 110 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit - Non-duty paid goods ... ... ... ... ..... not duly-paid. This would be an invidious burden placed on the assessee when there is no such stipulation in the order of the Government of India. The mention that the deemed Modvat credit would be available unless it can be shown that the same was clearly non-duty paid only goes to show that the MODVAT credit should be denied only in such circumstances where there is a direct evidence to show that the scrap had not suffered any duty. Such a contingency would be when the scrap has emanated from a factory or a manufacturing unit. We had asked the learned D.R. as to what type of document he would expect from the assessee to prove that the item that he has purchased from the market, where the traders are selling the goods, are duty paid. He had nothing specific to say in this regard. We in view of the above, therefore, hold that the learned lower appellate authority has rightly allowed the benefit of deemed MODVAT credit to the respondents and dismiss the Revenue rsquo s appeal.
-
1992 (5) TMI 109 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... Works, Jallandhar, supra, and by the Calcutta High Court in the case of.D. Sengupta v. Collector of Customs, supra. No doubt that in the case of D. Sengupta v. Collector of Customs, supra, the Calcutta High Court was dealing with Show Cause Notice issued under Section 124 of the Act and there was no occasion to deal with the provisions of Section 147 of the Customs Act. But the fact remains that proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 147 applies only when it is the case of the Revenue that the amount of duty which had not been levied or short levied cannot be recovered from the owner. It is not the case here, as aforesaid. In this view of the matter, we respectfully do not agree with the distinction drawn by the learned Member in the case of Almelo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, supra, with regard to the case of D. Sengupta v. Collector of Customs, supra. 10. In the result, we uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal and reject the appeal being devoid of any merit.
-
1992 (5) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... gard to 15 discount. Hence the appeal before us. 3. Shri Asthana appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue is already covered by an Order of this Tribunal in AVM S.K. Sareen v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi (Order No. 616/91-A dated 18-8-1991) wherein this Tribunal on the basis of TELCOs price list a 15 discount was given. Since the lower authorities while determining the assessable value of the car relied on the TELCOs price list of 1989 similar relief should be given by allowing 15 discount. 4. In other words, the contention of the learned advocate is that the issue is covered by the said Order. 5. We have perused the Order No. 616/91-A, dated 18-9-1991. On a similar circumstances, this Tribunal gave 15 discount on the TELCOs price list while assessing an imported car Mercedez Benz - 23 OE Model 1989. Following the above Order, we allow 15 discount on TELCOs price list of 1989. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the Order of the lower authorities.
-
1992 (5) TMI 107 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... y assessed and cleared on payment of duty etc. were raised, but he has not considered the same in his impugned Order-in-Appeal, coupled with the fact that it was the grievance of the appellants that no personal hearing was granted to them by the Assistant Collector before passing his impugned Order-in-Original. Under these circumstances, we feel it expedient in the interest of justice that the case should go back to the Assistant Collector of Customs, New Delhi, for de novo adjudication. We order accordingly. While doing so, the Assistant Collector would give a reasonably effective opportunity to the appellants to defend themselves and would pass a detailed and reasoned order with respect to each and every contention raised by the appellants. 5. In the result, both the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector of Customs, New Delhi, for de novo adjudication, as aforesaid. Since the matter is an old one, he will expedite the proceedings.
-
1992 (5) TMI 106 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Re-adjudication after remand ... ... ... ... ..... ar that he was satisfied with the evidence produced by the appellants and remand was limited to the purpose of ascertaining from the Bombay Customs House about the quantum of goods despatched under Customs seal and supervision. Therefore, once the Bombay Customs House confirmed that the 525 bags 3-T 12 grade raw asbestos were forwarded under Transit Bond 3617, dated 27-1-1983 nothing further remained for the adjudicating authority in the absence of an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) . In this case the adjudicating authority has erred in going beyond the scope of the order of remand and the lower appellate authority has also committed the same error. We are not impressed with the contention of the learned SDR that the Collector (Appeals) order of 6-5-1987 is one of open remand as his order is very clear and categoric as to the scope of remand. 7. In the light of the above discussion we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1992 (5) TMI 105 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... anufacture of not only steel castings, the immediate target for their use but also for the ultimate product namely bogies and couplers. In that view of the matter, we feel that the Trade Notice and its source, the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs need a second look by the authorities concerned. rdquo 7. On the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision quoted above and having regard to the fact that Cement Spun Pipes produced by the appellants cannot be manufactured without wire, we hold that wire produced by the appellants out of re-rollable material received by them as input would constitute an intermediate product in the manufacture of Cement Spun Pipes. For these reasons we hold that Modvat credit would be admissible on re-rollable materials used by them as inputs for the production of wire which is used as intermediate product in the manufacture of Cement Spun Pipes. 8. In the result, we allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (5) TMI 104 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Predeposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... acity. However, taking note of the fact that the applicant is only a job worker and the operations are reflected in the Balance Sheet showing the turnover of less than Rs. 20 lakhs, I agree with my learned Brother that on the applicant rsquo s pre-depositing Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before 31st July, 1992 the balance of duty and the entire penalty shall stand dispensed with pending appeal. 7. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that in cases where large revenues are involved, the Departmental authorities should come on record after making enquiries as to the financial position of the appellants. This we find in most of the cases is not being done and the orders have, therefore, to be passed based on the pleas made before us by the appellants. The Department is well advised to take necessary action to get the information as soon as copies of the Stay applications are received by them so that the interest of the Revenue does not suffer when stay orders are passed.
-
1992 (5) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... mpugned orders and remand the matters to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).While deciding the appeals, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) shall observe principles of natural justice and grant opportunities of personal hearing and also grant opportunity to the appellants to rectify the defect and enable them to file supplementary appeals with applications for condonation of delay. We further observe that while dealing with the supplementary appeals, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) shall take a liberal view in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. In the result, the above-captioned four appeals are allowed by way of remand. rdquo Following the same ratio, we remand the matters to the lower appellate authority and direct him to allow the appellants to file supplementary appeals and consider their application for condonation of delay liberally. It is claimed that the original appeals were filed in time. 2. Appeals disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (5) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... ry and the assessments made, where under the articles figuring in the two writ petitions were classified as falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. Next, petitioners rely on this defence not having been taken when petitioners applied for a refund of the Additional Duty. Once again, it is the definition of lsquo drug rsquo in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act which furnishes the key to the understanding to the problem. If an article is a lsquo drug rsquo within the meaning of that provision, there is no reason to restrict the extent by reason of the presence or absence of the letter lsquo P rsquo (to indicate recognition or absence thereof by any pharmacopoeial system. Viewed thus, Phenol and Diethylene Glycol would both be lsquo bulk drugs rsquo entitled to the exemption in the notification dated June 30, 1983 . 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (5) TMI 101 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... hat in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Bharat Packaging Corporation, reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 102 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had held that Kum Kum cleared in bulk on payment of duty cannot be deemed to have undergone further manufacturing activity on being re-packed into retail containers. No new commodity having a distinct name, character and use as known to the trade emerges and Kum Kum remains the same whether in bulk or retail packs and smaller retailers packs. 6. On the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decisions quoted above, we hold that Pammel Enamel and Universal Stainers cleared by the appellants on payment of duty in 20 ltrs. packing were not chargeable on the price at which they were sold after repacking into smaller retail packing. 7. Since the appellants succeed on the first point we do not consider it necessary to examine the other point arising for consideration in this case. We, therefore, allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (5) TMI 100 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Cotton Fabrics - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... eme Court decision of Union of India v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. (supra) their dutiability has to be determined on the basis of their form and character after completion of the final carbonisation process. In the case of Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) which has also been relied upon by the appellants the finding of the Tribunal was that the process of retrieving and/or segregating fibre from waste water can be considered as a process of manufacture. The appellants have also cited the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (supra) in which the High Court had held that goods produced during exemption period are not liable to duty even if cleared after withdrawal of the exemption. The facts and the issues arising for determination in the case before us being different, these decisions cannot be of any assistance to the appellants. 8. In view of the foregoing the appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1992 (5) TMI 99 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 98.06 and were, therefore, correctly held as classifiable under that heading. 9. Referring to Note 1 to Chapter 98, the learned consultant had contended that classification of the disputed goods under sub-heading 98.06 which did not prescribe any conditions was ruled out since Chapter 98 covered only goods which satisfied the conditions prescribed therein. In this regard, it is seen that the Rule 1 of the Rules for the interpretation of the Tariff Schedule provides that for legal purposes, classification has to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. Hence, if the description in any sub-heading of Chapter 98 is not further qualified by any condition, then the classification of any goods under that heading will have to be determined only on the basis of the terms of that heading. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the point made by the appellants. 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is rejected.
-
1992 (5) TMI 98 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... is an irregularity which is curable and therefore, at the earliest opportunity the authorities should return the papers for rectifying the defects. Having not done so, the parties should not be put to injustice by dismissing their appeals. 12. As regards filing of vakalatnama, admittedly the advocate filed the appeal on the basis of telephonic instructions. The Customs (Appeals) Rules do not provide for filing of vakalatnama along with the Memo of Appeal. However, since there was no vakalatnama and since it is an irregularity, the Collector ought to have returned the appeal papers to the party as the failure to file vakalat is an irregularity which can be cured. 13. From the above, it follows that the Collector is not justified in dismissing the appeal as he ought to have returned the papers to the appellant. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Collector to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after the appellant rectifies the defects referred to by the Collector.
-
1992 (5) TMI 97 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ere is a finding of the Collector (Appeals) himself that the subject product, namely, Tripartigen Plates is a diagnostic tool. Therefore, applying the definition of the lsquo drug rsquo , as aforesaid, the subject product namely, Tripartigen Plates rsquo in our considered opinion falls within the definition of lsquo Drug rsquo and therefore, rightly classifiable under Tariff Item 14E. In this view of the matter, we are supported by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Ramesh Chemical Industries, supra. Consequently, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the said Notification as done by the Department while approving the Classification List on 23rd January, 1982. Thus, there was no cause for issuing the two Show Cause Notices in the present case for reclassification of the subject goods under Tariff Item 68. 5. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside both the impugned Orders with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1992 (5) TMI 96 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... e benefit of deemed credit. But the direction issued is with reference to rerollable scrap, lying in stock with the rerollers and used without undergoing the process of melting. The material received by them was turnings and borings. The said order is not applicable to this type of scrap. That, being so, as already observed by us earlier, the actual finding of the Collector (Appeals) that because the scrap has arisen from duty paid raw materials, the same should be treated as duty paid will lead to an absurd situation. This is because whenever duty paid raw materials are used in a manufacturing process and the emerging final products are of a different type, they will, by the said criterion, have to be treated as duty paid. This will not be an acceptable proposition. We, therefore allow the Department rsquo s appeal and set aside the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals). 6. The operative part of the order was announced in the Open Court at the end of the bearing.
-
1992 (5) TMI 95 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat - Transitional provision ... ... ... ... ..... he appeal and as had been held by the Assistant Collector. This view has, however, been rejected as not being in consonance with the scope of Rule 57H(1) as a whole as such a view would defeat the very purpose of the said Rule. However, Government may consider removing the ambiguity by omitting the word immediately occurring in the opening part of Rule 57H(1) and instead keep the wording..... rdquo inputs received by a manufacturer before obtaining the dated acknowledgement.... rdquo . 19. The order proposed by Member (Judicial) for dismissing the department rsquo s appeal is concurred with. Registry to place the matter before the Bench for the final order. (K. SANKARARAMAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 16-4-1992 FINAL ORDER 20. In view of the majority opinion the appeal is dismissed. The impugned Order-in-Appeal is upheld. The respondents would be entitled to the consequential benefits. CALCUTTA, THE 6TH MAY, 1992. (T.P. NAMBIAR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (K. SANKARARAMAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
........
|