|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... y are not articles of mineral substances but of artificially produced substances. The classification in that case, which also pertained to component parts of Heat Exchangers, was held to be under Heading No. 84.17(1). 6. There is no dispute that the present goods are component parts of Combustion Chamber. We have already noted that they are made of artificial and not of natural graphite. In the circumstances, and following our earlier decision, we hold that the present goods were also correctly classifiable within Chapter 84 and not Heading No. 68.01/16. 7. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. 8. Though the dispute before the lower authorities pertained also to two other items, namely, cementing powder and binding agent, the Counsel for the appellants did not press the claim in respect of these items on it being pointed out to him that the said goods could scarcely be called lsquo component parts rsquo though they might be raw materials.
-
1988 (3) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... or the department is that Item No. 23A of the Schedule is very wide in its amplitude and would exclude only those goods specifically excluded from its purview. The present goods do not fall in the excluded category. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. There is no dispute about the nature of the goods. They are described as ldquo rough synthetic stones rdquo in the invoice and, on test also have been found to be imitation precious stones. It is true that the test report also shows that the sample was a block of glass reddish-brown in colour with spangles. However, this finding cannot detract from the fact that the goods have been sold as, and on test found to be, synthetic or imitation stones. In our opinion, it would not be correct to classify them as ldquo other glass and glassware rdquo . The more appropriate classification would be under the residuary Item No. 68 of the CET. 5. In the result, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (3) TMI 315 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Resin - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... lhi High Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Indian Plastic and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (1981 E.L.T. 108). 5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We respectfully agree with the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case cited by the learned advocate for the respondents. It is clearly held therein that ldquo the resin in lsquo liquid form rsquo is a single substance but a lsquo solution of resin rsquo is a combination of two different substances, namely resin and water rdquo (solvent). The ratio of the High Court rsquo s decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the imported product P-3 resin (polycyclopentadiene) cannot be classified under Tariff Item 15A CET as it stood at that time. Hence the appeal is rejected and the impugned order is confirmed. 6. emsp Since the cross-objections pray for maintenance of the impugned order and rejection of the appeal, these are also disposed of in the above manner.
-
1988 (3) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty and Tariff Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... aving Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ndash 1987 (13) ECR 1280 (S.C.). 3. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the parties. The two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are not germane to the point in controversy in the present appeal. However, we see no reason to come to a finding different from the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). There is no gainsaying that the date of removal of goods (which was between 1-3-1975 to 29-4-19875) is known to the Department. Rule 9A(l)(ii) provides for duty and tariff valuation as on the date of actual removal of goods. Sub-rule (5) is residuary rule and would apply only when other rules are not applicable to the goods. As the date of actual removal of goods is within the knowledge of Revenue we find no infirmity in the finding of the Collector (Appeals) in his applying Rule 9A(l)(ii) i.e., duty as on the date of actual removal of goods. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
-
1988 (3) TMI 313 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of machines ... ... ... ... ..... arate invoicing is made. It is true, perhaps, to say that the automatic lubricating system was supplied in lieu of the standard lubricating system but it is equally true that the automatic system does not form a standard part of the machine. Had it been so, it would simply have been included in the total value in the invoice with the price perhaps higher than if the standard lubrication had been installed or supplied. 8. We can say the same thing about the diamond rollers. That they are parts for use solely with the grinding machine need not be disputed, but they are parts supplied in such circumstances that they had to be charged separately and invoiced separately. 9. I see no great injustice in the action of the Deputy Collector and the Appellate Collector. They did whatever they could they were prevented from doing more, because the law was clear and they could not have given what the importers ask. I do not feel there is a call for interference and so I reject the appeal.
-
1988 (3) TMI 312 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Past practice in Customs House ... ... ... ... ..... the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 are considered to be fair assessable value of the goods. On that basis the assessable value of the goods work out to Rs. 2,01,467.26 . 13. The impugned order made ample allowance for any difference in value of the goods imported by the appellants. The evidence relied on by the customs to arrive at the value is reasonable and the findings are, in our opinion, also reasonable. We do not therefore find any reason to interfere with the same. As a consequence we reject the appeal in so far as it relates to value. 14. In the result we find that the licence has to be accepted whereas the value, as fixed by customs, has to prevail. This calls for examination of the fines and penalties in both cases. As the confiscation was only on account of licensing we set aside the same. For the same reason we also set aside the penalties in both cases. Duty is payable at the enhanced value as fixed by the customs. 15. The two appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (3) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... that accommodates forgings even though it has undergone rough machining and has acquired certain essential shape or character that puts it apart from rough unmachined, unprocessed castings and forgings and sections. A rough machined forging is, in my opinion, more in accord with a forging than with a good not elsewhere specified. The Item 68 specification has not been spelt out and the law does not say how specific and detailed the specification should be. So it is not unreasonable or wanting in logic to hold that even a broad specification is better as long as it specifies the product however loosely, than no specification. And since the forgings head does specify forgings, whereas the head goods not elsewhere specified does not, it is more in good sense to place the rough machine forging in the forging heading. 7. I hold that these rough machined forgings are assessable more appropriately under Item 26AA than under Item 68, and therefore, I rule they should be assessed so.
-
1988 (3) TMI 302 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ognises the use of Polyester Filament Yarn by the units registered under Item 23(1) the Collector cannot take a view that PFY is not a raw material for the units registered under Item 23(1). The Collector rsquo s order therefore requires to be set aside. 26. emsp The above part, the power conferred on the adjudicating authority is to adjudge confiscation and/or to impose penalty. If the adjudicating authority finds that the goods are not liable to confiscation, then he cannot impose any condition in his order. He has to release the goods unconditionally. On this ground also the release on a caution and the warning regarding future consignments are liable to be set aside. 27. emsp If the Collector desired that his interpretation should prevail he could have issued a Trade Notice which would serve the purpose which he intended. 28. emsp In the result, and for the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and set aside the Collector rsquo s order releasing the goods on caution.
-
1988 (3) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pellate Collector did not enquire why the Assistant Collector exhibited non-satisfaction. He did even know for the non-satisfaction. In this, he failed to use his emendatory and reformative powers. It was perhaps true that the non-satisfaction was not the result of malafide or subjective (sic) it could have been the product of an error of judgment. But whatever we might say, we simply do not know with what the Assistant Collector felt not satisfied. 5. This case needs to be adjudicated again by the Assistant Collector. He shall not disqualify the goods from the exemption simply for the non-endorsement on licence recommending eligibility of concessional duty under the notification asked for this is not a part of the law and cannot have the effect of one. If he denies the goods the concession the importers asks for them, he shall set out in writing his examination and his conclusion, giving reasons therefor. 6. For the purpose, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside.
-
1988 (3) TMI 300 - CEGAT. NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the invoice did not mention it. The Terminal T-7 was not mentioned in the invoice. The appellant pleaded that this Terminal was sent by mistake instead of the Terminal mentioned in the invoice but submitted that this terminal is compatible with the computer though it is not as good as Model MT-8000 which was invoiced. We note that this terminal was not specifically declared. This omission, in our view, cannot be considered mala fide as the duty difference, if at all, would be insignificant as between the two comparable and compatible models. The Additional Collector himself took a lenient view in this regard. We order that the Interface card be released after payment of duty on the appraised values. 15. As a result, the confiscation of the goods is set aside as also the fine therefor. (Assessment of the interface card should be done at the appraised value). Assessment of the remaining goods should be done at the declared value. The penalty is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... not absolutely impossible for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden. In the facts and circumstances as discussed, we order that the value of the imported goods be accepted at 2,63,500 DM. Earlier we had directed that if the appellants produced valid licences, they should be accepted without raising the technical ground that these licences were not mentioned in the letter of credit. 20. Taking all circumstances into consideration, we further order that the fine in lieu of confiscation be reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. We order this reduction taking note of the increased Customs duty to be paid by the appellants, the amount of Customs duty sought to be evaded by the appellants, the time lag between the importation and possible release of the consignment and the consequential demurrage. 21. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (3) TMI 298 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tion 111(m) alongwith the detailed statement of allegations were clearly put to the appellants in the show cause notice. The Madras High Court judgment, therefore, does not help the appellants. 8. Since the goods were liable to confiscation, the appellants were liable to a penalty under Section 112 as well. The impugned order imposing fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty is legally quite in order. However, considering the fact that the machine, on its importation, has remained under detention for well over a year, incurring port demurrage, we feel that some reduction in fine and penalty is called for. Considering all facts and circumstances, including the higher amount of depreciation allowed by us, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). 9. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms and the lower order modified as above is confirmed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... needed to be expedited. With a view to facilitating the expeditious conclusion of the remand proceedings, we direct the appellants to furnish to the Assistant Collector on an affidavit the particulars of expenditure during the material period incurred by M/s. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. on - (i) Advertisement and sales promotion and (ii) After sale service during the warranty period, in respect of the appellants rsquo goods. The Affidavit should be supported by a Certificate of the Cost Accountant. The appellants undertook to furnish the affidavit and the Cost Accountant rsquo s Certificate within a month from the date of receipt of the Tribunal rsquo s order. On receipt of the affidavit and the Cost Accountant rsquo s Certificate, the Assistant Collector should, after such verification as he may consider necessary, re-determine the assessable values for the material period within 3 months from the date of receipt of the affidavit and the Cost Accountant rsquo s Certificate.
-
1988 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Issue of licence ... ... ... ... ..... ence to the peculiar and particular situations of a city, town or district and that is the reason why I have observed that I am deciding this question without reference to the power of the Central Government under Section 27 (6-A) of the Act. 34. The above observations of the Madras High Court equally applies in the matter of granting of new licences. 35. On consideration of all the aspects we hold that there had been no proper consideration of the appellant rsquo s application for the licence either by the Deputy Collector or by the Collector (Appeals). We, therefore, while allowing this appeal set aside their orders and remand the matter to the Deputy Collector for consideration afresh in the light of the observation contained in this order. 36. As the application for the new licence was made in the year 1981 and since seven long years had elapsed, the Deputy Collector is directed to consider the application afresh within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1988 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penal proceeding - Cross-examination ... ... ... ... ..... t should be accompanied by an officer of the Customs Department. It is indeed surprising how all these years no officer accompanied any such consignment and how in consequence such inaction whether deliberate or accidental by the officer concerned, has paved the way for smuggling goods of a considerable magnitude systematically. It is time that the higher authorities take note of the serious lapse on the part of the Customs officers concerned and initiate necessary disciplinary and remedial action to see at least in future such things do not happen. In this view we direct a copy of this order be marked to the Central Board of Customs and Excise for necessary investigative and remedial action. 17. In the result Customs Appeal No. 350/1987 by appellant Anil Mansramani is remanded. Customs Appeals No. 475/1987, 476/1987 and 477/1987 by appellants Vikramamurthy, Srikant Jha and Sunil Desai are allowed and Customs Appeals No.478/ 1987 and 479/1987 are dismissed with modifications.
-
1988 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... es, the whole of the penalty imposed on the appellant cannot stand. Unless there is fresh adjudication in relation to the goods seized from the residential premises, the penalty leviable cannot be quantified. I, therefore, set aside the penalty but leaving liberty to the Additional Collector to impose such penalty as he considers fit in the circumstances of the case after fresh adjudication is done in respect of the goods seized from the residential premises. 16. In the result this appeal is allowed in part. The confiscation of Items at Sl. Nos. 1 to 17, 21, 25 to 36, 53, 57 to 61, 64, 65 and 79 to 137 of the Annexure III to the show cause notice seized from the residential premises of the appellant is hereby set aside. The penalty imposed on the appellant is also set aside. In other respects, the order of the Additional Collector is confirmed. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order.
-
1988 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Review by Board ... ... ... ... ..... ed to the respondent in the normal course of processing of the bill of entry by way of suitable endorsement on the relevant documents at the proper stage and this order got implemented in due course by way of completion of bill of entry in accordance with the same and ultimately, by way of out-of-charge order under Section 47, passed by the proper officer in the docks. 29. Thus, whichever way one may look at it, the action taken in the matter before us amounts merely to an administrative/executive proceeding in which a decision has been taken by the Collector as an executive authority and not as an adjudicating authority. 30. In terms of Section 129, the Board was not competent to direct filing of an application before this Tribunal against such an order. The Board rsquo s order is, therefore, beyond jurisdiction and invalid as such. Hence, the applications filed in pursuance thereof, are not maintainable. They are dismissed as such without going into the merits of the cases.
-
1988 (3) TMI 274 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Medical equipment’s imported by Nursing Home ... ... ... ... ..... nd equipment. Excepting this entry there is no other entry in the Policy which requires recognition of the hospital by the State or Central Government. When the State Government issued a certificate that the Nursing Home in question is recognised for import of raw materials components consumables machinery equipment under OGL of the Import Policy 1985-88 as per Appendix 6 Item No. 5, the said certificate should be considered as a certificate recognising the Nursing Home by the State Government. It is not necessary to state in the said certificate that Nursing Home has been recognised by the State Government. Without recognising a Nursing Home, the State Government is not competent to issue such a certificate. 10. Viewed from any angle the objection taken for the import is not valid. 11. On consideration of all the aspects, I allow this appeal, set aside the confiscation as well as the fine levied in lieu of confiscation. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.
-
1988 (3) TMI 273 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication and Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... d all the baggage receipts. The CIF value of the baggage receipts alone comes to Rs. 12,300/-. If the same is multiplied by 3 the market price comes to Rs. 36,900/-. Thus the difference between panchanama value and baggage receipts value is less than Rs. 5000/-. On this ground also no confiscation should have been ordered of the goods found in the residential premises. The Department did not try to verify the information received by them that the appellant was indulging in sales of contraband goods. 10. On consideration of all the aspects, I hold that the Addl. Collector had committed a grave error in ordering confiscation and imposing penalty on the appellant. I, therefore, set aside the entire order. 11. In the result this appeal is allowed. The absolute confiscation of the goods as well as the penalty of Rs. 3,000/- imposed on the appellant are set aside. The goods ordered to be confiscated shall be released to the appellant. The penalty, if paid, shall be refunded to her.
-
1988 (3) TMI 272 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication order ... ... ... ... ..... Lordships of the Orissa High Court what could be relevant for the defence should have been left to the appellant and the Appellate Collector ought not to have taken the burden on him. 20. On consideration of all the aspects I am satisfied that by denying cross-examination of the panch witnesses and Shri Vasant Rao Shankar Rao there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The order passed in violation of the rules of natural justice is avoid order. It can neither be affirmed nor modified nor annulled. Therefore, the Appellate Collector rsquo s order confirming the void order of the Deputy Collector is also void order. 21. In the result and for the reasons stated above, I allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector for passing fresh order after affording an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and Shri Vasantrao Shankar Rao and thereafter to pass order in accordance with law.
........
|
