|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 278 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... Therefore, we cannot sustain the impugned orders which have rejected the claims for deduction outright without distinguishing between the charges incurred within the factory gate and beyond the factory gate. In the circumstances, we are not happy in remanding the matter 2nd time. We are constrained to do so as all the details regarding expenses incurred can be examined only by the Assistant Collector and not at our level. Consequently, we vacate the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to reconsider the appellant rsquo s request and to pass an order in the light of our above observations. If the appellants are able to prove to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector that the insurance charges and the handling charges are incurred beyond the factory gate, such charges may be allowed deduction from the declared price. Deduction for bank interest, if interest is paid on credit sale, be allowed. With these directions, we allow the appeal by remand.
-
1987 (4) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Steel tubes ... ... ... ... ..... ed are in running length and as such the appellants cannot have the benefit of Notification No. 350/76 and for the alternative plea of the appellants he pleads that in the End-use Certificate the appellants have mentioned that the same are used in compressors and as such the appellants are not entitled to the assessment under sub-heading (3) of 73.17/19. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Seamless Steel tubes have been imported in running length and as such the appellants cannot have the benefit of Notification 350/76 and for the alternative plea taken by the appellants we hold that the same cannot be taken at this stage as no material was produced before the lower authorities and in the End-use Certificate there is an admission on the part of the appellants that the same are used in Compressors. With this view we confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed. 6. Pronounced in open court.
-
1987 (4) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Fibre Mouldings ... ... ... ... ..... re the Tribunal. 3. Shri M.M. Singh, Foreman, has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the revision application and has referred to an earlier order No. 50-52/1986-B2 dated 20-1-1986 where the same item was imported in appellant rsquo s own case and the Tribunal had allowed the benefit of the Notification No. 206/76. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned J.D.R. who has appeared on behalf of the respondent states that in view of the earlier order of the Tribunal the appeal may be allowed. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not find any reason in deviating from the earlier order and the appellants should get the benefit of the same. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 206/76. Orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside. Appeal is allowed. 6. Pronounced in open court.
-
1987 (4) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d with Note 2 to Sec. XV renders the springs liable to be classification under Hd. 73.33/40-CTA as parts of general use. In this context, the Ld. SDR referred to an Order of the Tribunal in M/s Gordon Woodroffe and Co. v. Collector of Customs, Madras, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 99 (Tribunal). Ld. SDR submitted that Section notes are quite clear and that the ratio of the cited Judgment was followed in a number of decisions of the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Note 1(g) to Section XVI (Chapter 83) does not cover parts of general use as defined under Note 2 to Sec. XV. Note 2 to Sec. XV defines parts of general use, and specifically mentions springs. 6. Taking into consideration his position and also following the ratio of the Judgment cited by the Ld. SDR we hold that even though the imported goods were identifiable as part of floor mill, they are springs and, therefore, were correctly classified under Heading 73.33/40. 7. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ll trailers had to be pulled by another vehicle. Therefore, the condition in heading 87.13/14 ldquo not mechanically propelled rdquo had to be interpreted to mean that the vehicle falling in that heading should not have a prime mover installed on the vehicle itself. Otherwise, specific mention of ldquo trailer rdquo in that heading would become meaningless. 3. On careful consideration of the matter, we agree with the view of the learned representative of the department. Heading 87.13/14 is a specific one for trailers and it makes no distinction between ordinary trailer and heavy duty trailers. We uphold the lower orders and reject this appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s, the appropriate classification for them was under heading 85.18/27(1) read with exemption Notification No. l72/77-Customs and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the lower assessment accordingly. On careful consideration, we agree with the common view of the two parties and order accordingly. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1987 (4) TMI 252 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... itch were found In the luggage boot of the car. But then the seizure panchnama does not show that any such grass was found in this car. Only the Incriminating document found In the car was torn page of an exercise book containing some accounts of textiles. This circumstance would not be sufficient to order confiscation of the car. There should be positive evidence that the car was used in the carriage of smuggled goods. No such positive evidence Is forthcoming. The Addl. Collector and the Board in our opinion committed aft error In ordering confiscation of this car. We, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the Additional Collector and confirmed by the Board. The car shall be released to the registered owner. 22. In the result, the appeals of Pishu and Shamshi are rejected. The appeal of Lacchu is allowed in part. The penalty imposed on him is confirmed. The order of confiscation of the Car No. MRX 5016 is set aside. The car shall be released to its registered owner.
-
1987 (4) TMI 249 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - REP licence - Umbrella fittings and components ... ... ... ... ..... two viable competitors. It is nobody rsquo s case that the licencing authorities were unaware that the same licence holder could produce select product which he exported and select products which he did not export. 7. Umbrellas are also a select product though they were not exported by this person. Therefore, in our interpretation the use of the umbrella components, fittings in the factory of the same name of the same manufacturer is permissible under this REP licence. 8. The Collector admits that the Chief Controller of Exports and Imports had issued clarification to M/s. Southern Sea Food Private Limited, Madras but he rejects it because he fears that if this clarification is taken on face value. It would make all the other points relating to REP licence meaningless and because it runs counter to the stated policy but we think the clarification supplements the meaning of the paragraph. In the circumstances the importation is in order the order of the Collector is set aside.
-
1987 (4) TMI 246 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY ... ... ... ... ..... compressors which is the capital goods. If that be so, the pumps would not qualify as spares. The appellants have not produced the catalogue or any literature of the manufacturer in support of their contention that the original plant or machinery which they had imported had the pumps of the types imported by them or that the pumps were integral parts of the originally imported machinery. In the absence of such an evidence the contention of Shri Deshpande that the goods imported were required as replacement of similar parts of the originally imported plant or machinery cannot be accepted. Since the pumps do not qualify as lsquo spares rsquo , the Collector and the Board were justified in holding that the import was not permissible under OGL and that it required specific licence. 7. Though the Collector had imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation, the Board had reduced the fine to Rs. 20,000/-. No further leniency is called for. I, therefore, reject this appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 245 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... e learned advocate, that the Tribunal should requisition the records of the appeal before the Gold Control Administrator. Even if this request was to be granted for the purpose of arguments, it is seen that no useful purpose could be served as the fact of time-bar is not disputed. The arguments of the advocate that only one partner of the firm received the original order cannot be considered as valid as the action had been taken against the firm and as such the service of the order on the partner is sufficient to treat as the service on the firm. Even the Collector has taken action only against the firm and not against the partner. The partner has acted only in the name of the firm. There is therefore, no substance in any of the arguments advanced by the learned advocate. I find that the Gold Control Administrator rsquo s order rejecting the appeal under old Section 80 as time-barred was correct. Therefore, the present appeal has no force and the same is rejected accordingly.
-
1987 (4) TMI 244 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Re-export of confiscated goods ... ... ... ... ..... or they may be permitted to re-export. The Additional Collector held that mutilation cannot be effectively done. He, however, permitted re-export. But then, while permitting re-export, he imposed a fine. As has been seen earlier, in the case of imported goods, there is a provision for clearance for home consumption or for warehousing. Re-export is not contemplated in any section except in Sec. 80 which has no application to the facts of the present case. The practice, if any, prevailing in the Custom House regarding re-export may be on the ground that the importer cannot be blamed for the import. There may be some other considerations also. When the Collector is satisfied that the importer had not committed any offence or violated any of the provisions, the Collector would not be justified in imposing fine while permitting re-export of the goods. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the fine imposed in lieu of re-shipment. The appellants be granted consequent relief.
-
1987 (4) TMI 243 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... emedy. Examining this contention, it is seen that the specific remedy was not attracted as the assessee did not take credit of the amount involved. In case he had done so without giving an intimation, he would have been bound by the provisions of Rule 173-G(2). On the other hand, the assessee chose to apply for refund in terms of old Rule 11. There is, therefore, no force in the Collector rsquo s contention that the provisions of these two rules should be read together in a situation like the one under consideration. This is also not a point which arose out of the Tribunal rsquo s order. It is further seen, that the Rule 11 has now been repealed and a reference to the High Court would not serve any useful purpose as argued by the learned Advocate. In these circumstances, I find that the point of law, as framed on behalf of, the Collector, does not arise out of the Tribunal rsquo s order and the Reference Application is not justified. In these circumstances, I reject the same.
-
1987 (4) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ight or even an existing right, including a right of action is not affected or allowed or taken away by the enactment expressly or by necessary implication. It is only a declaratory or a procedural enactment which is normally held to be retrospective. A remedial Act, on the contrary, is not necessarily retrospective, it may be either enlarging or restraining and it takes effect prospectively unless it has retrospective effect by express terms or necessary intendment rdquo . ldquo In our view the new Rule 11 is clearly prospective in its operation in the sense that it will apply to the cases in which the right to claim refund has arisen after it came into force. This view is supported by the language of the new Rule 11 itself. rdquo 4. emsp In view of the above said Bombay High court decision, the appellants contention that six months limitation under new Rule 11 should apply to the claim from refund is not acceptable. The appeal therefore, lsquo fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 231 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Goods disclaimed by importer but circumstances conclusively establishing charge of illegal import
-
1987 (4) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... whether the gold ornaments belonged to them or not. It is also seen that the customers were duly produced before the Additional Collector at the time of personal hearing. There is no finding of the Collector that the persons finally produced did not answer the names and addresses in the G.S.13 register produced on or immediately after the seizure. If it were so, his conclusions could be more understandable. 11. I quite see the point made by the learned Consultant that ornaments of M/s. Sohan Lal and Sons could not be confiscated without giving him due notice under Section 79. The Collector should have also given his finding as to why sale vouchers pre-authenticated by the departmental officers were considered by him to be not acceptable. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order appealed against is set aside and remanded back to the Collector for de novo consideration of all facts and evidence and adjudication as per the process of law. 13. Appeal allowed by remand.
-
1987 (4) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Resjudicata - Constructive Resjudicata ... ... ... ... ..... f manufacture getting changed or the relevant Tariff entry undergoing modification or subsequent to the earlier decision, there is a pronouncement of a High Court or the Supreme Court necessitating the reconsideration of the issue. In the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that issue arising for determination herein has already been conclusively decided by a competent authority under the order referred to supra and on application of principles of res judicata, we are inclined to hold that the Department would not have right or jurisdiction in law to reopen the issue except in circumstances set out above. In this view of the matter we hold that the impugned order appealed against is sustainable in law and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. We find that the impugned order is in favour of the respondent in toto and therefore, we are unable to understand as to how a cross-objection in law would arise. The cross-objection is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... only disowned the gold but also any connection with the appellant. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to attach any importance to the theory of Will propounded by the appellant very late in the day and therefore, rejecting that plea of the appellant, we hold that the gold in question was sought to be transported by the appellant in contravention of law, presumably for purpose of sale. Since the purity of gold have been found to be of 24 carat and since the same was not challenged or assailed by the appellant at any time earlier, we have no other alternative but to uphold the order of confiscation of the same under the impugned order. In this view of the matter, we confirm the impugned order with reference to absolute confiscation of the primary gold pieces. So far as penalty is concerned, in the circumstances of this case, we reduce it from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1987 (4) TMI 227 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prosecution of Directors - Complaint against the Directors of the company ... ... ... ... ..... aken by the Delhi High Court in Ram Kishan Rohatgi and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others 1980 (1) FAC 419, while interpreting Section 17(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which section is concededly in pari materia with the present Section 68 referred to above and this opinion of the High Court has specifically been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others AIR 1983 S.C. 67. It is thus patent that in the light of the allegation as contained in Paragraph No. 9 of the complaint, the petitioner cannot possibly be accused of the commission of any offence. It appears that the trial Court, while passing the impugned order of summoning, failed to take notice of this aspect of the matter. 6. ensp For the reasons recorded above, 1 allow this petition and quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P.1) and the summoning order (Annexure P. 4) to the extent they relate to the directors of the company.
-
1987 (4) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s held in that case that manufacture of Ammonia cannot be treated as manufacture of fertilizer as Ammonia so produced is not used as a fertilizer or in the manufacture of fertilizer. We fully concur in the view taken by this Bench in the above case. As per the Notification the exemption is only in respect of LSHS, which is used as ldquo feed stock rdquo in the manufacture of fertilizer. Accordingly, the appellants are not entitled to exemption in respect of LSHS not used as feed stock for the manufacture of fertilizer but used for the manufacture of Ammonia. 6. emsp We, however, observe that in the circumstances of the case, it is not established that this was a case of suppression or mis-statement of facts or fraud. The demand of duty should therefore be restricted to 6 months. 7. We also do not think that there is any case for the imposition of penalty, which is set aside. 8. emsp Subject to the above modifications, the order appealed against is upheld and appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Words and Phrases - Licensed capacity ... ... ... ... ..... 78-Central Excises, dated the 14th July, 1979, namely - In the said notification - a. in the first paragraph, the Explanation shall be omitted b. in paragraph 2, for the figures, letters and words ldquo 31st day of March 1979 the figures, letters and words rdquo 31st day of March 1980 shall be substituted. It would be seen from the above that notification 152/79 make some specific amendments in notification No. 142/78. Subject to those amendments the earlier notification stands. So far as the year 1979-80 is concerned, para l.b. of notification 142/78 remains in force without amendment and exemption has to be restricted to 75 of the licensed capacity for the year 1978-79. The view that in respect of the year 1979-80 there was no separate stipulation as regards restriction of exemption to clearance of specified goods for home consumption not exceeding 75 of the licensed capacity for the financial year 1978-79, is also wholly untenable, and has to be rejected. Appeal dismissed.
............
|
