|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 255 Records
-
1984 (8) TMI 324 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... bay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 E.L.T. 362A, the Tribunal held that since CCCN Explanatory Notes had not been incorporated in the Customs Tariff, the matter would have to be decided on the basis of the plain interpretation of the Tariff itself. In Haldyn Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M.L. Badhwar - l980 ELT 291 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court held that when the expression in a notification is very clear and is not restricted or limited, it is not necessary to fall back upon the Brussels Nomenclature to determine the full scope of the notification. We have adverted to the relevance of the CCCN Notes in para 9 of this order. The decision of the Tribunal in Milak Bros. Gandhidham v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983(2) ETR 765 has no application to the present case. In that case, the Bench was concerned with the interpretation of the Customs Export Tariff Schedule to which the CCCN has no relevance or application. 19. In the result, the appeals fail and are rejected.
-
1984 (8) TMI 323 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... th the papers, the same are not available. Another Government of India decision being No. 8700 dated 3-1-1969 has been filed but it deals with valuation of “As is Machines” and has no relevance with the present claim. Appellants’ claim however for classification under heading 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6)-ICT, as the case may be, would have to be accepted in view of precedents at 4(iii) and (iv) above. As to appellants claim that goods were not classifiabie under T.I. 33D and at the relevant time not chargeable to additional duty (countervailing duty) in view of precedent at 4(v) above, the same would have to be accepted. 7. ’As a result appellants’ claim for classification under Head 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6), as the case may be, is accepted. Goods are held not falling under T.I. 33D, at the relevant time, and therefore not chargeable to additional duty (c.v. duty). The impugned orders are modified accordingly and appeals allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1984 (8) TMI 322 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ariff would be more appropriate. In a similar case of tungsten filament wires, which require further processing before fitment into lamps, the High Courts have held them to be “articles of tungsten". Evidence has been controverted by the Appellant and this has not been controverted by the Department, that these lead-in-wires also require similar processing, including de-gassing and encapsulating in glass, before they can be fitted into electric filament lamps. These are substantial and elaborate processes which the imported lead-m-wires have to be subjected to before they can be ready for use in the electric lamps. In this view, they would qualify more specifically as articles of nickel. We, therefore, hold that these are covered more appropriately under the Heading 75.04/06 of the Tariff. In the circumstances, these seven appeals are also be allowed. 10. We accordingly set aside all the eight impugned orders and allow these appeals with consequential relief.
-
1984 (8) TMI 321 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ncillary equipments, laboratory equipments and safety appliances.” As per drawing filed before the learned Appellate Collector, stitching unit is a complete unit itself and in view of the definitions given in the Import Policy April 1978-Mareh 1979, I hold that the importation of the same is not covered by licence 2208893. Accordingly, I confirm the findings of the lower authorities. I feel that the bona fide of the appellant being an Actual User should not be doubted in this case keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case. To meet the ends of justice, I reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to ₹ 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) only. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a refund of ₹ 6,000/-(Ruppes Six Thousand) only. The Revenue is directed to refund the fine paid in excess after making necessary verification as to its payment within three months from the date of this order. Except for this modification, for statistical purposes, the appeal is rejected.
-
1984 (8) TMI 320 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... msp;Shri Lakshmikumaran, SDR, had no objection to assessment of zinc ash under Item 68 in view of the Tariff Advice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs which has been incorporated in the Trade Notice issued by the Baroda Collectorate referred to above. Since it is a common point that the zinc ash in question has been imported before 1-3-1981, the countervailing duty should be levied under item 68 at the appropriate rate. The orders of the lower authorities that the benefit of Notification No. 104/73, dated 21-4-1983 (sic) is available only to indigenous goods produced locally, is clearly not supportable in view of the Madras High Court judgment in the matter of Saigal Industries v. Central Board of Excise and Customs reported in 1980 E.L.T. page 547. In the light of the above observations, we order the goods be assessed under the Item No. 68, CET for the purpose of countervailing duty. The appeal is thus allowed and the order passed by the lower authorities set aside.
-
1984 (8) TMI 319 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n 18 of the Act. If the endorsement mentioned above are in respect of any other clearances which are the subject matter of the present appeals and provisional assessments were made, no relief in respect of differential duty demanded would be taken to have been granted unless the appellants are able to satisfy the authorities of fulfilment of conditions of Notification No. 240-Cus., dated 30-12-1978. 13. As a result of aforesaid discussion, penalty imposed against the appellants is set aside, demand of differential duty for those consignments in which no provisional assessment was made but clearances were allowed under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 are set aside. It is, however, made clear that if in any case provisional assessment was made under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, the demand of differential duty would be covered by Notification No. 240-Cus., dated 30-12-1978 and on fulfilment of conditions set out therein. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1984 (8) TMI 318 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y the position further. Goods which satisfy the following conditions - (1) Answer to the description “HSS Parallel Shank Extra Long Drills and Taper Shank Extra Long Drills” (as in letter dated 15-1-1976); and (2) Are listed in price-lists 5 etc. which were returned to appellants under letter 1470 dated 19-11-1975 ; and (3) For which lower contract prices were shown in the above-mentioned lists if for supply to Government etc. ; and (4) For which higher prices if sold to industrial consumers were shown in price-list No. 23/75-76 under Item 51A ; and (5) Which were assessed to duty on the basis of the higher prices for industrial consumers, between the date of submission of the relevant price-list referred to in Item (2) above and 17-1-1977 (the date of the order of Shri Mohan Das) will be reassessed on the basis of the prices shown in the relevant price lists vide S.No. (2) , and consequential refund allowed. 20. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1984 (8) TMI 317 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the microscopes and ₹ 20,000/- for the bronchoscope. The penalty is also reduced to rupees ten thousand. As regards the claim for exemption from duty, under Notification No. 17/79 for the microscopes, there is nothing to dispute the fact that on 10-3-1981, the proforma invoice produced to the Collector was sent to the Director of Medical Education, Andhra; at the same time, there is no cogent reason why the expected date of arrival should have been shown in the application to the DGHS as Mareh ‘83, when the goods had already been imported. This clearly indicates misrepresentation and calls for denial of the exemption on the basis of the existing certificate. We, however, see no objection to these microscopes now being granted the benefit of Notification No. 17/79 provided the conditions can be fulfilled before the release on payment of the fine. We, accordingly, uphold the Collector’s order except for the above modification and otherwise reject the appeal.
-
1984 (8) TMI 316 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... had become final. 4. But the question is if the proceedings had become final in this case. As would appear from a recital of the facts, the refund made earlier was put in issue in an appropriate proceeding within the limitation prescribed and that proceeding was pending when the Amending Act (Finance Act, 1982) came into force with retrospective effect. It is futile in the circumstances, to contend that there is any reopening of an issue finally determined in consequence of or pursuant to the provisions of the Amending Act. The question of an erroneous refund was pending adjudication when the Finance Act, 1982, came into force and that question is being agitated now, even before us. It is not as if a refund that had become final and conclusive, not having been put in issue in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules (as it read at the relevant time), was sought to be reopened after Finance Act, 1982. 5. We see no merits, therefore, in this Appeal. We, accordingly, dismiss it.
-
1984 (8) TMI 315 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... judgment of the Board or the Central Government before the creation of the Tribunal do have some force in view of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo-China Steam Nvgn. v. Jasjit Singh, Addl. Collector - 1983 E.L.T. 1392 (S.C.) wherein it was held that where the Central Board are exercising appellate or revisional powers the same are Tribunal within the meaning of Article 136 of the Constitution. The learned Advocate’s arguments that the appeal should be remanded to the lower authorities are not tenable. Accordingly, I hold that destruction is not covered under Rule 173-L and there is no corresponding provisions under the Central Excises and salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accepted. Accordingly, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta is quashed and the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise is restored.
-
1984 (8) TMI 314 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ants. This additional sentence imposed by the High Court unquestionably constitutes an enhancement of sentence. The High Court did not issue notice calling upon the appellants to show cause why the sentence imposed upon them be not enhanced before doing so. Rules of natural justice as also the prescribed procedure require that the sentence imposed on the accused cannot be enhanced without giving notice to the appellants and the opportunity to be heard on the proposed action. The record does not show that such a notice and opportunity were given to the appellants and in the absence of notice the appellants had no opportunity to contest the proposed notice. Therefore, we allow this appeal limited to the question that the sentence of fine of ₹ 5,000/- and the default sentence imposed on each appellant by the High Court is quashed and set aside confirming the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial court. The appeal is allowed to the extent herein indicated.
-
1984 (8) TMI 313 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... generator welding sets, mobile arc welding generators, etc. It may be that those articles cannot be used without electricity. But that is not conclusive. The real nature of the machinery has to be taken into account. The above items cannot in any sense be called electrical goods, though the generators are used for producing energy. Since the articles sold by the assessee cannot fall within the expression electrical goods , they cannot be brought under entry 41 as has been done by the authorities below. We therefore hold that the items of machineries sold by the assessee for the assessment years referred to above have to be charged under section 3 at multi-point rate and that they cannot be brought under single point rate on the basis that the machineries fall under entry 41 of the First Schedule. These tax cases are, therefore, partly allowed to the extent indicated above and in other respects, they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1984 (8) TMI 312 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... peals) could reopen the Assessing Authority s order pertaining to the year 1968-69 only. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention. The aspect which is relevant for consideration in this regard is as to whether on the date on which the authority chose to act was it competent to do so. It is not relevant that the order which it was to reopen pertained to an assessment year which happened to fall in point of time before the date when the revisional power was created. In any case, section 40 of the Haryana Act merely replaces the existing section 21 of the Punjab Act. In both the sections the relevant provision authorising the concerned authority to reopen the decided cases suo motu without any limitation in regard to the time are in pari materia. For the reasons aforementioned, the reference is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs. SURINDER SINGH, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1984 (8) TMI 311 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in some cases orders have been passed during the pendency of the Ordinances by taking into consideration the provisions of Ordinance No. 11 of 1983. Since the Sixth Schedule was amended with effect from 8th July, 1983, we direct the respondents to make the assessments on the basis of the Sixth Schedule as it stood with effect from 8th July, 1983. In such cases the respondents are directed to make fresh assessments in accordance with the interpretation and the observations made in this judgment. In the result, we hold that the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance No. 11 of 1983 and the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 1984 are valid and sales tax is leviable as per the Sixth Schedule on country liquors and liquors other than country liquors with effect from 8th July, 1983. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1984 (8) TMI 310 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be goods in terms of the definition of goods as in section 2(d) of the said Act, as amended, and so the imposition and levy of sales tax on them, in our view, must be upheld. The rule which was referred for determination before the Division Bench, thus fails and the same is discharged. There will however be no order as to costs. In view of the above the appeal is also disposed of without entering into the respective contentions and submissions including submissions regarding the maintainability of the same. The oral prayer for a certificate under article 133 of the Constitution is refused, as we are of the view, that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or any important point is involved in this case, which is required to be decided by the Supreme Court. On compliance with the necessary formalities, the office is requested to make available the certified copy of the judgment at an early date. AMARENDRA CHANDRA SEN GUPTA, J.-I agree.
-
1984 (8) TMI 309 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ery has now to acquire a wider meaning to cover all knit-wears such as socks, banians, mufflers, etc. In a sense the term hosiery can now be understood as including all goods knitted for the purpose of portions of the body. In Laxmi Stores v. The Sales Tax Officer and Another 1983 53 STC 244 hosiery has been understood as including underwear or underclothing, i.e., articles which are used next to skin. The Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Hosiery Mills Private Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan 1970 26 STC 341 (SC) has held that hosiery means machine-knitted garments. In view of this, we are not, therefore, inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the gloves sold by the assessee had to be treated as ready-made goods made of cotton and cannot be treated as hosiery coming under entry 86 of the First Schedule to the Act. We are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion in these cases. The tax cases are therefore dismissed.
-
1984 (8) TMI 308 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appeals will be heard on the 17th September, 1984, disposed of as expeditiously as possible. However, if any of the appeal is not heard due to any negligence or lapse on the part of any of the petitioners, in those cases the order rendered by the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal (vide annexure D) shall forthwith come into operation and those petitioners shall have to deposit 70 per cent or 65 per cent of the tax, as the case may be, before his or their appeals are entertained, heard and disposed of. 6.. We appreciate the manner in which Mr. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate, has conducted the case and has uphold the interest of the State in pursuing that the due taxes are collected as expeditiously as possible. However, we would observe that the decision rendered here permitting the petitioners to deposit 15 per cent of the tax assessed shall not be a precedent in any future case. 7.. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (8) TMI 307 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g. If one were to go to a market and ask for varnish, no one will offer an adhesive, for, every one knows the use for which varnish is put to and an adhesive cannot be an equivalent to a varnish. 4.. We are not inclined to agree with the Government Pleader when he says that among the mechanics who deal with armature coils and undertake the operation of armature coil winding know the adhesive which is produced by the assessees only as varnish. Even so, that will not be the popular meaning. The fact that certain persons call a product as a particular kind of varnish cannot be taken as a popular meaning, a meaning that a common man will attribute to that article. In our view, in this case, the Board of Revenue is not justified in revising the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the armature coil winding oil is not varnish. In this view, the order of the Board of Revenue is set aside, and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. No costs.
-
1984 (8) TMI 306 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sel for the petitioner has confined his contentions only to the validity of the order dated 28th September, 1983, of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax. The present writ petition was filed on 2nd April, 1984. It cannot be said, therefore, that there has been undue delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax. Reference to the date on which the assessment order was passed is wholly irrelevant in the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 28th September, 1983, and the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax is directed to decide the revision of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner may apply for stay of realisation of tax to the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax within a period of one month from today. Till that time no tax in dispute shall be realised from the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300.
-
1984 (8) TMI 305 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ved at is that de-oiled rice bran is nothing but cattle fodder, which is exempt from tax. The Tribunal also referred to the opinions of H.B.T.I., Kanpur, and of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Both support the view point that rice bran and de-oiled rice bran are two different things. Rice bran is a by-product of paddy and de-oiled rice bran is a byproduct of rice bran. By-product of a by-product cannot retain the same character everywhere. So the simple test for determining the question, whether rice bran and de-oiled rice bran are one and the same thing, is whether de-oiled rice bran can be used for anything else than cattle fodder. No other use having been pointed out, I uphold the order of the Tribunal that de-oiled rice bran is nothing but cattle fodder exempt from tax. De-oiled rice bran cannot be subjected to tax until and unless it is specifically made liable to tax by any notification. This revision is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.
........
|
