Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 239 Records
-
1986 (11) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adhesive tapes ... ... ... ... ..... s not binding and would not be followed. The rule that a precedent sub silentio is not authoritative goes back at least to 1661 (m), when counsel said ldquo An hundred precedents sub silentio are not material rdquo and Twisden, J., agreed ldquo Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment rdquo . In view of the above discussion we are not inclined to follow the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of J.L. Morison, Son and Jones Pvt. Ltd. Shri Sundar Rajan during the course of arguments had also argued that the revenue does not press its classification under Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff and he leaves it to the Bench. The Adhesive Plastic B.P.C. Tape does not possess any medicinal or therapeutic properties. It is a surgical dressing in Pharmaceutical and commercial parlance. Accordingly we hold that the adhesive plastic B.P.C. manufactured by the respondents falls under Tariff Item 68. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue fails.
-
1986 (11) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn - Woollen and acrylin spun yarn ... ... ... ... ..... be appropriate to rely on that observation of the Supreme Court to justify the demand in the present instance. The Revenue initially relied upon Rule 10 as well as Rule 10A. Subsequently they expressly gave up the demand under Rule 10 and specifically relied upon Rule 10-A only. Before us also Shri Sachar contended that Rule 10-A was the proper Rule. In the circumstances once the applicability of Rule 10-A is ruled out, it would not be proper to permit the department to rely on the provisions of Rule 10 (reliance on which they themselves had expressly abandoned) to confirm a part of the demand under the said Rule 10. Therefore, on the question of limitation also we are of the view that in the particular circumstances of this case, the demand, made under rule 10-A, could not be justified. 15. emsp Accordingly we hold that the orders of the lower authorities are not correct. This appeal is allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief.
-
1986 (11) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... ring the relevant period and not with reference to other goods, though excisable under other items of the Central Excise Tariff. As noted earlier the words used in the proviso are ldquo total value of all excisable goods rdquo . If the contention of the appellants is to be accepted one would expect the relevant words would have been ldquo total value of the said goods rdquo , the said goods being the goods falling under Tariff Item 68 CET mentioned in the preceding paragraph. We are of the opinion that in so far as the words used in the proviso were ldquo all excisable goods rdquo the contention put forward by the appellants cannot be accepted. As mentioned earlier there is no dispute that the value of clearances in respect of goods falling under Tariff Item 23 CET exceeded during the preceding financial year Rs. 45 lakhs. Accordingly, we hold that the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim based on Notification No. 176/77. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off - Refund admissible ... ... ... ... ..... this case is merely whether the application dated 10-3-1979 can be treated as a claim for refund or not or was it merely a declaration in terms of the Notification No. 178/77. Facts available in the case before the Tribunal in the case of Andhra Pradesh Lightings Limited, Hyderabad mentioned supra are different from facts available in the present case. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the condition referred to in the Notification No. 178/77 is substantive or procedural. It is merely to be noted for the purpose of record that the decision of the Tribunal in Order No. 201/86-B1 has not taken into consideration the decision reported in 1985 ECR 1567 wherein following of Chapter X procedure was one of the conditions stated in the relevant notification and yet this condition was considered to be a mere procedural conditions in that case. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed in full.
-
1986 (11) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand for readjudication with certain directions ... ... ... ... ..... s and have the opinion taken at a very early date. While doing so, Dr. Bhat rsquo s or any other expert rsquo s attention could be drawn to certificate from the DGHS, and comments of such expert, obtained in respect to the said certificate. Matter to be disposed of finally only after a copy of such opinion has been supplied to the appellants, and after notice to them to place their case before the Collector. In case the adjudicating authority desires any other evidence to be produced before him, he should give a clear indication to that effect to the appellants in the show cause notice, which should be issued to them within a week of the date of receipt of our order by him. 14. emsp In view of the fact that the goods have been already under detention for a long period, it is directed that the Collector shall conclude his proceedings in every manner, this time, within two months of the date of receipt by him of Tribunal rsquo s order. 15.The appeal is, thus, allowed by remand.
-
1986 (11) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of Customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... at the time of assessment of the goods. It was, therefore, incumbent on him to find out as to whether description in the invoice was correct or not. We find that the assessing officer did not challenge the description as per invoice, but on the other hand assessed the goods under Tariff Item 72(11) I.C.T. which is meant for sewing machine operated on motor less than l/4 H.P. Viewed from the description of the goods in the invoice, the assessment under this tariff item was obviously incorrect. 7. emsp In view of the above facts, the rejection of the refund claims by the Assistant Collector and then by the Appellate Collector of Customs on the ground that the goods were out of customs control is not found by us to be justified. As a result, the appeals should succeed and the orders-in-appeal would deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside all the five orders-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector and allow these appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (11) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... e latter sell to others. But there are no details or any evidence in this regard before us, or even in the Show Cause Notice issued to M/s Minichem India. The Show Cause Notice alleged that M/s Minichem India had made a wrong declaration of the assessable value. In the course of the arguments, the learned SDR could not show to us as to which is the wrong declaration which the respondents have made. We note here the remarks of the Collector (Appeals) that in fact, two price lists for clearances to M/s Mehta and Mehta Associates were submitted by the respondents who sought for a clarification on the concept of related person but no cognizance of the same had been taken. This is not denied by the department. We are therefore, unable to see what has been the suppression of the facts on the basis of which demand of duty is sought to be raised under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. 14. In the light of our foregoing findings, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... stoms duty on imports in the public interest. Section 5 of the Tariff Act empowers Central Government to lower the rates of customs duty to give effect to trade agreements. The exemptions granted under the Excise Act which regulates the levy of excise duty or tax on manufactured goods in the country is a separate and distinct enactment. The exemptions granted under the Excise duty either in whole or in part are for the purpose of that Act only and they cannot on any principle be the basis for claiming exemptions under the Customs Act. rdquo . 6. emsp In view of the above pronouncements, the appellants cannot claim refund of the Additional duty which is Customs duty based on a Notification issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, when the notification has no reference to customs duty. The rejection of the appellants claim for refund must be, therefore, upheld though for reasons different from those found by the lower authorities. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 186 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Aluminium products - Manufactured from Aluminium of Electrical Conductor grade ... ... ... ... ..... bution, do not cover the entire quantity of aluminium products manufactured. At the same time we cannot ignore that the respondents should have been governed by the provisions of the Aluminium (Control) Order and should by producing relevant allotment orders, invoices and other documents, establish conclusively that the products manufactured by them, were supplied and distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Aluminium (Control) Order and as required by the Central Government. 8. emsp In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order should be set aside. At the same time, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the Appellate Collector for re-decision of the matter in the light of the observations contained in this order. The respondents would be at liberty to produce necessary documentary evidence in support of their contentions that they are entitled to the benefit of Notification 42/75. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1986 (11) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Double taxation ... ... ... ... ..... m bulk is neither ldquo manufacture rdquo nor are the depots at Paharpur and Budge Budge places of removal, in regard to the goods in question (e) once this was so, the goods sold in packing from Paharpur or Budge Budge were not assessable to duty and the assessee was under no obligation to have disclosed this on pain of being held guilty of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, so as to avail the larger period of limitation prescribed in Rule 10. That the goods were sold after packing at Paharpur or Budge Budge could have been easily ascertained on enquiry and there was never any active concealment. Nor was the requisite intention to evade payment of duty proved, even if the appellant could have contravened any Rule. There was, indeed, no removal of manufactured goods from the place of manufacture without payment of duty. The penalty, if any, imposed under either R.9 or 173Q was as unjustified as was the demand for payment of differential duty.
-
1986 (11) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication proceedings - Request for adjournment ... ... ... ... ..... in the impugned order that the record which the appellants wanted to produce was not relevant. Under these circumstances asking the appellants to appear for personal hearing on 29-6-1983 without records appears to be an empty compliance to the principle of audi altaram partem - a long cherished principle. In this background I am of the opinion that no effective opportunity was ever given to the appellants to defend themselves as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, supra. 6. emsp In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the case de novo from the stage from which it was made ex parte after giving the effective opportunity to the appellants to defend. Since I am remanding the case no separate order is required to be passed on the Cross-Objections filed by the department and the same shall be deemed to have been disposed of by this order.
-
1986 (11) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Gold Confiscation of gold ... ... ... ... ..... d to be, contravened shall be liable to be confiscation together with any package, covering or receptacle in which such gold is found and realising this legal position, and I think rightly so, he did not pursue the matter further. In such a situation the impugned order confiscating the seized primary gold and ornaments in question is legal and does not call for any interference at this end. 5. emsp The only other argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellants that the redemption fine is on the excessive side has also no substance looking to the quantity of the contraband primary gold and gold ornaments. However, keeping in view the nature of the involvement of the appellant Smt. Sona Bai, I reduce the personal penalty to Rs. 500/- only. 6. emsp In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is confirmed, but the amount of personal penalty is reduced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 500/- only as stated above. The Cross Objections also stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1986 (11) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Medicines - Tooth Powder ... ... ... ... ..... respect to demand should be given benefit of 6 months limitation under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it stood at the material time. Smt. Chander, however, stated that a clear case of suppression of facts was made out as the respondent did not supply the clearance figures to the Central Excise authorities. 10. emsp After going through the notice and the facts of the case we do not think that in this case a case of mis-statement or suppression of facts justifying invocation of 5 years time limit is called for. The demand should be only for a period of six months preceding the date of show cause notice. 11. emsp As a result the appeal is allowed. The respondent is held not eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 as amended but demand of duty is restricted to a period of 6 months preceding the date of show cause notice. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. Cross objection - which are comments on the grounds of appeal is filed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand & Readjudication ... ... ... ... ..... s a new claim, made for the first time before the Tribunal, in support of which there was already material on record. Distinguishing, therefore, the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in (1978) 111 I.T.R. 1 (Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd.), wherein, there was neither a claim nor evidence in support of it, it was held such a new claim could be made. (ii) To the same effect was the decision in 144 I.T.R. 573 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sri Rajagopal Transports Pvt. Ltd.) (h) this is not such a case. It is not a new claim made for the first time before the Tribunal for which supporting evidence is already on record. It is, on the contrary, revival and resuscitation of a dead claim concluded by two orders - one by the adjudication officer on 22-10-1983 and again by the order of the Collector (Appeals), dated 28-2-1984. 5. emsp In the premises, we see no reason to interfere with the orders below and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Metal containers ... ... ... ... ..... r that the spool could not be removed from the cartridge except after manual pressure is applied at .one end of the spool. In fact the spool could not be ejected through both ends of the cartridges but through one end of the cartridge only. This is achieved by suitable fabrication of the subject goods and the spools to be fitted therein. In the circumstances the contention that the goods as they are manufactured would not be containers as they are uncovered at both ends is of no substance. The subject goods are manufactured in such a way that they contain within themselves the wound spools in such a way that the spools are held tight inside the cartridges without fear of being dislodged therefrom except on application of suitable pressure from the proper end. In view of these circumstances we hold that the lower authorities were correct in classifying the subject goods under T.I. 46-CET. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are upheld and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Customs - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... the ambiguity in the wording of Section 14(l)(a) for which we should look at the said notes. They could not point out any. The said Notes were, in any case, on a clause which was differently worded as compared to the wording of Section 14(l)(a) finally enacted, as cited by the learned representative of the department. This is another reason why we must stick to the language of the section as enacted. 9. emsp For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the invoice price to the appellants did not meet the test of Section 14(l)(a). It was the total price paid for imports by others which did meet the said test. The price paid by the others and which included the buying commission of 18 , was, therefore, the price at which the goods were ordinarily sold or offered for sale and it was ascertainable. The lower authorities were correct in assessing the appellants rsquo imports also on the basis of the said higher price paid by all others. 10. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1986 (11) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Whether manufacturer deemed to have cleared goods without permission and payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... e consequential questions of law arising out of questions (i) and (ii). Hence the following questions of law are referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court, Rajasthan, under Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - (i) emsp Whether the Tribunal was justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to hold that the applicants have cleared the goods without permission and without payment of central excise duty? (ii) emsp Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding the applicants liable to pay duty of Rs.51,353.60 in respect of the clearances in question on the ground that the applicants have applied for permission under Rule 56-C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding the clearances of M/s. Unique Auto Gears as on behalf of the applicants? (iv) Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the imposition of penalty for breach of Rule 56-C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The connected papers are also submitted.
-
1986 (11) TMI 149 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal against confiscation of truck not maintainable ... ... ... ... ..... ration in the name of the purchaser. Just because no transfer had taken place, one cannot contend that the ownership still vests with the appellant. The documents produced by the appellant, on the other hand, established beyond doubt that not only the possession but ownership also have passed to the purchaser. In the circumstances, the appellant has no locus standi to file this appeal. As a matter of fact at the earliest instance when questioned under Section 108, the appellant had stated that he had sold the truck to Karnal Singh. He has further stated that he is the owner of the truck only in name and his father was really doing all the dealings. The father had also supported the said statement. Having regard to the said evidence and the documentary evidence produced by the appellant, we are satisfied that the ownership had passed on to the purchaser and therefore the present appeal by the former owner of the truck is not maintainable and accordingly, we reject this appeal.
-
1986 (11) TMI 145 - ITAT NAGPUR
Time Limit For Completion ... ... ... ... ..... od from 30-3-1985 to 31-8-1985 (both days inclusive), i.e., 155 days are to be excluded. So the ITO was to complete the assessment by 2-9-1985. But admittedly the assessment was made on 3rd September. The contention of the departmental representative that the ITO could not complete the assessment on one day, i.e., 2nd September because of the volume of the accounts cannot be accepted because the law has to be followed strictly in case of limitation if there is no provision for relaxation. In our opinion the ITO could validly complete the assessment by 2nd September only. As this was not admittedly done the assessment as made by the ITO on 3-9-1985 is time barred. So even according to the alternative argument of the authorised representative for the assessee the assessment is time barred. As such, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. 7. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the assessment made by the ITO is cancelled.
-
1986 (11) TMI 144 - ITAT NAGPUR
A Firm, Debt Owed, High Court, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hat the claim for exemption has to be considered in the hands of the partner and not in the hands of the firm. The Bombay High Court has laid down in the case of CWT v. Vasudeva V. Dempo 1981 131 ITR 291 that the stage at which the exemption under section 5(1) is to be considered and allowed is the stage after which the share of the individual is brought into his hands. We also refer to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of N.R. Karia v. WTO 1985 13 ITD 545 (Pune) in which the view has been taken that the exemption under section 5(1) is to be allowed in the hands of each assessee-partner. Respectfully, following these decisions it is held by us that the AAC was justified in coming to the conclusion that exemption in respect of the building and agricultural land was to be given in the individual assessments of the partners and not at the time of the computation of the net wealth of the firm. 11. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed as above.
........
|