Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 225 Records
-
1986 (12) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Imports - REP Licences - Export linked import items ... ... ... ... ..... lumn 4. On the other hand the colunm 4 places value restrictions insofar as the items mentioned thereunder. If that remarks were not there the exporter of items mentioned in column 3 could import all the items specified in column 4 without limit as to value. 12. emsp The other contention of Shri Jamadar that stamping foils imported by the appellants are required only by the plastic industry particularly by the exporters of plastic bangles and therefore they would not fall under Sr. No. 76 is also not tenable. Stamping foils whatever be its use could be imported only by lsquo 0 rsquo group. If the appellant wants to import them then they should get their REP licences specifically endorsed as provided by Sub-para 2 of Para 30. Admittedly, no such endorsement was made in the licences, produced. In the circumstances, I see no infirmity in the order passed by the Dy. Collector and upheld by the Appellate Collector. . 13. In the result, these appeals fail and the same are rejected.
-
1986 (12) TMI 230 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Waste - Meaning of Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... , and not based on his own judgment, such a grievance cannot be entertained at this stage. The order of the Superintendent had been set aside by the Appellate Collector. It is the order of the Appellate Collector which is under challenge. The Appellate Collector had interpreted the provisions of Rule 56-A(3)(iv)(c). The Government of India had taken a view that interpretation was erroneous and had issued a show cause notice in exercise of their power under Section 36(2) of the Central Excise Act. The assessee had been given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and was also heard. In the said circumstances, the contention regarding the order of the Superintendent assumes no importance whatsoever. 11. emsp In the result, we allow this appeal and direct making of necessary debit entries in the R.G. 23 - Part II and thereafter to permit the manufacturers (the assessee) to destroy such of the battery containers in respect of which permission was sought for destruction.
-
1986 (12) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ld dealer rsquo s licence under the circumstances mentioned therein. But proviso to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 50 expressly lays down that no licence shall be cancelled unless the holder thereof has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. In the presence of the aforesaid express provisions of the law how the Adjudicating Authority had ordered for the cancellation of the licence is not understandable. Be that it may be, since we have held that no contravention of any provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is proved against the appellant, it is not necessary for us to pause and dwell over the issue any further. 8. emsp In the light of the foregoing discussions, we held that the Revenue has failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order imposing the personal penalty on the appellant and also cancelling his gold dealer licence as stated in the impugned order is set aside.
-
1986 (12) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Ship Stores - Foreign going vessel bringing ship’s stores for unloading in India exempt from duty
-
1986 (12) TMI 215 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Export - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... it difficult to hold the exporters guilty of misdeclaration and to justify the heavy fine and penalty adjudged against them. In the circumstances, I agree with the learned Member (Judicial) and allow both the appeals. Camp Bombay Dated 29-12-1986. Sd/- (K.L. Rekhi) Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER 42. emsp In view of the difference of opinion between the two Members of this Bench, who first heard the appeal, the point of difference was referred by the President to the third Member, Shri K.L. Rekhi in terms of Section 129-C(5) of the Customs Act and Shri Rekhi has recorded his findings on the point of difference. This appeal, therefore, has to be decided on the basis of the majority opinion. In majority view, the appeal is allowed and the order of confiscation and penalty levied on the appellant is set aside. The fine and penalty, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants. Sd/- (K. Gopal Hegde) Member (Judicial) Bombay, 31-12-1986. Sd/- (K.S. Dilipsinhji) Member (Technical)
-
1986 (12) TMI 214 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty and Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... ising out of the Board rsquo s order of remand) and therefore, during this proceedings the Additional Collector could not have confiscated the goods which were no longer available for confiscation and could not have ordered clearance of goods which had already been cleared through Customs (whether on Bond or otherwise). In fact, a question of redemption does not arise in these circumstances. In this view of the matter also, the order of the Additional Collector was illogical and incorrect. 24. emsp In the light of above discussions, we hold that the learned Additional Collector had erred in imposing a fine and making the appellants liable to pay the same when they were admittedly not guilty of any offence whatsoever with reference to or in respect of the goods in question. The order of the Additional Collector was even otherwise vague and incorrect. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Additional Collector and allow the appeal, as already announced in open court.
-
1986 (12) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances and machines ... ... ... ... ..... re of the view that the Gujarat High Court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and this decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in two other cases. We also see that in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 184, Collector of Central Excise, v. American Refrigeration Co. the Tribunal following the case of Gujarat High Court and also the two other decisions of the Tribunal held that the goods were classifiable under T.I. 29A(3). In view of the preponderance of the decisions by the Tribunal following Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court we also hold that in view of the ratio of that- decision the appellants rsquo contention cannot be accepted. 5. emsp The lower authorities have imposed a penalty of Rs. 750/- on the appellants. In view of the conflict of decisions, we are of opinion that it is not a case in which the imposition of penalty is called for. In the result the demand for duty is confirmed and the penalty imposed is set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1986 (12) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... as aids, adjuncts or supplements to pipes. The bend is used to connect two different pipes and a reducer is used for diversion whenever necessary. The three-way would be necessary for cutting two or three channels. They cannot be said to be mere pipes. The Tribunal has adverted to British Specification 534 1966. Fittings have been defined as Bends, Tees and Collars. After adverting to the judgment of the Bombay High Court the Tribunal held that the assessment under TI 68 was correct. The ratio of this decision would apply on all fours to the present facts and we see no reason to differ from that conclusion. 6. emsp A reference to Harmonised Code will have no bearing to determine the controversy which has arisen before the present tariff. Hence taking into consideration all the materials placed before us, we prefer to follow the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd., Bombay (Order No. 78/85, dated August 1985). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim admissible if exemption is allowed and claim within period of limitation ... ... ... ... ..... oved from the factory of manufacture in any other factory of the appellants and further subject to the claim being within the period of limitation prescribed in cases of claims of refund. 11. emsp In appeal No. 58/82 the claim was for the period 7.7.1978 to 8.12.1978, the claim having been made on 29.12.1978. Thus this claim was not barred by limitation to any extent. In Appeal No. 59/82 the claim made on 30.7.1979 related to the period from 2.2.1979 to 25.6.1979. Thus there was no bar of limitation in this case also. In Appeal No. 2258/86 the claim dated 29.6.1979 related to the period 26.12.1978 to 31.1.1979. Hence so far as this case is concerned the claim would have been barred for the period prior to 29.12.1978. 12. emsp Accordingly these three appeals are allowed, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Assistant Collector concerned for de novo adjudication in the light of the findings earlier and to grant relief thereafter.
-
1986 (12) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Excess production rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ly set aside. But we further hold that before either accepting or rejecting the refund claim in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions of this Tribunal cited earlier the Assistant Collector will have to determine the date on which the declaration required in terms of the notification was properly filed. After recording his finding on this question as to the date of the declaration the Assistant Collector will have to dispose of the refund claim in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions cited earlier. The matter is therefore remitted to the Assistant Collector for denovo adjudication in the manner indicated above, after giving an opportunity to the appellants to make their representations in the matter. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Taking into consideration the fact that the refund claim relates to duty paid in the year 1977-78, the Assistant Collector should dispose of the matter within 4 months after the receipt of this order.
-
1986 (12) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... t liable to payment of duty no demand would survive against the appellants. As, in my view, varnish captively consumed as input for paints and enamels would not attract, duty, I would thus allow the appeal and set aside the demand. Sd/- (S.D. Jha) Vice President (J) Dated 5.11.1986 Sd/- (Harish Chander) Member (J) 9. emsp In accordance with the decision of majority, the appeal is allowed and the demand against the appellant set aside. Sd/- (V.P. Gulati) Member (T) Sd/- (S.D. Jha) Vice-President (J) Dated 17-12-1986 Sd/- (Harish Chander) Member (J) EDITOR rsquo S COMMENTS The minority view appears to be correct. The question is if varnish manufactured and used for captive consumption is leviable to duty and not if the value of such varnish should be excluded in the computation of the aggregate value of specified goods cleared. Exclusion from the computation of value of the specified goods cannot be equated with an exemption from levy altogether on the goods captively consumed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Notification in force at relevant time cannot be ignored by the Tribunal or struck down ... ... ... ... ..... f Bombay between basic Customs duty and additional duty and consequences flowing therefrom to exemption in respect of these duties. The Tribunal held that if the goods imported were not wholly exempt both from basic Customs duty and additional duty, duty liability would have to be worked out with reference to the date the goods were cleared from the warehouse. 9. emsp Shri Gokhale, learned Advocate for the appellants no doubt argued that Khandelwal case was not relevant for decision of this point in controversy but the Tribunal has taken a decision on the lines stated. Shri Gokhale has failed to convince us that we should depart from this decision or revise the same. In this appeal admittedly goods though exempt from basic Customs duty were chargeable to additional duty. Therefore, following Tribunal decision in Bayer (India) Ltd. case (supra) the appellants would appear to have no case even with respect to this appeal. 10. The appeals therefore fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 207 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Conveyance - Seizure and confiscation of two trucks, liable to be set aside, when carriage of smuggled gold in the trucks less not proved
-
1986 (12) TMI 206 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Export linked Item “Milk powder” includes “Skimmed milk powder” - Scope and meaning thereof to be ascertained from definitions in the Customs Tariff
-
1986 (12) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold Dealer’s Licence - Scope of term “turnover” ... ... ... ... ..... viso (f) to Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. That being so, the Respondent is not obliged to file an appeal or cross objections against that order. Cross objections/ Appeal are not to be filed unless the whole or part of the relief prayed for originally has not been granted in the order which is to be impugned. An appeal/cross objections are never filed against an adverse finding on one of several issues, when, nevertheless, no part of the ultimate relief prayed for had been denied. The Respondent cannot be faulted on this account. Having upheld all the contentions of the Revenue, it is inconsistent in yet remanding the matter on the issues of the applicability of the aforesaid proviso. In the result, the remand order of the Collector (Appeals) has been so modified that it is now confined only to the applicability of the proviso rather than the entire case, although a prayer to this effect had been rejected in the earlier portion of the order.
-
1986 (12) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Naphtha - Concessional rate of assessment, when used for manufacture of fertilizer ... ... ... ... ..... fully examined this notification, which grants concessional rate of assessment to Naphtha for manufacture of fertilizer subject to two provisos. The first is that it is proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector that such Naphtha is intended for use in the manufacture of fertilizer. The second proviso is that the procedure, set out in Chapter X, is followed. The Notification further provides the extension of the exemption to Naphtha used in the manufacture of ammonia provided such ammonia is used elsewhere in the manufacture of fertilizer and procedure set out in Chapter X, C.E. Rules, is followed. In view of the very clear wording of the Notification, we do not see how ammonia, sold for non-fertilizer purpose, can be eligible to concessional rate of assessment provided in Notification No. 187/61-C.E. We reject the claim of the appellants in this regard. 19. The appeals are, thus, partly allowed and. partly rejected, and are disposed of in the terms detailed above.
-
1986 (12) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... 2 to Section XV, of base metal (Section XV), nor similar goods of artificial plastic materials (which are generally classified in Heading No. 39.07). This Chapter also excludes weights, clock or watch glasses, watch chains or straps, parts of electrical equipment, ball bearings or bearing balls. Clock and watch springs are to be classified as clock or watch parts. rdquo Watch crystal or watch glass is, no doubt, a watch part but the above Note which, along with other Chapter Notes, governs the scope of Chapter 91 says specifically that watch glasses shall not be assessed under Chapter 91. The appellants rsquo plea that the subject article is not a watch glass since it is made of acrylic which is a plastic material and not glass. But they also admit that the article, though technically a watch crystal, is commonly known as watch glass. In the circumstances, the classification made by the department under the alternative heading 39.07 cannot be faulted. 3. We reject the appeal.
-
1986 (12) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... bmitted that Five Members Bench of the Tribunal in the decision (supra) in para 18 held that the Supreme Court judgement in M.M.T.C. case regarding classification of Wolfram reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1542 was not applicable to the facts of the case. As against this, Para 20 of the Calcutta High Court judgement shows that decision is wholly based on the Supreme Court decision in M.M.T.C. case. He also submitted that chemical was a more specific item and preferable to item metallic ore i.e. 26 of the I.C.T. Shri Lakshmikumaran stated that interpretation placed by Sh. Sunder Rajan was a misreading of the decision and he reserves his right to make appropriate submissions if the Revenue files an appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court. 4. emsp In view of the foregoing and following two decisions, the appeals are allowed and goods held classifiable under Item 26 of the I.C.T. 1934 i.e. before 2-8-1976 as claimed by the appellants with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (12) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Reference to the President ... ... ... ... ..... nt. This is subject to the considerations set out in paragraph 84 supra, and the above answer should be read along with the contents of that paragraph. 92. The case should now go back to the original Bench for orders in the light of the above decision. Order No. 62/87-A . - In the light of Hon rsquo ble President rsquo s Order, request of the applicant/appellant for staying the recovery of duty made in the impugned order has been considered. Taking into account all the relevant factors including the prima facie, strength of the appellant rsquo s case, liquidity position of the applicant/appellant, prior deposit of duty demanded in the impugned order is waived subject to furnishing of Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise concerned for the full amount of duty demanded. Recovery of duty by the local officers shall also stand stayed subject to the above condition. Compliance of this direction should be reported within 8 weeks of this order.
-
1986 (12) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Meaning of - Tests, determining the process of manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... new distinct identifiable commodity and the duty is correctly leviable on them under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Products Ltd., Pimpri, Pune v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 680 (Tribunal) 1984 (4) ETR 249 had made similar observations. The learned Senior Advocate rsquo s argument that there cannot be double taxation does not fit in the facts and circumstances of the present matter before us. For the levy of Central Excise Duty, there has to be manufacture in terms of the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. If the same product is put to different processes and in those processes different commodities emerge, the Central Excise duty is leviable, if the products which so emerge fall in different tariff items of the Central Excise Tariff. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|