|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 232 Records
-
1986 (4) TMI 226
Valuation - Cylinder supplied by the buyer for delivering the gas ... ... ... ... ..... ent relied on by the appellants. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the arguments raised before us by the learned representative of the Department are the same which were raised before the Bombay High Court and which have been negatived by the said High Court in the aforesaid judgment. Earlier Benches of this Tribunal have no doubt taken a different view but it is quite evident that the Bombay High Court judgment was not brought to the notice of those Benches. This judgment, though delivered on 4-7-1983, has been published in the Excise Law Times rsquo issue of March, 1986 only. Since it has been the practice of this Tribunal to respectfully follow the High Court judgment in similar cases when no contrary judgment of any other High Court or of the Supreme Court is brought to its notice, we fall in line with this practice and following the ratio of the aforesaid Bombay High Court judgment allow this appeal with conseguential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (4) TMI 225
Classification of goods - Burden to establish on the Revenue. ... ... ... ... ..... with the definition of lsquo sheets and plates rsquo , as reproduced above, only if they were positively and wholly excluded from TI 84.60. It is again an established proposition that, even if there was a doubt, the benefit of that doubt has to be given to the assessee. Interpretative rule 3(a) also provides a statutory guideline in this respect, laying down that - lsquo The Heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to Headings providing a more general description. rsquo For all these reasons, I agree with the classification proposed by the Learned Vice President (J) for these goods namely, under TI 84.60. 75. Order . - In accordance with the decision of the majority the goods in question i.e., press plates or flat moulds are held classifiable under heading 84.60 of CTA 75. The appeals by the importers M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. and M/s. Wood Polymer Ltd. are accepted and review notices i.e., appeals by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 224
Revision treated as appeal ... ... ... ... ..... t Collector rsquo s order, an appeal lay to the Appellate Collector under Section 35 and a revision lay to the Collector under Section 35A. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of the Assistant Collector was one from which no appeal lay. The appeal did lie under Section 35 and the appellants actually filed such an appeal. The order passed by the Appellate Collector was an order passed in appeal (1956 SCR 166 - M/.s. Mela Ram and Sons v. C.I.T. Punjab - Full Bench judgment of the Supreme Court) and it was only this order from which no further appeal lay and only a revision to the Central Government lay under Section 36. Neither the facts nor the law can be washed away just because the appellants chose to be non-vigilant and let the statutory time limit lapse. No revision lay to the Central Government under Section 36(1) of the Act against the Assistant Collector rsquo s order. 4. Since no other point was pressed before us, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it.
-
1986 (4) TMI 223
... ...
... ... ..... 3 against Sl. No. 1 of Notification 55/78-C.E.), if such textured yarn is produced out of base yarn. If it is produced otherwise, the rate of duty is Rs. 24.60 per kg. Sl. No. 2(a) (v) of Notification 55/78 . In such a situation, the yarn content of the imported fabrics would attract duty at the higher rate viz. Rs. 24.60 per kg. (plus special excise duty as may be applicable). 10.0 Summing up, our conclusion are (i) the imported goods did not attract additional duty of customs corresponding to the excise duty leviable under item No. 22(3) of the CET. (ii) they did not attract additional duty of customs corresponding to the excise duty leviable under the 1957 Act. (iii) the yarn content of the goods attracted additional duty of customs at Rs. 24.60 per kg. (iv) In addition, special excise duty as applicable was leviable. 11.0 emsp In the result, we modify the impugned order to the extent indicated above. The appeal before us is disposed of in the light of the above findings.
-
1986 (4) TMI 222
Unaccompanied baggage ... ... ... ... ..... 7. Unless the goods are imported into India there could be no question of making a declaration under Section 77. There is no provision as in Section 46 occurring in Chapter VII (permitting filing of bill of entry for clearance of goods - cargo - even before their arrival in India) regarding baggage. Chapter VII is not applicable to baggage - see Section 44. Though an advance intimation about the later arrival of the unaccompanied baggage might have been made even at the time of arrival of the passenger, a declaration for the purpose of Section 77 in respect of unaccompanied baggage, which came later, could be deemed to have been made only when the contents of the unaccompanied baggage were declared in the unaccompanied baggage form on the arrival of the unaccompanied baggage. This declaration was made on 20-8-1980 by which date the rate of duty had gone up to 320 . The refund claimed is not due and it has been correctly rejected by the lower authorities. We reject the appeal.
-
1986 (4) TMI 221
Interpretation of a Tariff Entry ... ... ... ... ..... Ticket and Label printing machine, only these machines are allowed which are specific for printing of ticket and label only and not general purpose offset printing machine. For the same reason, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no offset printing machine which is meant for printing of tickets and labels only cannot be accepted. 7. emsp At the fag end of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the redemption fine is on excessive side. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the controversy involved in the instant appeal, I feel that reduction of redemption fine from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- (Ruppes Seven thousand and five hundred only) would meet the ends of justice. 8. emsp In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is maintained but redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- is reduced to Rs. 7,500/-(Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) as stated above.
-
1986 (4) TMI 220
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... e by the Custom House was, therefore, correct. 6. emsp We have considered the case records placed before us and the submissions of Shri Mehra and Shri Gopinath. We find that Tariff Head 73.29 is specifically meant for classification of chains and parts thereof Note 2 to Section XV has defined that the goods described in Heading 73.29 are parts of general use. Section Note 1(g) in Section XVI of the Tariff says that parts of general use, as defined in Note 2 to Section XV are excluded from Section XVI, i.e. Chapters 84 and 85 of the Tariff. This being the position in the Tariff, classification of chains under Heading 84.45/48 is completely ruled out. In the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to comment on the catalogue and write up submitted by the appellants. In the result, we hold that the assessment made by the Custom House is correct and the appellant rsquo s claim for re-assessment is not tenable. Consequently, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1986 (4) TMI 219
... ...
... ... ..... Heading No. 84.59 or electrical goods and apparatus falling within Heading No. 85.18/27 are to be classified with the machines of that kind. The above rules of classification provide that the machine parts for which there is a specific Heading in Chapter 84 are to be classified under that Heading. Here, in the case before us, the appellants claim that the imported variable speed gear box is a machine part. It is also a fact that gear box and variable speed gear are specifically mentioned in the Tariff Head 84.63. According to the provision of Rule 2(a) quoted above, the imported goods should, therefore, be classified under Heading 84.63. If there was no specific Heading for variable speed gear box, then only it could be classified under Heading 84.45/48 applying the provision of Note 2(b) above. In the circumstances, the assessment made by the Custom House is correct and it does not call for any revision. 6. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1986 (4) TMI 218
Excise Duty ... ... ... ... ..... ned in the Memo of Appeal that the pilferage of 7,957 kgs. of cotton yarn was known to everybody including the Appellants who bought the mills from the Court Receiver in February 1979 and commenced trial production of the mill in April 1979. The Appeal Memo also mentions that the Central Excise authorities were aware of this loss. There is no denial of this fact on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, Therefore, there is no question of the extension of the limitation period to five years as there are no ingredients to sustain such an interpretation. In this view, I find that the demand is time-barred and the appeal has to be allowed on these grounds even though these are not urged by the Appellants. In the aforesaid circumstances, though I find that the Collector rsquo s order is legal and valid, the demand contained therein is hit by limitation and therefore I allow the appeal only on this ground and direct that consequential relief be extended to the Appellants.
-
1986 (4) TMI 217
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... applying Rules 2(b) and 3(b), the goods fall for classification in Chapter 68 and by virtue of Note 1(a) to Chapter 84 they stand excluded from that Chapter. It may appear odd that an article which is indisputably a machinery part should have to be classified as an article of stone but that is the deliberate scheme of the Customs Tariff Act with its elaborate regime of Interpretative Rules, Section Notes and Chapter Notes which, the respondents also admit, are statutory. The respondents, reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Jeep Flash Light rsquo s case is misplaced because that case related to classification of goods under the old Central Excise Tariff which was structured totally differently and which had no interpretative rules or statutory notes for classification of composite articles. 8. In the consequence, we set aside the impugned order, restore the classification made by the Assistant Collector, under heading 68.01/16 of the Customs Tariff and allow this appeal.
-
1986 (4) TMI 216
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal for refund of interest on penalty ... ... ... ... ..... refund of interest is not tenable and has to be dismissed accordingly. Further, it is seen from the Appellate Collector rsquo s Order No.S/49-208 to 213/81 dated 20-1-1982 that the appellants on their own volunteered to pay interest on the bank guarantee. The Appellate Collector accepted their offer under his aforesaid order No.S/49-208 to 213/81 dated 20-1-1982. The computation of the interest amount was made subsequently in the Assistant Collector MCD rsquo s letter No.IGM 1271/22-1-79/S/49-208 to 213/81M dated 4-5-1984. If the appellants have any grievance against this order they have to take it up with the appropriate authority. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the question of refund of interest pressed by the appellants. 10. emsp In view of our foregoing findings except for the modifications of the orders of the lower authorities in respect of the two items 611 and 297, we confirm these orders and reject the appeals of M/s Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.
-
1986 (4) TMI 215
Refund Claim - Excess production incentive scheme ... ... ... ... ..... If this claim was staked in time i.e. within the time limit starting from the date of payment of duty as prescribed in Rule 11 read with Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the date of submission of specific refund claim by the assessee after receipt of approval by the Assistant Collector was held to be not material so far as the limitation is concerned. 7. emsp We are fully in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the three cases cited above. Following the ratio of decisions in these cases the material date for determining the period of limitation is the date on which the appellants had filed the declaration. As per the Order-in-Appeal in this case the party had filed a declaration on 22-7-1976. The period for which the refund has been claimed is from 12th June, 1976 to 30th March, 1977. The entire claim for refund is well within the period of limitation. 8. In view of our foregoing findings, appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (4) TMI 214
show cause notice served on all the partners at the instance of applicants themselves ... ... ... ... ..... ity to be attached with reference to the identification of applicant Vansraj by Chandi Narayana, eight months after his first statement was recorded is also a question of fact. 7. emsp The finding that the contraband goods were recovered from the place rented out to the firm and in its possession, and foreign nature or origin of the goods under seizure are only questions of fact or appreciation of evidence. The quantum of penalty is determined in exercise of the judicial discretion and no question of law would arise with reference to the same unless the discretion is proved to have been exercised either arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the fundamental principles of law and procedure. Such a question was neither pleaded nor argued even in the reference application. Therefore we do not find any question of law arising in respect of the various grounds set out in the reference applications, and discussed above by us. 8. In the result, the reference applications are rejected.
-
1986 (4) TMI 213
Customs - Non-notified Goods ... ... ... ... ..... rmed. So far as the penalty imposed on appellant Jain Enterprises is concerned, we find that there is no adequate evidence to prove and establish that Jain Enterprises were in any way concerned or connected with the contraband goods under seizure. A mere claim to the ownership of the goods under seizure by Jain Enterprises at a later point of time would not ipso facto make them guilty of a charge under Section 112(a) or (b) of the Act. We should confess that the learned SDR fairly conceded that there is no adequate evidence on record to bring home a charge against appellant Jain Enterprises. Accordingly we give appellant Jain Enterprises the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case and exonerate Jethmal, proprietor of Jain Enterprises, of the charge and set aside the penalty imposed on him under the impugned order. Except for the modification indicated in regard to the penalty imposed on Jethmal under the impugned order, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 211
Refund claim - Re-warehousing of goods ... ... ... ... ..... r in point of time, assessee is able to show that the goods covered by the application have been satisfactorily re-warehoused. Here there is no doubt that the goods were re-warehoused and finally cleared on payment of duty at Kanpur. Therefore, although there is no specific provision for this contingency in Rule 156B, it is implicit in the scheme of the procedure provided that where goods have been re-warehoused at the place of destination and subsequently cleared on payment of duty, and later in point of time, duty has been demanded of and paid by the consigner at the place of origin on the understanding that such goods have not been accounted for, then it is at that end, where duty is collected under that mistaken impression for the second time that refund should become payable. 6. emsp Accordingly, we direct that the respondent rsquo s claim for refund should be transferred to the place of origin for processing the claim for refund. 7. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
-
1986 (4) TMI 186
Confiscation of imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... vered by Sl. Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are electronic goods, namely, National Panasonic Stereo Cassette Recorder and it does not stand to reason as to why the appellant who pleads poverty and financial crisis should have any need for the same. Likewise, calculators numbering about 30 and covered by Sl. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the order of adjudication and 23 Hero pens covered by Sl.No. 9 are in trade quantities. Having regard to the financial status of the appellant and also keeping in mind that the goods are electronic goods and the other goods are in trade quantities, I feel that the interests of justice do not require that the appellant should be shown the discretion to redeem the same on payment of a fine. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I exercise the discretion against the appellant and uphold the finding of the authorities below in absolutely confiscating the said goods. In the result, except for the modifications indicated above, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 182
... ...
... ... ..... ons of the Supreme Court. It was only the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in 1983 E.L.T. 1620 (SC) 1980 Cencus 1985 (State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal) that was noticed in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 42. However, it was held on the basis of the evidence that the accused in that case could not be held to have the requisite mens rea. The confiscation was, nevertheless, it should be noticed, upheld. AIR 1985 Gujarat 324 is a wrong citation. In the decision of the Government of India in Order No. 1374 to 1376/81, also relied upon, it was held without any discussion of the actual evidence that the department had not been able to adduce adequate circumstantial evidence to justify a finding of the smuggled character of the goods. 10. emsp It stands to reason that I should prefer to follow the decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme court adverted to and discussed hereinbefore rather than the decisions cited and relied upon for the appellant. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (4) TMI 181
Words and Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... as already stated above, the only question involved was as to whether certain ornaments and other articles of gold purchased by the assessee with a view to melting them and making new ornaments or other articles out of the melted gold be described as ldquo bullion rdquo or/and ldquo specie rdquo within the meaning of Entry 56 in the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Admittedly in the case in hand, it was not the case of the appellant that he had purchased the recovered articles of silver which are in the circular shape for the purpose of melting them and making new articles out of the melted bullion. 8. emsp In the light of the foregoing discussions, while differing with the view of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), holding that the recovered silver articles were coins and agreeing with the view of the Adjudicating Authority that the same were silver bullions, 1 uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal and reject the appeal being devoid of any substance.
-
1986 (4) TMI 180
... ...
... ... ..... ighing 356.300 gms. valued at Rs. 18,000/-and old gold ornaments weighing 300 gms. valued at Rs. 1,500/- were recovered from the shop of the said Shri Motilal Girdharilal Nema of Maheshwar. Thus, the value of the thing in respect of this confiscation is of the value of (Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 1,500/-) Rs. 19,500/-. Consequently, keeping in view the provisions of Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, which provides only for ldquo such fine, not exceeding the value of the thing in respect of which confiscation is authorised rdquo , we feel that the redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 73, ibid. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case in hand, we feel that the redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- would met the ends of justice. Accordingly, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) from Rs. 50,000/-. Conclusion In the result, both the Customs and Gold appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
-
1986 (4) TMI 179
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee. A simple perusal of both show cause notices and the order in original shows that there is mention of the earlier show-cause notice. The argument of the learned Advocate that in the earlier show cause notice there is no mention as to the authority to whom the respondent is to show cause does not vitiate the proceedings as the relevant Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was duly invoked in the show-cause notice. The order passed by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on merits is not correct in law. The exemption notification No. 236/79 dated 25.7.79 is effective from 25.7.79. The respondent can have the benefit of this notification only with effect from 25.7.79. The statutes and the notifications have to be construed and interpreted strictly. The learned Advocate rsquo s argument that the spirit of the notification has to be seen does not help him. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed both on merits as well as limitation.
........
|
