|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 267 Records
-
1986 (8) TMI 310 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Creation of Trusts by First Respondent ... ... ... ... ..... tations have been made to the respondents 2 to 5 since 1981. There are no grounds to think that these representations did not receive consideration of respondents 2 to 5. The fact that no action has been taken by respondents 2 to 5 would undoubtedly indicate that on a scrutiny of relevant provisions of law respondents 2 to 5 were satisfied that there were no violations by the first respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government was, therefore, right in contending that respondents 2 to 5 did not consider it necessary to take any action on the representations of the petitioner as no case of violation of the provisions of Sections 11 and 16 of the Act was made out. In that view the question of issuing any direction to the 2nd respondent to take action against respondents 2 to 5 under Section 95 of the Act does not arise. 12. emsp In the result, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for the issue of Rule Nisi. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
-
1986 (8) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification list not to be re-opened if already approved when no change in pattern of manufacture
-
1986 (8) TMI 302 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... . 2407 of 1982 decided on 7-8-1986 in the case of Tata Exports Ltd. which has been brought to our notice by the appellants rsquo advocate subsequent to the hearing of their appeal. This decision covers an identical import of brandy concentrate by M/s. Tata Exports Ltd. In this judgment the Hon rsquo ble High Court has held that the Government of India who ultimately decided the Revision Application against M/s. Tata Exports Ltd. should have followed their earlier decision in an identical case of the same petitioners reported in 1981 E.L.T. 375. In addition, the Hon rsquo ble High Court inter alia further held that the goods imported were brandy concentrate and even on merits the order of the Collector, as confirmed by the Appellate Order of the Board and Revisional Order of the Government, was not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. Since this decision of the Bombay High Court is in an identical case, we respectfully adopt it and allow the present appeal.
-
1986 (8) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal - Transfer of revision proceeding with Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... he matter. The Tribunal decision on Sudesh Rattan Mahajan 1983 E.L.T. 2517 was a decision by North Regional Bench consisting of two members. Subsequently, this decision was doubted by East Regional Bench consisting of another two members in the present appeal. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Present Bench of three members in which one member has recorded a dissent with the result that the Sudesh Rattan Mahajan rsquo s case has been endorsed only by two members. Now a peculiar situation has arisen wherein the two members expressing their doubts as to the correctness of the said decision have been over-Ruled by another set of two members. It is now incumbent either to reconsider the decision in this case and in the case of Sudesh Rattan Mahajan v. Collector 1983 E.L.T. 2517 or to enforce the second proviso to Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, by putting all Regional Bench appeals falling within the mischief of the said second proviso to an admission stage.
-
1986 (8) TMI 300 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Remission of duty for loss or destruction of excisable goods by natural cause ... ... ... ... ..... iscovered it and that the bags were not available for verification. These findings of the Collector do not show a judicious bent of mind on his part. The evidence by way of loss to the appellants including the one applying for remission leave no doubt that the goods were lost in the floods. The absence of the gunny bags would not justify any adverse conclusion as it would have entailed health hazards to preserve such damaged gunny bags in the factory rsquo s premises. These would have also occupied unnecessary space and acted as a pollution agent. In these circumstances, the request of the appellants therefore, falls squarely within the purview of Rule 49. In these circumstances, I find that the request of the appellants for remission of duty was both genuine and bonafide. Accordingly, I set aside the Collector rsquo s order and grant remission of duty on the goods lost in floods and direct that refund of duty amounting to Rs. 35,650/- be paid by the appellants under protest.
-
1986 (8) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Adjudication Order ... ... ... ... ..... r Section 47 of the Act and the order permitting the clearance of the goods by the proper officer must be presumed to be after due adjudication firstly with regard to the fact whether or not the import of the goods is prohibited by the Act or any other law for the time being in force within the meaning of sub-section (33) of Section 2 ibid and the proper officer was an adjudicating authority within the meaning of sub-section (1) thereof. It is not at all necessary that some infraction of law which brings the imported goods within the fold of prohibited goods must be pointed out by the adjudicating authority before its ultimate order of clearance of the goods and payment of duty thereon can be cloathed with the character of an order after due adjudication . 7. emsp Therefore, following the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid rulings, I hold that the impugned order appealed against is not sustainable in law and in this view of the matter, I set aside the same and allow the appeal.
-
1986 (8) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold - Seizure of gold of foreign origin ... ... ... ... ..... re dollars there is no evidence on record to establish that they were smuggled into the country. On the other hand, the appellant has been able to substantiate with reference to documentary evidence that the foreign currency represented the unexpended foreign exchange released in favour of the appellant under law and therefore when the possession of the currency is not unlawful, the mere non-surrendering of the same to the proper authority would only be a breach which is venial in nature and technical in character meriting a sympathetic consideration. We, therefore, hold that the confiscation of the U.S. and Singapore dollars (420 and 585 respectively) is not warranted under law and we, therefore, set aside the order of confiscation in relation thereto with consequential relief. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only). Except for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 285 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - Firm contract for import ... ... ... ... ..... 977 (d) consequently, the import in question was perfectly valid and not, by any means, violative of the Public Notice No. 67/77 dated 2-9-1977. There is no contravention that could be penalised either by fine or penalty. 43. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in our Brother Hegde rsquo s order. I agree with him that the appeals are to be allowed. The penalty and fines, if paid, should be refunded. 44. Order accordingly. FINAL ORDER 45. emsp The points of difference in this appeal were referred by the President in terms of Section 129C(5) of the/Customs Act to the Third Member. He has now recorded his findings. As per Section 129C(5), the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the majority opinion. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Collector and the Board and allow three appeals with consequential refund of fines and penalty to the appellants. 14th August, 1986. Sd/ - (K.S. Dilipsinhji) Member (Technical) Sd/ - (K. Gopal Hegde) Member (Judicial).
-
1986 (8) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Deposit, Pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied ... ... ... ... ..... ean that the appeal will have to be kept on file for ever even when the requirement of Section 129(1) has not been complied with. Retention of such an appeal on file will serve no purpose whatsoever because unless Section 129(1) is complied with, the appellate authority cannot proceed to hear an appeal on merits. Therefore, the logical consequence of failure to comply with Section 129(1) is the rejection of appeal on that ground rdquo . 8. In the instant case the appellant has neither complied with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty under the main part of the provision nor with the terms and conditions of stay order No. C-41/85, dated 14-3-1985. Therefore, following the Supreme Court decision (Supra), the respondent Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur rsquo s application for rejection of the appeal for non-compliance in the provision aforesaid is accepted. We accept the application and reject the appeal for non-compliance for Section 35-F of the Act and order accordingly.
-
1986 (8) TMI 283 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Customs - Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... police officer seizes the goods, the accused loses possession which vests in the police. When that possession is transferred, by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 180 to the Customs authorities, there is no fresh seizure under the Sea Customs Act. 4. emsp Therefore de-horse the applicability of Section 123 of the Act on the basis of the admission of the contravention of the charge by the appellant before me I confirm the finding in the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of this case, keeping the nature of the articles and their value in mind, I feel interests of justice would be met if the appellant is permitted to exercise the option of redemption In respect of the same and accordingly, I modify the absolute order of confiscation under the impugned order and permit the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,500/-. So far as penalty is concerned I confirm the same. Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Seizure of gold coins with foreign markings ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal as a Bench in a number of gold control cases has taken the view that an option for redemption could be given depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Recently a similar view was taken by the Bench in Appeals Nos. 34, 35 and 160 of 1984, dated 1-8-1986. Consistent with the ratio of the Bench ruling in similar cases, I modify the order of absolute confiscation of the six gold coins under seizure and permit the appellant to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). The option shall be exercised within a month from the receipt of this order and immediately on redemption, the appellant shall convert the same into ornaments through a licensed gold dealer or certified goldsmith and report compliance thereto to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kottayam within two weeks thereafter, failing which the coins will be liable for absolute confiscation. Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 281 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Seizure of contraband goods by police ... ... ... ... ..... atures of identification and connecting Hastimal therewith, it is just and proper that the adjudicating authority should have atleast felt satisfied by means of a personal identification of appellant Hastimal by the said Basheer Ahamed. Be that as it may, the statement of Basheer Ahamed, dated 22-3-1983 further shows that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid to him by one Sardarmal as advance rent. The evidence on record does not clinchingly establish that the appellant Hastimal was in possession of the house even de facto. At any rate Hastimal rsquo s connection with the house is not clearly established and the circumstances merely throw a suspicion against Hastimal which can never take the place of proof. Therefore, on entire consideration of the materials available on record, I am inclined to hold that the impugned order appealed against is not sustainable in law for the reasons indicated above and I, therefore, set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeals.
-
1986 (8) TMI 260 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold - Seizure and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the Act. If the statement of the appellant referred to supra is taken as voluntary and true it would only spell out that the appellant was dealing with the ornaments as a dealer in contravention of Section 27(1) of the Act. As I observed earlier in-as-much as the appellant has been clearly exonerated of the charge under Section 27(1) of the Act by the lower appellate authority and since the department has not chosen to question the correctness of the same in a manner known to law till date, it is not open to the department now before me during the course of the appeal to put forth any plea contending that the charge under Section 27(1) is made out against the appellant. Therefore in conclusion I hold that the charges under Section 6(2) is not legally tenable in the context of the factual evidence available on record and inasmuch as, the appellant has been exonerated of the charges under Section 27(1), the impugned order appealed against is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 259 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... round that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle in question. Indeed the adjudicating authority has observed under the impugned order, ldquo So in the absence of any documentary proof as to the change of ownership from Shri Ansar Basha to any other person, it has to be held that Shri Ansar Basha is the present owner of the van. As such he is liable to penalty as his van was used for the transport of the Indian goods which were attempted to be exported out of the country illicitly. rdquo (emphasis supplied). The reasoning of the adjudicating authority is not correct in law and mere Ownership will not fasten a penal liability on a person in terms of. Section 114 of the Act unless there is acceptable evidence to show that the person lsquo concerned was guilty of any act or omission in relation to the goods under seizure or was guilty of abetment in respect thereof. In the result we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1986 (8) TMI 252 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... arned advocate are not valid and hence they have to be discarded. In this view, it is seen that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the levy of penalty on Shri Sukar Naran under Section 74 was justified. As regards the harsh nature of the penalty, it is seen that the value of the gold was Rs. 4,40,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been levied. The adjudicating officer has recorded his reasons for levying such a .harsh penalty. This is the fact that Shri Sukar Naran played an important role for smuggling of contraband goods during the present and the previous three trips of Jalaram Vishwas. From this angle, we find that the penalty imposed is not harsh. In fact, the Collector could have imposed a maximum of 5 times the value of the gold as penalty under Section 74. From this point of view, the penalty amount is within the legal limit in this behalf. In view of this fact, we find that the Collector rsquo s order is correct. We confirm the same and reject the appeal.
-
1986 (8) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... doubt by the first statement of Shri Mahendra Kumar and Arum Agarwal rdquo . We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this reasoning of the adjudicating authority extracted above. Proceedings against this appellant under the Gold Control Act being penal in nature, it is for the department to establish and prove by acceptable legal evidence the charge of contravention and in the instant case there is no evidence on record to bring home the charge against the appellant. The statement of Mahendra Kumar Agarwal and other circumstances at the worst would only raise a suspicion in our mind that appellant was eventual intended consignee of the gold and it is well settled that suspicion however grave it may be cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, on consideration of the evidence on record, we are inclined to hold that the charge against the appellant has not been brought home and in this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order now appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1986 (8) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Customs - Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... and were recovered from his possession. The very fact that the respondent was intercepted while carrying on one brown coloured suit-case in his right hand and on opening the suit-case, the seized goods were duly wrapped in one blanket alongwith three instruction book-lets, indicates that they were brought into India without payment of duty. The respondent rsquo s conduct including his contradictory stand indicates of their smuggled character or mens rea. In any case, there is some evidence on record to enable us to come to the conclusion that the goods in question must have been known to the respondent to be smuggled even if he was not a party to a fraudulent evasion of duty and the defence of the respondent that the same were brought by one Santokh Singh or were given by a German Lady is an after-thought. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority is restored.
-
1986 (8) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Precedents - Appellate Tribunals jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... he merits of the issue. Nor was the Delhi High Court judgment cited before the Bench in that case. In the Kalpana case, however, there was discussion on the merits of the issue as well as the Delhi High Court judgment was brought in. In the circumstances, we hold that there was no real conflict in these two judgments of the Tribunal. The Tribunal Order in Kalpana case was made by a Bench of three Members. Ours being a two-Member Bench, we should, in the normal course follow that order unless we feel that we have some reservations about that order. But since the said order follows the ratio of the Delhi High Court judgment, which is the only High Court judgment on the point at issue, the question of our having any reservations does not arise. 9. emsp In the circumstances, we hold that item 70(1) ICT was the correct classification for Tungsten Wire/Filament Wire imported during the material period. We allow the 14 appeals accordingly with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (8) TMI 248 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Cess - Refund of Handloom cess ... ... ... ... ..... ount of interest is not admissible. Section 11B permits refund of duty and under explanation (A) refund includes rebate. Hence the refund of excise duty is covered by Section 11B. But what is not covered is the amount of interest as this is not a duty of excise for the purpose of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In this behalf the definition of duty can pertinently be referred to as laid down under Rule 2(v) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the amount of interest levied under Rule 49A is not duty within the aforesaid definition, its refund under Rule 12A read with Section 11B is not permissible. Since the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order dated 6-5-1983 has allowed this refund, the Collector rsquo s order is not correct or proper to this extent. Accordingly, I set aside his order to this effect and restore the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bulsar. Thus the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, partly succeeds.
-
1986 (8) TMI 247 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... able to suffer any further duty. If the appellants are not able to establish the genuineness of the baggage receipts and relate them to the goods in question, the appellants will be liable to pay duty as per law. The learned counsel at this stage submitted that even if the appellants are not able to establish and connect the baggage receipts with the goods in question, duty will be leviable only in terms of Section 15 of the Act. Without expressing any opinion on this I make it clear that it is open to the appellants to putforth and substantiate this plea to the satisfaction of the original authority. In this view of the matter the appeals are remitted back to the original authority who shall decide the limited question with reference to the genuineness of the baggage receipts relied upon by the appellants vis-a-vis the goods under seizure and the duty leviable on the goods as per law after affording them an opportunity of being heard. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
........
|
