|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 237 Records
-
1986 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Statement - Accomplice incriminating self and others ... ... ... ... ..... statements as they are persons in the position of a co-accused have all been set out while considering the case against appellant Moosa and the various principles which we have adverted to would equally apply here also and instead of repeating the same we adopt the same reasons for accepting the statements of various persons implicating appellant Khatib Abbas Saheb. We therefore, hold that the charge against appellant Khatib Abbas Saheb has been clearly established. 10. emsp So far as appellant Khatib Ali Saheb is concerned, even-though he is not represented by anybody, we find that the materials on record and the statements of the various persons referred to above clearly implicate his connection with the goods under seizure. 11. emsp Therefore, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, we find that the charges levelled against the appellants herein have been clearly brought home and we therefore, confirm the impugned order appealed against and dismiss the appeals.
-
1986 (3) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project import ... ... ... ... ..... appellant to apply under Regulation 5, if, indeed, the spares were ordered by way of amendments to the original contracts. It was appellant, by its own actions and conduct, rendered the Heading 84.66(ii) inapplicable, and not that there is anything inherent in the Heading itself that rendered it impracticable (j) emsp it is not as if one could reserve one rsquo s right to concessional assessment to be exercised as and when contract(s) for spares could, independent of the contracts for plant and machinery be concluded. The mention of the contract(s) for spares yet to be concluded in the appellant rsquo s letter dated 12-10-1983 is of no significance in the face of the statutory requirements. 6. emsp In the Tribunal itself, on identical facts, there are two reverse decisions to the appellant rsquo s case. They are our Order No.166/85-B2 in Appeal No.587/B2-Band Order No.141/86-B2 in Appeal No.944/78-B2. We see no reason to differ them. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation, Redemption fine and penalty justified ... ... ... ... ..... hat the goods are designed for 11 H.P. rating. The appellant rsquo s claim that these goods have been recalibrated for 10 H.P. performance. We do not feel that this affects the essential identity of the goods which are designed for 11 H.P. rating. In the view that we are taking, therefore, there is no case for remanding the matter back for decision on the basis of a test of the motors still in the custody of the Department. This request is rejected. 7. emsp We have also carefully considered the submission that the fine and penalty are excessive. We fined that the appellants were well aware of the fact that the goods imported were designed for 11 H.P. rating. They had instructed the suppliers to recalibrate the goods but they concealed the fact from the Department. This is an evidence of their mala-fides. Confiscation of the goods as well as imposition of penalty are therefore, justified and we do not think that the quantum is excessive. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 221 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... udicating authority that there is no evidence to show that appellant Ragina Bibi had taken reasonable precautions against misuse of the lorry is also incorrect since the statement of the appellant dated 13-12-1985 before the authorities clearly bears out that she had given strict instructions to the driver that the vehicle in question shall not be used for any unlawful purposes. 6. emsp Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case I find from the evidence on record that the lorry in question was not used as a means of transport in the attempted illegal export of the goods under seizure either with the knowledge of the owner or her agent or the person in charge of the conveyance and the act of transport simpliciter of Indian textiles in an area in Tirunelveli district near Palayamkottai would not ipso facto render the vehicle in question confiscable under Section 115(2) of the Act. 7. In the result I set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1986 (3) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste - Non-cellulosic waste, all sorts ... ... ... ... ..... uring the manufacture of steel ingots from duty-paid steel scrap would not be dutiable and that no manufacture as envisaged in Sec. 2(f) of the Act took place. Melting of steel scrap, casting the molten scrap into ingots resulting in the generation of some steel scrap - these are essentially physical processes resulting in change of form. There is no chemical conversion or change, not at any rate, of the nature encountered in the depolymerisation and polymerisation reactions in the case before us. We do not think that this decision too has any application to the present case. 18. emsp Summing up, we are of the opinion that the subject polyester waste generated in the manufacture, by the appellant, of polyester fibre and tops from duty-paid polyester waste, was correctly held by the lower authorities to be dutiable under item No. 18-IV of the CET in the absence of any Notification exempting such waste. In the result, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 219 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Show Cause Notice not valid ... ... ... ... ..... 2 ibid and the proper officer was an ldquo adjudicating authority rdquo within the meaning of sub-section (1) thereof. It is not at all necessary that some infraction of law which brings the imported goods within the fold of ldquo prohibited goods rdquo must be pointed out by the adjudicating authority before its ultimate order of clearance of the goods and payment of duty thereon can be cloathed with the character of an order ldquo after due adjudication. rdquo 8. emsp Respectfully following the Division Bench judgment in M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills rsquo case (supra), I hold that respondent No. 2, in view of the clearance of the imported goods by the authorities under the Act, could not exercise the powers under Clause 8 of the Control Order to pass the impugned order Annexure P.22 and the same is thus without jurisdiction. 9. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the order dated 20-5-1985 Annexure P. 22 of respondent No. 2. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (3) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Cost of packing of liquid chlorine ... ... ... ... ..... at the respondents were maintaining regular data in respect of the cylinders and tonners and those accounts would give the Department an idea of the exact amount recovered in respect of each item at any particular period. There is no case in the show cause notice that there was collection of amount exceeding the actual cost of the items. In the absence of such an allegation or proof, this contention cannot be upheld. 9. emsp In view of the above discussion we hold that the Department has not proved that the appellantss are making further deduction for any expenditure on the cost of packing apart from the decuction on the cost of packing under Section 4(4)(d)(i) on the cost of containers. It is also not established that they would be recovering much more than the cost of the expenses incurred towards the maintenance of the packing containers. There are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the result the appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 198 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund claim presented to the Superintendent of Central Excise instead of Assistant Collector of Central Excise
-
1986 (3) TMI 197 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Review ... ... ... ... ..... am Chandra v. Beero Pollai AIR 1936 Mad. 531 (FB) held ldquo Generally no court has got a power of revising its own appellate orders nor has a Court the power of review unless specifically conferred on it rdquo . The Full Bench of the Mysore High Court in Sampu Gowda v. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1953 Mys. 156 (FB) held ldquo Review is a remedy to be sought for and applied under special, circumstances. The jurisdiction or power to review cannot be assumed or imported in the absence of any specific provision therefor or of even indication of the conditions for the exercise of it rdquo . So far as the Statutory Tribunal is concerned it is well settled that there is no power of review inherent in it. The Tribunal rules also have not vested the Tribunal with any power of review. In such a situation the order passed by the Tribunal on merits cannot be reviewed under law. Therefore, I have no other alternative except to reject the petition and the same is accordingly rejected.
-
1986 (3) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability of goods ... ... ... ... ..... to use component (as would fall under Tariff Item 46) the fact that they were again dutiable on completion of the full product (utilising the components cleared by the appellants) would not affect the dutiability of the appellants, whatever may be the relief available to the final manufacturer of the complete metal containers, with the reference to the earlier payment of duty by the appellants. It may also be noted that the Department claimed to have varified the question of payment of duty by M/s. Agra Tin Manufacturing Company, but was unable to correlate the manufacture by the said Company to the goods cleared by the appellants. But, notwithstanding this, the claim against the appellants cannot be substantiated in the absence of proof that the goods cleared by them were, by themselves, dutiable. 22. emsp As earlier stated, I am in agreement with the final conclusion as to the nature of the disposal of the appeals and I therefore concur with the order allowing the appeals.
-
1986 (3) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Suppression, mis-statement or fraud with intent to evade duty not proved when facts fully within knowledge of department
-
1986 (3) TMI 188 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ion, at any rate, the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of doubt and I therefore exonerate the appellants of a charge under Section 32 of the Act. 9. emsp A total quantity of 337.450 gms. of gold and ornaments valued at Rs. 60,741/- has been seized from the house of appellant Venugopal and 149.600 gms. of gold and ornaments has been seized from the shop of the appellants. Since I have already held that in respect of the quantity claimed to be belonging to claimants viz. Rajagopal and Vathsala Victor, the order of confiscation under the impugned order is not legally proper, I am inclined to take that factor into consideration in arriving at the quantum of redemption fine. Accordingly I reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 16.300/-to Rs. 12.150/- (Rupees twelve thousand one hundred fifty only). So far as the penalty is concerned, having regard to the background of the case I do not feel persuaded to give any reduction and the same is accordingly confirmed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cotton Fabrics or Prepreg ‘C’ impregnated ... ... ... ... ..... ca India Divn. Vs. CCE, Bombay 1984 (17) E.L.T. 590 (CEGAT) 9-3-1984 Prepegs (P) Prepegs (F) Prepegs (G) Classifiable under T.I. 17(2) Classifiable under T.I. 19(III) Classifiable under T.I. 22F or 68 according to composition 6. Basant Pran Electric company vs. CCE, Calcutta 1984 (17) E.L.T. 499 (CEGAT) 28-3-1984 Electrical insulating varnished paper Not classifiabel under T.I. 17 7. Motor Industries company Ltd. Vs. CC, Madras 1984 ECR 1045 (CEGAT) 12-4-1984 Ribbon Steel Reinforced Corugated paper (imported on 20-11-1977) No countervailing duty under item 17(2) CET chargeable 8. British Physical Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Madras 1984 (18) E.L.T. 100 (Tribunal) 6-6-1984 Special coated tisse paper for stencils (composite product of plastic film and paper) Classifiable under T.I. 68 of CET for levy of additional duty of Customs 9. Solar Electric Trading company vs. CC, Bombay No so far reported 15-5-1985 Same as for S. Number (2) above Same as for S. Number (2) above
-
1986 (3) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Parts of Motor Vehicles, Tractors and Trailers ... ... ... ... ..... not. Notification No. 75/79-CE, dated 1-3-1979 also contained similar cSonditions. The lower authorities did not go into the matter of observance of these conditions because they rejected the appellants rsquo claim on the short point that the notification did not apply to wheels. 7.To sum up, our conclusion is that during the period from 1-3-1979 to 9-5-1979 the exemption given under notification No. 75/79-CE, dated 1-3-1979 W applied to wheels of motor vehicles and tractors, including trailers. During the period from 19-4-1979 to 1-6-1979, the exemption given under notification No. 167/79-CE, dated 19-4-1979 (as amended later by notification No. 187/79-C.E., dated 10-5-1979) also applied to similar wheels. We order that the Assistant Collector should verify whether the appellants have fulfilled the conditions laid down in the two notifications and, if they have, the Assistant Collector should give them the consequential relief. 8.The three appeals are allowed in these terms.
-
1986 (3) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Customs - Countervailing duty - Additional duty of Customs ... ... ... ... ..... he Indian Tariff Act, 1975 when the import occurred prior to 4-10-1978 ? The additional duty under the Tariff Act was also in the nature of Customs duty. Its levy is in terms of Section 12 of the Act. The incidence is on import-the taxable event. AIR 1985 S.C. 121V -Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works v. Union of India . Can the additional duty be anything other than the excise levy that was in force on the day of import? (v) The decision of the Larger Bench in the aforesaid 1985 (21) E.L.T. 757 1985 R.C.R. 822 (M/s. Vazir Sultan Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Excise, Hyderabad) dated 25-3-1985 was subsequent to the decision in the appeal in CD (SB) (T) 595-D. 15. emsp For all the aforesaid reasons the decision of the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeal No. CD (SB) (T) 595-D requires to be reconsidered and papers be placed before the Hon rsquo ble President for suitable directions in that behalf. In view of the majority opinion, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
1986 (3) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... eration of the repealed law. Accordingly, we hold that there is no vested right in the case of the State and there is also no saving clause in the Act when the amendment came into force. 6. emsp During the course of arguments the learned SDR had pleaded that the application for condonation of delay should be accepted on the grounds of equity. We are afraid that this argument does not help the applicant in any way. The mere fact that the respondent has filed another appeal on the same issue within the prescribed period of limitation cannot deprive him from the right which he has acquired in the late filing of appeal by the Revenue. 7. emsp In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the applicants were not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Therefore, we reject the application for condonation of delay. 8. emsp Since we have rejected the application for condonation of delay, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed being hit by limitation.
-
1986 (3) TMI 183 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Writ petition at Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... uctions to thousands of officers spread all over the length and breadth of India in the matter of execution of their duties in the best possible manner. The Petitioner has not been able to show that any secret instructions were given to the concerned officials, but we would leave this question open to be reagitated before the concerned officer. 15. emsp It was also urged at the Bar that the classification of the goods was made by the Assistant Collector on 2nd August, 1983 and that if the same person hears the case being the subject-matter of the two show cause notices, it would be an infiraction of the principles of natural justice as it is likely that he may be biased against the Petitioner. We were also informed that the said Assistant Collector has since been transferred and that the proceedings would not be heard by him. Hence this argument does not avail counsel. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (3) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - No Right of further appeal in respect of any undecided issue when matter decided wholly in favour of the appellant
-
1986 (3) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Disinfectants - Insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides not synonymous but particular formulations with well-defined uses -
-
1986 (3) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ammonium chloride - Whether a chemical or fertilizer ... ... ... ... ..... n. We cannot also lightly brush aside the argument that if at all there was any doubt as regards the alternative classification, then as per accepted principles, a specific tariff entry is to be preferred to the general entry and also the view favourable to the assessee will have to be accepted. We are also quite clear that the allegation of suppression of facts that is now being made in the course of arguments, is wholly untenable. This allegation is not contained in the show cause notices and in view of regular submission of classification lists, we find that there is no substance in the allegation that there has been suppression of facts by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we agree that the demands of duty would also be essentially barred by limitation. However, this issue is largely academic, in view of the fact that the goods in question are being held to be fully covered by the exemption Notification No. 164/69. 8. Orders-in-Appeal are upheld. Appeal dismissed.
........
|
