|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 195 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import Policy - Ink concentrate ... ... ... ... ..... did not state in his report that any or all the requirements set out in the Indian Standard specification were found in the Ink concentrate. The department had not placed any material to classify the imported Item - ink concentrate - under Sl. No. 341 of Appendix 5 of the Policy. It is necessary to point out here that the ink concentrate does not appear in Sl. No. 341 of Appendix 5 of the policy. If the ink concentrate cannot be equated with ball point pen ink then there is no scope to apply Sl. No. 341 of Appendix 5 to hold that the import is unauthorised. 16. The appellants are admittedly actual users industrial. The items imported are required in their end product and therefore they are eligible to import the said items under Appendix 10(1) of the Policy. 17. In the result for the reasons stated above this appeal is allowed. The order of confiscation consequently the fine levied in lieu of confiscation are set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.
-
1987 (12) TMI 222 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import of defective G.P. sheets against REP licence ... ... ... ... ..... ised list except those mentioned in column 4 were allowed to be imported. Similarly against item in export group A-36 (v) all items banned or canalised except the items specified in column 4 were allowed to be imported. Similarly is the case of export group A-46, A-56, A-64 and A-70. 16. Since import of banned items were not permitted against the export groups A-82, G-22 and L-1, the contention of Shri Desai because the licences were valid to import packing materials and that for defective sheets as packing material can be imported is legally untenable. The packing materials can be imported is legally untenable. The packing materials permitted for import against export groups should not be those falling in banned or canalised list. Since defective sheets imported appear specifically at item 1 in Appendix 6 the Collector was justified in holding that the four licences were not valid to cover the import. 17. In the result, and for the reasons stated above, we reject this appeal
-
1987 (12) TMI 213 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Importation not invalid on ground of item being canalised ... ... ... ... ..... e restrictions imposed by the Essential Commodities Act is a matter for the State Government to decide. But this cannot be a ground for holding that the importation is unauthorised or withholding the release of the goods. 41. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the consignments forthwith. Let the assessment be made within a week from the date and let the goods be released forthwith thereafter. 42. Mr. Sunil Chatterjee who was appointed Receiver shall make over the goods to the petitioner in terms of this order within a week from date. The Receiver will stand discharged after delivery of such goods to the petitioner. The Receiver shall be entitled to a further remuneration of 200G.Ms. to be paid by the petitioner. 43. The Receiver and parties shall act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment and order upon the undertaking of the Advocate on records of the parties to apply for and obtain certified copy.
-
1987 (12) TMI 212 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... se for the appellants was to approach the Central Excise Authorities and seek their permission before sending goods out of their l.6 premises. Admittedly no such procedure was adopted. The other defence put forward is about the notification dated 2-8-1980. This notification no doubt permits removal with the permission of the Collector from the L.6 premises to a place outside for any operation necessary for the completion of the industrial process. But then this notification was not in existence at the time of removal which took place nearly six years earlier to the notification. Therefore, that notification is of no assistance to the appellants. It was urged in the revision application that what was removed was not toluene but distilled toluene. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 196. There is no merit in this contention. Just because the toluene had undergone certain processes it does not cease to be toluene. 7. In the result this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1987 (12) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... vice promote the marketability of the article and enter into its value in the trade. Where the sale in the course of wholesale trade is effected by the assessee through its sales organisation at a place or places outside the factory gate, the expenses incurred by the assessee upto the date of delivery under the aforesaid heads cannot, on the same grounds, be deducted. But the assessee will be entitled to a deduction on account of the cost of transportation of the excisable article from the factory gate to the place or places where it is sold. The cost of transportation will include the cost of insurance on the freight for transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery rdquo . The judgments cited by Mr. Mehta are prior to Bombay Tyres case. The mark-up which in effect are part of the initial warranty and the service charges cannot be allowed as a deduction from the assessable value. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nd no force in the plea of Revenue that PVC Sheets covered under this item have only to be in raw material form as pleaded in the grounds of appeal of the case. With this reasoning, the appeals by Revenue out of which the precedent order arose was dismissed. Shri Chakraborty, learned JDR for the appellant reiterates the submission urged by Revenue when the Bench took the aforesaid decision to secure the rights of Revenue before Appellate forum. So far as we are concerned, there would appeal no reason to depart from the decision. Following the decision, we dismiss this appeal also filed by Revenue.
-
1987 (12) TMI 205 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
Bail - Smuggling offences ... ... ... ... ..... not being provided while in custody. I have no manner of doubt that all required medical help and treatment shall be given to the child or the mother whenever required in the Government Hospitals, in accordance with the rules in that behalf. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accede to the request of Smt. Agarwal that at least respondent No. 2 should be released on bail on the ground of illness of the minor child. 18. In view of this, the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge releasing both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on bail is quashed and set aside. I further direct that in view of the fact that the accused are in custody for a considerable period and in view of the fact that due to the detention of both the accused, the child also is of necessity has to remain in custody, the learned Magistrate shall take every precaution to conduct and complete the trial with utmost dispatch and on day-to-day hearing basis. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute.
-
1987 (12) TMI 204 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Non-affording of opportunity ... ... ... ... ..... e-consideration of the issue after affording the appellant an opportunity of adducing evidence by examination of the 3 witnesses on his side referred to above with production of records. It is also open to the appellant to put forth his plea with reference to the corrections or otherwise in the Repair register, which may also be considered by the adjudicating authority. If the appellant Peter does not within a reasonable time produce the said witnesses referred to above, and examine them on his side, it would be open to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue without reference to the same. In the result the appeal is remanded. 6. Since the main appeal of appellant Peter has been remanded and since the other appeals relate to claimants, whose claims would have a bearing on the correctness or otherwise of the entries in the Repair register, the appeals of the claimants are also remitted for consideration along with the main appeal of appellant Peter. Ordered accordingly.
-
1987 (12) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Job work - Licence not required ... ... ... ... ..... d prior to 4-12-1981, i.e. to say before the actual grant of the licence. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the value of the goods involved which is Rs. 25,239.30, we hold that the redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the learned Collector of Central Excise is not excessive and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for violating the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act and the Rules made thereunder would met the ends of justice. We order accordingly. CONCLUSION 40. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The order demanding the duty on 2645 drums of electrical wires and cables is set aside. However, the confiscation of the seized 330 coils of electrical wires and cables with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs, 5,000/- is upheld. However, the personal penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as stated above. Sd/- Sd/- (G.P. AGARWL) (V.P. GULATI) Member (J) Dated 25-5-1988 Member (T)
-
1987 (12) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Order/Decision - Show cause notice for differential duty ... ... ... ... ..... ns of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. Correspondingly, sub-clause (d) of Rule 173Q(1), relating to confiscation and penalty, is also similarly worded which lays down that if any manufacturer or producer contravenes any of the provisions of these Rules with intent to evade payment of duty, the goods shall be liable to confiscation and the manufacturer or producer liable to a penalty. In the present case also it is seen that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Collector to the appellants in Rule 173Q(1)(d) is invoked. 9. In the result, we hold that the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, does have jurisdiction to issue the Show Cause Notice dated 12-5-1983, and, in this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector. The appellants are, therefore, at liberty to pursue their case before the Collector as is open to them in a manner known to law. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1987 (12) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Question whether demand for deficiency in stock after annual stock taking is time barred ... ... ... ... ..... der these circumstances it cannot be said that the deficiency was ascertained when the annual stock taking was completed on 20-8-1982 and the shortage was found because after finding the shortage the proper officer had to ascertain it after taking into account the receipts and deliveries and making such reasonable allowance for waste by evaporation or other natural causes and also to take into consideration instructions if any issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Thus in our considered opinion no question of law meriting any reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court arises in the instant case. Before we part with the application in hand it deserves to be mentioned here that the way in which Shri Gujral argued the matter was not argued before us by the then counsel at the time of hearing of the final appeal on merits and since he argued the point from a different angle we thought it our duty to dispose it accordingly. 6. In the result the application is rejected.
-
1987 (12) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
’Metrolnidazole Benzoate’ which are ingredient of Amegyl suspension ... ... ... ... ..... show cause notice dated 27.11.1982 is also silent about provisional assessment. All these facts are sufficient to prove that the assessment of Amegyl Suspension was not provisional during the period covered by the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the provision of Rule 9-B cannot be invoked to raise demand for duty. The demand for duty should be restricted to six months prior to the issue of show cause notice demanding duty. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow the appeal of the Revenue on merits, but we restrict the demand for duty under Section 11/A/1 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to clearances of Amegyl Suspension, made during the period of six months prior to the issue of show cause notice demanding duty. The demand for duty prior to that period is barred by limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The order of the Collector (Appeals) is thus partly set aside and the appeal partly allowed in the above terms.
-
1987 (12) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Effect of non-filing of appeal against wrong exemption of duty or classification ... ... ... ... ..... riff Item 14HH determined in accordance with Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as directed by the Collector (Appeals). This amount, however, not to exceed, in any case, the duty amount which the respondents would have been liable to pay if the goods were assessed unden Tariff Item 68 as respects this part of the amount. We order accordingly. 7. As a result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal, to the extent it relates to penalty and redemption fine, is dismissed. As for the respondents cross-objection the respondents shall pay duty on clearance in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs value to be determined in accordance with Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as directed by the Collector (Appeals). The same to be worked out under Tariff Item 14HH but the demand against the respondents not, in any case, to exceed the amount of duty under Tariff Item 68 in respect of the excess part of clearances. 8. The appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of in the foregoing terms.
-
1987 (12) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 751 (S.C.), decided on 6-1-1987, the Supreme Court, disposing of an appeal against a decision of this Tribunal, has held that re-rubberising and re-lining of old and used rollers (the goods in that case) would not amount to ldquo manufacture rdquo attracting levy of Central Excise duty. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the facts of the three matters now before us. Accordingly, we hold that re-rubberising of worn out rubberised M.S. Rims would not amount to ldquo manufacture rdquo within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Accordingly the assessee is not liable to pay duty as demanded by the department and wherever such duty has been paid, the assessee is entitled to refund of the amount. 7. Accordingly Collector of Central Excise rsquo s Appeal No. E.2493/85-D, is dismissed and Appeals Nos. E.72/86-D and E/1741/87-D filed by Hindustan Tyres Pvt. Ltd. are allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 187 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold-Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ving regard to the above finding, it will not even be necessary to go into the question whether the discrepancy had taken place due to the difference between gross weight and net weight or because the old gold ornaments were given by the customers. However, the Collector (Appeals) had given cogent reasons for rejecting the Department rsquo s case both in regard to discrepancy and the receipt of old gold ornaments. Having regard to the evidence on record, the said findings of the Collector (Appeals) are correct. 11. The only other aspect that remains for consideration is about the penalty. The Collector (Appeals) has set aside the penalty. The setting aside of the penalty flows from the order which he had passed. The two charges made against the appellant were not satisfactorily proved. When that being the case, penalty cannot stand. The Collector (Appeals) was therefore justified in setting aside the penalty also. 12. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1987 (12) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Household and laundry soap ... ... ... ... ..... of the same into chips with the aid of power in another factory, would not constitute manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excises and Salt Act. They have, however, stated in the same Trade Notice that in case the chips are produced in the same factoy where the soap is manufactured and power is used for making of the chips then the duty should be charged in respect of the chips cleared from such integrated factory. No reason has been given as to under what logic these chips making is not a process of manufacture when chip-making is done in a factory outside the factory of production of soap in block form while the same is held as a process of manufacture if the chip making is done in an integrated factory as set out above. We have held above that making of bulk soap into chips is not a process in relation to making of soap. In view of this we hold that the lower authority rsquo s order is not maintainable and we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1987 (12) TMI 185 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
stay order of pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... se, no reference lies in cases where it can be shown that the point of law involved has already been settled, and the applicants have themselves stated that the points of law in question have already been settled by the Court judgment and the Tribunal orders cited by them and this is indeed so. 27. Further, insofar as the question of rectification of error is concerned, we consider that rectification or recall of an order is a different matter and as rightly pointed out by the learned S.D.R., an application is required to be filed in this connection in terms of Section 35C(2). Although, in certain situations, the Tribunal may in its discretion entertain oral prayer if it so deems fit in exercise of its inherent powers, we consider that the present case is not one which calls for exercise of such inherent powers and it was open to the applicants to move a written application in terms of Section 35G(2) if they so choose. 28. With these observations the application is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand for non-levy ... ... ... ... ..... ces etc. is explicable, since the period was (according to them) exempt and, therefore, no figures were being submitted by the appellants to the Department. The failure to furnish such figures would not amount to suppression of information which in law the appellants were bound to furnish. 8. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that no case has been made out to enable the Department to invoke the larger period of limitation under Section 11A. The show cause notice had been issued more than six months after the period for which duty was being demanded. We hold that the demand was barred by time. It is in this view that we had earlier indicated that it would be unnecessary in the present case to go into the question of proper classification in the light of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside with consequential relief, if any.
-
1987 (12) TMI 183 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... oms and others, reported in 1975 (2) I.L.R. Kerala Series, Page 67, has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Kerala High Court in that case has held that there is no presumption to start with that any currency seized represents the sale proceeds of smuggled goods even if the same has been seized from the residence of a reputed smuggler or a person convicted earlier under the provisions of the Customs Act. Nobody can quarrel with this axiomatic proposition of law and in this present case the seizure and confiscation of the currency is on the basis of inculpatory statements of the appellant, which for the reasons indicated herein are voluntary and true meriting acceptance. However, in view of the fact that we have upheld the order of the adjudicating authority in regard to absolute confiscation of the currency, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 1,000 (Rs. One Thousand). Excepting for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 182 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Trucks used for carriage of smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... llant Rajbir Singh. Manilal rsquo s statement that they went in the truck after taking tarpaulin finds some corroboration in the statement ot Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh had stated that he was asked to wait near Bandra Open Air Theatre and Manilal came with the tarpaulin in his truck. Further, when the D.R.I. officer intercepted the truck, the driver Manilal and another person ran away. Manilal did not state that there was a cleaner in the truck. It is quite possible that it was Rajbir Singh that had run away. It is in this context the disappearance of appellant Rajbir Singh assumes importance. If Rajbir Singh was not in any way concerned, with the smuggled goods, he has no reason to be away from Bombay and go to his native place at Punjab. The evidence, in our opinion, is sufficient to impose the penalty on Rajbir Singh also. 28. On consideration of all aspects, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Addl. Collector. We, therefore, reject both the appeals.
........
|
