Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s with reference to other provisions of the Rules. 18. In the state of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Revenue has not established the charge of under-valuation/mis-declaration of value on the part of the appellants. In this context, we cannot but take note of the fact that the Additional Collector has not confiscated the goods or imposed any penalty on the appellants under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. 19. In the light of the discussions above, we allow the appellants rsquo claim as regards valuation of the goods and direct the Additional Collector to determine the assessable value of the goods on the basis of the invoiced price of 1485 per M.T. CIF. We dismiss the appellants rsquo claim as regards classification of the goods. However, we direct the Additional Collector to re-determine the rate of duty applicable to the subject goods in the light of the observations in para 11 and 12 of this order. 20. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1990 (6) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Coal Tar Pitch - Distinct from coal tar or partially distilled tar ... ... ... ... ..... y distinguishable from the one in hand. In the instant case, the Deptt. had drawn the samples and the test report of the samples is clearly in favour of the appellants. Moreover, in the present case, the evidence of the appellants has not been rejected by the lower authorities. The Bench had observed in the cited ruling at para 15 that ldquo No evidence has been placed before us that from the pitch which is the residuary product of distillation of tar any further distillation product is obtained rdquo . The position in the case in hand is a different one. Therefore, the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. case (supra) may not apply directly to the entire facts and circumstances of this case and is distinguishable. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. FINAL ORDER OF THE BENCH In the light of the majority opinion, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated in paragraphs 8 to 12 of this order with consequential relief to the appellants. Appeal is partially allowed,
-
1990 (6) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Goods cleared without contesting assessment after drawal of samples ... ... ... ... ..... idering that there is no technical definition available in standard works for ceramic colours and in the absence of any empirical formula for it. The appellants have made a further argument that the trade parlance criteria ought to have been adopted rather than test result for classification. However, the appellants have themselves failed to put forth any literature regarding the goods from the manufacturer, although it is evident from the records that the goods are standard branded products of the manufacturers, and the appellants themselves are aware of the groupings of the products by the manufacturer, as is seen from their letter dated. 7-7-1983 to the Asst. Collr., wherein they have explained that the manufacturers classify the paste form of the goods as lsquo Z rsquo series and the lump form as lsquo HZ rsquo series. 5. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the lower authorities in these cases, and the appeals are, accordingly, rejected.
-
1990 (6) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 3.52 also refers to plane lenses. 20. In the Indian Standards of glossary terms I.S. 8260 Part 1976 entry 3.68 mentions sun glasses or spectacles are of filtering action to reduce the intensity in general. 21. These definitions show that the term ldquo spectacles rdquo includes sun glasses and the spectacle lenses or sun glass lenses can be even plane lenses i.e. lense with lsquo 0 rsquo power. In other words sun glasses are a type of spectacles in which the lenses are tinted to reduce light transmission and avoid glare. It is also noticed that Shri M.R. Padhya, Prof. of Applied Physics, Centre of Advanced Studies, Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay University has also opined that cut and moulded glasses manufactured by the appellants are spectacle lenses. 22. In view of the above observations, we hold that the product in question is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and not 23(A)(4). The appeal is accordingly accepted as already announced in the open Court.
-
1990 (6) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import of goods with accessories ... ... ... ... ..... pplicability of the Rules to the imported items. 7. As regards the second question of reclassification under Heading No. 38.01/19 (i) C.T.A it is to be observed that refund claim application has been filed well within 6 months as provided in Section 27. It is well settled that the authorities can always correct the original classification. Hence we do not find much force in the learned DR rsquo s contention. The citations relied on by the Revenue are not on this point. The appellants have produced the relevant documents in support of their claims. But these documents were not placed before the original authority for consideration. The matter requires re-consideration as the original authority has rejected the refund application as unsubstantiated. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector (Refunds), Madras for de novo adjudication and the same shall be disposed of after giving notice to the appellants and hearing them in the matter.
-
1990 (6) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d item supplied by M/s. Good Year International Corporation. The literature gives details of the product being a synthetic rubber which fact is corroborated by the certificates issued by the Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association after carrying out sample test of the product. The Tariff Heading 39.03 reads as polymers of styrene, in primary forms. The supplier rsquo s literature and documents disclose clearly that the product is Synthetic Rubber having brand name Chemigum (Synthetic Rubber Crude nitrile) as described in bill of entry. Hence it is classifiable under Heading 4002.59. The appellants are therefore entitled to succeed in this appeal and the same is allowed with consequential relief. Per G. Sankaran, President . - I agree that in the state of the evidence on record, the goods are more appropriately classifiable as Synthetic Rubber under Heading No. 4002.59. In the result, I also agree that the appeal be allowed with consequential relief to the Appellants.
-
1990 (6) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification-Amendment of clarificatory nature to have retrospective effect ... ... ... ... ..... centigrade thermometer. This notification was amended by Notification No. 295/87. In our view, this amending notification is clarificatory in nature. In this notification, the words ldquo or retained on board the vessel at the time of its reversion from foreign run to coastal run and consumed during its coastal run rdquo were to be inserted after the word ldquo bunker rdquo appearing in Notification No. 157/76. We agree with the logic behind the Collector rsquo s order in deeming this later notification as being clarificatory in nature. If so, inclusion of the above words shall be deemed to be from the date of the original Notification No. 157/76. The contention of the Revenue that the inclusion of these words would be effective only from the date of Notification No. 295/87-Cus. is not a correct reading. Notification No. 295/87 is a clarificatory notification to remove ambiguity in the earlier notification. Therefore there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... foist the citizen with the liability. It must be remembered that the mere change of opinion of an officer without any basis is not sufficient to conclude that the earlier orders were incorrect. In fact there are two views as to under which item a particular product falls and if the department is not sure of the decision, then the benefit must go to taxpayer. rdquo It was, therefore, that the Court held that the Superintendent rsquo s order holding that the product was liable to duty under Item No. 59, was entirely illegal and unjust. In our respectful opinion the High Court rsquo s judgment is no authority for classification of the goods under Item No. 15A(2), of the Schedule. 9. In the circumstances, we would respectfully follow the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 368/89-C dated 2-8-1989 which was on a similar product and hold that the goods in the instant case fall under Item No. 68, of the Schedule. We allow the appeal on this basis with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ntended that no Show Cause Notice was issued to him, and for the alleged contravention of Rule 198 of the Central Excise Rules, no Show Cause Notice was issued and the facts already mentioned in the appeal No. 1841/85-B1, which form part of this appeal, the appellant requests for setting aside the penalty. The above facts were reiterated by the Ld. Advocate during his arguments. 11. On a scrutiny of the Show Cause Notice dated 28-1-84, it is seen that mention about the alleged contravention of M/s. Nutherm Pvt. Ltd. has been made and also about the alleged contravention of Rule 198, and para-11 states why penalty should not be imposed separately. But no mention of the Director has been made specifically. However, in view of the findings in the Appeal No. E/1841/85-B and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Nutherm Pvt. Ltd. has been set aside. Since the issues are common, and no penalty is warranted, the penalty on the appellant is set aside and consequently the appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Capital investment on plant and machinery ... ... ... ... ..... unal), M/s. Ahmedabad Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, goes in favour of the appellant. In effect, by excluding these items from the capital investment and also the arithmetical errors in calculation for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the appellants will be well within the exemption limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. The letters issued by the Department of Industries for excluding certain of the civil works while computing the value of capital investment has to be given due consideration and unless the Department has been able to prove to the contrary that these civil works do form part of the plant and machinery such costs would have to be excluded and the certificates have to be accepted, more so, when such certificates have been issued on the basis of certain norms and guidelines for determining the scope of small scale industrial units. 6. In view of the above findings, the order of the Collector is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1990 (6) TMI 156 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
Sugar - Incentive rebate in excess production of sugar ... ... ... ... ..... ers have been delegated by the legislature it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. But where no such language is to be found it has been held by the Courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or bye-law which can operate with retrospective effect. 7. From the above, there is nothing to indicate that, in the case of beneficient legislation, retrospective effect can be granted. Such an inference cannot be drawn especially in the light of the judgment of the SC reported in 1978 E.L.T. J-375 (Supra). We see no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. 8. We uphold the order of the lower appellate authority and dismiss these appeals.
-
1990 (6) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... unal (Supra) we hold that the goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 22A, CET after 1-3-1977 (on which date the predominant test was introduced in the Tariff entry) and the subject goods were eligble for the benefit of Notification No. 53/65 dated 20-3-1965. 5. On the issue of demand of duty for clearances of the goods prior to 1-3-1977, the demand is hopelessly barred by limitation. The contentions of the Dept. that there has been wilful suppression in as much as the appellants have been wilfully mis-declaring their product as jute manufacture does not hold water in the light of Dept rsquo s own clarification dated 4-8-1975 and.14-5-1976 that the laminated jute bags will not fall for classification under Tariff Item 68 but under Tariff Item 22A. The demand of duty for the period from 1-3-1975 to 1-3-1977 is therefore not sustainable on the ground of limitation. As a result the entire demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (6) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... rrect when he asserts that the positive action on the part of the department is required to be shown so that a bona fide belief generated in the mind of an assessee/manufacturer for not applying for the licence or for not paying the duty. On the other hand, we notice that something positive on the part of the manufacturer/assessee is to be established, as observed by the Supreme Court, rather than the mere inaction or failure on the part of such manufacturer or assessee. Since the product was not being assessed to duty prior to 1-3-1986 we find sufficient force in the plea of the appellants rsquo learned advocate that no mens rea can be attributed to the appellants in this respect. This is further strengthened by the plea of non-imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority on the appellants. Hence we hold that the demand should be limited under Tariff Heading 6807.00 to six months period alone. 12. Subject to the aforesaid modification the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1990 (6) TMI 153 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Defective licence issued by authorities to be corrected within specified time ... ... ... ... ..... hat Special Imprest Licence in accordance with the first application is not permissible. The submission is devoid of any merit. It is difficult to appreciate how the respondents can deprive the petitioners of Special Imprest Licence when the conditions in paragraph 220 of the Policy are satisfied. The import authorities have nothing to do with the exemption notification issued under the Customs Act. The respondents are bound to issue Special Imprest Licence and are not required to examine the effect of exemption notification under the Customs Act. In my judgement, the action of the respondents in not correcting the licence initially issued is wholly unsustainable and the respondents are bound to issue the two Special Imprest Licences as demanded by the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the respondents are directed to issue to the petitioners two Special Imprest Licences as claimed within period of six weeks from to-day. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 152 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... proceedings is without jurisdiction or in excess thereof. This Court is not going to consider the propriety of the notice or the merit of the proceedings subsequent to the notice. The stage has yet to be reached. As the Writ Court does not find any irregularity and/or illegality in the issuance of the impugned notice to show cause, there is nothing for this writ court to interfere. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed and the Rule is discharged. All interim orders, if any, are vacated. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merit of the petitioner rsquo s reply to the show cause, and the competent authority under Section 7 as above, will act and go on considering the matter on merit by extending all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner as admissible under law. The petitioner is entitled to receive copies of the reasons and all other documents to be relied upon by the said competent authority. 7. There will be no order for costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... al proceed on the basis of the classification under Item No. 68. Therefore it may not be necessary for the Bench to consider the correctness of this classification. It would suffice to say that there is no appeal against the classification under Item No. 68. 29. Regarding Notification No. 182/82, the explanation defining ldquo articles of plastics rdquo as in Item No. 15A(2) CET is there in this notification also. Applying the Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the Geep Flashlight case the subject goods do not qualify to be articles of plastic. Therefore, this notification would not apply. 30. The benefit of Notification No. 118/75 already stands extended and this is correct. 31. In the result the products fall for classification under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, and are eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification 118/75. However the benefit of Notification 182/82 is not available to the products. 32. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
-
1990 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plant and Machinery - Capital Investment ... ... ... ... ..... d in details in Annexure lsquo A rsquo hereto is Rs. 4,95,200.00 only as on 30-9-1974. rdquo The second valuation certificate makes it clear that the value given was the ldquo realisable current market value rdquo . This latter certificate is dated 20-7-1979. The list of machinery items tally in both cases except for Item Nos. 32 to 35 of the second valuation certificate which together are valued at Rs. 1,49,800.00. If this amount is deducted from the total valuation of Rs. 6,45,000.00 we arrive at Rs. 4,95,200.00 which is the figure mentioned in the first valuation certificate. It is thus clear that the valuation in the first certificate is also on current realisable value basis and not on the face value of the machinery at the time of installation of the plant and machinery which is the relevant value for the purpose of the Exemption Notification. In the circumstances, I agree with the finding in the proposed order and also the disposal of the appeal, namely, its rejection.
-
1990 (6) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ntional act or an innocent and unintentional act. In my opinion the legislative intent was to award punishment in the case of the former and not the latter. 10. As the Collector himself was satisfied about the bona fides of the appellants and considered it to be a case of carelessness or negligence on the part of the exporter (and not the appellant), it would go to show that the violation of the Import and Export (Control) Act and the Customs Act was merely technical and unintentional. In these circumstances there was hardly any cause for imposition of a fine. The Collector having rightly allowed the re-export of the goods in the above circumstances could have very well allowed the matter to rest at that and condoned the technical lapse after administering a caution at the most, if so deemed necessary. In view of the above position we set aside the fine imposed on the appellants. The order of the Collector is modified to this extent only. In the result the appeal is accepted.
-
1990 (6) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ... ... ... ..... the above, I hold that the charge against the appellants for the period after 20th August, 1985 cannot be sustained and I, therefore, set aside the order demanding duty for the period beyond 20th August, 1985. The appellants have been already penalised for Rs. 1,000 in the proceedings originally initiated against them and against that there is no appeal and the learned Advocate informs that the penalty has since been paid. Since the charge of any removal after 20th August, 1985 is not sustainable, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. I may point out that in so far as removal of matches before 20th August, 1985 is concerned, since the proceedings stand concluded by the issue of the order of appellate authority dated 29-02-1988, no further proceedings can be drawn in respect of the same. The order, therefore, of levy of penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the appellants is also not maintainable in law and the same is also set aside. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms.
-
1990 (6) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... failure either to take out a licence or to pay duty on that belief, when there was no contrary evidence that the producer or the manufacturer knew that these were excisable or required to be licenced, would not attract the penal penal provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. If the facts are otherwise, then the position would be different rdquo . We note that at no stage was it alleged or held that the appellants knew that they were clearing excisable goods without a licence and without payment of duty and without observance of other formalities. It is quite possible, in our opinion, that the seven bits of circumstances might have created and sustained a plea in the minds of the appellants that their product was exempt. 20. Taking all the circumstances together we hold that in these cases it is only the normal period of limitation that should be applied. For the same reasons we further hold that there is no warrant for penalty. 21. The four appeals are disposed of accordingly.
........
|