|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 166
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Valuation of imported goods.
3. Applicability of concessional rate of duty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported two consignments of "High Impact Polystyrene" and declared them under Heading No. 3903.19 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, claiming a lower duty rate. The Customs authorities, however, classified the goods under Heading No. 3903.90, attracting higher duty rates. The Customs Laboratory Test Reports indicated that the goods were a copolymer of styrene with styrene monomer content around 87.5%, which is less than the 95% required for classification as a homopolymer. Consequently, the goods were classified under Heading No. 3903.90 as "Other polymers of styrene." The Tribunal upheld this classification, noting that the product literature described the goods as a graft copolymer of styrene monomer and synthetic rubber, aligning with the Customs authorities' classification.
2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellants declared the value of the goods at US $1485 per M.T. CIF, while the Customs authorities determined the assessable value at US $1850 per M.T. CIF based on comparable imports through Bombay port. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contention that the difference in suppliers (Korean vs. Hongkong) and other factors such as shipment timing and terms of payment could account for price differences. The Tribunal noted that the Customs authorities did not provide evidence of similar imports at higher prices at Calcutta or any remittance towards the difference in the "real" price. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue had not established the charge of under-valuation/mis-declaration and directed the Additional Collector to determine the assessable value based on the invoiced price of US $1485 per M.T. CIF.
3. Applicability of Concessional Rate of Duty:
The appellants claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 342/76, which provides a concessional rate of duty for polystyrene of Korean origin. The Tribunal noted that this claim had not been made before the lower authority but acknowledged that if the goods met the requirements of the said Notification, the appellants would be entitled to the concessional rate. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to examine this aspect, noting that both polystyrene polymers and copolymers are covered by the Notification.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appellants' claim regarding the valuation of the goods, directing the Additional Collector to determine the assessable value based on the invoiced price. However, it dismissed the appellants' claim regarding the classification of the goods, upholding the Customs authorities' classification under Heading No. 3903.90. The Tribunal also directed the Additional Collector to re-determine the rate of duty in light of the concessional rate claim under Customs Notification No. 342/76. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (6) TMI 165
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of various coal tar products under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Eligibility for duty exemption under various notifications.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Various Coal Tar Products:
The appellants manufacture several coal tar products and filed a classification list effective from 1-3-1983. The dispute before the Assistant Collector covered 21 products, excluding Shalijet Sealing Compound and Shalijet Primer. The classification and the Assistant Collector's decisions are summarized as follows:
- Distilled Tar: Classified under Item 11(5), but not eligible for exemption under Notifications 121/62 and 133/82 because these notifications did not cover partially distilled tar.
- Road Tar 3 and Road Tar 2: Provisionally approved under Item 68, CET. Samples were to be tested for conformity with IS Specification No. 216:1961 for Road Tar.
- Soft Pitch, Soft Medium Pitch, Hard Pitch, Hard Medium Pitch, Special Hard Pitch, Electrode Pitch: Classified under Item 68, CET. Item 11(5) covers only blends of pitch with specified materials, not straight run pitch.
- Pitch Creosote Mixture: Classified under Item 11(5) but not eligible for Notification 121/62.
- Tar Seal for Gas Holder: Classified under Item 68. Notification 121/62 not applicable.
- Modulate and Plasticised Pitch: Classified under Item 68. Notification 121/62 not applicable.
- Tar Stil Tar, Tarstil Special, Shalimastic L.C., Jet Set Primer: Classified under Item 11(5) but without the benefit of Notification 121/62.
2. Eligibility for Duty Exemption Under Various Notifications:
- Soft Pitch, Soft Medium Pitch, Hard Pitch, Hard Medium Pitch, Special Hard Pitch, Electrode Pitch: The appellants argued that these products should be eligible for duty exemption under Notification 121/62, which exempts tar from excise duty. However, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Item 68, CET, following the decision in Indian Aluminum Co Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, which held that coal tar pitch is distinct from coal tar or partially distilled tar.
- Distilled Tar and Road Tar: The Tribunal found no reason to deny the benefit of Notification 121/62, as the term "Tar" should cover tars of all types, including partially distilled tar.
- Pitch Creosote Mixture and Tar Seal for Gas Holder: These blends are not covered by Notification 121/62, which applies only to tar and not blends of pitch with creosote oil or other coal tar distillation products.
- Modulate and Plasticised Pitch: Classified under Item 68, CET, and not eligible for Notification 121/62.
- Tar Stil Tar, Tarstil Special, Shalimastic L.C., Jet Set Primer: Classified under Item 11(5) but without the benefit of Notification 121/62.
Separate Judgment by S.L. Peeran:
S.L. Peeran disagreed with the majority opinion and provided a detailed analysis, emphasizing that the products should be classified under Item 11(5) and eligible for exemption under Notification 121/62. He argued that the products are derivatives of tar and should be included in the classification under Item 11(5).
Final Order of the Bench:
The impugned order was modified to the extent indicated in paragraphs 8 to 12, with consequential relief to the appellants. The appeal was partially allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 164
Issues:
Whether the consignment of ceramic colours imported by the appellants is eligible for exemption under Notification 210/71 dated 25-12-1971.
Analysis:
The appeals revolve around the eligibility of ceramic colours imported by the appellants for exemption under Notification 210/71. The appellants imported ceramic colours for multi-colour printing on glass bottles and paid Customs duty under Tariff Heading 32.04/12. Subsequently, Additional duty of Customs (CVD) was levied under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed exemption under Notification 210/71, which provides full exemption to ceramic colours. The Assistant Collector rejected their claims based on test reports and Tariff Advice, stating the goods were not purely ceramic colours but ceramic glazes or enamels. The Collector (Appeals) upheld these decisions, emphasizing that the imported goods resembled ceramic glaze or enamels more than ceramic colours.
The appellants argued that the goods were described as ceramic colours in invoices and declared as such in the Bill of Entry. They contended that the lower authorities ignored the Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that mere chemical tests should not solely determine classification. The appellants requested a re-test, which was not allowed. They provided evidence indicating the use of the material as ceramic colours exempt under Notification 210/71, urging for their refund claim to be granted.
The Senior Departmental Representative referred to test reports indicating the goods were prepared ceramic enamels, not ceramic colours. He highlighted the absence of a specific definition of ceramic colours and referenced manufacturer classifications of the goods. The Department argued that the goods did not meet the criteria of ceramic colours as per HSN Explanatory Note and were not verifiable enamels or glazes.
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and evidence presented. They noted that the appellants had cleared the goods without contesting the assessment after the initial test. The goods were branded products with consistent composition. The test reports and authorities classified the goods as ceramic enamels or glazes, not ceramic colours. The Tribunal accepted the Board's clarification that ceramic glazes are distinct from ceramic colours and are not classified as pigments under Item 14-CET. They found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions and rejected the appeals.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, stating that the imported goods did not qualify as ceramic colours under Notification 210/71. The classification as ceramic enamels or glazes, rather than ceramic colours, was deemed appropriate based on the evidence and interpretations provided.
-
1990 (6) TMI 163
Issues: Classification of glass materials under Tariff Item 23A(4) or Tariff Item 68
In this case, the main issue revolves around the classification of glass materials meant for lenses under Tariff Item 23A(4) or Tariff Item 68. The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, which classified the glass materials under Tariff Item 23A(4). The key contention was whether the glass materials, specifically for sun glasses, should be considered as lenses for spectacles falling under Tariff Item 68 or under the broader category of glasses and glassware not otherwise specified in Tariff Item 23A(4).
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the dictionary definition, Encyclopaedia Britanica, and ISI Standards indicated that sun glasses are a type of spectacles, and the lenses used in sun glasses are for correcting or protecting the eyes. They also pointed out notifications issued under Tariff Item 68, which included spectacles, spectacle lenses, and spectacle frames, supporting their classification argument.
On the other hand, the learned SDR contended that Tariff Item 23A(4) covered glasses and glassware not otherwise specified, emphasizing the broad scope of the term "glass." The Collector's order mentioned the process of manufacturing the glass materials into sun glasses, highlighting the transformation of the materials into a distinct product ready for use in sun glasses.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both sides and observed that the glass materials, after undergoing the manufacturing process, had acquired the characteristics of lenses and were ready for use in sun glasses. They noted that the notifications cited by the appellant, although not directly applicable, provided a plausible viewpoint supported by other materials such as Encyclopaedia Britanica and ISI specifications related to opthalmic lenses and spectacle frames.
The Tribunal analyzed various definitions and standards related to spectacle lenses and sun glasses, concluding that sun glasses are a type of spectacles with lenses tinted to reduce light transmission and avoid glare. They also considered an expert opinion that the manufactured glass materials were spectacle lenses. Based on these observations, the Tribunal held that the glass materials in question were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 23A(4).
Therefore, the appeal was accepted, emphasizing the correct classification of the glass materials under Tariff Item 68 based on their characteristics and purpose for use in sun glasses.
-
1990 (6) TMI 162
Issues:
1. Applicability of Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 for refund claim.
2. Rejection of refund claim by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on various grounds.
Analysis:
1. Applicability of Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963:
The appellants imported a consignment of Heat Exchanger tubes along with anti-corrosive coating compound. They contended that the compound was supplied free of charge for maintenance purposes. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as required details were not furnished. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection stating that the goods did not satisfy the conditions of the Rules. However, the appellants argued that the Rules do not mandate one invoice and one bill of entry for applicability. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the Rules cover accessories, parts, and implements, not consumable items. The matter was remitted for reconsideration to determine if the compound qualifies under the Rules.
2. Rejection of refund claim by the Collector of Customs (Appeals):
The Collector (Appeals) also rejected the refund claim based on reclassification under a different tariff heading, citing a time-barred claim. The Revenue argued that the reclassification claim was beyond the time limit. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that authorities can correct original classifications even after six months. The Tribunal found the original authority's rejection unsubstantiated and remitted the matter for de novo adjudication. The appellants were to be given a hearing, and relevant documents were to be considered for a fresh decision.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the applicability of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 and the reclassification issue. The matter was remitted for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the claims and proper consideration of supporting documents.
-
1990 (6) TMI 161
Issues:
1. Correct classification of imported products under Chapter 40 or Chapter 39 of C.T.A.
2. Re-assessment of goods under specific headings.
3. Dispute over classification as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40 or Chapter 39.
4. Reliability of evidence presented by both parties.
5. Interpretation of relevant tariff headings and notes.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the correct classification of imported products, namely CHEMIGUM N-328-B, CHEMIGUM N-628-B, and KRYNAC 110, under Chapter 40 or Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act (C.T.A.). The appellant, M/s. Inarco Ltd., sought to re-assess the goods under Heading 4002.59 instead of the original assessment under Heading 3911.90 of C.T.A. 1975. The main contention was whether the products should be classified as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40, as argued by the appellant, or under Chapter 39, as contended by the Revenue.
The appellant claimed that the imported products were raw synthetic rubber satisfying the guidelines of Chapter 40, specifically Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR), and should be assessed accordingly. They provided evidence including test reports, certificates from the Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association, and supplier literature to support their classification under Chapter 40.
The Collector of Customs had partially admitted the appellant's contention regarding KRYNAC 110 but rejected the appeal concerning CHEMIGUM N-328-B and CHEMIGUM N-628-B, stating that they could not be classified as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40. The appellant's representative argued that the products met the criteria of Chapter 40 and should not be classified under Chapter 39, citing relevant provisions and definitions.
The Department disputed the evidence presented by the appellant, questioning the reliability of test results and certificates provided. They argued that the products should be assessed under Chapter 39 based on the Harmonised Commodity and Coding System, highlighting potential discrepancies in the evidence submitted by the appellant.
After considering the submissions and evidence from both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the imported products, identified as Synthetic (Nitrile) Rubber, should be classified under Heading 4002.59 of Chapter 40. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by the appellant, including certificates and supplier literature, supported the classification of the products as synthetic rubber, in line with the guidelines of Chapter 40. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellants consequential relief.
In a separate judgment, the President of the Tribunal concurred with the classification of the goods as Synthetic Rubber under Heading No. 4002.59, based on the evidence on record. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellants in line with the classification under Chapter 40 of the C.T.A.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's classification of the imported products as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40, emphasizing the importance of evidence and adherence to relevant tariff headings and definitions in determining the correct classification for customs assessment.
-
1990 (6) TMI 160
Issues involved: Assessment of duty rate on furnace oil, interpretation of Notification No. 157/76-Cus. and its amendment by Notification No. 295/87-Cus.
Summary:
The appeal was filed to set aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise regarding the assessment of duty rate on furnace oil. The respondent disputed the duty rate assessed under Tariff Heading 2710.50 and claimed a refund based on Notifications No. 157/76-Cus. and No. 295/87-Cus. The Collector allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
The main contention was the interpretation of the notifications. Notification No. 157/76 provided a concessional rate of duty for furnace oil supplied to coastal vessels, while the amendment by Notification No. 295/87 extended this concession to oil retained on board during reversion from foreign to coastal run. The Revenue argued that the amended notification was not retrospective, thus the concession could not apply to transactions before 13-8-1987.
The Tribunal, after reviewing the orders and notifications, upheld the Collector's decision. It was noted that the amendment was clarificatory in nature, elaborating on the original notification's spirit. The inclusion of specific words in the amendment was deemed effective from the original notification date, not the amendment date. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Collector's interpretation and finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments.
-
1990 (6) TMI 159
Issues: Classification of imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
The judgment involves the classification of imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellants imported goods described as "KAPTON Polymide Film" but classified by Customs Authorities under Item No. 15A(2) and charged additional duty of customs. The appellants claimed reclassification under Item No. 68 for a duty refund, which was denied by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants contended that the goods were silicone-based thermosetting adhesive tapes for electrical applications, citing technical literature describing the product's electrical properties and performance. They sought classification under Item No. 60 of the Schedule for adhesive tapes not elsewhere specified. The appellants referenced previous Tribunal orders where similar goods were classified under Item No. 68, supporting their claim for reclassification. The respondent argued that the goods were composite and not similar to those in previous orders, citing a different Tribunal decision involving a different type of "Kapton" brand product for electrical applications. The respondent also referenced a Bombay High Court judgment on classification of heating sealing tapes. The Tribunal considered the repeated changes in the Department's view on classification and emphasized that the benefit should go to the taxpayer in case of uncertainty. Relying on a previous Tribunal order involving a similar product, the Tribunal held that the goods in the present case fell under Item No. 68 of the Schedule and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (6) TMI 158
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Air-fan/Blower under Tariff Item 33(2) of the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of extended time under Section 11-A.
3. Valuation of the Blower.
4. Imposition of fine and penalties.
5. Penalty on the Director of the appellant company.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Air-fan/Blower under Tariff Item 33(2):
The primary issue is whether the Air-fan/Blower, an integral part of the burner manufactured by the appellant, is liable for excise duty under Tariff Item 33(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The appellants argued that the Air-fan/Blower is an integral part of the burner head/fan unit, not known to the trade or industry as a distinct product, and not sold as an electric or industrial fan. They cited previous decisions, including a Government of India order, which held that the Air-fan is not an electric fan or industrial fan.
The Tribunal examined the nature and function of the blower, noting that it consists of parts such as an electric motor, impeller, and casing, and functions to deliver air for combustion of fuel in the oil burners. The Tribunal concluded that the blower is a distinct and identifiable product, classifiable under T.I. 33(2) CET, as it fits the description of an industrial fan designed for specific use in an industrial system.
2. Applicability of Extended Time under Section 11-A:
The appellants contended that the extended time invoked under Section 11-A was illegal, as they had filed classification lists and declarations that were approved by excise officials, and their activities were within the department's knowledge. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the appellants had filed classification lists mentioning boilers, burners, accessories, components, and spares, and had cleared a blower under T.I. 68 on payment of duty. The Tribunal held that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the demand should be restricted to the normal period of six months.
3. Valuation of the Blower:
The appellants disputed the valuation of Rs. 13,000 per blower adopted by the department, arguing that it was based on the actual value recovered under a delivery note and not consistent with the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's valuation, finding it consistent with the provisions of the Act.
4. Imposition of Fine and Penalties:
The department had seized 16 blowers lying in the finishing room of the factory and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal found that no wilful suppression was involved, and the blowers were only liable for payment of duty, not confiscation. Consequently, the confiscation and fine were set aside, and the penalty was not warranted.
5. Penalty on the Director:
The Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the Director of the appellant company without issuing a Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal found that since no specific mention of the Director was made in the Show Cause Notice, and given the findings in the main appeal, the penalty on the Director was set aside.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Air-fan/Blower is classifiable under T.I. 33(2) CET, but the extended period under Section 11-A was not applicable due to lack of suppression. The valuation adopted by the department was upheld, but the confiscation and penalties were set aside. The penalty on the Director was also set aside due to procedural lapses. The appeal was allowed to the extent specified but otherwise rejected.
-
1990 (6) TMI 157
Issues:
Appeal for exemption under Notification No. 77/83 for Small Scale Industries in calculating capital investment on Plant & Machinery.
Analysis:
The appellants contested the capital investment determination by the Department, arguing arithmetical errors, inclusion of dismantled driers, civil works cost, motors cost, technical know-how payment, and unjustified extended period invocation. The appellant's consultant emphasized excluding investment on dismantled machinery per Notification No. 77/83 and cited relevant case laws supporting small-scale industry registration eligibility for exemptions. Guidelines were referenced for excluding electrical equipment costs and the technical know-how payment. The Tribunal decision in M/s. Ahmedabad Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda was highlighted regarding expenses not includible in capital investment.
The Department argued against excluding generating sets and electrical installations, questioning the payment to Shri Sankara Raju and the authenticity of the letter regarding defective driers. The Collector's final investment amount exceeded the exemption limit due to included items. The appellants' eligibility for exemption hinged on the total capital investment, considering civil works, electrical installations, and technical expenses. Guidelines and case laws were cited to support the exclusion of certain costs from capital investment, ensuring compliance with the exemption limit.
The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Collector's order. Excluding certain costs like dismantled machinery, technical expenses, and arithmetical errors placed the appellants within the exemption limit. The Department's failure to prove civil works as part of plant and machinery led to their exclusion, supported by certificates and norms. The decision emphasized adhering to guidelines and ensuring accurate determination of capital investment for small-scale industry exemptions.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants based on the exclusion of specific costs from the capital investment calculation, ensuring compliance with the exemption limit under Notification No. 77/83 for Small Scale Industries.
-
1990 (6) TMI 156
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 130/83-C.E. regarding excise duty exemption for sugar produced by new sugar factories.
2. Claim for refund of duty on sugar clearances prior to the notification date.
3. Retrospective effect of the notification and legislative intent.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on retrospective operation of laws.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 130/83-C.E., which exempted sugar produced by new sugar factories from excise duty. The appellants sought a refund of duty on sugar clearances made before the notification date, which was rejected by the appellate authority citing prospective application of the notification.
2. The appellants claimed that the notification should apply retrospectively from the date of sugar production. The counsel argued that beneficent legislation can have retrospective effect if it does not affect existing rights, citing Supreme Court judgments supporting this view. However, the Tribunal noted that the intention of the legislature for retrospective effect must be explicit, and in this case, there was no indication of such intent.
3. Referring to the Supreme Court's stance on retrospective laws, the Tribunal highlighted that new laws affecting rights should not be given retrospective effect unless expressly stated or implied by the legislature. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of clear language allowing retrospective operation, subordinate legislative bodies cannot make rules with retrospective effect.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, dismissing the appeals. It concluded that there was no basis to grant retrospective effect to the notification, especially considering previous judgments and the absence of explicit legislative intent for retrospective application. The arguments put forth by the appellants' counsel were deemed meritless in light of the legal principles discussed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 155
Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Item 68, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Liability to pay duty on laminated jute bags; Application of Notification No. 53/65-C.E.; Bar on demand by limitation.
The judgment involves a case where the appellants, manufacturers of laminated jute bags, were called upon to show cause for the classification of goods under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the demand for Central Excise duty for goods cleared without payment of duty. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector held the appellants liable for duty under Item 68 for a specific period. The appeal challenges this decision (para. 1).
The contentions in the appeal revolve around two main points: first, whether laminated jute bags fall under Tariff Item 22A, CET, and are exempted from duty under Notification No. 53/65-C.E.; second, whether the demand for duty prior to a certain date is barred by limitation (para. 3).
The Tribunal examined previous judgments and found that the predominance of jute in laminated jute bags qualifies them as "jute manufactures" under Tariff Item 22A, CET, after a specific date when the test of predominance was introduced. The Tribunal rejected the request for remand to ascertain jute's predominance, as it was undisputed that jute was the major constituent in the bags manufactured by the appellants. Thus, the goods were classified under Tariff Item 22A after the introduction of the predominance test (para. 4).
Regarding the demand for duty before the date when the predominance test was introduced, the Tribunal ruled that the demand was time-barred. The Department's contention of wilful suppression was dismissed based on the Department's own clarifications that laminated jute bags fell under Tariff Item 22A and not Item 68. Therefore, the demand for duty for the specified period was deemed unsustainable due to limitation, leading to the appeal's allowance in favor of the appellants (para. 5).
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of laminated jute bags under the Central Excises and Salt Act, the application of relevant notifications for duty exemption, and the limitation on demanding duty for specific periods, providing relief to the appellants based on the legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.
-
1990 (6) TMI 154
Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of memorandum of appeal.
2. Applicability of Notification 217/86 and MODVAT Scheme to resin coated sand.
3. Classification and excisability of resin coated sand.
4. Time-barred demand of duty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal:
The appellants sought to amend the memorandum of appeal by incorporating new grounds, specifically Ground L, Ground M, and Ground N. Ground L involved the applicability of Notification 217/86 and the MODVAT Scheme to resin coated sand. Ground M was contingent on the acceptance of Ground L. Ground N pertained to the time-barred nature of the demand based on a Trade Notice. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent that Ground L involved a mixed question of law and facts, which was not before the adjudicating authority. Consequently, Ground L was not allowed to be raised. As Ground M was dependent on Ground L, it was also disallowed. Ground N was admitted as it did not require further factual inquiry.
2. Applicability of Notification 217/86 and MODVAT Scheme:
The appellants argued that resin coated sand should be granted exemption under Notification 217/86, dated 2-4-1986, and be considered under the MODVAT Scheme. The Tribunal noted that determining whether resin coated sand falls under the exclusion clause of Notification 217/86 is a factual question. Since there was no admitted material on record to make this determination, the Tribunal did not allow this ground to be raised at this stage.
3. Classification and Excisability of Resin Coated Sand:
The primary question was whether resin coated sand is liable to excise duty and, if so, under which Tariff Heading. The Tribunal examined the facts, including the manufacturing process and the statements of the appellants' representatives. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent that resin coated sand is a new commodity known to the market, with a different name, character, and use. The Tribunal held that the activity of producing resin coated sand amounts to manufacturing a new commodity, making it liable to duty. The adjudicating authority had classified it under Tariff Heading 3801.90, but a subsequent Trade Notice indicated classification under Heading 6807.00. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in Hindustan Polymers, held that duty should be demandable under Tariff Heading 6807.00.
4. Time-barred Demand of Duty:
The appellants contended that the demand for duty was time-barred, as the notice was issued on 28-1-1987 for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-8-1986. The Tribunal considered whether the larger period of limitation could be invoked. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating officer had refrained from imposing any penalty, indicating an absence of mens rea. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Padmini Products, which requires something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer to invoke the extended period. The Tribunal found that no mens rea could be attributed to the appellants, as the product was not dutiable before 1-3-1986. Consequently, the demand was limited to the normal period of six months under Tariff Heading 6807.00.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted Ground N while disallowing Grounds L and M. It held that resin coated sand is liable to duty under Tariff Heading 6807.00 and limited the demand to six months. The appeal was otherwise rejected.
-
1990 (6) TMI 153
Issues:
1. Correct issuance of Special Imprest Licences under the Import & Export Policy 1988-91.
2. Dispute over entitlement to Special Imprest Licence based on policy provisions.
3. Failure to correct the initial licence issued and issue the second licence.
The judgment by M.L. Pendse, J., of the Bombay High Court pertained to a case where the petitioners, an export house dealing in video cassettes, applied for Special Imprest Licences under the Duty Exemption Entitlements Scheme of the Import & Export Policy 1988-91. The petitioners had initially applied for the licences in August 1988 and later submitted a second application in March 1989. However, the respondents delayed issuing the second licence and failed to correct the first licence, which referred to an "advance licence" instead of a "Special Imprest Licence."
The respondents, represented by Shri J.P. Devdhar, initially objected to correcting the first licence, claiming the petitioners were not entitled to a Special Imprest Licence as per para 220(iii) of the Import-Export Policy 1988-91. However, the court found that the petitioners had met the requirements specified in the policy for obtaining the Special Imprest Licence. The court noted that the import authorities were not required to consider the customs exemption notification under the Customs Act, and the respondents were obligated to issue the Special Imprest Licences as demanded by the petitioners.
In the final ruling, the court made the rule absolute and directed the respondents to issue the petitioners the two Special Imprest Licences within six weeks from the date of the judgment, emphasizing that the respondents were bound to fulfill this obligation. The judgment concluded without any order as to costs, holding the respondents accountable for the correct issuance of the licences as per the Import & Export Policy 1988-91.
---
-
1990 (6) TMI 152
Issues:
Challenge to notice under Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.
Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging a notice issued under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The petitioner argued that the notice was vague and did not comply with the requirements of Section 6(1) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the properties in question were acquired before the promulgation of the Gold Control Act and therefore not subject to forfeiture under the Act. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Act applied to the petitioner as the spouse of a convict and referred to relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 3(1)(c) and Section 7 regarding forfeiture of property. The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties.
The Court noted that the Act applied to the petitioner as the spouse of a person covered by the Act and found that the issuance of the notice was not irregular or illegal. The Court clarified that its role was to determine if the initiation of proceedings was within jurisdiction, not to assess the notice's propriety or the proceedings' merit. The Court emphasized that it was not interfering at this stage as the merit of the petitioner's reply and the competent authority's actions under Section 7 were yet to be considered. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, the Rule discharged, and any interim orders vacated. The Court directed the competent authority to continue considering the matter on merit, providing the petitioner with copies of reasons and relevant documents. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
-
1990 (6) TMI 151
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 3-ply, 5-ply, and 7-ply laminated films.
2. Classification of plastic multilaminated collapsible tubes.
3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 182/82 and Notification 118/75.
4. Marketability and excisability of the laminated films.
5. Legitimacy of reclassification by the Assistant Collector.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of 3-ply, 5-ply, and 7-ply Laminated Films:
The appeals centered around the classification of these laminated films. Initially, the Assistant Collector classified:
- 3-ply and 7-ply laminated films under T.I. 68 but denied the benefit of Notification 182/82.
- 5-ply laminated films were considered intermediate products not liable to duty under T.I. 27 (7), unless removed from the machine.
The Collector upheld these classifications but granted the benefit of Notification 118/75 for 3-ply and 7-ply laminates used in the factory.
2. Classification of Plastic Multilaminated Collapsible Tubes:
The collapsible tubes made from 7-ply laminated films were classified under T.I. 68, with the benefit of Notification 182/82 being denied due to their composite nature. The Collector confirmed this classification.
3. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification 182/82 and Notification 118/75:
The appellants claimed exemptions under Notifications 182/82 and 118/75. The Assistant Collector and Collector denied the benefit of Notification 182/82, arguing that the products were not solely made out of material falling under T.I. 15A (i). However, they granted the benefit of Notification 118/75 for items used within the factory.
4. Marketability and Excisability of the Laminated Films:
The appellants argued that the laminated films (3-ply, 5-ply, and 7-ply) were not marketable as they were not ordinarily bought and sold in the market, thus questioning their excisability. They cited Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that marketability is essential for excisability.
5. Legitimacy of Reclassification by the Assistant Collector:
The Assistant Collector reclassified 7-ply laminated sheets from T.I. 68 to T.I. 27 (7) through a subsequent show cause notice. The Tribunal found this reclassification unjustified, citing that there was no change in circumstances or law to warrant it. The proper remedy for the Revenue would have been to appeal the initial classification.
Findings and Judgments:
Appeal No. 239/88-C:
The Tribunal found the reclassification of 7-ply laminated sheets from T.I. 68 to T.I. 27 (7) by the Assistant Collector unjustified, as it was based on a mere change of opinion without new circumstances or changes in law. Thus, the orders dated 7-10-1985 and 27-10-1987 were not sustainable.
Appeal No. 2215/89-C:
Following the unsustainability of the order dated 7-10-1985, the subsequent order dated 17-10-1988 and the related appeal order dated 8-6-1989 were also deemed unsustainable.
Appeal No. 265/85-C:
The classification under T.I. 68 was not contested by the department. The Tribunal upheld the classification under T.I. 68 but denied the benefit of Notification 182/82, applying the Supreme Court's decision in the Geep Flashlight case. The benefit of Notification 118/75 was correctly extended.
Conclusion:
The products were classified under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were eligible for the benefit of Notification 118/75. However, the benefit of Notification 182/82 was not available to these products. The appeals were allowed in these terms.
-
1990 (6) TMI 150
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of exemption under Notification 176/77 dated 18-6-1977.
2. Alleged manipulation of capital investment figures.
3. Determination of the value of capital investment.
4. Alleged suppression of facts and evasion of duty.
5. Time-barred demand of duty.
6. Interpretation and application of Notification 105/80 dated 19-6-1980.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Exemption under Notification 176/77:
The appellant company was initially exempted from duty due to having less than 50 workers. Post 18-6-1977, Notification 176/77 changed the basis of exemption to depend on the value of clearances and capital investment in plant and machinery. The company claimed that their capital investment was below Rs. 10 lakhs, thus qualifying for exemption.
2. Alleged Manipulation of Capital Investment Figures:
The department alleged that the appellant manipulated the capital investment figures. The appellant reported an investment of Rs. 6,83,130/- based on a Chartered Accountant's certificate and a valuer's report. However, the department's investigation revealed the actual investment was over Rs. 16,03,146/- based on the company's balance-sheet.
3. Determination of the Value of Capital Investment:
The show cause notice alleged that the values declared by the appellant were depreciated values rather than the face value at the time of installation, as required by the notification. The appellant argued that the plant and machinery for Bisphenol production were in disuse, thus justifying the lower valuation.
4. Alleged Suppression of Facts and Evasion of Duty:
The show cause notice accused the appellant of willful suppression of facts with the intent to evade duty, demanding Rs. 2,57,813.96p for the period 18-6-1977 to 31-12-1980. The appellant contended that the department was fully informed and had approved their classification list, negating any suppression of facts.
5. Time-barred Demand of Duty:
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 18-11-1981 for the period 18-6-1977 to 31-12-1980. They claimed that the department's approval of their classification list indicated no suppression of facts. The department countered that the appellant's misleading certificates justified the extended time limit for duty recovery.
6. Interpretation and Application of Notification 105/80:
The appellant cited Tribunal judgments to argue that the explanation added in Notification 105/80 should be read into earlier notifications, allowing exclusion of machinery rendered unfit for use. The department maintained that the machinery for Bisphenol production was still installed and not unfit for use, thus its value should be included in the capital investment.
Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of machinery being in disuse was not credible, as Bisphenol was declared in their classification list. The machinery was not permanently removed or rendered unfit for use, thus its value should be included in the capital investment.
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on previous judgments, as the machinery was not unfit for use. The certificates provided by the appellant were deemed a deliberate concoction, indicating depreciation rather than face value at installation. This led to the conclusion of willful suppression of facts, justifying the extended time limit for duty recovery.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the demand for duty and the imposed penalty. The President concurred, noting that the valuation certificates indicated current market value, not installation value, confirming the appellant's deliberate suppression of facts.
-
1990 (6) TMI 149
Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur regarding re-import of goods under Section 20 CA-1962.
- Allegation by the department that the identity of the re-imported goods was not established.
- Imposition of a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the appellants by the Collector.
- Question of penalizing the importers for misdeclaration of contents.
- Request for permission to re-export the consignment on payment of a token fine.
- Discrepancy between the re-exported goods and the goods originally exported.
- Consideration of the violation of the Import and Export (Control) Act and the Customs Act.
- Evaluation of whether the fine imposed on the appellants was justified.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi concerns the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur's order regarding the re-import of goods under Section 20 CA-1962. The appellants had exported cut and polished stones on approval basis, and upon the importer returning certain lots, the appellants filed a Bill of Entry for re-import. The department alleged that the identity of the re-imported goods was not established, leading to the imposition of a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the appellants by the Collector. The appellants contended that the Bill of Entry was filed based on information from the exporter, and the goods were re-exported after the discrepancy was noted. The Collector acknowledged the importers' bona fides and attributed the error to the consignment agent's negligence.
The department emphasized that the re-exported goods did not match the originally exported goods in terms of quantity and weight, leading to a violation of the Customs Act and the Import and Export (Control) Act. Despite allowing re-export on payment of a nominal fine, the department opposed setting aside the fine. The Tribunal observed that the Collector rightly found the goods' identity was not established and the Bill of Entry lacked a true declaration. However, as there was no evidence of intentional misdeclaration, the violation was deemed technical and unintentional. The Tribunal agreed that the Collector's decision to allow re-export indicated a case of carelessness or negligence rather than deliberate violation, warranting the setting aside of the fine.
In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the Collector's order to set aside the fine imposed on the appellants, considering the technical and unintentional nature of the violation. The appeal was accepted based on the findings of the Collector regarding the bona fides of the appellants and the inadvertent nature of the error.
-
1990 (6) TMI 148
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of duty for the period beyond 20th August 1985.
2. Legality of penalty imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Demand of Duty for the Period Beyond 20th August 1985:
The appellants challenged the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 33,494/- for the period of 1985-86, arguing that the original proceedings and evidence pertained only up to 20th August 1985. The Tribunal noted that the initial show cause notice issued on 5-9-1985 covered the period from September 1982 to May 1983 and April 1985 to August 1985. The demand for this period was ultimately confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in an order dated 29-02-1988, which reached finality.
The appellants contended that no fresh evidence had been presented to justify the demand for the period beyond 20th August 1985. They highlighted that the match units were under physical control of the Department, and any irregularities post-20th August 1985 would have been detected by the officers during their visits. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the facts and evidence cited in the subsequent show cause notice dated 22-9-1988 were identical to those in the earlier notice, with no new evidence provided for the period after 20th August 1985.
The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of any substantive evidence of clandestine clearance of matches after 20th August 1985, the demand for duty for this period could not be sustained. Consequently, the order demanding duty for the period beyond 20th August 1985 was set aside.
2. Legality of Penalty Imposed:
The penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was initially imposed for violation of Rule 53, under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in the order dated 29-02-1988. The appellants had already paid this penalty, and it was not challenged further.
However, the Tribunal noted that since the charge of clandestine removal of matches after 20th August 1985 was not sustainable due to lack of evidence, the basis for imposing any additional penalty also did not exist. The Tribunal emphasized that no further proceedings could be drawn for the period before 20th August 1985 as the matter had already been concluded by the appellate authority's order.
Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the additional penalty imposed in the impugned order, maintaining that the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- already paid by the appellants was sufficient and no further penalty was warranted.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order demanding duty for the period beyond 20th August 1985, as well as the additional penalty, was set aside. The Tribunal upheld the finality of the duty demand and penalty for the period up to 20th August 1985 as per the appellate authority's order dated 29-02-1988.
-
1990 (6) TMI 147
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty
2. Limitation
Detailed Analysis:
Penalty:
At the outset, the learned Advocate clarified that appeals No. 411/81 and 412/81 relate only to classification lists and there is neither any demand made nor penalty imposed in these two matters. Therefore, while this order relates to all four appeals in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in effect, it would be applicable only to appeals No. 943/85-D and 787/80-D.
The appellants argued that they acted bona fide and thus, no penalty should be imposed. They did not obtain an L4 license nor followed other requirements of Central Excise law as they believed their product was exempt. They cited several judgments to support this argument, including Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise and Murugan and Company v. Dy. Collector of Central Excise, which emphasized that penalties are warranted only for quasi-criminal activities or intentional evasion. The appellants also argued that the show cause notice did not allege suppression of facts or misstatement, which are prerequisites for imposing penalties.
In contrast, the respondent argued that the appellants had no reason to believe that Notification No. 55/75 was available to them and that the trade notice cited by the appellants was not applicable to their case. They contended that the appellants' actions amounted to suppression or misstatement, justifying the imposition of penalties.
Upon reviewing the show cause notices and the arguments, the Tribunal concluded that there was no deliberate attempt by the appellants to evade duty through suppression or misstatement. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no warrant for imposing penalties.
Limitation:
The appellants argued that the demands were not sustainable under Rule 10 as they were substantially hit by limitation. They contended that only the normal period of limitation should apply, as they had a bona fide belief that their product was exempt from duty under Notification No. 55/75-CE. The appellants listed seven circumstances to justify their bona fides, including the Central Excise Trade Notice No. 103/75, orders from the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, and the CCCN explanatory notes.
The respondent countered that the appellants had no valid reason to believe their product was exempt and that the trade notice was not applicable to them. They argued that the appellants' actions during the periods of demand indicated a lack of requisite knowledge and that the show cause notices contained necessary allegations of suppression or misstatement.
The Tribunal examined the seven circumstances listed by the appellants and noted that much of the evidence and events cited occurred after the period in question. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that for invoking the extended period of demand, the Department must conclusively prove the necessary elements of suppression or misstatement. The Tribunal found that the show cause notices did not contain direct allegations of suppression or misstatement and that the appellants might have had a bona fide belief in their eligibility for exemption.
Considering all circumstances, the Tribunal held that only the normal period of limitation should be applied and that the extended period was not justified. Consequently, the demands for duty beyond the normal period of limitation were not sustained.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the four appeals accordingly, applying only the normal period of limitation and ruling out the imposition of penalties.
........
|
9911796707
