|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 349 Records
-
1998 (10) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... valued at more than rupees one lac are still technically in the custody of the Department (since they had been handed over under Supurdnama to a person other than the appellant) and admittedly they were not released to the appellant at any stage provisionally or otherwise. 8. emsp Therefore this aspect has to be kept in view along with the fact that the amount of duty and penalty involved is less than rupees one lac, value of the goods in department rsquo s custody. 84/138 9. emsp In fact, the learned Counsel stated that they have already deposited a part of the duty demanded but in the absence of any proof thereof this submission cannot be taken serious note of at this stage. For the purpose of stay however since the value of the goods in the Department rsquo s constructive custody is more than the amount involved in this case, no further pre-deposit is called for and the appeal can be fixed for hearing in the normal course without any pre-deposit. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tribunals’ Orders, Classification, Di-Calcium phosphate ... ... ... ... ..... e applicants, this order was set aside by the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court. I find that there is no bar on the applicants to cite these decisions before the adjudicating authority in reply to the show cause notices nor, for this, any direction is required under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. 18 emsp The show cause notices were only issued for change in classification, which is ultimately to be adjudicated by the competent authority and applicants had opportunity to defend their case before the adjudicating authority, therefore, I find no reasons to interfere at this stage by issuing any direction under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. I, therefore, agree with the findings arrived at by the Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) and these applications are deserved to be dismissed Sd/- (S.S. Kang) Member (Judicial) Dt. 29-9-1999 In the light of the majority view, the Misc. applications are rejected. Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J)
-
1998 (10) TMI 333 - OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS)
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... f personal penalty by the appellants/applicants S/Shri Prasad and Raut it has been submitted that both of them are the employees of M/s. Swarn Mandir Jewellers owned by Shri Dayal with the monthly salary of Rs. 500/- only and they have no other source of fund than the salary and this contention has been corroborated by the Certificates issued from the respective Gram Panchayet Office. 6. emsp Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed supra and also considering the nature of the case and the financial aspect as shown in respect of all the appellants/applicants I am constrained to waive pre-deposit of personal penalty by three applicants in full and I ordered accordingly allowing the appeal cases to be heard on merit. However, nothing said by me in this regard shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal. Stay petitions are thus disposed of. Date of Personal Hearing on merit of the appeals will be intimated in due course.
-
1998 (10) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ises that a negligible quantity of the total carbide sludge was being sold to a few parties and that too for negligible amount that merely because the waste was capable of fetching a price if could not be interpreted to mean that such waste was a by-product or was industrial raw-material or was manufac shy tured goods. It was also submitted that department had adduced no evidence at all to prove that it contained any percentage of carbide and it could be classified under sub-heading 2849.90. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order. 3. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issue involved is no longer res integra as the Tribunal in the case of Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. and Others v. C.C.E. vide Order No. 802-805/98-C, dated 18-9-1998 has held that the impugned product carbide sludge is not marketable in its ordinary meaning and is not excisable commodity. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 319 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Export - Import Policy ... ... ... ... ..... stion and as further observed by us, the effect of applying quantity as a limiting factor would also not be to deprive the entire quantity imported of the benefit of exemption. It could, arguably, be limited to only the excess. No indication is there in the adjudication/assessment order or the present reference about such differential quantity. 7. emsp The questions at serial numbers 4 and 5 are academic and do not affect the present matter disposed of by the Tribunal with reference to the provisions of the relevant notification. The questions do not merit reference to the High Court. 8. emsp For the foregoing reasons, we are not satisfied that the questions proposed in the applications are questions of law arising out of Tribunal rsquo s subject order requiring a reference to the High Court. We, accordingly, dismiss the reference applications. In view of such dismissal, the stay applications seeking stay of operation of the Tribunal rsquo s order get automatically dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s of Appeal have force inasmuch as the Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.) had held that since paper is marketed in packed or wrapped condition the wrapping paper used in the wrapping of other paper is to be treated as raw-material or component part for other varieties of paper which are wrapped any wrapping paper. It is not in dispute that the appellants had been using mill wrapper paper as wrapping material. Following the ratio of Apex Court decision in Eastend Paper Industries Ltd., supra, we are of the view that book printing paper as well as mill wrapper paper which are being used for packing book printing paper would be eligible for exemption as per Notification No. 61/88 and, therefore, no duty can be demanded on the said wrapping paper. 7. emsp In view of the above, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential benefit to the appellants, if any, in accordance with law.
-
1998 (10) TMI 317 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... nce of the ld. Advocate that the weight recorded by the Railway should be followed over that physically found by the Customs authorities. 11. emsp As regards the modalities of the quantification of fine, I find that in determining the fine, an officer would follow the dictates of Section 125 of the Customs Act. He is not required under law to give entire methodology or calculations in the order that prescribes the time. The importer is free to contest the calculation relying upon the market value in case he feels that the calcula shy tion is excessive. In this case no such evidence has been led except making a general observation. I find no force in this ground also. 12. emsp Since the Commissioner in the impugned order has already reduced the quantum of both fine and penalty, without giving her mind as to the market value, I find no reason to accept the plea of further reduction. 13. emsp I find no substance in the appeal, I uphold the contested order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 304 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM - Clover seeds imported in the guise of Amaranthus Seeds ... ... ... ... ..... d import of the seeds in this case against the three appellants is sustainable, and their statements given also supports the department rsquo s case. However, a plea has been made that the level of redemption fine and the penalty on the appellants is on the high side, and it has been shown with reference to the balance sheet of the appellant M/s. Hoshiar Purian-Di Hatti that the profit is much less. Having regard to this submission, we are inclined to extend relief to the appellants in the matter of fine and penalty, and also having regard to the finding above that in so far as charge of mis-declaration is concerned there are certain extenuating circumstances in favour of the appellants. Therefore, we reduce both the fine on the goods and penalty on the appellants in all the three cases from the present level as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs by 50 . The appeals are disposed of in the above terms, and the appellants are entitled to the consequential relief as per law.
-
1998 (10) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... as not entertainable by the Range officer though addressed to the Assistant Collector. The question whether any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him could make an application addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and submit the same to the Superintendent under whose jurisdiction his factory is situated was answered in the affirmative by the court since the Revenue held out that the Superintendent was authorised to receive the application and transmit it to the Assistant Collector, consistent with the previous practice. 5. emsp For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the ground taken in the appeal which was however not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order in Appeal is untenable. That order allowing the present respondent rsquo s appeal is however to be upheld as a whole. I order accordingly and dismiss the appeal by the department. 6. emsp The cross objection is merely supportive of the impugned order. It is dismissed as misconceived.
-
1998 (10) TMI 302 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import policy - Rules of interpretation - Consumer goods ... ... ... ... ..... cate for the appellants and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the Revenue. 3. emsp At the material time, import of consumer goods was prohibited. Consumer goods were defined in Export and Import Policy as consumption goods which could directly satisfy human beings without any process. Such goods were prohibited even if imported in CKD condition. The adjudicating authority in this case agreed that certain vital components had not been imported but relied on the Rules of Interpretation to hold the imported components as finished commodity in CKD condition. 4. emsp In the judgment of S.S. Appliances (P) Ltd. 1998 (100) E.L.T. 429 the Tribunal had held that Rules of Interpretation could not be extended to interpret the provisions of the Import Policy. The adjudicating authority relied on the Rule of Interpretation to hold the imported components as fully finished consumer goods. This order does not survive in law and on facts. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
-
1998 (10) TMI 301 - OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CUSTOMS & CE
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... 95 which is well within six months from the date of receipt of input i.e. 6-2-1995 incorporated the items with the specific names and sub-heading and satisfied the other conditions of sub-rule 5 of Rule 57G, credit is admissible to them. Findings of the adjudicating authority are not sustainable. 12. emsp In respect of credit amounting to Rs. 2,263/- taken on the strength of original invoice as well as on the photocopy of the invoice, the findings of the adjudicating authority is sustainable as they are not a valid duty paying document. Appellant has also not pressed in the appeal for this amount the credit has rightly been denied by the adjudicating authority. 13. emsp Since the appellant is eligible for credit amounting to Rs. 55,209/- out of the total credit denied Rs. 57,437/- the penalty imposed is not justified hence is set aside. 14. emsp In view of the above discussion and findings the appeal is partially allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent above.
-
1998 (10) TMI 300 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... he sample and that this trade mark established the link of the product with the applicant and therefore the goods will be rightly classified as P. or P. medicines and under sub-heading 3003.10 CETA. 2. emsp After hearing Shri S.V. Singh, the learned DR, we find that there is lot of force in the submission of the consultant. The perusal of the Show Cause Notice shows that the ground for proposing classification under 3003.10 is that the product bears applicant rsquo s special symbol/monogram in the shape of an octagon in which the letter lsquo Comteck lsquo is written and as such classifies P or P medicines under that sub-heading. As noted above, a totally different ground has been taken in the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is further seen that in such circumstances, review cannot take place on a totally new ground. Therefore, we hold that a prima facie case has been made out for dispensing with the pre-deposit and grant stay. We order accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... E.L.T. 211 decided on 10-4-1991 that notional interest on customers security deposit was includible in the assessable value only if such consideration had a nexus with the sale price. The court upheld the validity of a circular of the Government to that effect issued on 20-10-1986 and held as invalid a subsequent memorandum dated 13-6-1990 modifying the earlier one and stating that there was no need to establish separately the nexus between the deposit and the price. In view of this position and the case made out by the appellant that the income from the investments made out of the deposits received did not result in the lowering the price of their goods, the demand on this account fails. The time bar is an additional factor on which also the appellant deserves to suceed as the fact of receipt of the deposits which is primary information had been brought to the notice of the department. 13. emsp For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (10) TMI 298 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Demand - Confiscation and Fine - Valuation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... was no evidence that these were to be removed clandestinely without payment of duty, the seizure of the same was not justified and consequently there was no ground for confiscation and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation. 5. emsp With regard to their contention that the value of the fabrics should be treated as cum-duty price and excise duty be deducted while arising at the assemble value, I hold that no such deduction is required to be made as excise duty was not included in the said value. 6. emsp As regards imposition of penalty, the same was not justified particularly when Section 11AC came into force only on 28-9-1996 whereas the period involved was prior to that date. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, of justice will be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- each on the appellant and M/s. R.K. Fashions and order accordingly. 7. emsp In view of the above, I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the lower authority.
-
1998 (10) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Export - Misdeclaration - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ue requiring our consideration is the appeal of Shri Alok P. Gupta, Director of SDPL. We find that admittedly, Shri Gupta negotiated the deal as a Director of SDPL. Therefore, he is a party to the commission of the offence. However, in view of the facts that being an NRI, Shri Gupta could not have been a full time Director of SDPL having control over its day to day operations and that though he admittedly negotiated but did not sign the agreement and keeping in view that the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal has held in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 601 (T) that for imposition of penalty, people similarly placed with reference to the commission of an offence to be treated similarly we find that in the interests of justice, the penalty imposed on Shri Alok P. Gupta be reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Ordered accordingly. Penalty of Shri Ratan Bagaria of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is confirmed. 21. emsp These five appeals are disposed of accordingly as per orders above.
-
1998 (10) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand - Limitation - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... authority. The classification made in the classification list approved by the department earlier is correct. 4.2. emsp In view of the foregoing, it may not be necessary to go into the question of time bar because the appellants have a case on merits itself, as already found. Nevertheless, we also observe that they have a good case on time bar. They have fully declared that the kraft folders are of specific sizes to be adjusted in filing cabinets of required sizes. Similarly in the classification list of steel interlinking channels, they have clearly mentioned that the said channels are for said latra and system folders. In view of the declarations made in the classification list, we cannot sustain the allegation and finding of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts against the appellants. In short, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Cross objections are also disposed of in view of the aforesaid finding.
-
1998 (10) TMI 277 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ce, to treat the plastic sheets as well as absorber mats as general purpose articles. 4.2 emsp As regards classification of lsquo absorber mat rsquo we have already held that it is a part of sun-dryer system. Adequate reasons, as to why it has been imported in running length have been given by the learned Advocate for the appellant (see para 2.5.3 above). That factor by itself does not detract from its character as part of a solar energy equipment. An equally plausible classification for the product absorber mat rsquo therefore, is 84.17 (1). Therefore, applying the principle of Interpretative Rules 3(c) for Tariff, latter Heading 84.17(1) will be a more appropriate classification, as against Tariff Heading 59.01/15 pertaining inter alia, to bonded fibre fabrics. 4.3 emsp In view of the foregoing findings, impugned order is set aside and appeal succeeds on merits of classification. It is not, therefore, necessary to look into another question of limitation for demand of duty.
-
1998 (10) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tion and it is the final product alone which is marketable (and not the material injected in the space between the two layers in the product). 6. emsp This issue had come up earlier also and he would like to rely in this connection on the Tribunal rsquo s order upheld by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court as reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. A212. 7. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the ld. Counsel is correct and the issue is covered by the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Vikram Plastics passed on 29-12-1997 and Final Order No. 684/89, dated 21-11-1989 passed in the case of Eagle Flask Pvt. Ltd. An appeal against the Tribunal rsquo s order in the later case has since been dismissed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court as reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. A212. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio thereof, we reject the Department rsquo s Appeal as already announced in the open Court. The cross-objection is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 271 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Demand - Confiscation and fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... msp The argument of the lower authority that the legal proof does not necessarily mean perfect proof but prudent man rsquo s estimate of probabilities of the case and that it has been held in a number of Judicial pronouncements that the preponderance of probabilities are enough in the quasi-judicial proceedings and he relied on the case of Santhanam v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 564 (Madras) . The above reasoning of the lower authority is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that the above judgment of the Madras High Court was with reference to a smuggling case where the goods were seized from the premises of the appellant. The said case does not apply to clandestine removal of the excisable goods. Unless there is proof of clandestine removal as discussed above, the charges levelled against the appellants cannot be sustained. 6. emsp In view of the above, I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the lower authority.
-
1998 (10) TMI 268 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE,
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... not consider the submissions of the appellant and decided the issue based on the decision given by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal. The appellant has rightly contended that the adjudicating authority failed to take into consideration their submissions as given in the preceding para before arriving at the decision. The adjudicating authority also failed to consider the various case laws relied upon by the appellants at the time of adjudication. This contention of the appellants is substantiated by the facts on records. Such non-consideration of the various submissions made by the appellants and case laws cited by them has made the impugned order defective as it is a non-speaking order. 6. emsp In view of above, I am not going into the merits of the case. The case is therefore remanded to the lower authority for de novo adjudication after following the principle of natural justice and for passing speaking order giving his findings on the submissions made by the appellants.
........
|
