|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 317 Records
-
1987 (3) TMI 347 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Products of animal origin not elsewhere specified ... ... ... ... ..... he argument as advanced in the above said ground of appeal is incorrect. 8. In any event Heading 30.01 CTA, as already noted, relates to organo therapeutic glands or other organs, dried, whether or not powdered. Hence the same does not cover frozen glands. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that the subject goods would fall under Heading 30.01 CTA and would therefore, be eligible for concessional assessment under Notification 64/79 is of no substance. 8A. Heading 05.01/15 covers products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included. Since it would only be dried glands that would be covered by Heading 30.01 CTA, there can be no doubt that frozen glands would fall for classification under Heading 05.01/15 CTA only. As earlier mentioned the partial exemption in respect of goods falling under this heading as granted under Notification 127/76 was not available on 5-3-1979. 9. In the result the orders of the lower authorities are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 346 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Utensils - Aluminium utensils ... ... ... ... ..... bbas. 5. TheAppellate Collector was not right in his decision. The only reason he advances is that he f E.L.T. it reasonable to state that utensils mean a vessel or containers ordinarily intended for cooking etc. and that, as such, use of the goods to be utensils need not be confined to the domestic kitchen only. There is not much more reason than this. It is difficult to agree with him and with his findings that things like welded trays, wire tiffin etc. are utensils. 6. At the hearing at which the assessees did not appear, the learned Counsel for the department said that a similar question arose before the Tribunal and was decided by its order No. 93/86-B. The same dispute arose in that case and the Tribunal decided that a tiffin box and a suit case would not be classed as utensil. A similar conclusion in this dispute is in order, and so the order-in-appeal of the Collector is set aside. The goods in dispute shall not be given the exemption under Notification No. 244/77-CB.
-
1987 (3) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cinematographic Camera ... ... ... ... ..... per or paper board as the case may be, if not already paid, plus ten per cent ad valorem. A simple perusal of the Tariff Item 37C shows that it relates to the photographic cameras and the scheme of Central Excise Tariff Item 37C, which relates to the said goods, clearly reflects .that Cinematographic Camera did not fall under Tariff Item 37C. Shri Lakshmikumaran, the learned advocate had referred to the then Hon rsquo ble Finance Minister rsquo s statement appearing in 1982 Vol. 9 E.L.T. Page A-19 (Para No. 112) which has been reproduced above clearly indicates that earlier such goods were leviable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68. We further observe that in trade parlance Photographic Cameras are different from the Cinematographic Camera. Accordingly there is no force in the revenue rsquo s arguments. We held that C.V. duty as originally levied under Tariff Item 68 was correct in law. With these observations we set aside the impugned orders. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Capacitors and coils are not instruments ... ... ... ... ..... Manager of the appellants. Shri Koshy reiterating the contents of the revision application submitted that goods in question lsquo Capacitors and Coils rsquo are covered by NMI and DE certificates. He further stated that the appellants have been importing consumables like lsquo Capacitors and Coils rsquo and obtained necessary documents covering the same. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, ld. SDR opposing the arguments invited our attention to Notification 211/76 and submitted that this Notification is applicable to instruments, Apparatus and Equipments but not to parts thereof. 5. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The goods imported are, without dispute lsquo Capacitors and Coils rsquo which are parts of Instrument. The Notification in question exempts scientific and technical Instruments, Apparatus and Equipments. It is, therefore, clear that as submitted by the ld. SDR, this Notification is not applicable to parts of Instruments etc. For this reason, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 343 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... h sides and also perused the Notification 211/76. Normally, taking note of the circumstances that dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Collector was for the failure to fulfil the technical requirement of affixing court fee stamp to the impugned order, we would have been inclined to set aside that order and direct a re-hearing by the Collector (Appeals) after appellants comply with the requirement of affixing the stamp. But, in view of the other circumstances that even in such a re-hearing the appellants are bound to fail for the reasons stated above, we are not adopting that course. 6. As correctly pointed out by the ld. SDR, Notification No. 211/76 exempts scientific and technical Instruments, Apparatus and Equipments, the notification does not extend to parts for such instrument etc. Admittedly the goods, imported are Capacitors which are only parts of such machine. Clearly the are not entitled for concession under the Notification. 7. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 342 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Scientific and technical instruments ... ... ... ... ..... tantiated. 3. We heard Shri K.K. Koshy, Dy. Manager of the Appellants. Shri Koshi reiterating the contents of the revision application submitted that goods in question lsquo DIODES rsquo are covered by NMI and DE certificates. He further stated that the appellants have been importing consumables like lsquo Diodes rsquo and obtained necessary documents covering the same. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, ld. SDR opposing the arguments invited our attention to Notification 211/76 and submitted that this Notification is applicable to Instrument, Apparatus and Equipments but not to parts thereof. 5. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The goods imported are without dispute, lsquo DIODES rsquo which are parts of Instrument. The Notification in question exempts scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipments. It is, therefore, clear that as submitted by the ld. SDR, this Notification is not applicable to parts of Instrument etc. For this reason, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... brating and calibrating has to be done manually and not by machine. We do not feel that there is any justification for the denial of the benefit of the notification merely on the ground that the imported goods have got also the function of calibration especially when the basic instrument can only check and measure and the calibration part is to be done by the operator of the instrument and not by the instrument itself. The imported goods fall under Heading 90.16(1). We do not find any merit in the appellant rsquo s plea that the imported goods fall under Heading 90.24(1) or 90.16(2). The goods imported fully tally with the description as given in Heading 90.16(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. For the reasons stated above, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 394/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. 9. In view of the above discussion we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal and the Rev. authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1987 (3) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause-cum-demand notice ... ... ... ... ..... re not in dispute. Besides, it is primarily for the Revenue to show how the extended time limit is applicable and that is lacking in the present appeal. In our view on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Revenue has failed to show how the extended time limit of five years would be applicable for raising demand against the appellants in this case and not the shorter time limit of six months. Applying six months time limit under Section 11-A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which was in force on the date of show cause notice the whole demand is barred by limitation. We have already mentioned that in the show cause notice there is no allegation of any mis-statement, collusion, fraud or like on the part of the appellants nor are there any facts from which such an inference could be drawn. We, therefore, on merits find against the appellants but set aside the demand on the ground of limitation. Amount if collected from the appellants shall be refunded to them.
-
1987 (3) TMI 337 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... uthority, the said authority should be given an opportunity for making submission in respect of the additional evidence but it is a sound proposition of law that the additional evidence should be tested for its veracity and correctness by giving the other party a chance to meet the challenge of the additional evidence. Inasmuch as the full facts in this regard are not on record and also the fact that the competent departmental authority was given no opportunity to make submissions before the Collector (Appeals) in regard to this, we hold that the impugned appellate order is not a proper order and set aside the same and remand the case to the Jurisdictional Collector (Appeals) for de novo consideration and decision after giving the lower authorities opportunity to make submissions in regard to the test results which are one of the factors considered by the Collector (Appeals) while setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by remand.
-
1987 (3) TMI 336 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electrical equipments ... ... ... ... ..... not in the Tariff. Such is not the case in respect of the subject goods . 10. Similar considerations have to prevail in the present matter also as the imported goods, though they are electrical parts of electrical machinery for making and breaking electrical circuits, are specifically covered under Heading 85.18/27(1) inasmuch as the goods imported are insulating fittings for electrical equipment and such identity of the goods was not lost. Since none of the other sub-items, namely (2) and (3) of Heading 85.18/27, covers insulating fittings for electrical equipments, the classification, therefore, has to be made under Section 85.18/27(1) as ldquo not elsewhere specified rdquo . The same is the case with the bushings which too are parts of electrical machinery but are insulating fittings by themselves. Therefore, for the reasons we have discussed above, we hold that the imported goods correctly classified under Heading 85.18/27(1). We, therefore, were dismiss both the appeals.
-
1987 (3) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Short levy due to mis-statement of value of goods ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 10/- per drum. The steel sheets belonged to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. As per the agreement, the Central Excise duty was payable by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation, the customer. The appellants could have nothing to gain by trying to save on the duty amount since the burden of paying the duty was not on them but on the customer. It may be a case of omission or negligence on the part of the appellants or M/s. Indian Oil Corporation or both. This aspect of the matter has not been investigated by the department. The evidence on the record does not convince us that there were any mala fides on the part of the appellants. Incidentally, both the appellants as well as M/s. Indian Oil Corporation were Government of India undertakings. We do not find that the circumstances of the case justified imposition of any penalty much less the heavy penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.00. We set aside the penalty. 6. In the result, we allow the appeal in full with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (3) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... of industrial furnace. He also observed that in the absence of clear cut evidence, it was not possible to rule out the assessment under Heading 85.12 CTA. 3. In the revision application, which is now before us for disposal as an appeal, the appellants have contended that the heating rods are with end fittings enabling them straightaway to be put into use in the electrical furnace and as such, the goods are assessable under Heading 85.11(1) of the CTA. Along with the revision application they have submitted a drawing, but no catalogue has been produced to show how it is used straightaway in the industrial furnace, nor have they caused an appearance in the hearing to explain the matter. In the absence of adequate evidence to show that imported heating rods are parts of industrial furnace, we do not consider the original assessment as erroneous. Following the earlier decisions of this Tribunal as relied upon by the learned JDR we dismiss the appeal and uphold the impugned order.
-
1987 (3) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the explanatory notes appearing under Heading No. 70.20 of the CCCN. With reference to these authorities, it was submitted that the goods could not be classified as articles of fibre glass but more appropriately as articles not elsewhere specified under the residuary Item No. 68 of the CET. On her part, Smt. Vijay Zutshi, SDR relied upon the previous decisions referred to earlier. 4. On a consideration of the submissions made before us, we do not see any reason to depart from the view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier decision dt. 12-9-86 in which the points put forth now before us had also been put forward and were duly considered. Following the previous decision, we hold that in the present case also the fibre glass reinforced plastic tubes meant for use in circuit breakers were correctly classified under Item No. 22F of the CET and had been correctly levied to additional duty of Customs with reference to this Heading in the CET. 5. In the result, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 317 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... all other orders passed on the same date, except one order which was passed on 16.4.1987, a quantum of fine of 15 has been imposed. While I find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that reduction in the quantum of fine should be given in all these cases where 15 of fine has been imposed conforming to the quantum of 10 adopted by the very same adjudicating authority in two cases referred to above, I am not inclined to modify the order and reduce the quantum of fine, because the exercise of the discretion though marginally varies from one case to other cases cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse. A small variation by itself cannot be a circumstance warranting modification of the same by conforming to a rigid formula. 9. In the result the penalty imposed on each of the appellants under the respective impugned orders is set aside and the fine imposed confirmed. Except for the above modifications, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 312 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d imported cold rolled stainless steel strips which have been described in the invoice as stainless steel flat wire of three types. The details of the same are as under - In inches In mm Width Thickness 1. ensp ensp 0.187 x 0.008 47.5x2.03 2. 0.187 x 0.010 47.5x2.54 3. 0.187 x 0.006 47.5x1.53 Heading 73.15 relates to alloy steel and high carbon steel in the forms mentioned in Heading Nos. 73.06/07 to 73.14 and sub-heading (1) relates to ldquo Not elsewhere specified rdquo and sub-heading (2) relates to coils for re-rolling, bars (including bright bars), rods, wire rods, wire circles, angles, shapes and sections strips, sheets and plates of stainless steel. 5. A simple perusal of the description of the goods read with Note 1(m) Chapter 73 shows that the imported goods are strips. Accordingly we hold that the lower authorities had correctly assessed the imported goods under sub-heading (2) of Heading 73.15. In the result there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Spectrophotometer parts ... ... ... ... ..... appellant under heading 90.25(1). 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the Bill of Entry viz. P.C.B., Switch, Relay and photo-multiplier tube were correctly assessed under heading 85.18/27(1) in view of Note 2 of Chapter 90. Accordingly for both the items we confirm the findings of the lower authorities and hold that the same were correctly assessed under heading 85.18/27(1). For other items No. 3, 4 and 7 of the Bill of Entry viz. Cap Assembly, Glass Tube and Hollow Cathode Lamp, we hold that the same fall under heading 90.25(1). Item No.7 viz. Hollow Cathode Lamp is covered by the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the appellant rsquo s own case vide order No. 649 dated 25-7-1986. Accordingly, we hold that these 3 items fall under heading 90.25(1). Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. 6. Pronounced in open court.
-
1987 (3) TMI 310 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... under the Tariff Item 17(2) relating to paper and as if the reel centre cores, having already paid duty under Item 68 of the Tariff when purchased by the appellants from the market, are being subjected to Central Excise duty a second time. In fact, no such thing happened. What is assessed in the hands of the appellants is the paper manufactured and removed by them, and the cost of the reel centre core forms a part of the value of such paper in the shape of packing necessary for marketing of the paper. It is already settled by the Supreme Court in paragraph 51 of their judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) that the cost of packing in which the goods are generally marketed by the manufacturer in wholesale has to be included in the assessable value of the goods. Hence, we uphold the view of the lower authorities that the cost of reel centre core has to be included in the assessable value of the paper. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 309 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rotor - Vacuum pump ... ... ... ... ..... he lower authorities had correctly assessed the Impeller under heading 84.11(1) and the Shaft under heading 84.63. He states that the function of the Shaft is to transmit power. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned S.D.R. and have gone through the records. We feel that the Spare Rotor for vacuum pump consisting of Impeller and Shaft is an integral part of the Vacuum pump and as such the same should have been assessed under heading 84.11(1). We would further observe that the appellants have not imported the transmission shaft alone. It was imported along with the Impeller as a part of the Rotor. Accordingly, we hold that the claim of the appellants that the same is to be assessed under heading 84.11(1) is correct. We set aside the impugned order, and order the assessment of the same under heading 84.11(1) of CTA, 1975. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 308 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... for disposal. 3. Shri N.C. Sogani, the learned Consultant has appeared on behalf of the appellants and he had reiterated the contentions made in the Revision Application, and has also referred to the Catalogue filed by the appellants. He has pleaded for the acceptance of his appeal. Shri J. Gopinath states that the description of the goods is similar to the description given in pages 1631 to 1633 of BTN. Shri J. Gopinath, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative further states that Instruments are used for Condenser Microphone for Loudspeaker and in this process it does measure lsquo sound rsquo also. For the functions of this instrument, he has no further comments to offer. 4. We have heard both sides and gone through the records. We hold that the description of the imported goods tallies with the description under Heading 90.25(1). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and hold that goods are assessable under Heading 90.25(1). In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 307 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice for classification ... ... ... ... ..... nd (5) of Section 131 shows that in the respondent rsquo s case sub-section (3) is applicable and there is no limitation for the issue of review show cause notice. Accordingly we hold that the review show cause notice was issued within time as there is no limitation for the issue of the same. 4. On merits we would like to observe that in the present matter there is denial of principles of natural justice. The revenue rsquo s case is based on the letter of Dunlop India Ltd. which is dated 27-8-1981. The respondents did not get the opportunity of cross-examination and the letter is much after the appellate order. We feel that there is complete denial of principles of natural justice. Accordingly we do not Find any reason in disturbing the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs. With these observations we reject the appeal. Since we are rejecting the appeal on the principles of natural justice we are not going into the merits of the case. 5. Pronounced in open court.
........
|
