Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 244 Records

• 1985 (1) TMI 223
  
  Issues: Liability for additional duty of customs on imported 1C engines' components
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, dealt with the issue of liability for additional duty of customs, commonly known as CV duty, on goods described as 1C engines' components. The customs authorities had levied CV duty on these imported parts under Tariff Entry 34A of the CET, considering them as 'motor vehicle parts.' However, the appellants argued that these components should be classified as 'machinery parts' for basic customs duty purposes, as they held a license for manufacturing 1C engines and predominantly produced stationary/industrial engines. The appellants contended that they were not manufacturing motor vehicles and, therefore, should not be subject to additional duty as motor vehicle parts.
  
  The appellants relied on previous orders of the Tribunal and requested that the matter be decided based on their earlier submissions. The Asstt. Collector had accepted that central excise duty was not leviable on such goods due to specific notifications exempting them. However, the Appellate Collector considered these parts as motor vehicle parts since they were to be used on engines for dumpers, leading to the imposition of CV duty.
  
  The Tribunal, after reviewing the case with the Departmental representative as the appellants waived personal hearing, found that the imported parts were primarily used for machinery, such as shovels, cranes, compressors, etc., with only a small percentage used in dumpers. Based on previous Tribunal orders and the principal use of the engines, the Tribunal held that the imported parts were not liable for CV duty as motor vehicle parts. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were not meant for motor vehicle engines, as held by the lower authorities, and that no evidence was presented to support this classification.
  
  The Tribunal disagreed with the reasoning behind denying the benefit of certain notifications, stating that strict compliance with the Central Excise Rules was not practical or feasible given the nature of the imported goods' use. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the imported goods should not be treated as motor vehicle parts for CV duty purposes. The appellants were granted consequential relief following the appeal's acceptance.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 219
  
  Issues:
  The judgment involves the interpretation of Notification No. 119/75 for Central Excise duty, determination of substantial transformation in manufacturing processes, consideration of time limitation for show cause notice, and analysis of suppression of facts in relation to duty evasion.
  
  Interpretation of Notification No. 119/75:
  - The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 119/75 for manufacturing goods as job workers.
  - The Collector found that the appellants manufactured Hamilton tubes and were not eligible for the notification.
  - The Board confirmed the duty demand for the tubes, stating that the appellants did not merely fasten metal pieces but underwent substantial transformation.
  
  Substantial Transformation in Manufacturing:
  - The Collector's order revealed that the appellants received steel sheets and produced Hamilton tubes, indicating a significant change in the raw materials.
  - The Board correctly determined that the appellants did not return the same articles as supplied, leading to the denial of Notification No. 119/75 benefits.
  
  Time Limitation for Show Cause Notice:
  - The show cause notice was issued beyond the period of limitation, covering duty from 6-11-1979 to 23-3-1980.
  - The appellants argued against the longer limitation period due to the absence of deliberate suppression of facts to evade duty.
  
  Suppression of Facts and Duty Evasion:
  - The Board's finding of suppression without conclusive proof of mala fides raised questions on the intent to evade duty.
  - The judgment emphasized that deliberate omission of crucial facts to avoid duty payment constitutes suppression, which was not conclusively established in this case.
  - Citing legal precedents, the judgment clarified that mens rea and guilty knowledge are essential for proving suppression and intent to evade duty.
  - Due to the lack of evidence showing deliberate intent to evade duty, the longer limitation period was deemed inapplicable, leading to the appeal's allowance.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the absence of conclusive proof of suppression or intent to evade duty, leading to the rejection of the longer limitation period for the show cause notice.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 217
  
  The appeal was transferred to Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue was whether Acetyl Acetone used for Sulphadimidine production qualifies for duty exemption. The claim for refund was rejected, but Tribunal's previous decision supported the exemption. The appeal was allowed, directing duty exemption for Acetyl Acetone used in drug manufacturing.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 214
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with whether charges like Bank commission, Hundi commission, or interest in invoices should be included in the assessable value. The Collector (Appeals) held that these post-clearance expenses should be abated from the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, even if the appellant opted for a different procedure. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, stating that statutory provisions prevail over notifications, and such expenses cannot be part of the assessable value. The appeal was dismissed.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 213
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay
  - Classification of potassium carbonate as a drug intermediate for exemption under Notification 62/78-C.E.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi was filed by the Department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dated 16-6-1982, where two appeals of the respondents were allowed. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued revoking the classification of potassium carbonate as a drug intermediate for exemption under Notification 62/78-C.E. The Asstt. Collector initially approved the classification list but later revoked it, leading to a demand notice issued to the respondents. The appellate authority, following a previous decision, held that as long as a product was used in the manufacture of drugs as a drug intermediate, the benefit of the exemption notification could not be denied.
  
  Issue 2: Classification of potassium carbonate as a drug intermediate for exemption under Notification 62/78-C.E.
  The main contention revolved around whether potassium carbonate could be classified as a drug intermediate for the purpose of claiming exemption under Notification 62/78-C.E. The Department argued that potassium carbonate, although used in the manufacture of some drugs, was not an active material regulating in the formulation of drugs and, therefore, could not be considered a drug intermediate. However, the respondents presented technical opinions and certificates from authorities supporting the classification of potassium carbonate as a drug intermediate, used in the manufacture of specific drugs. The Tribunal emphasized that a chemical could be regarded as a drug intermediate only when it was actually used in the manufacture of drugs, even if it had other applications. The Tribunal ultimately held that potassium carbonate was indeed a drug intermediate and that the respondents were entitled to the exemption notification.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Appellate Tribunal, after thorough analysis, dismissed the appeal by the Department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Tribunal upheld the classification of potassium carbonate as a drug intermediate for exemption under Notification 62/78-C.E., based on the technical opinions and certificates provided by the respondents. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that a chemical could qualify as a drug intermediate if it was actually used in the manufacture of drugs, regardless of its other applications.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 211
  
  The appeal involved classification of Ion Exchange Resins under Customs and Excise Tariff Acts. Lower authorities classified under heading No. 39.01/06 and item No. 15-A(1), rejecting appellants' claim for heading No. 38.01/19(9). Tribunal referenced a previous order favoring appellants' classification. Tribunal reclassified under heading No. 38.01/19(9) and item No. 68, ordering relief to be paid to the appellants within 3 months. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 210
  
  Issues:
  1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962.
  2. Interpretation of O.G.L. for clearance of goods.
  3. Classification of Sodium Vapour lamps as components or consumer goods.
  4. Allegation of under-valuation of imported goods.
  5. Imposition of penalties under Customs Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962
  The appeal was filed against the Collector's order confiscating imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant importer was given an option to redeem goods on payment of a fine within three months. A personal penalty was also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  
  Issue 2: Interpretation of O.G.L. for clearance of goods
  The appellants imported Sodium Vapour Lamps and sought clearance under Open General License (O.G.L.) under the AM-84 Policy Book. They argued that Sodium Vapour lamps were not covered by specific appendices and could be cleared as components under O.G.L. The dispute arose regarding the classification of the lamps under the O.G.L. heading of "raw materials, components, and consumables."
  
  Issue 3: Classification of Sodium Vapour lamps as components or consumer goods
  The main contention was whether Sodium Vapour lamps could be considered as component parts for street lighting systems. The appellant argued that the lamps were components as they required additional fittings like ballast, ignitor, and capacitor. However, the tribunal held that Sodium Vapour lamps did not qualify as components under the definition and were considered consumer goods that directly satisfy human needs without further processing.
  
  Issue 4: Allegation of under-valuation of imported goods
  The department alleged under-valuation of the imported goods based on a comparison with a price list from a manufacturer. The appellant disputed this, arguing that the department did not provide sufficient evidence of under-invoicing. The tribunal found that the department failed to prove under-invoicing, and the appellant's declared value was accepted.
  
  Issue 5: Imposition of penalties under Customs Act
  Penalties were imposed under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act. The tribunal upheld the fine for contravention of the Customs Act but reduced the penalty amount considering various factors, including the absence of under-valuation. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 40,000, while the appeal was dismissed on other grounds.
  
  This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues involved in the judgment, including the interpretation of regulations, classification of goods, valuation disputes, and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 204
  
  Issues:
  1. Entitlement to Export House Certificate as a Manufacturer-Exporter-SSI for 1984-85.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The petitioner, initially an exporter of readymade garments, started manufacturing and exporting garments in 1981. They held a provisional certificate as a small scale industrial unit, which was later made permanent in June 1984. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports rejected the petitioner's application for an Export House License for 1984-85, citing the provisional nature of their previous certificate and failure to meet the growth rate requirement of 20% as per Para 180 of the Import Policy. The petitioner's subsequent representations were also rejected based on the growth rate criterion, without considering their permanent registration certificate issued by the Director of Industries, U.P. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the grant of an Export House Certificate as a Manufacturer-Exporter-SSI for 1984-85, along with consequential benefits and relief, while challenging the rejection orders of June 21, 1984, and February 26, 1985.
  
  The court highlighted the objective of the Export Policy to encourage exports and earn foreign exchange, emphasizing the need to support both manufacturing and non-manufacturing exporters. Paragraph 176 of the Import Policy recognized the eligibility of manufacturers for Export House Certificates, subject to specified criteria. The court noted that the petitioner, as a manufacturer-exporter of select products, met the export value requirements outlined in Para 176. The petitioner's export figures for the preceding three years demonstrated compliance with the eligibility criteria, as admitted by the respondents. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the Export House Certificate as a Manufacturer Exporter based on the fulfillment of requirements under Para 176.
  
  The court criticized the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for disregarding the petitioner's permanent registration certificate and incorrectly treating the application as one for renewal instead of a fresh grant. The court explained that the authorities erred in applying Para 180 of the Policy, which pertained to renewal applications for specific periods, not fresh applications. By focusing on growth criteria meant for renewals, the authorities misinterpreted the scheme's objective, which aimed to support both traders and manufacturing exporters. The court held that the rejection orders were invalid, as they failed to consider crucial evidence and misapplied the relevant provisions of the Import Policy.
  
  In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned orders of June 21, 1984, and February 26, 1985, directing the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to issue the Export House Certificate to the petitioner as a Manufacturer Exporter-SSI for 1984-85. The court found the petitioner compliant with Para 176 of the Import-Export Policy and allowed the petition with costs awarded to the petitioner's counsel.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 200
  
  Issues:
  - Transfer of revision application to the Tribunal
  - Rejection of refund claim on short landed goods
  - Lack of representation for the appellant
  - Contention regarding short landing evidence
  - Examination of certificates by the Tribunal
  - Determination of short landing and application of precedent
  
  Transfer of revision application to the Tribunal:
  The revision application against the Order-in-appeal was transferred to the Tribunal for consideration as an appeal, as per statutory provisions.
  
  Rejection of refund claim on short landed goods:
  The appellant's claim for refund of duty on short landed goods was dismissed by the authorities due to being time-barred, as the refund application was filed after six months from the duty payment.
  
  Lack of representation for the appellant:
  During the appeal hearing, no one appeared for the appellants, leading to the case being presented solely by the Respondent Collector.
  
  Contention regarding short landing evidence:
  The Respondent Collector argued that the evidence of short landing in the present case was not established, citing certificates issued by the Bombay Port Trust as proof.
  
  Examination of certificates by the Tribunal:
  The Tribunal examined the certificates provided, including a landing remark certificate and a short landing certificate, both dated the same day. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the certificates but ultimately relied on the short landing certificate issued by the custodian of the goods.
  
  Determination of short landing and application of precedent:
  After careful consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the case involved short landing, applying the precedent set in a previous decision. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturned the lower authorities' orders, and directed the Customs authorities to provide relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 199
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction and appealability of the Superintendent's order.
  2. Limitation period for filing refund claims under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  3. Whether the appellants' payments were made under protest.
  4. Deductibility of distribution charges as equalized freight in the assessable value.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Jurisdiction and Appealability of the Superintendent's Order:
  The appellants challenged the Superintendent's order dated 31-3-1970, which determined the assessable value of their products. The Superintendent incorrectly stated that a representation against his order lay to the Assistant Collector. However, as per Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and Rule 213 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, an appeal against the Superintendent's order should have been made to the Deputy Collector. The Assistant Collector was not authorized to hear such appeals. The representation to the Assistant Collector was thus neither a valid appeal nor to the correct forum. Consequently, the Superintendent's order became final as it was not appealed to the proper authority.
  
  2. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:
  The appellants filed refund claims on 16-12-1974 for the period from 1-3-1970 to 25-9-1974. These claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which required refund claims to be filed within three months from the date of payment or adjustment. The provision for saving claims made under protest was introduced only on 6-8-1977 and was not applicable to claims filed before this date. Therefore, claims for periods beyond three months prior to 16-12-1974 were barred by limitation.
  
  3. Whether the Appellants' Payments Were Made Under Protest:
  The appellants argued that their payments were made under protest, citing their letters dated 7-3-1970, 10-3-1970, and 21-5-1970. The Tribunal noted previous decisions where similar letters were deemed as protests, thus keeping the claims alive. The Central Government, in a parallel case, had also accepted that the appellants' letter dated 21-5-1970 constituted a protest. The Tribunal agreed with this view, holding that the letter was a protest, thus protecting the appellants' claims from being time-barred.
  
  4. Deductibility of Distribution Charges as Equalized Freight:
  On merits, the appellants contended that the charges of 30 paise per crate for local deliveries and 70 paise per crate for out-station deliveries were in the nature of equalized freight and should be excluded from the assessable value. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International (1983 E.L.T. 1896) held that equalized freight is a permissible deduction. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for a fresh decision, taking into account the latest legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court and treating the claims as within time.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeals were disposed of by setting aside the combined Order-in-Appeal dated 24-3-1977 and remanding the matters to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, for fresh consideration on merits, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment and treating the claims as within the limitation period.
  
  Separate Judgment:
  Member (Judicial) M. Gouri Shankar Murthy dissented, arguing that the orders of the Superintendent were final as they were not appealed to the correct forum. He held that the refund applications were barred by limitation and should be dismissed. However, the majority view prevailed, leading to the remand of the cases for fresh consideration on merits.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 198
  
  Issues:
  - Stay petition filed by the Collector of Central Excise challenging an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta.
  - Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 regarding the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied pending appeal.
  - Examination of the Tribunal's powers to grant stay in matters where the revenue is the appellant.
  - Comparison of the powers of the Tribunal under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment pertains to a stay petition filed by the Collector of Central Excise against an order issued by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta. The Collector of Central Excise sought a stay on the decision pending appeal. The appeal was presented along with a letter of authorization under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The issue at hand was whether the stay petition filed by the revenue was valid under Section 35F of the Act.
  
  Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal observed that Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 mandates that any person appealing against a decision must deposit the duty demanded or penalty levied pending the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that the revenue is not required to make any deposit before the adjudicating authority, thus concluding that no stay application from the revenue lies under Section 35F. However, the Tribunal highlighted that it possesses inherent powers to grant stay in matters where the revenue is the appellant, citing the judgment in the case of ITO v. Md. Koohni and the subsequent ruling by the Patna High Court in Pooranmal Kuntia v. I.T.O.
  
  The Tribunal further discussed the broad powers vested in it, drawing a comparison between Section 254(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and Section 35C(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It noted that the powers of the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal are more extensive compared to the Tribunal under the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Based on these considerations, the Tribunal rejected the stay application filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the wider discretion available to it in granting or denying stays in matters involving the revenue as the appellant.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the statutory requirements for depositing duty or penalty pending appeal under Section 35F, delineates the Tribunal's inherent powers to grant stays, and underscores the broader authority of the Tribunal under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 compared to the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 188
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of miniature tyres under Central Excise Tariff Item 16 or Item 68.
  2. Applicability and validity of the exemption order dated 27-10-1964 for miniature tyres under Item 68 post-1-3-1975.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Miniature Tyres:
  The appellants manufacture miniature tyres intended for distribution as free gifts and claim exemption from central excise duty based on an ad hoc exemption order issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs on 27-10-1964. The primary contention is whether these tyres fall under Item 16-III (All other tyres) or Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Department's Representative argued that the miniature tyres, lacking bead wire and not intended for locomotion, should be classified under Item 68, which came into force from 1-3-1975. The appellants countered that the exemption order did not specify a tariff item, thus applying regardless of classification under Item 16 or Item 68.
  
  2. Applicability and Validity of the Exemption Order:
  The exemption order dated 27-10-1964 grants exemption from central excise duty for miniature tyres distributed as free gifts. The key question is whether this order remains valid and applicable after the introduction of Item 68. The majority opinion held that the exemption order, which does not tie the exemption to any specific tariff entry, remains valid. The order's conditions are that the goods must be miniature tyres manufactured by the appellants and distributed as free gifts, both of which are undisputed. Therefore, the miniature tyres are entitled to full exemption from duty under the exemption order, regardless of their classification under Item 16 or Item 68.
  
  Separate Judgments:
  
  Majority Judgment:
  The majority opinion, represented by K.L. Rekhi and S. Venkatesan, concluded that the exemption order is still in force and applicable. They emphasized that the exemption order does not mention any tariff item number, and its conditions are met by the appellants. Thus, the miniature tyres are entitled to full exemption from duty. S. Venkatesan further elaborated that even if the goods were not excisable under Item 16 initially, the exemption order would become operative under Item 68 post-1-3-1975, as it contains a clear description of the goods without reference to any tariff item.
  
  Dissenting Judgment:
  M. Gouri Shankar Murthy dissented, arguing that it is imperative to determine whether the goods fall within Item 16 before considering the exemption order's applicability. He opined that the miniature tyres, intended for use as ashtrays and not for vehicles, do not fall within the definition of "tyres" under Item 16. Therefore, the exemption granted under the assumption that the goods fell within Item 16 cannot be extended to Item 68, which was introduced later. He emphasized that an exemption from a levy cannot precede the levy itself and must be strictly construed against the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  In accordance with the majority judgment, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, affirming that the miniature tyres are entitled to full exemption from central excise duty under the exemption order dated 27-10-1964.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 187
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of Notification No. 71/78-CE regarding exemption limit for Excise Duty.
  - Entitlement of separate exemption for a new manufacturer using premises of a previous licensee.
  - Clubbing of clearances for determining concession eligibility under the notification.
  - Validity of demand-cum-show cause notices issued to the appellants.
  - Applicability of Section 11 A and Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The central issue in this case was the interpretation of Notification No. 71/78-CE regarding the exemption limit for Excise Duty. The question at hand was whether a new manufacturer, who purchased machinery and leased premises from a previous licensee, could claim a separate exemption under the same notification after the previous licensee had almost exhausted the exemption limit.
  
  2. The appellants argued that they were a new and distinct manufacturer, not related to the previous factory owner, and thus entitled to a separate exemption. They contended that the grant of a new Central Excise license based on a fresh ground plan indicated the establishment of a new factory premises. The appellants also highlighted that the machinery used was portable and not the old immovable equipment, emphasizing the distinction between the manufacturer and the factory.
  
  3. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing that the value of specified goods cleared from the factory at a nil rate of duty should not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs under the notification. The Collector noted the absence of evidence that old machinery was replaced with new machinery. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the Collector failed to recognize them as a new manufacturer and wrongly applied the notification's provisions.
  
  4. The Tribunal referred to previous cases to support its decision. It distinguished between cases where ownership of a factory changed hands but manufacturing activity continued at the same premises, emphasizing that clearances by different manufacturers using the same factory must be clubbed together to determine the concession limit. The Tribunal reiterated that the concession was to the factory, not the manufacturer, to prevent abuse of the notification.
  
  5. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the cancellation of the previous license and the grant of a new license transformed the factory into a new one. It emphasized that the concept of the "same factory" referred to the place of manufacture, which had not been proven to be new in this case. The Tribunal upheld the differentiation between a factory and a manufacturer as consistent with the Act and Rules.
  
  6. Regarding the applicability of Section 11 A and Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal upheld a previous decision rejecting the argument that the demand could not be confirmed under Section 11 A when the show cause notice was issued before its effectiveness. The Tribunal agreed with the earlier decision that the recovery proceedings should not cease with the deletion of Rule 10.
  
  7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appeal based on the interpretation of the notification, the distinction between factory and manufacturer, and the applicability of relevant legal provisions.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 180
  
  Issues:
  1. Correctness of Tribunal's order allowing the appeal.
  2. Granting of refund beyond the stipulated time limit.
  3. Granting of refund not in accordance with express provisions.
  4. Consideration of appeal based on Special Bench decision.
  5. Treatment of declaration as a claim for refund.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Correctness of Tribunal's order allowing the appeal
  The Applicant questioned the correctness of the Tribunal's order allowing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the case on merits and relied on the decision of the Special Bench 'D'. The Tribunal held that the date of filing the declaration would be the relevant date for calculating the time limit for refund claims. The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on this reasoning.
  
  Issue 2: Granting of refund beyond the stipulated time limit
  The Respondents filed refund claims beyond the statutory time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims based on Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Tribunal, following the Special Bench decision, considered the date of filing the declaration as the relevant date for refund claims, thereby granting the refund.
  
  Issue 3: Granting of refund not in accordance with express provisions
  The Tribunal was questioned for granting refund not in accordance with the express provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Tribunal justified its decision based on the interpretation that the date of declaration should be considered for refund claims, as per the Special Bench decision.
  
  Issue 4: Consideration of appeal based on Special Bench decision
  The Applicant raised concerns about the Tribunal's reliance on the Special Bench decision without considering the case on merits. The Tribunal clarified that the Special Bench decision was crucial in determining the relevant date for refund claims, and hence, the appeal was allowed based on this legal interpretation.
  
  Issue 5: Treatment of declaration as a claim for refund
  The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the declaration filed within the stipulated time under Rule 11 could be treated as a claim for refund. The Tribunal concluded that the declaration should be considered as a claim for refund, aligning with the Special Bench decision and the interpretation of the relevant date for refund claims.
  
  In summary, the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and grant the refund was based on the interpretation that the date of declaration, rather than the date of payment of duty, should be considered for calculating the time limit for refund claims under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The matter has been referred to the High Court for further clarification on this legal interpretation.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 179
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Confiscation of 166 packages of consumer goods.
  2. Liability of the vessel "Ngan Chau" to confiscation.
  3. Penalty on M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd.
  4. Penalty on the Master, Shri Muk Tin Fui.
  5. Relevance of the Magistrate's and High Court's exoneration of the Master.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Confiscation of 166 packages of consumer goods:
  
  The Customs officers discovered 166 packages containing dutiable and restricted goods on the vessel "Ngan Chau" and subsequently seized them. The appellants argued that these goods were declared in the Import General Manifest (IGM) and were intended for Bangkok, not for smuggling into India. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were not properly documented, as there were no bills of lading (B/L) or mate's receipts for the packages, and the ship was not scheduled to visit Bangkok. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were intended for smuggling into Bombay, given the tampering of documents and the improper storage of the packages in the navigational light locker.
  
  2. Liability of the vessel "Ngan Chau" to confiscation:
  
  The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, which does not require mens rea (criminal intent). The Tribunal noted that the Master of the vessel was involved in the smuggling attempt, and the market value of the goods exceeded the amount of the fine levied in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Everret Orient Lines v. Jasjit Singh, which supports the confiscation of a vessel without the need for mens rea.
  
  3. Penalty on M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd.:
  
  The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the owners of the vessel, M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd., were complicit in the smuggling attempt. The responsibility for the incorrect declaration of the packages lay with the Master of the vessel and the steamer agents, not the owners. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a sister ship of the same company, where the Board had set aside the penalty on the owners. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd.
  
  4. Penalty on the Master, Shri Muk Tin Fui:
  
  The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the Master, Shri Muk Tin Fui, as he was found to be involved in the unauthorized importation of the 166 packages. The Tribunal noted that the Board had already shown leniency by reducing the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, and no further leniency was warranted. The Tribunal rejected the Master's appeal.
  
  5. Relevance of the Magistrate's and High Court's exoneration of the Master:
  
  The Tribunal acknowledged the exoneration of the Master by the Magistrate and the dismissal of the department's appeal by the High Court. However, it emphasized that prosecution and adjudication are separate proceedings, and the judgment of the Magistrate and High Court did not affect the penalty imposed on the Master in the adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Maniklal U. Jain, which supports the view that the departmental authorities are not bound by the verdict of the Magistrate in such cases.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal modified the orders of the Collector and the Board to the extent that the penalty on M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. was set aside. The appeals of Shri Muk Tin Fui and M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. were otherwise rejected.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 178
  
  Issues:
  1. Entitlement to duty-exemption for a specified period prior to 1-5-1973.
  2. Whether the demand for recovery of the amount of refund is barred by time.
  3. Modification of the order of the Assistant Collector regarding refund allowed to the party for the period up to 28-2-1973.
  4. Confirmation of notice against the assessee for part of the period subsequent to 1-3-1973.
  5. Allegations of suppression of material facts and mis-statement by the party.
  6. Validity of the notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise for recovery of the refund.
  7. Application for refund after a favorable order by the Central Board of Excises & Customs.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appeals before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal by the Collector (Appeals) regarding duty-exemption entitlement. The Collector partly upheld the assessee's contention for duty-exemption before 1-5-1973 but held subsequent clearances assessable to duty as per Notification No. 67/73. The demand for recovery of refund for the latter period was upheld.
  
  2. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appellants' plea that the demand for recovery of refund was time-barred. The Tribunal found that the party's failure to disclose the change in exemption notification led to the erroneous refund, justifying the extended period of limitation for recovery.
  
  3. The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the modification of the refund order by the Collector (Appeals). The dispute revolved around the period for which the refund was allowed and the party's contention that no amount was realized during the relevant period.
  
  4. The assessee's appeal challenged the confirmation of the notice for recovery of refund post-1-3-1973. The issue centered on the rejection of their plea regarding the limitation under Section 11A of the Act.
  
  5. The Tribunal considered both appeals together and found that the demand for recovery was barred by time due to the absence of suppression or misstatement by the party. The demand was based on the amendment to the notification and withdrawal of exemption, not on any misrepresentation by the assessee.
  
  6. The Tribunal concluded that the notice for recovery issued by the Collector of Central Excise was beyond the permissible period of limitation under Section 11A. The demand was considered time-barred, and the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise was dismissed, while the appeal of the party was allowed on the question of the demand for recovery being barred by time.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 177
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the discharge of the appellants by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate affects the imposition of penalties in the adjudication proceedings.
  2. Whether the evidence and statements provided were sufficient to implicate the appellants in the smuggling activities.
  3. Whether the penalties imposed on the appellants were excessive or justified.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Effect of Discharge by the Magistrate on Adjudication Proceedings
  
  The appellants contended that since they were discharged by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal prosecution, the penalties imposed on them should be set aside. They argued that the findings of the competent court of law should be binding on the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal.
  
  The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which clarified that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecutions are independent of each other. The High Court held that the acquittal in a criminal case does not bind the adjudicating authority, which can rely on evidence inadmissible in criminal courts. The Tribunal, following this precedent, rejected the contention that the discharge by the Magistrate should affect the penalties imposed in the adjudication proceedings.
  
  Issue 2: Sufficiency of Evidence and Statements
  
  The appellants argued that the Board's order was not a speaking order and relied on surmises and conjectures, lacking independent corroborating evidence. They contended that the statements of co-accused should not be relied upon without independent evidence.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the statements of the appellants and other individuals, recorded under Section 108, provided sufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal highlighted that the statements of Hasmukh Shah, Hotchand, and Khetsi implicated the appellants in the conspiracy to import and sell foreign goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants did not cross-examine the individuals who provided these statements, and there was no reason to believe that these individuals falsely implicated the appellants.
  
  Issue 3: Justification of Penalties
  
  The appellants contended that the penalties imposed were excessive and harsh. The Tribunal considered the past conduct of the appellants and the value of the unaccompanied baggage in determining the penalties. The Tribunal found that the penalties imposed on Hasmukh Shah and K.B. Aswani were justified and not excessive, given their involvement in the smuggling activities.
  
  However, the Tribunal found that the evidence against C.B. Aswani was insufficient to justify the penalty imposed on him. The Tribunal noted that there was no precise evidence regarding the value of the goods brought by C.B. Aswani or the amount of duty payable. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of C.B. Aswani and set aside the personal penalty imposed on him, ordering a refund of the penalty if paid.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on Hasmukh Shah and K.B. Aswani, rejecting their appeals. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of C.B. Aswani, setting aside the personal penalty imposed on him and ordering a refund of the penalty if paid. The Tribunal emphasized that the discharge by the Magistrate did not affect the adjudication proceedings, and the evidence provided was sufficient to implicate the appellants in the smuggling activities.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 167
  
  Issues:
  1. Request for summoning original record of the Adjudicating authority and permitting inspection.
  2. Claim of confidentiality by the Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) regarding certain papers in the file.
  3. Opposition to the prayer for rectification of the order dated 13.9.1985 by the Consultant.
  4. Consideration of the submissions from both sides regarding the inspection of the file.
  5. Comparison with a previous case regarding the right to inspect records.
  6. Decision on the application for withholding inspection and direction for file custody and inspection.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appellants filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking to summon the original record of the Adjudicating authority for inspection. The Bench ordered the submission of the records relating to the Order-in-original within a week for inspection by the appellant's representative.
  
  2. The SDR submitted the file but raised concerns about confidentiality, stating that certain papers were of a confidential nature and should not be inspected by the other party. However, the Tribunal found no confidential papers in the file and noted that the SDR did not object during the previous hearing to make the file available for inspection.
  
  3. The Consultant opposed the SDR's request for rectification of the order, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its own order. The Consultant emphasized the appellants' right to inspect the adjudication records and pointed out contradictions in the Order-in-Original.
  
  4. After considering both parties' submissions and examining the file, the Tribunal concluded that there were no confidential papers justifying withholding inspection. The Tribunal also referenced a previous case where certain papers were allowed to be inspected, highlighting the difference in circumstances.
  
  5. The Tribunal rejected the SDR's application for withholding inspection, emphasizing that there was no valid reason to recall the earlier order. The file was directed to be kept in the custody of the Deputy Registrar for inspection by the appellants' representative under supervision.
  
  6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the right of the appellants to inspect the file and maintained that there was no basis for withholding inspection based on confidentiality claims. The decision was made after a thorough review of the file and consideration of arguments from both sides.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 166
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to legality of show cause notices under article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding import of tallow for manufacturing soaps.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioners, engaged in soap manufacturing, challenged show cause notices issued by respondent no. 2 regarding the import of tallow for soap production. The petitioners had been using imported tallow for soap manufacturing since 1948. A public notice in June 1981 amended the import policy to include tallow of any animal origin, leading to imports of beef tallow and animal tallow. The petitioners agreed to purchase imported tallow after clearance by customs authorities, using a "high seas basis" to avoid sales tax. The show cause notices alleged unauthorized import of beef tallow and abetment by the petitioners. The notices invoked clause 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 for proposed action under clause 8. The petitioners challenged these notices in court, arguing they were not involved in the import process and were entitled to purchase imported tallow as actual users.
  
  The respondent no. 2 issued show cause notices under clause 8 without specifying the contravened sub-clause, possibly relying on sub-clause (2) which pertains to non-compliance with license conditions. The court found the claim that the petitioners abetted license contravention to be unsustainable. The court noted that the term "abetment" as defined in the General Clauses Act and Indian Penal Code involves instigation or participation in the offense. The court emphasized that purchasing tallow after customs clearance did not constitute abetment. The court rejected the argument to leave the determination to respondent no. 2, as the notices were issued without proper authority. The court held that the show cause notices lacked jurisdiction and were to be quashed.
  
  In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the show cause notices. The court found the notices to be misconceived and lacking legal basis. The petitioners, as actual users of the imported tallow, were not involved in any abetment of license contravention. The court awarded no costs in the case.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 160
  
  Issues:
  1. Entitlement for refund of full amount of Central Excise duty paid.
  2. Justification of disallowing a part of the refund claim by the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Entitlement for refund of full amount of Central Excise duty paid
  The judgment concerns appeals arising from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, regarding refund claims made by the appellants, who are manufacturers of certain medicines falling under Tariff Item 14-E of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellants received back certain quantities of their products for re-processing and subsequently cleared the goods after paying Central Excise duty. They then claimed a refund of the duty originally paid on these goods. The Assistant Collector disallowed a portion of their claims, citing that the duty involved on processing loss during reprocessing of returned goods is inadmissible for refund under Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the rules do not provide for a refund in cases of processing losses. The main contention was whether the appellants were entitled to a full refund of the Central Excise duty paid initially.
  
  Issue 2: Justification of disallowing a part of the refund claim
  The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector found that the appellants had complied with the provisions of Rule 173-L (1) and (2) of the Rules but disallowed a part of the refund claim due to processing losses during reprocessing. The authorities held that the rules did not allow for a refund in cases of processing losses. The appellants argued that once they complied with the rules, no portion of their refund claim should be disallowed. The judgment analyzed the provisions of Rule 173-L, which authorize the Collector to grant refunds under certain conditions and specify situations where refunds are inadmissible. It was noted that the rules did not explicitly state that processing losses should be deducted from refund claims. The judgment highlighted that the rules provide for both admissibility and inadmissibility of refunds under specific circumstances, indicating that the rules are comprehensive and not silent on the matter.
  
  The judgment concluded that the findings of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector, which disallowed a part of the refund claim based on processing losses, were legally untenable. It emphasized that the rules did not require deduction of duty on goods lost during reprocessing from refund claims. The judgment also clarified that the rules did not attribute the loss to diversification of returned goods, making any loss a natural consequence of reprocessing. Ultimately, the judgment allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the authorities below and directing the Central Excise authorities to grant consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

123456789........ 13