|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 195 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the proforma invoice stated that it was valid only for a period of six months. It further added ldquo all our prices are to be considered as approximate only, the prices to be charged on completion being our standard prices ruling at the date of delivery rdquo . Similarly condition No. 17 on the back of Investa, Czechoslovakia rsquo s order confirmation dated 20-12-1975 stated that if there was a substantial increase in prices ldquo over 5 rdquo , the prices agreed upon would be amended accordingly. If in spite of all these conditions, the appellants were able to extract a lower price from the two suppliers, the exceptional and extraordinary treatment obtained by them cannot form the basis of assessment under Section 14 of the Act. In this. Section, we are concerned with the prices ordinarily charged in the course of international trade. 6. In the circumstances, we uphold the value as assessed by the lower authorities and dismiss the three appeals. (Pronounced in open Court).
-
1987 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
price not influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship ... ... ... ... ..... the differential duty payable by the appellants should be re-calculated on the basis of our observations made above. Where we have not indicated anything, the claim for deductions will be decided on the basis of the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts, (ii) The assessable value in respect of clearances to Anand should be revised in the light of our orders, (iii) Before revising the demand for differential duty the appellant should be given an opportunity to represent so that their claims are taken note of, examined, and disposed of according to law. 28. There are two penalties on the appellants amounting to Rs. 2,45,000.00. We note that some of the demands overlap and some legitimate deductions have not been granted. Taking all circumstances in consideration we reduce the penalties of Rs. 1,45,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-imposed in the two cases to Rs. 100,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- only, in the two appeals respectively. 29. We dispose of these two appeals in the above terms.
-
1987 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... s and re-treading of old tyres) cannot go into the costing of camel back. Since the assessment was at sheet stage, post-assessment costs on cutting strips out of sheets cannot be included. If the revenue want to shift the assessment stage to strips, then logically the cutting wastage should also be taken into account. Clearance of camel back from other factories is generally in sheet form, however, Item 16A(2) covers both sheets and strips whereas in the appellants rsquo case the excise duty is levied on the manufacture of camel back. As such we hold that there is no justification for adding the cutting expenses from sheet to strip for computing the cost of camel back. Accordingly we hold that the administrative overhead expenses which are not connected with the manufacture of camel back sheets cannot be included in computing the cost of production. In the result the appeal is allowed in these terms. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1987 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Claasification ... ... ... ... ..... the rough protuberances have been removed. It also includes wood from which the waste outer layers, consisting of the most recent growths, (sap wood) have been removed for reasons of economy in transport or to prevent decay. S. No. 23 of the Customs Notification No. 311/86, dated 13-5-1986 exempts both wood in the rough and wood roughly squared and half-squared but not further manufactured. It is to be noted that the notification specifies only Chapter 44 under which the goods should fall. In our opinion, therefore, the subject goods are not classifiable under Heading No. 44.21 but under Heading No. 44.03 and are eligible for exemption from auxiliary duty in terms of the said notification. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the goods be assessed free of auxiliary duty in terms of the said notification, and released without payment of redemption fine. The penalty imposed on the appellants is also set aside. 8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1987 (12) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Change of ground for refund claim from countervailing duty to preferential duty ... ... ... ... ..... under Section 27 of the Customs Act should be rejected as barred by limitation under that Section. 6. The orders passed by the lower authorities do not suffer from any infirmity and as such, the same are to be upheld. Following the Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the case of Miles India, we, therefore, dismiss this appeal and confirm the impugned order. 7. Order per Shri S.D. Jha, Vice President . - The first claim for refund dated 29.4.1981 was for a definite amount of Rs. 1,08,219.01. The next claim dated 21.9.1981 was for Rs. 7,33,540.43 P. The first claim was not a claim for pure and simple re-assessment and consequent refund but for a definite amount. Considering this, the lower authorities were justified in treating the claim dated 21.9.1981 presented beyond six months as barred by limitation. The Tribunal decision in Premier Tyres Limited rsquo s case 1984 (16) E.L.T. 419 would not help the appellants. I agree with brother Mandal that the appeal should be dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
No Declaration required if gold in possession does not exceed the permissible limits ... ... ... ... ..... covered by sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Gold Control Act, he would not be required to make a declaration in terms of this section. The pawn broker enjoys the same exemption as applicable to a person in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 16 inasmuch as that a pawn broker by law, unlike a licensed Gold dealer or refiner, is not compulsorily required to furnish a return irrespective of his holding. Accordingly, we hold that none of the appellants herein has contravened the provisions of Section 16 of the Gold Control Act. Rule 4 of the aforesaid 1968 Rules would apply to a pawn broker who goes out of the purview of sub-section (5) of Section 16 and is therefore, required to make a declaration. This Rule does not help the department in this case. 5. In view of the aforesaid findings, the question of confiscation of gold ornaments and consequently the imposition of penalty does not arise. Hence the impugned order is set aside while allowing the appeals of the appellants.
-
1987 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... so fall within the term ldquo Factory rdquo as per this definition. Therefore, as Fusel Oil, which, admittedly, is an excisable product, is manufactured in the Daurala unit, the said unit falls within the definition of factory. This unit being a factory and the molasses having been used in the manufacture of Alcohol in this factory, the requirements as per the notification are fulfilled and consequently the exemption under Notification 118/75-C.E. is admissible to the molasses in question. The argument of Smt. Saxena that for the purpose of availing of the benefit of the Notification the molasses should be used in the manufacture of another excisable product is not tenable in view of the wording of the notification. The notification does not stipulate that the final product should also be excisable. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Consequently, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1987 (12) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause-cum-demand notice ... ... ... ... ..... t would be the relevant date under Section 11A. Since, admittedly, demand was issued more than six months after the said relevant date, the Collector (Appeals) was correct in holding that the demand was barred by time. 9. Shri Kohli further pointed out that in any event the effective notice for recovery would have to be held to be that issued on 26-11-1979 since admittedly under that notice the earlier notice had been specifically mentioned to stand cancelled. As earlier noted, the grounds of appeal read that the clearances where completed by March 1979, in which event even accepting the submission of Shri Sachar to be correct, the demand would still be barred by time since the effective notice was issued more than six months after March 1979. We, therefore, hold that even on that ground the order of the Collector (Appeals) has to be, in any event, upheld. 10. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was correct and hence we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Pre-deposit of penalty not called for, if the order of the penalty was illegal ... ... ... ... ..... atural justice. It is a void order and therefore the appellant cannot be called upon to deposit any amount. The order being a void order it requires to be set aside. What is worse is that the Addl. Collector imposed a personal penalty under Section 112(a) and (b), without there being any allegation regarding violation of 112(b). It appears that the Addl. Collector has not applied his mind. 5. For the reasons stated above we set aside the order insofar as it relates to the imposition of penalty on the appellant and remand the matte to the Addl. Collector. The Addl. Collector shall ascertain as to who was the passenger, who was found in possession of the contraband gold and thereafter follow the procedure required to be followed under Section 124 and then pass orders in accordance with law. 6. Since we have allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Addl. Collector, the stay application does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (12) TMI 151 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation - Banned goods ... ... ... ... ..... djudicating authorities to release goods under confiscation on payment of fine, even if the goods are prohibited, such discretion has to be exercised judicially having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances. When the licencing authorities have totally banned import of the items in question, having regard to the conditions that prevailed in the country I do not think that I will be justified in exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant in permitting him to redeem the goods on payment of a fine, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is a marksman of route and distinction. 7. In the result, since admittedly the goods in question were received by the appellant as a gift without being supported by any valid licence or C.C.P., under the law, the order of confiscation of the same by the authorities under the impugned order is perfectly legal and sustainable. 8. In this view of the matter, I dismiss the appeal. Pronounced in open court on 18th December, 1987.
-
1987 (12) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... well. There was no term of sale for their return and no agreed amount to be paid on their return. In the circumstances, we hold that the cartons and gunny bags were not returnable in the accepted sense of the term. 4. The appellants came out with the argument that the authorities had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether any refund of the packing cost was agreed to and paid or not. The argument is devoid of merit. Since the statute insisted on the packing being returnable, in addition to being durable, the authorities are bound to see whether the transaction fulfilled the tests of returnability as per the Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The appellants appear to be contending that their mere word that the cartons and the bags were returnable coupled with the fact that in many cases they were actually returned should be considered adequate and accepted. For the reasons already discussed by us, we do not agree with them. 5. In the result, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Freight and transit insurance charges deductible from the assessable value ... ... ... ... ..... n many cases, the actual amounts are known only on receipt of freight bills from the railways or the transport company. There is therefore, no justification to disallow the deduction towards freight and transit insurance merely on the ground that these amounts were not exhibited in the invoice before-hand such an approach would render the specific provision of Section 4(2) nugatory. We do not visualise any serious difficulty in correlating the freight bills with the invoices and gate passes issued earlier, since both would be containing the material details such as the name of the customer, the destination of the goods, the description and the quantity of the goods etc. 6. We, therefore, allow all the 5 appeals with consequential relief to the appellants subject to the conditions that - (i) the refund amount is not hit by the time bar of Section 11B and (ii) the claim is established on due verification of the freight bills, invoices and gate passes by the Assistant Collector.
-
1987 (12) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Submission of enhanced claim during the pendency of the original claim ... ... ... ... ..... finding is that ldquo the claim was not made for the first time before the Tribunal for which supporting evidence was already on record. rdquo We are not able to see what relevance the ratio of the rulings has to the issue with which we are concerned here. The ruling in the case of Hindustan Fertilisers Corporation Limited, Durgapur v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 525 (Tribunal) referred to supra is also not applicable to the facts of the present case because that was a case where a fresh claim was found to be an amendment of the claim originally filed within time. We have already for the reasons indicated above held that the latter claim cannot be construed to be an amendment of the earlier claim but only as a fresh claim for a fresh amount and for the first time after the expiry of limitation. Therefore, on consideration of the entire materials on record, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.
-
1987 (12) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Gas Cylinders ... ... ... ... ..... alue of the gas, we direct the Asstt. Collector to go into the costing of such charges and satisfy himself that there was no attempt at diverting a part of the true price of the gas to the cylinder cost. A reasonable margin of profit even on testing and maintenance activity would be O.K. because we do not expect a business establishment to work on lsquo no profit no loss rsquo basis. But beyond the actual costs incurred on testing and maintenance of cylinders plus a reasonable margin of profit, there should be no exclusion from the assessable value on that count. 10. The cross objection filed by the department does not seek any further relief. It contains only arguments of the department for rejecting the appellants rsquo appeal. We have already dealt with these arguments in the preceding paragraphs. No separate order is, therefore, required to be passed on the cross objection. 11. All the 4 appeals and the cross objection are disposed of in terms of paragraphs 6 and 9 above.
-
1987 (12) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Non-woven surgical dressing bandages ... ... ... ... ..... reement approved by the Govt. of India that the goods under consideration are not indigenously available and that the final product manufactured will save valuable foreign exchange have been rightly held by the lower adjudicating authority as not relevant to the issue /whether an import licence is necessary for the goods or not. The appellant has stressed that in any case imposition of penalty is uncalled for inasmuch as the appellant was under the bona-fide belief that the goods would be covered by the OGL and that the term ldquo fabric rdquo used in S. No. 31, Appendix 2, Part B covered only woven material in view of the judgment of Supreme Court and High Court. 3. We are inclined to agree with this plea of the appellant. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellant in the impugned order is set aside. Subject to this modification the impugned order is otherwise confirmed. 4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1987 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Renewal of licence ... ... ... ... ..... o s letter F. No. 132/6/85 G.C. dated 27-2-1987 ldquo I think the views expressed by CCE, Madurai deserve careful consideration. We should be circumspect about taking a step so drastic as cancellation of a licence of a dealer for indulging in repeated infractions of the Law and for being convicted in prosecution proceedings launched under the Gold Control Act. If licences are cancelled/not renewed in terms of the instructions of 9th July, 1986 the punishment would be disproportionate to the offence, unless the judgment is exercised depending upon the merits of the case. rdquo Therefore, following the ratio of the Bench rulings referred to supra and also keeping in mind that in the facts and circumstances of this case the non-accountal could be characterised as technical, we are inclined to hold that a very serious punishment such as non-renewal of the licence is not warranted and in this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1987 (12) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... l Paint Products filed before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, it was stated that the 67 drums oil bound distemper had been carried and transported by M/s. Royal Paints. This has not been controverted by M/s. Royal Paints, who removed the goods in 67 drums without a Gate Pass and without payment of Central Excise duty. M/s. Royal Paints were, therefore, liable to penalty under Rule 52A(5) of the Central Excise Rules and not M/s. Royal Paint Products. Collector has. not, however, imposed any penalty on M/s. Royal Paints under this rule. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed by Collector on M/s. Royal Paint Products and allow their appeal. 10. In the light of the above discussions, we pass the following orders - (i) The appeal filed by M/s. Royal Paints is disposed of in terms of our findings and conclusions in paragraphs 4 to 8 (supra) (ii) rsquo The appeal filed by M/s. Royal Paint Products is allowed and the penalty imposed on them is set aside.
-
1987 (12) TMI 120 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machines - Sieves of different meshes ... ... ... ... ..... ot be used for sieving operations by hand . The appellants had, by production of the manufacture rsquo s catalogue, shown that the subject sieves were designed to be fitted to the Sieve Shaker. It was for the department to show that the sieves were for manual manipulation. This has not been done. 6. The learned Jt. C.D.R. submits that there is no evidence to show that the subject sieves are exclusively designed for the machine and that they may be accessories but not parts therefor. We reject this contention for the reasons set out earlier. 7. In the result, we set aside the classification of the sieves in question under Heading 96.01/06(1) of the Schedule. The goods were originally classified under Heading 84.18(1) as parts of filtering machinery. The Department has not advanced any arguments against this classification in the event of Heading No. 96.01/06(1) being ruled out. We, therefore, restore the original classification under Heading 84.18(1). 8. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ble values. The answer to the apprehension expressed by the learned representative of the department does not lie with us. It is for the department to suitably instruct and guide the assessing officers. We would like, however, to make one observation in this respect. It is regarding allowing a reasonable margin of profit even for the service activity. A businessman, whether he is a manufacturer or only a consultant rendering service, exists for earning profit. Therefore, when the expenses on account of purely service items are determined, the amount should not be restricted to bare costs only but a reasonable margin of profit for the service activity also should be added. The principle applies equally to determination of the costs of includible items. 7. Both the lower orders are modified in the light of our above discussion. The Assistant Collector is directed to determine the assessable values in accordance with our orders in the preceding paragraphs after due verification.
-
1987 (12) TMI 118 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drugs and Medicines ... ... ... ... ..... minal Surgery. To restrict the term lsquo Tape rsquo to a particular width when the notification itself does not specify any particular width of the product, would be reading into the notification more than what it specifies. As in respect of earlier item, Dermafilm has been imported on prior occasions without any objection. The expert testimony of Dr. Das was also adduced and we find no reference to it, in the impugned order. 12. On the facts of the case and in the light of the documents produced before us, we have no hesitation in holding that in respect of (i) Intravenous Canula and Tube and (ii) Surgical Drapes, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside to that extent. We are informed that these are life saving equipments and that the materials are needed urgently by the hospital authorities. In those circumstances while modifying the impugned order, we direct the release of those consignments with utmost expedition. Consequential reliefs to follow.
........
|
