Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1986 1986 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 243 Records

• 1986 (2) TMI 215 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
  

  Rights conferred under licence and not under policy

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ic Notice is non-statutory and it cannot take away the rights conferred by the licence shall have to be upheld. The licence in question is dated 19-5-1980 and it was valid for a period of 12 months and it specifically permitted import of Integrated Circuits and Quartz Crystals required for the manufacture of clocks. The import has taken place before the expiry of the licence period, and therefore, the Additional Collector had committed an error in holding that the licence was not valid to cover the import since the letter of credit was opened after the date of Public Notice 25/80. The Board also committed the same error. 12. emsp In the result and for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs I allow this appeal and set aside the order of confiscation. Since I have set aside the order of confiscation, the question of setting aside the fine levied in lieu of confiscation strictly does not arise. However, I direct that the fine if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 214 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
  

  Refund - Excess duty refundable

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dger account, after six months from the date of deposit. This would have been illegal if there had been final assessment and no claim for refund of duty. On the other hand, the appellant rsquo s claim for refund of duty in their letter dated 9-11-1979 was filed very much within the time limit of Section 11B. The same is therefore not hit by the time limit thereunder. In this view, it is not necessary for me to go into the authorities cited by the learned advocate of the appellants during the course of the personal hearing. These authorities are not applicable to this case as viewed above. 12. emsp In view of these facts and circumstances mentioned above, I set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and allow the appeal of M/s Shree Digvijay Cement Co., Ltd., and direct that the amount of Rs. 28,903.17 recovered as excess duty during the period 1-12-1978 to 30-12-1978 be refunded to the appellants.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT. NEW DELHI
  

  Interpretation with the aid of other statute when to be avoided

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... re could be no serious doubt in any well meaning person rsquo s mind that the 15 or so workers brought to on skilled fabrication work by the contractor would greatly add to the work force of the factory and that it was logical to count them in the number of people working in the factory. The notification speaks of factories ldquo where not more than 49 workers, are working, or were working with the aid of power rdquo . The contractors rsquo workers worked with others with the aid of power and this goodly company numbered more than 50. Their work, produced in the factory, goods falling under item 68 of the Central Excise Schedule. We cannot believe that anybody who wants to abide by the law can fail to arrive at the right conclusion and do the rightful things. 9. emsp We are not impressed by the argument that it was easier to control workers in beeri rolling than in a factory like this one nor does that make any difference that we can see. 10. We accordingly reject the appeal.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal - Condonation of delay

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tor will not be binding on the other Collector because this is not the case of any of the parties. The Collector has not filed the affidavit/affidavits even though a specific direction was given on 12.12.1985. The other judgments cited by the learned JDR do not help the appellant in any way as the facts and circumstances are different. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan rsquo s argument that in public interest, Revenue should be placed on superior footing is not tenable. We hold that the date of service of the order on the Assistant Collector, Coordination Unit is the date of service on the Collector of Customs, Bombay and the limitation would run from that date. The appellants have not been able to satisfy us that they were prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of appeals. The applications for condonation of delay are rejected. 11. emsp Since we are rejecting the applications for condonation of delay the above captioned four appeals are also dismissed being hit by limitation.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 191 - CEGAT ,NEW DELHI
  

  Gold-Whether primary or ornaments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ived at by the Collector. 8. emsp Lastly, it was contended that the adjudicating authority erred in absolutely confiscating the seized 5 bangles of gold and has wrongly denied the benefit of redemption to the appellants in lieu of confiscation. I observe from the experts rsquo opinion on record that they valued the price of the gold bangles at Rs. 23,800/- approximately. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that the benefit of redemption in lieu of confiscation should not be snatched away from Madhusudan appellant. As such, in the interests of justice, it would be proper to give an option to Madhusudan appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of the confiscation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. emsp In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal fails but the appellant Madhusudan is given an option to redeem the seized 5 bangles of gold, as stated above.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  CLASSIFICATION

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... cal device, they can be electrically operated. This is an acknowledgement that a blower without an internal electrical device but operated externally electrically is a blower assessable under Item 33(2). 16. emsp In respect of Appeal No. 190/82-BI, the learned counsel for the appellants attacked the order to assess the fan with the gear. This, he said, was unjustifiable as the gear is not a part of the fan/blade assembly that is manufactured by M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers and, therefore, its (gear rsquo s) value cannot enter into the assessable value of the fan. 17. emsp We are not able to agree. The gear is a very important component of the fan and has the vital role of varying, as desired, the speed of the fan. The fan is, in fact, driven by the drive through the gear reducer assembly. To assess the fan together with the gear, where there is a gear is not improper or irregular. On the contrary, it is the most natural and correct thing to do. 18. We reject both the appeals.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty - Gold

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nd guilty only on the ground that the seized gold was not accounted for in his register. In this view of the matter, a penalty of proper nature would serve the purpose obviously to keep him careful and vigilant in future. Accordingly, while maintaining the redemption fine of Rs. 20.000/- in lieu of the confiscation of the seized gold ornaments, I reduce the personal penalty amount from Rs. 10.000/- to Rs. 2,000/- only. It would not be out of place to mention here that in the case of S/Shri Kewal Krishan Butta and Bishan Dass Butta v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, supra, the learned Members of the Bench reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5.000/- under similar circumstances. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The findings and the redemption fine are hereby confirmed but the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- only, and the cross-objection also stands disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Imports of Notified goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rdquo To my mind, at the first blush, the reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods is a precondition for seizure of the goods and the reason to believe must relate to the period of time when the seizure was made. But in the instant case, I am relieved of this onerous task of deciding the legal impact of the said infirmities. Firstly because these points were not taken up by the learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments and, secondly, because I am allowing the appeal on other grounds as stated above. On the point of clarity, it may be stated that the same would be decided as and when the suitable occasion would arise. 7. emsp In the light of the foregoing discussion, I allow this appeal and set aside the order-in-original, passed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, and direct that the personal penalty, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to him forthwith and the seized goods be also returned to him immediately.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Classification of goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... te, the above sub-heading is also to be ruled out. 15. emsp No arguments have been advanced before us whether the subject goods qualify or not for the description ldquo machinery, mechanical appliances, ...... and parts thereof, falling within Section XVI, not being such articles wholly of precious or semi-precious stones (natural, synthetic or reconstructed) rdquo . We are not, therefore, going into the question whether the exclusion clause pertaining to such goods see note 2(k) to Chapter 71 has any application to the present goods. 16. emsp Since we have found that the goods could be classified with the aid of headings, sub-headings, section notes and chapter notes, there is no necessity to turn to the Rules of Interpretation of the Tariff Schedule. 17. emsp The result is that the goods fall under Heading 71.12/15. The classification arrived at by the Appellate Collector is set aside and the one arrived at by the Assistant Collector is confirmed. The appeals are dismissed.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... not assessed as parts or accessories constituting in themselves machines, appliances, instruments, or apparatus, (although it was stated so in the adjudication order) in which case, they should have been classified under Chapters 84, 85 90 or 91 (other than 84.85 or 85.29). Consequently, it is not as if they were assessed in terms of Chapter Note (2) (iii) for a classification under Heading 90.29, they should be, in terms of clause (b) of Chapter Note (2), answering to the terms of that heading. That they do seeing that they are parts or accessories for use principally or solely with an article, admittedly, falling within Heading No. 90.28 (4) read with 90.25(i) specifically adverted to in the Heading 90.29 (iv) consequently, they can be assessed to duty only in terms of the Heading 90.29 under clause (b) of the aforesaid Chapter Note. 5. emsp We, accordingly, hold that the goods in question are assessable to duty under Heading No. 90.29. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Rectification of mistake

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... held that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. To the same effect was the still earlier decision of the Supreme Court in 1959 (2) SCR 547 Maharana Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. I.T.O., Porbandar . The Tribunal has considered the contentions of the applicants advanced at the time of the hearing and had given its detailed findings. The applicants cannot now file an application for rectification of defects, because the points that are sought to be canvassed are something which could be established only by a long drawn process of reasoning especially on points on which there exists two opinions. The points even if tenable, are not mere mistakes, much less mistakes apparent on the face of the record. We are constrained to point out that there are absolutely no merits in this application and it is, therefore, dismissed.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Barley malt - Fully exempt

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y malt. 5. emsp We have given the matter our earnest consideration. We observe that the Delhi High Court judgment is directly on the product-barley malt- which is in dispute before us. We are also told that there is no contrary judgment of any other High Court on this product. In the circumstances, in keeping with the practice of this Tribunal, we are bound to follow the Delhi High Court judgment. It may be that the present appellants are not asking for full exemption. But in view of the Delhi High Court having declared the product fully free from duty, we are at a loss to understand how the demands for any differential duty can be sustained against the appellants. We feel that in view of this judgment it is no longer necessary for us to determine the issues of job work and promissory estoppel as originally posed before us. Respectfully following the Delhi High Court judgment, we set aside the impugned demands and allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  CLASSIFICATION

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s, pipes, hollow bars and tube and pipe fittings which have been polished or coated, or which have been shaped or worked, such as bent, coiled, threaded, drilled, waisted, cone-shaped or finned. rdquo By virtue of the above Note, the otherwise residuary Heading 75.04/06 turns into a specific one for nickel tubes. When nickel tubes which have been worked upon fall under this Heading, there is all the more justification for plain nickel tubes to fall under this Heading. We agree with the learned representative of the department that Heading 75.04/06 read with Chapter 75, Note 2 is specific for nickel tubes, both worked and unworked. The appellants rsquo reliance on exclusion Note 1(f) to Section XV is misplaced because this note excludes only machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical goods from the scope of Section XV (in which Chapter 75 falls) and straight length nickel tubes are none of these. 5. emsp Accordingly, we uphold the lower orders and reject both the appeals.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal - Condonation of delay in filing

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... oducts - by the identical Bench as in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 529 relied upon for the applicant (c) 1985 (22) E.L.T. 590 Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Calcutta Hardware Stores . In 1985 (6) ETR 3 Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong v. Raidans Tea and Samdang Tea Estates and Others as well, the aforesaid principles were all adverted to. That was, however, a case where on the facts, it was held that the delay, if any, in filing supplementary appeals could be condoned when, for a fact, one consolidated appeal against a plurality of adjudication orders had been filed within limitation. 7. emsp Applying the aforesaid principles, we have, in the facts of the case, no hesitation in concluding that it is not a case where the applicant had not been guilty of negligence or inaction. 8. emsp The application is accordingly dismissed. 9. emsp Since the appeal was, admittedly, filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and the delay is not condoned, it is also dismissed.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 181 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  

  Additional evidence tendered before Collector appeal by appellant - Natural justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... jurisdiction under law to traverse beyond the confines of law and consider the vires of a rule. I therefore reject this submission of the learned Counsel. 6. emsp I therefore set aside the impugned order appealed against, allow the appeal and remit the matter back for reconsideration by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) as per law after affording the Department an opportunity of being heard in respect of the additional evidence produced and relied upon by the respondent herein as indicated above. Since the goods namely textiles under seizure are lying with the Department since 5-12-1981 it would be just and proper to dispose of the appeal at the earliest opportunity preferably within 2 months from the receipt of the records. In the peculiar, facts and circumstances of the case the respondent need not be insisted to make a prior deposit of penalty imposed on him under the original adjudication order as the same was already waived and dispensed with by the appellate authority.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal-Payment of duty, penalty and redemption fine

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that the Tribunal was in error in failing to consider the existence of a prima facie case for the applicant earlier, the fact still remains that the mandatory deposit was dispensed with on the ground of ldquo undue hardship rdquo . Consideration of the existence of a prima facie case is, even in terms of the decision in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 301, relevant to a conclusion on undue hardship. Prima facie case has no relevance to such terms as may be imposed once undue hardship has been found in favour of the applicant. Our failure to consider the existence of a prima facie case can hardly be made, in the premises of a grievance of. 8. emsp In the premises, we see no reason to modify our earlier order in any respect. The applicant should comply with it within three weeks from the communication of this order till which time, we extend the time for compliance in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 9. emsp The application was totally misconceived and is, hereby, dismissed.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  CLASSIFICATION

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... h do the job of printing on paper and which employ the machine for their own block making. The machine is by itself not used for printing repetitive designs or repetitive words but as an aid to the same by making plates, blocks or cylinders. I would, therefore, agree with the Appellate Collector of Customs that proper classification for the machine would be Heading 84.34 of CTA but this should make no difference to the present review proceedings, now appeal before the Tribunal, in so far as it relates to the present respondent Bharat Vijay Mills because even according to Shri J. Gopinath, SDR representing the appellant at the material time the duty liability under Headings 84.34 and 84.40 were the same. The proposal of Revenue to classify the item under Heading 90.10 of CTA not being acceptable, the review notice so for as it relates to the present respondent should be dropped and appeal dismissed. 28. With these observations, I agree with the order proposed by Brother Syiem.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Job Work - Structural fabrication

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... directly to the benefit of the manufacturers. Sub-clause (v) is satisfied. The result, therefore, is that the department rsquo s efforts to recover the duty is not sustainable and must be set aside. 31. emsp The prices and values being correct for the purpose of assessments, there were no concealments and contraventions that led to any short levy. The reasons for short levy listed in the show cause notice were that the value of the raw materials received by the factory from different parties ldquo /or conversion into other products rdquo , had not been included in the value for the purpose of assessment to duty. Since clearances were under Notification No. 120/75-CE, materials for which the factory received no payment were excluded and this exclusion is stipulated by the notification. Hence the factory followed what the law ordained. The demand, therefore, was time barred. 32. emsp I join my learned brother in setting aside the Collector rsquo s order and allowing the appeal.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal-Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty or penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 31-12-1984. A perusal thereof would reveal that the applicant had suffered losses for both the years ending on 31-12-1983 and 31-12-1984. The liquidity of the applicant meaning net working capital-(1983) 4 S.C.C. 392 (C.I T. v. Mahindra and Mahindra) does not appear to be such that it could be said that the deposit of the full amounts still due would not cause undue hardship to the applicant. 6. emsp Taking all the aspects into account we hereby direct the applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards duty and furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining outstanding amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Collector within four weeks from the date of communication of this order, failing which this order shall automatically stand vacated and the entire amount yet remaining due shall become payable. Subject to the compliance with our aforesaid order there shall be a stay on the recovery of the amount demanded and required to be deposited. 7. emsp Order accordingly.

  ---

• 1986 (2) TMI 176 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  CONFISCATION

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... with law. In the light of this, I direct the respondent-authorities and the Treasury Officer, Jind to dispose of the question in the light of the directions contained in the orders of the Judicial Courts referred to above. Further, the respondent authorities are directed to dispose of the applications referred to above i.e. Annexures P. 2, P. 8 and P. 9 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from today. For clarity sake, it is mentioned that since the period which was available to the petitioners for dealing with the gold under sub-clause (ii) of clause 15-B of Ordinance No. 23 of 1975 has already elapsed for reasons which were beyond their control, they are held entitled to avail of that period, i.e. 2 months from the date of the delivery of the gold to them to deal with or to dispose of the gold in the manner specified in that clause. 5. Thus, this petition stands disposed of with the observations made above with costs which I determine at Rs. 500.

  ---

123456789........ 13