|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 239 Records
-
1986 (11) TMI 266 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) N
Incentive scheme for higher production ... ... ... ... ..... e judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by the fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out rdquo . To a similar effect is the judgment of Hon rsquo ble CEGAT reported in 1983 (14) ELT 1830. 8. The department rsquo s interpretation could have been accepted if it were mentioned in the notification that the formula under Explanation (1)(b) was to be applied if the production or clearance or both of the specified goods had remained closed. Since, this is not actually so, the impugned order seems to be based on inadequate and improper appreciation of the provisions of the notification. 9. In view of the above, the Assistant Collector should dispose of the refund claim for Rs. 4,13,344.00 treating that the factory was not closed during the relevant period. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
1986 (11) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT
Order of detention of the respondent No. 2, Mahendra V. Shah, passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, was challenged by his nephew, respondent No. 1
Held that:- It is not necessary to mention in the grounds the reaction of the detaining authority in relation to every piece of evidence, separately. Besides, the recital in Annexure B that the detaining authority formed his opinion after consideration of the aforesaid document by itself clearly implied that he was not impressed by the statement therein. The detenu cannot, therefore, be heard to say that he was prejudiced in any manner.
Considering Mr. Bobde contention that several other questions also arise in this case which have not been dealt with by the High Court. He appears to be right. The impugned judgment states that several other questions were also raised which were not necessary to be considered as the writ application was succeeding on the first point. Now in view of our finding mentioned above, it becomes necessary to decide the other questions also. In the circumstances, we think that the case should go back to the High Court for further hearing. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the matter is remanded for further hearing and disposal of the case in accordance with law.
-
1986 (11) TMI 261 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Flexibility allowed to actual user ... ... ... ... ..... Hand Book of Rules and Procedure, 1968, and the authorities below were in error in not giving this flexibility. The orders dated 9th January, 1970, 13th December, 1971, and 15th July, 1972 suffer from these infirmities, and they have not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, in their correct perspective, and are thus liable to be quashed. The aforesaid orders are, therefore, quashed. 10. The fine of Rs. 25,000/-, which was imposed and maintained by the respondents, was not liable to be paid by the petitioners. The same is, therefore, liable to be refunded to the petitioners. 11. I direct that the fine of Rs. 25,000/- paid by the petitioners in lieu of confiscation, be refunded to the petitioners within one month from today. In the event of the amount not being refunded to the petitioners within one month, the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per annum. 12. The petitioners are also entitled to costs, which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.
-
1986 (11) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal and Revision - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... e Act, the appeal papers filed before the Tribunal by the Deptt. will be returned to the Deptt. for proper presentation, before the forum having jurisdiction, if so advised. rdquo 7. In the light of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the appeals in hand are not maintainable before this Tribunal in view of the amendments to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 1984 and proper forum which would be competent to entertain the appeals is the only Central Govt. in terms of Sec. 35-EE read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 35-B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly, the preliminary objection is upheld and the Registry is directed to return the appeal papers including the applications for condonation of delay to the appellant for proper presentation, before the forum having jurisdiction, if so advised. Likewise the Cross Objections filed by the respondents be also returned to the respondents for proper utilisation, if so advised.
-
1986 (11) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... come out totally and that more is hidden from the public view than has been disclosed. 11. The appellants are mistaken to say that man-coolers are industrial fans for cooling machines. They are man-coolers i.e. fan with large displacements generally used it factories and similar establishments where large numbers of people work together, where heat gains are high because of machine proximity, congestion etc. etc. They are capable of keeping large numbers of workers in reasonable comfort not only by cooling but circulating the air much more efficiently than ordinary domestic fans. 12. The appellants say the demands were time-barred. But we have seen that the transactions were all fraudulent and were meant to conceal their true nature from the central excise in order to evade duty. The demands were made correctly under Rule 9(2). This plea is rejected. 13. We are not satisfied that we should interfere with the action of the Collector and the Board, and so we reject the appeal.
-
1986 (11) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... r assembled units have been imported, a part number has been given to assembled units which is not the case with the ldquo Dual Cup Gasket Assembly rdquo . Besides, as there is no catalogue it is not possible to verify the claims of the appellants according to the learned SDR. He further pointed out that according to Chapter Note 2(a) of Chapter 90, the Gasket correctly falls under Heading 84.64. 5. emsp We have considered the arguments of both sides. It is quite clear that the arguments of the learned Consultant in respect of Pneumatic Power Cylinder are correct and that this item is not an independent machine. Taking note of the position, we order that the appeal in respect of Item No. 5 be allowed with consequential relief. Considering that the appellants did not succeed in showing that the Dual Cup Gasket Assembly (Item No. 6 of B/E) is not a gasket, we dismiss the appeal in respect of this item. 6. As a result, the appeal partly succeeds as indicated and otherwise fails.
-
1986 (11) TMI 246 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reasonable inference liable to be drawn that no violation of foreign exchange ... ... ... ... ..... the facts of the present case, it is no answer to say that the Reserve Bank to whom the Franchise Agreements were forwarded was not the agency to grant previous permission to Parle in their trading activity as that grant power vested in the Central Government under Section 27 of the Act, more so, when the Franchise Agreements were forwarded by the Reserve Bank to the Government. It is felt that an active co-ordination between the Reserve Bank and the Central Government in the matter of processing of such foreign collaboration would make for a smoother and meaningful operation of the Act. 17. In view of the foregoing, I find that the learned Magistrate was wrong in disallowing the application of the Petitioner. 18. emsp The Petition, therefore, succeeds, and the rule is made absolute. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 149/CW/1984 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, are quashed and the accused stand discharged.
-
1986 (11) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
High Density Polythelene Moulding Powder (HDPE) ... ... ... ... ..... o the same is necessary. 21. emsp From the above discussion it would be seen that Pan Asia rsquo s decision would also not help the appellants because they have failed to show that raw naphtha or chemicals derived therefrom had paid excise duty. In fact, they could not have paid excise duty being imported goods, and on the test of Karnataka High Court and other Tribunal decisions referred to above they could not succeed in their claim for exemption from additional duty on the strength of notification issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Besides, there being different rates of duty, one the statutory rate and the other the concessional rate, the highest rate would be applicable for quantifying additional duty. On any test the appeals must fail. 22. emsp As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find that HOPE Moulding Powder imported by the appellants are not eligible for concession under the Notification. The appeals therefore fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of orders ... ... ... ... ..... e canvassed by the applicants is not something which could be called a mistake apparent from the record within the scope of Section 129B(2). What the applicants want us to do amounts to reviewing our own order and adopting a different interpretation. We have no power to do so, The right remedy for canvassing a different interpretation was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) against our order. The applicants did file such an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 5351 of 1983). It was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19-3-1984 and the Tribunal Order was thus confirmed. We are at a loss to understand as to how reversal of our earlier interpretation can be canvassed before us now. Nor does a later order of the Tribunal giving a different interpretation make our earlier order a mistake. If at all, it is the earlier interpretation which stands confirmed by the Supreme Court and not the later interpretation. 4. In the circumstances, we dismiss both the applications.
-
1986 (11) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Legislation by reference - And legislation by incorporation ... ... ... ... ..... terpretation of a fiscal statute. In any event these considerations are hardly relevant to the case. It was entirely for the concerned manufacturer to decide whether he should sell his goods only to buyers who did not seek the application of Notification No. 101/71, and thereby keep alive his claim for the benefit of Notification No. 71/78 or whether he should sell his goods to buyers who invoked Notification No. 101/71, with consequent prejudice to his claim to the benefit of Notification No. 71/78 in respect of such goods sold to other buyers. This was a matter for the appellant rsquo s commercial judgment. Having made his choice on the basis of commercial judgment, the appellant cannot avoid the consequences on grounds of equity. 15. We accordingly find that the orders of the lower authorities in these case were correct. Appeal No. 1250/82-B1 accordingly has to fail. Consequently appeals Nos. 1164/82 and 1165/82 also have to fail. We therefore reject all the three appeals.
-
1986 (11) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... to buy or otherwise acquire gold, not being ornament, except by succession, or in accordance with the permit granted by the authorities concerned. In the instant case, the fact that the contraband gold was of foreign origin and was rightly confiscated was not challenged before us. Thus after finding that the contraband gold was recovered from the conscious possession and control of both the appellants there is no legal impediment in finding the appellant Shri Gopal Saran guilty for contravening the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 even though he was not found guilty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for abetting the offence of smuggling of the contraband gold into India. 9. emsp As regards the penalty amount, in our considered opinion, no interference is called for, keeping in view the nature and quantity of the contraband gold in question. 10. In the result, all the appeals fail being devoid of any merits.
-
1986 (11) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Changed goods shipped by supplier’s oversight ... ... ... ... ..... were, admittedly, ldquo not a standard nature and varied to a great extent rdquo . It is observed that ldquo the import price of synthetic rags was noticed from the same supplier at Hfl .80 to Hfl 1.04 per kg. rdquo . Where was it noticed and when? What were the imports that were taken into account? No indication. The observation was a mere ipse dixit without any evidence in support thereof. If indeed, the price was Hfl .80 to Hfl 1.04 per kg., would the seller cite a lower normal price of Hfl .80, in his letter dated 25.9.1984, resulting in a larger amount of refund? It stands to reason that he would minimise the refund by quoting a higher normal price. The goods cannot, in the circumstances, be valued at a price other than Hfl .80/kg. 7. emsp In the premises, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs is set aside and the goods are directed to be reassessed at Hfl .80 per kg. only. Consequential refund, if any, Is to be afforded to the appellant.
-
1986 (11) TMI 234 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... egard to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. V.K. Ganga Shetty - A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1319. On this ground also the order of confiscation passed by the authorities below cannot be interfered with. The only other question that remains for consideration is whether the goods should have been released without payment of fine having regard to the past practice. The Board did take into consideration this past practice and therefore it reduced the penalty from Rs. 85,000/- to Rs. 17,000/-. If the past practice is against statutory provision, then the same cannot be made as a ground to challenge the order of confiscation or imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation. There is no evidence also that the appellant was misled by the past practice in placing the order of the import for the goods in question. In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Board. 9. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1986 (11) TMI 233 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Imports - Advance Licence ... ... ... ... ..... s has been exempted on condition that the operation of manufacture is carried out and the goods would be re-exported. Hence no payment of duty is involved in the import of the goods under appeal. Therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Addl. Collector to direct clearance of the goods in Bond as the goods are not dutiable. Such a condition was clearly opposed to the requirement of Section 59 of the Customs Act. Besides, the Supreme Court in the decisions in the case of Sewpujanrai Indrasen Rai Ltd., 1983 E.L.T. 1305 and in the case of Ambalal, 1983 E.L.T. 1321 has held that conditional orders of redemption of goods under the Customs Act are bad. The ratios of these decisions would apply by analogy in the present case. From all these foregoing points of view, we find that the order of the Addl. Collector is bad in law and that it requires to be set aside. Accordingly, we do so and remand the matter to the Addl. Collector for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.
-
1986 (11) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation Appeal - Non filing of cross objections ... ... ... ... ..... page 164 ldquo In construing a word in an Act caution is necessary in adopting the meaning ascribed to the word in other Acts. rdquo If would be a new terror in the construction of Acts of Parliament if we were required to limit a word to an unnatural sense because in some Act which is not incorporated or referred to such an interpretation is given to it for the purposes of that Act alone rdquo . The judgments cited by the learned Advocate do not help him. We very respectfully follow the observations of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). We are also in full agreement with the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and Standard Chemical and Pharmaceutical Company, Bombay reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 373. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 212 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... .1978, the date on which they disputed the classification of their product. The consequential relief, if any, ordered by the Appellate Collector would not only entitle the appellants to get their product classified under Tariff Item No. 26AA(ia) but also entitle them to claim refund of duty if paid from 22.6.1978. 10. Admittedly, the present refund claims related to the period from 2.3.1966 to 30.12.1977. They relate to the period earlier to the date of their request for re-classification, namely, earlier to 22.6.1978. Therefore, their claims for refund would not flow from the order dated 22.9.1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. In the said circumstances, if the Asst. Collector and on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) had rejected their claim as barred under Section 11B(1), it cannot be contended that the said authorities committed any legal error, agree with brother Dilipsinhji that this appeal requires to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected.
-
1986 (11) TMI 211 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Penalty - Irregularities and illegalities committed by the Directors ... ... ... ... ..... e said provision, we are not persuaded to agree with Shri Jain that the firm cannot be made liable to pay penalty for the acts and commissions of its Directors. The firm acts through its Directors and therefore the firm, in law, is liable for the acts and commissions of the Directors. Unlike the Customs and Gold Control Law, the Central Excise Law does not provide for imposing penalty on the Directors or the Partners of a firm for their individual acts. The provisions similar to Section 140 of the Customs Act and Section 284 of the Gold Control Act, are not found in the Central Excise Act or Rules. 7. emsp After careful consideration of all the aspects, we reject Shri Jain rsquo s contention that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no penalty can be levied on the firm. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Collector. The Collector rsquo s order in imposing the penalty on the firm is not only legal but just and proper. We, therefore, reject this appeal.
-
1986 (11) TMI 210 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold Control - Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ities seized the primary gold having regard to the admission of the appellant, it could be safely said that he was either in possession or custody or control of the primary gold. Therefore, there was contravention of Section 8(1). But then, the Collector while imposing the penalty would have taken into consideration the liability of 1078 grams of ornaments to confiscation. As held earlier, the said ornaments are not liable to confiscation. Taking all aspects into consideration, I reduce the penalty from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only). In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.7,000/-. The penalty is reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. The appellant be granted consequential relief. The appellant is given six weeks time from the date of communication of this order to redeem the primary gold if not already redeemed. Immediately after redemption he shall convert them into ornaments.
-
1986 (11) TMI 197 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... nable opportunity to be heard in person. The Cross-Objections also stand disposed of accordingly. 8.Since the matter is an old one, the Adjudicating Authority is expected to expedite the matter. 9. emsp Order per P.C. Jain . -I agree with my learned brother that the case is fit for being remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person. I would also add that the appellant rsquo s reply dated 12-7-1983, said to have been received in the office of the adjudicating authority on 22-7-1983, should be taken into consideration before the decision on fresh adjudication is passed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant should also be given a reasonable time for inspection of records and taking extracts therefrom in support of his defence. 10. emsp All the foregoing formalities are necessary because important questions of fact are involved before a decision can be given in the instant matter.
-
1986 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Valuation - ... ... ... ... ..... tment its various invoices etc. for the relevant period and the same had been checked by the department also, the result of the check being that all the sales by the respondents appear to have been to persons or institutions who were direct users of the fork lift trucks supplied by the respondents. Hence even as a question of fact we are satisfied that the sales by the respondents were by way of retail sales only. As already indicated, this is the basis on which the department itself had earlier proceeded as is evident from the Annexure to the show cause notice dated 15-8-1976. 6. emsp We hold that the Appellate Collector was right in setting aside the findings of the Assistant Collector that there existed a wholesale price and the assessable value was therefore to be determined in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Accordingly, we hold that the review notice is to be discharged. This appeal is dismissed and the notice dated 15-5-1981 is discharged.
........
|
