|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 271 Records
-
1987 (11) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of 12 months. It appears that the appellants did not produce the end-use certificate before the Assistant Collector Customs, Bombay, within the stipulated period and bond was in force. The reason given for not producing the certificate in time is strike in the appellants factory. Before the Collector (Appeals), the appellants did produce the end-use certificate but the Collector (Appeals) did not look into this certificate because it was not produced before the Assistant Collector. He upheld the demand. 3. Now that the appellants have produced the end-use certificate in the interests of justice it is considered proper that the matter may be examined taking this end-use certificate into consideration. The delay in filing the end-use certificate is condoned. The Assistant Collector should examine the question and satisfy himself in the light of this certificate and then pass appropriate orders after opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1987 (11) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ice of the Bench that the same question came up for consideration of the Tribunal in another appeal wherein orders Nos. 2000 to 2001/87-B2, dated 15-9-1987 were passed. In that appeal it was decided that tube valves imported were to be classified in sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.61 and not under sub-heading (2) thereof. It is accepted by both parties that the inner tube valves with which we are concerned in these appeals are the same goods as we dealt with in the appeal cited before us. 3. In these circumstances, after perusing the papers before us and also perusing a copy of the cited order, we find no merit in the appeals. Following our earlier decision we dismiss these appeals.
-
1987 (11) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s ruling. 5. We have perused the Bill of Entry and the Catalogue wherein the description has been amplified to read ldquo Housing with Bearings rdquo . We have also perused the Catalogue which described the goods as the Pillow Blocks (Bearings with Housing). The earlier judgment of the Tribunal 1987 (31) E.L.T. 820 (Tribunal) is not directly applicable to the facts of the present case. However, we note the ratio of the same that if the imported goods are not Bearings Simplicitor this fact must be considered for the purpose of levy of additional duty. 6. We further note that the goods were assessed under Heading No. 84.63(1) CTA which covers Bearing Housing, not elsewhere specified. 7. Taking all the circumstances into consideration we accept the submissions made on behalf of appellants. As a result we allow the appeal and order classification of the goods under Item No. 68 for the purpose of levy of additional duty. 8. Consequential relief should be granted to the appellants.
-
1987 (11) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electricals Chemical ... ... ... ... ..... h. Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative representing the respondents agrees that application of this heading is clearly wrong in respect of the goods. Both the parties agreed that the matter may be remanded for de novo decision to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay for proper classification on the basis of further evidence that the appellants may produce before him. 3. As a result, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo decision to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay after affording an opportunity to the appellants and adducing evidence in support of their claim. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1987 (11) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Return and recovery of goods for repairs etc. ... ... ... ... ..... returned for repairs. The adjudicator has not arranged his process of reasoning in an orderly manner and has fallen into the error of assuming that there had been manufacture when he has not even made an attempt to prove it. The submission of the assessees that the machines were for repairs but could not be repaired stands unchallenged. 14. This is not to say that M/s. Frizair had not contributed to the tangle but it seems they did make an attempt to place things on records before the Central Excise authorities in a manner that would enable them to check and satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the transaction. Considering everything, I think the benefit should go to the factory, M/s. Frizair Corporation, the appellants. I consider that the department has not proved its case conclusively and, therefore, I must come to the conclusion that the appellants cannot be called upon to pay the duty demanded. I set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and allow the appeal.
-
1987 (11) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... their buyers on returnabilily of the secondary packing. 5. On careful consideration, we find that what has been stated by the Tribunal in the case of electric bulbs in the Rakesh Bulb Industries case, equally applies to the electric bulbs, fluorescent tubes and MV lamps manufactured by the respondents. Considering the nature of the goods to be marketed, the carton or wooden box was absolutely essential for protection of the goods even for local or short deliveries. It was not for nothing that the respondents invariably sold their goods in the wholesale market in carton/wooden box packing. In the circumstances, we hold that the cost of secondary packing was includible in the assessable value of their goods. 6. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order-in-appeal insofar as it relates to the question of secondary packing and restore the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order insofar as it ordered inclusion of the cost of secondary packing in the assessable value.
-
1987 (11) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Dismissed for want of documents ... ... ... ... ..... issed on the ground that the lsquo END USE rsquo Certificate was not produced before the adjudicating authority. Smt. Malini Sood, Advocate submitted that the lsquo END USE rsquo certificate had been obtained and the applicants may be granted an opportunity to put forward their pleas on the basis of the certificate. As the certificate had been obtained even earlier, we have heard Sh. D.K. Saha, JDR who had no objection for the remand. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector concerned who will re-adjudicate the matters after giving the importers an opportunity to put forward their case. The applicants will also be entitled to produce all necessary documents before him. 5. Suppl. A. No. 3533/87-B2 is merely a duplication of the Suppl. A. No. 3532/87-B2 and office had, by mistake, given it this No... This appeal will be struck off from the records as ldquo duplicate rdquo . 6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (11) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Authorisation of Collector for filing appeal necessary for each appeal ... ... ... ... ..... sted copy of the order containing such direction. 5. A reading of this rule shows that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by an attested copy of the order containing such direction. The spirit of the rules and their purpose as well as the words contained in them show that these rules have been framed to ensure that each appeal is authorised by the Collector to be filed. There is nothing in the rules to justify acceptance of the kind of general authorisation or the Note sheet order (which merely authorised filing of appeal without referring to an officer) as being inconsonance with Rule 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 6. We therefore hold that the present appeal not having been filed in accordance with Rule 9(2) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rule is not maintainable. We dismiss it as such. In view of this order the stay application No. 45/87-A also stand dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 239 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... and within a month thereafter shall convert the same into ornaments through a certified goldsmith or a licensed gold dealer and report compliance to the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, failing which the same will be liable for absolute confiscation. Likewise, we modify the order of absolute confiscation of 90.400 gms. of gold of 22 ct. purity recovered from the possession of appellant Ponnappan Achari and keeping in mind that the nature of contravention committed by him, we permit him to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000 (Rs. Five thousand). Appellant Ponnappan Achari is further directed to redeem the same within two months from the date of receipt of this order and convert the same into gold ornaments through a certified goldsmith or a licensed gold dealer within a month thereafter and report compliance to the adjudicating authority failing which the same will be liable for absolute confiscation. 11. The appeals have been disposed of in the above terms.
-
1987 (11) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Claasification ... ... ... ... ..... with Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules and general power of review, the Karnataka High Court decision in Shyam Sunder U. Nichani case deals specifically with Section 11 A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and is based on an earlier Supreme Court decision D.R. Kohli and Others v. Atul Products Ltd. The Karnataka High Court held that the same authority could review classification earlier approved. In view of the features as aforesaid Karnataka High Court decision directly in point could be preferred to Delhi High Court decision which is not directly on the point. As pointed out by Brother Gulati there is no long standing practice involved in the present appeals and demand therefore could be within the time limit set out in Section 11A. With the above observations, I would agree with the order proposed by Brother Gulati. 9. Order per D.C. Mandal, Member (T) . - I agree with the order written by Brother Shri Gulati and the observations recorded by Vice-President (J), as above.
-
1987 (11) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... n, and no further question of rate of duty or value of goods is involved for determination, we are of the view that the jurisdiction lies with the Regional Bench i.e. a Bench other than a Special Bench. In the instant case, as stated in para 10 above, precise question for determination is whether lsquo blankets rsquo or lsquo druggets rsquo is the resultant product. Once this question is determined, no further question falls for determination. Hence the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the North Regional Bench. 13. As regards the submission of practice, we feel that it cannot over-ride the provisions of law. Practice may have been because nobody had challenged it. As we have already held, on the authority of Larger Bench judgment mentioned supra, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. It has to be acquired in terms of the legal provisions. 14. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the North Regional Bench has jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
-
1987 (11) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and imposition ... ... ... ... ..... lower quotation in the Blue Book, plus the value of the imported peripherals arrived at as under - Base value of the peripherals as assessed by the Collector less annual depreciation at the rate of 15 (as against Collector rsquo s 10 ). The amount of freight and insurance will be added to the base price as usual. 7. We find the appellants rsquo offer quite reasonable in the circumstances and accept it. The import licence (CCP) produced by the appellants had a value limit of Rs. 4,65,100/-. No foreign exchange remittance was involved and since no case of deliberate under-valuation of the goods is made out, confiscation of the goods and imposition of fine would not be justified. We remit the fine of Rs.l lakh in full. 8. In the result, we allow the appeal in terms that we set aside the fine in full and order valuation of the goods for the purpose of customs duty in accordance with the highest price in paragraph 6 above. Consequential relief should be granted to the appellants.
-
1987 (11) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold dealers licence ... ... ... ... ..... red to above and also bearing in mind the fact that in a similar case of contravention in regard to Kalpana Jewellery as late as on 7th July, 1987 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, has passed an order directing renewal of gold dealers licence, which has not been challenged by the Department till date, we are inclined to hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case the contravention of the appellant in the year 1983 could be treated as not a serious one so as to warrant non-renewal of Licence under Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. We would like to make it clear that there is no hard and fast rule in regard to renewal of licence and each case will have to be considered on its own facts and circumstances and the only relevant factor in law would be as to whether the contravention alleged is technical or venial in nature or a serious one. In the result we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1987 (11) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Concealment of watches of foreign origin in the Video game machines ... ... ... ... ..... e beneficiary of the illegal import, we reduce the penalty imposed on him from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand). So far as appellant Rajan Menon is concerned, we find that he has been a COFEPOSA detenu for nearly a year and only an employee in a small job under a Customs Clearing House Agent M/s. G.H. Bhai and Co., it is obvious that appellant Rajan Menon has been tempted into this illegal activity by petty monetary consideration. The adjudicating authority himself in para 33 of the impugned order has referred to the circumstances for taking a lenient view against him. The learned Consultant for appellant Rajan Menon also produced before us at the time of hearing a certificate issued by the Tehsildar of Cochin to show that he does not have any property. Taking all these factors into consideration, we reduce the penalty imposed on him from Rs. 25,000/-to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand). 15. Except for the above modifications, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 227 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appellate Order ... ... ... ... ..... nterminable ping-pong game that has been going on between the adjudicating authority and the Collector (Appeals). Nor are we able to discover any legal flaw in the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). He has not usurped the function of the adjudicating authority. It is not as it he has straightaway granted the licence himself. All that he has done is to direct the adjudicating authority to grant the licence. He was perfectly within his powers to do so. Once he found no merit in the sole ground of rejection taken by the adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. It is no body rsquo s case that the Collector (Appeals) had no authority to allow an appeal and all that he could do was to remand matters. Once he allowed the appeal, the only natural and consequential action for him was to direct the adjudicating authority to grant the licence. 3. The appeal before us is mis-conceived and we reject it. The licence should be granted to the appellants without any further delay.
-
1987 (11) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication proceeding ... ... ... ... ..... of the Customs Act, the Assistant Collector could not have adjudicated the matter since the value of the goods liable to confiscation exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. The adjudication order of the Asstt. Collector on this ground alone is null and void. 10. On careful consideration of all the aspects, we set aside the orders of the authorities below, but remand the matter for fresh consideration by the authority which is competent to pass the order. The authority, which is competent to pass the order shall consider whether the facts and circumstances warrant for demanding any amount from the appellants. He shall particularly consider as to whether the request made by the appellants for extension of time was on genuine ground or not. He shall also consider as to what is the effect of re-export which have been allowed and whether the department can still claim duty after allowing re-export. The fresh adjudication shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1987 (11) TMI 217 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Specialised Silicas ... ... ... ... ..... n asked for, in my view, it is generally not desirable that an application which is made by a trade rival and the various departmental notings made thereon should be open to inspection by other members in the trade, except in special circumstances where the facts of the case warrant such inspection. In the present case, in my view it is not necessary for the petitioners to inspect these other documents. The relevant material is already before me. Hence, apart from granting the petitioners inspection of the two minutes (copies of these minutes are already given to the petitioners) in my view it is not necessary in the present case that the petitioners should inspect the other documents. Safe as aforesaid therefore, the Chamber Summons is dismissed. In the circumstances the petition is also dismissed. Mr. Cooper applies that the meeting of the Foreign Investment Board which is scheduled to be held on 13th November should be ordered to be postponed. This application is rejected.
-
1987 (11) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import of articles as baggage ... ... ... ... ..... the value of each goods. Since I do not have all the records before me and since the learned D.R. finds it difficult to correlate the nature of the goods, the duty paid on it with reference to the baggage receipts, I think it proper to leave that issue to be decided by the adjudicating authority himself with reference to the goods and relevant records. In this view of the matter I remand this issue to the adjudicating authority to be decided in the light of the directions indicated above. So far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the penalty imposed on appellant Azeez Khan from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand), the penalty on appellants Arul Samy and Ibrahim from Rs. 5,000 each to Rs. 3,000 (Rs. Three thousand) each, the penalty imposed on the other appellants is reduced from Rs. 2,000 each to Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred) each. Except for the modifications indicated above, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 215 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... appellant was attempted export of mandrex tablets and not attempted export of large quantity in the baggage. As a matter of fact, the suit cases in which the mandrex tablets were found are not baggage rsquo s of the appellant. The two persons from whose possession they were seized denied that those suit cases belonged to them. The Additional Collector had not imposed any penalty on the passengers. The very fact that he does not impose any penalty on the passengers goods to show that he accepts their plea that the two suit cases where from the mandrex tablets were recovered were not their baggage rsquo s. There it cannot be said that there was violation of Export Baggage Rules. 10. After consideration of all the aspects, I hold that the Additional Collector committed an error in imposing the penalty on the appellant. I, therefore, while allowing this appeal, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and direct that the penalty, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.
-
1987 (11) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cross-examination - Nature of goods ... ... ... ... ..... permission to the appellants for cross examination of the Director General he denied them a lawful right and the said denial resulted in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice governing the proceedings in adjudication. As earlier stated, the opinion of the Director General was the only basis for the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Collector and hence the denial of the right to cross-examine the Director General resulted in grave prejudice to the appellants in the presentation of their case. We are of the opinion that the order of the Additional Collector is liable to be set aside on this ground itself without going into the other merits. 18. Accordingly this appeal is allowed, the order of the Additional Collector dated 26-3-1984 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi Airport for readjudication in the light of the observations contained earlier and thereafter disposal of the matter in accordance with law.
........
|
